Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Coronavirus


Bjornebye

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

Regarding Blair, his idea does seem to have an element of common sense attached to it, unlike the present rabble who make up a load of nonsense day by day.

The people that developed the virus have come up with the best practice of two doses, but fuck it let Blair decide and let's risk the extremely vulnerable. Who gives a fuck if they're only 54% protected when Blair thinks that's good enough. 

 

Let Blair have his lead injection at the hands of a firing squad the idiot. 

 

So when early trials showed higher levels of antibodies after a second shot, Pfizer and Moderna decided to make their vaccines double-dose. It comes down to simple reasoning. "We know that a second dose leads to a higher concentration of the neutralising antibody that we want the body to produce," Dr. Malvestutto said. "So, the higher the neutralising antibody concentration, the better the protection is." It's not a novel concept; the Hepatitis B and Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccines are also given in multiple doses to maximise antibody response.

 

It's worth noting that not all of the developing COVID-19 vaccines require two doses. The Johnson & Johnson vaccine, currently in Phase 3 trials, may only require one shot, though the company is also conducting a study using two doses. "In preclinical trials, [Johnson & Johnson] found that they were achieving adequate levels of the production of these neutralising antibodies," Dr. Malvestutto explained.

 

https://www.popsugar.co.uk/fitness/why-do-you-need-two-doses-covid19-vaccine-48052233?utm_medium=redirect&utm_campaign=US:GB&utm_source=duckduckgo.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jedd Drudge said:

The people that developed the virus have come up with the best practice of two doses, but fuck it let Blair decide and let's risk the extremely vulnerable. Who gives a fuck if they're only 54% protected when Blair thinks that's good enough. 

 

Let Blair have his lead injection at the hands of a firing squad the idiot. 

The whole thing is a bit odd. 

 

David Salisbury says 90% protection after 1 jab, yet almost everything points to 54% as you say.

 

Has he been misquoted? The fella was in charge of immunization at the health department apparently. Surely he cant be that off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jedd Drudge said:

Hancock says there's another mutation of the virus in the Uk that has been traced to South Africa. Even more contagious than the previous new mutation. 

 A few posted an article about it the other day. Liverpool way posters ahead of the curve on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Tony Moanero said:

Yesterday, my dad had a cardiac arrest.

They managed to resuscitate him but his heart is still very erratic. They dispersed the blood clot on his lung. He is critical but relatively stable.

Positive thoughts for you mate, look after yourself and am hoping all turns out well

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Me and the wife have it. Thankfully (in a weird way) the kids are with the in laws in Ireland.

 

I got a negative lateral flow test and it came back negative. Got a private test two hours later and got positive. 

 

Either the lateral flow tests are shit, or people (like me) aren't doing them properly. 

 

Wife's a teacher and so many parents were sending the kids in with symptoms or they were waiting on test results. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

744 coronavirus related deaths in the past 24 hours. 

 

Amazing that there's still proper bellwhiffs downplaying this. 

Can't believe that's there is not more outrage at these numbers. We'll be over 1k soon.

 

Don't forget these numbers are only people tested in the last 28 days. Imagine how many more are not being counted and haven't for months. We're probably on 100k by now.

 

Conveniently created metric by the cunts to save some face. I can't believe that no one has challenged this metric, as with the daily number of people being tested that haven't been available for months. All opposition parties can go fuck themselves too for being useless cunts for allowing this shitshow to just carry on and on and on...

 

Maybe Kier Cuntface can call another press conference and tell us how great he is, the self obsessed wanker.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some science bloke on Sky News made a good point then. The government are making the same mistakes again but in relation to these new variants. They're being reactive in imposing harsher restrictions on areas where the new variants appear to have caused a surge in infections, but he argued that it'd be better if the government took the initiative and also brought in harsher restrictions in areas where the new variants haven't took hold yet, as it's highly likely that these new variants will be present in these areas and it's better to act now to prevent their spread, rather than acting after the variant has spread more. He added that the current approach seems to be the government again not wanting to make the right decisions when they're also likely to be unpopular decisions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Some science bloke on Sky News made a good point then. The government are making the same mistakes again but in relation to these new variants. They're being reactive in imposing harsher restrictions on areas where the new variants appear to have caused a surge in infections, but he argued that it'd be better if the government took the initiative and also brought in harsher restrictions in areas where the new variants haven't took hold yet, as it's highly likely that these new variants will be present in these areas and it's better to act now to prevent their spread, rather than acting after the variant has spread more. He added that the current approach seems to be the government again not wanting to make the right decisions when they're also likely to be unpopular decisions. 

This is exactly right. The government has been reactive all the way through so has been permanently 1 step behind. Its inevitable that more areas will need to go in tier 4 shortly so why not do it early and try to get 1 step ahead? Clueless the lot of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dirk grout said:

This is exactly right. The government has been reactive all the way through so has been permanently 1 step behind. Its inevitable that more areas will need to go in tier 4 shortly so why not do it early and try to get 1 step ahead? Clueless the lot of them.

His name is Kit Yates and he's a Mathematical Biologist and part of the Independent SAGE group. His interview on Sky was along the same lines as this article he wrote. 

 

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/boxing-day-tiers_uk_5fe3364cc5b6e1ce83377b3d?utm_hp_ref=uk-opinion&ncid=other_homepage_tiwdkz83gze&utm_campaign=mw_entry_recirc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nelly-Torres said:

Some science bloke on Sky News made a good point then. The government are making the same mistakes again but in relation to these new variants. They're being reactive in imposing harsher restrictions on areas where the new variants appear to have caused a surge in infections, but he argued that it'd be better if the government took the initiative and also brought in harsher restrictions in areas where the new variants haven't took hold yet, as it's highly likely that these new variants will be present in these areas and it's better to act now to prevent their spread, rather than acting after the variant has spread more. He added that the current approach seems to be the government again not wanting to make the right decisions when they're also likely to be unpopular decisions. 

Exactly,  they know its going to flare up everywhere yet again reactive not proactive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...