Somewhat unlikely - allowing for the compressed timescale as much attention has been given to safety as possible and the tests and results have been as transparent as possible which is why we know about the odd result with the AZ vaccine.
The scandal with Thalidomide was actually that evidence of harm was actively suppressed - not that the testing had been insufficient per se.
Also don’t forget that Thalidomide and several derivatives are in current use as effective treatments for multiple myeloma.
And they havent really worked that well. Nick Ferrari on LBC this morning asked the direct question to Robert Jenrick, why are we going back into tight restrictions when the previos month hasn’t made much difference
As previously mentioned to you, on another post I think, this is because people are already not keeping to the rules.
It can be the only logical outcome.
I have yet to hear any politician putting his head on the block and telling it straight. It is more waffle and yet more waffle.
There were people interviewed in Leicester this morning complaining that they were suffering because of others who would not stick to the rules.
It is obvious that this applies here in France and worldwide.
Just how many more cases will become apparent in the USA after Thanksgiving.
Not many people will be giving thanks after they have caught the virus.
Once again Eddie you seem to be directing this at me. I am not an epidemiologist, I am however fascinated by the reports from those who are that fly in the face of the action we are being forced into. They seem to also to take a holistic view of the harm this is doing. Rishi Sunak has stated this will cause the worst recession in 300 years. China is open for business, Sweden is open for business and so are others, so something doesnt line up.
Whilst I can see why sadly I cannot see non mask wearers dropping like flies (sadly) so is there immunity out there and are those getting ill already have underlying health issues or are ageded population, no breakdown of who died just a number.
Last nights graphs showed 600+ deaths to shock us into following lockdown again but in the small print it said “all deaths” that is all cause mortality and not just covid, that seriously screws the actual result! We would loose that amount in a normal flu winter season it seems. No one talks plainly any more its all wooly speak.
And the mental health and suicide rates, all connected I am affraid. I do not follow the path of looking at isolated parts of an entire issue. As I said before more than happy to hear counter arguments based on real data not Boris’s clowns.
Fine if all you are concerned about is deaths. What about the very ill who we can and do save but who take up time and resources ,fill hospital beds etc
Sorry I am opting out of this discussion before I say something that gets me banned. I didn’t realise BoJo was responsible for worldwide figures I can safely say I know more about what is happening in the front line of the NHS than you,but you only are concerned with the financial implications
Society is very ill, people have poor health due to diabetes and obesesty, cancers etc and that is from following government guidelines on low fat high carbohydrate diet because the start of the health crisis can be traced back to the point when Ensel Keys told the world what they should be eating and governments followed.
Of course it is vital not to ovewhelm the hospital services but again the reduction in hospitals is down to who? I marched to save Lewisham Hospital as they wer going to merge these huge areas into the Greenwich hospital, jees if that had happened the death rate and sickness would have been much higher in those boroughs and I am pretty sure other areas have had the same treatment.
Whilst I believe you think I am posting nonsense, I can only rely on others for information. This latest video from Ivor Cummins covers at about 5mins in the reports from the Lancet the BMJ and 16 other condemming the lockdowns as ineffective. https://youtu.be/J3vDsKEOIQI
Of course you do but that is the tip of the iceberg when considering an epidemic. Don’t go away thinking I am ungrateful for everything you and your colleagues do, that is most certainly not the case. I am disussing and have put forward comments from people who are way cleverer than me in the hope that sensible counter proposal could be found but it just hasn’t happened.
Assuming mask wearing works (there is debate, and conflicting evidence but it is a reasonable presumption) it is not the mask-wearer who directly gains protection from surgical style masks so I would not expect occasional non mask wearers to “drop like flies”.
Yes I get your point, mine was a bit tongue in cheek. When most are trying hard to follow what would seem reasonable yet other take no action it is annoying and yet their numbers should be falling as they get sick but are they?
I think the Covid situation is genuinely difficult to analyse. Nothing happens in isolation and the factors that are involved are numerous, intertwined, co-dependent and subject to the vagrancies of human behaviour with all its illogic and inconsistency.
Theoretically a “perfect” lockdown should stop the virus in its tracks - at the expense of a number of fatalities as a perfect lockdown would mean no-one travelling to hospital. However it isn’t an acceptable, nor terribly practical solution.
So any practical lockdown will necessarily not be perfect - but it does not need to be, it just needs to slow transmission enough to get “R” down to less than one.
Then there is the economic argument - obviously some economic activity must continue - food production and distribution, healthcare but some is not essential. How much do you close it down to reduce movement of people, how much do you allow to “go to the wall” hoping that it will recover later.
The result (and to get back to your point), I think, is that it’s quite hard to know or follow what is reasonable - so, many of those who
are quite probably “trying to do the right thing” but aren’t sure what that is, or circumstances make it difficult for them.
However even those who completely flout the rules will be protected by those who are following them - which is why they are not “punished” by falling ill (and why they are such fertile ground for the “it’s a hoax” conspiracies).
It’s just a variant of the “hawk” vs “dove” conundrum for evolution: If you are a member of a generally placid altruistic species it can be to an individual’s advantage to be more aggressive/selfish - but the species cannot tolerate too many aggressive members because they will start fighting among themselves and reduce the viability of the whole group.
We will always have some people who break the rules re: Covid - just as long as it is not everyone.
Very well put. Its difficult to undetstand the mentality of some for example the evening before a lock down going out on mass as we have seen. Still we sit and watch developments.
Heart and circulatory diseases cause more than a quarter (27 per cent) of all deaths in the UK; that’s nearly 170,000 deaths each year - an average of 460 people each day or one death every three minutes. Around 44,000 people under the age of 75 in the UK die from heart and circulatory diseases each year.
… I’ve amended my post to show that … apologies for not making that clear…