Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

So it transpires that the SG added a backlog of 384 positive tests today and in order to make the adjustments to the local authority figures, didn't publish the latter at all. These positive tests were from the period 31 October - 1 December 2020, i.e. old cases. And yet they muck up today's figures because of it, meaning that we won't get accurate 7-day cases by reported date for the council stats for a week now. Because of old cases. FFS, just give us what today's local authority stats would have been without the adjustments, so that we can use these. It's not bloody rocket surgery!

[redjambo]

10 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

 

My thoughts exactly. It's the same situation that happened with the Lothians local authorities recently, but this time affecting all of the local authority areas. Oh well, perhaps the stats mustn't flow after all. Now that I've had my wee rant though, I'll just have to work with what we've got.

[ri Alban]

17 minutes ago, redjambo said:

So it transpires that the SG added a backlog of 384 positive tests today and in order to make the adjustments to the local authority figures, didn't publish the latter at all. These positive tests were from the period 31 October - 1 December 2020, i.e. old cases. And yet they muck up today's figures because of it, meaning that we won't get accurate 7-day cases by reported date for the council stats for a week now. Because of old cases. FFS, just give us what today's local authority stats would have been without the adjustments, so that we can use these. It's not bloody rocket surgery!

Just do your stats without them. It's not rocket surgery, aftera' 👍

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

My thoughts exactly. It's the same situation that happened with the Lothians local authorities recently, but this time affecting all of the local authority areas. Oh well, perhaps the stats mustn't flow after all. Now that I've had my wee rant though, I'll just have to work with what we've got.

That’s all you can do.

Anyway positively things are looking up.

[redjambo]

7 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

That’s all you can do.

Anyway positively things are looking up.

 

Indeed they are!

[redjambo]

13 minutes ago, ri Alban said:

Just do your stats without them. It's not rocket surgery, aftera' 👍

 

 

But that would be like Da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa without a face. I mean, beautiful artwork on the arms and the scenery, but a wee something missing.

 

Anyway, you'll be keen on just not being able to see Renfrewshire near the top of the table for a week an a'.

Edited April 16, 2021 by redjambo

[JimmyCant]

5 hours ago, Lord BJ said:

 

She’s 13, there has been no discussion about vaccinating her.. 

 

I have heard a story about under 18 getting it but I’m not sure I believe it. As far as I’m aware  no approval for any vaccine to be used on under 18.

16-18 with clinical issues can have Pfizer or Moderna but they need to be referred by their GP first. Just a form to fill in and send

[Taffin]

1 hour ago, CJGJ said:

Well given that wonderful post perhaps you could explain why we have enough vaccine other than Astra to vaccinate all adults under 30 (see below) so we could then get on with having them vaccinated as you  rather clumsily are trying to infer the resource is there to do more but a choice has been made not to to do it......there is no shortage in supplies it seems

 

There is "more than enough of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine" for the 8.5 million adults under 30 who are yet to be vaccinated in the UK to have two doses, he said.

 

So we could ramp up the vaccine delivery after all and by starting with those under 30 for example as per Mr Hancock

 

1 hour ago, Footballfirst said:

I don't know what you are implying re my earlier post.

 

What I take from the reference to 8.5m doses of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, is that the UK expects supplies of that order, or more, to be provided between now and the end of July, to satisfy the needs of the U30s.  I don't think that the statement indicates that 8.5m doses are sitting in UK freezers now, ready for use.

 

1 hour ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

That's how I've always read that, that we'll have enough vaccines when the time comes when we'll need them, not that we have them right now.

 

Think where will be more than enough (a lot more than enough) vaccines available to satisfy the demands of the under 30s. 

 

Personally I'd prefer we take the global approach and vaccinate the old and vulnerable first.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Taffin

[heartstastic]

Why are there no biohazard bins for masks and gloves if the virus is so contagious and deadly?.

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, heartstastic said:

Why are there no biohazard bins for masks and gloves if the virus is so contagious and deadly?.

True . They have decided it’s not less contagious via surfaces etc apparently ! 

[Footballfirst]

58 minutes ago, redjambo said:

So it transpires that the SG added a backlog of 384 positive tests today and in order to make the adjustments to the local authority figures, didn't publish the latter at all. These positive tests were from the period 31 October - 1 December 2020, i.e. old cases. And yet they muck up today's figures because of it, meaning that we won't get accurate 7-day cases by reported date for the council stats for a week now. Because of old cases. FFS, just give us what today's local authority stats would have been without the adjustments, so that we can use these. It's not bloody rocket surgery!

The last couple of days "specimen date" positives will give you indicative numbers for each of the Local Authorities, although different from your normal source.  The two entries are specimen dates 14/4 and 15/4. The former number is generally higher as the bulk of test results are returned between 24 and 48 hours, rather than within 24 hours.

 

Clackmannanshire	1
Clackmannanshire	0
Dumfries & Galloway	0
Dumfries & Galloway	0
East Ayrshire	4
East Ayrshire	3
East Lothian	0
East Lothian	0
East Renfrewshire	3
East Renfrewshire	2
Na h-Eileanan Siar	0
Na h-Eileanan Siar	0
Falkirk	10
Falkirk	3
Highland	9
Highland	1
Inverclyde	4
Inverclyde	0
Midlothian	0
Midlothian	0
Moray	2
Moray	0
North Ayrshire	9
North Ayrshire	1
Orkney Islands	0
Orkney Islands	0
Scottish Borders	0
Scottish Borders	0
Shetland Islands	0
Shetland Islands	0
South Ayrshire	0
South Ayrshire	0
South Lanarkshire	18
South Lanarkshire	7
Stirling	0
Stirling	0
Aberdeen City	11
Aberdeen City	0
Aberdeenshire	8
Aberdeenshire	0
Argyll & Bute	0
Argyll & Bute	0
City of Edinburgh	10
City of Edinburgh	3
Renfrewshire	9
Renfrewshire	2
West Dunbartonshire	1
West Dunbartonshire	2
West Lothian	6
West Lothian	0
Angus	2
Angus	0
Dundee City	6
Dundee City	0
East Dunbartonshire	1
East Dunbartonshire	2
Fife	10
Fife	3
Perth & Kinross	4
Perth & Kinross	3
Glasgow City	54
Glasgow City	16
North Lanarkshire	22
North Lanarkshire	11

[Costanza]

6 hours ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

Brazil is near to what the anti lockdown people wanted.

 

Maybe they'll tell us all the things that are better there. 

Correct. The Great Barrington zealots on this thread who continually bang on about the 99% survival rate for the non vulnerable (but never mention long covid of course) are noticeable by their absence of comment on this.

They don't mention Sweden either funnily enough.

[Victorian]

18 minutes ago, heartstastic said:

Why are there no biohazard bins for masks and gloves if the virus is so contagious and deadly?.

 

This is an idiotic comment and I bet you don't even know why.  Let's see if you can work it out.

[heartstastic]

2 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

This is an idiotic comment and I bet you don't even know why.  Let's see if you can work it out.

Please enlighten me Mr Dunning Kruger.

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, heartstastic said:

Please enlighten me Mr Dunning Kruger.

 

No I'll allow you time to work it out.  

[Taffin]

Saw a post on LinkedIn sharing a graph from the BBC plotting the risk of vaccine Vs Covid Vs RTA etc.

 

All the comments below are trivialising the vaccine risk like

 

"if we worried about everything we'd never do anything". 

 

"You need to accept some risk"

 

"The vaccine is a no brainer"

 

Meanwhile the chart shows that it's an 11 in a million risk of death from vaccine or 23 in a million risk of death with Covid for a 25 year old.

 

Welcome to what we've been saying all year boomers...funny how it's now all 'you just gotta live with a bit of risk'

[coconut doug]

19 minutes ago, Taffin said:

Saw a post on LinkedIn sharing a graph from the BBC plotting the risk of vaccine Vs Covid Vs RTA etc.

 

All the comments below are trivialising the vaccine risk like

 

"if we worried about everything we'd never do anything". 

 

"You need to accept some risk"

 

"The vaccine is a no brainer"

 

Meanwhile the chart shows that it's an 11 in a million risk of death from vaccine or 23 in a million risk of death with Covid for a 25 year old.

 

Welcome to what we've been saying all year boomers...funny how it's now all 'you just gotta live with a bit of risk'

 

An isolated statistic of dubious reliabilty that takes no account of the ability of the virus to spread more rapidly when people are not vaccinated. we are not all 25 years old. We must have around 1 million 25 year olds in the UK. Given that around 10% have been vaccinated does that mean 2 have died? Is that the basis for their calculation, is so its rubbish. 

[Victorian]

27 minutes ago, Taffin said:

Saw a post on LinkedIn sharing a graph from the BBC plotting the risk of vaccine Vs Covid Vs RTA etc.

 

All the comments below are trivialising the vaccine risk like

 

"if we worried about everything we'd never do anything". 

 

"You need to accept some risk"

 

"The vaccine is a no brainer"

 

Meanwhile the chart shows that it's an 11 in a million risk of death from vaccine or 23 in a million risk of death with Covid for a 25 year old.

 

Welcome to what we've been saying all year boomers...funny how it's now all 'you just gotta live with a bit of risk'

 

The greatest benefit of all to be gained by young people is for the country to keep moving further and further away from the possibility of another lockdown.  Guess how that's best achieved.

 

Maybe the Linkedin folks are smarter than you think.

[XB52]

3 hours ago, CJGJ said:

Well given that wonderful post perhaps you could explain why we have enough vaccine other than Astra to vaccinate all adults under 30 (see below) so we could then get on with having them vaccinated as you  rather clumsily are trying to infer the resource is there to do more but a choice has been made not to to do it......there is no shortage in supplies it seems

 

There is "more than enough of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine" for the 8.5 million adults under 30 who are yet to be vaccinated in the UK to have two doses, he said.

 

So we could ramp up the vaccine delivery after all and by starting with those under 30 for example as per Mr Hancock

Sarcasm only works when you get the facts right. We do not have the vaccines in place to give the younger ones both doses AT THE MOMENT. All being well we will have enough to vaccinate them by the target dates

[Taffin]

15 minutes ago, coconut doug said:

 

An isolated statistic of dubious reliabilty that takes no account of the ability of the virus to spread more rapidly when people are not vaccinated. we are not all 25 years old. We must have around 1 million 25 year olds in the UK. Given that around 10% have been vaccinated does that mean 2 have died? Is that the basis for their calculation, is so its rubbish. 

 

To borrow some more parlance... I'll trust the experts rather than someone on an internet forum, thanks all the same.

[Taffin]

16 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

The greatest benefit of all to be gained by young people is for the country to keep moving further and further away from the possibility of another lockdown.  Guess how that's best achieved.

 

Maybe the Linkedin folks are smarter than you think.

 

I'm not against it, I'm against the hypocrisy that's been shown throughout this whole thing.

 

Die of hunger? Who cares.

 

Die of Covid? Tragedy.

 

Tiny risk to older people? Any risk is too much.

 

Tiny risk to young people? Just ignore it and do what we want.

 

The best way to not have lockdown is to just not have one. I'm not suggesting that, but those of a certain age and fitness would fare just fine. Again this whole thing has been about people suddenly caring because it impacts them, they didn't care about death rates etc before. That's human nature, it's also selfish...yet unsurprisingly it's those very people who've been throwing the 'selfish' label around at others.

 

I even heard something the other day about 'do your bit for the human race, get vaccinated'. The best thing for the human race, ironically, would be to not get vaccinated in all likelihood.

 

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by Taffin

[Victorian]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

I'm not against, I'm against the hypocrisy that's been shown throughout this whole thing.

 

Die of hunger? Who cares.

 

Die of Covid? Tragedy.

 

Tiny risk to older people? Any risk is too much.

 

Tiny risk to young people? Just ignore it and do what we want.

 

The best way to not have lockdown is to just not have one. I'm not suggesting that, but those of a certain age and fitness would fare just fine. Again this whole thing has been about people suddenly caring because it impacts them, they didn't care about death rates etc before. That's human nature, it's also selfish...yet unsurprisingly it's those very people who've been throwing the 'selfish' label around at others.

 

I even heard something the other day about 'do your bit for the human race, get vaccinated'. The best thing for the human race, ironically, would be to not get vaccinated in all likelihood.

 

 

 

The one thing I can agree with is the bit about people caring most about things that impact them.  The irony actually lies in the fact that lots of those people can contribute towards a goal that does benefit them.  You said in your reply to CD that you'll trust the experts.  The experts want everyone vaccinated.

[Taffin]

13 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

The one thing I can agree with is the bit about people caring most about things that impact them.  The irony actually lies in the fact that lots of those people can contribute towards a goal that does benefit them.  You said in your reply to CD that you'll trust the experts.  The experts want everyone vaccinated.

 

The experts are right to want that because it's best for the biggest amount of people and in particular the people who vote for those who've engaged their expert input. They've yet to convince me why it's better for a 25 year old to be vaccinated than not...other than the generous gift of giving them their rights back.

 

Fortunately they don't have to convince me as I'm not 25 😂😂 

 

I am probably still borderline of their risk balance though.

 

Edit: I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you by the way, I just find the brass neck of folk to have gone 180 degrees and are nowusing the same argument back to people who they shot down for making it 12 months ago.

Edited April 16, 2021 by Taffin

[heartstastic]

1 hour ago, Victorian said:

 

No I'll allow you time to work it out.  

Lol so nothing then. Mr Kruger.

 

https://trashcansunlimited.com/blog/what-goes-in-a-biohazard-trash-can-/

 

What Isn’t Biohazard Waste?

Businesses often misunderstand what actually qualifies as biohazard waste, and they throw things away in their biohazard trash cans that don’t really need to be there. Protective medical gear like gloves, masks, and gowns do not have to be disposed of in special biohazard cans unless they were in contact with blood or other infectious material. In addition, bandages and gauze—even when opened—can be thrown in the regular trash as long as they were not used.

In many cases, hospitals and doctors’ offices end up with regular trash hogging space in their biohazard trash cans because employees are not properly educated on what qualifies as biohazardous waste, or they’re simply a bit lax about using the proper waste bins.

 

Please enlighten me why people have been wearing them in the first place

 

 

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, heartstastic said:

Lol so nothing then. Mr Kruger.

 

https://trashcansunlimited.com/blog/what-goes-in-a-biohazard-trash-can-/

 

What Isn’t Biohazard Waste?

Businesses often misunderstand what actually qualifies as biohazard waste, and they throw things away in their biohazard trash cans that don’t really need to be there. Protective medical gear like gloves, masks, and gowns do not have to be disposed of in special biohazard cans unless they were in contact with blood or other infectious material. In addition, bandages and gauze—even when opened—can be thrown in the regular trash as long as they were not used.

In many cases, hospitals and doctors’ offices end up with regular trash hogging space in their biohazard trash cans because employees are not properly educated on what qualifies as biohazardous waste, or they’re simply a bit lax about using the proper waste bins.

 

Please enlighten me why people have been wearing them in the first place

 

 

 

I'm happy to see you making a decent effort at explaining why you were an idiot.  Unsuccessfully of course.

[Don Dan]

4 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

From another source there were another 32 cases added to the NHS Lothian totals. The higher number is due to 160 historical cases from Q4 2020 being added to the cumulative national and NHS Board totals.  The 160 comes from an extra 384 positive tests(!?)  I haven't a clue how those figures should be viewed.

Surely it’s not beyond those in charge to add the figures to the relevant time period. 
Adding them in now skews the running total and any graphs they produce. 

[Taffin]

11 minutes ago, heartstastic said:

Lol so nothing then. Mr Kruger.

 

https://trashcansunlimited.com/blog/what-goes-in-a-biohazard-trash-can-/

 

What Isn’t Biohazard Waste?

Businesses often misunderstand what actually qualifies as biohazard waste, and they throw things away in their biohazard trash cans that don’t really need to be there. Protective medical gear like gloves, masks, and gowns do not have to be disposed of in special biohazard cans unless they were in contact with blood or other infectious material. In addition, bandages and gauze—even when opened—can be thrown in the regular trash as long as they were not used.

In many cases, hospitals and doctors’ offices end up with regular trash hogging space in their biohazard trash cans because employees are not properly educated on what qualifies as biohazardous waste, or they’re simply a bit lax about using the proper waste bins.

 

Please enlighten me why people have been wearing them in the first place

 

 

 

Not sure of your source, but it does read like masks should be disposed of in a bio-hazard bin.

 

Still, a normal bin would be better than lobbed about the countryside like the mask brigade seem keen on doing. 

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

Surely it’s not beyond those in charge to add the figures to the relevant time period. 
Adding them in now skews the running total and any graphs they produce. 

 

Indeed. If they can't change or don't want to change the historic data, then all they need in their spreadsheet is a column headed "Adjustment". Each day, they present the actual figures for that day and then, if there are any adjustments to be made because of historic issues, they add these to the adjustment column. The running total column will include both of these. That way, everyone is happy - the total is accurate and those tracking the daily stats do not have holes in their data.

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Still, a normal bin would be better than lobbed about the countryside like the mask brigade seem keen on doing. 

 

I just went on a couple of hours clean-up *along local countryside paths*. I picked up a half dozen disposable face masks. It gars you greet, so it does.

[manaliveits105]

2 minutes ago, Barack said:

Double mutant Indian strain now?

 

Ffs. It's never going to end is it. 

 

 

Here since February too apparently

I keep hearing them say the variants may evade the immune system but no proof yet - always err on the negative.

[Don Dan]

7 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Indeed. If they can't change or don't want to change the historic data, then all they need in their spreadsheet is a column headed "Adjustment". Each day, they present the actual figures for that day and then, if there are any adjustments to be made because of historic issues, they add these to the adjustment column. The running total column will include both of these. That way, everyone is happy - the total is accurate and those tracking the daily stats do not have holes in their data.

They should hire you Red, seriously, you talents are wasted. 

[Taffin]

4 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

I just went on a couple of hours clean-up *along local countryside paths*. I picked up a half dozen disposable face masks. It gars you greet, so it does.

 

Good on you red 👍👍

 

Fly tipping over the last year has been ridiculous too round my way. Folk like that make my blood boil.

[redjambo]

2 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

The last couple of days "specimen date" positives will give you indicative numbers for each of the Local Authorities, although different from your normal source.  The two entries are specimen dates 14/4 and 15/4. The former number is generally higher as the bulk of test results are returned between 24 and 48 hours, rather than within 24 hours.

 

Clackmannanshire	1
Clackmannanshire	0
Dumfries & Galloway	0
Dumfries & Galloway	0
East Ayrshire	4
East Ayrshire	3
East Lothian	0
East Lothian	0
East Renfrewshire	3
East Renfrewshire	2
Na h-Eileanan Siar	0
Na h-Eileanan Siar	0
Falkirk	10
Falkirk	3
Highland	9
Highland	1
Inverclyde	4
Inverclyde	0
Midlothian	0
Midlothian	0
Moray	2
Moray	0
North Ayrshire	9
North Ayrshire	1
Orkney Islands	0
Orkney Islands	0
Scottish Borders	0
Scottish Borders	0
Shetland Islands	0
Shetland Islands	0
South Ayrshire	0
South Ayrshire	0
South Lanarkshire	18
South Lanarkshire	7
Stirling	0
Stirling	0
Aberdeen City	11
Aberdeen City	0
Aberdeenshire	8
Aberdeenshire	0
Argyll & Bute	0
Argyll & Bute	0
City of Edinburgh	10
City of Edinburgh	3
Renfrewshire	9
Renfrewshire	2
West Dunbartonshire	1
West Dunbartonshire	2
West Lothian	6
West Lothian	0
Angus	2
Angus	0
Dundee City	6
Dundee City	0
East Dunbartonshire	1
East Dunbartonshire	2
Fife	10
Fife	3
Perth & Kinross	4
Perth & Kinross	3
Glasgow City	54
Glasgow City	16
North Lanarkshire	22
North Lanarkshire	11

 

Thanks FF, but if I want the figures to be accurate, I can't use indicative figures or even extrapolate. I'd rather have no figures than inaccurate figures. I really do appreciate you posting these numbers though. The truth is that the only local authorities I could work out the reported figures for using the specimen date figures are those with either no cases or so few cases that a direct connection can be made between specific cases in both counts. Not worth the hassle really. Maybe you can produce a couple of reports by specimen date over the next week until the by reporting date 7-day stats can start to be recalculated again?

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Boy Daniel said:

They should hire you Red, seriously, you talents are wasted. 

 

Working for The Man. I think not. Thanks though, BD.

[heartstastic]

21 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

I'm happy to see you making a decent effort at explaining why you were an idiot.  Unsuccessfully of course.

So still nothing from you Mr Kruger...come on hit me with one of your pseudo intellectual wordsmith pieces where you don't say anything other that stuff you have regurgitated of the tv and add some more word salad on top to make yourself sound windswept and interesting.

 

I merely asked a question and was met with a sneering reply....and you still haven't rebutted nothing so lets be having you.

[Enzo Chiefo]

3 minutes ago, manaliveits105 said:

Here since February too apparently

I keep hearing them say the variants may evade the immune system but no proof yet - always err on the negative.

Funny how they always find these "variants" just when restrictions are being, or are due to be, lifted. They always seem to be "much, much more transmissible" and always "deadly". Then transpires they've been around for a couple of months anyway. The only Indian variant I'm concerned about is whether to go Chicken or Lamb Rogan Josh. I would respectfully suggest that they stop sniffing about the sewer system and just trust the human immune system, boosted by the vaccines, to sort the rest out.

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Good on you red 👍👍

 

Fly tipping over the last year has been ridiculous too round my way. Folk like that make my blood boil.

 

It was a lovely couple of hours to be out there to be honest, Taffin. I'm not entirely altruistic.

 

Yes, fly tipping grinds my gears too. And it's not as if there aren't plenty of options for folk to dispose of stuff at recycling centres and dumps, or get it picked up.

 

Just in case you didn't know, these are the guys to report fly tipping to: https://www.zerowastescotland.org.uk/DumbDumpers (0845 230 4090). They pass the report on to the local authority concerned and then reportedly chase them up afterwards.

 

If you see folk actively tipping then a report to 101 can do the trick if the boys in blue happen to have a free car in the area.

 

[DETTY29]

4 hours ago, Footballfirst said:

I don't know what you are implying re my earlier post.

 

What I take from the reference to 8.5m doses of Pfizer and Moderna vaccines, is that the UK expects supplies of that order, or more, to be provided between now and the end of July, to satisfy the needs of the U30s.  I don't think that the statement indicates that 8.5m doses are sitting in UK freezers now, ready for use.

Are you still keeping track of supplies rec'd on a weekly basis?

 

I stopped my own tracker of supplies and 'adult' population vaccination once travelling Tabby started to use the adult population data instead of total population.

 

Very roughly, when I checked 'gaps' the last 3 week gap between supply rec'd and in arms vaccines was c.480k; 455k; 430k but I wasn't rigorously doing on same day data comparison

 

I always thought a 7 to 10 day 'rolling' supply was a responsible contingency to hold in case supplies not rec'd and not to risk cancellations.

 

Since Friday when the AZ for no u30 message was formalised, NHS Lothian have been attempting to call under 30s that were booked in as AZ vaccine centre to arrange to go to a Pfizer one.  At my 4 hour shift today fortunately only a handful turned up for their appointment at the 'wrong' centre to then be asked to go elsewhere where a Pfizer vaccine was waiting for them.

Edited April 16, 2021 by DETTY29

[Footballfirst]

27 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Thanks FF, but if I want the figures to be accurate, I can't use indicative figures or even extrapolate. I'd rather have no figures than inaccurate figures. I really do appreciate you posting these numbers though. The truth is that the only local authorities I could work out the reported figures for using the specimen date figures are those with either no cases or so few cases that a direct connection can be made between specific cases in both counts. Not worth the hassle really. Maybe you can produce a couple of reports by specimen date over the next week until the by reporting date 7-day stats can start to be recalculated again?

Is this sort of info useful to you?  Use the drop down menus to select specific local authorities or to switch from daily positives to 7 day 100k rates

 

https://app.flourish.studio/visualisation/5878642

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, Taffin said:

 

To borrow some more parlance... I'll trust the experts rather than someone on an internet forum, thanks all the same.

👍

1 hour ago, Taffin said:

 

I'm not against it, I'm against the hypocrisy that's been shown throughout this whole thing.

 

Die of hunger? Who cares.

 

Die of Covid? Tragedy.

 

Tiny risk to older people? Any risk is too much.

 

Tiny risk to young people? Just ignore it and do what we want.

 

The best way to not have lockdown is to just not have one. I'm not suggesting that, but those of a certain age and fitness would fare just fine. Again this whole thing has been about people suddenly caring because it impacts them, they didn't care about death rates etc before. That's human nature, it's also selfish...yet unsurprisingly it's those very people who've been throwing the 'selfish' label around at others.

 

I even heard something the other day about 'do your bit for the human race, get vaccinated'. The best thing for the human race, ironically, would be to not get vaccinated in all likelihood.

 

 

Very well said. No one gave a f^^^ about older adults dying before covid. Unless they were a relative. No one certainly gave a damn about those with serious underlying conditions who actually were stigmatised and mocked as benefit scrongers ( well some really ) etc. Its all so fake really. Virtual signalling at its best. Yes this mantra " do your bit" etc is all very Orwellian. You cannot escape it. Even trying to chill out listening to music on Youtube gets interrupted with it all. 

55 minutes ago, Barack said:

Double mutant Indian strain now?

 

Ffs. It's never going to end is it. 

 

 

It will end once Govts explicity state there will be no more lockdowns. 

39 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Funny how they always find these "variants" just when restrictions are being, or are due to be, lifted. They always seem to be "much, much more transmissible" and always "deadly". Then transpires they've been around for a couple of months anyway. The only Indian variant I'm concerned about is whether to go Chicken or Lamb Rogan Josh. I would respectfully suggest that they stop sniffing about the sewer system and just trust the human immune system, boosted by the vaccines, to sort the rest out.

Exactly right. Remember the carry on last December when the Kent variant came on the scene ? Exactly at the time restrictions were maybe getting lifted ?  The same Kent variant which was around since Sept.  Enzo people are just literally saying " oh ff^^^ off " when they hear about new variants as they are so distrustful of the information about those supposedly new variants and the reasons why the Govt are informing the public of them .  As i said most people have agreed to voluntary take the vaccine . They have done their bit  its now up to the Govts to honour their part now. 

[Footballfirst]

17 minutes ago, DETTY29 said:

Are you still keeping track of supplies rec'd on a weekly basis?

 

I stopped my own tracker of supplies and 'adult' population vaccination once travelling Tabby started to use the adult population data instead of total population.

 

Very roughly, when I checked 'gaps' the last 3 week gap between supply rec'd and in arms vaccines was c.480k; 455k; 430k but I wasn't rigorously doing on same day data comparison

 

I always thought a 7 to 10 day 'rolling' supply was a responsible contingency to hold in case supplies not rec'd and not to risk cancellations.

 

Since Friday when the AZ for no u30 message was formalised, NHS Lothian have been attempting to call under 30s that were booked in as AZ vaccine centre to arrange to go to a Pfizer one.  At my 4 hour shift today fortunately only a handful turned up for their appointment at the 'wrong' centre to then be asked to go elsewhere where a Pfizer vaccine was waiting for them.

Here is an extract of what I've got. Columns 1-3 are the weekly figures supplied by PHS. Column 4 is the increase in deliveries taken over the previous week. Column 5 is the total of 1st/2nd doses administered over the 7 days starting from the column 1 date.

 

 

 

[The Real Maroonblood]

33 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Is this sort of info useful to you?  Use the drop down menus to select specific local authorities or to switch from daily positives to 7 day 100k rates

 

https://app.flourish.studio/visualisation/5878642

👍

[Enzo Chiefo]

7 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

👍

Very well said. No one gave a f^^^ about older adults dying before covid. Unless they were a relative. No one certainly gave a damn about those with serious underlying conditions who actually were stigmatised and mocked as benefit scrongers ( well some really ) etc. Its all so fake really. Virtual signalling at its best. Yes this mantra " do your bit" etc is all very Orwellian. You cannot escape it. Even trying to chill out listening to music on Youtube gets interrupted with it all. 

It will end once Govts explicity state there will be no more lockdowns. 

Exactly right. Remember the carry on last December when the Kent variant came on the scene ? Exactly at the time restrictions were maybe getting lifted ?  The same Kent variant which was around since Sept.  Enzo people are just literally saying " oh ff^^^ off " when they hear about new variants as they are so distrustful of the information about those supposedly new variants and the reasons why the Govt are informing the public of them .  As i said most people have agreed to voluntary take the vaccine . They have done their bit  its now up to the Govts to honour their part now. 

Exactly James. Most people are fed up with the running commentary about Covid. Some simply don't want this to end and there are too many vested interests at play. The worthiness of the only non-profit vaccine has been questioned from day 1. No good for over 60s, no good for under 30s, blood clots, blocking exports etc etc. You're right, we've agreed to take the vaccine and that is our route out of this. The priority now is to focus on rebuilding the economy, saving businesses, children's education and clearing the NHS waiting lists....and allowing the population to live again.

 

[redjambo]

55 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Is this sort of info useful to you?  Use the drop down menus to select specific local authorities or to switch from daily positives to 7 day 100k rates

 

https://app.flourish.studio/visualisation/5878642

 

Sadly not as it is specimen date data. Thanks though. There is a small chance that today's unadulterated per-local authority case data is hidden somewhere in the myriad of SG data sources, but my chances of finding it are also probably slim.

[DETTY29]

45 minutes ago, Footballfirst said:

Here is an extract of what I've got. Columns 1-3 are the weekly figures supplied by PHS. Column 4 is the increase in deliveries taken over the previous week. Column 5 is the total of 1st/2nd doses administered over the 7 days starting from the column 1 date.

 

 

 

Thanks FF.

[JudyJudyJudy]

11 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

Exactly James. Most people are fed up with the running commentary about Covid. Some simply don't want this to end and there are too many vested interests at play. The worthiness of the only non-profit vaccine has been questioned from day 1. No good for over 60s, no good for under 30s, blood clots, blocking exports etc etc. You're right, we've agreed to take the vaccine and that is our route out of this. The priority now is to focus on rebuilding the economy, saving businesses, children's education and clearing the NHS waiting lists....and allowing the population to live again.

 

Yes its obvious the big pharma companies are not wanting it to end. Its a massive wet dream for them really, particularly if we are ordered , sorry asked to get boosters every 6 months or so.  Lets get on with living and not obsessing about it. Its very unhealthy for a myriad of reasons. As you say focus on rebuilding all which was lost due to the Govts response to covid and lets just hope they have the sense never to have another lockdown of any sort again.  

[heartstastic]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614

 

Here is a study done on masks, i'm not sure how anyone can argue against the results.

 

Conclusion

The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

[redjambo]

1 hour ago, heartstastic said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7680614

 

Here is a study done on masks, i'm not sure how anyone can argue against the results.

 

Conclusion

The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, supporting against the usage of facemasks. Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause health deterioration, developing and progression of chronic diseases and premature death. Governments, policy makers and health organizations should utilize prosper and scientific evidence-based approach with respect to wearing facemasks, when the latter is considered as preventive intervention for public health.

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/16/diamond-and-silk/medical-hypotheses-journal-article-lacks-evidence-/

 

Diamond and Silk, a pair of pro-Donald Trump activists who have more than 2.38 million followers on Facebook, made what appeared to be an authoritative claim about the risks of mask wearing. Their widely shared Facebook post, since removed from public view, included a URL for a website of the federal government’s National Institutes of Health. And it displayed part of a medical journal article that listed ill effects said to be caused by masks. "NO MORE MASK MANDATES! Follow the science," implored the post from sisters Lynnette Hardaway (Diamond) and Rochelle Richardson (Silk).

 

The April 12 post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The article cited by the post was written by an exercise physiologist in a journal called Medical Hypotheses and is entitled, "Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis." It is less science than what the post claims.

 

Medical Hypotheses says its purpose "is to publish interesting theoretical papers. The journal will consider radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas provided they are coherently expressed." In November, it published the article cited in the Facebook post, which was authored by Baruch Vainshelboim. The article says Vainshelboim works in a cardiology division of the U.S. Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System in California. He identifies himself in his LinkedIn profile as a clinical exercise physiologist, with a doctorate from University of Porto in Portugal. The part of the article copied in the Facebook post lists 12 physiological effects as being caused by wearing a face mask. They include conditions such as hypoxemia and hypercapnia, as well as more general effects such as shortness of breath, "toxicity" and "increased muscle tension."

 

"This is a list of generally discredited hypotheses that have been tested and disproved," said Benjamin Neuman, biology professor at Texas A&M University and chief viologist of the university’s Global Health Research Complex. "This seems to be a piece of deceptive writing from what appears to be a non-expert. It isn't science."

 

The first two alleged effects on the list, hypoxemia and hypercapnia, have been debunked by fact-checkers. A fact-check by USA Today found that mask wearing does not cause hypoxemia, a below-normal level of oxygen in the blood. PolitiFact rated False a claim that masks decrease oxygen intake. Lead Stories and USA Today were among fact-checkers that found that hypercapnia — too much carbon dioxide in the blood — is not caused by mask wearing.

 

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said that although the article appears to be presenting a hypothesis, many of the effects it claims cite evidence related to N95 masks typically used by healthcare workers. We’ve reported there are studies that show that medical N95 respirators may result in increased carbon dioxide, which can lead to headaches and fatigue. PolitiFact has also rated False a claim that masks "will kill quite a few people, it’s well known that they reduce blood oxygen levels and those with respiratory and cardiac disorders will die."  And we rated False a claim that wearing face masks is more harmful to your health than going without one.

 

We tried to reach Vainshelboim by phone and email and did not receive a reply.

 

Our ruling

A widely shared Facebook post that links to a medical journal article says to "follow the science" of a list of physiological effects said to be caused by wearing masks. The article was written by an exercise physiologist and was published by Medical Hypotheses, a journal that says its purpose is to publish "interesting theoretical papers." There is not evidence to back the article’s list of claimed effects from mask wearing.

 

We rate the post False.

Edited April 16, 2021 by redjambo

[heartstastic]

9 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/16/diamond-and-silk/medical-hypotheses-journal-article-lacks-evidence-/

 

Diamond and Silk, a pair of pro-Donald Trump activists who have more than 2.38 million followers on Facebook, made what appeared to be an authoritative claim about the risks of mask wearing. Their widely shared Facebook post, since removed from public view, included a URL for a website of the federal government’s National Institutes of Health. And it displayed part of a medical journal article that listed ill effects said to be caused by masks. "NO MORE MASK MANDATES! Follow the science," implored the post from sisters Lynnette Hardaway (Diamond) and Rochelle Richardson (Silk).

 

The April 12 post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) The article cited by the post was written by an exercise physiologist in a journal called Medical Hypotheses and is entitled, "Facemasks in the COVID-19 era: A health hypothesis." It is less science than what the post claims.

 

Medical Hypotheses says its purpose "is to publish interesting theoretical papers. The journal will consider radical, speculative and non-mainstream scientific ideas provided they are coherently expressed." In November, it published the article cited in the Facebook post, which was authored by Baruch Vainshelboim. The article says Vainshelboim works in a cardiology division of the U.S. Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System in California. He identifies himself in his LinkedIn profile as a clinical exercise physiologist, with a doctorate from University of Porto in Portugal. The part of the article copied in the Facebook post lists 12 physiological effects as being caused by wearing a face mask. They include conditions such as hypoxemia and hypercapnia, as well as more general effects such as shortness of breath, "toxicity" and "increased muscle tension."

 

"This is a list of generally discredited hypotheses that have been tested and disproved," said Benjamin Neuman, biology professor at Texas A&M University and chief viologist of the university’s Global Health Research Complex. "This seems to be a piece of deceptive writing from what appears to be a non-expert. It isn't science."

 

The first two alleged effects on the list, hypoxemia and hypercapnia, have been debunked by fact-checkers. A fact-check by USA Today found that mask wearing does not cause hypoxemia, a below-normal level of oxygen in the blood. PolitiFact rated False a claim that masks decrease oxygen intake. Lead Stories and USA Today were among fact-checkers that found that hypercapnia — too much carbon dioxide in the blood — is not caused by mask wearing.

 

Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security, said that although the article appears to be presenting a hypothesis, many of the effects it claims cite evidence related to N95 masks typically used by healthcare workers. We’ve reported there are studies that show that medical N95 respirators may result in increased carbon dioxide, which can lead to headaches and fatigue. PolitiFact has also rated False a claim that masks "will kill quite a few people, it’s well known that they reduce blood oxygen levels and those with respiratory and cardiac disorders will die."  And we rated False a claim that wearing face masks is more harmful to your health than going without one.

 

We tried to reach Vainshelboim by phone and email and did not receive a reply.

 

Our ruling

A widely shared Facebook post that links to a medical journal article says to "follow the science" of a list of physiological effects said to be caused by wearing masks. The article was written by an exercise physiologist and was published by Medical Hypotheses, a journal that says its purpose is to publish "interesting theoretical papers." There is not evidence to back the article’s list of claimed effects from mask wearing.

 

We rate the post False.

I'm sure you will find FACT CHECKERS debunked this one as well. Just using your common sense should tell you that wearing something that restricts your respiratory system for prolonged periods would cause issues of somekind. I don't need a 'scientist' to figure that out.

 

What happens if you stick a sock over a car exhaust?

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-

[redjambo]

26 minutes ago, heartstastic said:

I'm sure you will find FACT CHECKERS debunked this one as well. Just using your common sense should tell you that wearing something that restricts your respiratory system for prolonged periods would cause issues of somekind. I don't need a 'scientist' to figure that out.

 

What happens if you stick a sock over a car exhaust?

 

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/do-masks-stop-the-spread-of-covid-19-

 

What I liked the most is that you presented that original article as if it were real science.

 

Instead the article came from the Medical Hypotheses journal, a journal that has had quite a controversial history.

 

Previous papers in that journal, according to its Wikipedia page, have included one that posited that "schizophrenia may be caused by wearing heeled shoes", while "two Medical Hypotheses authors posited "Mongolid" [RJ note - "o" omitted intentionally as JKB doesn't like the term] as an accurate term for people with Down syndrome because those with Down syndrome share characteristics with people of Asian origin, including a reported interest in crafts, sitting with crossed legs and eating foods containing monosodium glutamate (MSG)."

 

The founder of the journal commented at one point on submitted papers: "We are not looking at whether or not the paper is true but merely at whether it is interesting."

 

And this was the journal from which you took the paper which you used to attempt to back up your claims. No concept of "these are someone's ideas", just "here is a study done on masks".

 

With all due respect, my dear Heartstastic, I advise you to step back and examine your beliefs and opinions in the cold harsh light of day and try to avoid disappearing so far down the rabbit hole that the only thing remaining to be seen above ground is your arse.

 

Edited April 16, 2021 by redjambo