Conundrum

Obviously faulty data then. Brian

Fully expected, you can see the cumulative and daily first/second rates here

As near as buggerit 60% of adults have had 1st plus 10% have had 2nd, the 2nd doses now have to follow the pattern 3 months behind the 1st doses, and the less vulnerable under 50s will get 1st doses at a slower rate.

Whoever decided on the change from 3 weeks between doses to 3 months has turned out to be ABSOLUTELY right ...

Wasn't that based on the *daily* figures yesterday?

No, he means on a single day, not total since december.

yesterday first doses = 153,823 second doses = 435,177

A couple of weeks ago it was first doses = 752,308 second doses = 91,977

So fewer doses total, but we were warned of a dip in supply.

On Sat, 3 Apr 2021 08:32:23 +0100, Andy Burns snipped-for-privacy@andyburns.uk wrote: <snip>

I think what most consider amazing is how they came up with the jabs for what most considered 'a new bad thing' but was in fact (to those in the know) just another variant of a group of 'known bad things', corona viruses that we already have vaccines against?

I'm not taking that away from them etc and I believe they actually had the vaccines *very shortly* after it first emerged, it's just taken the time it has to get tested / approved / mass produced etc?

Cheers, T i m

I think China did actually give out samples of the virus to labs pretty early, so the parts of the vaccines that "match" the virus could be worked on. I don't know how much of the AZ vaccine was sitting on a shelf waiting for its time to come?

I can see how some people might be "hesitant" because they think it's rushed, but by doing stuff in parallel when they know that they'll be paid by NHS/GOV (isn't it effectively on a cost-plus contract?) they have shown they can move when they need to, shame that overseas they're not really getting much thanks for that.

Because of the much reported shortages in April, they are doing second jabs in preference to first, until supplies come on stream again. Which makes sense - otherwise the millions of first jabs may not be effective for long enough.

Some of the first 'jabs' are 'jags' (Scottishism. see jim) ?

some of recipients of Jab/Jag #1 have died of blood clots ?

I had a jag in the sixties, a MK2 3.8

Yeah ... and that must have been difficult with the number of fingers pointing at them as the source (China / Wuhan) etc. But there may be several 'layers;' here, the scientists getting on with saving mankind and the media / government / great unwashed doing other things. ;-)

There was likely the raw ingredients (concepts / processes) there at least.

Agreed, and much of any delay we may think we see is probably all the testing / approval / manufacturing / distribution?

Quite ... but I'm not surprised how many in Europe are not taking up any 'British' solution, given how we have snubbed *them* lately (Brexit) ... even if it's 'cutting off their noses' etc.

Cheers, T i m

as have a number who did not receive Jab #1

Seems strange on a DIY group where people are presumably used to measuring things that they seem incapable of understanding simple statistics?

Measurements are real, not guess work.

Statistics are applied to real measurements to prove or disprove anything you like. Like the University of east Anglia software 'fudge' used to generate that hockey-stick indication of global warming.

We have pretty accurate statistics for the numbers killed by Covid as a percentage, and those killed by blood clots after having the vaccine. Even allowing for the fact that they may or may not have had that clot without the vaccine.

Not enough to explain those stats.

many years ago, the Duke of Edinburgh said that there were only three statistics that mattered - and they were vital.

Indeed, and when the risk of being killed by covid is several orders of magnitude greater than being killed by a clot, it really ought not be that difficult to decided which option carries least overall risk.