PHE says no flu at all

[bert]

Totally illogical. If you have been vaccinated what have you to fear?

[bert]

Flu is far less aggressive than Covid 19 so the measures to stop spread of the latter will be far more effective against the former. In addition we have had more flu vaccinations this winter and for once the vaccine was accurately targeted at this year's variant.

[Fredxx]

If you do volunteer then you're unique. :-)

I well suspect I pay more tax that I need to but that's out of laziness, and where the cost of paying someone to go over my accounts is greater than the potential saving.

[Fredxx]

That's simple, you treat it the same way as a barman selling a drink to a child. £200 for the cashier or nominated person operating the self-service checkouts and unlimited fine for the shop/pub.

Pubs and clubs are obliged to restrict entry, and will have licensed doorman in many instances.

[Fredxx]

Hence why excess deaths also became a useful indicator for the spread of Covid.

[Steve Walker]

the figures that I have seen are that without measures to slow it, the R-rate (R0) for flue is about 1.3 and Covid-19 is 2.5+, so yes, the anti-Covid measures that have stopped the spread of Covid-19 being as high as they might, will have pretty well wiped out the spread of flu.

[Steve Walker]

Similarly here, though not so much on a cost basis, as an effort basis. The potential saving is there, but is just not worth the extra effort. Much better to keep life simple.

[Steve Walker]

The simple answer would be to accept that small risk to others and issue exemption certificates to those unable to have the vaccines - properly policed, unlike the mask exemption that pretty well anyone can self-declare.

[Steve Walker]

What makes you think that vaccination is 100% effective? It isn't, it only reduces the risk. Society, as a whole, relies upon sufficient people being vaccinated to leave a pool too small to sustain and spread an illness. Hence the concerns about lower numbers taking up MMR.

[alan_m]

Surely excess deaths to measure of covid deaths is only meaningful if the rest of the NHS was working the same way as in previous years? If there is a much reduced healthcare for other conditions the figure could be expected to rise accordingly.

[Fredxx]

It's also about sleeping at night without fear from an HMRC investigation. Over the years I've had two. Thankfully both ended well.

[Fredxx]

In the early days there was a complaint that not all Covid related deaths were being recorded from the lack of testing.

Therefore excess deaths over the long term seasonal expectation was a useful measure of deaths that might be related to Covid.

With greater testing this has become less of an issue, but still useful to compare where there might otherwise be a number of conventional flu related deaths.

I think that deaths in coming years may well be increased, from the recent lack of treatments.

[RJH]

12 months full pay at a place I worked. Didn't stop people coming in and spreading whatever they had in our open offices.

It was the sort of job (college teacher) where the work generated by being off sick made it not straightforward. I had 3 colds 19/20 xmas.

[charles]

vaccination does not give total immmunity

[tim...]

for once Rod is 100% right here

a vaccine passport has to have a system that allows for the people who cannot be vaccinated (or don't need to be because they have recently been infected with the disease)

[tim...]

that I'm in the 5% for which it isn't effective

[The Natural Philosopher]

Indeed not, not with most viruses BUT it does seem to keep people from dying - the body reacts earlier and to more effect.

People will get jabbed until the case rate in the hospitals is manageable and then lockdown will be eased and we will see what happens.

If cases and deaths spike again that's a clear sign that the vaccine is ineffective.

We will see.

[Dave Plowman (News]

Of course there will be. Care to speculate on the percentage? Enough to make a meaningful difference to the published figures?

>

[The Natural Philosopher]

Again a one dimensional and simple minded response. It is far more complex than that. It's not like 'it does nothing to you, or it works' (simple minded Boolean logic of the half witted). In reality the severity of the disease is all about your immune response, the viral load you received and many environmental and other issues. 95% effective does not mean effective in 95% of the people and not at all in 5%' at all

The vaccine tickles your immune system, making it a bit more alert. That vastly improves *but does not eliminate* the possibility of catching it badly enough to need hospitalization.

Of course the secondary effect is that if you do catch it, the window of transmissibility is one hopes smaller.

So R rates should come down to the point where social distancing is no longer needed.

I do not understand why people do not understand that this stuff is tricky, and we dont have all the facts and that rightly or wrongly we the general public do not know better than the doctors on this one. There is deep ignorance at all levels. But the vaccine researchers and developers are the ones who understand the statistics better than the general public and making silly statements like 'I am one of the 5% it doesn't work for' is just - well f****ng IGNORANT.

As f****ng IGNORANT as Frau Merkel refusing the Astra Zeneca jab on the grounds it 'doesn't work for over 65s'

Its British, it was there first, and has been rushed through tests faster than any other vaccine and its efficacy is largely unknown that's all.

To spin that into 'its ineffective' and refuse it to dying Germans in order to save face for an utter failure by the EU and by Merkel to protect their citizens is simply unacceptable.

F Merkel needs to be dancing the Spandau ballet

Big Pharma wants to make money. Naturally the 'at cost vaccine ' has to be seen to be 'no good'...

All the evidence coming in suggest that the AZ vaccine has been effective at stopping older people dying.

And even if there is a chance it doesn't, it's a shot to nothing - the vaccine is there, its passed safety tests and wont harm people - why not give it in the faint or not so faint hope it works?

Money and politics. Faugh!

>

[The Natural Philosopher]

Right.

The same as we issue driving licenses to people who are medically unfit to take a test?