Search results

I do know some earlier trials used very widely spaced jurors. This was done by putting a large area of the public gallery out of normal use and deploying that instead of the jury box. There's also been some experimenting with juries all separated but linked by CCTV, but I've no idea how that...

Somebody is lying or has made a reporting mistake, Pfizer certainly wouldn't have reported 52% if 89 to 91% was achievable for the first dose. They want to sell the vaccine, not put people off it. That FT figure is clearly wrong, no matter who said it. No way would a half dose give 91%...

Agreed, but to be fair the logistics of getting jabs to all of them are much more difficult. London's huddled masses should be easy to reach. .

I'd already posted about how eager the oldies here are to have their jab. I haven't found one who expressed anything else. One who got his jab on Sunday had found the tram route was shut down for maintenance when on his way to the health centre so at 87 years old had walked the mile uphill...

Hardly likely to be true when Pfizer found 52%, nothing remotely like that for the first jab in a two jab strategy. Those are clearly the figures for a single whole dose, just as Pfizer reported. .

The delay was supposed to be the second dose for others at risk. To put the most endangered people at risk by delaying their first jab while giving appointments en masse to the less endangered in lower age groups for their first and even second jabs is a disgrace. The total of jabs...

I was highlighting London's 50% though. .

Pfizer before the politicians got involved said that their testing indicated 52% following the first jab until the second jab. 52% in practical use is very much closer to 37 than 89, so I'm inclined to believe the Israeli / Guardian figures as more believable. .

To me in London this isn't a success, it's disgrace, considering that the total of jabs given has long passed when all the over 60s nationally should have had their jab:

Seems a bit unfair after he did the best bit of social distancing in the whole country. :) .

Not so. Everyone whose job cannot be done remotely has to be treated as an essential worker for this child welfare purpose, especially when so many are single parents and work is so often far away in our very large city. That's the logic. And I said up to half, some areas have a high density...

Yes, I'd noted that, but as said the trust planned on the basis of the knowledge at the time. And then of course there's the logistics, almost daily deliveries to our 92 primary schools in this Croydon trust area, instead of a very few better set up health centres. And for England probably the...

Probably not here, since there was no group at the time. Our Croydon University Hospital was the first of the initial 50 national centres to receive the ultra low temperature freezers and the first supplies of the Pfizer vaccine two months ago. The health trust had simultaneously made the...

I think it's the refrigeration issue. My large borough health trust is only using centralised vaccination centres, mainly the regional health centres, and none of our GPs are involved. They are only setting up the appointments from their patient lists. .

I'm not denying anything of the sort and haven't brought evolution into it. The condition of our immune system, our resistance to disease and our average age at death are directly related to our general health and fitness. The bulk of the population in 1918 didn't stand a chance against a...

To only say we live better is almost laughable and just not relevant to the facts of our comparative condition. .

Absolutely none of that follows. The public health back then was terrible compared to now. When WW1 commenced in 1914 the government of the day had been shocked at the poor condition and general lack of health and fitness of the volunteers to serve in the army and much soul searching about...

But in every way in a totally stupid and ineffective manner. That was the whole point of my reply! Of course, no disagreement. But with the ways I stated the infection rate plummeting would mean the 1.25% would be far fewer people. And with our very shaky vaccine situation better placed...

Except in politics where most seem to be at early learning or primary level. .

But as I posted long ago and you acknowledged, in that scenario with just simple advice being given together with no mention of herd immunity, simple publishing of only the death rate and infection rate, no complex charts or conflicting figures, no bullying with large fines getting the public's...