Corona Virus main thread

[Well b back 3,190]

38 minutes ago, Barry Brockes said:

In one of his many TV appearances today Hancock quite clearly stated that we presently have 500,000 doses available and that another 2,000,000 doses will be delivered in February. Add that to Johnson's blatant refusal to discuss vaccine rollout timescales in his interview with Peston and things might not be quite as rosy as I for one certainly hoped.

Blimey I hope that’s not correct ( assuming you are talking about Oxford and not Pfizer ) as if it is that is not what they have been saying they said we already had 4 million doses and 40 million to be delivered by end of March.

To be fair though I saw an interview with Pascal ( AstraZeneca ) and Sarah Gilbert earlier today that contradicted this. I will investigate and come back. As I said in an earlier post I thought I may have misheard, but then you are quite right he wouldn’t answer the question, rabbited on about distribution.

[Barry Brockes 145]

I'm pinning my hopes on Hancock being tired or not concentrating and coming out with something incorrect. However, my son who has a first in Biology behind him and is totally on the ball, rang me as soon as he saw it earlier today. If he says that's what Hancock said then that's what Hancock said.

[Indy 3,283]

Just now, Barry Brockes said:

I'm pinning my hopes on Hancock being tired or not concentrating and coming out with something incorrect. However, my son who has a first in Biology behind him and is totally on the ball, rang me as soon as he saw it earlier today. If he says that's what Hancock said then that's what Hancock said.

Are you sure he wasn’t referring to the Pfizer vaccine numbers?

[Van wink 2,994]

7 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Blimey I hope that’s not correct ( assuming you are talking about Oxford and not Pfizer ) as if it is that is not what they have been saying they said we already had 4 million doses and 40 million to be delivered by end of March.

To be fair though I saw an interview with Pascal ( AstraZeneca ) and Sarah Gilbert earlier today that contradicted this. I will investigate and come back. As I said in an earlier post I thought I may have misheard, but then you are quite right he wouldn’t answer the question, rabbited on about distribution.

I believe Pascal said this morning that they would be able to meet the demand of the rollout.

I think from personal knowledge that there maybe some problems with recruiting skilled staff to do the vaccinations, I know of two “returners” who have given up due to personnel being a pain in the backside.

[ricardo 7,342]

https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufacturing/wrexham-factory-produce-millions-doses-19539566

[Well b back 3,190]

8 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Who would have thought that anyone would listen to Tony Bellair

It is possible as the MHRA today adjusted their Pfizer approval from 21 days to ‘ at least 21 days ‘

With Pfizer though there are 2 additional hurdles, one is the lack of doses available, the other there is not huge amounts of data on the Pfizer efficacy if one dose.

The problem: While scientists say a single dose may well confer sufficient immunity to stop the spread of the virus, there isn’t sufficient data confirming this because the clinical trials for available vaccines and those nearing authorizations were all designed around a two-dose regimen.

Pfizer commenting said

 

While the trial data shows that the vaccine conferred immunity to over 50% of the participants after the first dose, marketing only one shot would require a new study in which only one dose would be administered to another set of volunteers, said BioNTech Chief Executive Uğur Şahin.

“It could be that the next generation of the vaccine consists of simply one dose,” Dr. Sahin said.

It is not however 91% effective after 1 dose as was suggested.

 

[Well b back 3,190]

6 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I believe Pascal said this morning that they would be able to meet the demand of the rollout.

I think from personal knowledge that there maybe some problems with recruiting skilled staff to do the vaccinations, I know of two “returners” who have given up due to personnel being a pain in the backside.

This is why Oxford and AstraZeneca should have been in the conference as it was like Chinese whispers, Johnson absolutely said it was down to delivery speed. That was in the live feed as well, but that’s gone now. 

[Van wink 2,994]

4 minutes ago, Well b back said:

This is why Oxford and AstraZeneca should have been in the conference as it was like Chinese whispers, Johnson absolutely said it was down to delivery speed. That was in the live feed as well, but that’s gone now. 

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-being-approved-for-use-in-the-uk-by-the-mhra/?cli_action=1609360129.429
I found this a useful link WBB exploring the reaction of a range of experts to what is now being proposed. Interesting point raised by Simon Clarke

Edited December 30, 2020 by Van wink

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

It may well be that once again the logistics are too much to make announcements about the future.

 

[Well b back 3,190]

15 minutes ago, ricardo said:

https://www.business-live.co.uk/manufacturing/wrexham-factory-produce-millions-doses-19539566

Hi Ricardo

The initial doses are coming from Germany and Netherlands ( see link ), with the Serum Institute manufacturing 2 - 3 billion doses by the summer for world use. 
Going by the government announcements I always thought we had 4 million doses here, 40 million would be here by March of which 10 million would be provided in January ( no indication where they were coming from other than some will be manufactured in the U.K. ). Now I still believe that is correct and as you say we are doing them ourselves, but the worrying thing was what the PM said and I hope either I misunderstood what he said or he didn’t mean what he said.

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-initial-doses-of-the-oxford-vaccine-will-be-made-in-europe-taskforce-12155231

[Well b back 3,190]

33 minutes ago, Van wink said:

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-the-oxford-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-being-approved-for-use-in-the-uk-by-the-mhra/?cli_action=1609360129.429
I found this a useful link WBB exploring the reaction of a range of experts to what is now being proposed. Interesting point raised by Simon Clarke

Thanks for that VW.

Indeed Simon Clarke’s points are of great interest and relevance.

AstraZeneca are indicating that they have found the link to get to 95 % efficacy and will release this via an official paper in the next few days. The 95 % efficacy is great news but what makes it more interesting is that The Serum Institute are saying the link is delaying the second dose from 3 weeks to 8 - 12 weeks. This is also being reported by SKY but at 80%. Now the Serum Institute maybe totally wrong, but to date over the last 6 months they have had everything spot on, this was where we got the dates of 28 th or 29 th December from nearly 3 weeks ago.

When this paper is released we will know far more.

[Van wink 2,994]

9 minutes ago, Well b back said:

Thanks for that VW.

Indeed Simon Clarke’s points are of great interest and relevance.

AstraZeneca are indicating that they have found the link to get to 95 % efficacy and will release this via an official paper in the next few days. The 95 % efficacy is great news but what makes it more interesting is that The Serum Institute are saying the link is delaying the second dose from 3 weeks to 8 - 12 weeks. This is also being reported by SKY but at 80%. Now the Serum Institute maybe totally wrong, but to date over the last 6 months they have had everything spot on, this was where we got the dates of 28 th or 29 th December from nearly 3 weeks ago.

When this paper is released we will know far more.

I await with interest, thanks 👍

[Well b back 3,190]

8 minutes ago, Van wink said:

I await with interest, thanks 👍

Some more on the internet now. Now as I say they may have got it wrong, but they are AstraZeneca partner. What makes it more intriguing is this statement / press conference was not today but yesterday at 7 AM, before the vaccine was approved.

AstraZeneca Plc will soon release data showing that the effectiveness of its covid-19 vaccine rises to as much as 95% if the two shots are separated by about 2-3 months, said Adar Poonawalla, chief executive of Serum Institute of India (SII), the British company’s manufacturing partner.

"You’ll be hearing some good news from the UK very soon... It would be a 90-95% effective vaccine if you just keep a two-to-three months’ gap between dose 1 and dose 2. They will make that public with documentation," Poonawalla said at a press conference on Monday. He was speaking at the launch of the company’s pneumococcal conjugate vaccine, the first such indigenous vaccine, under the brand Pneumosil.

Poonawalla’s comments follow a statement by AstraZeneca CEO Pascal Soirot in an interview with Britain’s Sunday Timesnewspaper that the company has figured out a “winning formula to get efficacy up there with everybody else". However, Soirot did not provide details to back his claim, and said that the data would be published at “some point".

 

 

[Aggy 752]

On 29/12/2020 at 19:12, ron obvious said:

 

The death rate among those who are healthy & below 60 is extremely low (I do not understand why people not in that category haven't been better protected).

How can you better protect them? It has been clear from the attitudes on here (which I take as a snapshot of a wider issue nationwide) that many of those in vulnerable groups don’t want to take it seriously or take responsibility for themselves. You mention shielding on here and the answer isn’t “yes it’s a good idea although not possible for some, so we still need measures to protect those people”, it’s “your grandma will die if students go to the pub”. 

KG today mentioned civil liberties. Unfortunately too many of all ages have been happy to whinge about others (students, schools, pubs) but aren’t willing to follow the rules themselves or have their own civil liberties removed. 

That we’re in a position where thousands of businesses are still forcibly shut (more to follow tomorrow), tens of thousands of jobs have been lost or are likely to be (the overwhelming majority of which are people who have very little to worry about from covid), millions of children are going to be missing another few weeks of education in January, hundreds of thousands of students are paying for sub-standard online-only uni courses, but people who are most at risk of dying from covid are still (for example) mixing with dozens of other highly vulnerable people in churches on Christmas morning is an absolute scandal. 

[Well b back 3,190]

There is also now a statement from Pfizer regards only giving 1 dose. 
 

Pfizer/BioNTech said that their vaccine was not designed to be used in two shots 12 weeks apart. In a statement, the firms said there was no evidence the first shot continued to work beyond three weeks.

“Data from the phase 3 study demonstrated that, although partial protection from the vaccine appears to begin as early as 12 days after the first dose, two doses of the vaccine are required to provide the maximum protection against the disease, a vaccine efficacy of 95%. There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days,” they said.

I have no idea how reliable the Mail are but this is their take

Pfizer warns there is NO proof its Covid jab works when doses are taken 12 weeks apart as UK regulator scraps 21-day rule in desperate attempt to get millions more vaccinated

• Regulator now recommending jabs are given in two doses three months apart
• Originally Pfizer and Oxford jabs intended to be injected in space of four weeks 
• Change in strategy is to cope with spiking Covid cases and hospitalisations

By CONNOR BOYD ASSISTANT HEALTH EDITOR FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 14:52, 30 December 2020 | UPDATED: 16:58, 30 December 2020 

 

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
• e-mail
•  
•  

292shares

1.1k

View comments

 

Pfizer warned today there is 'no data' to show a single dose of its coronavirusvaccine provides long-term protection, after the UK scrapped its original jab rollout plan.

The UK medical regulator is now recommending Covid jabs are given in two doses three months apart, rather than over the intended four-week period, to allow millions more people to be immunised over a shorter time period.

The strategy will apply to both Pfizer/BioNTech's vaccine and the newly approved jab by Oxford/AstraZeneca, despite limited data around the effectiveness of the initial doses. 

[sonyc 5,489]

10 minutes ago, Well b back said:

There is also now a statement from Pfizer regards only giving 1 dose. 
 

Pfizer/BioNTech said that their vaccine was not designed to be used in two shots 12 weeks apart. In a statement, the firms said there was no evidence the first shot continued to work beyond three weeks.

“Data from the phase 3 study demonstrated that, although partial protection from the vaccine appears to begin as early as 12 days after the first dose, two doses of the vaccine are required to provide the maximum protection against the disease, a vaccine efficacy of 95%. There are no data to demonstrate that protection after the first dose is sustained after 21 days,” they said.

I have no idea how reliable the Mail are but this is their take

Pfizer warns there is NO proof its Covid jab works when doses are taken 12 weeks apart as UK regulator scraps 21-day rule in desperate attempt to get millions more vaccinated

• Regulator now recommending jabs are given in two doses three months apart
• Originally Pfizer and Oxford jabs intended to be injected in space of four weeks 
• Change in strategy is to cope with spiking Covid cases and hospitalisations

By CONNOR BOYD ASSISTANT HEALTH EDITOR FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 14:52, 30 December 2020 | UPDATED: 16:58, 30 December 2020 

 

•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
•  
• e-mail
•  
•  

292shares

1.1k

View comments

 

Pfizer warned today there is 'no data' to show a single dose of its coronavirusvaccine provides long-term protection, after the UK scrapped its original jab rollout plan.

The UK medical regulator is now recommending Covid jabs are given in two doses three months apart, rather than over the intended four-week period, to allow millions more people to be immunised over a shorter time period.

The strategy will apply to both Pfizer/BioNTech's vaccine and the newly approved jab by Oxford/AstraZeneca, despite limited data around the effectiveness of the initial doses. 

How odd to read these developments.

It has reminded me...did you see the briefing this morning from the regulators Wbb? It was fascinating to watch (I posted in as many words at the time) and the body language was very strange really, guarded, awkward, perhaps defensive with the lead spokeswoman trying to inject some positivity. It was unusual but maybe I look too far into things. Many questions that were asked were around the 12 week issue. The bloke from Sky was even quite direct and rude I thought.

It appears though that AZ have been able to use the time from first reports (62% figures up to 90%) to improve efficacy. The smaller single half shot  for example seems to have simply evaporated....or have I missed something?

[ron obvious 1,498]

25 minutes ago, Aggy said:

How can you better protect them? It has been clear from the attitudes on here (which I take as a snapshot of a wider issue nationwide) that many of those in vulnerable groups don’t want to take it seriously or take responsibility for themselves. You mention shielding on here and the answer isn’t “yes it’s a good idea although not possible for some, so we still need measures to protect those people”, it’s “your grandma will die if students go to the pub”. 

KG today mentioned civil liberties. Unfortunately too many of all ages have been happy to whinge about others (students, schools, pubs) but aren’t willing to follow the rules themselves or have their own civil liberties removed. 

That we’re in a position where thousands of businesses are still forcibly shut (more to follow tomorrow), tens of thousands of jobs have been lost or are likely to be (the overwhelming majority of which are people who have very little to worry about from covid), millions of children are going to be missing another few weeks of education in January, hundreds of thousands of students are paying for sub-standard online-only uni courses, but people who are most at risk of dying from covid are still (for example) mixing with dozens of other highly vulnerable people in churches on Christmas morning is an absolute scandal. 

It's a dilemma & has to do with taking personal responsibility.

I was mainly thinking about those in care homes & hospitals who have little control over their environment. If you're in a vulnerable group but still mix voluntarily then you really should be prepared to take the consequences of that risk.

The problem with that of course is that you cannot wash your hands of those people who behave recklessly; we already see that problem with the NHS where people who are irresponsible with diet, alcohol, exercise etc. take up a large proportion of resources. Similarly with parents who take it for granted that the State (i.e. the rest of us) will pay for their children's upbringing - although I suspect this is a very small proportion, nearly everyone wants to be able to provide for their own kids but circumstances don't always allow.

It's an intractable problem & I think in many ways the pandemic has highlighted problems inherent in society. Somehow we need to inculcate a sense of personal responsibility when all the forces at work are acting against it.

Answers on a postcard ...

[Upo 91]

On 29/12/2020 at 21:12, ron obvious said:

This position makes no sense. There is no attempt to assess the loss of life caused by diverting the resources of the NHS into dealing with covid 19, plus the deleterious effect on people's lives, economic & otherwise.

You may cut down a forest to save one life, but how do you calculate the cost of that action on the rest of humanity? It's not simple. Nothing is.

 

 

First, the opportunity cost of not diverting resources to NHS etc is not zero. If the opportunity cost for health care was higher than no healthcare, we wouldn't have health care. People wouldn't go see doctors. They'd just die from whatever gets them first. As it stands, people like to live. That's why people like the NHS, especially when they're drowning in their lung fluids.

Second, you make the assumption that "diverting resources" means these resources are removed from other - presumably more important - uses. In reality there are no significant resources that can be diverted to health care. That is the reason mitigation will eventually end in failure. There is no spare capacity. No secret reserve from which to draw staff and equipment.

Quote

There is no fallacy connecting lives with money. Saving lives has an economic cost, & that cost will be born by somebody. At the moment that cost is being born by the young & able bodied. There is a limit to how much they can bear - & how much they will bear in the future when repayment of the huge debt accrued becomes due.

If you calculate the worth of human life in purely economic terms, the only conclusion you will arrive at is that we should suppress the epidemic ASAP.

If you half-a** the suppression by not committing to getting infections to zero and not enforce these restrictions appropriately, lifting them early only means you have to soon reimplement them. Ask yourself this question: If your house was on fire, and the firemen put out everything but the kitchen table, would you expect to not having to call them back fairly soon?

As far as the sacrificies goes, not being able to party and go on beach holidays is less tragic than dying. I don't even know what you are arguing. Data is clear about this. It's the virus that causes most of the economic damage, not the restrictions.

Quote

The death rate among those who are healthy & below 60 is extremely low (I do not understand why people not in that category haven't been better protected).

If you don't understand why people at risk haven't been protected, it's because you haven't really thought about it. We can't isolate risk groups without isolating people who are in contact with them. That means isolating health care workers and their families. Then we have the ethical problem of shutting millions outside society so that the young can go on partying.

Quote

There is also a problem where covid is being cited as an underlying cause of death when there was an existing morbidity which would have caused death by itself before long; one American doctor cites covid 19 being given as the cause of death for patients with gunshot wounds.

Casedemic meme died many months ago. What you are arguing about is a bucket of water in a stream of tragedy and death.

Quote

Do I think we should just give up on stopping the pandemic spread? No.

We may like to think of it in that way but there's a whole cold universe out there that doesn't. And that includes the virus.

It seems like that's what you're trying to argue for, but all the arguments seem to support the opposite conclusion: that it is good business to suppress the epidemic fully. The reason for strict restrictions is to get to less restrictions.

Quote

But I think we have been directing resources to the wrong places, I think there's been an awful lot of bad science & calling guesses based on very little scientific fact,

No disagreement there. It's been a s***show apart from the vaccines.

Quote

& I think there has been far too much treating human life in absolute terms.

Let's hear your thoughts on what groups of people shouldn't be treated in absolute terms. 

[Upo 91]

On 29/12/2020 at 22:35, Barbe bleu said:

I cant argue with your basic logic that if no one was allowed to meet anyone else then this disease (or pretty much any other non-zoonotic infectious disease) couldn't spread.

About 6 weeks should do it. Then you can see whoever, except not in potential mass spreading events. Rock concerts only after vaccines.

Quote

On this basis your hypothesis that its all down to government is flawless. 

While government action alone isn't sufficient to suppress the epidemic, government action is necessary to suppress the epidemic.

Quote

If we wrote the start of the year off entirely and welded ourselves into our homes until it passed and shut the borders for the  worldwide duration then we would be probably be ok right now.

Strawman. You only need to suppress the epidemic once if you're thorough first and then keep it at near-zero by being somewhat smart.

Quote

Whatever the reasons for it being a seasonal disease  (and I am sure that there is much scientific debate about waxy envelopes and moisturisation  of the windpipe) the fact remains it is a seasonal disease and as with any seasonal disease it came back exactly when it could be expected to come back.

It is not a seasonal disease.

 

[Upo 91]

On 30/12/2020 at 00:46, Rock The Boat said:

You were doing quite well up to the highlighted part and then you let an agenda nudge you off the ball. Allowing controlled spread of the disease does not mean letting as many people die as possible. If that was your aim then you would remove all restrictions completely and allow people to associate freely and then you would achieve letting as many die as possible. A controlled spread infers that some people will remain isolated by your controlling mechanisms and would be very unlikely to die.

I don't think you understand what allowing controlled spread of the disease means. It literally means allowing controlled spread of the disease. It doesn't matter if it takes 3 months or 3 years. The logical conclusion is spread of disease until level of immunity in population suppresses the viral spread. That means about 70 to 80% get the infection. 0.5-1% of them die. A vastly larger number will walk around with scrambled brains.

Quote

If governments were to follow your conclusions, which suggests total lockdowns on the scale of Chinese methods - sealing people into their homes or internment camps and hauling motorists from their cars - then eventually the economy would grind to a halt and more people would die from economic collapse than from Covid. But perhaps that is your objective?

I wasn't aware there were concentration camps in NZ and Australia. China's camps never had anything do with covid-19.

What is shocking is that a totalitarian state like China has managed a vastly more humane response to Covid-19. China saved the lives of million of its citizens while Trump's USA and Johnson's UK have managed to get half a million of theirs killed by incompetence and malice, and Sweden went full genocide on theirs. The number of victims is likely to double before its over. Who could have thought that in humanitarian terms China >> Sweden in 2020?

[Barbe bleu 812]

45 minutes ago, Upo said:

 

It is not a seasonal disease.

 

Ok, its not a seasonal disease, flu isnt a seasonal disease either right? it is just coincidence that it is worse in some seasons than others.

I am sure that scientific thought is divided in the relative effect of behaviour against other factors but even if we were to claim that any seasonal effect is solely down to us being indoors together for longer that doesn’t change the seasonal nature of this thing.

I dont think, in truth, that you are trying to deny the seasonal nature of this thing rather you are saying that it is our behaviour that creates these seasons, not factors extrinsic to the virus or us, like air pressure.  Perhaps.  I dont disagree that our behaviour is very different in a way that is conducive to spread, but I would like to see the studies that rule out any role at all for weather and climate.

If.my summation of yoir positio  is correct your hypothesis seems to be 'it was suppressed in june and july so the government should make us act like it is last june or july again'. What you seem to be calling for then is no indoor gatherings, windows open and schools and universities shut but some freedom to associate outdoors (rioting optional but not advised).

I think though that what you are really saying, in a very articulate form, is what a lot of others have already said: we should have done what a hypothetical combination of China and NZ did and ruthlessly suppress what we had and make sure that no more can get in. 

Edited December 31, 2020 by Barbe bleu

[sonyc 5,489]

"I think though that what you are really saying, in a very articulate form, is what a lot of others have already said: we should have done what a hypothetical combination of China and NZ did and ruthlessly suppress what we had and make sure that no more can get in" 

 

That is my take on what the poster has suggested @Barbe bleu .....that you suppress very hard and then keep it very low. It's one time (a serious pandemic) when arguably we need very strong government to protect its citizens.

[SHRIMPER 328]

What sort of mind comes up with this sh*it? And look how many likes it got.

 

Edited December 31, 2020 by SHRIMPER

[Herman 9,712]

Milo, the Alt-Right's poster boy. Or was. Now he howls at the moon getting more and more desperate for attention. Think gay Katie Hopkins or Swindo.

[Well b back 3,190]

35 minutes ago, SHRIMPER said:

What sort of mind comes up with this sh*it? And look how many likes it got.

 

Ridiculous, and people wonder why when this is over our doctors and nurses will be leaving in their droves. They should be thanked every time we bump into one, but some people have been intent on bashing them. I remember that Jools putting up a song they had done and slating the nurses for clearly having nothing else to do. That Oxford tweet the other day clearly shew what they thought of a particular newspaper.

[Van wink 2,994]

8 hours ago, sonyc said:

"I think though that what you are really saying, in a very articulate form, is what a lot of others have already said: we should have done what a hypothetical combination of China and NZ did and ruthlessly suppress what we had and make sure that no more can get in" 

 

That is my take on what the poster has suggested @Barbe bleu .....that you suppress very hard and then keep it very low. It's one time (a serious pandemic) when arguably we need very strong government to protect its citizens.

Spot on

[Van wink 2,994]

14 hours ago, Van wink said:

I believe Pascal said this morning that they would be able to meet the demand of the rollout.

I think from personal knowledge that there maybe some problems with recruiting skilled staff to do the vaccinations, I know of two “returners” who have given up due to personnel being a pain in the backside.

Appears to be an article about this ......behind paywall Telegraph

GPs warn 'larger workforce' needed for the vaccine roll-out as volunteer army fails to materialise 

Serious doubts have been raised about whether the roll-out could be scaled up as urgently as needed

ByVictoria Ward ; Lucy Fisher,  DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR and Lizzie Roberts30 December 2020 • 9:00pm

Edited December 31, 2020 by Van wink

[sonyc 5,489]

25 minutes ago, Van wink said:

Appears to be an article about this ......behind paywall Telegraph

GPs warn 'larger workforce' needed for the vaccine roll-out as volunteer army fails to materialise 

Serious doubts have been raised about whether the roll-out could be scaled up as urgently as needed

ByVictoria Ward ; Lucy Fisher,  DEPUTY POLITICAL EDITOR and Lizzie Roberts30 December 2020 • 9:00pm

I would expect today we ought to hear from the minister in charge Zahawi - he is the vaccine minister put in charge of the distribution. I was very surprised he didn't seem to figure in the news yesterday given the importance of the day's headlines. I believe he was on R4 but have yet to listen. Hopefully the country will get direction today and get some idea of the implementation plan.

 

 

[Well b back 3,190]

1 minute ago, sonyc said:

I would expect today we ought to hear from the minister in charge Zahawi - he is the vaccine minister put in charge of the distribution. I was very surprised he didn't seem to figure in the news yesterday given the importance of the day's headlines. I believe he was on R4 but have yet to listen. Hopefully the country will get direction today and get some idea of the implementation plan.

 

 

This is the problem as we discussed a few weeks ago, that for whatever reason the government took it over instead of just handing it to the NHS and the military, who are the experts. Have to say the evidence up here in the Midlands is they are ready to go, but I begin to think after yesterday’s announcements we don’t have the amounts of vaccine they have been saying. I do pray I am wrong.

[keelansgrandad 6,679]

Yes Sonyc, it did seem strange he wasn't the spokesman. Maybe Hancock wanted to make up for his "tears of joy" blunder.