Thanks for that reminder. Can you link to the world cup 2018 thread at all?

England have a decent squad but no way are they favourites (which they are with some bookies) I know home advantage is big but I don’t see us beating any of France/Spain/Belgium/Portugal. I wouldn’t be that surprised if we don’t make it out of the group.

Hoping all the home nationa do well to be honest.

Think it’ll be France or Belgium that wins it.

In the UK the standard is 10-12 weeks between first and second jab, both with Pfizer and AZ. I think the data is quite strong for a substantial gap (couple of months) between 1st and 2nd dose.

Got my first one booked for Saturday morning.

Just another in a long line of scientific and medical advancements/discoveries that have been made by accident.

I think initially the hope was for a vaccine to be somewhere in the region of 60-80% effective. The idea of 90%+ efficacy was a dreamland type scenario. The regular seasonal flu jab is only around 50% effective on average and that has a huge beneficial impact each winter. I don't think it was expected that Covid was ever completely eradicated (although it could be possible if 90% vaccines is the reality) through vaccination. More control infection levels to a point that it becomes a low level risk in society to the elderly or very vulnerable but in such a way that they aren't pouring in to hospitals in waves of thousands a day.

The other point is tht even lower or poor efficacy in the elderly is not a disaster. It's not ideal but doesn't mean a vaccine doesn't have merit. On the assumption the vaccine prevents you from spreading it rather than just dulling symptoms then there is still a knock on benefit to the elderly. If it's effective in younger people then their interactions with the elderly become less risky by default.

It's also good that the first 3 vaccines to complete phase 3 trials have shown that they do, in principle, work. It's highly likely more will work as well and the more vaccines available the less chance of a bottleneck in supply and it keeps prices down as well.

Depends on the disease and also the man power to an extent. This is the largest vaccination development programme in human history. The more people you have working on it and the more volunteers/patients you have the easier and faster you can get significant data.

Also worth pointing out the blueprint or skeleton for these vaccines was already in existence way before Covid. Work began on this type of vaccine to treat SARS 15 years ago but never completed trials as they managed to stop the spread of SARS among the human population anyway, same with MERS several years later. 75% of the vaccine has been completed for years they just needed the unknown next corona virus candidate to come along in order to add the relevant genetic material from the virus to the vaccine.

Why? I mean you’re probably right re 2024 but not because they suspended Corbyn.

When I said in the politics thread the other day about Trumps election being a response to the left this is what I meant. Admittedly I had not foreseen the 7 days that have followed but it's a great example. I wasn't meaning so much the corridors of power had shifted too far left or policies of specific governments so much as a societal shift left. Or at least far too loud a voice is afforded to the radical left which I think results in the electorate voting more to the right in response. I know you wanted to keep this politics free but the two are linked I feel, at least in terms of what I outlined above.

Demanding that people should hang their heads in shame and self flagellate for the crimes of their ancestors two centuries ago (broad generalisation), meanwhile insisting on removing and censoring any entertainment medium from pop culture history that doesn't meet June 2020's new standard is not, in my view at least, going to win people round. Neither is removing and defacing statues or memorials of historical figures. Then anyone who makes a point along those lines is labelled a bigot and shutdown.  So we see the response in the voting booth instead, the only place left where people can voice an honest opinion.

I will leave the explicit politics there, or at least try.

Like most inequalities they are often far more complex than any one explanation and to simply boil down the whole topic to 'systemic racism' in this case massively over simplifies the subject. I think the response then does more harm than good in trying to correct inequality generally with a 'top down' approach which usually just results in positive discrimination which is then alienating to a different group of people.

That's not to deny racism exists either, clearly it does and will be a factor but it is one of many.