Coronavirus: COVID-19

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

So she risked the infection of others just to make a point about insufficient checks at the airport, didn't she?

[Alan Phipps]

No I don't think she risked much in the way of Covid transmission from herself as she had the proper documentation anyway. It is more that she would rather delay notifying it and then make the headlines in the papers and on TV, than actually get Heathrow officials to do their job properly starting right from when the problem was first noticed. I suspect it's about personal gain and publicity versus 'doing the right/best thing' in the interests of the nation. In hindsight, she probably could have done both anyway.

[Tamina]

Realistically, what are the odds they would've actually changed something? Don't waste your time trying to argue with officials, they don't do their job anyway.

[Mightysword]

So she risked the infection of others just to make a point about insufficient checks at the airport, didn't she?

If she's not doing this for personal publicity, it can be she simply think this kind of publicity is needed to actually get something fixed. It's like trying to call customer service for something and have your issues ignore/delay forever, but blow it up in the media and the company can't rush to "offer" solution fast enough.

[Alan Phipps]

There's a great leverage in "Hey, I'm a journalist and I want to know why you aren't doing what the government has told you to do." It makes things move and get fixed pretty quickly in most cases.

Doing it all later just smacks of personal gain.

[felter]

I think she did it wrong as she had a choice where in her story she could have said, there was possible mistakes being made. where I could have entered the UK coming from South Africa without being checked and got away with possibly introducing the South Africa variant of the virus, I pointed this out just what was happening and got checked out before entering the country. She didn't do this, instead she entered and pointed out that she was able to do so without the checks. Both ways would have had the exact same outcome, but only one of the choices would have been the right thing to do under the current climate, and as I pointed out, I think she made the wrong choice.

[Teladi CEO]

I feel like this would be on par with someone in the US sneaking a bomb past TSA. Sure, you might have spotted a weakness but now you’ve just alerted that weakness to anyone who’s would like to exploit it. Her actions to try to prevent deaths might as well cause more deaths.

While the aim might have been genuine, I think it was operated horribly wrong.

[Mightysword]

Another question is can this be just a local issue to one airport or an actual flaw in the general protocol? Every airport in the US is supposed to have strict protocol, but at DIA everything is followed to the letter, like I feel safe just by going through the check-in process. The few times I passed through LAX though I always thought to myself "if someone want to smug a bomb in ... I think they have a good chance for it".

This might caused some short term damage but the overall impact could be larger. With the cat out of the bag, it may cause not just at one particular airport but all other airports to review their procedure as well. I doubt she's the only one manage to slip through. Maybe her credential as a journalist give the ability of "slip through than talk about it" as a matter of public interest. I imagine a normal person doing the same thing will probably classified as "bragging" and then slapped with a fine.

[Alan Phipps]

There is a misunderstanding there. She didn't slip through in any devious manner via an unsanctioned route; she was directed by airport staff to go via a booth lane where no Covid documentation checking was taking place. Either the lane directions given to her were incorrect or the staff that should have been at that booth were missing. That is when she should have brought airport staff attention to the omission, and not later via the media after getting home.

[Teladi CEO]

There is a misunderstanding there. She didn't slip through in any devious manner via an unsanctioned route; she was directed by airport staff to go via a booth lane where no Covid documentation checking was taking place. Either the lane directions given to her were incorrect or the staff that should have been at that booth were missing. That is when she should have brought airport staff attention to the omission, and not later via the media after getting home.

Yes, I misread thanks.

[felter]

Here is something else that is not going to just go away. It seems people have the idea that everyone will get vaccinated and that will be the end of the virus. Unfortunately that's not how these vaccines work. The vaccine is not a cure all and end all, it doesn't even stop you from getting or spreading the virus. The news about the current Brazilian strain just shows this, as they are saying the vaccine will not stop this strain but it should reduce symptoms (with their fingers crossed). Honestly even thinking, lets go on holiday is just plain stupid thinking, as all it takes is one little mutation and on return from holiday you have a £1,500 fee and an extra 2 weeks stay in a seedy hotel doing nothing to look forward to.

It also looks like things have not worked out as they should have done, as they search for this person who gave false information when entering the country while being infected with this Brazilian variant. Once they find him, which they will probably do, they are going to be in pretty big trouble, I wouldn't be surprised if they even ended up in jail for supplying false information on a legal document. Lets just hope they aren't just spreading the virus around the country while they look for them and the virus itself is not as bad as they think it may be. It's something as simple as this that could easily close the country down again in the future.

It's not over till it's over. I just hope they are not counting their chickens before they have hatched, and that things work out for the better, rather than the worst.

[Alan Phipps]

While I agree that the UK is far from out of the woods as yet, and holidays any time soon are a pipe drream, I think there are a few cautions and reality checks needed regarding your post:

"it doesn't even stop you from getting or spreading the virus" No, but it does reduce the probability of infection by > 60% 30 days after the first dose, reduces the chance of developing serious symptoms by ~ 80%, and reduces transmission to others significantly as well. The aim of all vaccinations (incl say flu) is to reduce infections and consequences, not to totally eliminate them.

"they are saying the vaccine will not stop this strain" Who exactly said that? The UK government briefing just said that the new variant *may* be *more* resistant to antibodies but that current data on this remains sketchy. Current vaccines will indeed offer some level of protection against it. The relevant strain detections were made 2 weeks ago and there have been no new cases sequenced in 30% of all new UK Covid infections since.

"this person who gave false information when entering the country ... supplying false information" The briefing indicated it could even be a positive test result from a statistical survey or from a high incidence area's mass testing, and so not necessarily directly to do with personal air travel. The person had not completed the provided online survey information to link their test results with track and trace.

I think the moral is to treat things seen in the press or on social media with hefty scepticism.

[felter]

"they are saying the vaccine will not stop this strain" Who exactly said that?

That would be the Scientists that are supposed to be informing the UK government they were saying that this morning before the so called UK government waffle has been done.

And I agree totally 100% to be sceptical about everything that is being said, which is exactly what I am saying. The press, the government, Boris Johnson personally are all acting like it is over and done with, and what I am saying it isn't over till it is over. That to make plans because you think it is all over, just because Johnson says so. a person who is well renowned to have a habit of not being able to tell the truth, is just plain crazy. We are just one mutation away from disaster and you have to keep this in mind, But the Government does not want you to think like this, they want you to think it is all over before it is and they do this by contradicting even what their advisors are saying.

[Alan Phipps]

Still not entirely with you on that. It was the expert professional advisors on the briefing that I was mainly listening to, and nobody there was contradicting them nor saying anything close to it being all over and all would soon be well. On the Brazil variant, you may be thinking of such as the Financial Times article on it today, but note the closing remark - hardly a rock solid or quantified scientific statement.

"Luheshi said that the concern with P.1 is that “because it has these mutations around the spike . . . the hypothesis is that the vaccine will be less effective.” But she added that there is not yet definitive evidence to support this theory. "

It may be that you personally do not agree with [the speed of] the roadmap for opening up the economy and the start of return to normality. However, I think it is the government [and Boris himself] that stresses the need for the cautious approach with gaps between steps to look at the effects of each measure before going on to the next. That is despite pressure from press and business groups to speed things up 'since things are going so well with vaccinations and the rates of infection are dropping'.

Boris and the Tories handling of the pandemic may not be at all perfect, but I think the current roadmap combines progress with due caution and scientific checks and so provides a good way forward.

[Chips]

It's not over till it's over. I just hope they are not counting their chickens before they have hatched, and that things work out for the better, rather than the worst.

I also see zero evidence of the politicians claiming it's all over bar the shouting. If anything, last I read they'd been urging not to ignore all current rules and requests on the belief it is all over... but they are saying there's an outline if things continue to improve and go along a nice steady path. That is subject to change if things alter. Those types of plans are what the opposition and the public have been calling for repeatedly (whether you like it and agree with it or not) instead of just continued silence.

As previously said, vaccines aren't going to mean zero transmission / zero infection for all variants and in perpetuity -- just like we have flu shots for the elderly every year as flu neither goes away nor stays the same strain. This isn't some revelation, it's been stated clearly and repeatedly from the start. Hence the entire "it could become seasonal, we'll develop new variants of vaccine as/when required".

Points to take home - that the vaccinations reduce the serious outcomes is a good positive step, it'll mean fewer die. But the importance shouldn't be overlooked at the reduction in transmissibility. Sure, it's not 100% perfect and it's never going to be. But it doesn't have to be either and certainly doesn't mean abandon everything as it's pointless. The all important "R" number factors in. If it's 30% less transmissible then it's entirely possible that R number can be kept below a level whereby there may be small localised outbreaks, but it'll naturally die out with minimal requirements to lock down.

Maybe there'll be a new mutation (and yes, more cases means more chances to mutate), but the entire planet can't just stop indefinitely (not least because evidently people can't stop - otherwise there'd have been zero transmissions anyway) until we see zero cases anywhere worldwide for 3 months.

[BrasatoAlBarolo]

...

Yes, apparently it's going to be like seasonal flu, with a vaccine every year that "weak population" needs to protect themselves. They're also working on effective treatments to avoid the worst symptoms, which is even more important for the future.

[Vertigo 7]

Ruh roh... Ireland, Norway and other European nations have temporarily halted use of the AstraZeneca vaccine after some reports of blood clots. https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medica ... uxbndlbing

On the surface, this doesn't sound good at all. I do hope it pans out that it's not the vaccine causing the blood clots. Thankfully, there's another vaccine so we at least have options if it is a bad vaccine.

[pjknibbs]

As is pointed out by the AstraZeneca boss:

"Around 17 million people in the EU and UK have now received our vaccine, and the number of cases of blood clots reported in this group is lower than the hundreds of cases that would be expected among the general population."

So, if anything, the vaccine is *reducing* the incidence of blood clots, not causing them...

[Gavrushka]

yeah, the situation on the face of it with the AstraZeneca vaccine/blood clots looks farcical from the data made available. - It may be there's a layer of data not available to the public which has driven the decision, but it feels like someone who had the vaccine went on to experiences excessive flatulence, so now everyone who farts after being vaccination goes 'aha, yes it does.' *parp*

[Vertigo 7]

One would hope that's the case. Maybe the governments are being overly cautious, and I hope that's all it amounts to. But I can't help but wonder if there's more than what's being told. If AstraZenica says "these are less blood clots than normal" then there would have to be some statistical data showing that. And if it is indeed less, then why would the governments pull it?