Penguin68

Table 6 on page 15 shows that 23 people died who were unvaccinated, and 19 died who were vaccinated, of whom 12 (double vaccinated more than 14 days previous to death) were likely to be (because of their long standing double vaccination) in the more vulnerable groups. Although many more unvaccinated than vaccinated were identified with the delta variant very many fewer were admitted to A&E or hospital. Only 4.2% of the unvaccinated were admitted to A&E (numbers of whom, because they were only tested when they got into A&E were probably asymptomatic). Of those 2.8% died. 3.3% of those with the delta variant who were vaccinated went into A&E, and of those 4.8% died. HOWEVER - considering the large number of both groups visiting A&E not knowing they had Covid (tested for it there) and considering why people generally visit A&E - the mortality rates (with Covid 10, not of Covid 19) are hardly surprising. In general over 60s in A&E will have a worse prognosis than under 50s (probably the average age of each group for whatever cause. What I think your forget in all this is (1) deaths are for any reason but within 28 days of a positive Covid test and (2) the two groups (vaccinated and unvaccinated) are not matched samples - the vaccinated as a group have been defined (and their vaccinations offered) from the most to the least vulnerable - to say that more vulnerable people (by virtue of age and pre-conditions otherwise unrelated to Covid) are more likely to die when they have visited A&E is hardly surprising - the vaccines don't protect from heart attacks, strokes, cancer, emphysema... you name it. They protect wholly and simply from Covid. At which they seem to be doing a good job!

Dulwich is very hilly - most of the rest of the borough isn't. And roads like the South Circular - which you have to use to get to many places outside Dulwich - and Lordship Lane - are narrow and full of traffic (even more so now roads have been closed) - I am not surprised that cycling is comparatively low (and conversely other modes of active travel higher). And many Dulwich residents I'm guessing are somewhat older than in other parts of the borough (again a militating condition against use of cycles). And we do not have, as more inner parts of the borough have, Boris Bikes, or whatever they are now called. If we had tube stations in a 10-15 minute walk (lots of inner and north London do) then maybe there would be even more use of public transport. Cycles may be one answer to reducing use of cars - but for many people outside SE London there are many other alternatives available - for us there aren't, and cycles are not a good answer for many of us, given (a) the topology and (b) the unsuitability of many roads and © the unsuitability of many of the potential riders to be on bikes, here, in the first place. And the option of turning every road to a cycle exclusive one would actually be attractive only to the monomaniacal lobbyists who have captured the council's attention.

That whilst people say they want fewer cars I think people are saying they want fewer (local) car journeys - but that doesn't actually necessarily mean fewer cars. Many people have cars to drive a few, necessary (to them) trips - may be happy to cut down local use (if there are sufficient effective alternatives which they can use - some are too old or frail to cycle the local hills for instance and may not be able to walk far) but still need a car. It is wrong to assume that less car use (until and only if it's vastly less) will necessary translate into fewer cars owned in areas where public transport is more limited and you can't readily walk anywhere you need to (or the environs other than round Tooley St, to be exact).

One Dulwich are campaigning to have things returned to how they were. This is a fact. Considering the very limited options set out in the survey - the least worst for those who think that the whole set of actions (based on which streets were granted traffic immunity) was ill thought out, went against declared council policy and was broadly 'wrong' is to wind the clock back (and perhaps start again with a better thought out and more policy consistent set of proposals) - the One Dulwich campaign (based on what's available) is the 'best' option for the time being. I would support a 'put it back and start again' approach - but that second element isn't actually on offer. Indeed, it may not ever be on offer until and if the current council is voted out and one which shows some sympathy towards its electorate and local funders (business rate and community tax payers) is allowed in. And not one dancing to a policy which disregards entirely local opinion, but is happy to dance to the tune of groups not actually living in the borough (inter alia). Most (I suspect) people subscribe to a view that there is room for improvement as regards e.g. air quality. But just because the current position is prayed-in-aid on that altar doesn't mean it is either the only, or even an effective, policy to attain that end. Across the borough as a whole (or even the Dulwiches), rather than just in some privileged streets in Dulwich and East Dulwich.

When it gets back going fully again (assuming restrictions are lifted) there are good fruit and veg stalls in the Saturday farmers' market in the Horniman Square by the Bandstand. Unless these (two?) stall are already back?

It seems that whilst the AZ vaccine does continue to increase in efficacy after the first dose for some time after 3 weeks, the Pfizer first dose reaches its maximum potential in around 3 weeks - hence that was originally the trigger date for a second dose. As AZ is not being offered in the main to younger patients (because of the clotting issue) bringing forward the second dose does make medical sense. It is still true that the older (even amongst younger cohorts) are more vulnerable than those younger than them, so fully protecting them quickly does now make more sense (the very young adults seem to have - with some tragic exceptions of course - only mild or even asymptomatic infection). Hence government advice to reduce the gap from 12 to 8 weeks between first and second doses. Many will still have booked the second jab 12 weeks later, before that advice changed. And now want to re-schedule to match (the changed) government recommendations. Government still doesn't seem to have decided whether to extend vaccination to under 18s. It still has a window to do that before autumnal vaccinations for (a) flu and (b) booster Covid for (probably) over 60s kicks-in.

It is even rumoured that children expressing hesitation about the Covid19 vaccine can be reported to PREVENT . By whom? Where? On what grounds? - vaccine resistance is not normally associated (just) with Islamist indoctrination. This is simple scare mongering. There are arguments (which was what caused the AZ vaccine not to be offered to under 30s) about balance of risk - but with the Delta variant spreading quickly, and its apparent impact on younger people (primary and secondary) being much greater than the earlier variants, it may well be that vaccine protection for the young is the less risky option. We do not know if the Delta variant can precipitate 'long Covid' in the young (not enough time or numbers for that to be evident) - but if it does then saving the young from that possibility would seem a good thing, even where/ if life is less threatened. and you will find country after country where a massive increase in covid deaths followed the vaccination If you knew anything about statistics you would know that correlation doesn't imply causation. The highest death rate in the UK actually preceded vaccination, as it did for Spain, the USA, Italy etc. The current low death rate in the UK (in relation to continued infection rates) has been very credibly linked to the full vaccination of the most vulnerable parts of the population. Where deaths are occurring they are, I believe, principally amongst the un- and partially - vaccinated, which is why the average age of the dying has plummeted.

GPs, and their gatekeepers, in my experience are paranoid about Covid - to the extent that they refuse admission to the very few patients who can actually get physical appointments (and those mainly with practice nurses) if they have temperatures - as if a high temperature is a symptom only of Covid. As much as is possible they push patients to A&E - where you certainly have a good chance of catching Covid should you not already have it, especially as you have to wait hours in unventilated (in the main) spaces. GPs are not, of course, the NHS we have been urged to 'save' (they are private contractors into the NHS) - nevertheless it is mainly they who have been saved. People actually directly employed by the NHS (i.e. in hospitals) have been very vulnerable of course. Large numbers of retired GPs have stood up for the vaccination programme (and more power to them) - but our own working GPs (and I feel I use the word 'working' quite wrongly in this instance) have done nothing to shine in this outbreak - from the anecdotal evidence I have seen.

Freeze it in what you think will be the right amounts for each use as soon as you get it. Don't open and use the pack and then freeze it when it reaches its use by date.

It's a very broad rule of thumb, but with food poisoning the 'culprit' will cause vomiting about 4-6 hours after ingestion, and/ or diarrhoea about 8-10 hours - so you can track back to work out a likely cause based on a timeline. If a number of people share symptoms of course a shared meal is likely - but there are other causes of these symptoms - norovirus for instance, which may well also be shared. Salmonella is much less common now in the British chicken flock - but handwashing after handling raw poultry is still very advisable, as is cleaning any knives or boards used. And quite thorough cooking. Food poisoning from whole chickens or chicken portions, if properly home cooked and 'in date' is relatively unusual - if the chicken doesn't smell 'off' then it probably isn't. It is more likely contracted through eating prepared meals or from restaurants (or at home) where meals have been re-heated or kept too long prepared but unrefrigerated.

Admin - perhaps now lock this thread? - an individual has been arrested and I would imagine we now move into a sub judice period. This would avoid any unintentional postings which might jeopardise things. Once there is a trial and verdict a new thread, if necessary, could be started.

The Met is the responsibility of the Home Secretary, which makes this a Parliamentary matter. I would write to Helen Hayes about this, to ask the Home Secretary a PQ. Helen Hayes is very responsive to constituents' concerns. This was a physical attack and (as the medics said) evidence of the assault with be disappearing over time. If only the attacker had said something racist, sexist or homophobic it would be a hate crime, and they'd have been round like a shot.

Did Google / Waze consult us before 'redesigning' streets into rat-runs? They didn't design rat runs. Instead their algorithms look for routes which are currently uncongested/ quicker and divert traffic down these. As moving traffic tends to generate less polluting particles than standing traffic (if only because they complete a given journey quicker/ with fewer hold-ups) this may well be health beneficial. The effect of this is to (probably) create less pollution and certainly to distribute polluting activities wider, which reduces the intensity of impact on particular high use routes. Almost the reverse of what the Dulwich LTN schemes do, in fact.

They were supposed to keep traditionally grouped constituents together - I don't think they've really bothered to do that and have just followed the number rules and will let community links fall out in the consultation. The starting point has to be to aim for constituencies of broadly equal size (I think 60k electorate), the last time this was done there followed long discussions and submissions to amend the proposals to put together areas with some commonalty - which was done to many people's satisfaction. No reason why this second stage should again happen. The test of whether it's working will be not to see strange constituency boundaries. It was actions in the US to cobble together boundaries to favour one party which ended up with a constituency that looked roughly like a salamander - hence (because of the name of the erring politician who engineered this) the term 'gerrymandering' to describe this process.

Road vehicles are the single biggest cause of London's air pollution... However this doesn't mean that private cars are the single biggest cause...etc. Road vehicles include buses, lorries, vans etc. etc. - most of which are diesel (whereas the majority of private vehicles aren't. Don't use statistics driven substantially by commercial vehicles to beat private motorists around the head.

Generally, small cars are more efficient,... This is true when you compare cars of similar ages and differing sizes - but we know that a large number of vehicles on the road are many years old - a modern SUV or larger vehicle may well be more 'efficient' than a smaller vehicle 15-20 years old. Trabants are tiny - on the above argument we would all be healthier driving those than a Range Rover. Really?

I think there is confusion between NOx2 (from diesels) - which can cause respiratory problems - as can smoke from wood-burners etc. - and CO2 emissions, seen as driving climate change, but which have no impact on breathing unless the atmosphere is all CO2 (and indeed without which we would have no growing plants).

So let us persuade the yummy mummies to ditch the big 4x4 and go electric. Be careful what you wish for - in autumn 2022 the Hummer EV SUV is launched - wider than the 'between parked cars clearance' of most ED residential streets - but all electric. It's a beaut - I'd love to be able to afford one just to drive it through (and I do mean through) Dulwich Village to hear all the brains exploding. There are a number of all electric SUVs already on the market, as well as many hybrids. I do take your point (I wish others would) that there is a difference between the big SUV 4x4s and the smaller ones. However many do have highly engineered engines and, if petrol, comparatively low emissions compared with other, less engineered and older cars still allowed to drive without fiscal penalty come ULEZ.

banning households from owning more than one car and banning ownership of SUV 1. If households have more than one car in action at the same time then they probably need more than one car to achieve their ends. Cars which are parked up may annoy you, but if they're not moving then they have nothing to do with the title of this thread 'our healthy streets'. Some people keep a small run-around for use in town, and a larger family vehicle for longer journeys. If they kept only one car it would be the big one - which they would then use locally as well as for longer journeys. That's a win for you, is it? 2. SUVs occupy no more space on the road than most vans, estate cars, people carriers etc. Your hatred of SUVs is a class, not an environmental hatred. Most SUVs (they are a modern type of car) - other than diesel - have as low emissions as any other car that will 'pass' the ULEZ (and ones that don't will be banned within the inner areas inside the North and South Circulars). In the (admittedly very few) years when we have ice and snow locally then SUVs - if the are 4WD - are able to negotiate local hills which other cars (and buses) can't. I've seen this happen.

Get smaller cars if they can?t The size of the car is irrelevant as regards pollution - it is the cleanness of the engine which is. An all electric SUV produces less pollution than a petrol bubble car. Car size is about envy and a socialist belief that nobody should either have money or be allowed to spend it. Southwark council's intention to drive private cars out of Southwark is about 'private' not 'car'. Hence they are prepared to wage war against car ownership regardless of the fact that they are diverting 'pollution' to areas of multiple occupancy and state schools - they care more about private car ownership and how to stop it than about public health - for them the fact that they can cloak their actions under a banner of public health just adds amusement to the exercise. The impact of behavioural changes arising from Covid (including working from home) and the impact of the ULEZ extension in autumn might have been a marker to see what the new normal is regarding local pollution (and its sources) before implementing divisive road closures. But that it only relevant if it is pollution, and not private car ownership, which is the target. Which it isn't.

I think you'll need a PCR, not a lateral flow, test to meet the venue requirements, and no more than 48 hours before the event. Possibly 24.

Totally agree Tiddles! It seems like Southwark Council are run by people who want to bring in rules for this and that (Will Norman, who lives in East London, take note) but wait until it hits their own living and working area! It is the 'local roads for local people' Royston Vaisey mind-set which has bedevilled the initial creation of our local LTN. There is no reason why someone not domiciled in, or even working in, Southwark cannot come up with a workable and fair solution which does not just shunt traffic problems into areas with less influential residents. Not that they have, of course. London is made up of many (often contiguous) residential areas where residents of one necessarily, in order to live their lives and work their jobs, have to cross over into and through others. If each one is to set up their borders and exclude 'foreigners' (and how often that is prayed in aid by those advocating CTNs?) then all we will get is resentment and anger. And very poor use of infrastructure - where some roads now are hardly use at all, and others are almost permanently gridlockd. I wonder, if road and pavement repair and refurbishment was consequent on volume of usage (which it probably should be, given that it is usage which wears it out) how quickly those in LTNs would start squealing for potholes to be filled.

To clarify, (and happy to stand corrected) the Tessa Jowell (as I understand it) offers community wide services via Guy's and Kings out-services (e.g. the phlebotomy department) and is also the location of one GP practice. This practice is in a South East London (mainly Dulwich and surrounds) consortium of GP practices and these have chosen to offer their patients the Covid jabs at the Tessa Jowell, which has both the space inside and the parking to make this a good choice. It is not a 'community hospital' as such (and to be honest in its last years neither really was the old Dulwich Hospital), but it does offer out-patient services on a hospital sourced basis.

The Tessa Jowell supports a consortium of SE London GP practices. If yours isn't one of them you won't be asked there, I'm guessing.

I am amazed that our local councillors are presiding... I'm not.