Penguin68

It is worth noting that this 'flu season' there have been no reported cases (!). This suggests 2 things. Firstly that vaccination, social distancing, isolation, mask wearing and handwashing protects from flu - good news! - and secondly that people who suggested Covid-19 was 'like' or 'no worse' than seasonal flu are clearly wrong - people have been catching Covid (in droves) and dying from it whilst of seasonal flu there has been no sign. I am not sure that in future I will not be following some form of continued social distancing - or at least eschewing crowds in unventilated areas. Or at least cutting back from past social activity.

Clearly supporting these things leads to a sense of humour bypass. Your list of exercise positives is indisputable, and yet it was weight issues which you put first "obesity" "25% of Brits overweight" "fifth fattest country in Europe" in your initial listing. - And it is weight reduction through exercise which is most disputable. Whereas 'eating less' is what most authorities place as the most likely way to lose weight. And the only way that road closures lead to people eating less is if they can't get access to food because of them. Hence my, I thought humorous, hyperbole. But this is clearly, for you, no laughing matter. Sorry. I should have realised that jihad and humour are not happy bedfellows.

On the 3rd of March there is a seminar from the Zoe people, if you are registered, which looks at "We?ll explore the latest ZOE data from over 500,000 logged vaccines to understand how they are working in the real world. We?ll cut the data to look at efficacy and after-effects in the different vaccines and different groups. We'll unpack what this means for people with compromised immune systems, including those on immunosuppressive drugs. As always, we?ll be taking questions so please submit any questions you might have in advance via this link and we will do our best to address it. " Register on the Zoe app if you want to, virtually, attend.

You could also have "obesity" "25% of Brits overweight" "fifth fattest country in Europe" "increased pressures on the NHS" "Type 2 diabetes/CHD" As the most recent studies suggest that exercise has minimal impact on weight loss (the body is good at compensating, apparently) I'm assuming that you are hoping that the road closures will be restricting people's ability to get out to shops at all, or encourage the shops to close through lack of transient business, or to block deliveries of food, such that people will lose weight through starvation. Cycling sure as hell won't be doing it.

there is no way for the Virus to know when a child turns 18 and becomes a super spreader, i know they have to wear masks now in school but surely we must give them this new drug to protect the community. (1) - It seems very unlikely, given the way that the virus evolves, that any vaccine given to a young child (or indeed to me, or you) will be relevant in perhaps 10 years time. Like flu, it is seems very possible that we will need a new vaccine possibly every year. AZ is now working on a vaccine for September to pick up on the SA variant which appears less susceptible to current vaccines. (2) - Research is now going on to see whether vaccines will work/ are safe, on children - if they do and are I expect to see children vaccinated - as we now see for flu. (3) As a matter of record I think it is secondary school children who are expected to wear masks, not primary. (4) - The UK reports on Covid deaths currently state that the patient died having tested positive for Covid within 28 days. Causation may be implied, but it's not stated. The death reports are an attempt to be as 'honest' as you can be about the Covid impact (possibly partly at least to justify the concentration of medical resource there and not on other diseases such as heart disease and cancer). (5) The CDC (the primary source of your information, but not its collation and presentation) isn't anti-vaccine, clearly, but your source (possibly) is (although their formal schtick is about civil liberties). You are right that we don't know of any impact on fertility (although it's not clear what the mechanism for that could be) - we don't know of its impact on loads of other things either, good or bad - but fertility is a good scare area, isn't it? Assuming you have no underlying health problems which lead your doctors to advise against having the vaccine, choosing not to have it can be understood to be an act of personal selfishness - in the end relying on either not being that sick yourself, or in others protecting you by having the vaccine - if society (probably not HMG itself) decides that without the vaccine you are (or may be) a danger to others, and excludes your from parts of the public experience because of that - well that, like not having a vaccine, is your choice - and that, equally, like choosing to have a vaccine, is theirs. Edited to add - apologies for extending this debate away from the very useful exchange of information on actual side-effects (or lack of them) of readers of this board.

to each of these people after their injection with mRNA after but not necessarily caused by. The site you choose to use is one dedicated to justify non-take up of vaccinations (in general) - that is a perfectly good civil liberties stance to take, but is driven by politics (small p) and not science. 'Most' people don't recover from Covid - if they are elderly or have many underlying conditions. Sadly some who are both young and fit also suffer badly, and may die. The position taken by your source is that no one owes anything to society - if you are not going to be very ill with Covid then it's fine for you to have it and very possibly infect some other poor sucker who will be very ill, but why should you care so long as 'Your Family's' health is protected? Your choice, but I think if society then decides to exclude you from its nightclubs and pubs and sports grounds and airports because you rate yourself higher than them, well don't whinge. If you can make selfish judgements on your behalf. so can the rest of society.

There have only been 906 Deaths and 3126 Severe reactions in USA from the Vaccine up till 12th Feb so it is fairly safe. I don't think that is right. There have certainly been that number of deaths reported in people who have been recently vaccinated - but given the cohort being vaccinated (elderly, with underlying medical conditions) and the very large numbers involved, that's probably the natural death rate for that cohort, vaccine or no. If there had been 906 (or whatever large number) of deaths which were directly attributable to the vaccine (i.e. probably derived at this stage from excess deaths over the expected number for that cohort) they would have halted the vaccine programme. So I think you are probably safer than even this poster believes. I would expect the 'reported death rate' of vaccinated to fall as the cohort ages do.

I find impressive the fact that the VAERS (that stands for Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) as of 22 Feb reported 7555 cases of adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccine(s). The most serious reactions recorded: - death: 792 cases - permanent disability: 551 cases - hospitalisation: 315 cases - A&E emergency visits: 1730 cases - Office visits: 1494 cases Please do not get confused by these figures - they are about correlation, not causation. All incidents are reported when vaccines are given (and very properly) - for the cohorts mainly being vaccinated now (other than health operatives) most are elderly and/ or have underlying health conditions - so death, illness and hospitalisation would be a typical path for very many (given the huge numbers being vaccinated in the US and here), vaccinated or not. The 551 'permanent disability' cases being reported are just rubbish - the vaccines has only started to be given anywhere in December, it is now the end of January so just how 'permanent' does this have to be after 3 months? Had there been any suggestion or thought that the vaccines were actually causing this amount of mayhem (but people do have adverse reactions to vaccines) they would have been withdrawn. Inevitably a number of those vaccinated will have had active Covid already (but not yet visible). The reporting process is that all medical incidents following vaccination are recorded and reported - in case a pattern of adverse effects arise (I think the same is true when new medicines are released as well, or old ones used to treat new diseases). Had such a pattern been visible the vaccine programme would be halted (as the trials of some vaccines were following such incidents, until cause could be bottomed out). This hasn't happened (roll-out was halted in Norway I think when there were a cluster of incidents, but then re-started) - and recipients of the Pfizer vaccine are held for 15 minutes after the vaccine in case there is a reaction, when some were noted early on. But the VAERS figures are not adverse reactions to the Covid vaccine (necessarily), but adverse events following the Covid vaccines being administered. We know that there are reactions to the vaccines (painful arms, mild flu symptoms) and many of these may have led to A&E attendance or visits to GPs - as may, of course, many conditions associated with age and underlying conditions. But (even given the very large numbers being vaccinated in the US) 792 deaths actually (and determinedly) being caused by the vaccine would have rung huge official alarm bells, which they haven't. Had the authorities suspected that any of the vaccines in use were actually dangerous they would now be acting to stop their use (although they may be increasing lists of people for whom the vaccines aren't advised, because of existing conditions). Do not let these figures put you off from being vaccinated.

I'm sure I had such a reaction due to having had Covid so recently. For the same reason second vaccines can have more marked side effects than first vaccines, apparently. So don't be surprised if you feel worse after the second than you did after the first. That's expected and normal.

Clearly your name is legion - I clearly said for most people under 40 - not for all people under 40. I am well aware that a comparative few under 40 will suffer severe illness and indeed may die - or develop Long Covid. But, and in general, those under 40 will, in the main, either be asymptomatic or have what is a relatively mild and short lived illness. Some, clearly, won't be so lucky. But the odds are very much in favour of under 40s carrying a 'get out of jail free' card, when others (and I am over 70) don't.

69 residents sent objections in and 10 were for the mast. Whilst I recognise your pain - this was not however a democratic process or plebiscite - those who object to things are more likely to write-in than those in favour or broadly indifferent - and I suspect complainers were either aesthetic objectors or those confused by the science (masts aren't dangerous, most studies demonstrate). Those who will benefit from the improved connectivity and signal offered by the mast probably didn't know to support the proposal - but that local improvement in infrastructure may (indeed should) have been part of the influence on the councillors making the decision - particularly as more and more are working pretty-well full time from home, and quality communications is a pre-requisite for this. Of course Southwark will do whatever it wants - it pays slim lip service even to the concept of consultation - and it would be good to know why they made the decision they did; but sometimes councillors, and quite properly, listen to issues of 'greater good' and may over-rule the desires of locals. You are not asked to 'cast a vote' on consultations - you are asked only to cast a vote in council elections - and it is that vote which is your only real power, once every three years, to influence what's happening locally. If you don't like the mob we have, vote for another mob.

The side effects reported by others (mine were relatively mild and short lived - but consistent with these reports) suggest that the vaccine is kicking the body into its defence mechanisms (as is wanted) - it would seem that the harder the body is already working to cope with illness the more marked this might be. Many vaccines do have side effects - some at least as excessive as those reported for both the Pfizer and the AZ shots. Some (malaria) more so. Follow the advice of your GPs/ specialists - if they believe it is safe for you to take the vaccine, do so.

A separate Covid section made good sense - but this is already one for issues specific to East Dulwich, of which crime clearly is one. It is the section (I would guess) most frequently visited/ book marked - and thus a good one to alert people to current crime issues. Not infrequently posts may also be about things that might be crimes (knockers) but may also just be about something scary or annoying. [Clowns, for those with memories]. Discussion about crime more generally is something for The Lounge.

I really think people are not taking the severity of this virus seriously enough. I'm not sure you're entirely right there - (of course there are some who are deniers, but most I think do know that it can be awful) - but people are now prepared to take the risks they think are appropriate for them - of course some are getting this wrong. But for most young people (under 40) the disease will be mild if it's even noticeable - at worst like a relatively mild and short lived dose of flu. As you get older, or have other underlying conditions, your likelihood of severe, and indeed fatal, infection increases, and your level of caution with it. As those in the most vulnerable groups become vaccine protected, the risks of getting it yourself without going on to infect others in much worse ways is diminishing - and thus more and more the risks you take are (almost) just for you. What I do not understand is those in risk groups who are not taking up their vaccine offers - which seems mad - but again, they are adults taking a risk based decision. Once bad decisions become those that impact only you - then I'm diffident about enforcing 'rules' where only the rule breaker suffers. We aren't, of course, quite there yet, but we will (in the grand scheme of things) soon be.

The only truth here is that it is genetically modified. Which is the way you make this ad ort of vaccine. The rest is anti vaxer rubbish or distortion.

I imagine their Pfizer deliveries are now earmarked for second vaccinations, and AZ has a much longer shelf life. But it can't harm to ask.

Social isolation, both of parents/ carers and children is taking a terrible toll for many, and the long term damage may be significant. For most people of child bearing age, and/ or children, the disease even when caught is mild, and may not even be noticeable. And its impact may be far less than the mental damage caused by isolation. If the parents/ carers are keeping a 2 metre distance, in the open, that is likely to be fine, mask wearing or not. And it is, broadly, their risk, particularly as so many who are at high(er) risk are becoming protected by vaccines. By w/c March 8th all top 4 tiers (who chose to be vaccinated) will be 22 days or so into their cover, and hence will be covered (probably).

In some ways it's quite reassuring that there's such a mixed economy here - with different procedures and many being offered vaccines from different groups of vaccinators - if one route fails, however temporarily, there's always another. And presumably over time the most effective routines will become clear. Booking a 2nd vaccination at the time of the first, or both together, look good to me, at the moment, but maybe each will be as effective as the other. What will be interesting is recovery procedures if for any reason you can't make your second booked slot. But at the moment the combination of hospitals, the NHS centrally, and GP surgeries to offer vaccines seems effective. Fingers crossed this perception continues to be valid.

They may give either, we had AZ but an earlier poster had Pfizer. I'm guessing AZ is most likely for a first vaccine as Pfizer stocks will be being prioritised on 2nd vaccine patients, as there may be shortages.

The news reports huge (comparatively) lack of take-up in London, as certain groups are invited but choose not to come. It makes no sense for facilities to sit idle (or Pfizer vaccines to go off) - so I'm not surprised if 'early' jabs are being offered. As the intention is to vaccinate down to age 18, eventually, and certainly to 50 by May, people may be getting it early, but not who otherwise would never get it. What really upsets me is to read about low take-up amongst front-line health professionals, in hospitals and care homes. Who were all (or almost all) offered the vaccine in the very first waves. This even includes hospital doctors, I heard on R4 this morning.

Floating a tennis ball in an icy pond, before it freezes of course, will help keep an air pocket.

The blue and green bins are picked up on alternate weeks by the same crews. The brown/ kitchen waste crews are different.

Yeah there?s a few roads in ED that are now main rat runs compared to previously, the problem?s just moved to other people?s streets since the LTNs. If you close off most east west traffic and funnel it all into the South Circular you will find that this traffic has to use very few roads to get to the South Circular - hence Underhill - where I live - is now regularly jammed in the evenings (when we aren't in lock down). This isn't about 'rat runs' - its about intentional funnelling of traffic into very few (and by no means arterial or main) roads. If anything, these are 'local councillor runs'.

Those you want to encourage more rat running 'rat running' - which is a pretty vile term, by the way - generally refers to commuters, in rush hours, travelling through an area and using side and suburban streets to avoid traffic queues. I suggest that now, and even before the last full lock-down, there are far fewer through commuters - and this is likely to continue as work patterns change irrevocably in the future. 'Rat runners' were understood to be non-locals - and thus of course to be despised. Other than e.g. deliveries and service vehicles (which are to our benefit) the majority of traffic being caught by these restrictions is very possibly local, or pretty local, to Dulwich. So less, perhaps, rat runners than our close neighbours. Obviously not living in our lovely streets which must be protected from such trash, but still our neighbours. Or are our neighbours, but not of course living in our lovely and gated streets, rats?

This is the first disruption to collections (for me at least) since the start of the first lockdown - I know that numbers of Veolia staff have been ill or have had to self-isolate because of vulnerable people they live with - current reports suggest 30% of staff are ill or isolating. Most crews are substantially changed since the start of this emergency, but they continue to do a not very nice but exceedingly necessary job. And do it, from my experience at least, with good grace. With iced roads and slippery conditions Tuesday was treacherous, I'm not surprised they stopped working. Once a bin lorry starts to slide on our hills they can become exceedingly dangerous. And the pavements were like skating rinks in some parts, where they weren't treated.