Coronavirus

[Saracen999]

That's true if you ignore the 10+ million people who voted labour and how close they were in 2017. Not to mention how media bias ramped up during that time and what was revealed in the labour leaks....It's crazy that britain has the worst death rate in the world etc and people are still in denial about how maybe the people in government are responsible.

Nonetheless, despite your portrayal of "austerity" and the supposed merits of the JC club, the country voted non-Corbyn. Twice.

If the Tories are so bad, if things are so dire, and in the aftetmath of Brexit splits, and Tory incohesion, he JC should have walked it. It was an open goal. Yet .... the country aren't buying into Corbyn. Being popular among leftist Labour members is not, and probably never will be enough to take Downing Street.

And if JC can't even avoid that historic drubbing despite the open goal, and BoJo as the opposition .... it ought to be telling Corbyn fans something. But it seems they're not open to the message. Long may that continue.

[j1979]

what are you on about? I had the BCG vaccine at school - we all did back then. It's only been stopped since what? 2008 or something like that. You can still pick it up on request at GP surgeries and travel clinics.

Edit: 2005 decision was made to stop it, but it trundled on for a bit after that as people I know definitely still had it when they were at school. Unless you're seeing droves of teenagers circumbing to Covid I don't think you can attribute our problems to lack of universal BCG being rolled out in the current population. Most of the adult population have had it, and the most at risk ages definitely have.

https://vk.ovg.ox.ac.uk/vk/bcg-vaccine

also your list includes New Zealand who have done pretty well as things go, better than here, and they stopped their BCG programme far earlier than we did (1980s-1990) I struggle to see how you're drawing those conclusions??

The link is blindingly obvious, imho.

droves of teenagers might have been walking around symptomless pre-lockdown, passing it on to the vunerable without realising.

NZ tested like crazy and locked with between 200-300 confirmed cases. We waited intil we had 6000 cases before lockdown. As well as testing the have geographical diffences which would make a national lockdown easier. You can't get a 30 quid flight to NZ. 4 million international travellers vs our 40 million.

However NZ is one example in the list, that doesn't fit the rule, but seriously you can't see the link?

Wether there is any science behind the link or not. My question is about why hasn't it been on the news? They have had myth busters on BBC for a month or so, the mentioned 5G, and other out there thoeries, if the BCG link is quackery, then why hasn't it been discredited? Is it like the mask theory again? The don't want a stampede of people looking for the vaccine?

The worst hit country of all, is almost alone in the fact it never had BCG vaccine (USA). Africa as a continent is the oppersite with almost every citizen having had the vaccine, it also has the lowest death rate of any continent, and appears to be less able to spread as quickly there.

Portugal vs Spain on the the iberian peninsula, Portugal had the vaccine Spain stopped it. Easten europe vs Westen Europe. The Balic states vs Scandinavia. The middle east, only Iran is in a bad way why? Sanctions maybe?

Austrailia are trialing the BCG with health care workers. My question is simply why hasn't it been on the daily bucket load of stories on the BBC, C4 or SKy news.

[ik9000]

How does it make me bias that I want a different party in power when the tories continually show massive disregard for human life? How many scanadals have they had? fite for work, grenfell and now this and people who vote for the right go "it's bad but can you imagine what damage labour would do?" Its complete bs.

LOL what? You can't put Grenfell on the current government, pillocks though they are, just because it happened under a Tory government. That is the outworking of decades of problems in the construction industry. Now you could try and lay the blame at Thatcher's door for abolishing the set rates and industry fee scales in the name of competition. That was where the rot really set in and began the race-to-the-bottom and a trend towards axing on-site supervision, quality inspections and ultimately the abolition/obsolence of the traditional clerk-of-work role that personally I feel would have prevented Grenfell by itself. You can also point to the Labour government for allowing Local Authorities to outsource roles and IIRC being the ones to permit the use of "Approved Inspectors" dissolving, and in some cases enabling councils to remove the District Surveyors office entirely. This was then exacerbated/accelerated by austerity. So both checks on the construction process in terms of site work, and design scrutiny have been removed / become watered down to the point of practical impotence by governments over decades and all removed from the current one.

The fact that we haven't had more grenfells is testament to the desire of architects and engineers, and the good contractors (there are some) not accepting cut corners and doing their damndest to ensure stuff gets built right. Sadly you can't catch everything, and Grenfell certainly had its fair share of problems on multiple fronts that came together in a horrific outcome. I don't think it's the place to go through that here, but it cannot be blamed on the current Tory government at all.

I am watching with interest what they do about it as a result. So far the action has been knee-jerk and a public consultation to ban everything and the sink thrown-in without thinking through the wider impacts on many levels. Given Boris' track record at ignoring specialist advice (eg for the compromised London Plan he signed off) I'm expecting a chaotic farce to emerge of headline-grabbing but utterly impractical and ill-conceived changes to red-tape and that fails to address the real issue: time and FEES. The whole process has been reduced to a shoe string and clients need to wake up and understand they need to pay properly so all stages of the process can actually do the job they need to do, safely and appropriately. It's a basic legal requirement under CDM legislation but rarely realised in practice. Those fees should also be made to cover Clerk of Works rolls and the District Surveyor needs to be put back to what it was: an office of absolute clout with a team who really do know everything going on in their patch, and who when they say jump, have the authority and reputation to really make people jump. They used to even up to the 1990s. Not anymore. Too few seem to still exist.

[TeePee]

Is that you Top_gun?

He'll leave again soon...

[j1979]

I thought the cladding schemes were all done under the tories. They certainly appeared in cities in the last decade. Grenfell was clad in 2016 under either Cereron or May tory govements scheme. A nice little earner, if you know a tory MP.

Sheffield is covered in reclad 60s and 70s towerblocks that should have been pulled down but were reclad in the 2010's

But it's off topic really.

[ik9000]

I thought the cladding schemes were all done under the tories. They certainly appeared in cities in the last decade. Grenfell was clad in 2016 under either Cereron or May tory govements scheme. A nice little earner, if you know a tory MP.

Sheffield is covered in reclad 60s and 70s towerblocks that should have been pulled down but were reclad in the 2010's

But it's off topic really.

fire regs in part B haven't been changed since the draft prepared under Brown which came in under the Torys under Cameron IIRC. Most of those fire regs are based on fire periods that came out of the post war analysis of the rate at which NON combustible materials burned - or rather failed - during the blitz. Test requirements for combustiblity were based on individual elements and not on whole assembled systems to standards largely last overhauled I think in the 1990s IIRC when the EC tests were drafted with only minor amendments since (though don't quote me on that).

Overcladding is as a result of the aim to reduce carbon emissions which came off the back of multiple international treaties and the various changes to part L (thermal performance) which again largely happened under the labour governments of Blair and Brown with additional tightening under Cameron, however the problem isn't overcladding per-say but, from the evidence so far published, an inappropriate product, applied in a cack-handed way, without proper scrutiny, and built to a poor quality of workmanship not in accordance with the employer's requirements and original design details, with a failure by the employer's representatives to notice the deficiencies, and a failure by the contractor to notice, possibly due to an unwillingness to check thoroughly, and/or manage their subcontractors appropriately. In short an absolute proverbial-storm on many many levels. To put it just as a deficiency in wanting buildings overclad is too narrow.

An interesting tangent would be whether the U-values targeted in modern part L are actually achieveable using non-combustible materials. I hope they will consider that before banning anything that isn't in use on buildings bigger than a townhouse, but that looks like where they've going to go with this!

[kalniel]

Wether there is any science behind the link or not. My question is about why hasn't it been on the news? They have had myth busters on BBC for a month or so, the mentioned 5G, and other out there thoeries, if the BCG link is quackery, then why hasn't it been discredited?

..My question is simply why hasn't it been on the daily bucket load of stories on the BBC, C4 or SKy news.

What, like here on the BBC where it's discredited?:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52310194

[j1979]

What, like here on the BBC where it's discredited?:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/52310194

So the same as the mask argument then. Thats what I thought. So expect some news in the next few months, saying "new informaion has emerged"

The WHO is concerned that increased demand for the vaccine means there'll be less of it available to inoculate children against tuberculosis.

And if there is nothing in it, can anybody explain the medical trials are taking place, the stark figures in confimed cases, and all the studies.


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20048165v1.full.pdf

By using linear regression modeling, we found that the number of total cases and deaths per one million population were significantly associated with the country’s policy concerning BCG vaccine administration.

Not like we've been lied to before in this crisis.

[ik9000]

So the same as the mask argument then. Thats what I thought. So expect some news in the next few months, saying "new informaion has emerged"



And if there is nothing in it, can anybody explain the medical trials are taking place, the stark figures in confimed cases, and all the studies.


https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.30.20048165v1.full.pdf




Not like we've been lied to before in this crisis.

my uncle caught it and he's definitely had the BCG vaccine so it's not protected him!

[j1979]

my uncle caught it and he's definitely had the BCG vaccine so it's not protected him!

Me too on both counts.

Matt Hancock seems to suggest people coming in from Spain brought it in late feb, which was when I flew from Barcelona, the town next to me was one of the first to get locked down in Spain.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/coronaviru...122122293.html

The theory of the BCG is that it stimulates the innate immune response, and makes you less likley for the virus to take hold. you can still contract it. In many countries it's not necessarily a one off vaccine but given more than once like tetanus.

[Jonatron]

I've had the BCG, and I probably had covid, although it's not possible for me to get a test to know for sure.

[ik9000]

ok let me rephrase. My uncle had BCG jab years ago. He still caught covid and it got him good and proper. He was hospitalised as a result and had to be put on oxygen for several days. BCG is not a panacea. Nor does it avoid the full symptoms / serious cases.

[TooNice]

Africa as a continent is the oppersite with almost every citizen having had the vaccine, it also has the lowest death rate of any continent, and appears to be less able to spread as quickly there.

Well, it is a big continent, and I can't be bothered to go over country by country. However, I try to keep track of the countries I do go on business.

And while on paper, it is impressive how well, they've seemingly done so far, I would like to point out the following:

1. Amount of testing done is rather limited in some (I suspect most) countries.
2. Many countries closed their borders to non-citizens entry to the country and went into full lockdown very quickly.

They likely realised that their infrastructure would instantly collapse if they didn't act quickly and decisively.

Not arguing that whether BCG helps or not, but acting with urgency was likely a major factor here, looking at success in Taiwan, NZ etc.

And well, the US and UK (which as this rate may well end up worse off than Italy) is showing the world what -not- to do.

If this abysmal performance of this government is really the best out of all the alternatives people could've voted for then.. the UK's future is going to be hard to watch (not unlike the US).

ok let me rephrase. My uncle had BCG jab years ago. He still caught covid and it got him good and proper. He was hospitalised as a result and had to be put on oxygen for several days. BCG is not a panacea. Nor does it avoid the full symptoms / serious cases.

We can't draw a conclusion about from our own experience though. Obviously BCG is no covid-19 vaccination, and I don't think anyone claims it would offer full immunity.. or even resistance to everyone.

But it is worth investigating if some variables (including but not limited to BCG) can somewhat slow the spread of covid-19 until we have something more permanent.

[matts-uk]

Overcladding is as a result of the aim to reduce carbon emissions which came off the back of multiple international treaties and the various changes to part L (thermal performance) which again largely happened under the labour governments of Blair and Brown with additional tightening under Cameron, however the problem isn't overcladding per-say but, from the evidence so far published, an inappropriate product, applied in a cack-handed way, without proper scrutiny, and built to a poor quality of workmanship not in accordance with the employer's requirements and original design details, with a failure by the employer's representatives to notice the deficiencies, and a failure by the contractor to notice, possibly due to an unwillingness to check thoroughly, and/or manage their subcontractors appropriately. In short an absolute proverbial-storm on many many levels. To put it just as a deficiency in wanting buildings overclad is too narrow.

I didn't pay attention to the enquiry so please feel free to put me right.

As I understood it, the architects proposed a design using materials they were confident had been tested in the configuration being proposed. The Council put the design through a round of cost cutting and suggested (may not be the right word) cheaper materials would suffice. The architects were uncomfortable with the cheaper materials and the resulting configuration but could find no proof it was dangerous. Test results for individual components appeared to be acceptable but there was no requirement to test the integrity of the combination and assembly. I seem to recall there were some e-mail exchanges that suggested there were concerns but rather than anyone lift their head above the parapet and risk losing the contract the buck got kicked down the line.

If that is the case, I would say several decades of Tory policy cutting public spending to the bone, and the culture it has bred, contributed as a significant cause. Blaming the front line fire service was appalling and the main reason I stopped listening.

[ik9000]

I didn't pay attention to the enquiry so please feel free to put me right.

As I understood it, the architects proposed a design using materials they were confident had been tested in the configuration being proposed. The Council put the design through a round of cost cutting and suggested (may not be the right word) cheaper materials would suffice. The architects were uncomfortable with the cheaper materials and the resulting configuration but could find no proof it was dangerous. Test results for individual components appeared to be acceptable but there was no requirement to test the integrity of the combination and assembly. I seem to recall there were some e-mail exchanges that suggested there were concerns but rather than anyone lift their head above the parapet and risk losing the contract the buck got kicked down the line.

If that is the case, I would say several decades of Tory policy cutting public spending to the bone, and the culture it has bred, contributed as a significant cause. Blaming the front line fire service was appalling and the main reason I stopped listening.

it's a bit more convoluted from what I've read - not helped by the nuances of how roles change each side of a design and build procurement tender and contractor appointment. Value Engineering was certainly an aspect but I don't think the ruling has been made to say to what extent it contributed/was at fault (though my money is on it being a big part of the problem) and I think (note I'm speculating now) that it was probably VE led by the contractor after award of the contract. By this point the money the client pays them is fixed. Rubbish contractors at this point go "how cheap can I do this to maximise my profit." Literally I am not exaggerating I have sat in meetings where it has been said "I don't care about the people living here, I care about my profits. How cheap can we make this?" (nothing to do with Grenfell before anyone asks). They then spend a huge amount of time trying to skimp everything down to the absolute minimum that could be interpreted as complying with the client's brief (the employer's requirements, ERs). If those are vague, not screwed-down, open to interpretation then a rubbish contractor can have a field day - and is within their contractual rights (even if it is immoral). And you get the situation where the original designers are neutered against preventing it. (At which point you have to say that those same designers should have put together a more robust set of information for the ER's but that requires going into more detail than clients often want to pay for that workstage. From personal experience of the TMO who were the client owning and managing this building I find it hard to believe they would agree to paying anything more than they could possibly get away with, but that is speculation on my part and we will have to wait for the rulings to know any more.)

Remember this was essentially a private company running the building on behalf of the council, not the council directly. Irrespective of Tories cutting services etc there is a fundamental issue on any project when you get a cheap-arse penny-pinching client and a greedy feckless contractor.* Combine that with an underpaid design team unable or unwilling or contractually prevented from shaking things up and putting their foot down and I can see how you might get a horror show like this.

(*At this point I'm talking generally, I'm not saying those labels directly apply to firms involved on Grenfell before anyone misunderstands).

[g8ina]

OK guys, I know I said I wasnt gojng to moderate this thread any more, but as its has now drifted COMPLETELY off topic to the Grenfell cladding, that is it.

CLOSED.