|
Originally Posted by fransknorge
(Post 33391138)
Relevent people should be contacted before the 19th July It seems hundred of thousands will be given shielding orders for several weeks, so that people can remove their masks. All in this together indeed.
|
Originally Posted by VickiSoCal
(Post 33390558)
Woo Hoo! I will tell her.
|
Originally Posted by NWIFlyer
(Post 33391684)
And if you back those out and restrict yourself to the vaguely sane, what are you left with? A minority who are in favour of maintaining restrictions.
|
Originally Posted by Kgmm77
(Post 33391799)
Leaving aside the correctness or otherwise of disregarding the views 30-40% of the population (although I agree their position is likely to only be transient and very influenced by the here and now), I’m not sure your maths works. If you take the 40% away who want to wear masks forever, you’re still left with 50% of the remaining respondents (30%) who want a time bound requirement to wear masks. So not a minority.
But let’s make the reasonable assumption that it was something like “Do you support the continued mandatory wearing of masks in shops and on public transport?”. The options would then be presented as: “No” - 30% voted for this option “Permanently” - 40% voted for this option Now clearly anyone answering yes to permanently is also going to do the same for “until Covid is eliminated” and “another month”. Ergo, if you feel that those people aren’t living in the real world and their opinions may not entirely make sense to any sane person, you back them out to normalise the result. That leaves 30% from the original respondents who support the continued use for a month. That is not a majority. If I got results seen here - do we really believe that many people support a curfew? - if I were the polling company I think I’d be checking the demographic makeup of my sample. Lies, damn lies and statistics, eh? |
Originally Posted by NWIFlyer
(Post 33392114)
......let’s make the reasonable assumption that it was something like “Do you support the continued mandatory wearing of masks in shops and on public transport?”.
The options would then be presented as: “No” - 30% voted for this option “Permanently” - 40% voted for this option To what extent, if at all, would you support or oppose each of the following rules being in place for a period of up to one month after July 19th? ....and the response options : Strongly support Tend to support Neither support nor oppose Tend to oppose Strongly oppose Don’t know
Originally Posted by NWIFlyer
(Post 33392114)
The options would then be presented as: “No” - 30% voted for this option “Permanently” - 40% voted for this option Now clearly anyone answering yes to permanently is also going to do the same for “until Covid is eliminated” and “another month”. Ergo, if you feel that those people aren’t living in the real world and their opinions may not entirely make sense to any sane person, you back them out to normalise the result. That leaves 30% from the original respondents who support the continued use for a month. That is not a majority. The survey is an attempt to assess public opinion in regard to the relaxation of current restrictions. It does what it says on the tin. No hidden agenda. No need for disjointed analysis and heroic distortions to match an alternative world view. A simpler one-line interpretation on the mask wearing question would be: A significant majority of the respondents support the extension of the mask-wearing mandate beyond 19 July (the table below relates to the question cited above concerning a one-month extension of the mask mandate) https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/www.fly...f6208f7d39.png
Originally Posted by NWIFlyer
(Post 33392114)
If I got results seen here - do we really believe that many people support a curfew? - if I were the polling company I think I’d be checking the demographic makeup of my sample.
https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...ables-2021.pdf https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...%20polling.pdf |
Originally Posted by corporate-wage-slave
(Post 33391728)
I think it's actually code for a third vaccine and advice to manage risk rather than large scale shielding options (not orders). Not that I've seen the guidance yet, it will only be released next week if 19 July is confirmed.
We now know that B and T cells responses after 2 doses vaccines is not optimum on immunosuppressed population https://immunology.sciencemag.org/content/6/60/eabj1031 https://www.news-medical.net/news/20...sts-study.aspx The third vaccine doses study are very preliminary (emphasis mine): While access to COVID-19 vaccines remains a major global health challenge, vaccines are now widely available for American adults and adolescents. The great efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines has allowed for excellent individual protection against severe disease. However, immunocompromised patients, representing a population of several million Americans, are a notable exception. Severe COVID-19 infections among fully vaccinated, immunocompromised patients have raised significant concerns about the effectiveness of vaccines for this group. An observational study by Boyarsky, et al., validated these concerns: Of 658 patients who had received solid organ transplants, 46% developed no antibody response after two doses of mRNA vaccine.1 In an attempt to improve vaccine efficacy, a third vaccine dose was evaluated in two observational studies of patients receiving immunosuppressive medications after solid organ transplantation (including heart and heart-lung). Werbel, et al., studied patients who had received two doses of mRNA vaccine and were given a third dose of either mRNA or adenovirus vaccine.2 Among 24 patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 spike antibody titers after the second vaccine dose, 16 (67%) had no antibodies 2 weeks after the third dose. In a subsequent study, Kamar, et al., evaluated solid organ transplant patients receiving the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine for all three doses. Among 59 patients with negative SARS-CoV-2 antibody titers after two vaccine doses, 33 (56%) remained without antibodies 4 weeks after the third dose.3 Conclusion: A three-dose COVID-19 vaccine regimen may provide protection for some immunocompromised patients who have not had adequate immunological response after two doses. Nonetheless, a majority will remain without antibody protection, and the risks of a three-dose regimen – including organ rejection and autoimmune disease exacerbation – have not been adequately studied. In the absence of robust herd immunity or more effective vaccination techniques, continued physical distancing, mask use, social restrictions, and vaccination of close contacts will remain essential for the health and safety of immunocompromised individuals. So even without shielding recommendations this is likely to be what that population will do: shut themselves in to accommodate for the large population to remove their masks. Sorry, this is a failure of adequately protecting the most vulnerables of society using solidarity. One more time, a "me,me,me" mentality. |
Originally Posted by VickiSoCal
(Post 33385718)
Ha. So I should threaten to fly over with a needle and the kid will find a way. She is only at 3.5 weeks.
8:30 - 19:30 Sat 8:30 - 18:00 Sun Brentford fountain leisure centre is approx. 200mt away from Kew Bridge railway station, which is reachable from Bracknell through Feltham or Staines. |
Originally Posted by IAN-UK
(Post 33392503)
Perhaps better than making assumptions is to check the question that was asked:
To what extent, if at all, would you support or oppose each of the following rules being in place for a period of up to one month after July 19th? ....and the response options : Strongly support Tend to support Neither support nor oppose Tend to oppose Strongly oppose Don’t know The survey is an attempt to assess public opinion in regard to the relaxation of current restrictions. It does what it says on the tin. No hidden agenda. No need for disjointed analysis and heroic distortions to match an alternative world view. I don't have an alternative view particularly, it's just that we can all cite examples where poll companies have rather badly got it wrong, or the question they have been instructed to ask by the commissioning media organisation has been somewhat loaded. Now I get that poll companies are regulated, and these sort of things shouldn't happen in theory - but they do. It's why presenting a contrary view which questions the veracity of the results if they seem miles out of kilter isn't ever a bad thing, and indeed we've seen other people in this thread who state they've seen polls which give vastly different results. |
Originally Posted by NWIFlyer
(Post 33393386)
[MENTION=3353]IAN-UK[/MENTION], thank you, this is extremely useful and interesting. Would you be kind enough to provide a link to the data, as presumably that contains all the responses? I'd be interested to take a look at the responses to the more extreme options to see how the percentages were arrived at.
I don't have an alternative view particularly, it's just that we can all cite examples where poll companies have rather badly got it wrong, or the question they have been instructed to ask by the commissioning media organisation has been somewhat loaded. Now I get that poll companies are regulated, and these sort of things shouldn't happen in theory - but they do. It's why presenting a contrary view which questions the veracity of the results if they seem miles out of kilter isn't ever a bad thing, and indeed we've seen other people in this thread who state they've seen polls which give vastly different results. The only thing they are miles out of kilter with would appear to be the direction the U.K. government appears to be going. I get that it is not government job’s simply to be an empty vessel to reflect the transient position of the people, and as I said I expect/hope the views of those who see a need for substantial restrictions forever will change as things improve. But there is a huge between that and trying to say the poll results are not representative. |
I really despair if anybody wants to use an opinion poll as a basis for justifying whether restrictions continue, especially one in which 25% of responses said nightclubs & casinos should never reopen, 35% said there should be a 10 day quarantine when returning from abroad forever, and about 18% said there should be a permanent 10pm curfew where leaving home should only be allowed with good reason.
If anything the poll demonstrates very clearly how people have been scared so much and well beyond the reality of the risks, that they are willing to consider such limitations should apply permanently. |
Agreed - wow.
|
Originally Posted by KARFA
(Post 33393523)
I really despair if anybody wants to use an opinion poll as a basis for justifying whether restrictions continue, especially one in which 25% of responses said nightclubs & casinos should never reopen, 35% said there should be a 10 day quarantine when returning from abroad forever, and about 18% said there should be a permanent 10pm curfew where leaving home should only be allowed with good reason.
If anything the poll demonstrates very clearly how people have been scared so much and well beyond the reality of the risks, that they are willing to consider such limitations should apply permanently. |
Northern Ireland has announced it will adopt the amber rules from 26 July.
No word from Wales or Scotland as of yet. :( |
Originally Posted by KARFA
(Post 33393523)
If anything the poll demonstrates very clearly how people have been scared so much and well beyond the reality of the risks, that they are willing to consider such limitations should apply permanently.
|
The permanent part of the poll was a surprise to me (and needless to say, I disagree with that view) however I wanted the focus on the other answers, which are more important in my view.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 2:51 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.