Health Secretary Matt Hancock has described as “terrific” the findings of a new Public Health England study that shows one dose of the vaccines can cut household transmission by up to 50%.
This is indeed good news – and not unexpected, since the vaccines have been shown to reduce symptoms, and symptomatic disease is what drives transmission.
However, it’s worth being aware that this is the relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction (as always) does not look quite so impressive.
In fact, one of the remarkable findings of the study is that of 960,765 unvaccinated household contacts of unvaccinated index cases testing positive, just 10.1% of them (96,898) caught the disease. This means around 90% of unvaccinated people living in the same house as someone with COVID-19 didn’t catch it themselves. This low secondary attack rate is an indication of the level of immunity the population already has to the virus, whether from innate, pre-existing or acquired immunity, even before vaccines come into the picture.
The study identified 3,424 unvaccinated household contacts of index cases who tested positive despite receiving their first dose of the AstraZeneca vaccine at least 21 days earlier. Of these, 196 tested positive themselves, giving a secondary attack rate of 5.7%.
For the Pfizer vaccine the same figures were 371 secondary cases testing positive out of 5,939 unvaccinated household contacts, giving a secondary attack rate of 6.3%.
This means in absolute terms the risk for household members of catching Covid from an infected household index case was reduced from around 10% when the index case was an unvaccinated person to around 6% when he or she was vaccinated, a drop of 4%. This is encouraging, if not as big as might be hoped – though it may improve after the second dose.
For unexplained reasons the study does not look at symptoms at all, so we have no idea how many of the vaccinated positive cases were asymptomatic or how severe their symptoms were. Other studies suggest that positive cases are more likely to be asymptomatic or mild in those with immunity (whether from infection or vaccination) and this is likely to explain much of the drop in secondary attack rate for the household contacts of index cases who are vaccinated but test positive.
This cheering news on the effectiveness of the vaccines for cutting transmission gives the Government even less reason to stick to its glacial reopening strategy.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
He? She? It?
Who gives a sh*t?
Excuse me,
People have always used words that might be mistaken or give offence to others; and there’s always been a remedy, if we believe one is required. We apologise and move on.
The object of this insanity, when enforced by authorities, is to create yet more fear. It has nothing to do with respecting others – any more than wearing a mask or taking the jab is about protecting others.
We are being trained to be afraid of the air we breathe (wear a mask to filter out the badness); afraid of the physical presence of others (make sure you know the correct social distancing rules); afraid to speak with others (you might prove yourself a bad person by the use of incorrect terms).
The more frightened we are, the more we are distanced from each other and the easier we are to control.
I am increasingly coming around to the point of view that withdrawal from the instruments and institutions of the State is the only way to stay sane in this era of planetary insanity…
Increasingly difficult to do, which itself is a problem.
They’re not pronouns, but mine would be ‘f*ck’ and ‘off’.
You could always opt for archaic, with ‘thee’ and ‘thy’.
Not that I care, but Mrs indicates a married women, Miss indicates an unmarried women and Ms indicates a lesbian. Mr indicates an adult man but what’s the correct pronoun for a woke sodomite?
Yuk?
Fabulous.
Butthurt?
I’m just guessing, but ‘dearie’?
Ms can indicate a heterosexual woman as my wife will confirm
I hereby declare that I wish to be addressed by my adjectives. In future you’ll address me as the Handsome, Wonderful, Charming and Witty Mr Radical. If you do not address me by my favoured adjectives I’ll set Facebook, Twitter, Google, the cozzers and the whole establishment on you, and I’ll ruin you, so be warned…
Now think of how absurd this is, even though it is more rational than the pronounmongers’ demands since, while it is wrong to request/demand others call me by ‘my adjectives,’ at least these are real terms/categories, and I may legitimately be all of these things, wheras these fruitcakes and subversives are sanctioning and justifying non-categorical terms/language. They are sanctioning and demanding you adhere to a figment of their imagination/invention.
They are declaring their unwillingness to conform to societal norms, and in some cases to adapt to norms. The latter is more problematic given the volume of immigrants we are seeing.
The entire edifice, including the media and the civil service, want us to forget a functional society has useful conventions that naturally emerge. These on the whole work well. They provide common ground on which to establish a coherent society.
Thanks to this we are losing the ability to insist people conform to sensible norms. Examples include pronouns which we’ve used for many centuries. But a less discussed example are our customs and manners; we disapprove of women being told to wear burkas and we dislike halal butchery, for example.
A confident nation has no problems insisting on these simple conventions and rejecting those unable to play along. Such a country would simply ridicule the trans/queer/crazy crowd who insist on unique pronouns. And we’d be kicking quite a few foreign arses to make them buck up their ideas.
This whole nonsense is about destroying our society. Correct pronouns are indicators of civility and good manners and so have to go.
A fine, Orwellian version of pronoun nonsense is:
“My honourable friend…”
“The honourable member for…”
Adopting standard pronouns shows a willingness to adapt to society as it is. It is another form of intolerance that is being endorsed by a small group with power and influence.
There’s no doubt that someone is doing a really massive job on society.
What’s next?
My prediction is that soon they will come for the children in a big way. They will try to overturn long-standing assumptions regarding what is acceptable and unacceptable when parents and officials relate to children.
I agree. And if the US is the bellwether they’ll secretly convert the kids at school then use the childrens’ artificially imposed convictions to demonstrate the unsuitability of the parents. How can we less these hateful homophobes raise children? They will be safer as wards of the state. The 12yo girl knows she’s a boy etc.
I do believe many in elite circles believe much of this. Another of Cameron’s utterances we forget is he once declared the UK had too many white Christian faces. That’s what you are up against.
Probably because his own was so round, shiny and pink.
After all we’re only 87.7% white indigenous. Oh and Christian.
But not too many near his own splendid country residence, of course. The Cotswolds isn’t it? A lot of the parliamentarian multiculturalists live in solidly white English areas. Do they think we don’t notice? Most of us would like to live amongst our own people too, there is far less trouble when it’s just us. As there was before the aliens started flooding in.
I hope that wasn’t a euphemism.
The reasonsble man adapts himself to the world. The unreasonable man adapts the world to himself. Thus all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw
The ONLY occasion on which such ‘pronouns’ are useful are when emailing a person with whom you are not acquainted AND have never met in person AND if it is not clear to which gender your first name applies. There are some foreign names where it is unclear whether the person is male or female from the name itself.
But even this should be a matter for personal choice not by government diktat.
Yes, ‘they’ is long-established and perfectly legitimate when referring to someone whose sex has not been specified/is unknown.
Agreed – there is nothing wrong with singular “they” in the right context, when “he or she” would sound laboured. “If a person gets stuck in the lift, they should press the red button.” Perfectly reasonable way of talking.
But a couple of times recently I’ve had people call me “they” when it has sounded peculiar, given that I was right in front of them and it’s obvious I’m a bloke.
It might be obvious to you that you are a bloke, but those looking at you might be unsure – you could be a pop “star” and hence would be clueless about what you actually were, let alone what others might be considering calling you!
Indeed. If you say to me, ‘My friend wants to come along but is a bit shy,’ and I reply, ‘Tell them to come and that they have no need to be shy,’ that is entirely proper. This has been a feature of the language for hundreds of years, and it is not a denial of the binary framework.
I used to mark French GCSE writing for the Northern Board. We weren’t allowed to mark down candidates who failed to observe correct adjective agreements when referring to themselves, on the grounds that whereas we knew that John was male and Jane was female, none of us could identify all the immigrant males and females. So John and Jane got it wrong with impunity. It never occurred to the Board to mark names of immigrant candidates on the list as M or F.
It is intended as an opening salvo to control how they communicate and, in time, how they think.
To argue against this requires some effort since you have to set up your stall, so to speak, then demonstrate the absurdity of it. All the time the oddballs who want to be called Ze/Zer etc. profess shock. After all it is harmless stuff. I am only asking you to be polite.
From there you are only a hop, skip and a jump from being a full blown homophobic tranny hater or some equivalent sinner. The lack of sense is long forgotten by then.
And what does it even matter? When I get a corporate email from Zargothrax Fleeblemorp, I don’t respond with “Dear Mx Fleeblemorp”. Zargothrax suffices.
But perhaps it’s not appropriate to address them by their first name. In that case, the usual courteous practice when for example their first name is “Chris” or “Pat” and you don’t know what sex they are is to write “Dear Chris Fleeblemorp” or “Dear Pat Fleeblemorp”.
For internal communication, which is what I believe we’re discussing here, that’s essentially never done any more.
They should have the courtesy to sign their correspondence as Mr. Zargothrax Fleeblemorp or Mrs. Zargothrax Fleeblemorp or Ms. Zargothrax Fleeblemorp or Sir Zargothrax Fleeblemorp or Lady Zargothrax Fleeblemorp etc.
The English language is replete with solutions to all circumstances. It’s the most complicated and effective language in the world.
If someone can’t find a satisfactory solution to gender/sex identification within it, the gender/sex issue is the problem, not the language.
But are Mr/Mrs/Ms pronouns or titles? As for he/she/they etc. those pronouns are used when talking about X to ,Y so it’s none of X’s business what I say to Y.
Dear sir/madam
“I identify as anonigender. My pronouns do not exist. This demand is literally violence against me.”
How, using their own… logic… could they argue against that?
‘m liking this option …
Four questions:
1) Is there an approved list of pronouns?
Or can a person choose “elephant/elephant”? Or “ey/em”? Or “per/per”?
Arguably nowadays “it/it” is more appropriate for how most of us are treated, so is “it/it” available?
Demanding to be called “I/me” or “you/you” could also be a hoot.
2) Do the pronouns have to match?
Or can a person be “he/her” or “she/him”?
3) Do they have to be fixed?
Or can a person choose “he/him” on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and “she/her” on Tuesday and Thursdays?
4) It’s all right specifying the subject and object cases, but what about possessive pronouns?
For example, does “he/him” imply “his”?
Or can a person choose “He walks”, “Tell him”, and “Her hat”?
Note
The following is a technique of struggle: when the opponent takes the p*ss, take the p*ss back in a stronger dose.
When you stop treating this ridiculous sh*t with contempt and start taking it seriously, it’s got you. It does not deserve to be taken seriously.
And employing all of the above at different times will certainly piss off those promoting this shyte.
If you identify as ‘non-binary’, then the only other possible option is ‘binary’. You have now created a system that exists only in two states a two state system is described as ‘binary’, thus you are binary again.
True, false, and null.
What happens if my choice is Sir or Madam or Your Excellency or Your Royal Highness – who is to say that in the woke world of validating illusions that this isn’t equally valid?
If you are permitted to self-identify, then feel free to assume any state you like as the whole point of self-identification is that it requires no physical or medical proof.
Your Excellency is a particularly good idea. All of us have excellent moments: why not identify oneself accordingly?
Thank you, Alkanet – a new world awaits. I shall be kind but firm with those who do not address me correctly.
I think ‘magnificence’ and ‘magnificence’s’ would be my pronouns, but I might alternate them with ‘humility’ and ‘humility’s’ during Lent and Advent.
I shall take a dim view of those who have deliberately provoked and mispronoun-ed me by failing to remember the exact dates on which I should be called which. I might sue them for millions due to the appalling trauma.
I stand corrected and instructed. I’d forgotten about the trauma I would undoubtedly suffer if not addressed in the manner I have chosen.
May I be the first to say thank you Your Excellency
I’m transclass. I self-identify as minor Royalty and insist on the pronouns “your Highness/Highness”. This should be accompanied by a bow (nod of the head will do) when addressing me in person. I find it makes alphabetti-spaghetti folk STFU pretty quick.
I see your claims to royalty and challenge you with own claim to divinity. I am his divine awesomeness at all times.
Sadly, I’m dyslexic but it doesn’t stop me expecting yo to refer to me as Dog!
That violates my religious freedom.
…
Excellent sir. Unless I’ve misgendered you, in which case see a psychiatrist
Is ‘Thingy’ a pronoun?
Presumably if you put your pronouns as… He/She/It/They..ad infinitum.. Because you don’t give a shit about it, they would be unable to pull you up on it if you explain that it depends on how’re you’re feeling ‘on the day’ as to which one you are using.
When the LGBT etc. community can form a political party, successfully campaign to have their MP’s democratically elected and go on to win a general election, then I’ll accept the imposition of their policies.
Until then, they are amongst a very small minority of the population and, perhaps sadly for them, democracy means they conform to the standards of the majority, not the other way around.
Perhaps it is time we conveyed that message more forcefully. That we choose not to abuse minorities with the concomitant assurance they leave us in peace. No one really cares these days if someone is gay or a man wants to wear a frock. But they care a lot about our indifference. And they are not keeping to their side of the bargain.
That should be accomplished by our democratically elected representatives. Tragically, they are complicit in the whole thing with their dedication to ‘being kind’.
Few things are more destructive than delivering kindness – without truth which is frequently painful.
I think they are either dedicated to appearing “kind”, so they cannot be accused of being “nasty” – e.g. the PM/Tories generally – or they use “kindness” as a stick to beat ignorant plebs with and assert their “superiority” e.g. most “progressives”. I can’t imagine for a moment the PM gives a toss about gays or any other minority group, or indeed about anyone or anything except himself.
Mr Green Acres
PP: Trump2024 / MAGA
Suck it libs!
Dearie Me (wal/rus).
OUR VSI Our People Our Operations Our Customers (Our Pronouns – or else!)
We have been requested to do this at our Trust although uptake seems restricted to a few managers. I am quite happy to sign off my emails with Miss or I am a lady instead.
Most people don’t feel the need to say what pronouns they want. Shouldn’t be compulsory to state them in emails.
There are some who are keen on certain pronouns and for them it probably is a good idea to mention that in their emails.
I hate this sort of thing. Woke seems to be intended to divide. I don’t know any trans who supports the woke stuff. I don’t know a black person who supports it either. I think it’s intended to divide us.
How about this:
“My name is Ash. I identify as a non-binary tree. My pronouns are tree/shree and tris/trers, to be used on alternate days. Trigger words for me are ‘trunk’, ‘branch’, ‘sap’ ‘leaf’ and ‘leave’ and I will need to sue if these words are used in a species-ist or insulting way. I will need extra time off for trauma when I shed my hair in Autumn.”
Is that how to do this new game?
Because of ‘ the wider cultural changes’..that right there is the problem. There are NO wider cultural changes…just a tiny tiny tiny minority forcing their idiotic views on ‘the ‘wider culture’……..
Meanwhile, in the real world outside of the M25 we, the silent majority, raise our eyes and shake our heads and get on with ordinary life. You remember us? We go to work doing proper jobs – making things, building things, growing things to eat, fixing things that break down and generally keeping the economy running.
My children, I’m happy to say, declined university in favour of apprenticeship, thus avoiding the woke indoctrination, instead learning valuable skill sets and becoming Really Useful People.
Far too many of those on the left don’t have enough to do. A few days of hard physical labour would do them the world of good, and they’d soon forget the triviality of their ‘pronouns’ in the pursuit of earning enough to keep a roof over their heads.