Re: Coronavirus
 

I wouldn't go that far.


But I would suggest that they should avoid crowded areas, or places where ventilation isn't good, or where distancing isn't possible.


I do think it's difficult in the current situation to suggest what the best thing to do is for the minority who can't get vaccinated or for whom the vaccine won't work. It's trickier when you consider those who aren't at risk or for whom vaccines do work have had enough suffering due to restrictions which really don't protect them an awful lot, and on sectors where restrictions have and still do hamper their activities.



This is what I mean when I mention before that the medics will want people to stay at home, distance, mask etc but not necessarily the effect on other things is always considered. Even Chris Whitty who is an intelligent chap and has studied economics is primarily a doctor so going to consider those aspects first.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes I can because those staff who were jabbed, told me they got it off their spouse (also double jabbed) go figure, stop trying to counter me with a rubbish hypothesis, because the fundamental principle remains which cannot be refuted, double jabbed people can still pass on Covid-19.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, but less likely than those who are vaccinated that also is irrefutable

Re: Coronavirus
 

The less likely is miniscule. Seen it, lived it.

But the crucial point is this, they still can pass it on and still have a high chance of doing so and that is what makes wanting to curtail freedoms of the unvaccinated, to bully them, coerce them to having something done against their will, to have the jab so they can what, still pass it on after getting jabbed?

Re: Coronavirus
 

But it’s not 60 million, is it?

It’s the unvaccinated cohort of adults, which is a lot less.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely yes. If it impinges on the wider population.

Life is not fair, far from it.

If we all have to walk to the pace of the slowest person we are all subjected to a long f’in walk when most of us can do it very much quicker.

You’re obviously happy to walk to the march of the slowest person, that’s how humanity has progressed through the ages……………

Those with issues should be treated with respect and helped as much as possible but they can’t dictate how the majority live. ( I see you must have read up on the precautionary principle as you went all quiet on it….good for you…..everyday’s a school day as they say)

Re: Coronavirus
 

What about the freedoms of the clinically vulnerable? Aren’t they being curtailed, and being bullied and coerced into staying at home against their will?

---------- Post added at 22:32 ---------- Previous post was at 22:30 ----------

Your sense of humour is only exceeded by your empathy.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No they are not, they are being advised to stay at home on medical grounds and that is all it is, guidance and advice, it's not everyone else's fault they have a suppressed immune system.

The unvaccinated are being bullied and now mandated by law in some countries, outrageously, no end - to have something done which does not stop what a double/triple jabbed person is also capable of doing, which is catching and spreading the virus on to others.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Awww mate, I didn’t have you down as a vulnerable adult. I will adjust accordingly.

Just make sure you have a responsible person with you when posting.

Re: Coronavirus
 

As you said, getting triple jabbed doesn't stop someone from passing on the virus to others, but if other people have had the jab too then their risk of covid having a severe effect on them is less likely.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I totally get the less likely, but the threat of transmission remains and the threat of super spreading Covid-19 remains amongst the vaccinated.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am talking about the lives of 60 million+ against those of your 3.7 million. You cannot justify curtailing the freedoms of that number of people for what is an indefinite period to protect 3.7 million from contracting the virus. Don't forget that even out of those 3.7 million, only a small proportion will become seriously ill and die.

We must do what we can to protect them, of course, by shielding, but not by imposing suffocating rules on everyone else. That would be control freakery at its worst.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But you’re not curtailing the freedoms of 60 million people, it would be restricting those that deliberately choose not to have the vaccine which in nowhere near that number.

Your proposed actions restrict the lives of those that have no choice if they can have the vaccine due to medical reasons or to those who are offered less protection by it

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s worrying that people casually talk about restricting the freedoms of people, in a so called free society.

People that don’t wish to be vaccinated are a danger only unto themselves.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But they’re not just a danger to themselves as has been clearly been explained by the boffins

This whole free society stuff is nonsense

We don’t just let anyone drive a car or fly a plane

You can be refused service by any business provided their reasons don’t breach protected legal characteristics

You can’t just walk into anywhere you want when you want.

Approx 70% of the population are double jabbed another approx 4m are reduced
Protection or can’t have the vaccine.

That puts those that deliberately choose not to have it very much in the minority

Last time I checked we did something which saw certain freedoms removed from approx 48% of the population.

Let’s have a referendum on it 😉