Re: Coronavirus
 

Maybe governments should go with the teacher approach - 'we need to lock down because not enough people have been vaccinated. I know it's not fair that you have but you need to take that one up with the people who refuse the jab'. That would focus the mind!

You can certainly see countries working their way up the Nuffield Intervention Ladder;

https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2021/12/2.jpg

If and when each stage fails to improve things, you go up a step. Smoking and high sugar foods are at the 'Guide Choice Through Disincentives' through taxation in the UK.

Germany seems to be at the 'Restrict choice' stage, Greece at 'Guide Choice Through Disincentives' and Austria is topping out at 'Eliminate Choice'

Re: Coronavirus
 

what evidence is there that unvaccinated people are causing a major issue?

Deaths continue to go down, hospitilisations continue to go down........

As long as the overwhelming majority are vaccinated, which they are, I fail to see the issue

Re: Coronavirus
 

i don't see the government permitting drink driving?

Re: Coronavirus
 

No more lockdowns! We have already established that lockdowns only slow down the virus until they end, then back it comes. Besides which, they ruin economies, and if people want better funding for the health service and the benefits system, and all the other public services, we need the economy to be thriving.

You also need to take account of the fact that getting our freedoms back is a big incentive to getting the vaccine. Take away that incentive, and a great number of people won’t bother anymore.

Our freedoms need preserving and these knee-jerk reactions to control people must stop. People will revolt in the end, big time. Is that what we want?

Re: Coronavirus
 

it's atempting to draw comparison to a particular period of time where there's no comparison to be drawn.


The only thing nearest possible comparison would be with the spanish flu, they had restrictions, guess what, they didnt last !!

'When a flu outbreak at a nearby military barracks first spread into the St. Louis civilian population, Starkloff wasted no time closing the schools, shuttering movie theaters and pool halls, and banning all public gatherings. There was pushback from business owners, but Starkloff and the mayor held their ground. When infections swelled as expected, thousands of sick residents were treated at home by a network of volunteer nurses.'

From https://www.history.com/news/spanish...esponse-cities

---------- Post added at 12:03 ---------- Previous post was at 11:56 ----------

As stated before, lockdowns were implemented to ensure that the NHS wasn't overwhelmed and wouldn't suffer collapse and to give the scientists time to develop vaccines.

Now, and as I've stated before, the only reason we will go back to lockdown is if a variant is discovered and spreads that is a) more transmissible than Delta b) causes more serious illness and death than Delta and c) has a significant immune or vaccine escape mechanism.

In such a scenario lockdown may be needed until such times as the scientists can get updated vaccines developed, tested, approved, manufactured and delivered into the arms of people. because guess what, should the above be true there's a risk of collapsing the NHS again.

If getting our freedoms back is a big enough incentive to getting the vaccine then why are so many people not having it? Countries have tried the carrot, there comes the time when the threat of a stick may need to be made.


Also, as said before, you're not free, you can't just do whatever you want, whenever you want.

The British as a nation are apathetic, they may break the rules but there wont be mass protests.

Re: Coronavirus
 

People who are electrocuted don't tend to need any treatment though...

Re: Coronavirus
 

That’s only because we are living in a relatively free society.

We need to get out of that mentality of controlling people. That’s what communists love to do.

I was interested to see in your post, unless you meant ‘and’ instead of ‘or’, you cite one of the reasons for a lockdown as increased transmissibility.

The reason given by the government and by the scientists for the original lockdown was to protect the NHS. Yet you can see from the government’s own figures that hospitalisations continue to decrease while transmissibility is still at high levels. This virus will not die off until it runs out of people to infect successfully, which is why lockdowns are effective only to control the speed of the spread. We have succeeded in prolonging the period during which the virus continues to be problematical by enforcing restrictions. This is the thing that people are finding difficult to grasp.

What we should be concentrating on is having effective vaccines and/or antivirals administered in a timely and efficient manner and educating the population on the benefits. As far as the extremely vulnerable are concerned, they should continue to be advised to shield as much as possible and educated on the best means of protecting themselves.

That is as far as we need to go now. We have to get over this ‘lock ‘em up’ mentality.

---------- Post added at 13:13 ---------- Previous post was at 13:11 ----------

I suppose that’s because it’s a case of either bed or dead.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Keyboard warriors like yourself will revolt - don’t make me laugh. The only revolting you do is your contempt for the people actually out there affected by the virus.

Hotels reporting cancellations, restaurants the same. There’s no return to 2019 OB and there never will be so long as the ostrich approach of a vocal minority scuppers a comprehensive, evidence based public health response.

For almost two years you have posited absolute nonsense on the forum; and Omicron is the final nail in the coffin in the idea of mass infection being a way out of this.

---------- Post added at 13:16 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

:D:D:D

Amazing hyperbole.

People aren’t fighting for their freedom, they are dying for yours to sit behind your keyboard and pretend Covid doesn’t exist.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well instead of your usual put-downs, perhaps you should concentrate on answering the points that people make. We might get somewhere then.

I can live with you disagreeing with me. But your failure to explain why makes me believe that you have no answers. Why not prove me wrong?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Old Boy there’s no reasoning with someone who thinks Covid 19 is a communist plot to keep people in lockdown.

I told you it wouldn’t go away in the summer. It didn’t.
I told you variants would reduce vaccine efficacy. It did.
I said there was no evidence it would become less virulent. There isn’t.

How do you propose to recover the economy when rational actors in the economy stay home - at least some of the time - so they don’t get sick? What proposals do you have to support those businesses your heart bled so much for when they could rely on furlough and other support measures to get them through Christmas? They can’t live on entrepreneurial spirit, OB.

Re: Coronavirus
 

what's your point?

Re: Coronavirus
 

They are dying because we are in the middle of a pandemic.

The only controls that will really work are vaccinations and anti-virals. It’s the unvaccinated that we need to concentrate on, by way of education, not by force.

As for people not wanting to fight for their freedom, have you looked up from your keyboard to see what’s happening in Europe?

You need to modify your personal theories by noting what is happening in the real world.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I just can't understand why you're not at these press conferences flanking BoJo.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So there is value in delaying infection. As a result rational actors in the economy will self select themselves out of it in the meantime.

Protestors commit crimes, damage property, attack the police. If they went to Oxford or Cambridge that’d just be the May Day riots.

Extrapolating meaning beyond that to suit your own agenda is equally not valuable.

---------- Post added at 13:38 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ----------

Of all the things you can’t understand this one is the most frivolous.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I think you've failed to get the full gist of my point.

lockdowns were implemented to slow the spread of the virus, protect the NHS from being overwhelmed and to allow the boffins time to develop the virus.

so, Omicron may

a) be more transmissible than delta (appears to be)
b) cause a more seriousness illness or increased death rate than delta
c) possess a significant immunity escape (this is confirmed)
d) possess a significant vaccine escape.

The only way we will see lockdown again is if A + B + D occurs because that is what will lead to the NHS becoming overloaded again as we are in essence at stage 1 all over again.

IF (and it's a big if) Omicron is parts A + B + D allowing the virus to run freely through the country would do much much more economic damage than another lockdown. Think about it

Primary & Secondary care collapse due to volume of patients
Emergency services staff levels severely diminished due to staff shortages
Food producers
Manufacturers
etc
etc

Vaccines may have to be tweaked, if so that takes time, approx 100 days to develop, that does not include, testing, manufacturing, shipping and getting them into peoples bodies.


turning to this

'We have succeeded in prolonging the period during which the virus continues to be problematical by enforcing restrictions. This is the thing that people are finding difficult to grasp.'


Covid without restrictions = car accelerates to 90mph and hits wall
Covid with restrictions = car accelerates to 90mph, then brakes, hits wall at 60mph


The wall in this case can equal the population, or the economy. the end result is there's less damage.

Doing it your way as in allowing the virus to rip through the population would achieve two main things

1. A completely destroyed economy
2. A completely destroyed health service.

---------- Post added at 13:40 ---------- Previous post was at 13:38 ----------

Unless im mistaken you were talking about eating, smoking & drinking and that the government didnt get involved there in regards to the risk of peoples health


(Paraphrasing)