Re: Coronavirus
 

If I was a fully vaccinated person in country that had a poor vaccination rate and that country went in to lockdown because people decided they didn't want to the vaccine, I would be seething. Being selfish, why should I be locked down because others didn't want to get the vaccine.

The 2G rules Germany are bringing in seem an OK-ish compromise to me. Essential shopping and medical trips are still allowed

Re: Coronavirus
 

You’re protected, I’m protected, the vaccines protect the people getting vaccinated, if people choose not to be vaccinated, putting themselves at risk, that’s their choice and or loss, like the risk in catching other illnesses has been for eons, wtf ever happened to freedom of choice?

Totally against a two-tier society, so should you be.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I get what you're saying and to a degree i agree but freedom of choice doesn't mean freedom from consequence

an unvaccinated person isn't potentially just putting themselves at risk they're also putting

1. another person who's not vaccinated at risk. you could class this class this as karma i guess

2. someone who cannot have the vaccine for whatever medical reason, or who is severely immunocompromised at risk.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You are missing the parts where:

- the infected (unvaccinated) individuals can mix with others, significantly the vulnerable ones, and pass on an infection that could cause serious illness or death.
- the unvaccinated use up the small amount of spare capacity in the healthcare system causing knock on issues relating to NHS staff stress & burnout plus collateral bed-blocking damage

This issue not binary: how you might feel about mixing with someone who has Ebola differs to someone with a head cold. Covid is, of course, somewhere in the spectrum between the two.

Re: Coronavirus
 

People have actively decided to generate a two tier society by refusing vaccination.

I kind of get your point that it isn't my problem if people choose not to get vaccinated. However, that would only really stand if the unvaccinated who got sick were not a drain on the healthcare system.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Nope I’m not because…Guess what?

So can the vaccinated!

Vaccination does not stop transmission.

Once vulnerable are vaccinated, they’re no longer vulnerable.

---------- Post added at 17:17 ---------- Previous post was at 17:10 ----------

So should fat people, people who smoke and generally couch potatoes also have their freedoms curtailed because they’re also a drain on the system?

Coercing is wrong, you liberals should know bloody better. Because taking away freedoms, is illiberal and a shameful and fascist disgrace!

Go move to North Korea, you’d love it there.

Re: Coronavirus
 

None of us are free Mick each and every one of us have our freedoms curtailed every single day. Pretty much our whole life is dictated to us by the system. Anyone who thinks they are truly free they are sadly mistaken

Our parents tell us what to do when we are kids, we have to have some sort of education for at least 12 years and then we are expected to work for 50 years on the off chance we get to do more of what we want when we are to old to enjoy it fully. All this to survive in a capitalistic society where on top of all the rest we are encouraged to acquire material wealth some of which ruins our lives instead of making them better

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not true. The immunocompromised can have less protection from being vaccinated. They are still vulnerable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This !!! As has been stated multiple by the scientists

Re: Coronavirus
 

We were not narrowing the spectrum of vulnerabilities to folk with just Immunodeficiency.

They could catch flu tomorrow off someone and die, do we start the blame game because someone had the flu?

Or tomorrow they could be run over by a bus, do we then stop all buses being used?

Cannot put life on hold or curtail freedoms because people have the right to choose not to have a medical procedure, it's illiberal and immoral.

Love North Korea much?

---------- Post added at 18:21 ---------- Previous post was at 18:16 ----------

It is irrelevant to this discussion on the merit that a vaccinated person, you or I, could catch Covid within days and still pass it on and on to the vulnerable.

Just because you are vaccinated and someone else isn't, why should YOU have your freedoms maintained when you were the one who passed on and carried on the transmission of Covid-19?

Vaccination does not stop transmission and there is no getting around this fact, whatsoever.

Re: Coronavirus
 

No one said it does stop transmission completely however it does reduce it apparently one dose of AstraZeneca reduces between 40-60% (unless the government and scientists are telling porkie pies of course..) combine this with as was said above the reduced level of protection that those who are immunosuppressed or who have vulnerabilities and to me at least you have a compelling reason to get vaccinated.

It’s a balancing act, there’s no right answer in this. So I guess it comes down to are your personal rights greater than those of the whole of society. Personally I don’t think they are but that of course is just imho.

But, if we don’t agree with the way the government are doing it, we get the chance to replace them

Re: Coronavirus
 

Vaccination does not stop transmission, nor does it even stop you catching the virus.

It simply helps your body fight the virus after you get it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But it reduces the chances of transmission and catching the virus.

"“They absolutely do reduce transmission,” says Christopher Byron Brooke at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “Vaccinated people do transmit the virus in some cases, but the data are super crystal-clear that the risk of transmission for a vaccinated individual is much, much lower than for an unvaccinated individual.”"

Taken from NewScientist certainly not Doctor Bob on youtube

https://www.newscientist.com/article...re-vaccinated/

Re: Coronavirus
 

As above according to the government and the scientists it doesn’t stop but can reduce transmission.

The info is gov.co.uk

Choosing if you believe that however is entirely up to the individual

Re: Coronavirus
 

[B]As is getting vaccinated.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I believe the science not Doctor Bob or someone just looking for an excuse not to take precautions and/or the vaccine

Re: Coronavirus
 

Precisely, so a vaccinated person can still spread this on and on and on but the unvaccinated have their freedoms revoked to coerce them, bully them in to submission, we even had a LBC Radio presenter, Nick Ferrari suggest people start getting fined every month until they do, wrong wrong wrong, I am appalled he even came up with it and normally he is quite a well seasoned broadcaster.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course, I’m not debating that. I’m arguing why people should be vaccinated. That’s all

---------- Post added at 18:49 ---------- Previous post was at 18:47 ----------

As do I but there are those who think scientists are trying to take control of us for as yet undisclosed reasons.

---------- Post added at 18:50 ---------- Previous post was at 18:49 ----------


Again, it can reduce the chances of transmission.

I’m not sure why you don’t accept this? Perhaps it’s because it doesn’t fit your narrative ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Of course, but you need to think about why.

It will reduce the chances of transmission because you body reacts to you getting the virus, and kills it off before you have chance to "transmit" it.

It does not change how transmissible a virus actually is, that would require a mutation.

Re: Coronavirus
 

not precise at all. All the evidence points to there being less chance of passing it on if you are vaccinated

---------- Post added at 18:54 ---------- Previous post was at 18:53 ----------

how does this defend not having the vaccine??? if anything it reinforces the reasons to have it

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not by much.

I don't accept it and having a narrative is irrelevant - because I work in the healthcare industry, i've seen and witnessed countless colleagues, 90% of them double jabbed, catch the virus and be off ill with it, as well as having to still self isolating to stop them spreading it because, yes they can still spread this virus, being double jabbed but hey, lets not punish these folk or curtail their freedoms, even though they have helped to spread it before discovering they have tested positive... :rolleyes:

Re: Coronavirus
 

So, if it can kill the virus off before you have a chance to transmit it surely there is a reason to be vaccinated, as without it you potentially transmit it to someone who doesn’t have the same level of protection even when vaccinated.

Like I said it’s a difficult one, makes for an interesting discussion however.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Correlation does not imply causation

All the statistics show far more unvaccinated are hospitalized over vaccinated. Studies also show dramatically that vaccinated spread it less than unvaccinated. Working in healthcare you would have seen that kinda of number, plenty working in other industries would have seen the opposite

Re: Coronavirus
 

Hi Mick. As the government says a single dose is between 40-60% reduction. I don’t doubt that as you’re in healthcare you’ve witnessed more than most of us first hand what’s going on.

Again & just imho those who choose not get vaccinated are to a degree punishing those who don’t have the same level of protection from vaccination. Therefore their freedoms are being curtailed as they be fearful of visiting supermarkets etc.

Like I said, it’s a difficult difficult balancing act, whichever way you go you infringe to a degree peoples lives. So, your rights vs the potential wider safety of society. That’s the decision that people get to make.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Its a perfectly good reason, but protecting yourself is a better reason.
Neither is a reason to force people into doing it if they dont want to.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes precisely, nothing you say will sway what Paul says, the facts are that vaccination doesn't stop transmission.

What evidence> show it or are you just talking conjecture ?

See above - All the evidence I have seen for myself shows that vaccination does not stop transmissibility, very very far from it.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Its Spocks logic verses Kirks logic

Spock, end of Wrath of Khan “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

Kirk in The Voyage home "sometimes the need of one outway the needs of the many" (I think that is close cannot find it)

I would rather go with Spock

Re: Coronavirus
 

Totally understand, my counter point would be is what about the people who cannot have the vaccine? Or to those who aren’t afforded the same level of protection?

Do we not have a duty of care/responsibility to try and protect them from something they either can’t protect themselves from or have limited protection to ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I posted a link to NewScientist a number of posts back. Clearly stating it reduces it. You are right it does not stop it but it is better to reduce it than do nothing. Unless as posted you have Kirks logic

Your evidence is massively flawed.
One would assume most of the people you know at work in health are double jabbed so it stands to reason you will mostly see double jabbed people
In the wild as it were 80% are double jabbed yet the vast majority in hospital as not vaccinated .

Both me and you can not say who passed on Covid, for all you know the unvaccinated passed it to everyone you know who got sick. You can not prove different and neither can I

Re: Coronavirus
 

Only one question mark is required.
I suggest you calm down before you rant your way into trouble.

If people choose not to have it, so be it, I think they are daft, but its their choice.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am perfectly calm Paul. <removed>

Re: Coronavirus
 

We've had all this for two years now and an increasing number are still getting it that sort of points to things not working I've not caught it despite barely applying so called preventative measures most of the people I know haven't had it or know anyone that's had it. There's a difference between the official line from the NHS and what staff say when they feel safe to talk and the two don't match not even close.

I've asked before but didn't get a real answer how far is too far in term's of infringing on individual rights and as somebody who was familiar with eastern European communism and it's modern iterations the term "for the common good" scares the hell out of me more then any virus. What we're doing isn't working and that's why increasing numbers are disregarding it not because they are selfish or more stupid then others they have gotten tired of trying the same thing over and over expecting different results.

I wonder how long it will be till I see people in noddy suits there's plenty scared enough that's for sure.

Re: Coronavirus
 

You don’t have to work for the rest of your life and some in our society never do!

What would you judge to be ‘freedom’?

You’ve been educated. Now you are free to choose.

However, this is a diversion. I am firmly on the side of those who say that if you are fully vaccinated, you should not have your freedoms curtailed for the sake of the unvaccinated.

Vulnerable people are susceptible to any virus, not just Covid. The sensible approach for them is to remain at home in lockdown until this virus goes away - if it ever does.

Re: Coronavirus
 

All 3.7 million of them?

Aren't you then proposing curtailing the freedom of all those people who have no choice because of their conditions, in favour of those who actually have a choice?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes. If you are too ill or vulnerable to meet others, then it is good advice not to meet them, or do so as little as possible. This is what they called ‘shielding’ during the emergency measures.

If your answer to this is to stop all 60 million of the rest of us from living normal lives, then you need to get a sense of balance. Sorry.

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 😉

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's a bloody nightmare trying to find one of these 'booster doses' available for the under-40s. The NHS website has said it's coming soon for a week now, a week after they said they were opening it up to more people.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Same thing happened when they announced for the over 40's

Re: Coronavirus
 

I am not in favour of vaccine mandates. The lack of government enforcement of a lot of these rules is partly what has made Britain quite accepting of the vaccine, of masks and of rules around social distancing.

There is an implicit understanding that the public will behave responsibly and the State will not be coercive. This is a much better method than what is happening in France where the public was resistant to the vaccine until the Government forced it via a vaccine mandate. It's a much more anagtonstic relationship between the people and the state.

But the idea people who are not vaccinated are only a danger to themselves is wrong.

Yes, people who are vaccinated can spread COVID but they are less likely to get COVID and have shorter illnesses if they do. Both of which reduce, not eliminate, the spread of the virus.

Over an entire population, this reduced transmission adds up to fewer cases and therefore fewer hospitalisations. There is a consequence to the larger public in having unvaccinated people around. Not to mention the consequences to the health service in having to deal with hospitalisations that, had the patients been vaccinated, they wouldn't have had to deal with.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Absolutely, we. as humans, enter in to a contract, giving up a degree of freedom in return for a safe society. We obey laws, pay taxes, etc. Libertarian ideals are very nice but they soon get thrown out of the window as soon as support is needed from the state

Re: Coronavirus
 

We have seen this so many times before, find someone to hate and then persecute them, blame them for every thing that's wrong in your sad life, lock them away for no reason other than hatred and then exterminate them for the good of the masses.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Where's that being done then? Please show how you've reached this conclusion.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's working it's way up the ladder and it never ends well.

Re: Coronavirus
 

So as before, where is this happening, and how do you reach that conclusion?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Taken to extremes



Spock reasoning - the state can do what it likes to protect the state even to the extent of "persecuting" individuals the state doesn't like


Kirk reasoning - stuff the state and anyone else, I'm the centre of the universe.


I don't want to be in either situation. We value individuals and so we should so government always has the tightrope between rights of society and rights of individuals. Personally I don't think mask rules are such an infringement on the individual and society wins.

Re: Coronavirus
 

:tu:

Re: Coronavirus
 

Papa actually says, and I quote "We have seen this so many times before" which rather hints at the past, not the present, although there are examples of it happening presently in some countries.

as for "working its way up the ladder" these things tend to start out small, then gather momentum until . . . well I'm sure you had some sort of history education at school ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

That argument doesn't wash or you could apply it to drinkers, smokers and the obese.

These people, in a free society, are allowed to drink, smoke & eat themselves into hospital and are definitely a drain on NHS resources, but they are not forced by the state to stop their own personal health choices.

Re: Coronavirus
 

But we tax tobacco, alcohol and if some get their way "unhealthy food" so in a way we collect from them in advance. The problem is that do we collect enough not only to cover their costs but also the drain away from other service users.


Maybe you could have discounts for people with valid "passports". Some disadvantage to those without phones but not a denial of service. And definite benefit to those both vaccinated and with said "passport". This would be a local issue so wouldn't need government action and being more carrot that stick likely less problematic to enforce. I think better than trying to bribe nationally to get the vaccine.


Discounts/benefits could be small but could add up. Being small those "without" shouldn't feel so hard done by.


It could be combined with "passport required" if needed. But this may need some mechanism to deal with those unable to be vaccinated.

Re: Coronavirus
 

This is why it isn't a central point to my argument. Although we do ban smoking indoors because it has negative health consequences to people other than yourself.

But for all these points the Government does try to reduce the levels of smoking, drinking and bad diet. There are many policies designed to reduce it. I am not arguing for vaccine mandates and I am making the point none of us are the centre of the universe and our actions do have consequences to others.

Re: Coronavirus
 

add to that list people who do 'extreme sports', those who go hiking & fell walking in T shirt & trainers, and the DIY (no need for a tradesman, I can do that) people who fall off ladders, electrocute themselves, drop paving slabs on their feet, or even decide a load bearing wall isn't really needed and can be knocked down ;)

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)

Re: Coronavirus
 

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

I didn’t say that. Another twist. I said Communists like to control people.

‘I told you it wouldn’t go away in the summer. It didn’t.’

The variant we were dealing with then did, actually. It was a new variant that changed the infection rate.

‘I told you variants would reduce vaccine efficacy. It did.’

It was always obvious that mutations could do this, and I warned about that ages ago. However, you only really know what the impact of any new mutation is when it happens. The problem with the latest variant from SA is that the scientists are leaping into control freakery before they actually know we have a problem. You seem blind to the fact that we cannot go on like this, year after year.

‘I said there was no evidence it would become less virulent. There isn’t.’

True. No evidence it will be more so, either. However, thus far, SA infections are not leading to increased hospitalisations over other variants, so we will have to see if that changes.

‘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?’

I should imagine that the vast majority will carry on as they do now, going into work. Of course if the government continue to enforce isolation a la pingdemic, it goes without saying we will have a problem, but that is not what I am advocating.

‘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’

Except that I am not advocating enforced isolation. You are.

A question for you, however. When we have totally ruined the economy and we are all reduced to poverty, how do you propose the NHS will be funded? You’re the economist, apparently. Knock yourself out.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And if education doesn't work? as would appear to be the case?

---------- Post added at 13:42 ---------- Previous post was at 13:41 ----------


You also said scientists wanted to control us, and you still have justified or explained that gibberish either ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Is it you saying there is value in delaying infection? That’s not what I think, unless it is to delay while we get a known solution rolled out. There’s really no point in that now we have the vaccines.

Your comment about protests does not answer my point at all.

I think you are the one who likes to extrapolate to suit your own agenda - there’s plenty of evidence of that in your string of posts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

yes, and what has that got to do with drink driving?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I certainly don’t agree with enforced inoculations!

I think most people understand what I mean when I say the scientists want to control us. They have frightened a portion of the public senseless, offered up wildly inflated future scenarios and come at us continually demanding more action restricting our freedoms. How can you not understand this?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Use the quote function as intended OB. Not doing so is only going to make it more tedious for everyone else to wade through.

I like the fact that, as someone who can’t answer my question on the economy, you’ve thrown one back at me. You can’t get off that easy - many in the hospitality sector have been key to your internal thinking on restrictions - how do you propose to support them when people take personal responsibility and stay home? Do you propose to support them at all? The spiral of economic damage is inevitable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Why is drink driving illegal ?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Are you trying to evade the argument?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Still no answers.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Oh well, let's hope it doesn't come to that, mind, you're free to leave the country if you don't agree :)

Here's the thing with science, it evolves and constantly changes.

How are you being restricted now?

You're not being restricted, you're being inconvenienced. there's a big difference.

The blame for sensationalism rests more so with the media than it does the boffins

Re: Coronavirus
 

OK, is this better?


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

I didn’t say that. Another twist. I said Communists like to control people.

‘I told you it wouldn’t go away in the summer. It didn’t.’

The variant we were dealing with then did, actually. It was a new variant that changed the infection rate.

‘I told you variants would reduce vaccine efficacy. It did.’

It was always obvious that mutations could do this, and I warned about that ages ago. However, you only really know what the impact of any new mutation is when it happens. The problem with the latest variant from SA is that the scientists are leaping into control freakery before they actually know we have a problem. You seem blind to the fact that we cannot go on like this, year after year.

‘I said there was no evidence it would become less virulent. There isn’t.’

True. No evidence it will be more so, either. However, thus far, SA infections are not leading to increased hospitalisations over other variants, so we will have to see if that changes.

‘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?’

I should imagine that the vast majority will carry on as they do now, going into work. Of course if the government continue to enforce isolation a la pingdemic, it goes without saying we will have a problem, but that is not what I am advocating.

‘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’

Except that I am not advocating enforced isolation. You are.

A question for you, however. When we have totally ruined the economy and we are all reduced to poverty, how do you propose the NHS will be funded? You’re the economist, apparently. Knock yourself out.

As for your last comment, people should be going to work, not staying at home unless legally required to do so. And I do not believe there is any necessity to impose such a requirement at present.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's an obvious question,

We didn't ban drink driving for a laugh, we banned it because of the health risk to both oneself and the wider public.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm not playing childish games with you, make your point or go and annoy someone else.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's been made, don't spoil what's been an entertaining couple of days of discussion by resorting to 'bratty Piere' :)

Re: Coronavirus
 

No, but I'll persevere.

I fail to see the distinction.

Hahaha quite the straw you are clutching at there. The original Covid variant will be replaced by a worse one was clearly not the intent of your ludicrous claims.

Yet you've denied or ignore the impact of this despite it being 'obvious' to you in retrospect.

However this wasn't your claim - another classic movement of goalposts from you, OB. I'd have an easier time nailing jelly to a wall.

People aren't cancelling bookings in restaurants and hotels because of a so called pingdemic, Old Boy. They don't want to catch Covid.

So you have no proposals to support the distressed sections of the economy, other than encouraging individuals to act against their own rational interests to avoid illness?

Again this isn't linked to the downturn in hospitality bookings. Answer the question as asked - given the downturn in hospitality do you propose doing anything to support this sector? Surely we must do all we can to offer financial support to these budding entrepreneurs? Who will fund the NHS if they. go under?

Re: Coronavirus
 

I dont really see how its relevant.
However, Drink Driving *is* permitted, up to a certain limit.
For the record, the limit only applies to public roads/places as well.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I obviously made my point badly & yes, you're quite right.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I thought you meant to imply the Government regularly legislates in the collective interest, as individuals cannot necessarily be trusted to make judgement calls on their personal risk or risks to others.

The drink drive limit is an arbitrary threshold that does exactly this due to the risk drivers pose to other road users, pedestrians and adjacent property to the roads. Just like the risk those carrying Covid could pose to others who happen to share the same spaces. This is the crux of self isolation policies implemented around the world for those who have tested positive and, prior to vaccination, their household contacts due to the high prevalence of within household transmission.

For those who oppose state intervention for entirely ideological reasons (and not weighing up public health) pointing this out seems an entirely credible position to take in a debate.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The context of this particular aspect of the discussion was lost several pages ago.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Well I’ve gave everyone a helpful reminder.