Re: Coronavirus
 

She's not at a high risk. But if the care home worker is unvaccinated the risk is definitely higher than if they are.

Re: Coronavirus
 

For anyone out there that hasn't been taking notice over the last month . . . which means you were in a coma or self imposed media blackout . . the BBC are stating the bleeding obvious again.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57504172

a few quotes . . .

I've no idea why the 13 yr old to 17 yr old data has 'apparently' less cases . . . maybe that's the age our bodies . . . 'change' ;)

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yes, but it is also your choice if you want to be employed by an employer who mandates vaccinations in that case. It's also your choice that you actively decline protecting yourself and others.

Rights are all good but with rights come responsibilities

---------- Post added at 10:56 ---------- Previous post was at 10:52 ----------

I think it's due to who kids of that age mix with and how. From my experience, my kids are very firmly in bubbles at school and tend to mix only within those bubbles. Even out of school, my kids tend to mix only with their school friends on the whole.

Younger kids are rubbish at social distancing and lick and eat anything while people in their early 20s tend to have wider social circles and tend to socialise more indoors (the pub basically)

It's a theory...

Re: Coronavirus
 

I'm afraid I didnt lose anything. You however seem to have lost your marbles. ;)
Regardless of the vaccination state of others, not protecting yourself when there isnt any good reason not to do so is clearly selfish.
No doubt they'll be wanting their fellow health workers to help them when they get ill, taking up resources that would otherwise be allocated elsewhere. :td:

Re: Coronavirus
 

:gpoint: especially on taking up resources that would otherwise be allocated elsewhere.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Not to mention the more opportunities the virus has to find hosts to mutate into new variants or worse the more chance of us being back to square one, perhaps the anti vaxxers just love lockdowns :shrug:

Re: Coronavirus
 

The number of cases is back to where they were in February, but at least the death rates are staying low.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Cases don’t mean anything, except to the scaremongering media.

Re: Coronavirus
 

It's good news for those who love a good lockdown. More cases = more chances of a vaccine resistant mutation.

For those of us who want out of this situation keeping cases low is an essential part of it. Look at the success of Israel - they didn't give up because they got bored.

Re: Coronavirus
 

And to the virus, as the more cases/infections there are, the greater chance it has to create more variants...

Re: Coronavirus
 

Yet one hasn’t appeared. So as seen as as all you’re offering is chances, I’ll take my chances.

The rise in infections but not deaths would imply the vaccines are working, would you agree?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Depends how you define a vaccine resistant mutation. Plenty of concerns remain over Brazil, B.1617.1 and the South African variant. Any of those, or further mutations, could have significant impacts going forward.

Are you sure you mean “I’ll take my chances” and not that you are content for others to do so, as we discussed your privileged situation you are barely impacted by Covid restrictions at all.

As I explained earlier to Papa portraying vaccines in such a binary fashion is unhelpful. A 10% efficacy vaccine could be described as “working” but equally barely touch the sides of the pandemic. Anything else is playing with fire.

Israel have shown what is possible - cases in the tens, Indian variant barely making a dent. While we have a larger population there’s no reason why cases in the small hundreds shouldn’t be both achievable and sustainable.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Again, so what? The only commonality between all the variants has been the rate of transmission, the differences lethality has been negligible and all vaccines appear to be effective.

So as it is all a “risk based” decision, given all the available evidence, the risk of a totally new variant that is even more transmissible and vaccine resistant would appear low. Very low.

Re: Coronavirus
 

With the best will in the world your track record isn’t the best at this.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Could, might, if, maybe - monitor of course, but basing policy on “what if’s” is just going to hurt more people than it helps. Looking at the current situation.

Yawn, we didn’t “discuss” anything, I just stated my personal circumstances. In regards to the statement, you could only offer uncertainty and variables for your case - chances. Therefore, face with those options, I suggested i would take those chances, as I’m sure many others would. Because, unless anyone has forgotten you have a less than 0.01% chance of dying from this, and that was before the vaccine roll out.

So my “privilege” ( you really are pathetic) has sod all to do with anything but me.

And is that the case? A pointless statement as all the vaccines, as I understand, are all well into the 90’s ?

---------- Post added at 21:26 ---------- Previous post was at 21:25 ----------

Show me I’m wrong