Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36085127)

The implication in this statement is for those “not ill” to be at work. In other words asymptomatic cases.

---------- Post added at 19:53 ---------- Previous post was at 19:48 ----------



More absolute nonsense Old Boy.

Your callous disregard for health of employees in retail, hospitality and other customer facing sectors who have no choice but to work in this environment - who can’t just sit in retired with their 18 months of recordings on their Virgin set top box - is despicable.

You’ve been vaccinated twice but let’s get them out to work with no masks or distancing before they are.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36085130)

Of course it’s not a callous disregard - it’s an acknowledgement that things have changed, which you are finding hard to take in.

Despite the increased infection rate, hospitalisations have scarcely increased.

You are scared of your own shadow.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36085127)

The implication in this statement is for those “not ill” to be at work. In other words asymptomatic cases.

---------- Post added at 19:53 ---------- Previous post was at 19:48 ----------



More absolute nonsense Old Boy.

Your callous disregard for health of employees in retail, hospitality and other customer facing sectors who have no choice but to work in this environment - who can’t just sit in retired with their 18 months of recordings on their Virgin set top box - is despicable.

You’ve been vaccinated twice but let’s get them out to work with no masks or distancing before they are.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36085045)

I’m not contradictory for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36085045)

I’m not contradictory for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36085045)

I’m not contradictory for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by nomadking (Post 36085132)

1) a comment by ONE person.
2) Not showing symptoms doesn't preclude them getting tested.
3) Your ire should be reserved for those that were last year demanding weddings should be allowed to go ahead with 300-400 people from around the country attending. Especially when people were caught have weddings with dozens of people from around the country.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36085134)

:D

:D:D:D:D:D

:rofl:

It’s the way you tell ‘em!

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36085135)

I’ve got plenty of ire to go round.

Not showing symptoms doesn’t preclude anyone getting tested but if people are to ignore test and protect in what circumstances would they get tested?

Almost certainly not where testing positive results in losing wages.

---------- Post added at 20:12 ---------- Previous post was at 20:10 ----------



If you’ve got a substantive point happy to discuss it, if not I’d call it a night at your end.

I’ve been consistent throughout the pandemic that there are no short cuts out of it. Others have clutched at straw after straw for 16 months. The latest being to understate the sweet spot where vaccinations reduce the numbers and/or that topping up the reduced efficacy of the vaccines vs delta with a few million infections is a good idea.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36085140)

Well, where is your evidence that young unvaccinated people are dropping like flies from Covid?

There is none, so your point about not caring for them is moot.

You are arguing for the sake of it. Virtual normality will strike on 19 July, and about time too. Just the overseas travel to worry about now, and we will soon have a workable solution.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36085122)

The vaccine working or not isn’t binary - the question is the extent they work and how many people we vaccinate.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36085144)

I think the answers to your non-binary questions are:

1. Over 90% &

2. Millions including all at risk groups.

So again, masks off, distancing binned, full return to normal with no restrictions.


Your 2 requirements have been met, surely you will join me in advocating an end to all restrictions.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36085145)

You know the vaccines aren’t 90% effective at preventing infection and transmission, and this increases the risk of further mutation. If it was true (90%) we wouldn’t be seeing the figures we are seeing now. Nor would we be planning boosters so soon.

Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36085147)

well we’ve been here before. Pretty sure vaccine efficacy is at 90%+ but happy for you to provide evidence to the contrary.

Me? I’ve been out and about throughout. Remember I’m in a privileged position, lockdown never really applied to me.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36085150)

Vaccine efficacy against infection against delta simply isn’t 90%. Repeating erroneous statements doesn’t increase their likelihood of becoming correct over time.

You can find evidence on the PHE website all by yourself. You’re a capable individual.

Originally Posted by jfman (Post 36085150)

Vaccine efficacy against infection against delta simply isn’t 90%. Repeating erroneous statements doesn’t increase their likelihood of becoming correct over time.

You can find evidence on the PHE website all by yourself. You’re a capable individual.