Re: Coronavirus
 

The hospitalisation rate is starting to looking concerning. 38% in a week. That's from a low number but we can't afford for it to increase at that rate at all.

If you look at the official dashboard it's starting to show a steep incline: https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/healthcare

Re: Coronavirus
 

In a fully vaccinated population, what and where are the "at risk" situations?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Which fully vaccinated population is this you are hypothesising about?

It’s not here, that’s for sure. I take it you still don’t want mask wearing until then? No? Vaccinating teenagers? No?

Red herring alert.

Re: Coronavirus
 

400 per day on any given week day anything between 50,000 and 60,000 people are admitted to hospital. So at that rate it accounts for 0.7% of admissions.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-45783005

---------- Post added at 18:02 ---------- Previous post was at 17:57 ----------

Not counting children as they rarely get seriously ill and will probably been infected and already have antibodies.

As mentioned a few posts ago. 45M have had one jab 86% of the population 34M have had 2 jabs 64% of the population. + the millions that have been infected and recovered and have antibodies.

The nation will be pretty much done in a month or two. Then the booster program starts.

Re: Coronavirus
 

Double 400 every 9 days and see where you are in 170 days.

Even if just for entertainment value.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=6293

---------- Post added at 18:07 ---------- Previous post was at 18:03 ----------

So not a fully vaccinated population then.

No masks for a couple of months then?

Odd given you portray vaccination as success in such a binary fashion that you think the booster programme has any relevance at all. It’s almost as if you’re making it up as you go along as long as it suits a predetermined position you’ve held for 17 months.

Re: Coronavirus
 

We can never have a fully vaccinated country or world. There will also be those who cannot be vaccinated due to health reasons or those who refuse to be. As regards children there is still a risk/benefit study ongoing, until that is completed it would be wrong to offer vaccines to children.

Re: Coronavirus
 

The MHRA have concluded the Pfizer vaccine is safe and effective for 12-15 year olds. The JCVI are playing politics with the decision.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/t...o-15-year-olds

As I noted earlier Pierre’s use of “fully vaccinated” was a red herring. However the clear benefits at an individual and a population level of vaccine maximisation are clear.

Otherwise we just go round and round.

Re: Coronavirus
 

about 104 million?

full vaccinated adult population - there’s no evidence kids need to be vaccinated, unless they have other complications.

no masks from July 19th, I can’t wait.

is it not a success?

Re: Coronavirus
 

Pretty much what I said a few pages ago, which means it will always be here and, as such, will 'allegedly'* mutate into a much more dangerous variant and probably eventually kill us all ;)


*by experts and a few on here

Re: Coronavirus
 

Your ability for double talk is truly breathtaking.

So you agree the vaccination programme is working and a success, and the vaccines are working as they should.

Therefore I can only think you have other reasons for not wanting to open up fully.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I’m not here to answer for your contradictions Pierre. On one hand people being vaccinated is absolute - they are no longer at risk, on the other you are talking up the booster programme that would be unnecessary if your first statement held true.

Fundamentally you’ve misrepresented the risks from outset because of your ideological position against state intervention. And you will continue to do so for months to come.

A mere day after the UK recorded its highest case numbers you were presenting Covid as state scaremongering.

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/show...postcount=2722

60,000 cases the day before. Within 3 weeks we were averaging 1200 deaths a day (over 7 days).

If you didn’t believe the situation or risks were credible then why should anyone believe you are weighing up the evidence in a genuine or sincere manner now?

---------- Post added at 19:14 ---------- Previous post was at 19:10 ----------

A vaccine can simultaneously be of benefit and not completely eliminate risk. At a population level that aggregate benefit rises the more people are vaccinated. I’m not sure how many times you have to be told this.

I can only think you have other reasons for wanting to open up fully regardless (including removing the use of masks) of evident risks. A position you’ve held consistently.

I’ve been clear the risk of too much, too soon, is always lockdown. And we know how much you love those.

Re: Coronavirus
 

given the vaccines are working, but we don’t have any real world data of how long the protection lasts a booster program contingency seems very sensible, unless like you, you are a lover of lockdowns.

I’ve told you, you can’t misrepresent facts only misinterpret them. The are, have been, and always will be low…..for the vast majority of the population, even more so now with vaccines and other treatment.

and by April (Spring) cases were right down again so, yeah I was pretty much correct.

I’m not asking them to, but l’m being objective, which you certainly aren’t.

---------- Post added at 19:28 ---------- Previous post was at 19:22 ----------

Who said anything about “Completely Eliminating” risk. No one ever on the globe about anything ever, has ever suggested such a thing. That in the realm of insanity.

I’m pretty sure that’s what I have been posting these last few pages? In fact it’s been me telling this to you.

Just a small thing called a free society.

Your love of staying in them is clear, is it a fear of freedom or a love of furlough that drives you?

Re: Coronavirus
 

It’s your misguided belief that “all is well” that leads to lockdowns.

You’ve told me, and been consistently incorrect.

Thanks to the emergency brake of lockdown. Not divine intervention or chance.

I’m not quite sure gleefully cheering as variants put tens of thousands to their deaths is objective Pierre to be honest.

Again you’re presenting the situation is binary when it is not.

Alas we are back to you viewing the situation as ideological, regardless of the evidence in front of you.

Telling you that you are wrong offers no insight into my thoughts on lockdown. Neither does their inevitability. However they are inevitable with poor judgement and implementation of other mitigations.

I’d say it’s objective to consider things other than from my personal preference.

As opposed to being unaffected by restrictions, self-proclaimed privileged and deciding everyone else should take risks because I’m bored and ideologically driven. Death isn’t exciting for the dead.

Re: Coronavirus
 

I see jfman has had his bots busy on twitter.:D:D:D

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...0&d=1625596725

Re: Coronavirus
 

Haha Christmas is a bit far. :D

Distancing I get there’s an economic argument around. Masks less so.