Coronavirus

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

England is highly-centralised and a council can't close down schools at its own will.

If you remember back in mid-December:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-englan...yside-55520939

Slightly different this time around, as the unions are actively involved.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

That’s why we are inoculating the vulnerable first. Do that, and the hospitals will no longer be creaking at the seams.

Agreed. But if we implemented the policy you advocate tomorrow, the hospitals would be creaking at the seams.

Only once we have had sufficient people vaccinated can we happily say goodbye to restrictions...which is why everyone is agreed to vaccinate as quickly as possible.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed. But if we implemented the policy you advocate tomorrow, the hospitals would be creaking at the seams.

Only once we have had sufficient people vaccinated can we happily say goodbye to restrictions...which is why everyone is agreed to vaccinate as quickly as possible.

Is it confirmed yet that either of the vaccines prevent transmission? (Last I had seen it was still an unknown)

[Carth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed. But if we implemented the policy you advocate tomorrow, the hospitals would be creaking at the seams.

Only once we have had sufficient people vaccinated can we happily say goodbye to restrictions...which is why everyone is agreed to vaccinate as quickly as possible.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

That logic holds true so long as you are vaccinating considerably more people than those contracting the disease.

Well, that and the fact that to my knowledge it’s still not known if the vaccines prevent transmission in the first place.

As pointed out by mrmistoffelees, up to now the vaccine is only known to reduce the severity of the symptoms, not prevent you from catching it or spreading it.


edit: must type faster

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Is it confirmed yet that either of the vaccines prevent transmission? (Last I had seen it was still an unknown)

My understanding is that it's unknown, hence why I've said a sufficient number. We don't know what that sufficient number is yet.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

My understanding is that it's unknown, hence why I've said a sufficient number. We don't know what that sufficient number is yet.

Boris? Is that you?

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Boris? Is that you?

Originally Posted by pip08456

I know you like Bojo bashing but...

It's a hard life being an impartial observer, people don't know which direction to call me.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Agreed. But if we implemented the policy you advocate tomorrow, the hospitals would be creaking at the seams.

Only once we have had sufficient people vaccinated can we happily say goodbye to restrictions...which is why everyone is agreed to vaccinate as quickly as possible.

Not if you protected the vulnerable, we wouldn’t.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not if you protected the vulnerable, we wouldn’t.

The great Swedish success story as it's known. Dead Swedes and a recession to boot.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not if you protected the vulnerable, we wouldn’t.

How do you protect the vulnerable against a disease that is in most cases asymptomatic and using vaccines that we don’t currently know prevent transmission ?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

He simply has to be trolling. On one hand the vaccine will sort it by Spring but in the meantime let’s take the greatest risks - risks we’ve avoided to date - for a fraction of a percentage point in GDP.

To support my view he’s trolling I think we should note from his return the new signature on every single post - another area where regardless of facts Old Boy has decided to repeat the same flawed mantra ad infinitum/nauseam (delate as applicable).

Er ...

Trolling is defined as creating discord on the Internet by starting quarrels or upsetting people by posting inflammatory or off-topic messages in an online community. Basically, a social media troll is someone who purposely says something controversial in order to get a rise out of other users.

From John 8:7

“He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

The "her" apart (presumably), this is a highly apt homily.

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not if you protected the vulnerable, we wouldn’t.

How do you "protect" 17 million people?

What about their families - how do we prevent them from infecting the vulnerable?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Hugh

How do you "protect" 17 million people?

What about their families - how do we prevent them from infecting the vulnerable?

The obvious answer, to everyone else, is you simply can’t.

What Old Boy is calculating (as he has been consistent with throughout in fairness) is that only a percentage will die and that will be a price worth paying because he falsely believes it will help the economy.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by jfman

The obvious answer, to everyone else, is you simply can’t.

What Old Boy is calculating (as he has been consistent with throughout in fairness) is that only a percentage will die and that will be a price worth paying because he falsely believes it will help the economy.

l wonder if Old Boy can give us a figure on what he thinks is acceptable in terms of Covid deaths and a price worth paying according to him to help the economy.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by denphone

l wonder if Old Boy can give us a figure on what he thinks is acceptable in terms of Covid deaths and a price worth paying according to him to help the economy.

I'd be more curious if he could quantify what economic growth he expects to see as 17 million plus people are either shielded, being risk adverse and continue working from home.

The nature of capitalist enterprise isn't to have thousands of businesses running up huge profits able to tolerate such a drop in demand. These businesses close - employees end up on benefits and Government picks up the tab with long term unemployment. The aim of furlough is to plug the gap for these viable businesses and their employees. Yet I'm the anarchist here for trying to protect small business!