Coronavirus

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

A baseless statement at the end there, as ever you personalise it because you lack any substantive point.

If things have changed due to the vaccine why should young, taxpaying adults be denied the full protection of it before having to return to work in environments that leave them at risk without mitigations?

It’s completely a callous disregard. That said it isn’t particularly new for your input into the thread to understate the value of human health against the economy that simply isn’t going to recover while people rationally act in a risk averse manner.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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 having weddings, funerals, and all sorts of gatherings, with dozens of people from around the country.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not contradictory for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not contradictory for the sake of it.

Originally Posted by jfman

I’m not contradictory for the sake of it.

It’s the way you tell ‘em!

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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 ----------

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

It’s the way you tell ‘em!

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.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

[Carth]

I had loads of straws to clutch, all to no avail.

I had to get rid of them in the end, I found they were causing sniffles, slight soreness in the throat, runny nose and itching of various body parts. Apparently that *could, possibly, maybe* mean I had some of the (now many) symptoms of Covid-19 (or hay fever).

[jfman]

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

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.

Well OB you’ve been wrong before. To that end I take comfort in your confidence.

“Dropping like flies” isn’t the only negative health effect from Covid. Something you absolutely know but you continue to deliberately portray incorrect information surrounded by hyperbole.

I don’t know how you propose to strike virtual normality while 40% of the workforce will, rationally, continue working from home rather than risk catching an airborne virus running rife through society in an air conditioned office. Their employers won’t want the sick days either.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

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

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

Absolutely not.

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.

Reducing hospitalisations is welcome, but doesn’t mean we can permit unmitigated and uncontrolled spread. Do you plan on getting out of your ivory tower on 20th July and spending more in the environments presently closed? If you won’t, who will?

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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

Reducing hospitalisations is welcome, but doesn’t mean we can permit unmitigated and uncontrolled spread. Do you plan on getting out of your ivory tower on 20th July and spending more in the environments presently closed? If you won’t, who will?

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

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Pierre

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.

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.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

Post it then.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

Pathetic! I’m not debating this with you anymore. You are completely paranoid. 19 July looms. Bolt your doors immediately!

[pip08456]

A study by the University of Oxford, released in Cell, demonstrates that currently available vaccines, including AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine, will provide protection against the Delta (B.1.617.2) and Kappa (B1.617.1) variants; formerly the ‘Indian’ variants. The study investigated the ability of monoclonal antibodies in sera from recovered people, and sera from vaccinated people to neutralise the Delta and Kappa variants...

...These results build on the recent analysis by Public Health England showing early evidence of real-world data that two doses of AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 vaccine are effective against the Delta variant, with similar levels of protection achieved as those seen against the Alpha variant.

https://www.astrazeneca.com/media-ce...v-2-virus.html