The Covid thread

[fazersharp]

[quote author=fazersharp link=topic=26604.msg326053#msg326053 date=1623577197]
So if you are the wrong community you are a anti vax nut but if you belong to other communities then you are "vaccine hesitant".

these are still *people* with lives that need to be considered when decisions are made.

[/quote]Yes you are perfectly right and I agree with you 100%. We should protect those people that will not have the jab by informing them that they should shield and stay at home to protect themselves. 

[fazersharp]

[quote author=YamFazFan link=topic=26604.msg326055#msg326055 date=1623578007]
At the end of the day it comes down to personal responsibility and if certain people still choose not to accept it there's little more the government can do.

Let me draw a parallel example: A lot of people resisted a seat belt law because it should be "personal responsibility" or an infringement on their "freedoms" etc.

In 1982, the year before the seat belt law was introduced, 2,443 people were killed in accidents on Britain’s roads. 30 years later, that figure had dropped to 816. Now that might not all have been due to seatbelts, but they were certainly contributory to it and yet people's "freedoms" are still intact.

Not wearing a seatbelt only affects you, but someone who is (for whatever reason) not vaccinated, can spread the virus to others and may even have a variant that the vaccine may not work on.

Now, yes, their decision not to be vaccinated may *also* be selfish, but demanding that the rules be changed because of what the majority have done (let alone because someone has declared an arbitrary date as "Freedom Day") when there is still a risk of new outbreaks, as is happening at the moment, will just make the situation worse, so decisions that affect the whole population have to consider this fact.

[/quote]I have heard the "seat belt" one on the radio too.  :rolleyes And I have heard it repeated loads of times from people repeating it as though it was their own.  Its apt that you should use the seatbelt metaphor because the same communities that we are referring to who are refusing the jab are also the same ones who repeatedly flout the seatbelt laws.

[darrsi]

[quote author=Grahamm link=topic=26604.msg326057#msg326057 date=1623578539]
[quote author=fazersharp link=topic=26604.msg326053#msg326053 date=1623577197]
So if you are the wrong community you are a anti vax nut but if you belong to other communities then you are "vaccine hesitant".

these are still *people* with lives that need to be considered when decisions are made.

[/quote]Yes you are perfectly right and I agree with you 100%. We should protect those people that will not have the jab by informing them that they should shield and stay at home to protect themselves.
[/quote]


*...and protect everyone else from them too.

[darrsi]

[quote author=YamFazFan link=topic=26604.msg326055#msg326055 date=1623578007]
At the end of the day it comes down to personal responsibility and if certain people still choose not to accept it there's little more the government can do.

Let me draw a parallel example: A lot of people resisted a seat belt law because it should be "personal responsibility" or an infringement on their "freedoms" etc.

In 1982, the year before the seat belt law was introduced, 2,443 people were killed in accidents on Britain’s roads. 30 years later, that figure had dropped to 816. Now that might not all have been due to seatbelts, but they were certainly contributory to it and yet people's "freedoms" are still intact.

Not wearing a seatbelt only affects you, but someone who is (for whatever reason) not vaccinated, can spread the virus to others and may even have a variant that the vaccine may not work on.

Now, yes, their decision not to be vaccinated may *also* be selfish, but demanding that the rules be changed because of what the majority have done (let alone because someone has declared an arbitrary date as "Freedom Day") when there is still a risk of new outbreaks, as is happening at the moment, will just make the situation worse, so decisions that affect the whole population have to consider this fact.
[/quote]


There will ALWAYS be a risk of new outbreaks, this is one virus that is not going away for a very long time. But surely being on a small island like ours, and with the undoubtedly fantastic vaccine programme that we had the privilege to be a part of, does it not make total sense to want to "keep it at bay" as much as possible?
When you have the bulk of people doing their thing to try and get a grip on the virus, why should a minority spoil it for everyone by leaving themselves totally open for infection and further spreading, as is about to happen again by the sounds of things?
The vaccines work, it's a proven fact now. They're not perfect by any means, i recently heard a mate of mines dad has tested Positive and he'd had both of his jabs, so a few will slip through the net, but in the same breath he's not "very ill" at all, it was just a random test with an unexpected result, but then again we always knew they weren't touted as 100% effective.
Our main downfall will generally come from people bringing the virus in from outside of the UK, seeing as some countries are still in a right state and out of control and it's no surprise that people want to run away from these areas, but if you're going to reside here then i think it's only fair that you get vaccinated. 

[fazersharp]

Government shouldn't take those who were eligible for a vaccination, but refused it, into account in any way when it comes to lockdown decisions.

To adopt a "screw you, I'm alright Jack" mentality is selfish and discriminatory and will do little to encourage those people who are vaccine hesitant to change their minds because they'll be more likely to think "Here we go again, being treated as worthless by an establishment that never cared about us in the first place".

I've done everything that's required of me during this pandemic. I've had both the vaccinations, taken part in twice weekly lateral flow testing (still doing so) and followed every rule that's been required.

I totally agree. So you are now calling everyone who did what they were told and stepped up to take the vax - selfish. --- REALLY !

[removed comments that have already been removed from the original post - bkd] 

[b1k3rdude]

And to misquote someone by only posting part of what they posted is unproductive at best and antagonistic at worst. 

[b1k3rdude]

Fine no worries - I see no point in further posting here today if you are just going to remove things YOU do not agree with.

By removing a few lines of text that is EXACTLY what you have done.

I'll explain this to both of you one time, parts of each post were removed and the reason given in each post. Its called moderating and said edits and decisions are not up for discussion. And on that note I have removed 2 of your posts as they are off-topic.   

[Grahamm]

I have heard the "seat belt" one on the radio too.  :rolleyes And I have heard it repeated loads of times from people repeating it as though it was their own.

I don't listen to the radio. Neither have I heard anyone else using that analogy. 

Its apt that you should use the seatbelt metaphor because the same communities that we are referring to who are refusing the jab are also the same ones who repeatedly flout the seatbelt laws.

When I've been out on the roads I have seen people from all "communities" not wearing seatbelts, usng mobile phones and doing other dangerous things.

Please stop implying that only people from a particular area or a specific ethic origin or any other discriminatory references are responsible for this, because that is not the case and I will not engage in any further discussions of such topics.

[Grahamm]

There will ALWAYS be a risk of new outbreaks, this is one virus that is not going away for a very long time. But surely being on a small island like ours, and with the undoubtedly fantastic vaccine programme that we had the privilege to be a part of, does it not make total sense to want to "keep it at bay" as much as possible?

We HAD that opportunity over a year ago!

We have *repeatedly* had opportunities to keep it at bay, unfortunately some people were more concerned about their "freedoms" (or their profits!) and made decisions that have been derided as hindsight, often by the people who couldn't or wouldn't make the hard decisions.

Our main downfall will generally come from people bringing the virus in from outside of the UK, seeing as some countries are still in a right state and out of control

There are countries which are CRYING OUT for the vaccines which have been hogged by the rich countries who were patting themselves on the back for getting their orders in first and buying up huge stocks (more than their people could ever need).

This contributes to them being in a "right state and out of control".

[mtread]

When I've been out on the roads I have seen people from all "communities" not wearing seatbelts, usng mobile phones and doing other dangerous things.

In my experience, drivers of white vans with the name of some builders on the side

[mtread]

Our main downfall will generally come from people bringing the virus in from outside of the UK, seeing as some countries are still in a right state and out of control

As I may have mentioned before...... in January we were that country. The Alpha variant originating in Kent led to our infection rate soaring, causing a second wave, which we 'exported' all round Europe
There is no point us, or any other country pointing the finger. We're all in this together.

[darrsi]

[quote author=darrsi link=topic=26604.msg326064#msg326064 date=1623581605]
There will ALWAYS be a risk of new outbreaks, this is one virus that is not going away for a very long time. But surely being on a small island like ours, and with the undoubtedly fantastic vaccine programme that we had the privilege to be a part of, does it not make total sense to want to "keep it at bay" as much as possible?

We HAD that opportunity over a year ago!

We have *repeatedly* had opportunities to keep it at bay, unfortunately some people were more concerned about their "freedoms" (or their profits!) and made decisions that have been derided as hindsight, often by the people who couldn't or wouldn't make the hard decisions.

Our main downfall will generally come from people bringing the virus in from outside of the UK, seeing as some countries are still in a right state and out of control

There are countries which are CRYING OUT for the vaccines which have been hogged by the rich countries who were patting themselves on the back for getting their orders in first and buying up huge stocks (more than their people could ever need).

This contributes to them being in a "right state and out of control".
[/quote]


You can't knock us for "patting ourselves on the back" just because we got something right for a change? Would you prefer us to have not been ahead of the game and done things differently, and perhaps been at the back of the queue instead, because that would just not make any sense? 


By the way, India, for example, has the 5th largest economy in the world, so what's their excuse? It's not money, it's a blatant disregard of the capabilities of the virus. They can't even use the excuse that it came from nowhere, as they've had over a year to contemplate any kind of plan. But the reality is that they shrugged it off in the hope that god would watch over them, and that ideology is not turning out too well right now.

[BBROWN1664]

The Alpha variant originating in Kent led to our infection rate soaring, causing a second wave, which we 'exported' all round Europe
There is no point us, or any other country pointing the finger. We're all in this together.

We dont know it originated in this country or any other country, its just it was first detected in larger numbers in Kent. For all we know it could have come over on a rubber dingy from Calais or via Bristol/Berlin/Brighton/anywhere. This is one of the reasons that have now renamed it the Alpha variant and the "Indian variant" is now known as the Delta variant. Too much finger pointing and blaming other places.

Personally, I stall blame the Chinese :pokefun

[Grahamm]

You can't knock us for "patting ourselves on the back" just because we got something right for a change? Would you prefer us to have not been ahead of the game and done things differently, and perhaps been at the back of the queue instead, because that would just not make any sense? 

It's not an either/or situation.

[darrsi]

[quote author=darrsi link=topic=26604.msg326095#msg326095 date=1623645810]
You can't knock us for "patting ourselves on the back" just because we got something right for a change? Would you prefer us to have not been ahead of the game and done things differently, and perhaps been at the back of the queue instead, because that would just not make any sense? 

It's not an either/or situation.
[/quote]


Meaning?

[darrsi]

[quote author=mtread link=topic=26604.msg326094#msg326094 date=1623623252]
The Alpha variant originating in Kent led to our infection rate soaring, causing a second wave, which we 'exported' all round Europe
There is no point us, or any other country pointing the finger. We're all in this together.

We dont know it originated in this country or any other country, its just it was first detected in larger numbers in Kent. For all we know it could have come over on a rubber dingy from Calais or via Bristol/Berlin/Brighton/anywhere. This is one of the reasons that have now renamed it the Alpha variant and the "Indian variant" is now known as the Delta variant. Too much finger pointing and blaming other places.

Personally, I stall blame the Chinese :pokefun
[/quote]


Same as the Spanish Flu, it was definitely not started in Spain. They were the ones who had free reign to report on it, due to having no involvement in WW1, whereas most other countries had a total media ban.

[Grahamm]

[quote author=Grahamm link=topic=26604.msg326102#msg326102 date=1623660705]
[quote author=darrsi link=topic=26604.msg326095#msg326095 date=1623645810]
You can't knock us for "patting ourselves on the back" just because we got something right for a change? Would you prefer us to have not been ahead of the game and done things differently, and perhaps been at the back of the queue instead, because that would just not make any sense? 

It's not an either/or situation.
[/quote]


Meaning?
[/quote]

Meaning it doesn't have to be either selfishly buying up and then hogging vaccines when we have ordered more than we'd ever need or being "at the back of the queue".

[Captain Haddock]

I'd have thought being the major funder of the AZ vaccine and part of the requirement being "at cost" and easier to store in hot countries makes the UK pretty charitable in the first place.We should be free to pat ourselves on the back for that.

[Grahamm]

I'd have thought being the major funder of the AZ vaccine and part of the requirement being "at cost" and easier to store in hot countries makes the UK pretty charitable in the first place.We should be free to pat ourselves on the back for that.

You might like to check who tried to claim that it was "because of greed".

Oh, and: "More than £228 million worth of grants were identified – the largest chunk of which came from overseas governments including the EU, followed by the UK and then charitable organisations. [...]

"As coronavirus started to spread in January 2020, the UK government stepped in with more than £33 million of funding for the vaccine – on top of the £5 million it had already given"

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/o...al-264377/

[Grahamm]

An interesting article someone pointed me to...

Long Covid: Vaccine cuts chances of getting condition by a third, according to major new study

“Put simply, vaccinations help reduce the chance of getting Covid, and in the unlikely event you do develop it, a reduced chance of going on to get Long Covid.”