When will this shit end?

[fraybentos1]

A lot of people (myself included) will be infinitely more lax when deaths go low and hospitals aren’t over burdened. Any talk of this summer being worse than last is a disgrace, we will have vaccinated tens of millions of people by then for Christ’s sake

[stuartbert two hats]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

We don't know if its sterilising.... but its most likely cuts transmission according to that leaked Sun report.

The trial data seems pretty conclusive to me. You can still catch the virus after having the AZ vaccine. I'm right aren't I @Toilet Duck. At least that's what they were saying on Talking Virology today.

[PM87]

12 minutes ago, zahidf said:

According to the Times, granny still can't hug the grandkids 'just in case'

This will be a very hard sell to my Nan, who hasn't been hugged by her children or grandchildren in nearly 1 year, spent Christmas alone, hasn't been to the shops since we locked down in March. Vaccination has been the goal in her mind to get to and it breaks my heart to think we need to potentially social distance from her for months more. We'll obviously do whatever necessary to keep her safe but humans are not built for no contact. The potential that this is going to go on for much longer really sucks. 

Edited February 11, 2021 by PM87

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

Why don't we just wait and see what the actual proposals are and what the reasoning and timeline is before freaking out-

I don't want to spend another year not being able to have my family round to stay over any more than you do, but at the same time I don't think it fair to say 'once I'm Vaccinated I'll do whatever I like' (and I say that as someone who's been vaccinated), if that means other people get shafted/get ill/die. I don't think you do either, you just don't think restrictions will be necessary. So let's wait and see what the reasoning is first. 

Lovely post and sensible too. I agree, it's a good idea to wait and see what they say on the 22nd then see how it goes. These reports could very well be rubbish.

[Gilgamesh69]

Can someone change my mind about Starmer? I don't get it. 

 

He just seems like another tory-lite, with no ideology of his own. I doubt he truly believes in half the stuff he says; seems to just be picking whatever he thinks will be popular, and often flip flops.  He's poor opposition and it seems like he's only putting the party's agenda as just sliiightly left of the tories. Starmer and the PLP seem to care more about winning than about actually making any progress. On top of that, he's really uncharismatic. He's like the very worst of New Labour. 

 

Fuck Starmer. (I'll possibly still vote for him lmao, but it'll only be to get the Tories out)

Edited February 11, 2021 by Gilgamesh69

[zahidf]

Just now, PM87 said:

This will be a very hard sell to my Nan, who hasn't been hugged by her children or grandchildren in nearly 1 year, spent Christmas alone, hasn't been to the shops since we locked down in March. Vaccination has been the goal in her mind to get to and it breaks my heart to think we need to potentially social distance from her for months more. We'll obviously do whatever necessary to keep her safe but humans are not built for no contact. The potential this is going to go on for much longer really sucks. 

If she's vaccinated, then just go for it. I dont understand the thinking behind saying its dangerous for her is she's got the full 2 doses.

[stuartbert two hats]

2 minutes ago, BobWillis said:

Does the second dose not increase protection against infection rather than protection against severe disease? 
 

Ive lost track of what’s what any more. 

I think both, probably. But yeah, you're already well protected against severe disease after one dose, so you're getting more protection against infection/viral load when infected/shorter infections than from getting ill.

But it definitely reduces your odds further on getting ill too.

 

[March Hare]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

And what's the death rate for 40s from it? Probably a lot lower after one dose as well.

Anyway, as I've said, people went along with lockdowns to stop mass deaths. If deaths go down, then they aren't going to agree to be locked in their houses not getting close to their loved ones.

 

2 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

A lot of people (myself included) will be infinitely more lax when deaths go low and hospitals aren’t over burdened. Any talk of this summer being worse than last is a disgrace, we will have vaccinated tens of millions of people by then for Christ’s sake

The data has always shown high levels of compliance. So, while it might anecdotally feel like a lot of people are/will be breaking the rules, that may not be the case.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

And what's the death rate for 40s from it? Probably a lot lower after one dose as well.

Anyway, as I've said, people went along with lockdowns to stop mass deaths. If deaths go down, then they aren't going to agree to be locked in their houses not getting close to their loved ones.

we also went into lockdown to stop NHS being overwhelmed. They also don't want new variants, which vaccines are less effective against, getting out of control.

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, Mr.Tease said:

Why don't we just wait and see what the actual proposals are and what the reasoning and timeline is before freaking out-

I don't want to spend another year not being able to have my family round to stay over any more than you do, but at the same time I don't think it fair to say 'once I'm Vaccinated I'll do whatever I like' (and I say that as someone who's been vaccinated), if that means other people get shafted/get ill/die. I don't think you do either, you just don't think restrictions will be necessary. So let's wait and see what the reasoning is first. 

Oh its a fair point to say to wait and see.

By the time I'm vaccinated, most people would have been. But if deaths are stupidly low and hospitals are fine, I dont see why I should suffer when I dont have to.

[xxialac]

Great to see so many well articulated counterpoints here.

It's verging on the conspiracy theory to think that the government and scientists are going to impose restrictions for longer than is necessary. No government wants that - and they are in control. 

As some have said, it's not as simple as opening everything up once the vulnerable and target age groups are vaccinated. Cases cannot be allowed to get out of control. Variants are an unknown factor to contend with.

[fraybentos1]

Just now, March Hare said:

 

The data has always shown high levels of compliance. So, while it might anecdotally feel like a lot of people are/will be breaking the rules, that may not be the case.

A lot of people say they comply for sure but the amount of people that haven’t broken a single rule will be about 0.0001 percent 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

And what's the death rate for 40s from it? Probably a lot lower after one dose as well.

Anyway, as I've said, people went along with lockdowns to stop mass deaths. If deaths go down, then they aren't going to agree to be locked in their houses not getting close to their loved ones.

 

We were promised an end point to this, nd now the geeks are trying to keep us locked in longer 'just in case'

Didn't you also say that by Easter they'd be getting rid of social distancing, scrapping the 2 meter rule and the world would be opening up?

[steviewevie]

3 minutes ago, Gilgamesh69 said:

Can someone change my mind about Starmer? I don't get it. 

 

He's got a strong chin and a sharp suit.

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Didn't you also say that by Easter they'd be getting rid of social distancing, scrapping the 2 meter rule and the world would be opening up?

Yup and I think we should do that. Thay was based on the all the vulnerable people being jabbed.

 

Unfortunately it sounds like the nerds are winning the argument to keep up locked up.

Edited February 11, 2021 by zahidf

[zahidf]

 

legends!

 

[steviewevie]

 

Just now, zahidf said:

Yup and I think we should do that. Unfortunately it sounds like the nerds are winning the argument to keep up locked up.

.Yay, the nerds are winning!

[Mr.Tease]

26 minutes ago, mazola said:

And some people have been trumpeting about how they care about other people more than themselves. 

But at the end of the day, it's all just typing on a forum which ever way you choose to play it.

It's not about appearing virtuous- we're in a pandemic,  if we all just say "I'll do whatever is best for me" , we're all screwed (in this situation helping others is actually helping yourself).

Nearly every step of the way the government has been too slow and too lax, and part of that is because every step of the way you have people being outraged at every restriction saying they're not necessary and nearly every time that's lead to disaster, but there's next to no learning from the experience so we just repeat the same mistakes over and over again (and have wracked up 115,000 deaths) 

[fraybentos1]

3 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Didn't you also say that by Easter they'd be getting rid of social distancing, scrapping the 2 meter rule and the world would be opening up?

Didn’t you say glasto 2021 would defo be on? We have all made mistakes and wrong calls here and easter was defo highlighted numerous times by the gov tbf and Is the start of better weather 

[stuartbert two hats]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

And what's the death rate for 40s from it? Probably a lot lower after one dose as well.

Anyway, as I've said, people went along with lockdowns to stop mass deaths. If deaths go down, then they aren't going to agree to be locked in their houses not getting close to their loved ones.

 

We were promised an end point to this, nd now the geeks are trying to keep us locked in longer 'just in case'

I don't know, but it does seem to take more than a couple of weeks to kick in, at least with the AZ vaccine.

Whether this makes sense depends on lots of variables we don't know yet, like how much the infection rate drops in a vaccinated population, how much summer will help, what the actual efficacy of the vaccines is outside the clinical trial and not least, how fast we can vaccinate people. If all of those numbers go our way, then restrictions can end sooner, if all of them go the other way, they'll have to last longer, especially if vaccinated people ignore the guidance and act as a transmission vector, driving up the case numbers.

You might feel like everyone you know has COVID already, but there's still loads of population to infect and it wouldn't be trivial if the R was at 2 or 3.

[steviewevie]

[Guest]

Just now, zahidf said:

Yup and I think we should do that. Unfortunately it sounds like the nerds are winning the argument to keep up locked up.

Looks like you were wrong then. Plenty of people here told you at the time there would be restrictions in place through Easter but you chose to ignore everyone and wildly claiming by Easter social distancing would be scrapped. People suggested you should curb your expectations, maybe you should listen to them. 

[Gilgamesh69]

4 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

He's got a strong chin and a sharp suit.

Shame he doesn't have a strong backbone

[steviewevie]

1 minute ago, Mr.Tease said:

It's not about appearing virtuous- we're in a pandemic,  if we all just say "I'll do whatever is best for me" , we're all screwed (in this situation helping others is actually helping yourself).

Nearly every step of the way the government has been too slow and too lax, and part of that is because every step of the way you have people being outraged at every restriction saying they're not necessary and nearly every time that's lead to disaster, but there's next to no learning from the experience so we just repeat the same mistakes over and over again (and have wracked up 115,000 deaths) 

Like

[zahidf]

Just now, steviewevie said: