When will this shit end?

[duke88]

9 hours ago, Ozanne said:

They certainly shouldn't lose their jobs over it if they are concerned about fertility.

But there is no risk to fertility from the vaccine.

[zahidf]

27 minutes ago, st dan said:

Yeah I agree, and some people don’t even take paracetamol or caffeine when trying to conceive, so for these there is no hope in hell of them taking a vaccine which has been around for a few months with a lack of data to support its long term effects. 

Its just for the gap between when it could (and it may well be it won't) effect fertility. I'd say catching covid in that period would be worse...

[st dan]

12 minutes ago, Paul ™ said:

Not at all.

The PLF where the information is about the passenger is not checked by the airport, but by the carrier before boarding and all they check is that you have the barcode. 

And then it's not checked again till by UK Border Force at passport control where these passengers are identified.

The whole thing is a farce and this was always going to happen, even inbound indirect flights will have passengers from both red list and non red list on the same planes.

‘The Times has learnt that no routine protocols have been put in place to limit interaction before travellers from high-risk countries are identified and forced to self-isolate in hotels.’

This paragraph in particular, are we saying the government should be responsible for things like this?

Say a plane lands into Manchester airport from Portugal, should the passengers not have their own queueing systems and baggage collection (maybe taken straight from the runway) so they do not interact with other passengers/staff in the airport at all?

Understand it will be a logistical nightmare for the airports, and the governments should support them financially to accommodate this, but I’m struggling to see how the government would actually be responsible for enforcing this - isn’t this for the operations manager of the airport to organise?
Apologies as i might be missing the point here and something obvious. 

[zahidf]

 

[st dan]

38 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Its just for the gap between when it could (and it may well be it won't) effect fertility. I'd say catching covid in that period would be worse...

I’m not in this category, but thinking about it I could see a couple of reasons why you wouldn’t take the vaccine, even though Covid could be worse as you mention. 

1. As humans we are susceptible to catching all sorts of viruses which affect our health. Was the same before, and will be the same after Covid. If you catch one naturally, then I guess you just accept that’s part of life and hope your immune system does what it’s there for and beats this ‘naturally’.

2. Coupled with the above point, imagine how somebody would feel if they had the vaccine, and studies in a years time show it massively impacts fertility (although we know it almost certainly won’t). The person would beat themselves up as they chose to have a vaccine, whereas maybe catching Covid would have not been their choice. 

3. It is perfectly plausible (and maybe even highly likely) that a person trying to conceive won’t catch Covid or need the vaccine, so the dilemma then becomes a null and void one. This is the ideal scenario. 

Not saying I necessarily agree with the above, but I could certainly understand the thinking. Some people are (quite rightly) very sensitive around fertility, especially if they have had issues in the past or present, so they should certainly not be made to feel uncomfortable around this issue as they have a right to do what they feel is best for them. 

Edited February 15, 2021 by st dan

[Paul ™]

9 minutes ago, st dan said:

‘The Times has learnt that no routine protocols have been put in place to limit interaction before travellers from high-risk countries are identified and forced to self-isolate in hotels.’

This paragraph in particular, are we saying the government should be responsible for things like this?

Say a plane lands into Manchester airport from Portugal, should the passengers not have their own queueing systems and baggage collection (maybe taken straight from the runway) so they do not interact with other passengers/staff in the airport at all?

Understand it will be a logistical nightmare for the airports, and the governments should support them financially to accommodate this, but I’m struggling to see how the government would actually be responsible for enforcing this - isn’t this for the operations manager of the airport to organise?
Apologies as i might be missing the point here and something obvious. 

The government have introduced this policy, it's down to them to introduce it with the correct protocols in place which the airport then would follow. 

There are no direct flights from Portugual to the UK. Anyone who is returning from there are going via Madrid/Dublin etc so are already mixed with other passengers so the whole thing is pointless.

 

[st dan]

15 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

I think that’s very high, and an impressive figure. And will continue to grow I imagine. Especially considering that a lot of these are younger and less vulnerable people who don’t ‘need’ to take the vaccine to protect their lives. 

Rather than focussing on the 1 in 5 who haven’t had it, let’s celebrate and be encouraged by the 4 in 5 who have, again making it another huge step towards beating this. 

Edited February 15, 2021 by st dan

[st dan]

Just now, Paul ™ said:

The government have introduced this policy, it's down to them to introduce it with the correct protocols in place which the airport then would follow. 

There are no direct flights from Portugual to the UK. Anyone who is returning from there are going via Madrid/Dublin etc so are already mixed with other passengers so the whole thing is pointless.

 

Ahh yes of course! There is the obvious thing I was missing (doh!). 

[mcshed]

50 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

But at the same time there’s no trial data to say there isn’t and the vaccine manufacturers will admit as much.

Therefore I think refusing to have the vaccine due to a lack of data in regards to something like fertility is different for reasons which are more to do with public confidence.

I think the two things are different.

 

46 minutes ago, st dan said:

Yeah I agree, and some people don’t even take paracetamol or caffeine when trying to conceive, so for these there is no hope in hell of them taking a vaccine which has been around for a few months with a lack of data to support its long term effects. 

I think there is a clear difference between  concerns about fertility when of child-bearing age and when actively trying to have kids.

As I said COVID is likely a greater risk to fertility than the vaccines, but I totally see the extra precautions when there is a possibility you are carrying a foetus.

[vintagelaureate]

I have a friend, 36, who has Addison's (an auto immune disease), and he has refused the vaccine due to his concerns about fertility. 

All my other friends of a similar age who have been offered it (either due to work or randomly) have taken it. 

I know one of my friends and a work colleague, who are actively trying for kids, but have no health conditions, are going to refuse it too.

[xxialac]

1 hour ago, st dan said:

Sure it’s easy to blame the government for this type of thing and yes they should have plan plans for the above, but shouldn’t some of it be enforced by the airports themselves and their management e.g. logistics, restrictions, queueing etc inside the terminals themselves? Doesn’t sound like a Covid secure workplace at all - and isn’t this on employers to enforce?

That's a good point.

But a large part of the problem is simply down to people spending 2-4 hours stuck in custom queues.

And that is because there has been a pathetic number of border force e.g. just a couple of people working at any one time at Heathrow.

They are government employees, not airport ones - this is on Priti Patel.

And I don't know who is responsible but the border force should not be checking passports, PLFs AND Covid tests. In other countries the Covid test forms are checked in the baggage hall which reduces the queue at customs.

 

 

[zahidf]

37 minutes ago, st dan said:

I’m not in this category, but thinking about it I could see a couple of reasons why you wouldn’t take the vaccine, even though Covid could be worse as you mention. 

1. As humans we are susceptible to catching all sorts of viruses which affect our health. Was the same before, and will be the same after Covid. If you catch one naturally, then I guess you just accept that’s part of life and hope your immune system does what it’s there for and beats this ‘naturally’.

2. Coupled with the above point, imagine how somebody would feel if they had the vaccine, and studies in a years time show it massively impacts fertility (although we know it almost certainly won’t). The person would beat themselves up as they chose to have a vaccine, whereas maybe catching Covid would have not been their choice. 

3. It is perfectly plausible (and maybe even highly likely) that a person trying to conceive won’t catch Covid or need the vaccine, so the dilemma then becomes a null and void one. This is the ideal scenario. 

Not saying I necessarily agree with the above, but I could certainly understand the thinking. Some people are (quite rightly) very sensitive around fertility, especially if they have had issues in the past or present, so they should certainly not be made to feel uncomfortable around this issue as they have a right to do what they feel is best for them. 

I do agree and i am sympathetic. I don't think the relatively high numbers of refusals are for fertility reasons though. 

[st dan]

1 minute ago, zahidf said:

I do agree and i am sympathetic. I don't think the relatively high numbers of refusals are for fertility reasons though. 

Maybe not just yet, but i think it will become a factor as we move down the categories - particularly in 18 to 40 age range. 

[zahidf]

The World Health Organisation special envoy for the global Covid-19 response, has said he expects “some sort” of vaccine passport will be introduced in future.

Speaking on Sky News on Monday morning, David Nabarro said:

I am absolutely certain in the next few months we will get a lot of movement and what are the conditions around which people are easily able to move from place to place, so some sort of vaccine certificate no doubt will be important.

[zahidf]

Interesting discussion on whether we should now be aiming to wipe the disease out (which means more lockdown and then total freedom) or go for a maintenance strategy (accept it's permanent, and take some precautions):

 

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/14/coronavirus-covid-19-cost-price-life

[xxialac]

10 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Interesting discussion on whether we should now be aiming to wipe the disease out (which means more lockdown and then total freedom) or go for a maintenance strategy (accept it's permanent, and take some precautions):

 

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/14/coronavirus-covid-19-cost-price-life

Good article.

By implementing a half-baked hotel quarantine strategy, the UK has already decided they are not pursuing an elimination strategy. They would have had to hotel-quarantine all arrivals and they chose not to. 

This has crippled the tourism sector only without the upside of stopping imported cases. But it's earned them some more votes and that's all that matters really.

[eFestivals]

4 minutes ago, xxialac said:

This has crippled the tourism sector only without the upside of stopping imported cases.

there's still a tourism sector? 

[MEGABOWL]

23 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Interesting discussion on whether we should now be aiming to wipe the disease out (which means more lockdown and then total freedom) or go for a maintenance strategy (accept it's permanent, and take some precautions):

 

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/14/coronavirus-covid-19-cost-price-life

Interesting read almost totally ruined by the last couple of paragraphs.
 

The reaction to what Sumption said was OTT. It wasn’t a nice thing to hear but it’s something humanity has always done. It also skips over the questions of what would be required of people, what would they have to give up, and for how long, to achieve the proposed goal? I guess that’s for a different article though rather than this philosophical one.

[mattiloy]

Nice to see Starmer getting the Labour friends-of-epstein group involved in policy decisions again....

[jannybruck]

I think it's about time for a separate politics thread now.

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, mattiloy said:

Nice to see Starmer getting the Labour friends-of-epstein group involved in policy decisions again....

you think Starmer should be calling McD for ideas about how to broaden Labour's appeal? 😛 

(oh, forgot, you're one of those who doesn't want Labour to broaden it's appeal).

Mandelson is of course a c**t, but that doesn't mean he's bereft of good ideas that Starmer might use.

[Ozanne]

Maybe we need another thread where people can moan about the content in this thread? I joke of course.

[MEGABOWL]

5 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

you think Starmer should be calling McD for ideas about how to broaden Labour's appeal? 😛 

(oh, forgot, you're one of those who doesn't want Labour to broaden it's appeal).

Mandelson is of course a c**t, but that doesn't mean he's bereft of good ideas that Starmer might use.

Imagine being in politics and going “I’m not going to speak to that person because he’s a c**t.” You’d be very lonely.

[xxialac]

The managing director of Aurora Hotels today said staff would be introducing several new touches to make the long stay more bearable. "We've got some high street branded shampoos, conditioners and body washes so it's a bit more homely".

I wasn't looking forward to spending 11 days locked in a small room by a motorway and during Winter...

But, wait, what's this - shampoo bottles from Superdrug, the clouds have lifted! 

 

[zahidf]

Ive made a new thread for polls and anti/Pro Starmer/Boris political chat so this thread is more based on Covid stuff