When will this shit end?

[zahidf]

39 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

They might update their models, but not in the way you mean...

 

Makes the case for local restrictions for sure.

[stuartbert two hats]

4 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Makes the case for local restrictions for sure.

*Mumble mumble*, but I live in Greater Manchester and I've been very good.

Maybe just the northern parts? I'm right on the other side!

[zahidf]

1 hour ago, efcfanwirral said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3a8b6ac0-b59e-11eb-a803-dd7acc9bc346?shareToken=b2b98a45c8176932437414268946c1be

This is from that article. Government overruled SAGE

Whats our prediction for when they roll back the indoor pub reopening? I think 2 weeks, and it'll be 5-6 weeks from then that they'll be allowed to open again, whereas they could've delayed it now and avoided those extra weeks 

I agree, the northwest should be kept in stage 2 until more people have taken the vaccine there and cases are down.

 

They will do that first before the economic damage of punishing the whole country.

Edited May 15, 2021 by zahidf

[zahidf]

1 minute ago, stuartbert two hats said:

*Mumble mumble*, but I live in Greater Manchester and I've been very good.

Maybe just the northern parts? I'm right on the other side!

Fwiw I do agree. They surge vaccinated that entire area .

[HalfAnIdiot]

37 minutes ago, BobWillis2 said:

That’s the point 

So why is that 'selfish'? 

I can understand why one might think the quantity of admissions indicating selfish behaviour (although personally I consider the situation to be far more complex and nuanced). But what is selfish about the 'majority of patients admitted with coronovirus were not vaccinated', that to be expected given that vaccines prevent hospitalisation isn't it? 

It looks like lazy journalism to me at best although I have serious concerns about the motives and methods of Politics for All. 

[efcfanwirral]

3 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I agree, the northwest should be kept in stage 2 until more people have taken the vaccine there and cases are down.

 

They will do that first before the economic damage of punishing the whole country.

Yeah I'm with you- has to be the whole North West or its utterly pointless. It'll just needlessly push people to Liverpool for example if they just do greater Manchester 

Obviously can't stop all travel but it'll mitigate it that way

[zahidf]

Boffins trying to ruin more businesses when deaths are in single figures and cases are under 2000 on a weekly basis.

[thewayiam]

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

I agree, the northwest should be kept in stage 2 until more people have taken the vaccine there and cases are down.

 

They will do that first before the economic damage of punishing the whole country.

I can see it being wider for the simple reason there is no stopping people either going out when they shouldn't or going where they shouldn't in the north. Or people from other areas travelling into those areas. But it can be monitored better unfortunately if everywhere 'pays' for it as you can be randomly stopped and asked what you are doing there.

[steviewevie]

2 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

Yeah I'm with you- has to be the whole North West or its utterly pointless. It'll just needlessly push people to Liverpool for example if they just do greater Manchester 

Obviously can't stop all travel but it'll mitigate it that way

can I visit my mum first?

[thewayiam]

2 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Boffins trying to ruin more businesses when deaths are in single figures and cases are under 2000 on a weekly basis.

I don't think so. If the truth of people in the north not getting the vaccine is true and thus leading to more cases, then as much as you are entitled to whether you want it or not, they are one's that will further stretch a business.

The tax payer is going to be for this in the long run and scientists pay tax and a higher rate than many of us because they earn more.

[steviewevie]

Fucking boffins.

[shoptildrop]

22 hours ago, Matt42 said:

Why are we panicking? Increase in cases but no increase in hospitalisations or deaths?

You're right it's not thank god, the issue is like any other virus for every person that catches it is another chance if the virus mutating ..... That's the main issue here

Statistically there will be deaths due to increased prevalence but shouldn't be the same as previously thank god!

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

3 minutes ago, shoptildrop said:

You're right it's not thank god, the issue is like any other virus for every person that catches it is another chance if the virus mutating ..... That's the main issue here

Statistically there will be deaths due to increased prevalence but shouldn't be the same as previously thank god!

There is a chance of a mutation with every replication is there not? Not just when it jumps between host.

[zahidf]

12 minutes ago, thewayiam said:

I can see it being wider for the simple reason there is no stopping people either going out when they shouldn't or going where they shouldn't in the north. Or people from other areas travelling into those areas. But it can be monitored better unfortunately if everywhere 'pays' for it as you can be randomly stopped and asked what you are doing there.

It's not about stopping every case. That ship has sailed. Its about stopping most of it, which local restrictions will do.

[zahidf]

2 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

There is a chance of a mutation with every replication is there not? Not just when it jumps between host.

Well a VERY small chance. We aren't going for zero covid

[steviewevie]

Just now, zahidf said:

It's not about stopping every case. That ship has sailed. Its about stopping most of it, which local restrictions will do.

Don't think it's going to happen...not till too late anyway.

[Rex2]

1 hour ago, stuartbert two hats said:

Of course they're not.

They must be. How is the peak going to be twice the size when we're probably approaching herd immunity. And if its cases only but not hospitalizations who the fuck cares. 

[BobWillis2]

19 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

So why is that 'selfish'? 

I can understand why one might think the quantity of admissions indicating selfish behaviour (although personally I consider the situation to be far more complex and nuanced). But what is selfish about the 'majority of patients admitted with coronovirus were not vaccinated', that to be expected given that vaccines prevent hospitalisation isn't it? 

It looks like lazy journalism to me at best although I have serious concerns about the motives and methods of Politics for All. 

Well it’s a story from the independent for a start. 
 

Of course it’s selfish. The NHS shouldn’t have to deal with an influx of patients that wouldn’t be there if they had taken the vaccine when it was offered to them. 
We know that it unfortunately won’t work for everybody and hospitals will still have to treat covid patients going forward they should not have to deal with people who refuse to take a vaccine that not only protects themselves but protects others. 
How would you feel if you or a family member was in hospital for treatment for an unrelated condition and caught covid from one of these selfish people and died from it? 

[HalfAnIdiot]

16 minutes ago, BobWillis2 said:

Well it’s a story from the independent for a start. 
 

Of course it’s selfish. The NHS shouldn’t have to deal with an influx of patients that wouldn’t be there if they had taken the vaccine when it was offered to them. 
We know that it unfortunately won’t work for everybody and hospitals will still have to treat covid patients going forward they should not have to deal with people who refuse to take a vaccine that not only protects themselves but protects others. 
How would you feel if you or a family member was in hospital for treatment for an unrelated condition and caught covid from one of these selfish people and died from it? 

I see. 

I do agree that it is important to increase vaccine uptake in these areas. Demonising people who haven't taken up the offer of the vaccine isn't going to increase this uptake though, although it may give one some short term satisfaction. 

There does need to be a campaign to increase uptake and this needs to be multi-faceted and carefully presented so as not to backfire. Many that refuse the vaccine are distrustful of government authority for example, in these cases the government will not be successful in directly approaching these people, other organisations may be though. 

It needs significant effort and coordination to fix this problem. Labelling people doesn't help. 

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

 

[steviewevie]

PANIC!

[Matt42]

Trust the vaccines

[BobWillis2]

19 minutes ago, HalfAnIdiot said:

I see. 

I do agree that it is important to increase vaccine uptake in these areas. Demonising people who haven't taken up the offer of the vaccine isn't going to increase this uptake though, although it may give one some short term satisfaction. 

There does need to be a campaign to increase uptake and this needs to be multi-faceted and carefully presented so as not to backfire. Many that refuse the vaccine are distrustful of government authority for example, in these cases the government will not be successful in directly approaching these people, other organisations may be though. 

It needs significant effort and coordination to fix this problem. Labelling people doesn't help. 

While your points are true, they would have held more water 4 or 5 months ago. We are too far along now for it to be excusable for anybody to refuse a vaccine. 
We know how great they are are preventing serious disease and death, we know they also protect those around you and we know they are by and large safe. 
It’s not like these issues are only coming to light now, as I said earlier today there have been very targeted campaigns to try and solve these issue but it hasn’t had a big enough impact. They’ve been given ample opportunities to change their minds. 
I don’t care for the reasons why, when we are this close to a return to some semblance of normality, anybody that refuses to take a vaccine and puts that at risk is a selfish person in my view. 

[HalfAnIdiot]

9 minutes ago, BobWillis2 said:

While your points are true, they would have held more water 4 or 5 months ago. We are too far along now for it to be excusable for anybody to refuse a vaccine. 
We know how great they are are preventing serious disease and death, we know they also protect those around you and we know they are by and large safe. 
It’s not like these issues are only coming to light now, as I said earlier today there have been very targeted campaigns to try and solve these issue but it hasn’t had a big enough impact. They’ve been given ample opportunities to change their minds. 
I don’t care for the reasons why, when we are this close to a return to some semblance of normality, anybody that refuses to take a vaccine and puts that at risk is a selfish person in my view. 

I doubt they are concerned with being called out as selfish here.

Do you see any way of turning this around, or have you given up on these people and are content to live with the consequences?