Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Tbf it's not having a go at someone being personally nervous or anxious about reopening, that's reasonable.  It's more about govt policy kowtowing to that element so reopening is delayed.

 

Dunno why they are bothering, he's clearly gonna bottle it.

 

Presumably he'll say on Monday that because hospitalisations and cases are going up, we can't unlock yet. 

Yet expects people to believe that 2 weeks after, when they're worse, it'll be fine 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

Tbf it's not having a go at someone being personally nervous or anxious about reopening, that's reasonable.  It's more about govt policy kowtowing to that element so reopening is delayed.

Was kind of inevitable if you constantly push "people's mental health" as a reason to open up, people are also going to point out the opposite. We can't only accept the mental health argument when it supports what we want to happen, and dismiss it when it's used for the opposite reason.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Was kind of inevitable if you constantly push "people's mental health" as a reason to open up, people are also going to point out the opposite. We can't only accept the mental health argument when it supports what we want to happen, and dismiss it when it's used for the opposite reason.

If everything opened up tomorrow, people can still choose NOT to participate in XYZ. No one is forced to go to the cinema/ theatre a pub or a bar.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Was kind of inevitable if you constantly push "people's mental health" as a reason to open up, people are also going to point out the opposite. We can't only accept the mental health argument when it supports what we want to happen, and dismiss it when it's used for the opposite reason.

No one is saying that indulging in people's fears and anxieties is a GOOD thing from a mental perspective surely? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, zahidf said:

No one is saying that indulging in people's fears and anxieties is a GOOD thing from a mental perspective surely? 

No but someone is saying they should be told to "get a fucking grip" which isn't GOOD either surely?

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, zahidf said:

No one is saying that indulging in people's fears and anxieties is a GOOD thing from a mental perspective surely? 

Not sure what you mean here, I've not seen any suggestion of indulging anyone. Some people have perfectly genuine feelings of anxiety and worry about returning to more normal life, crowds etc. following lockdown, It doesn't do anyone any good to dismiss or belittle these feelings.

Just like in the middle of lockdown, it would have been pretty cruel and unnecessary to dismiss the very real mental health challenges that isolation created for many people.

I'd agree the government shouldn't let the entire reopening plan be overly influenced by people who are anxious about it, but that doesn't mean we can't be considerate of them.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Bloody hell guardian.

To be honest, it's entirely correct (and the fellow in the twitter thread doesn't know how vaccines work. He thinks he does, but he doesn't...the immunologist knows more about it than a History PhD student...who knew eh?). They aren't a forcefield and they don't stop you from getting infected. They do however teach our immune systems to clobber the virus when it does infect us so that we don't develop disease from the infection (most of the time, they can't do this in everyone all the time). Some vaccines produce sterilising immunity that mostly stop you from getting infected in the first place, but these are few and far between (and vary from person to person anyway and even within the same person at different times). However, a rapid immune response to infection (primed by vaccination or prior infection) should reduce viral load and should make you less of a vector for onward transmission. I think you may be shocked by how many people can test positive in fully vaccinated populations. I know of a number of outbreaks in fully vaccinated cohorts where the secondary attack rates were >25%. The key thing though is that in all those outbreaks, symptoms were either non-existent or very mild. I just have this niggling feeling that because we really haven't seen how the vaccines perform in terms of preventing transmission in a completely unmitigated world, we are over-estimating how effective they are at this. Not in terms of how well they prevent disease, but in terms of preventing infection/onward transmission full stop. However, I do still think they are more than sufficient to move on. They won't prevent every case of severe disease, nor hospitalisation, nor death, but they will (and are) bringing them back towards a place we have to accept (the issue at the moment is that the "at risk" population is still reasonably large (albeit difficult to accurately quantify), so once that is not the case, then we trust the vaccines! (so I don't agree with the other part of the statement above that NPI will be required ad infinitum to keep a lid on things)). 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, fraybentos1 said:

If everything opened up tomorrow, people can still choose NOT to participate in XYZ. No one is forced to go to the cinema/ theatre a pub or a bar.

Except for the people that work there - I think the point is though that even outside those industries, a lot of offices are tying their re-opening to whenever restrictions are lifted, so in a very real sense people are going to be forced back out into the world (if they want to keep their jobs) and for some that really is scary.

My natural reaction is to treat that with empathy, in much the same way I did people who were struggling during lockdown with not being able to see friends or go to the pub. I have my own mental health issues, but neither of the above two circumstances apply to me, but in both my natural reaction is to emphasise with people.

I always find it really telling when people go on and on about their own mental health issues and then entirely dismiss other peoples' - it just feels really icky. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

To be honest, it's entirely correct (and the fellow in the twitter thread doesn't know how vaccines work. He thinks he does, but he doesn't...the immunologist knows more about it than a History PhD student...who knew eh?). They aren't a forcefield and they don't stop you from getting infected. They do however teach our immune systems to clobber the virus when it does infect us so that we don't develop disease from the infection (most of the time, they can't do this in everyone all the time). Some vaccines produce sterilising immunity that mostly stop you from getting infected in the first place, but these are few and far between (and vary from person to person anyway and even within the same person at different times). However, a rapid immune response to infection (primed by vaccination or prior infection) should reduce viral load and should make you less of a vector for onward transmission. I think you may be shocked by how many people can test positive in fully vaccinated populations. I know of a number of outbreaks in fully vaccinated cohorts where the secondary attack rates were >25%. The key thing though is that in all those outbreaks, symptoms were either non-existent or very mild. I just have this niggling feeling that because we really haven't seen how the vaccines perform in terms of preventing transmission in a completely unmitigated world, we are over-estimating how effective they are at this. Not in terms of how well they prevent disease, but in terms of preventing infection/onward transmission full stop. However, I do still think they are more than sufficient to move on. They won't prevent every case of severe disease, nor hospitalisation, nor death, but they will (and are) bringing them back towards a place we have to accept (the issue at the moment is that the "at risk" population is still reasonably large (albeit difficult to accurately quantify), so once that is not the case, then we trust the vaccines! (so I don't agree with the other part of the statement above that NPI will be required ad infinitum to keep a lid on things)). 

I thought this was the case but if I say it to people (in a lot simpler terms obviously!!) they tell me I'm wrong. It seems they have been sold as sterilising 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

I always find it really telling when people go on and on about their own mental health issues and then entirely dismiss other peoples' - it just feels really icky. 

I've been thinking the same thing recently.

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

To be honest, it's entirely correct (and the fellow in the twitter thread doesn't know how vaccines work. He thinks he does, but he doesn't...the immunologist knows more about it than a History PhD student...who knew eh?). They aren't a forcefield and they don't stop you from getting infected. They do however teach our immune systems to clobber the virus when it does infect us so that we don't develop disease from the infection (most of the time, they can't do this in everyone all the time). Some vaccines produce sterilising immunity that mostly stop you from getting infected in the first place, but these are few and far between (and vary from person to person anyway and even within the same person at different times). However, a rapid immune response to infection (primed by vaccination or prior infection) should reduce viral load and should make you less of a vector for onward transmission. I think you may be shocked by how many people can test positive in fully vaccinated populations. I know of a number of outbreaks in fully vaccinated cohorts where the secondary attack rates were >25%. The key thing though is that in all those outbreaks, symptoms were either non-existent or very mild. I just have this niggling feeling that because we really haven't seen how the vaccines perform in terms of preventing transmission in a completely unmitigated world, we are over-estimating how effective they are at this. Not in terms of how well they prevent disease, but in terms of preventing infection/onward transmission full stop. However, I do still think they are more than sufficient to move on. They won't prevent every case of severe disease, nor hospitalisation, nor death, but they will (and are) bringing them back towards a place we have to accept (the issue at the moment is that the "at risk" population is still reasonably large (albeit difficult to accurately quantify), so once that is not the case, then we trust the vaccines! (so I don't agree with the other part of the statement above that NPI will be required ad infinitum to keep a lid on things)). 

Oh its the second half I have more of an issue with. I understand lts not 100%, but the framing and insistence that we need NPI indefinitely is more of an issue

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

No but someone is saying they should be told to "get a fucking grip" which isn't GOOD either surely?

I was out of line with that comment and I’m sorry for saying it.


I should clarify, I do sympathise with people experiencing anxiety and would like to see them supported, but I can’t agree with people suggesting NPIs are maintained in order to protect their own mental health. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

I was out of line with that comment and I’m sorry for saying it.


I should clarify, I do sympathise with people experiencing anxiety and would like to see them supported, but I can’t agree with people suggesting NPIs are maintained in order to protect their own mental health. 

What’s NPI’s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Oh its the second half I have more of an issue with. I understand lts not 100%, but the framing and insistence that we need NPI indefinitely is more of an issue

I think the glimmer of elimination (which has even led some to suggest eradication) has fuelled some unrealistic expectations really. To eliminate would mean restrictions anytime there’s a small outbreak and watertight borders for the foreseeable future, and I don’t think there’s any appetite for that. Our CMO said unvaccinated individuals shouldn’t travel this summer. Varadkar said if he was CMO, that would be his advice too. But he’s not CMO, he’s in government and has other things to balance. Therefore his advice is that travel can occur in line with the EU digital health certificate (vaccinated, negative test, recovered from prior infection). And that’s pretty much where we land for the next while I think. There will probably (at least temporarily) be some kind of health certification in return for more openness (certainly for travel), which hopefully can be phased out as more of the world catches up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, incident said:

Non pharmaceutical interventions.

In practical terms, that's going to mean restrictions.

Thanks! Just got it as you posted!! Was having a slow moment 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

I think the glimmer of elimination (which has even led some to suggest eradication) has fuelled some unrealistic expectations really. To eliminate would mean restrictions anytime there’s a small outbreak and watertight borders for the foreseeable future, and I don’t think there’s any appetite for that. Our CMO said unvaccinated individuals shouldn’t travel this summer. Varadkar said if he was CMO, that would be his advice too. But he’s not CMO, he’s in government and has other things to balance. Therefore his advice is that travel can occur in line with the EU digital health certificate (vaccinated, negative test, recovered from prior infection). And that’s pretty much where we land for the next while I think. There will probably (at least temporarily) be some kind of health certification in return for more openness (certainly for travel), which hopefully can be phased out as more of the world catches up.

Was listening to an interesting podcast with Fauci were he said he wished he advocated a full lockdown at 17 cases in the US. But he knew societal wise, that wasn't going to be feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Oh its the second half I have more of an issue with. I understand lts not 100%, but the framing and insistence that we need NPI indefinitely is more of an issue

Yet she doesn't say 'indefinitely'. You've invented that.

Rufus Spivey Green, apprentice digital marketer and part time barman at the Lemon Tree in Framlingham, and part time community radio presenter in Ipswich - I'll take the experience and observations of a senior lecturer and researcher in viral immunology at the University of Birmingham most of the time. It's a tough one.

You have to ask why the full article was not linked to, and only a truncated screenshot out of context shown. 

Here is the full article which puts it in far more context and adds nuance.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/22/viruses-wearing-mask-england-vaccines

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

I was out of line with that comment and I’m sorry for saying it.


I should clarify, I do sympathise with people experiencing anxiety and would like to see them supported, but I can’t agree with people suggesting NPIs are maintained in order to protect their own mental health. 

Fair play for owning it & apologising. Dare I say it, this thread seems to have got a bit more pleasant over the past day or two. 🙂

Now I've thought that it'll go totally down the drain again!

I'd agree that restrictive measures can't be continued indefinitely to protect a small minority. The government need to be aiming for the best overall outcomes, considering everyone's wellbeing both mental and physical, together with the effects on businesses, the economy etc.

Inevitably some people will be worse off in some ways as a result - there's no way around that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, jimmillen said:

Fair play for owning it & apologising. Dare I say it, this thread seems to have got a bit more pleasant over the past day or two. 🙂

Now I've thought that it'll go totally down the drain again!

I'd agree that restrictive measures can't be continued indefinitely to protect a small minority. The government need to be aiming for the best overall outcomes, considering everyone's wellbeing both mental and physical, together with the effects on businesses, the economy etc.

Inevitably some people will be worse off in some ways as a result - there's no way around that.

Bollocks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...