When will this shit end?

[gizmoman]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

I understand the public health reasons for the lockdowns. But I'm not willing to do so if people refusing vaccines are prolonging it.

That's up to you, but that doesn't mean you have the right to dictate to others what they should do, bear in mind health workers have worked in a situation for a full year where they are far more at risk than the public, they could have left and got a safer job but they stuck at the job they signed on for, if they are willing to keep working at that same level of risk by not taking a vaccine why shouldn't they? They fact they have more experience in the health system and are still refusing the vaccine might also suggest they have a different view of the risk/reward relating to these vaccines.

[xxialac]

What feels reasonable is that for the duration of the pandemic certain optional activities are only available to vaccinated people e.g. attending crowded events, international travel. As well as protecting public health, this will have the effect of increasing vaccination rates ('carrot')

What feels completely unreasonable is to take away what people already have - jobs etc - for not willing to be vaccinated ('stick').

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

1 hour ago, zahidf said:

I understand the public health reasons for the lockdowns. But I'm not willing to do so if people refusing vaccines are prolonging it.

There comes a point when your only a risk to yourself, and others who have chosen not to take the vaccine. 

[Guest]

Isn't it nice to see the pandemic hasn't changed our society to make us more caring? Instead some want people to los their jobs because they are desperate for normality to return.

[Simsy]

1 minute ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

There comes a point when your only a risk to yourself, and others who have chosen not to take the vaccine. 

And those who can't take the vaccine.

I'm not saying anyone should be sacked for refusing the vaccine, but if I couldn't have it because I had some kind of compromised immune system I would not be impressed if I was treated by a nurse who had chosen not to be jabbed because they thought it could affect their fertility (which there is no evidence of).

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

7 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Isn't it nice to see the pandemic hasn't changed our society to make us more caring? Instead some want people to los their jobs because they are desperate for normality to return.

Others want normality to return so people don't lose their jobs.

4 minutes ago, Simsy said:

And those who can't take the vaccine.

I'm not saying anyone should be sacked for refusing the vaccine, but if I couldn't have it because I had some kind of compromised immune system I would not be impressed if I was treated by a nurse who had chosen not to be jabbed because they thought it could affect their fertility (which there is no evidence of).

You might still be treated by a nurse that's got Covid even when they have been vaccinated, or is carrying something else that could prove deadly to you e.g. the flu.

I just think it's a dangerous route to go down removing people's choices. 

 

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by RobertProsineckisLighter

[JoeyT]

I’m not sure if it’s before every shift but NHS staff are tested very regularly aren’t they?

In which case the risk is relatively small of passing on the infection?

Perhaps I’m wrong.

Also, as said above even with a vaccine transmission could still be possible?

Don’t know exact data on that though.

[Toilet Duck]

1 hour ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

@Toilet Duck shared something the other day that showed the impact of schools being open on his island as they had a lockdown where schools were the first to opened up or something and I think it showed that other sectors had a far greater impact that schools I know it's a different country but it more similar than others. Perhaps he can fish it out again as I can't find it, it was interesting though.

Here you go...% positive cases for contacts in various settings over 4 weeks (November-December)...the Kent variant might skew things a bit, but our experience is pretty much the same as elsewhere (household and social contacts unfortunately were the big drivers outside of healthcare...hospitality was only open for about 10 days of the 28 and only 4 of the days they actually counted contacts from...the third level numbers are from very few tests so I wouldn’t read a lot into them)...

[zahidf]

19 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

I agree with lots of the stuff you say on here but I do have a different opinion on this.

Is the % of people who refuse to have the vaccine for whatever reason that may be enough to delay any reduction of measures?

I’m pretty sure the answer is no in which case your pissing against the wind with this?

Oh that guardian article I posted says that the refusal to get a vaccine is delaying the reduction in measures.

[zahidf]

19 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

That's up to you, but that doesn't mean you have the right to dictate to others what they should do, bear in mind health workers have worked in a situation for a full year where they are far more at risk than the public, they could have left and got a safer job but they stuck at the job they signed on for, if they are willing to keep working at that same level of risk by not taking a vaccine why shouldn't they? They fact they have more experience in the health system and are still refusing the vaccine might also suggest they have a different view of the risk/reward relating to these vaccines.

We've established that it doesn't matter about individual risk assessments on this thing. It's the public risk . Doesn't matter is you as an individual is willing to take the risk of catching covid....

[zahidf]

18 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

There comes a point when your only a risk to yourself, and others who have chosen not to take the vaccine. 

But we aren't at that stage, and the people saying no to the vaccine now are delaying us getting to that stage

 

[incident]

16 minutes ago, RobertProsineckisLighter said:

There comes a point when your only a risk to yourself, and others who have chosen not to take the vaccine. 

Not true.

You're also a risk to the immunosuppressed, who are likely to have had a vaccine but it's equally likely to have had little effect (they weren't included in the trials for that reason) - which not so coincidentally is the same people that staff in Healthcare and Care Homes are likely to come into daily contact with.

While I don't like the idea of mandatory anything, I hypocritically know for certain that if I had a relative in a Care Home, I'd be insisting on guarantees that all staff in contact with them had been vaccinated.

[zahidf]

26 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Isn't it nice to see the pandemic hasn't changed our society to make us more caring? Instead some want people to los their jobs because they are desperate for normality to return.

I dont care about anti vaxxers. And whilst I'm sympathetic towards those who are trying for kids, I don't see why their choice to do so should.mean people should suffer from a longer lockdown.

 

Also... who many jobs from a longer lockdown do you think would be lost?

 

Edited February 14, 2021 by zahidf

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

15 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

Here you go...% positive cases for contacts in various settings over 4 weeks (November-December)...the Kent variant might skew things a bit, but our experience is pretty much the same as elsewhere (household and social contacts unfortunately were the big drivers outside of healthcare...hospitality was only open for about 10 days of the 28 and only 4 of the days they actually counted contacts from...the third level numbers are from very few tests so I wouldn’t read a lot into them)...

That's the one thanks a lot. 

[Ayrshire Chris]

2 hours ago, xxialac said:

I think it was a joke...

Correct! 

[BobWillis]

3 hours ago, eFestivals said:

The perfectly titled British Summer Time...? 

The timing could work! 

[august1]

4 hours ago, Avalon_Fields said:

I'm fascinated with the stats being issued. This is taken from the BBC headline right now:

From Monday, the vaccine rollout is being expanded to include over-65s and those deemed clinically vulnerable.

So, I can only speak for Greater Manchester (Multiple sites): We have been vaccinating this group for the last 2 weeks. I've personally seen a few thousand vaccinated. In fact, on Friday we were struggling to get enough coming through so it was extended to transportation workers of all age groups.

My questions is, are the figures being deliberately under-reported??

 

I think they want to pretend the 15 million vaccinated were all the most vulnerable and now they'll move onto over 65s.

[duke88]

6 minutes ago, august1 said:

I think they want to pretend the 15 million vaccinated were all the most vulnerable and now they'll move onto over 65s.

How are they pretending? Can’t really blame the government if people refuse to take it.

Edited February 14, 2021 by duke88

[august1]

15 minutes ago, duke88 said:

How are they pretending? Can’t really blame the government if people refuse to take it.

No blame at all, just optics.  Tomorrow they can celebrate hitting their target and now time to move on to over 65's. Reality is a couple of million over 65-70s have been done already.

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

1 hour ago, incident said:

Not true.

You're also a risk to the immunosuppressed, who are likely to have had a vaccine but it's equally likely to have had little effect (they weren't included in the trials for that reason) - which not so coincidentally is the same people that staff in Healthcare and Care Homes are likely to come into daily contact with.

While I don't like the idea of mandatory anything, I hypocritically know for certain that if I had a relative in a Care Home, I'd be insisting on guarantees that all staff in contact with them had been vaccinated.

With or without the vaccine sadly your a risk to people, and the same with other illnesses you might be carrying in. 

What would you do if / when the care home couldn't gurentee that? Would you make the same demands with regards to the flu vaccine for example?

[MEGABOWL]

5 hours ago, hodgey123 said:

True but then there is literally no point to any loosening if you can’t mix with people? Cool let’s open up schools, non-essential retail workplaces etc. but you can’t meet anyone so you’re still just existing. 
 

Sorry these posts are probably quite illogical and irrational but I’ve had enough. 

I’m with you on the ‘had enough’ bit. I just think maybe they’ll open Hospitality but you can only visit with your own household then maybe the rule of 6 or something like that while not ‘allowing’ mixing in a private house. Like they did previously.

They know they need to get schools open and they know Household Mixing go’s the first area where Compliance will crumble so they’ll compensate in other ways. Just a thought anyway, not sure I’m doing a great job of explaining myself. 

[mazola]

1 hour ago, Ozanne said:

Isn't it nice to see the pandemic hasn't changed our society to make us more caring? Instead some want people to los their jobs because they are desperate for normality to return.

Jesus, stop it will you with your smarmy self righteousness. It's a bit more nuanced than someone wanting to get down the pub.

You surely understand that frontline health workers are a vector for the virus transmission?

[zahidf]

5 minutes ago, MEGABOWL said:

I’m with you on the ‘had enough’ bit. I just think maybe they’ll open Hospitality but you can only visit with your own household then maybe the rule of 6 or something like that while not ‘allowing’ mixing in a private house. Like they did previously.

They know they need to get schools open and they know Household Mixing go’s the first area where Compliance will crumble so they’ll compensate in other ways. Just a thought anyway, not sure I’m doing a great job of explaining myself. 

Tbh household mixing is unenforceable. 

[MEGABOWL]

Just now, zahidf said:

Tbh household mixing is unenforceable. 

It is, but if they still ‘ban’ it some people will follow that. Might slow things down a bit.

[RobertProsineckisLighter]

6 minutes ago, MEGABOWL said:

I’m with you on the ‘had enough’ bit. I just think maybe they’ll open Hospitality but you can only visit with your own household then maybe the rule of 6 or something like that while not ‘allowing’ mixing in a private house. Like they did previously.

They know they need to get schools open and they know Household Mixing go’s the first area where Compliance will crumble so they’ll compensate in other ways. Just a thought anyway, not sure I’m doing a great job of explaining myself. 

I understand I think. I think your saying, if they let you mix in pubs and other places but not at home people will meet up in these other places rather than at home and that might curtail some of the in home mixing which is more problematic.