Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 40.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • steviewevie

    4806

  • Ozanne

    3486

  • crazyfool1

    3441

  • zahidf

    2236

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I think on a music festival message board it’s a legitimate question to ask. It doesn’t suggest the OP doesn’t give a shit about anything else. Of course there are much bigger things to be worrie

I can’t get the following thought out of my head and it’s making the old bottom lip wobble: Wednesday evening at the 2021 festival, the sun has been out all day but temperature not stifling, perf

Howdy folks...sorry I'm late to the party! Was in a meeting and could see notifications coming up! So, looks very promising indeed. The vaccinated group not only didn't develop severe disease, bu

Posted Images

58 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

Another point from this consultation is the need for an expanded workforce including non-medical personnel, this shows me they are going to make the vaccine mandatory, if it was voluntary they wouldn't know what the take up would be and so wouldn't know what level of additional workforce would be needed

They know what level of take-up is needed to get immunity. They'll be aiming for that. It's likely they can get there with volunteers.

They're not going to make it mandatory in a "police state" style way, rather if they struggle to get sufficient take-up you'll start to find more and more stuff "requires" proof of vaccination, starting with air travel, but potentially making its way all the way down to gigs, pubs, etc. Most of the population, even those wary of it, would accept getting it in order to be able to do stuff they enjoy again.

So yeah, I don't think you're exactly being paranoid, if it doesn't get the numbers voluntarily, it will effectively be made mandatory. Just they don't need to force ably inject you for that to be the case. There's far more subtle options open to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, incident said:

2 + 2 = 637

If they had plans to make it mandatory, then it'd likely be in the consultation. The fact it's not, suggests that they don't intend for that.

Even if Boris & Cummings did or do secretly harbour a desire to do so, it would require an extremely dramatic and controversial change in the law. A huge number of conservative backbenchers would hate anything along those lines, and the chances of it passing parliament (at least within a workable timescale) are virtually nil.

I'll be delighted if i'm wrong but,

"Health Secretary Matt Hancock has said at daily briefings that he would like and encourage people to get a vaccine when it is available but has not said he would make it mandatory. In early May he said, “On the question of whether to make it [the Covid-19 vaccine] compulsory, I think the extent of the public’s reaction to following the lockdown shows that we will be able to achieve very, very high levels of vaccination without taking that step...whilst I don't rule anything out, we are proceeding on the basis that just such a huge proportion of the population are going to take this up because of the obvious benefits to individuals and their families and their communities and indeed the whole nation.” 

Later that month, when asked again if the vaccine would be mandatory, he said: “The question of whether it’s mandatory is not one that we’ve addressed yet. We are still some time off a vaccine being available. But I would hope, given the scale of this crisis, and given the overwhelming need for us to get through this and to get the country back on its feet, and the very positive impact that a vaccine would have, that everybody would have the vaccine."

 

Hancock wants everyone to have the vaccine so what do they do if a fair proportion of the population don't want it? I suspect they will try to "encourage" people by stopping them going to pubs,gigs, or travelling etc. if they haven't had the vaccine, of course this means those that have had it will need to show proof at every venue etc. It's true that this is still "conspiracy theory" at present but we won't have too long to wait now to see if it becomes reality.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

They know what level of take-up is needed to get immunity. They'll be aiming for that. It's likely they can get there with volunteers.

They're not going to make it mandatory in a "police state" style way, rather if they struggle to get sufficient take-up you'll start to find more and more stuff "requires" proof of vaccination, starting with air travel, but potentially making its way all the way down to gigs, pubs, etc. Most of the population, even those wary of it, would accept getting it in order to be able to do stuff they enjoy again.

So yeah, I don't think you're exactly being paranoid, if it doesn't get the numbers voluntarily, it will effectively be made mandatory. Just they don't need to force ably inject you for that to be the case. There's far more subtle options open to them.

Just  made the same ponts in my reply to Incident, glad i'm not alone in my  conspiracy!

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

They know what level of take-up is needed to get immunity. They'll be aiming for that. It's likely they can get there with volunteers.

They're not going to make it mandatory in a "police state" style way, rather if they struggle to get sufficient take-up you'll start to find more and more stuff "requires" proof of vaccination, starting with air travel, but potentially making its way all the way down to gigs, pubs, etc. Most of the population, even those wary of it, would accept getting it in order to be able to do stuff they enjoy again.

So yeah, I don't think you're exactly being paranoid, if it doesn't get the numbers voluntarily, it will effectively be made mandatory. Just they don't need to force ably inject you for that to be the case. There's far more subtle options open to them.

BTW if you have to show ID every time you want to go somewhere or do something then you are living in a police state. Also the vaccine isn't a one time "now you're immune" deal, you have to get a regular booster to keep your immunity current and have your immunity record updated so you can still do stuff. So it's an ongoing process.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

They know what level of take-up is needed to get immunity. They'll be aiming for that. It's likely they can get there with volunteers.

They're not going to make it mandatory in a "police state" style way, rather if they struggle to get sufficient take-up you'll start to find more and more stuff "requires" proof of vaccination, starting with air travel, but potentially making its way all the way down to gigs, pubs, etc. Most of the population, even those wary of it, would accept getting it in order to be able to do stuff they enjoy again.

So yeah, I don't think you're exactly being paranoid, if it doesn't get the numbers voluntarily, it will effectively be made mandatory. Just they don't need to force ably inject you for that to be the case. There's far more subtle options open to them.

This is what will happen - the word "vaccine" is being used wrong here - it stops the worst symptoms not stops the spread. It sounds to me like there is no need to vaccinate everyone

But once you start giving private companies the option framed with this lack of understanding, it will be vaccine passports to do gigs or travel etc. So it will be practically mandatory.

@Toilet Duck have I got this wrong on how it's meant to work? 

 

Edited by efcfanwirral
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

Hancock wants everyone to have the vaccine so what do they do if a fair proportion of the population don't want it? I suspect they will try to "encourage" people by stopping them going to pubs,gigs, or travelling etc. if they haven't had the vaccine, of course this means those that have had it will need to show proof at every venue etc. It's true that this is still "conspiracy theory" at present but we won't have too long to wait now to see if it becomes reality.

Nobody can fully answer that yet, as the answer very much depends on the specific nuances of the available vaccines. That'll likely be why the answers from Hancock were so non-committal. Nobody knows what level of effectiveness a potential vaccine will have, and therefore what level of takeup is needed. We don't know if it'll be suitable for everyone, and we don't know what availability will be.

Making a distinction/stopping people going to pubs, gigs, trains, buses, etc? Seems unlikely, just because such a scheme is so disruptive and expensive to introduce and maintain and leads to all kinds of new problems. Just think of the amount of staff they'd have to put on the London Underground at each Tube station every day and how much that'd cost. It'd be more feasible to do something with Air Travel, as there's lower numbers and defined checkpoints, but I don't think they will.

In general terms, I'm pretty sure that everything will just become "at your own risk". No vaccine? Fine, but you've got no recourse if you catch the virus. That's pretty much how it works in all other cases.

The problem with these conspiracy theories is that they don't make sense, just because they cause more headaches for the government than they solve. With this lot, the key is to remember that they want them and their friends to make money, and they want an easy life. Everything else is secondary. They're not going to introduce an expensive profit eating scheme when they can just say "job done" and move on.

But realistically, assuming the science is shown to be valid, the takeup will likely be high enough that the whole question is academic.

Edited by incident
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FloorFiller said:

Saw this floating around. Sigh, this isn’t going away any time soon, is it?

ABD74BC2-FF8F-41FF-AD4A-346997951B21.jpeg

Throw that filthy thing away? Errr, I've been washing mine, is that not normal?

And on vaccines being forced on people, are any vaccines mandatory in the UK? Why would the gov force everyone to be vaccinated against Covid when they're still free to let their kids die of measles?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if they will actually make vaccines mandatory, doubt it somehow, but if they want people to take them they need to start educating and reassuring the public that they are safe, effective and necessary. There is no point just saying no-vaxers are crazy, some of them have legitimate concerns. I certainly would feel reluctant taking one of these fast tracked vaccines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, efcfanwirral said:

This is what will happen - the word "vaccine" is being used wrong here - it stops the worst symptoms not stops the spread. It sounds to me like there is no need to vaccinate everyone

But once you start giving private companies the option framed with this lack of understanding, it will be vaccine passports to do gigs or travel etc. So it will be practically mandatory.

@Toilet Duck have I got this wrong on how it's meant to work? 

 

@incidenthas covered most things!

I’d be surprised if it was mandatory, the flu shot isn’t and this will likely be used in a similar manner (unless it turns out that even asymptomatic infection does untold damage to those infected...even though we are still only learning about this virus, that looks unlikely on a widespread scale)...I’d expect the vaccine to be available to high risk populations, with options for those in close contact with high risk individuals. Most vaccines don’t provide ever-lasting sterilising immunity to everyone who gets them, no reason to suspect this will be any different, but I suspect many on the board will never get it.

Vaccine passports for other diseases aren’t required to do most normal things, can’t really see why this will be any different once we have the option of controlling it. In the interim, advance testing and proof of a negative test is a short to medium term solution to get much of our lives back...operation moonshot is a fine idea, just needs to be organised correctly and plucking numbers of tests out of your arse is just poor communication/bravado (10m per day sounds good, just like 100,000 per day sounded good, but they’re only good if that’s what you need...most things can be opened up with less if social distancing is maintained where it is practical)...the technology also does exist, there’s 28 rapid antigen tests with CE-IVD marks and 4 with FDA EUA, another 800 or so at various stages of development...no need to design more.

as for the use of “unlicensed” vaccines, all of them will be to a degree. They’ll have emergency use authorisation or equivalent, otherwise we wait the few years it takes to formally approve one. The document at the heart of the “conspiracy theory” surrounding this merely sets out how the UK regulatory body will allow emergency use, the same as the FDA and EMA do, but since the UK leaves the EMA on Jan 1st, something has to be in place. Non-medical personnel won’t be administering anything, strange as it might seem, practicing medicine requires people other than healthcare professionals and a large scale vaccination programme has massive amounts of administration and logistics involved (hence an expanded non-medical workforce to deliver it...rather than to replace doctors who refuse to give vaccinations on “ethical” grounds). Military personnel can also assist in distribution (rather than forcing people at gunpoint to get vaccinated)...

I also don’t think there is any suggestion that the flu shot and the COVID shot will be delivered together, merely that should a vaccine become available this winter, in terms of logistics, the roll out will coincide with the annual flu vaccination, so additional personnel will be needed to handle two huge vaccination programmes. 

the problem is, you have a government you don’t trust, who are poor communicators and use ambiguous/conflicting language, hence it’s easy to jump to conclusions. When they openly admit that breaking international law is no bother, then of course it’s going to lead to all sorts of wild speculation as to what they might be up to...but, really, it’s all quite boringly normal in terms of rolling out any potential vaccine.

 

edit: sorry, lots of that wasn’t really the answer to your question! 

Edited by Toilet Duck
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Toilet Duck said:

@incidenthas covered most things!

I’d be surprised if it was mandatory, the flu shot isn’t and this will likely be used in a similar manner (unless it turns out that even asymptomatic infection does untold damage to those infected...even though we are still only learning about this virus, that looks unlikely on a widespread scale)...I’d expect the vaccine to be available to high risk populations, with options for those in close contact with high risk individuals. Most vaccines don’t provide ever-lasting sterilising immunity to everyone who gets them, no reason to suspect this will be any different, but I suspect many on the board will never get it.

Vaccine passports for other diseases aren’t required to do most normal things, can’t really see why this will be any different once we have the option of controlling it. In the interim, advance testing and proof of a negative test is a short to medium term solution to get much of our lives back...operation moonshot is a fine idea, just needs to be organised correctly and plucking numbers of tests out of your arse is just poor communication/bravado (10m per day sounds good, just like 100,000 per day sounded good, but they’re only good if that’s what you need...most things can be opened up with less if social distancing is maintained where it is practical)...the technology also does exist, there’s 28 rapid antigen tests with CE-IVD marks and 4 with FDA EUA, another 800 or so at various stages of development...no need to design more.

as for the use of “unlicensed” vaccines, all of them will be to a degree. They’ll have emergency use authorisation or equivalent, otherwise we wait the few years it takes to formally approve one. The document at the heart of the “conspiracy theory” surrounding this merely sets out how the UK regulatory body will allow emergency use, the same as the FDA and EMA do, but since the UK leaves the EMA on Jan 1st, something has to be in place. Non-medical personnel won’t be administering anything, strange as it might seem, practicing medicine requires people other than healthcare professionals and a large scale vaccination programme has massive amounts of administration and logistics involved (hence an expanded non-medical workforce to deliver it...rather than to replace doctors who refuse to give vaccinations on “ethical” grounds). Military personnel can also assist in distribution (rather than forcing people at gunpoint to get vaccinated)...

I also don’t think there is any suggestion that the flu shot and the COVID shot will be delivered together, merely that should a vaccine become available this winter, in terms of logistics, the roll out will coincide with the annual flu vaccination, so additional personnel will be needed to handle two huge vaccination programmes. 

the problem is, you have a government you don’t trust, who are poor communicators and use ambiguous/conflicting language, hence it’s easy to jump to conclusions. When they openly admit that breaking international law is no bother, then of course it’s going to lead to all sorts of wild speculation as to what they might be up to...but, really, it’s all quite boringly normal in terms of rolling out any potential vaccine.

 

edit: sorry, lots of that wasn’t really the answer to your question! 

That is a detailed and perfect answer thanks so much!

You're right- it's the lack of any trust in the government at all - the positive part is they are unlikely to have a grand plan (or be part of one) so will go with what is popular 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, steviewevie said:

 

Oh yeah, intentionally breaking international law is worth a small bump in the polls. I know that it's probably reversion to the mean and the poll showing them a level was probably a measurement error since we're within the margin of error here.

 

But, fucking hell. The Tories should be way behind, the knobhead.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, stuartbert two hats said:

A question on mask usage - am I better off wearing an N95 (ear looped) 3 or 4 times, or a cheaper surgical mask adhering by the single use advice?

As you might guess, I'm aiming this at @Toilet Duck, but am interested if anyone has evidence on which is better?

To be honest, when I go into work (not very often), I use a reusable material one (not using public transport at the mo and don’t have face-to-face meetings in work)...when I go to the shops, I also mostly use a reusable one (if it’s crowded, medical grade single use as it provides a wee bit of protection to the wearer).. When I’m in the hospital, single use surgical ones. If I’m indoors with my parents, I also use a medical grade mask. I have some N95 ones, but I really only use those when I’m in the garden and spraying weed killer! (And I reuse them). I find the single use surgical mask by far the most comfortable for any extended period, but I’m used to wearing them. Prices for them have come back down to normal now, though it’s not very environmentally sound...

Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

That is a detailed and perfect answer thanks so much!

You're right- it's the lack of any trust in the government at all - the positive part is they are unlikely to have a grand plan (or be part of one) so will go with what is popular 

No worries!

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

 

2-3% is the margin of error. The polls will do this, swing a couple of percent either way normally until something big happens like it did 2 weeks ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Toilet Duck said:

@incidenthas covered most things!

I’d be surprised if it was mandatory, the flu shot isn’t and this will likely be used in a similar manner (unless it turns out that even asymptomatic infection does untold damage to those infected...even though we are still only learning about this virus, that looks unlikely on a widespread scale)...I’d expect the vaccine to be available to high risk populations, with options for those in close contact with high risk individuals. Most vaccines don’t provide ever-lasting sterilising immunity to everyone who gets them, no reason to suspect this will be any different, but I suspect many on the board will never get it.

Vaccine passports for other diseases aren’t required to do most normal things, can’t really see why this will be any different once we have the option of controlling it. In the interim, advance testing and proof of a negative test is a short to medium term solution to get much of our lives back...operation moonshot is a fine idea, just needs to be organised correctly and plucking numbers of tests out of your arse is just poor communication/bravado (10m per day sounds good, just like 100,000 per day sounded good, but they’re only good if that’s what you need...most things can be opened up with less if social distancing is maintained where it is practical)...the technology also does exist, there’s 28 rapid antigen tests with CE-IVD marks and 4 with FDA EUA, another 800 or so at various stages of development...no need to design more.

as for the use of “unlicensed” vaccines, all of them will be to a degree. They’ll have emergency use authorisation or equivalent, otherwise we wait the few years it takes to formally approve one. The document at the heart of the “conspiracy theory” surrounding this merely sets out how the UK regulatory body will allow emergency use, the same as the FDA and EMA do, but since the UK leaves the EMA on Jan 1st, something has to be in place. Non-medical personnel won’t be administering anything, strange as it might seem, practicing medicine requires people other than healthcare professionals and a large scale vaccination programme has massive amounts of administration and logistics involved (hence an expanded non-medical workforce to deliver it...rather than to replace doctors who refuse to give vaccinations on “ethical” grounds). Military personnel can also assist in distribution (rather than forcing people at gunpoint to get vaccinated)...

I also don’t think there is any suggestion that the flu shot and the COVID shot will be delivered together, merely that should a vaccine become available this winter, in terms of logistics, the roll out will coincide with the annual flu vaccination, so additional personnel will be needed to handle two huge vaccination programmes. 

the problem is, you have a government you don’t trust, who are poor communicators and use ambiguous/conflicting language, hence it’s easy to jump to conclusions. When they openly admit that breaking international law is no bother, then of course it’s going to lead to all sorts of wild speculation as to what they might be up to...but, really, it’s all quite boringly normal in terms of rolling out any potential vaccine.

 

edit: sorry, lots of that wasn’t really the answer to your question! 

That's not what the document says,

"Vaccinators who are not registered healthcare professionals

It will also be apparent in what we say about workforce expansion that someone other than a registered healthcare professional may actually be administering unlicensed vaccines – and as a basic issue of fairness, we think they should benefit from the same immunity from civil liability as a registered healthcare professional who is performing the same role, if the person who is not a healthcare professional is following one of the proposed new protocols."

 

Unless you think that "administering" in this context means administration I.E documenting the vaccination, I can't see how you could conclude that non-health professionals would not be able to carry out the vaccinations under these plans.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, re-reading it I suppose it could be refering to the use of trainee nurses or similar who are not yet registered, so maybe I've overeacted to that section, hopefully the agreed final policy will be crystal clear and not open to this kind of interpretation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

That's not what the document says,

"Vaccinators who are not registered healthcare professionals

It will also be apparent in what we say about workforce expansion that someone other than a registered healthcare professional may actually be administering unlicensed vaccines – and as a basic issue of fairness, we think they should benefit from the same immunity from civil liability as a registered healthcare professional who is performing the same role, if the person who is not a healthcare professional is following one of the proposed new protocols."

 

Unless you think that "administering" in this context means administration I.E documenting the vaccination, I can't see how you could conclude that non-health professionals would not be able to carry out the vaccinations under these plans.

 

 

 

Well, all of our undergraduate medicine and pharmacy students work in community pharmacies, GP practices, health clinics, hospitals etc, as key parts of their training yet none are registered health professionals. We also have others working in social care who also could vaccinate people if it was all hands on deck. I don’t know exactly who they mean, but it don’t think it’s to replace doctors/nurses/pharmacists etc that are refusing to vaccinate people because they think it’s unethical. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

Actually, re-reading it I suppose it could be refering to the use of trainee nurses or similar who are not yet registered, so maybe I've overeacted to that section, hopefully the agreed final policy will be crystal clear and not open to this kind of interpretation.

Sorry, was simultaneously posting the bit above and see you have come to the same conclusion! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...



×
×
  • Create New...