Coronavirus Thread

[Costock_Fox]

6 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Talk of London going back into Tier 3 in the next couple of weeks, surely not? 

A graph I saw earlier showed it’s got the highest R rate. 

[WigstonWanderer]

7 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Yup, point was the 'weakest' (bad word, maybe more vulnerable is better) 40-60 who choose to take the flu jab and as such will prob take the covid jab too....them being the exact punters who need to take the covid jab  so as to avoid hospital  admission 

 

And I agree, we will all be coerced into taking it. That's hardly personal choice. It's  bullying. A social credit system. 

Hardly bullying. The rest of society, other countries, businesses, etc have a right to protect themselves from the stupid/ignorant/foolhardy/libertarian/selfish (wear whichever cap fits).

Edited 5 December 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Paninistickers]

44 minutes ago, WigstonWanderer said:

Hardly bullying. The rest of society, other countries, businesses, etc have a right to protect themselves from the stupid/ignorant/foolhardy/libertarian/selfish (wear whichever cap fits).

Lol. Congratulations on probably the worst answer ever on here. 

 

If you want to protect yourself, that's cool. Get yourself a vaccine. But the way you write it,  it's like you want to protect yourself by insisting other people to take a vaccine on your behalf. 

 

Surely you don't genuinely believe that's fair?

 

I don't want any more kids, so can I kindly ask that you mr Winston wanderer have a vasectomy for me? 🤣

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Lol. Congratulations on probably the worst answer ever on here. 

 

If you want to protect yourself, that's cool. Get yourself a vaccine. But the way you write it,  it's like you want to protect yourself by insisting other people to take a vaccine on your behalf. 

 

Surely you don't genuinely believe that's fair?

 

I don't want any more kids, so can I kindly ask that you mr Winston wanderer have a vasectomy for me? 🤣

 

People (and society, which is made of people) protect themselves by insisting other people do things that might be onerous or even potentially harmful all the time - like wear seatbelts and subject themselves to other types of vaccinations before travelling, for instance. If that's believed to be somehow unfair, then fair enough - but let's not pretend this is something out of the ordinary and/or a slippery slope as that is blatantly fallacious.

 

 

 

[Stevosevic]

27 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Lol. Congratulations on probably the worst answer ever on here. 

 

If you want to protect yourself, that's cool. Get yourself a vaccine. But the way you write it,  it's like you want to protect yourself by insisting other people to take a vaccine on your behalf. 

 

Surely you don't genuinely believe that's fair?

 

I don't want any more kids, so can I kindly ask that you mr Winston wanderer have a vasectomy for me? 🤣

It's not really about protection for me but for things to get back to normal we really do need a fair percentage of the population vaccinated. 

 

I'm 30. When available, which I believe is phase 2, I'll be taking the vaccine. 

 

If cases are still going around in the 1000s every day you're not going to be watching Leicester play in a full stadium for many years 

Edited 5 December 2020 by Stevosevic

[Paninistickers]

7 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

It's not really about protection for me but for things to get back to normal we really do need a fair percentage of the population vaccinated. 

 

I'm 30. When available, which I believe is phase 2, I'll be taking the vaccine. 

 

If cases are still going around in the 1000s every day you're not going to be watching Leicester play in a full stadium for many years 

Hey man, I'm  not against the vaccine. The more who take this the better. But for those who aren't at risk and don't fancy it, there's surely some scope for those people too. 

 

I don't take an ibuprofen or paracetamol unless I have to. Right or wrong as that may be. Not because I don't think they are safe, just instinctively I prefer my body to get on with it. 

[Paninistickers]

30 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

People (and society, which is made of people) protect themselves by insisting other people do things that might be onerous or even potentially harmful all the time - like wear seatbelts and subject themselves to other types of vaccinations before travelling, for instance. If that's believed to be somehow unfair, then fair enough - but let's not pretend this is something out of the ordinary and/or a slippery slope as that is blatantly fallacious.

 

 

 

That's wrong, I'm afraid. Seatbelts are for self protection. Malaria, yellow fever etc too (as the tjird world local health service can't really properly care for rich westerners laying half dead in hospital for weeks)

 

Wigstonwanderer is actually requesting people take jabs so as to protect him. If nothing else, how incredibly rude to ask that. 

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

That's wrong, I'm afraid. Seatbelts are for self protection. Malaria, yellow fever etc too (as the tjird world local health service can't really properly care for rich westerners laying half dead in hospital for weeks)

 

Wigstonwanderer is actually requesting people take jabs so as to protect him. If nothing else, how incredibly rude to ask that. 

I fail to see how "The rest of society, other countries, businesses, etc have a right to protect themselves..." is a reference to WW specifically him/herself and not just a general remark upon society taking measures to protect itself as I covered.

 

As such, I don't get the reasoning behind this argument.

 

NB. Seatbelts not only protect you, but in the back seat of a car in particular, protect the people riding with you.

[SpacedX]

9 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Talk of London going back into Tier 3 in the next couple of weeks, surely not? 

That's really odd, because only yesterday I was confronted with "strong evidence" that London was approaching or had reached herd immunity. It has to be true, it came from someone that used to do "lab work and the like". 

 

16 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Wigstonwanderer is actually requesting people take jabs so as to protect him. If nothing else, how incredibly rude to ask that. 

[st albans fox]

10 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Talk of London going back into Tier 3 in the next couple of weeks, surely not? 

Driving from the west end through Camden and Kentish Town and seeing how people are socialising again (inside) i wouldn’t be the least bit surprised 

 

7 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

Once the over 65s and vulnerable have had the jab, I think there is no need to continue lockdown and social distancing.  Obviously unvaccinated people can continue to self isolate if they want, but the general health risks of continued isolation for old people will certainly outweigh the general health risks of covid for younger people.

 

But vaccination of everyone else is still a good idea.  The more people vaccinated, the fewer people die; while getting deaths down to acceptable levels is (by definition) acceptable, getting them down to the lowest level possible is even better.

Lockdown agree but social distancing and precautions - that’s surely not a good idea as soon as the 65+ are done. Remember that it is approx 35 days from first jab before you are protected. How long do you think it’s going to take to get the over 65’s and vulnerable to that point?  Once 50 % of the 40/60 y/o have been vaccinated then I agree to a large extent as the virus will then struggle to spread effectively in those age groups where hospitalisation is still too high a percentage to allow it to run without any restrictions but this will probably take months ......  my expectations are that we will be back to a strange kind of normal late April/early may. A month later and we could be living life as we did before this sh1tstorm ...... come the end of summer and hopefully enough of the pop will be vaccinated so that the chunk that won’t will not really matter. Outbreaks can be controlled as they will be fairly isolated.

[Guest Fktf]

1 hour ago, Paninistickers said:

Hey man, I'm  not against the vaccine. The more who take this the better. But for those who aren't at risk and don't fancy it, there's surely some scope for those people too. 

 

I don't take an ibuprofen or paracetamol unless I have to. Right or wrong as that may be. Not because I don't think they are safe, just instinctively I prefer my body to get on with it. 

So the more people that take the vaccine the better, but you won't be taking it yourself?

[Paninistickers]

9 minutes ago, Fktf said:

So the more people that take the vaccine the better, but you won't be taking it yourself?

Yes, exactly. What's  wrong with that? 

[Guest Fktf]

14 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Yes, exactly. What's  wrong with that? 

A certain number of people will need to take the vaccine before society can return to normal, so sounds a lot like you're expecting others to take the vaccine on your behalf.

[Kopfkino]

17 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

Yes, exactly. What's  wrong with that? 

Well it’s a bit free-rider, you’re happy to derive the benefit but no intention of contributing.

 

Everybody gets ****ed off with the person that always manages to avoid their round at the pub

[WigstonWanderer]

4 hours ago, Paninistickers said:

Hey man, I'm  not against the vaccine. The more who take this the better. But for those who aren't at risk and don't fancy it, there's surely some scope for those people too. 

 

I don't take an ibuprofen or paracetamol unless I have to. Right or wrong as that may be. Not because I don't think they are safe, just instinctively I prefer my body to get on with it. 

Absolutely, not many people would recommend forcing people to get vaccinated, and neither would I, but don’t be surprised if airlines, businesses, and other countries don’t want your potentially virused up arse anywhere near them.

Edited 5 December 2020 by WigstonWanderer

[Paninistickers]

24 minutes ago, Fktf said:

A certain number of people will need to take the vaccine before society can return to normal, so sounds a lot like you're expecting others to take the vaccine on your behalf.

 

23 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Well it’s a bit free-rider, you’re happy to derive the benefit but no intention of contributing.

 

Everybody gets ****ed off with the person that always manages to avoid their round at the pub

No, I'm not 'dodging my round'. if I was at risk or worried about the virus, I'd have it without hesitation. 

 

I'm  unlikely to get seriously ill with it and as such, I'm not a burden on the health service...which is the very reason for this whole shebang. 

 

And, yup, i can guess what your comeback is, 'well you'll infect someone who is vulnerable'....and my answer to that is, if you're vulnerable, I'd heartily recommend taking the vaccine. And then it wont matter if I am 'virused up to my arse' 

 

As I said on an earlier post, it's all academic anyway. We will be coerced/bullied/bribed into having to have it. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

 

[Stevosevic]

1 minute ago, Paninistickers said:

 

No, I'm not 'dodging my round'. if I was at risk or worried about the virus, I'd have it without hesitation. 

 

I'm  unlikely to get seriously ill with it and as such, I'm not a burden on the health service...which is the very reason for this whole shebang. 

 

And, yup, i can guess what your comeback is, 'well you'll infect someone who is vulnerable'....and my answer to that is, if you're vulnerable, I'd heartily recommend taking the vaccine. And then it wont matter if I am 'virused up to my arse' 

 

As I said on an earlier post, it's all academic anyway. We will be coerced/bullied/bribed into having to have it. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

 

That may well be the case but if everyone under a certain age takes that approach then the virus will remain in circulation with 1000s of cases a day.

 

That won't bring an end to social distancing and the measures we feel stop our lives from being "normal"

 

It actually needs people of all ages to have the vaccine not just those who are most vulnerable.

[Guest Fktf]

1 minute ago, Paninistickers said:

 

No, I'm not 'dodging my round'. if I was at risk or worried about the virus, I'd have it without hesitation. 

 

I'm  unlikely to get seriously ill with it and as such, I'm not a burden on the health service...which is the very reason for this whole shebang. 

 

And, yup, i can guess what your comeback is, 'well you'll infect someone who is vulnerable'....and my answer to that is, if you're vulnerable, I'd heartily recommend taking the vaccine. And then it wont matter if I am 'virused up to my arse' 

 

As I said on an earlier post, it's all academic anyway. We will be coerced/bullied/bribed into having to have it. You know it. I know it. Everyone knows it.

 

Herd immunity requires people who are not at risk to take the vaccine. You're actively saying you don't want to be a part of that, so it's a bit rich to knock others for asking you to take the vaccine on their behalf, when you're doing the exact same thing.

[Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo]

4 minutes ago, Paninistickers said:

 

And, yup, i can guess what your comeback is, 'well you'll infect someone who is vulnerable'....and my answer to that is, if you're vulnerable, I'd heartily recommend taking the vaccine. And then it wont matter if I am 'virused up to my arse' 

 

 

 

But as has been pointed out, the vaccine isn't 100% effective, so there'll be plenty of vulnerable people who haven't yet had the virus, have had the vaccine and STILL could be killed by it. Why not do your bit to help protect them?

[SpacedX]

5 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

It actually needs people of all ages to have the vaccine not just those who are most vulnerable.

I'm genuinely at a total loss as to why this still isn't sinking in and why people are unable to comprehend this. 

 

 

How many times? 

 

As I noticed a few weeks ago, many of those that have spent months railing against supposedly unnecessary restrictions and a supposed curtailment of their 'civil liberties' armed with an arsenal of populist You Tube videos are now the ones objecting to the liberating effects of a vaccination programme. 

[Paninistickers]

7 minutes ago, Fktf said:

Herd immunity requires people who are not at risk to take the vaccine. You're actively saying you don't want to be a part of that, so it's a bit rich to knock others for asking you to take the vaccine on their behalf, when you're doing the exact same thing.

Eh? I wouldn't dream of asking someone else to take medication on my behalf. 

[SpacedX]

Just now, Paninistickers said:

Eh? I wouldn't dream of asking someone else to take medication on my behalf. 

I think you find that you would if you inhabited a poverty stricken village in rural Sierra Leone confronted by an ebola epidemic. 

[Paninistickers]

2 minutes ago, Line-X said:

I think you find that you would if you inhabited a poverty stricken village in rural Sierra Leone confronted by an ebola epidemic. 

That's a really weak argument, pal. 

 

Reading you're earlier posts, you're clearly fairly clever but that's right up there with my mum making me eat vegetables because 'all the starving children of Africa would eat them'

[Guest ttfn]

20 minutes ago, Stevosevic said:

That may well be the case but if everyone under a certain age takes that approach then the virus will remain in circulation with 1000s of cases a day.

 

That won't bring an end to social distancing and the measures we feel stop our lives from being "normal"

 

It actually needs people of all ages to have the vaccine not just those who are most vulnerable.

I’ll be taking a vaccine as soon as I can and I’m pretty taken aback that people are saying they won’t.

 

BUT

 

Surely if we have vaccinated the vulnerable then it doesn’t really matter if the virus is in general circulation? We live with plenty of other viruses which are relatively non-threatening, which is what Covid is to those in non-vulnerable demographics. The long-term threats are unknown of course (part of the reason I would want a vaccine ASAP) but millions of people in their 20s and 30s spreading the virus amongst themselves is not going to provide a threat to the NHS, which is the whole reason that we’ve supposedly conceded plenty of small liberties over the last 9 months or so. The precedent that has been set is already dangerous, it becomes genuinely quite Orwellian if social distancing and other limitations on people’s freedoms and the economy are extended past the point that the vulnerable have been protected.

 

Once the vulnerable have been vaccinated there’s no reason I can see that we shouldn’t be able to go “back to normal” irrespective of the take up elsewhere. Then again I’m not an epidemiologist and there may be a higher risk of mutation if it remains in general circulation. Perhaps somebody can educate me because I feel like I’m missing something.

 

[SpacedX]

1 minute ago, Paninistickers said:

That's a really weak argument, pal. 

 

Reading you're earlier posts, you're clearly fairly clever but that's right up there with my mum making me eat vegetables because 'all the starving children of Africa would eat them'

No it really isn't; it employs a hypothetical question based upon a real case scenario to impress the importance of 'total' protection and the effectiveness of ring vaccination whilst also inviting consideration of a utilitarian ethical stance.