Coronavirus Thread

[Pliskin]

5 hours ago, yorkie1999 said:

But surely, everyone who didn't have a tracking chip inserted into them would be automatically killed by the aliens.

😂😂 he claims to be “deeply passionate” about space, yet has no formal qualifications to support his passion and thinks the measurement of a light year is wrong and we could easily travel to other galaxies in a matter of months. He only starts to talk sense when he’s pissed. 

[Pliskin]

I’m looking forward to having my vaccine. I’m not sure the nurse administering it will when she pulls the curtain back to my bare arse full mooning. 🌝 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

 

 

[Leicester_Loyal]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/08/v-day-watershed-moment-may-have-wear-masks-another-year/7

 

'The public may have to wear masks for another year, despite a “watershed moment” beginning Britain’s national vaccination programme, Sir Patrick Vallance has said.'

 

We'll end up wearing masks for a long time yet, as well as social distancing IMO. **** sake just gets the clubs open, I've had enough, genuinely been an horrific year

[dsr-burnley]

37 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/08/v-day-watershed-moment-may-have-wear-masks-another-year/7

 

'The public may have to wear masks for another year, despite a “watershed moment” beginning Britain’s national vaccination programme, Sir Patrick Vallance has said.'

 

We'll end up wearing masks for a long time yet, as well as social distancing IMO. **** sake just gets the clubs open, I've had enough, genuinely been an horrific year

"However, the joy was tempered by warnings from ministers that those who receive the vaccine should not be able to expect extra freedoms, such as to hug a grandchild."

Why on earth not?  What possible reasons does anyone have to say that a person who is vaccinated against coronavirus should not hug a person who by virtue of age is immune from coronavirus?  Are they saying that old people cannot return to normal life until there is no risk that they will die?  Because of the government's ambition is to achieve immortality, they will fail.

 

I look forward to the first prosecution of someone who hugs a grandchild in their own home.

[Nod.E]

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/08/v-day-watershed-moment-may-have-wear-masks-another-year/7

 

'The public may have to wear masks for another year, despite a “watershed moment” beginning Britain’s national vaccination programme, Sir Patrick Vallance has said.'

 

We'll end up wearing masks for a long time yet, as well as social distancing IMO. **** sake just gets the clubs open, I've had enough, genuinely been an horrific year

Madness.

 

Everyone get the vaccine in you and then carry on as you were.

 

Apart from the obvious ridiculousness of this, it's not really the news we need now at a time that we need to maximise vaccination complicity.

 

Not exactly a motivator when you realise the intention is for continued life in bubble wrapping.

 

Just when I thought things might be starting to get sensible.

 

Who gives a toss if Covid is still in transmission if it no longer poses a threat post vaccine?

Edited 9 December 2020 by Nod.E

[StanSP]

6 hours ago, dsr-burnley said:

"However, the joy was tempered by warnings from ministers that those who receive the vaccine should not be able to expect extra freedoms, such as to hug a grandchild."

Why on earth not?  What possible reasons does anyone have to say that a person who is vaccinated against coronavirus should not hug a person who by virtue of age is immune from coronavirus?  Are they saying that old people cannot return to normal life until there is no risk that they will die?  Because of the government's ambition is to achieve immortality, they will fail.

 

I look forward to the first prosecution of someone who hugs a grandchild in their own home.

 

5 hours ago, Nod.E said:

Madness.

 

Everyone get the vaccine in you and then carry on as you were.

 

Apart from the obvious ridiculousness of this, it's not really the news we need now at a time that we need to maximise vaccination complicity.

 

Not exactly a motivator when you realise the intention is for continued life in bubble wrapping.

 

Just when I thought things might be starting to get sensible.

 

Who gives a toss if Covid is still in transmission if it no longer poses a threat post vaccine?

Isn't this because they don't know how long immunity of the vaccine against COVID lasts? So if someone gets the vaccine and goes back to normal, then a few months down the line the immunity is weakened and they're hugging like there's no tomorrow, and they get COVID, are we not just back to square one? 

 

I don't blame them for still being cautious. It's a brand new vaccine. Yes it has been tested and regulated but it's still in the world of the unknown as to how long it can protect you for. 

 

If they said go back to normal life, we'll be saying 'why did they tell us to go back to normal when they didn't know how long we are immune for?' 

Until they know for certain, they'll continue to proceed with caution and give out the warnings about masks and socially distancing. 

 

That's also the reason why I don't like them putting a date on these things...' back to normal by Easter... We'll have a great summer...'. How do they know? How do Johnson and Hancock (as they were the ones that said it) know this? Their track record of overpromising and under-delivering works heavily against them when they come out with stuff like this? 

[SpacedX]

8 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/12/08/v-day-watershed-moment-may-have-wear-masks-another-year/7

 

'The public may have to wear masks for another year, despite a “watershed moment” beginning Britain’s national vaccination programme, Sir Patrick Vallance has said.'

 

We'll end up wearing masks for a long time yet, as well as social distancing IMO. **** sake just gets the clubs open, I've had enough, genuinely been an horrific year

Given the horrific levels of particulates/urban pollution that we are living with, depending upon your location, continuing to wear an N95 respirator may be a prudent move - particularly if cycling to work.  

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

 

Isn't this because they don't know how long immunity of the vaccine against COVID lasts? So if someone gets the vaccine and goes back to normal, then a few months down the line the immunity is weakened and they're hugging like there's no tomorrow, and they get COVID, are we not just back to square one? 

 

I don't blame them for still being cautious. It's a brand new vaccine. Yes it has been tested and regulated but it's still in the world of the unknown as to how long it can protect you for. 

 

If they said go back to normal life, we'll be saying 'why did they tell us to go back to normal when they didn't know how long we are immune for?' 

Until they know for certain, they'll continue to proceed with caution and give out the warnings about masks and socially distancing. 

 

That's also the reason why I don't like them putting a date on these things...' back to normal by Easter... We'll have a great summer...'. How do they know? How do Johnson and Hancock (as they were the ones that said it) know this? Their track record of overpromising and under-delivering works heavily against them when they come out with stuff like this? 

It is.  But I don't believe that fear of going back to square 1 should stop us from going to square 2.  

 

Vaccine immunity, if limited, will not be limited to a set time.  We won't be in the position of one day herd immunity, next day everyone is vulnerable.  So they will notice if immunity is weakening and can roll out a top-up.

 

As it stands, over the past year, the average over-80 has had an 11% chance of dying.  In a normal year, it is only 10%.  All these restrictions have been with the intention of holding that number down as low as possible and stop it rising to (absolute worst case forecast) 20% - a forecast which we now know from worldwide experience wouldn't have come true anyway.

 

But if the vaccine does take hold and - even if only temporarily - and the death rate goes back to "only" 10%, should we reintroduce these severe restrictions - which, on old people, are desperately severe, because their entire social life has been taken from them - because we fear the death rate might rise back to 11% and we want to reduce it to 10.1%?

 

This is the point about old people.  They know they are going to die.  They aren't (unlike certain members of the government) trying to achieve immortality.  They want to balance the risk of dying with the enjoyment of life, and the post-vaccine risk of dying without coronavirus is in those terms insignificant.

 

Put it simply.  Lockdown because a pandemic is happening makes an unpleasant sort of sense.  Lockdown because we haven't got a pandemic but are afraid we might, does not.

[Dahnsouff]

1 hour ago, StanSP said:

 

Isn't this because they don't know how long immunity of the vaccine against COVID lasts? So if someone gets the vaccine and goes back to normal, then a few months down the line the immunity is weakened and they're hugging like there's no tomorrow, and they get COVID, are we not just back to square one? 

 

I don't blame them for still being cautious. It's a brand new vaccine. Yes it has been tested and regulated but it's still in the world of the unknown as to how long it can protect you for. 

 

If they said go back to normal life, we'll be saying 'why did they tell us to go back to normal when they didn't know how long we are immune for?' 

Until they know for certain, they'll continue to proceed with caution and give out the warnings about masks and socially distancing. 

 

That's also the reason why I don't like them putting a date on these things...' back to normal by Easter... We'll have a great summer...'. How do they know? How do Johnson and Hancock (as they were the ones that said it) know this? Their track record of overpromising and under-delivering works heavily against them when they come out with stuff like this? 

Tend to agree. It also grates when the whole "trust the science" campaign gets effectively ignored when people want to know when we can return to normal. (Which I guess is what you were saying, but more eloquently than I have)

Do people not accept these two things may well be at odds with each other??

[Izzy]

13 hours ago, Pliskin said:

I’m looking forward to having my vaccine. I’m not sure the nurse administering it will when she pulls the curtain back to my bare arse full mooning. 🌝 

I thought you had the vaccine jab in your arm, so why would you show the nurse your bare arse you sicko 

[Super_horns]

Oh dear - doesn’t sound good.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/chippawa3/status/133661160519126630

 

Hope whoever has been affected is ok.

[Innovindil]

5 minutes ago, Super_horns said:

Oh dear - doesn’t sound good.

 

https://mobile.twitter.com/chippawa3/status/133661160519126630

 

Hope whoever has been affected is ok.

Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!

 

Why not try a search to find something else?

 

What was it? Mildly curious. 

 

 

[filbertway]

7 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!

 

Why not try a search to find something else?

 

What was it? Mildly curious. 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1370264/Pfizer-vaccine-warning-covid-regulator-allergic-reaction-warning-latest

 

Couple of people with history of allergies had an allergic reaction and are both recovering fine. 

[Jon the Hat]

8 minutes ago, filbertway said:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1370264/Pfizer-vaccine-warning-covid-regulator-allergic-reaction-warning-latest

 

Couple of people with history of allergies had an allergic reaction and are both recovering fine. 

Interesting that they decided to take it in the first place.  You would have to be very concerned about covid

[Super_horns]

35 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Sorry, that page doesn’t exist!

 

Why not try a search to find something else?

 

What was it? Mildly curious. 

 

 

 

25 minutes ago, filbertway said:

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1370264/Pfizer-vaccine-warning-covid-regulator-allergic-reaction-warning-latest

 

Couple of people with history of allergies had an allergic reaction and are both recovering fine. 

Sorry about that.

 

Good to hear.

 

16 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Interesting that they decided to take it in the first place.  You would have to be very concerned about covid

NHS workers apparently 

[Nalis]

Its probably not that out of the ordinary is it seeing as there are potential side effects to every drug under the sun.

[Costock_Fox]

 

2 minutes ago, Nalis said:

Its probably not that out of the ordinary is it seeing as there are potential side effects to every drug under the sun.

Far too logical a view for the antivaxxers.

 

I heard it’s the 5G transmitter that causes the reaction.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, dsr-burnley said:

It is.  But I don't believe that fear of going back to square 1 should stop us from going to square 2.  

 

Vaccine immunity, if limited, will not be limited to a set time.  We won't be in the position of one day herd immunity, next day everyone is vulnerable.  So they will notice if immunity is weakening and can roll out a top-up.

 

As it stands, over the past year, the average over-80 has had an 11% chance of dying.  In a normal year, it is only 10%.  All these restrictions have been with the intention of holding that number down as low as possible and stop it rising to (absolute worst case forecast) 20% - a forecast which we now know from worldwide experience wouldn't have come true anyway.

 

But if the vaccine does take hold and - even if only temporarily - and the death rate goes back to "only" 10%, should we reintroduce these severe restrictions - which, on old people, are desperately severe, because their entire social life has been taken from them - because we fear the death rate might rise back to 11% and we want to reduce it to 10.1%?

 

This is the point about old people.  They know they are going to die.  They aren't (unlike certain members of the government) trying to achieve immortality.  They want to balance the risk of dying with the enjoyment of life, and the post-vaccine risk of dying without coronavirus is in those terms insignificant.

 

Put it simply.  Lockdown because a pandemic is happening makes an unpleasant sort of sense.  Lockdown because we haven't got a pandemic but are afraid we might, does not.

I can only speak for myself here, but I would posit that while a lot of old people know they are going to die, very *very* few people, old or otherwise, either want it to happen or even just accept the idea. Not deep down, anyway.

Edited 9 December 2020 by leicsmac

[StanSP]

 

 

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

I wonder if we'll get daily vaccination numbers like we've had daily cases and deaths shoved down our throats for the last 9 months.

[UniFox21]

4 minutes ago, StanSP said:

 

 

 

People are focusing on all the possible side effects of this new vaccine and "not knowing what's going into their bodies", but seem to readily forget ibuprofen and paracetamol have some nasty ass potential side effects. Just as people will take anaesthetic for dental appointments, when really we have very little idea how it actually works.  

[leicsmac]

5 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

I wonder if we'll get daily vaccination numbers like we've had daily cases and deaths shoved down our throats for the last 9 months.

I dunno, I would have thought easy and timely access to scientific information regarding a major current event would be a good thing. Knowledge is important, after all.

 

Maybe I'm mistaken there.

[dsr-burnley]

55 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I can only speak for myself here, but I would posit that while a lot of old people know they are going to die, very *very* few people, old or otherwise, either want it to happen or even just accept the idea. Not deep down, anyway.

It's a matter of degree of risk.  As Auberon Waugh once said, there is nothing worth giving up for the sake of two more years in a nursing home.  You can increase your life expactancy by giving up driving and never going more than walking distance from your home - but is it worth it?

 

There is no doubt that old people can increase their life expectancy by pretending they don't have grandchildren and never seeing them.  Many grandparents are willing to take that risk.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

It's a matter of degree of risk.  As Auberon Waugh once said, there is nothing worth giving up for the sake of two more years in a nursing home.  You can increase your life expactancy by giving up driving and never going more than walking distance from your home - but is it worth it?

 

There is no doubt that old people can increase their life expectancy by pretending they don't have grandchildren and never seeing them.  Many grandparents are willing to take that risk.

I certainly agree about the risk factor and that people are willing to take the risk, as that is self-evident.

 

However that changes nothing about my observation regarding peoples thoughts and behaviours when the chips are really down - merely adds the caveat that the people who take risks in such a fashion don't really understand the cost when they do it, only when their time looks to have come.