Coronavirus Thread

[dsr-burnley]

26 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Would you mind elaborating further on the reasoning here?

Because in Britain, the dictum (as per the old joke) has always been that everything is permitted except what is expressly forbidden.

 

(As opposed to Germany, where everything is forbidden except what is expressly permitted; Russia, where everything is forbidden, including what is expressly permitted; and Italy, where everything is permitted, including what is expressly forbidden.)

 

The point being that rights and freedoms are not given to us by government.  Rights and freedoms are ours by right and by virtue of being free people.  The government may restrict individual rights in certain circumstances for the good of the majority, but it is wrong for the government to claim all rights as its own and decide which ones we can have back.

[filbertway]

I don't really get having a few places that would require proof of vaccination...you either want to force people to have them or you don't. It's looking like another flimsy half measure that essentially will be pointless and serve no purpose.

[String fellow]

If vaccination passports are going to to introduced, maybe they need a shorter name. I suggest the portmanteau word 'vacsports' or maybe 'vaxports'.

[dsr-burnley]

8 minutes ago, filbertway said:

I don't really get having a few places that would require proof of vaccination...you either want to force people to have them or you don't. It's looking like another flimsy half measure that essentially will be pointless and serve no purpose.

I think it's too early to force people to have them.  Let the momentum roll on whereby people (by and large) can't wait to have them; see if we have enough volunteers before we start beating them with a stick.  When governments start to force people along, a fairly large subset digs in their heels.

 

If proof of vaccination is needed for national health reasons, then OK - but wait until is is needed before we take illiberal action.

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

Because in Britain, the dictum (as per the old joke) has always been that everything is permitted except what is expressly forbidden.

 

(As opposed to Germany, where everything is forbidden except what is expressly permitted; Russia, where everything is forbidden, including what is expressly permitted; and Italy, where everything is permitted, including what is expressly forbidden.)

 

The point being that rights and freedoms are not given to us by government.  Rights and freedoms are ours by right and by virtue of being free people.  The government may restrict individual rights in certain circumstances for the good of the majority, but it is wrong for the government to claim all rights as its own and decide which ones we can have back.

And I would submit, like wearing seatbelts in a car and food safety standards, this is one of those times.

 

I would agree that people will be contrary if the believe big government are looking to impose, but a vaccination program that covers a vast majority of the population is and always was the way to ensure that a semblance of normality returns at all. Anti-vaxxers might want to consider that, if they haven't already.

[Legend_in_blue]

To think that vaccine passports were in the realm of the conspiracy theorists last year but now they're being taken as a given.  Strange times.

 

 

[filbertway]

8 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I think it's too early to force people to have them.  Let the momentum roll on whereby people (by and large) can't wait to have them; see if we have enough volunteers before we start beating them with a stick.  When governments start to force people along, a fairly large subset digs in their heels.

 

If proof of vaccination is needed for national health reasons, then OK - but wait until is is needed before we take illiberal action.

I just don't get it. It's either important to have them or not. What's the point of banning people from the things they enjoy, but letting them go to packed doctors waiting rooms or super markets.

 

As Larry David would say, it's a "spite" passport. It's nothing to do with safety.

[AllGoneTitsSchlupp]

22 minutes ago, String fellow said:

If vaccination passports are going to to introduced, maybe they need a shorter name. I suggest the portmanteau word 'vacsports' or maybe 'vaxports'.

all a bit newspeak from 1984 isn't it this

 

the book that is. hopefully you meant that. if you did, haha

[Spudulike]

I'm sure there will be many people hoping the Government introduce compulsory vaccine passports so they have a good reason for this summers protests in City centres. 

[leicsmac]

Seeing as this is creating some discussion then, a related question.

 

What is the alternative to a vaccination program (with proof) that actually gets this virus to stop extracting its toll in lives, money and, yes, freedom?

 

If it's just about being annoying having to prove that you've had the jab before visiting a public place where you might infect a dozen other punters, then I can understand the logistical issue, but certainly not the moral one. If it's about the jab itself, then the above question applies.

[String fellow]

29 minutes ago, AllGoneTitsSchlupp said:

all a bit newspeak from 1984 isn't it this

 

the book that is. hopefully you meant that. if you did, haha

I pride myself on my goodthink and my plusgood or even doubleplusgood ideas, although my detractors, of which there are numerous on FT (mainly Guardian readers), seem to regard them as plusungood or even doubleplusungood!

[Detroit Blues]

My son (1) came home from daycare last week with a runny nose. Not too uncommon, right? Kids get sick in daycare all the time. Over the weekend, my wife and I both got some mild cold symptoms. We have both been vaccinated (her both shots, me first of two). We just thought we picked up a cold from the boy. We decided to keep him home from school just to be safe, and have been working from home. On Monday, we got word from our Daycare that one of the parents in our son's classroom tested positive, so we started to get concerned.

 

We both did the self swab tests, and the results came back in last night and hers came back positive for COVID. My test was inconclusive because the vial the sample was in got damaged in transit. So I am just going to assume we all got it. We are all fine, in terms of our health, with nothing more than runny nose / sore throat. 

 

I just wanted to share our story to dispel some of the myths that we were told in terms of young ones not getting COVID, or having vaccines giving you "immunity." That said, I fully believe the fact that we got our vaccines is the reason our symptoms have been so mild. So if you were on the fence, I'd really advocate you get the vaccine. 

[Innovindil]

Surely they won't try bringing in covid "passes" until everyone has at least been offered 2 doses. How can it not open them up to age discrimination cases. 

[Legend_in_blue]

Until it is made clear that vaccines prevent spread from one vaccinated person to anyone else or it is known how long vaccines are effective for, what's the point in a covid "pass"?  

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, Legend_in_blue said:

Until it is made clear that vaccines prevent spread from one vaccinated person to anyone else or it is known how long vaccines are effective for, what's the point in a covid "pass"?  

Already been made clear hasn't it? There was a report the other day saying vaccines reduce transmission by 2/3's or something like that. How long they last is still in question since the only way to know that is to have them run out... 

[BenTheFox]

31 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Surely they won't try bringing in covid "passes" until everyone has at least been offered 2 doses. How can it not open them up to age discrimination cases. 

I can't help but think that garden centres being open this whole time is an instance of age discrimination. 

[yorkie1999]

18 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Already been made clear hasn't it? There was a report the other day saying vaccines reduce transmission by 2/3's or something like that. How long they last is still in question since the only way to know that is to have them run out... 

How do they actually establish those figures. Is it solely down to taking a group of people or an area of people and working out that before that area had been vaccinated there were x amount of cases but after that area had been vaccinated there were 2/3 less cases and then coming to the conclusion that the vaccine reduced transmission. The reason i ask is because maybe that is true or maybe the reduction in transmission was just due to lockdown measures and it was just coincidental with an area receiving the vaccine in which case, there's no actual real evidence until a short period of time after lockdowns end completely. 

[Guest ttfn]

I’m an advocate for people getting vaccinated but if we’re going to start mandating that adults have to put something in their body they’re not comfortable with in order to fully participate in society then we’re a lot further a long this slippery slope than I thought we were.

[Izzy]

In other more interesting news, hardly any side effects from my second AZ jab yesterday.

 

Considering I thought I was going to die after the first one, I expected similar, but nothing more than a bit of tiredness and a headache - result. Looks like @Parafoxwas right after all 

 

Now how do I go about getting my passport? 

 

Edited 1 April 2021 by Izzy

[Spudulike]

57 minutes ago, ttfn said:

I’m an advocate for people getting vaccinated but if we’re going to start mandating that adults have to put something in their body they’re not comfortable with in order to fully participate in society then we’re a lot further a long this slippery slope than I thought we were.

How about the people that have been vaccinated feeling uncomfortable about being in proximity of those that haven't? They don't have a choice if it's not mandated. 

[filbertway]

27 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

How about the people that have been vaccinated feeling uncomfortable about being in proximity of those that haven't? They don't have a choice if it's not mandated. 

Why would they feel uncomfortable?

[Houdini Logic]

5 minutes ago, filbertway said:

Why would they feel uncomfortable?

This is a brilliant question - if the answer is 'they could still infect me' then you're admitting that vaccines aren't 100% effective and blowing your own argument about forcing people to be vaccinated

[UniFox21]

1 minute ago, Houdini Logic said:

This is a brilliant question - if the answer is 'they could still infect me' then you're admitting that vaccines aren't 100% effective and blowing your own argument about forcing people to be vaccinated

What?

 

Vaccination isn't  a 100% effective, but significantly reduces your chances of having a serious covid infection and potential hospitalisation. Then potentially reduces your risk of transmitting and infecting loved ones. 

 

Why wouldn't you want that?

[Houdini Logic]

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

What?

 

Vaccination isn't  a 100% effective, but significantly reduces your chances of having a serious covid infection and potential hospitalisation. Then potentially reduces your risk of transmitting and infecting loved ones. 

 

Why wouldn't you want that?

Calm yourself down and read the history of the post... I'm not saying I wouldn't want it - I've just had it 

 

I was responding specifically to the question about why vaccinated people would feel uncomfortable around people who refuse to get the vaccine
 

[LCFCCHRIS]

4 minutes ago, UniFox21 said:

What?

 

Vaccination isn't  a 100% effective, but significantly reduces your chances of having a serious covid infection and potential hospitalisation. Then potentially reduces your risk of transmitting and infecting loved ones. 

 

Why wouldn't you want that?

He's saying why would they feel uncomfortable around someone who's not been vaccinated if they have. Because the vaccine is supposed to protect you right? So why would you be worried? Unless it doesn't work as well as intended.