Jump to content
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

Recommended Posts

Just saw the Snooker final being at full capacity but it does say "No under-18s, vulnerable adults or pregnant women will be allowed to attend".

 

I know this is part of testing a way back to having events running but surely that would go down as discrimination against those people. They should not be able to get away with that.

 

For information, I am not U18, I am not a vulnerable adult and I am not a woman, neither am I interested in watching the Snooker.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Back to comparisons with Brazil, you really cannot compare the two countries due to economics and demographics. Brazil has a much poorer healthcare system for starts, the economy is fragile at best and poverty is high. You can understand why Bolsonaro wants the virus to crack on while the economy flows and he is potentially calculating that the weakest will pass away, in particular in favelas.

 

You can see why he has let the virus rip through the country but of course it is not the right thing to do on an ethic level. It's a very risky strategy either way.

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

Chile is a worrying situation - they are back in a strict lockdown after successfully run down the cases in a previous lockdown and then getting a good number of their population vaccinated. So it's a lesson in how to not to 'fully open up' rather than an example of how lockdown's don't achieve anything. 

 

Two conclusions can be taken from that - the Brazilian variant in that region of the World may be beating vaccines and just further confirmation that standard of living/living conditions are a massive factor in this. 

So it seems they've vaccinated 35% of their  population with at least one first dose. They also opened the company up in early 2021 which would lead to a drive in infections. 

 

I think it does serve as a good message that coming out slowly while we've not got 70% vaccinated is the safe option to take.

 

It's also positive if you look at their spike in infections and deaths last june. Then compare that to the spike of infections and deaths at the moment, the deaths have barely moved up despite a rather sharp uptick in cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Just saw the Snooker final being at full capacity but it does say "No under-18s, vulnerable adults or pregnant women will be allowed to attend".

 

I know this is part of testing a way back to having events running but surely that would go down as discrimination against those people. They should not be able to get away with that.

 

For information, I am not U18, I am not a vulnerable adult and I am not a woman, neither am I interested in watching the Snooker.

Is this really good satire or not? I don't want to bite if it is lol

 

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

Is that true? Is there evidence of those vaccinated getting the Brazil variant or any other? The article says they rolled out Pfizer and Sinovac, perhaps they are not as effective against this strain as thought if this is true. In which case the Ox-AZ might not be either. 

That's why I say may - Chile opened up the borders, so you'd expect it to be the Brazil variant to be causing the issue. The article also says the Sinovac has been predominantly used in Chile. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Back to comparisons with Brazil, you really cannot compare the two countries due to economics and demographics. Brazil has a much poorer healthcare system for starts, the economy is fragile at best and poverty is high. You can understand why Bolsonaro wants the virus to crack on while the economy flows and he is potentially calculating that the weakest will pass away, in particular in favelas.

 

You can see why he has let the virus rip through the country but of course it is not the right thing to do on an ethic level. It's a very risky strategy either way.

 

True.  Any decision will come with an element of risk.  

 

It's disappointing though that people read the headline figures and from that assume the worst.  More scaremongering once again, following on from when will the Brazilian variant find its way over here and so on.

 

If you compare countries, Peru and Brazil for example, Peru has had an extremely strict lockdown, whereas Brazil has not.  Per 1 million people, the death rate in Peru is worse than Brazil's (and the UK is worse than both).    

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rightly or wrongly, stuff like this isn't going to encourage people under 30 to get the jab. Bound to make more people sceptical of it all. Stuff like this happens all time time with various medications and who they should be used on but we don't see it.  

 

I just hope enough people over 40 have a jab to see us through because I do feel take up will be relatively low under 30. 

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

Rightly or wrongly, stuff like this isn't going to encourage people under 30 to get the jab. Bound to make more people sceptical of it all. Stuff like this happens all time time with various medications and who they should be used on but we don't see it.  

 

I just hope enough people over 40 have a jab to see us through because I do feel take up will be relatively low under 30. 

There are other vaccines for the younger people to take. Moderna is coming on, J&J is due soon. By the time those start getting vaccinated out it'll be for the U50s anyway. It just means that the Astra Zeneca vaccine uptake may slow down. All depends on how much of the other vaccines get delivered over the next few weeks/months. The J&J is a single dose if I recall correctly, so those might be good for the younger people in June/July.

 

I think they have held back in the UK until the most vulnerable were vaccinated. When Europe was mentioning these findings, the UK didn't want to know. Evidently, because they wanted to avoid the last good chunk of the at risk group to be put off. No surprise on the timing of this communication.

 

It's obviously a rare side effect but it is good practice to make people aware to avoid any large compensation cases from family members when things do go wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People with a history of blood disorders that increase the risk of blood clotting should only have the AstraZeneca jab where benefits outweigh potential risks

 

Well that's me out of the race for an Oxford jab then. Balls. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

All information is correct at time of posting!

I'd assume for the same reason people have to be a certain height to ride roller coasters. For those people's safety.

 

I will say though, the only one that makes sense to me is pregnant women or people who are immuno-compromised. Vulnerable people should have had a vaccine and u18s are pretty much safe.

 

I'd definitely argue that stopping people from doing something because it is dangerous to them is not the same as discrimination though.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, filbertway said:

I'd assume for the same reason people have to be a certain height to ride roller coasters. For those people's safety.

 

I will say though, the only one that makes sense to me is pregnant women or people who are immuno-compromised. Vulnerable people should have had a vaccine and u18s are pretty much safe.

 

I'd definitely argue that stopping people from doing something because it is dangerous to them is not the same as discrimination though.

 

Shouldn't people be advised of the risks should they attend such an event rather than being outcast completely? Not quite sure what the danger to life is here when everyone has either been vaccinated or tested negative shortly before event.

 

If this is a sign of what is to come in the future then it's not good.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Just saw the Snooker final being at full capacity but it does say "No under-18s, vulnerable adults or pregnant women will be allowed to attend".

 

I know this is part of testing a way back to having events running but surely that would go down as discrimination against those people. They should not be able to get away with that.

 

For information, I am not U18, I am not a vulnerable adult and I am not a woman, neither am I interested in watching the Snooker.

Where did you see this? It would be interesting to see the wording.

 

Or are you on the wind up?!

Edited by Milo
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Just saw the Snooker final being at full capacity but it does say "No under-18s, vulnerable adults or pregnant women will be allowed to attend".

 

I know this is part of testing a way back to having events running but surely that would go down as discrimination against those people. They should not be able to get away with that.

 

For information, I am not U18, I am not a vulnerable adult and I am not a woman, neither am I interested in watching the Snooker.

I mean given US studies show that being obese is a risk factor for Covid, the number of potential attendees must be pretty small....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Just saw the Snooker final being at full capacity but it does say "No under-18s, vulnerable adults or pregnant women will be allowed to attend".

 

I know this is part of testing a way back to having events running but surely that would go down as discrimination against those people. They should not be able to get away with that.

 

For information, I am not U18, I am not a vulnerable adult and I am not a woman, neither am I interested in watching the Snooker.

 

1 minute ago, KrefelderFox666 said:

Thanks - the only one that can be policed is the under 18's. 

 

Will be interesting to see how it's worded from the theatre/wpbsa

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

 

Thanks - the only one that can be policed is the under 18's. 

 

Will be interesting to see how it's worded from the theatre/wpbsa

Tha's just got me picturing a scenario where there's a bloke on the door getting battered by some fat woman who he thought was pregnant lol

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

By that logic everything will always be moot then, because even two doses doesn't provide 100% immunity or protection?

By that logic? It’s a two stage process, not my logic the logic of the egg heads who create the vaccines.
 

There is a rather large difference between being say 50% effective (first dose) and 95% effective (second dose) isn't there, it's not even ****ing comparable to 95% and 100% is it really. 

 

 

Edited by Babylon
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Legend_in_blue said:

If you compare countries, Peru and Brazil for example, Peru has had an extremely strict lockdown, whereas Brazil has not.  Per 1 million people, the death rate in Peru is worse than Brazil's (and the UK is worse than both).    

 

As has been explained in detail before on this thread, Peru has a very weak and vulnerable healthcare system. For decades it has been underfunded resulting in poor primary care and outmoded outdated hospitals with very low numbers of intensive care beds. Peru also features very highly in the factors that have hampered pandemic responses across Latin America: diverse populations and geographies; deep poverty; cramped, multigenerational housing; and a lack of laboratories for testing. The list is long and, Peru fares much worse than its neighbours.

 

'Covid deaths' per million do not tell the whole story. In both Brazil and Peru both countries register a much lower number of covid deaths because they are being massively underreported. However, in each case, when you look at the 'total deaths' you will see a huge spike correlating with the pandemic. Since the total number of deaths registered in a week normally follows a predictable pattern, demographers understand that the extra deaths during the pandemic are more significant. 

 

In contrast, you have also argued for months that UK death rates attributed to the virus are being vastly over reported. 

 

I guess this is what happens again when you cherry pick data that you don't understand to support a rather tiresome agenda.  

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...