Coronavirus

[jimmyp]

2 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Rear gunner in the Navy. Me and my mates salute you JimmyP.

I’m normally one of the pilots, we were doing some training though so I got to do some target practice. 

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

I'm sure you would vote for tax rises to pay them more.

Seems perfectly reasonable to me - we just might create a slightly fairer society that way.

[i-Ram]

Tax rises? No, the money is mine.

 

[ariotofmyown]

59 minutes ago, i-Ram said:

Tax rises? No, the money is mine.

 

I saw him last Jan as he was about to set off on tour round the country. Might go and see him again when he restarts it as there has been too much stuff happening not to have loads of new things in there.

[Rev]

6 hours ago, Sith Happens said:

No no no. I could eat a plate of sprouts. Yum.

When I am King, you will be first against the wall.

[Comrade 86]

10 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

What do you mean by above and beyond what is expected?

And why do they need extra mental health support?

Im guessing from a few of your posts that you work in the NHS and have first hand experience?

Do you work in the NHS? I'm guessing from a few of your posts that you work in the NHS and have first hand experience? Otherwise I'd assume you'd not be casting aspersions on what NHS workers may or may not have suffered and whether their mental health may have suffered as a consequence.  Am I doing this right?

Fact is, you've stated unequivocally on this very thread that you'd rather not have the vaccine until a sufficient number of other folks have survived it for you to feel confident that you're not going to be suddenly be afflicted with terminal dementia. Given that stance, who does or doesn't get it first and therefore enjoys a return to normality soonest (special ducking privileges?!?!?) is absolutely not your concern. Of course you might not get back to the pub as soon as some (or in your case, most) but you can't have it both ways, can you, despite the fact you obviously feel you're entitled to.

Not to worry though mate, by Autumn 2021, you should be able to join the rest of us in raising a glass, least there or thereabouts.

[G STAR RAM]

1 hour ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

Do you work in the NHS? I'm guessing from a few of your posts that you work in the NHS and have first hand experience? Otherwise I'd assume you'd not be casting aspersions on what NHS workers may or may not have suffered and whether their mental health may have suffered as a consequence.  Am I doing this right?

Fact is, you've stated unequivocally on this very thread that you'd rather not have the vaccine until a sufficient number of other folks have survived it for you to feel confident that you're not going to be suddenly be afflicted with terminal dementia. Given that stance, who does or doesn't get it first and therefore enjoys a return to normality soonest (special ducking privileges?!?!?) is absolutely not your concern. Of course you might not get back to the pub as soon as some (or in your case, most) but you can't have it both ways, can you, despite the fact you obviously feel you're entitled to.

Not to worry though mate, by Autumn 2021, you should be able to join the rest of us in raising a glass, least there or thereabouts.

As usual you stick your nose into a sensible converstion and try and make it into an argument, thank goodness @jimmyp was sensible enough to realise it was just a genuine question about what state the NHS is in.

Can you show me where I have said "unequivocally on this very thread that you'd rather not have the vaccine until a sufficient number of other folks have survived it for you to feel confident that you're not going to be suddenly be afflicted with terminal dementia" please?

 

[Sith Happens]

 

 

10 hours ago, Norman said:

Just to add to the debate. I've heard rumours we will be in the first round of vaccines. 

A quick chat with my colleagues suggests many won't have it unless it is mandatory. 

Which led to the debate of whether we would be forced to have it to continue working. Who knows what that answer will be when the time comes. 

 

9 hours ago, Albert said:

 

Regardless of it being mandatory or not, it would be pretty selfish to not get a pandemic ending vaccine when the time comes. People lives and livelihoods are being ruined. Anything we can do to end that as soon as possible should occur. Vaccines are on the whole safe, and when the vaccines role around, they'll have been tested to the same standard as others. Even if you assume that this is the most dangerous vaccine ever to be given the green light after this testing, it will still be orders of magnitude less dangerous than the disease itself. 

Surely one of the key bits of information has to be regarding how the vaccine protects you? If having it stops you getting ill, but doesnt stop you spreading it then I can see that those who choose not to take it have a better argument as they may be in low risk groups who feel catching covid will be just a mild illness.

If there is evidence that it also stops, or reduces your ability to spread the virus, then its a different matter. I did read that they dont know but are 'guessing' there will be protection from spreading it, but maybe not as high as 95% effective, but more like 50%. Even at that its very significant.

So I would want to understand the impact of the vaccine on virus spread before i brand anyone selfish.

If i had a business with employees, would i want my employees to have the vaccine? Probably yes, i guess id be pretty annoyed if someone was off ill due to an avoidable illness through vaccination, I would want them moreso if i knew it was going to prevent the spread at work too. Do i think employers will insist on it, id be surprised but who knows, we are in new territory here.

If it does prevent, or help prevent spreading the virus then what i see potentially happening is those who have been vaccinated being given some sort of 'immunity passport', so for travel, even sports events etc you can demonstrate you have had the vaccine. Those that chose not to may have to, at their own expense, provide evidence by means of a test within 'x' amount of time showing they are virus free.

You might even get pubs, restaurants seeking evidence too, vaccine certificate or recent test to show virus free.

I exclude those, as im sure there will be some, who cannot have the vaccine for medical reasons, they may be given an exemption by their GP to show instead.

 

[Albert]

29 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

As usual you stick your nose into a sensible converstion and try and make it into an argument, thank goodness @jimmyp was sensible enough to realise it was just a genuine question about what state the NHS is in.

Can you show me where I have said "unequivocally on this very thread that you'd rather not have the vaccine until a sufficient number of other folks have survived it for you to feel confident that you're not going to be suddenly be afflicted with terminal dementia" please?

 

Well, when people get such impressions it's worth looking at what you've actually said. The key posts include:

 

On 11/11/2020 at 19:33, G STAR RAM said:

Can you quantify this please?

What are the chances of me getting Covid and, if I do get it, what are the chances of me falling seriously ill (I'm 41 years old, no underlying issues and generally in good health).

Also, what are the chances of me recovering from say dementia if that is one of the long term side effects of the vaccine?

This is the most likely starting point from the impression, you including something that simply isn't a known side effect of any vaccine. This was rightly criticised by many on here. You also did indeed double down on these points:

On 11/11/2020 at 21:24, G STAR RAM said:

Nope but then again I would not expect that sort of information to be available before the vaccine has been administered.

Do you have peer reviewed research to show that there are no long term side effects from the vaccine?

 

On 11/11/2020 at 22:16, G STAR RAM said:

Because I've said I think people should have the own choice on whether they have the vaccine or not.

Albert then tried to convince every one that it is safer to take it than not.

So I put out an example where it may not end up being safer. 

You may think it is a poor example but that is because you clearly have no problem with taking the vaccine.

I imagine women would probably have thought the same when they were given thalidomide back in the 50s and 60s. 

I particularly like you comparing this to thalidomide, despite this vaccine not being rushed, and going through the same testing procedures all other medication does. 

As discussed, vaccines are on the whole very safe, and the testing procedures used generally limits side effects to the 1 in millions range. Given Covid-19's rate of complications is quite high, the notion that a fully tested vaccine is going to be riskier is quite frankly absurd. 

As to the rest of their impression of your position, consider these older posts on vaccines:

On 10/11/2020 at 20:27, G STAR RAM said:

Surely to try and understand their reasons for not wanting a vaccine?

Personally, I try and steer clear of any medication as I think it helps you fight illness a lot better.

The last time I was prescribed medication it turned out to be a drug that had been banned in America.

Didnt inspire me with confidence to say the least.

 

On 10/11/2020 at 19:27, G STAR RAM said:

How have we concluded that there are long term health impacts from a disease that has been around for 9 or 10 months?

Is there a 100% guarantee of no side effects from the vaccine? How have you measures the long term health impacts of this?

I can understand you thinking that their post is a misrepresentation of you position, but given how you've expressed your thoughts, I can understand how it comes about.

My own reading of your position is that you're a 'sceptic' of medicine in general, and aren't too pleased about the idea of anything being mandated. It's not so much that you fear that a vaccine will actually give you dementia, but rather, you don't understand the medicines themselves, so fear their side effects at some level. I doubt that's the one you'd personally put it either though. 

[Gone]

8 hours ago, Eddie said:

Seems perfectly reasonable to me - we just might create a slightly fairer society that way.

Wanted to stay out of this thread, but couldn’t not reply to this. So, I’m assuming you no longer work? (Big assumption, but stick with me here). If my assumption correct, of course it seems reasonable to you, it doesn’t bloody effect you. Anyhow let me get this right, I’m stuck in my house again, to help protect the vulnerable (which you have stated you are) and personally don’t need to be stuck at home but am following the rules like most good citizens. And now your are asking me to pay for the privilege of being stuck at home and cover the costs incurred protecting the vulnerable out of my hard earned money? And you label me as selfish??? Last question do you really not think paying ~42% of salary in tax and NI is not already doing enough to make society a little fairer? 

[Albert]

9 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

Surely one of the key bits of information has to be regarding how the vaccine protects you? If having it stops you getting ill, but doesnt stop you spreading it then I can see that those who choose not to take it have a better argument as they may be in low risk groups who feel catching covid will be just a mild illness.

There are three key points here:

1. The likelihood of the vaccination not decreasing the transmission rate at all is virtually zero given the immune responses seen. 

2. 'Low risk' people are still at risk, particularly of the longer term concerns, even with a mild initial illness. 

3. The vaccine won't be okayed if it has side effects as serious as even a mild infection; the risks of the vaccine will be lower than the disease itself if it passes trials. 

9 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

If there is evidence that it also stops, or reduces your ability to spread the virus, then its a different matter. I did read that they dont know but are 'guessing' there will be protection from spreading it, but maybe not as high as 95% effective, but more like 50%. Even at that its very significant.

So I would want to understand the impact of the vaccine on virus spread before i brand anyone selfish.

Given that they're still rolling the dice on getting sick, and needing treatment, etc, it is still selfish. The risks of the vaccine will be lower than the risks of getting sick from the disease. Antivaxers messing with the roll out of such an important vaccination will only embolden others with future vaccines as well. Speaking with a few in recent months, there is a view that they can 'win some over' by campaigning against this one. 

9 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

If i had a business with employees, would i want my employees to have the vaccine? Probably yes, i guess id be pretty annoyed if someone was off ill due to an avoidable illness through vaccination, I would want them moreso if i knew it was going to prevent the spread at work too. Do i think employers will insist on it, id be surprised but who knows, we are in new territory here.

If it does prevent, or help prevent spreading the virus then what i see potentially happening is those who have been vaccinated being given some sort of 'immunity passport', so for travel, even sports events etc you can demonstrate you have had the vaccine. Those that chose not to may have to, at their own expense, provide evidence by means of a test within 'x' amount of time showing they are virus free.

You might even get pubs, restaurants seeking evidence too, vaccine certificate or recent test to show virus free.

I exclude those, as im sure there will be some, who cannot have the vaccine for medical reasons, they may be given an exemption by their GP to show instead.

What a horrendous waste of time and money such systems would be. It's a vaccine, the limiting factor should be supply, not lack of education for some parts of the community. 

[G STAR RAM]

15 minutes ago, Albert said:

I can understand you thinking that their post is a misrepresentation of you position, but given how you've expressed your thoughts, I can understand how it comes about.

My own reading of your position is that you're a 'sceptic' of medicine in general, and aren't too pleased about the idea of anything being mandated. It's not so much that you fear that a vaccine will actually give you dementia, but rather, you don't understand the medicines themselves, so fear their side effects at some level. I doubt that's the one you'd personally put it either though. 

Think there is a bit of history with the other poster so they look to jump on anything I say and wildly exagerrate it. Obviously if they back up what I have supposedly said, I am more than happy to apologise.

I wouldnt say I'm a sceptic of medicine, its just something I steer away from if possible as I would prefer to my immune system to fight things naturally. I don't think its any coincidence that you can count on one hand how many days I have had off sick in the 22 years that I have worked.

I certainly would not want to see any vaccines mandated, as I think everyone should be able to make their own decision on it, but if the benefits are clear to see then I would not have a problem having it.

[Albert]

16 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Think there is a bit of history with the other poster so they look to jump on anything I say and wildly exagerrate it. Obviously if they back up what I have supposedly said, I am more than happy to apologise.

I wouldnt say I'm a sceptic of medicine, its just something I steer away from if possible as I would prefer to my immune system to fight things naturally. I don't think its any coincidence that you can count on one hand how many days I have had off sick in the 22 years that I have worked.

I certainly would not want to see any vaccines mandated, as I think everyone should be able to make their own decision on it, but if the benefits are clear to see then I would not have a problem having it.

What you are saying is that you're a literal sceptic. You question whether medicines are needed, so you don't take them. Sceptic seems to be seen as a bit of an odious tag these days, and in some ways for good reasons, but it is a valid description of what you've expressed on here. 

As to the question about a mandate, given the number of lives and livelihoods lost, I would support a mandate. Either you care about those who are suffering through this, and are going to get that vaccine as soon as you are capable, or you're prolonging this. At the end of the day, if you don't care about those suffering, but are concerned about the risks to yourself, fine, don't get it, and protest a mandate. All power to you, but that is ultimately what you're up against. 

[Eddie]

26 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Wanted to stay out of this thread, but couldn’t not reply to this. So, I’m assuming you no longer work? (Big assumption, but stick with me here). If my assumption correct, of course it seems reasonable to you, it doesn’t bloody effect you. Anyhow let me get this right, I’m stuck in my house again, to help protect the vulnerable (which you have stated you are) and personally don’t need to be stuck at home but am following the rules like most good citizens. And now your are asking me to pay for the privilege of being stuck at home and cover the costs incurred protecting the vulnerable out of my hard earned money? And you label me as selfish??? Last question do you really not think paying ~42% of salary in tax and NI is not already doing enough to make society a little fairer? 

I work.

I'm past retirement age, but I love working - and I wouldn't mind it if I were asked to contribute another couple of pence in the pound. However, our taxation system is, itself, skewed heavily in favour of the better-off. It would be far fairer to have higher direct taxation and lower indirect taxation.

Thank you for your contribution to my well-being - I appreciate it. In fact, I appreciate the contribution of all those who do not cheat the Coronavirus rules - no matter how churlish and grudging they feel about it.

[Archied]

35 minutes ago, Albert said:

There are three key points here:

1. The likelihood of the vaccination not decreasing the transmission rate at all is virtually zero given the immune responses seen. 

2. 'Low risk' people are still at risk, particularly of the longer term concerns, even with a mild initial illness. 

3. The vaccine won't be okayed if it has side effects as serious as even a mild infection; the risks of the vaccine will be lower than the disease itself if it passes trials. 

Given that they're still rolling the dice on getting sick, and needing treatment, etc, it is still selfish. The risks of the vaccine will be lower than the risks of getting sick from the disease. Antivaxers messing with the roll out of such an important vaccination will only embolden others with future vaccines as well. Speaking with a few in recent months, there is a view that they can 'win some over' by campaigning against this one. 

What a horrendous waste of time and money such systems would be. It's a vaccine, the limiting factor should be supply, not lack of education for some parts of the community. 

Wow , the resident highly qualified expert is back with a gusto ??????,, get yourself on the wing for Derby old swervy Albert 

[Albert]

1 minute ago, Archied said:

Wow , the resident highly qualified expert is back with a gusto ??????,, get yourself on the wing for Derby old swervy Albert 

Is this really what your argument has devolved into at this point? 

If you disagree, either explain why, or stop spamming. It's just coming off as childish at this point. 

[ariotofmyown]

30 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Wanted to stay out of this thread, but couldn’t not reply to this. So, I’m assuming you no longer work? (Big assumption, but stick with me here). If my assumption correct, of course it seems reasonable to you, it doesn’t bloody effect you. Anyhow let me get this right, I’m stuck in my house again, to help protect the vulnerable (which you have stated you are) and personally don’t need to be stuck at home but am following the rules like most good citizens. And now your are asking me to pay for the privilege of being stuck at home and cover the costs incurred protecting the vulnerable out of my hard earned money? And you label me as selfish??? Last question do you really not think paying ~42% of salary in tax and NI is not already doing enough to make society a little fairer? 

Welcome back! I thought you were coming on to tell us that the number of people in hospital with Covid is unfortunately nearly the same as back in April.

I think you have lost track of these tax posts. It had nothing to do with protecting the vulnerable. It was so people like nurses could earn more money rather than just a few claps in the street.

And is your 42% tax and NI just on earnings over 37k, or are you volunteering to pay the higher rate on all earnings? If so, fair play.

[Archied]

5 minutes ago, Albert said:

What you are saying is that you're a literal sceptic. You question whether medicines are needed, so you don't take them. Sceptic seems to be seen as a bit of an odious tag these days, and in some ways for good reasons, but it is a valid description of what you've expressed on here. 

As to the question about a mandate, given the number of lives and livelihoods lost, I would support a mandate. Either you care about those who are suffering through this, and are going to get that vaccine as soon as you are capable, or you're prolonging this. At the end of the day, if you don't care about those suffering, but are concerned about the risks to yourself, fine, don't get it, and protest a mandate. All power to you, but that is ultimately what you're up against. 

Same old same old , you either do as Albert tells you or your a granny killer 

[Archied]

7 minutes ago, Albert said:

Is this really what your argument has devolved into at this point? 

If you disagree, either explain why, or stop spamming. It's just coming off as childish at this point. 

You don’t when suits you , now your back choosing what you believe as your influence ,presenting it as fact and building your argument and insults from there

[Gone]

16 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I work.

I'm past retirement age, but I love working - and I wouldn't mind it if I were asked to contribute another couple of pence in the pound. However, our taxation system is, itself, skewed heavily in favour of the better-off. It would be far fairer to have higher direct taxation and lower indirect taxation.

Thank you for your contribution to my well-being - I appreciate it. In fact, I appreciate the contribution of all those who do not cheat the Coronavirus rules - no matter how churlish and grudging they feel about it.

My assumption was wrong I apologise