Coronavirus

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, goldstar said:

So if that's the case, let everyone who is not vulnerable carry on with life and give the vulnerable the vaccine then. Sorted. 

Which is what the proposal set out in the media last week seemed to be.

[goldstar]

6 minutes ago, Wolfie said:

It's highly likey that's what will happen but of course you have to give the vaccine to all of the vulnerable first - which is why we keep being told that things will get better after/by Easter.

We were told 2 weeks back in March. 

[goldstar]

6 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Which is what the proposal set out in the media last week seemed to be.

And you still believe them? Bless you 

[Sith Happens]

19 minutes ago, goldstar said:

You're spot on there.

And for me, the conditions keep being pushed back, altered and now people are defending a vaccination that is admitted may not stop transmission but has been talked about as the cure. That's great if it makes people less ill but people shouldn't then be punished if they question the vaccine/don't take it. 

Unbelievable what people are willing to accept. 

I dont understand why you think its changed. Its always been stated that its unknown if, or to what degree the vaccine will prevent spread.

It has been suggested the Oxford vaccine will be better at it, but its yet to be proven.

You have a choice, take it or not. Comments that you are astounded or unbelievable what people are willing to accept is dangerous in my opinion, it suggests you are trying to project your opinions on others. Dont, let them make their own minds up, dont try and belittle them if they feel the vaccine is something thet buy into and want to have.

[goldstar]

13 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

I dont understand why you think its changed. Its always been stated that its unknown if, or to what degree the vaccine will prevent spread.

It has been suggested the Oxford vaccine will be better at it, but its yet to be proven.

You have a choice, take it or not. Comments that you are astounded or unbelievable what people are willing to accept is dangerous in my opinion, it suggests you are trying to project your opinions on others. Dont, let them make their own minds up, dont try and belittle them if they feel the vaccine is something thet buy into and want to have.

I am allowed to be suspicious that they are campaigning hard for everyone to be vaccinated when it has been rushed through with no long term testing, and then comes the bombshell that woops may not actually do what a vaccine is meant to do anyway. 

Many apologies for my language choices that affect you when this thread is 99% full of commenters pro vaccine. If my few posts belittle people so much that it can affect their choices, i suggest they grow a backbone. 

I suggest your naivety is dangerous and enables the government to make the necessary sinister changes it needs by suggesting everyone who has concerns is wrong by saying an opinion. 

[GboroRam]

4 minutes ago, goldstar said:

I am allowed to be suspicious that they are campaigning hard for everyone to be vaccinated when it has been rushed through with no long term testing, and then comes the bombshell that woops may not actually do what a vaccine is meant to do anyway. 

Many apologies for my language choices that affect you when this thread is 99% full of commenters pro vaccine. If my few posts belittle people so much that it can affect their choices, i suggest they grow a backbone. 

I suggest your naivety is dangerous and enables the government to make the necessary sinister changes it needs by suggesting everyone who has concerns is wrong by saying an opinion. 

Still waiting for someone to tell me the government's ulterior motive for all this mass vaccination programme. Presumably there's a really good reason for spending billions and locking down not just our country - most of the world has been locked down. Must be a doozie of a reason.

[goldstar]

Just now, GboroRam said:

Still waiting for someone to tell me the government's ulterior motive for all this mass vaccination programme. Presumably there's a really good reason for spending billions and locking down not just our country - most of the world has been locked down. Must be a doozie of a reason.

Your last sentence just about sums it up. Absolutely no point me taking the time to write even 2 paragraphs, the very fact you're asking that shows you have your blinkers on. 

[Gone]

Just read a decent idea, against my judgement of lockdown but here goes. 
Lockdown hard now everywhere (tier 4) but include everything schools, universities  etc etc for 12 weeks and go on a 24/7 mass vaccination program. No more bitting and bobbing, go for it and get this over and done with. Potentially out of this by early April, I’d be up for that. 

[maxjam]

5 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Still waiting for someone to tell me the government's ulterior motive for all this mass vaccination programme. Presumably there's a really good reason for spending billions and locking down not just our country - most of the world has been locked down. Must be a doozie of a reason.

To protect the NHS!

 

[GboroRam]

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

To protect the NHS!

 

No, that doesn't sound plausible. I'm wondering if the real answer include the words Gates, 5G, mind control, new world order or something similar.

[Tamworthram]

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

To protect the NHS!

 

That's not an ulterior motive. It's a widely published and valid one.

[maxjam]

31 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

I dont understand why you think its changed. Its always been stated that its unknown if, or to what degree the vaccine will prevent spread.

It has been suggested the Oxford vaccine will be better at it, but its yet to be proven.

You have a choice, take it or not. Comments that you are astounded or unbelievable what people are willing to accept is dangerous in my opinion, it suggests you are trying to project your opinions on others. Dont, let them make their own minds up, dont try and belittle them if they feel the vaccine is something thet buy into and want to have.

Assuming we have a choice.

Whilst the Govt have said they won't (currently) be introducing a 'vaccine passport' I think it was Matt Hancock that did say it was up to individual corporations as to what they did themselves. 

We have already seen some airlines talk about covid passport;

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielreed/2020/12/01/dont-leave-home-without-it-airlines-hope-new-app-can-revive-international-travel-all-but-killed-by-covid/

and Everton ask for a negative covid test before being allowed to attend matches;

 

At what point does the vaccine become mandatory assuming this gets rolled out to cinemas or restaurants etc?

If the vulnerable have had their jabs and are protected why should I be forced to vaccinate myself if I'm young, fit and healthy and in the 0.5% risk category?

[Eddie]

40 minutes ago, goldstar said:

We were told 2 weeks back in March. 

The problem has always been half-measures, implemented too late, administered by people who thought that rules are for little people - and observed loosely when it suited people.

Then when restrictions were lifted somewhat, a large proportion of the population taking tabloid newspaper headlines about "freedom" literally and all doing the things they weren't allowed to do before all at the same time.

There have always been two reasons - the same two reasons right from the start - why the pandemic has raged out of control for so long:

1. The density of the population
2. The density of the population

[Sith Happens]

10 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Assuming we have a choice.

Whilst the Govt have said they won't (currently) be introducing a 'vaccine passport' I think it was Matt Hancock that did say it was up to individual corporations as to what they did themselves. 

We have already seen some airlines talk about covid passport;

https://www.forbes.com/sites/danielreed/2020/12/01/dont-leave-home-without-it-airlines-hope-new-app-can-revive-international-travel-all-but-killed-by-covid/

and Everton ask for a negative covid test before being allowed to attend matches;

 

At what point does the vaccine become mandatory assuming this gets rolled out to cinemas or restaurants etc?

If the vulnerable have had their jabs and are protected why should I be forced to vaccinate myself if I'm young, fit and healthy and in the 0.5% risk category?

Its not new to have to have a negative test to travel abroad, its been occuring for several months now.

I cant see that changing anytime soon.

If the vaccine allows people to travel in place of having a test i guess is yet to be seen, as its been pointed out already there is no hard evidence yet that it prevents transmission.

I expect to have the vaccine soon but when (if) i get to go away as planned in May i am prepared and expecting to have to take a test too.

Ill add that it was never my point to try and convince someone who is an anti-vaxxer to take the vaccine, it was simply have your opinion fair enough, choose to take it or not, but dont try and condemn, or persuade others who want to take it.

[maxjam]

6 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

No, that doesn't sound plausible. I'm wondering if the real answer include the words Gates, 5G, mind control, new world order or something similar.

 

5 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

That's not an ulterior motive. It's a widely published and valid one.

Ah sorry, you wanted a conspiracy theory answer - well lets go with money and power.

You can't give all your friends huge medical budgets (despite having no expertise in the field) if you ignore the pandemic.  Furthermore you can't ignore 100k deaths and expect to be voted into power again.

Unlike the covid death updates the 100k+ people dying of cancer or poverty etc won't be broadcast into peoples consciousness every day and whilst the rich will inevitably come through the pandemic with their livelihoods intact it will be the largely ignored and ridiculed working classes that will be footing the bill for decades to come.

[maxjam]

14 minutes ago, Sith Happens said:

Its not new to have to have a negative test to travel abroad, its been occuring for several months now.

I cant see that changing anytime soon.

If the vaccine allows people to travel in place of having a test i guess is yet to be seen, as its been pointed out already there is no hard evidence yet that it prevents transmission.

I expect to have the vaccine soon but when (if) i get to go away as planned in May i am prepared and expecting to have to take a test too.

That didn't answer my question though.

Whilst the vaccine may not prevent transmission if the elderly/vulnerable have been vaccinated why should everyone be forced to have the vaccine if not by law, by individual companies restricting access? 

If your Doctor says you're in a vulnerable group and recommends the vaccine, fair enough, but for the vast majority it should remain personal choice.

FWIW, I'm not personally against having the vaccine but I would like to 'wait a bit' to see whether there are any unforeseen complications.

[ariotofmyown]

 

1 hour ago, goldstar said:

You're spot on there.

And for me, the conditions keep being pushed back, altered and now people are defending a vaccination that is admitted may not stop transmission but has been talked about as the cure. That's great if it makes people less ill but people shouldn't then be punished if they question the vaccine/don't take it. 

Unbelievable what people are willing to accept. 

Are you that Soccer Mom on Death to 2020?

[ariotofmyown]

20 minutes ago, maxjam said:

 

Ah sorry, you wanted a conspiracy theory answer - well lets go with money and power.

You can't give all your friends huge medical budgets (despite having no expertise in the field) if you ignore the pandemic.  Furthermore you can't ignore 100k deaths and expect to be voted into power again.

Unlike the covid death updates the 100k+ people dying of cancer or poverty etc won't be broadcast into peoples consciousness every day and whilst the rich will inevitably come through the pandemic with their livelihoods intact it will be the largely ignored and ridiculed working classes that will be footing the bill for decades to come.

Can't believe pretty much every government badly impacted by Covid are all doing this and their citizens are all falling for it. Thank god for the President of Brazil who won't be wasting money on this vaccine.

@goldstar I mean the opposite of this.

[Sith Happens]

24 minutes ago, maxjam said:

That didn't answer my question though.

Whilst the vaccine may not prevent transmission if the elderly/vulnerable have been vaccinated why should everyone be forced to have the vaccine if not by law, by individual companies restricting access? 

If your Doctor says you're in a vulnerable group and recommends the vaccine, fair enough, but for the vast majority it should remain personal choice.

FWIW, I'm not personally against having the vaccine but I would like to 'wait a bit' to see whether there are any unforeseen complications.

How can i answer something that is just a theory? I cant decide for individual companies how they want to run their operations. I support being tested currently. No one has said you are going to need a vaccine, its all guesses and speculation. My gut feeling is it wont happen, but if it does i expect a negative test in its place will suffice.

To add, i dont think people should be penalised for not having the vaccine no. Just as i dont think they should ne ridiculed for wanting to have it which was the only point i was making in the first place..not to you of course.

[maxjam]

7 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

Can't believe pretty much every government badly impacted by Covid are all doing this and their citizens are all falling for it.

Maybe we'll revisit this in a year or so's time (assuming everyone's had their vaccine shot).

When the realisation of mounting cancer deaths, lost jobs, decimated businesses, cuts to public services and tax rises make you long for the days of austerity...