The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[Scott129]

2 hours ago, maxjam said:

Yeah I agree. 

In the grand scheme of things Piers Morgan is a nobody - but a nobody with a lot of followers.  Others such as Micheal Gove calling people that refuse the vaccine 'selfish' really should take a step back.  It's not going to persuade people to have the jab and will slowly turn people against one another.

Now I don't think for one minute we're on the way to genocide, but I've seen the following list online a lot recently and we're probably up to #6 (Australia #7!!!)  The more angry rhetoric people spout about those that haven't been jabbed, is not only going to make them dig their heels in, but will create an atmosphere in which people are just fighting over mask wearing in public...

I'm not sure if there's been any Dehumanization yet...

I appreciate that it wasn't you that created this, but it's not hard to see why there's so much polarisation around the subject. This is, without a doubt, an extreme example, or an absolute worst case scenario, and people on Facebook/Twitter/etc will lap this up.

When you put yourself in an echo chamber where the only material is of this sort of nature, it's not hard to see why people get 'brainwashed' or 'radicalised' on both sides.

[maxjam]

4 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

I'm not sure if there's been any Dehumanization yet...

Maybe not dehumanization, but there has been a definitely shift from the Govt imo from promoting the vaccine to (back door) mandating the vaccine and criticising those that choose not to take it as stupid or selfish.  You don't win arguments by demeaning people.

 

6 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

I appreciate that it wasn't you that created this, but it's not hard to see why there's so much polarisation around the subject. This is, without a doubt, an extreme example, or an absolute worst case scenario, and people on Facebook/Twitter/etc will lap this up.

When you put yourself in an echo chamber where the only material is of this sort of nature, it's not hard to see why people get 'brainwashed' or 'radicalised' on both sides.

The main reason I posted the tweet from Piers Morgan was not because he is a gobshite, neither was it the obvious double standard of saying that we shouldn't give antivaxxers medical treatment if they catch covid when he himself is a fat smoker - one group of people don't want to inject themselves with something that has no long term data, he on the other hand willingly stuffs his face with excessive amounts of food and drink and inhales carcinogens...

Mostly, the reason was that he is has millions of followers online.  Saying crap like that causes a 'them and us' divide.  Micheal Gove calling people 'selfish' and the Govt trying to mandate vaccines for an increasing number of venues since initially highlighting nightclubs is not going to end well.  We're running headlong into a two tier society and scuffles over masks will be the least of our worries.

[Leeds Ram]

12 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Maybe not dehumanization, but there has been a definitely shift from the Govt imo from promoting the vaccine to (back door) mandating the vaccine and criticising those that choose not to take it as stupid or selfish.  You don't win arguments by demeaning people.

 

The main reason I posted the tweet from Piers Morgan was not because he is a gobshite, neither was it the obvious double standard of saying that we shouldn't give antivaxxers medical treatment if they catch covid when he himself is a fat smoker - one group of people don't want to inject themselves with something that has no long term data, he on the other hand willingly stuffs his face with excessive amounts of food and drink and inhales carcinogens...

Mostly, the reason was that he is has millions of followers online.  Saying crap like that causes a 'them and us' divide.  Micheal Gove calling people 'selfish' and the Govt trying to mandate vaccines for an increasing number of venues since initially highlighting nightclubs is not going to end well.  We're running headlong into a two tier society and scuffles over masks will be the least of our worries.

I think the mistake you're making is the assumption getting the vaccine is simply an argument to have. The claim that personal choice overrides public health in a pandemic is not a claim I'm necessarily inclined towards in all areas. It's certainly not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. As citizens not only do we have rights but we have duties to the state and to each other.  The government has a mandate to protect the lives of its citizens in emergencies such as wartime or a pandemic which is why I've defended the general package of emergency measures in the past (along with research that has a clear basis in fact that if a state legislates to limit  emergency measures they likely won't be extended into times of normalcy).

It might well be that covid passes overstep the mark and gets challenged in the courts but as seen in continental Europe sometimes the state has to apply pressure to ensure citizens do get vaccinated.  But for me, unless you have a condition that prevents you from taking the vaccine then people should really be getting it unless you are willing to regularly take covid tests and self isolate if you have a positive case and wear masks. Vaccination is the only viable route out of lockdown and keeping serious hospitalisations and deaths at a low level. It also could harm you in the end. https://www.al.com/news/2021/07/im-sorry-but-its-too-late-alabama-doctor-on-treating-unvaccinated-dying-covid-patients.html

 I don't think this is akin to other forms of measures where the utility of denying choice is not necessarily outweighed by public health benefits. I know you and other poster's have strong opinions on this subject and I understand that. However,  personally I don't think personal choice is necessarily always the primary consideration in public policy. Sometimes, the state needs to apply legislative and social pressure to achieve desired ends. I think vaccination in this circumstance meets this threshold tbh. 

[Scott129]

35 minutes ago, maxjam said:

Maybe not dehumanization, but there has been a definitely shift from the Govt imo from promoting the vaccine to (back door) mandating the vaccine and criticising those that choose not to take it as stupid or selfish.  You don't win arguments by demeaning people.

 

The main reason I posted the tweet from Piers Morgan was not because he is a gobshite, neither was it the obvious double standard of saying that we shouldn't give antivaxxers medical treatment if they catch covid when he himself is a fat smoker - one group of people don't want to inject themselves with something that has no long term data, he on the other hand willingly stuffs his face with excessive amounts of food and drink and inhales carcinogens...

Mostly, the reason was that he is has millions of followers online.  Saying crap like that causes a 'them and us' divide.  Micheal Gove calling people 'selfish' and the Govt trying to mandate vaccines for an increasing number of venues since initially highlighting nightclubs is not going to end well.  We're running headlong into a two tier society and scuffles over masks will be the least of our worries.

Two things....

1) I don't believe Piers is a regular smoker. He's one of those guys that has a couple of pints and pinches a fag or two from one of his mates. While that's still not healthy per se, it's not going to have the same effect on the NHS as someone who has 20 a day.

Can't believe I'm sticking up for Piers Morgan, of all people. Awful human being.

2) My post was referring to the Genocide thing, not so much the tweet from Morgan. Even hinting that a genocide could be on the way seems irresponsible and dangerous, in my opinion. But, like I say, people will take that as gospel, unfortunately.

[RoyMac5]

6 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

As citizens not only do we have rights but we have duties to the state and to each other. 

Oooh that'll be a bit radical for some!

[maxjam]

24 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

Two things....

1) I don't believe Piers is a regular smoker. He's one of those guys that has a couple of pints and pinches a fag or two from one of his mates. While that's still not healthy per se, it's not going to have the same effect on the NHS as someone who has 20 a day.

Can't believe I'm sticking up for Piers Morgan, of all people. Awful human being.

Whether he an occasional smoker or a 20 a day man, there is the argument that he should be denied treatment.  He is also overweight.  If you're gonna argue that unvaccinated people shouldn't receive treatment, you'd better live a angelic life yourself - and even if you do, how many thousands of others would you be condemning to that fate?

 

27 minutes ago, Scott129 said:

2) My post was referring to the Genocide thing, not so much the tweet from Morgan. Even hinting that a genocide could be on the way seems irresponsible and dangerous, in my opinion. But, like I say, people will take that as gospel, unfortunately.

The genocide thing was tongue in cheek and I did quantify it with 'I don't think for one minute we're on the way to genocide'.  Whilst I in no way believe the last few on the list will happen, it does show rather nicely how far down the road we've gone and in the current climate, how unconcerned most people are to go along with a lot of Govt control - ironically, moreso from those typically against virtually everything the Tories have done previously. 

[maxjam]

57 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

I think the mistake you're making is the assumption getting the vaccine is simply an argument to have. The claim that personal choice overrides public health in a pandemic is not a claim I'm necessarily inclined towards in all areas. It's certainly not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. As citizens not only do we have rights but we have duties to the state and to each other.  The government has a mandate to protect the lives of its citizens in emergencies such as wartime or a pandemic which is why I've defended the general package of emergency measures in the past (along with research that has a clear basis in fact that if a state legislates to limit  emergency measures they likely won't be extended into times of normalcy).

It might well be that covid passes overstep the mark and gets challenged in the courts but as seen in continental Europe sometimes the state has to apply pressure to ensure citizens do get vaccinated.  But for me, unless you have a condition that prevents you from taking the vaccine then people should really be getting it unless you are willing to regularly take covid tests and self isolate if you have a positive case and wear masks. Vaccination is the only viable route out of lockdown and keeping serious hospitalisations and deaths at a low level. It also could harm you in the end. https://www.al.com/news/2021/07/im-sorry-but-its-too-late-alabama-doctor-on-treating-unvaccinated-dying-covid-patients.html

 I don't think this is akin to other forms of measures where the utility of denying choice is not necessarily outweighed by public health benefits. I know you and other poster's have strong opinions on this subject and I understand that. However,  personally I don't think personal choice is necessarily always the primary consideration in public policy. Sometimes, the state needs to apply legislative and social pressure to achieve desired ends. I think vaccination in this circumstance meets this threshold tbh. 

I think we'll have to agree to disagree re. mandatory vaccination.  If you don't own your own body, what do you own?  I am of the opinion that vaccination is a choice and you get vaccinated to protect yourself *and* I certainly don't ascribe to the argument that children need to be vaccinated to protect the elderly and vulnerable.  

There is no long term data re. these vaccines, hypothetically speaking, lets say they do cause long term harm, it will be to late to turn back the clock in 10 years if we've vaccinated 100% (or as near dammit) of the population.  Especially when the vast majority of under 50s - certainly the under 30s or under 18s that thay are now trying to vaccinate have a risk factor of next to zero.

We aren't dealing with a disease with a high death toll and we now know that deaths and infections are largely limited to certain sections of society.  Mandating vaccination for all is a dangerous path to go down imo, far more dangerous than opening up now that everyone that wants the jab has had one.

[Leeds Ram]

8 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I think we'll have to agree to disagree re. mandatory vaccination.  If you don't own your own body, what do you own?  I am of the opinion that vaccination is a choice and you get vaccinated to protect yourself *and* I certainly don't ascribe to the argument that children need to be vaccinated to protect the elderly and vulnerable.  

There is no long term data re. these vaccines, hypothetically speaking, lets say they do cause long term harm, it will be to late to turn back the clock in 10 years if we've vaccinated 100% (or as near dammit) of the population.  Especially when the vast majority of under 50s - certainly the under 30s or under 18s that thay are now trying to vaccinate have a risk factor of next to zero.

We aren't dealing with a disease with a high death toll and we now know that deaths and infections are largely limited to certain sections of society.  Mandating vaccination for all is a dangerous path to go down imo, far more dangerous than opening up now that everyone that wants the jab has had one.

Yes, we'll agree to disagree ? I'll just add a couple of responses to your arguments if that's okay ? 

On the bodily integrity argument that assumes that this action is merely a self regarding action but not getting a vaccination can be argued is really an other regarding action especially in the application of transmission of the disease. For example, if i was to drink some orange juice that only really affects me fundamentally. But if I went out with a cold that likely affects others and can't be considered in the same manner. So, bodily integrity can definitely be applied to things like hair, tattoo's etc. but it's a harder case to measure in regards to public health measures like vaccination in terms of restrictions on your person. 

Has there ever been a vaccine with long term severe side effects? Now of course experts can be wrong, they're wrong all the time but with expert consensus at this level I think it's right to trust the pharmaceutical companies, the scientists, the governments and the world health organisation that these vaccines are safe for us to take. 

At the moment the death toll is relatively low, if we vaccinate to herd immunity levels it will become an endemic not a pandemic. It's currently not a particularly deadly virus for a lot of categories of people, however there is always the possibility of a more deadly mutation. In America 99% of the deaths occurring are in those that haven't had the vaccine as stated in the article I linked. The anti vaxxer sentiment isn't just limited to covid but in certain parts of the developed world is leading to more cases of measles and mumps for example because parents don't want their children vaccinated against these diseases either. So this also cannot be seen in isolation. 

[sage]

1 hour ago, Leeds Ram said:

I think the mistake you're making is the assumption getting the vaccine is simply an argument to have. The claim that personal choice overrides public health in a pandemic is not a claim I'm necessarily inclined towards in all areas. It's certainly not as cut and dry as you're making it out to be. As citizens not only do we have rights but we have duties to the state and to each other.  The government has a mandate to protect the lives of its citizens in emergencies such as wartime or a pandemic which is why I've defended the general package of emergency measures in the past (along with research that has a clear basis in fact that if a state legislates to limit  emergency measures they likely won't be extended into times of normalcy).

It might well be that covid passes overstep the mark and gets challenged in the courts but as seen in continental Europe sometimes the state has to apply pressure to ensure citizens do get vaccinated.  But for me, unless you have a condition that prevents you from taking the vaccine then people should really be getting it unless you are willing to regularly take covid tests and self isolate if you have a positive case and wear masks. Vaccination is the only viable route out of lockdown and keeping serious hospitalisations and deaths at a low level. It also could harm you in the end. https://www.al.com/news/2021/07/im-sorry-but-its-too-late-alabama-doctor-on-treating-unvaccinated-dying-covid-patients.html

 I don't think this is akin to other forms of measures where the utility of denying choice is not necessarily outweighed by public health benefits. I know you and other poster's have strong opinions on this subject and I understand that. However,  personally I don't think personal choice is necessarily always the primary consideration in public policy. Sometimes, the state needs to apply legislative and social pressure to achieve desired ends. I think vaccination in this circumstance meets this threshold tbh. 

spot on

[Eddie]

3 hours ago, maxjam said:

If you add to that 56% of people catch Covid whilst in hospital

That is incorrect, I'm afraid. I suspect that you didn't quite understand or misread the statistic you were quoting (I think it was in the Telegraph, so it was probably tripe anyway).

In the last week, there have been 199,000 new cases. If your statistic was correct, then of that figure, 111,440 must have contracted Covid-19 in hospital within the past 7 days. Yet there are 'only' 5000 or so hospitalised Covid-19 patients.

[maxjam]

5 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Yes, we'll agree to disagree ? I'll just add a couple of responses to your arguments if that's okay ? 

Thats what forums are for!

 

6 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

On the bodily integrity argument that assumes that this action is merely a self regarding action but not getting a vaccination can be argued is really an other regarding action especially in the application of transmission of the disease. For example, if i was to drink some orange juice that only really affects me fundamentally. But if I went out with a cold that likely affects others and can't be considered in the same manner. So, bodily integrity can definitely be applied to things like hair, tattoo's etc. but it's a harder case to measure in regards to public health measures like vaccination in terms of restrictions on your person. 

Although as we've seen the jab doesn't prevent vaccinated people from catching or passing on the virus.  It maybe at a lower level but lets assume that we reach 90% vaccination, do 90% of mildly infectious people potentially cause more or less danger that 10% highly infectious people - especially given that in both instances you are far more likely to be surrounded by vaccinated people?

 

6 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

Has there ever been a vaccine with long term severe side effects? Now of course experts can be wrong, they're wrong all the time but with expert consensus at this level I think it's right to trust the pharmaceutical companies, the scientists, the governments and the world health organisation that these vaccines are safe for us to take. 

Not a vaccine, but Thalidomide could be considered an equivalent.

Furthermore if these new vaccines were using traditional methods you would probably have far less hesitency.  A lot of people that have refused the jabs aren't antivaxers, they are just in an age group that currently have little to fear from covid and would like to play the odds and wait for the long term data to come in.  My lad for example isn't averse to having the jab when he's 30 - he's 18 atm and unless barred from having a university education or social life is happy to take his chances and wait a number of years to ensure he won't be putting himself at any greater risk by having the jab.

 

14 minutes ago, Leeds Ram said:

At the moment the death toll is relatively low, if we vaccinate to herd immunity levels it will become an endemic not a pandemic. It's currently not a particularly deadly virus for a lot of categories of people, however there is always the possibility of a more deadly mutation. In America 99% of the deaths occurring are in those that haven't had the vaccine as stated in the article I linked. The anti vaxxer sentiment isn't just limited to covid but in certain parts of the developed world is leading to more cases of measles and mumps for example because parents don't want their children vaccinated against these diseases either. So this also cannot be seen in isolation. 

I'll see if I can dig it out, but I also read that because the vaccines don't provide sterilizing immunity, just suppress its effects, the vaccines are also putting the virus under increased pressure to mutate.  Whilst it is possible the vaccines will drive the virus to extinction, it is not impossible that they might also drive mutations. 

It is also funny that you highlight the US (political basketcase),  Chris Whitty stated that 40% of UK deaths are amongst the double vaccinated population - which is more believable tbh as the jabs aren't 100% effective and those older/more vulnerable end of the elder and vulnerable spectrum are unfortunately all probably one illness away from death.

[maxjam]

7 minutes ago, Eddie said:

That is incorrect, I'm afraid. I suspect that you didn't quite understand or misread the statistic you were quoting (I think it was in the Telegraph, so it was probably tripe anyway).

In the last week, there have been 199,000 new cases. If your statistic was correct, then of that figure, 111,440 must have contracted Covid-19 in hospital within the past 7 days. Yet there are 'only' 5000 or so hospitalised Covid-19 patients.

Okay I worded that badly.

56% of people in hospital with covid didn't test positive for covid until after they were admitted.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/26/exclusive-half-covid-hospitalisations-tested-positive-admission/

The leaked data – covering all NHS trusts in England – show that, as of last Thursday, just 44 per cent of patients classed as being hospitalised with Covid had tested positive by the time they were admitted. 

The majority of cases were not detected until patients underwent standard Covid tests, carried out on everyone admitted to hospital for any reason. 

[Eddie]

"If you won't have a vaccination, wear a mask" strikes me as a sensible compromise - but of course, that won't wash with some.

[maxjam]

5 minutes ago, Eddie said:

"If you won't have a vaccination, wear a mask" strikes me as a sensible compromise - but of course, that won't wash with some.

You'll always get some that would moan and whilst I don't think they are nearly as effective as is being made out I'm sure most would be happy to carry on wearing one as a compromise.

Personally, I'd try and go further.  Mass produce a better, cheaper, less intrusive home testing kit, subsidise it for those on low incomes and if anyone wants to wait a while to get jabbed they have to regularly show prove of being covid negative.

[Eddie]

1 minute ago, maxjam said:

56% of people in hospital with covid didn't test positive for covid until after they were admitted.

Again, that does not necessarily mean that 56% of people in hospital with Covid-19 caught it there. Did they actually produce a negative test beforehand? I suspect that a proportion of that number were untested before entering hospital. If someone has serious breathing difficulties and requires hospitalisation, it is unlikely that waiting for a test to arrive through the post in order to confirm their diagnosis is going to take priority over their loved ones ringing the emergency services, and neither should it.

When I had swine flu and had my ride in the ambulance hooked up to the machine that goes 'Pinggg', I was untested beforehand (it was all laboratory-analysis anyway, so that's probably a moot point).

[maxjam]

7 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Again, that does not necessarily mean that 56% of people in hospital with Covid-19 caught it there. Did they actually produce a negative test beforehand?

Probably not, but if you went to hospital with say a broken leg but then found out you had covid whilst you were there, would you have gone to hospital with covid if you hadn't have broken your leg?

A key paragraph is this one;

'Crucially, this group does not distinguish between those admitted because of severe illness, later found to be caused by the virus, and those in hospital for different reasons who might otherwise never have known that they had picked it up.' 

Whether the entire 56% caught covid in hospital isn't really the point, it is how many of that 56% would have gone to hospital for covid in the first place?  If it is a sizeable percentage, which it imho probably is as;  

'The figures suggest vast numbers are being classed as hospitalised by Covid when they were admitted with other ailments, with the virus picked up by routine testing.'  

then along with other data inaccuracies highlighted earlier today, the Govt are making policies based on bad information.

[Eddie]

26 minutes ago, maxjam said:

'The figures suggest vast numbers are being classed as hospitalised by Covid when they were admitted with other ailments, with the virus picked up by routine testing.' 

I would suggest that statement, especially the emboldened part, could be construed as 'editorial licence'. Unfortunately the article is paywalled, so I don't have access to the relevant statistical data and therefore cannot conduct my own analysis (or 'spin' as @Archied and @TexasRam would call it). What were the reported 'vast numbers', and, more to the point, what was the breakdown of the 'other ailments' between impact injuries (you mentioned 'broken legs' which are clearly irrelevant as far as Covid-19 is concerned) and, say, respiratory illnesses (which may well be highly relevant)?

[maxjam]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

I would suggest that statement, especially the emboldened part, could be construed as 'editorial licence'. Unfortunately the article is paywalled, so I don't have access to the relevant statistical data and therefore cannot conduct my own analysis (or 'spin' as @Archied and @TexasRam would call it). What were the reported 'vast numbers', and, more to the point, what was the breakdown of the 'other ailments' between impact injuries (you mentioned 'broken legs' which are clearly irrelevant as far as Covid-19 is concerned) and, say, respiratory illnesses (which may well be highly relevant)?

Keep reloading the page and press ESC as it refreshes, eventually you will beat the paywall ? 

It doesn't mention what other ailments people came in with, only that covid was picked up later in routine testing.

44% had tested positive in the 14 days prior to being hospitalized whereas a 'further 43 per cent were made within two days of admission, with 13 per cent made in the days and weeks that followed, including those likely to have caught the virus in hospital.'

What percentage of the 44% that go to hospital having already tested positive for covid are going because they are ill with covid and not something else?  And what percentage of the 56% that hadn't tested positive for covid before going to hospital with other ailments would have gone to to hospital with covid if they hadn't been suffering with something else instead?  Precise figures matter when you're deciding whether to lockdown millions or people or impose restrictions on sections of society.

The leaked statistics come from NHS daily situation reports, collected by all hospital trusts in England.  

One NHS data expert said the published statistics distorted the true picture, saying: "It creates an impression that all these people are going into hospital with Covid, and that simply is not the case. People are worried and scared and not really understanding the true picture – that is what I find despicable."

[Gone]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

I would suggest that statement, especially the emboldened part, could be construed as 'editorial licence'. Unfortunately the article is paywalled, so I don't have access to the relevant statistical data and therefore cannot conduct my own analysis (or 'spin' as @Archied and @TexasRam would call it). What were the reported 'vast numbers', and, more to the point, what was the breakdown of the 'other ailments' between impact injuries (you mentioned 'broken legs' which are clearly irrelevant as far as Covid-19 is concerned) and, say, respiratory illnesses (which may well be highly relevant)?

‘Spin’? I’m sure I’d have termed it bull poo ?

Edited July 30, 2021 by TexasRam

[therealhantsram]

With today's figures in (and the wed , Thu, Fri figures usually go up a little reflecting the previous weekend of socialising) I would say this week's figures are very promising. 

A modest rise in cases on Wed and Thu and a small drop today.

Cases typically fall in the weekend figures. If they continue in that pattern it would seem the pub and nightclub reopening has been a success.