The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[maxjam]

1 hour ago, maxjam said:

FWIW my interpretation of the data...

According this data from Sky today; 

https://www.mmorpg.com/news/new-worlds-server-transfers-begin-tomorrow-amazon-giving-free-titles-and-emotes-as-thank-you-to-fans-2000123394

If we look at the two graphs at the bottom of the page, the age group that have the highest infection rate is 10-19, followed by the 5-9s - consistent with the bump we expected as they returned to school/uni.  Their hospitalization rate however over the same time period has remained virtually the same, if not fallen very slightly - as you would expect from age groups that thankfully avoid the worst of covid.  The people most at risk from being hospitalised are the 85+ and 74-85s, with everyone else a fair way behind. 

Given that approx 70% of people dying are now double vaxxed (pages 15, 16 & 17 - tables 5a, 5b and 6);

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1016465/Vaccine_surveillance_report_-_week_36.pdf

and we know that the vaxxed can transmit the virus at similar rates to the unvaxxed, rather than innoculating children imho it would have been far better to give the elderly and vulnverable their booster jabs then start offering boosters to those that had their jabs 6-8 months ago in time for winter (or now for that matter) when the weather turns and everyone starts spending more time indoors.

Further to my own point highlighting the fact that we should have been focussing more on groups with a far, far higher risk of death from covid than kids, this article has just dropped on Sky;

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vulnerable-patients-shamefully-let-down-by-failure-of-third-jab-rollout-say-charities-12439191

[Archied]

49 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

This.

If @Eddiewas as wise as he believes, he would de-construct your argument and back it up with links to the correct information. 

As it is he believes that calling you dangerous and accusing you of spreading misinformation is the better option.

FWIW, whether or not I agree with your posts, Ive always found them to be reasoned and backed up with evidence. On the whole I find @Eddieposts, rude and obnoxious, although he does sometimes drop the charade, guess this is the days when he runs out of beer.

It’s a worn out tactic now though ,, personally I had never been involved in any kind of online platform of this nature until I stumbled into the politics thread on this forum that I was on for Derby county chat and info , I have to be honest it really troubled me when I was pretty much accused at times of being racist , homophobic , stupid , uncaring and many other tags if I disagreed with certain opinions of some posters but after a period of time ive come to see it for what it is and don’t allow it to shut down any debate ,opinions or questions I have , at times I must also admit it’s funny seeing masks slip and people paint themselves into a corner to come out throwing abuse and silly unfounded accusations ??‍♂️

[QuitYourJibbaJivin]

1 hour ago, Eddie said:

No, we don't, and I'm getting sick and tired of your ridiculous misinformation campaign. It's not only plain wrong, it's dangerous if you convince others of a similar lazy three monkeys mindset to your own.

If you want some real World evidence, my double jabbed father In law, gave it to his double jabbed wife and my double jabbed Dad. I was the only one out of our group who didn’t get it that day but I’d already had it 4 weeks earlier. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by QuitYourJibbaJivin

[maxjam]

20 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Allow me to adjudicate, as you quoted the study that I linked originally.

The main thrust of that paper is that vaccination DOES lower transmission rates considerably, but that wanes over time, so in respect of the latter you are correct and you have since clarified as such.

However your initial throwaway statement 

is unclear. And taken at face value comes across as misinformation

If you'd said "as vaccination effectiveness wanes we know that eventually the vaxxed can transmit the virus at similar rates to the unvaxxed" then you'd have been right and no one could have accused you of deliberate misrepresentation

 

Case dismissed - nothing more to see here

So what I said is unclear but not wrong and certainly not deliberate misinformation.  Misinformation would be saying something wholly untrue - mine was at worst, as you say, a throwaway statement.

FWIW I recall the study that you linked stating that by week 12 there was no difference in tranmission whether you were vaccinated or unvaccinated.  Now I am no Doctor, so feel free to research this yourself but I highly doubt that by week 11 day 6 you are still protecting others around you from transmission.  We also know it takes 2 weeks for the vaccine to kick in fully - therefore imho there is probably a goldilocks period during those 12 weeks in which you are much less of a risk to the people around you than an unvaccinated person, but it is not the full 12 weeks. 

For arguments sake if we say 10 weeks, anyone that had their jab before mid-July is as much as a risk as those that haven't had a jab.  For reference in the UK difference in the number that were fully jabbed on July 20th compared to today is approx 9m out of approx 67m - or 58m people carrying the same risk transmitting covid.

Case dismissed - nothing more to see here ?

Edited October 20, 2021 by maxjam

[alexxxxx]

3 hours ago, maxjam said:

So what I said is unclear but not wrong and certainly not deliberate misinformation.  Misinformation would be saying something wholly untrue - mine was at worst, as you say, a throwaway statement.

FWIW I recall the study that you linked stating that by week 12 there was no difference in tranmission whether you were vaccinated or unvaccinated.  Now I am no Doctor, so feel free to research this yourself but I highly doubt that by week 11 day 6 you are still protecting others around you from transmission.  We also know it takes 2 weeks for the vaccine to kick in fully - therefore imho there is probably a goldilocks period during those 12 weeks in which you are much less of a risk to the people around you than an unvaccinated person, but it is not the full 12 weeks. 

For arguments sake if we say 10 weeks, anyone that had their jab before mid-July is as much as a risk as those that haven't had a jab.  For reference in the UK difference in the number that were fully jabbed on July 20th compared to today is approx 9m out of approx 67m - or 58m people carrying the same risk transmitting covid.

Case dismissed - nothing more to see here ?

I can't be bothered to go through all this but does this take in to account that by virtue of getting the vaccine you are less likely to get the virus in the first place and therefore cannot spread it. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by alexxxxx

[alexxxxx]

My view on the whole thing is that the government are going back to their policy of too little too late as of this time last year. 

Its not a binary of lockdown and no lockdown... There's plenty of stuff to do in the middle like making sure people get their boosters... Double vaccinating teenagers... And dare I say it, vaccine/test passports. 

Edited October 20, 2021 by alexxxxx

[Archied]

39 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

I can't be bothered to go through all this but does this take in to account that by virtue of getting the vaccine you are less likely to get the virus in the first place and therefore cannot spread it. 

Hmmmmm ,hmmmm and hmmmm again , I know far more people who have tested positive since being double jabbed than I did before vaccines, either the figures are wrong or the testing is wrong or a combination of both ,

now anybody who wants vaccine crack on ( ive had both ,,, no booster ) but for gods sake let’s stop the pretence that the double jabbed are not testing positive in great numbers

[Archied]

52 minutes ago, alexxxxx said:

My view on the whole thing is that the government are going back to their policy of too little too late as of this time last year. 

Its not a binary of lockdown and no lockdown... There's plenty of stuff to do in the middle like making sure people get their boosters... Double vaccinating teenagers... And dare I say it, vaccine/test passports. 

Do you mean mandating boosters and double jabbing teenagers? Vaccine passports that are worthless  as you can catch and pass covid when jabbed , test passport may have some validity but certainly vaccine passports have zero worth and as such can and will only be seen by non covid zealots as financially motivated And in fact do more harm than good by giving false feeling of security ??‍♂️

Edited October 20, 2021 by Archied

[GboroRam]

This thread is depressing. 

[maxjam]

1 hour ago, alexxxxx said:

I can't be bothered to go through all this but does this take in to account that by virtue of getting the vaccine you are less likely to get the virus in the first place and therefore cannot spread it. 

I guess so, although I can't find any exact data.

The best I can find is from the latest Govt link I posted previously - during weeks 32-35 you were more likely to test postive for covid if you were over 40 and vaccinated than unvaccinated.

[Archied]

12 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

This thread is depressing. 

Better if it were suppressing 

[sage]

Join the DCFC Death Cult. 

Currently only 4 members but open to anyone who enjoys being obsessively irrational. 

 

[Archied]

8 hours ago, sage said:

Join the DCFC Death Cult. 

Currently only 4 members but open to anyone who enjoys being obsessively irrational. 

 

Open to those who choose to LIVE

[Archied]

8 hours ago, sage said:

Join the DCFC Death Cult. 

Currently only 4 members but open to anyone who enjoys being obsessively irrational. 

 

If these numbers are so small and irrational then why the need for mandates , regulations, rules , laws, punishment s , fines , forced jabs ,, surely virtually everyone will be choosing to wear masks , choosing jabs , choosing not to mix , choosing to lock THEMSELVES down just in case the become one of the 1 point something percent ?

as stated yesterday on high , boosters are not just about saving lives the are about keeping your freedoms

[Grumpy Git]

Lets not kid ourselves here, if there are any actions that need taking (particularly unpopular ones), our current leaders are Olympic champions at shutting the stable door when the nag has long since departed.

[Stive Pesley]

33 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

Lets not kid ourselves here, if there are any actions that need taking (particularly unpopular ones), our current leaders are Olympic champions at shutting the stable door when the nag has long since departed.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58990658

 

Quote

The British Medical Association accused the government of being "wilfully negligent" for not reimposing Covid rules such as mandatory face masks

You'd think the government would err on the side of caution, it's only a mask. But they appear to be pandering to the bedwetters 

 

 

[Archied]

34 minutes ago, Grumpy Git said:

Lets not kid ourselves here, if there are any actions that need taking (particularly unpopular ones), our current leaders are Olympic champions at shutting the stable door when the nag has long since departed.

But surely any actions taken will be very very popular if death cult posts are correct ??‍♂️

[Archied]

7 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58990658

 

You'd think the government would err on the side of caution, it's only a mask. But they appear to be pandering to the bedwetters 

 

 

It’s only a mask , figures would suggest it’s bedwetters that want them FORCED on everyone to make them feel safe , no wonder some call them face nappies 

wear one if it makes you feel safer but leave alone the majority who’s experience of this virus makes them want to get on with normal living , by all means live as un naturally as you personally choose

Edited October 21, 2021 by Archied

[Stive Pesley]

3 minutes ago, Archied said:

It’s only a mask , figures would suggest it’s bedwetters that want them FORCED on everyone to make them feel safe , no wonder some call them face nappies 

wear one if it makes you feel safer but leave the majority who’s experience of this virus makes them want to get on with normal living , by all means live as un naturally as you personally choose

I guess there are two schools of thought

1. Those who don't see masks as a particular imposition and therefore, if making them mandatory in crowded places saves a single life then that's a win for the greater good

2. Those who have massive control issues and couldn't give a flying duck if they save lives or not - they ain't being told to wear one by no one and they feel no social responsibility. 

 

[sage]

6 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I guess there are two schools of thought

1. Those who don't see masks as a particular imposition and therefore, if making them mandatory in crowded places saves a single life then that's a win for the greater good

2. Those who have massive control issues and couldn't give a flying duck if they save lives or not - they ain't being told to wear one by no one and they feel no social responsibility. 

 

Agreed. Again the flaw in this argument is masks are better at stopping the wearer spread the virus than they are protecting the wearer. 

This "freedom' is freedom to spread it not freedom from catching it. 

It's the same argument drink drivers used in the 70s when they wanted to carry on driving home from the pub.