The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[1of4]

34 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I think it will end up like flu tbh - yearly boosters for those that need it and an 'acceptable' level of deaths ? 

Unlike some other diseases covid has 'animal reservoirs' which basically means that its going to be really, really difficult to eradicate.  The best hope imho is we get updated boosters every year to tackle any new variants.

If an annual booster is what allows us to return to a semblance of normality, great.

But unlike the annual flu jab that is usually only taken up by a small percentage of the population. This present virus may at the moment require more of the nation to be vaccinated along with having  periodical booster jabs. With the reluctance of some to get the initial vaccine jab, getting the nation to have a yearly booster could prove even more problematic.

 

[Gone]

7 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

If an annual booster is what allows us to return to a semblance of normality, great.

But unlike the annual flu jab that is usually only taken up by a small percentage of the population. This present virus may at the moment require more of the nation to be vaccinated along with having  periodical booster jabs. With the reluctance of some to get the initial vaccine jab, getting the nation to have a yearly booster could prove even more problematic.

 

We have returned to a semblance of normality haven’t we? Boosters will help the more vulnerable stay less vulnerable. For everyone else It’s business as usual isn’t it? Those who choose not to protect themselves with a vaccine take that at their own risk, I don’t understand why any more measures need to be put in place? 

[maxjam]

8 minutes ago, 1of4 said:

If an annual booster is what allows us to return to a semblance of normality, great.

But unlike the annual flu jab that is usually only taken up by a small percentage of the population. This present virus may at the moment require more of the nation to be vaccinated along with having  periodical booster jabs. With the reluctance of some to get the initial vaccine jab, getting the nation to have a yearly booster could prove even more problematic.

I think if you're under 50 there is little need for a booster, but yeah it should be availble to anyone that wants it each year like the flu booster.  

TBH if I have one criticism its the fact that the Govt have been pushing for younger and younger generations to get the jab rather than focussing on offering boosters to the over 50s.  My parents had theirs 'by accident' a couple of days ago, they went for their annual flu booster and were offered one at the same time.

70% of those dying from covid atm are double jabbed.  If approx 200 people a day are dying from covid at the moment, remove 70% from that and its a less dramatic 60 people per day - all of whom have probably decided not to have the vaccine for their own reasons.  If an aggressive booster program had started 4-6 weeks ago maybe a lot of those double jabbed could have been saved.

[Stive Pesley]

23 minutes ago, maxjam said:

70% of those dying from covid atm are double jabbed.

Hang on - that's not right is it? more like 70% aren't vaccinated?

[maxjam]

13 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Hang on - that's not right is it? more like 70% aren't vaccinated?

Oops, yeah sorry my bad I was thinking of the 70% of people infected that are double jabbed - nice spot and saved me from being accused of 'deliberately' spreading misinformation further down the thread ?

The broader point still stands though, there is a significant number double jabbed that may have been saved with a booster and everyone that has chosen not to be jabbed the consequences are ultimately on them.

We are at approx similar daily rates of infection to the pandemics peak with significantly lower deaths.  The vaccines are working, imho there needs to be a lot more urgency re. boosters and people dying that have chosen not to have the vaccine, well thats a bit tough to put it bluntly.  I don't see what else we can do now other than live with what we've got and carry on with life?

[Stive Pesley]

3 minutes ago, maxjam said:

people dying that have chosen not to have the vaccine, well thats a bit tough to put it bluntly

Anyone that chooses not to have it because they genuinely don't believe/trust vaccines work - yeah. That's on them at the end of the day. They live and die by their own choices - and that's how they want it.

But there probably has to be some consideration for those that haven't had it for genuine medical reasons. That must be a pretty scary thing to be living with right now

[GboroRam]

12 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Anyone that chooses not to have it because they genuinely don't believe/trust vaccines work - yeah. That's on them at the end of the day. They live and die by their own choices - and that's how they want it.

But there probably has to be some consideration for those that haven't had it for genuine medical reasons. That must be a pretty scary thing to be living with right now

I just keep coming back to the thought that there will be, eventually (as it's not going away so this will just run and run) some people who post vehemently on here that they aren't having the vaccine/booster - and one day they'll stop posting. Because Covid will eventually catch up with some of them. And we know, if they'd had that jab, there's a very good chance they'd still be posting.

And I find that ultimately sad and depressing. All this fighting and objecting - for what?

[Stive Pesley]

Just now, GboroRam said:

some people who post vehemently on here that they aren't having the vaccine/booster

TBF (unless you're deleting their posts!) I haven't seen anyone in this thread who is actively refusing the vaccine ?

 

 

[GboroRam]

5 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

TBF (unless you're deleting their posts!) I haven't seen anyone in this thread who is actively refusing the vaccine ?

 

 

Perhaps.

[maxjam]

24 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Anyone that chooses not to have it because they genuinely don't believe/trust vaccines work - yeah. That's on them at the end of the day. They live and die by their own choices - and that's how they want it.

But there probably has to be some consideration for those that haven't had it for genuine medical reasons. That must be a pretty scary thing to be living with right now

 

9 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

And I find that ultimately sad and depressing. All this fighting and objecting - for what?

 

I've not really seen anyone fighting or objecting - just other points of view.  If we take it to a political level, Labour have mostly gone along with the Tories.  You can call the Tories out for their handling of the pandemic but Labour have agreed with them in principle so not really sure what else we can do now?

It is a bit callous I'll admit, but when the vaccine is available for 99.9% of the public, those that can't take it for whatever reason probably have more to worry about that just covid anyway ?  We can't continue to lock everyone else down and run up massive debts because a small(ish) minority don't want to take the vaccine and a really, really small minority can't take it.  As we're starting to see in New Zealand and Australia, you can keep people locked down for so long but eventually tempers will flare. 

[ramit]

8 hours ago, Stive Pesley said:

Anyone that chooses not to have it because they genuinely don't believe/trust vaccines work - yeah. That's on them at the end of the day. They live and die by their own choices - and that's how they want it.

We all take our chances.  You bet on the vaccine, i on natural immunity.  Time will tell.

[GboroRam]

18 minutes ago, maxjam said:

 

 

I've not really seen anyone fighting or objecting - just other points of view.  If we take it to a political level, Labour have mostly gone along with the Tories.  You can call the Tories out for their handling of the pandemic but Labour have agreed with them in principle so not really sure what else we can do now?

It is a bit callous I'll admit, but when the vaccine is available for 99.9% of the public, those that can't take it for whatever reason probably have more to worry about that just covid anyway ?  We can't continue to lock everyone else down and run up massive debts because a small(ish) minority don't want to take the vaccine and a really, really small minority can't take it.  As we're starting to see in New Zealand and Australia, you can keep people locked down for so long but eventually tempers will flare. 

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I reserve most of my displeasure for those people who talk down wearing masks (the "I will not wear a muzzle" brigade) or those who reject the vaccine. Even if you accept that the vaccine has risks (which I personally think are extremely minimal, so small you can pretty much dismiss them) if you weigh it up with the benefits of being vaccinated and the reduced risks of Covid, I fail to see the downsides.

Why is it such a big deal to wear a bit of cloth over your mouth while you walk through Tesco? What's the big objection about? It's the merest of inconveniences. Don't give me reduced breath intake and bacterial infection - we don't see surgeons keeling over left right and centre. And if you don't wash your mask regularly, more fool you. Stop being such a mucky bugger.

The dismissal of vaccinating young people as "they aren't at risk of Covid". Why do we vaccinate boys against Rubella, when it's highest risk group is pregnant women? Why do we vaccinate everyone against HPV when it primarily prevents cervical cancer? Because we're reducing the R number. We have many, many ways of tweaking the R number. Some are draconian, like lockdowns. Some are more subtle and have a little benefit. But find enough little benefits and it helps bring that number down, which helps stop the spread.

We vaccinate groups that helps prevent the spread down to vulnerable people. Covid is proving to be very hard to slow down, more in this country than others from the data - perhaps we could learn from their practices and pick up some good habits?

As for the antipodes, they only ever bought time. They then squandered it. Ultimately their fantastic response was fruitless due to failure to vaccinate people in a timely fashion. Imagine if they'd rolled out a solid vaccination program, copying the UK response?

[Gone]

11 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Why is it such a big deal to wear a bit of cloth over your mouth while you walk through Tesco? What's the big objection about? It's the merest of inconveniences. Don't give me reduced breath intake and bacterial infection - we don't see surgeons keeling over left right and centre. And if you don't wash your mask regularly, more fool you. Stop being such a mucky bugger.

Why do you need to wear one though, we have a vaccine programme. You either choose to have the vaccine or not, if not you’ve took that risk and fair enough. So the protection is the vaccine, why do think we also need to wear masks? 
Going back to the seatbelt analogy that’s gets thrown about, I wear mine while driving but I don’t wear a crash helmet? Should I? 

[GboroRam]

5 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Why do you need to wear one though, we have a vaccine programme. You either choose to have the vaccine or not, if not you’ve took that risk and fair enough. So the protection is the vaccine, why do think we also need to wear masks? 
Going back to the seatbelt analogy that’s gets thrown about, I wear mine while driving but I don’t wear a crash helmet? Should I? 

Because it reduces the R number, a little bit. Social distancing reduces it a little bit. Working from home reduces it even more. Closing nightclubs etc. reduces it. We need to tweak as many ways as we can, to reduce the R number, with as little an impact on normal life as we can.

It's not black and white. The more prevalent the virus is, the less effective those jabs will be. Some people will be unable to get one. Some will find theirs wasn't effective. Reducing the number of people infected will make the vaccination program more effective.

We keep it as low as we can which stops the spread, which helps everyone. 

If you think of it as a system rather than individuals, it becomes easier to see the reason why masks still have their uses.

[maxjam]

32 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I don't necessarily disagree with you. I reserve most of my displeasure for those people who talk down wearing masks (the "I will not wear a muzzle" brigade) or those who reject the vaccine. Even if you accept that the vaccine has risks (which I personally think are extremely minimal, so small you can pretty much dismiss them) if you weigh it up with the benefits of being vaccinated and the reduced risks of Covid, I fail to see the downsides.

Why is it such a big deal to wear a bit of cloth over your mouth while you walk through Tesco? What's the big objection about? It's the merest of inconveniences. Don't give me reduced breath intake and bacterial infection - we don't see surgeons keeling over left right and centre. And if you don't wash your mask regularly, more fool you. Stop being such a mucky bugger.

I've got no real strong feelings either way tbh.  I don't get the rabid never wearing one brigade tbh, its a temporary covering at best as you walk round a shop or wherever.

 

32 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

The dismissal of vaccinating young people as "they aren't at risk of Covid". Why do we vaccinate boys against Rubella, when it's highest risk group is pregnant women? Why do we vaccinate everyone against HPV when it primarily prevents cervical cancer? Because we're reducing the R number. We have many, many ways of tweaking the R number. Some are draconian, like lockdowns. Some are more subtle and have a little benefit. But find enough little benefits and it helps bring that number down, which helps stop the spread.

I've been through this a few times, under 50 imo it should be personal choice - which it is, but with no recriminations.  As for under 18s the risk attached to the vaccine isn't that much smaller than their risk from covid, but I'm happy to agree that the risk is extremely tiny.  My greater concern is whether these new vaccines have any long term effects and given the risks to the younger generations, waiting to be jabbed imho would be better for them. 

I can see the argument about protecting the wider population but the latest data shows us that being double jabbed doesn't prevent you from catching/spreading covid anyway so.... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree ?

 

32 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

We vaccinate groups that helps prevent the spread down to vulnerable people. Covid is proving to be very hard to slow down, more in this country than others from the data - perhaps we could learn from their practices and pick up some good habits?

See above and put more energy into the booster scheme, have people protect themselves first and foremost.

 

32 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

As for the antipodes, they only ever bought time. They then squandered it. Ultimately their fantastic response was fruitless due to failure to vaccinate people in a timely fashion. Imagine if they'd rolled out a solid vaccination program, copying the UK response?

Their response hasn't been ideal - better than ours I'll agree but then again we were never going to get to covid zero like them with 1000+ people crossing the channel everyday.  Stories, albeit rare, of babies dying because they weren't allowed to cross state lines to go to hospital is just one example of the extremes they have gone to in protecting their communities.  Soaring mental health and substance abuse problems are also just the tip of the iceberg in keeping people locked down for extended periods.

Edited October 22, 2021 by maxjam

[Gone]

3 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Because it reduces the R number, a little bit. Social distancing reduces it a little bit. Working from home reduces it even more. Closing nightclubs etc. reduces it. We need to tweak as many ways as we can, to reduce the R number, with as little an impact on normal life as we can.

It's not black and white. The more prevalent the virus is, the less effective those jabs will be. Some people will be unable to get one. Some will find theirs wasn't effective. Reducing the number of people infected will make the vaccination program more effective.

We keep it as low as we can which stops the spread, which helps everyone. 

If you think of it as a system rather than individuals, it becomes easier to see the reason why masks still have their uses.

But if the cases are high and we have a vaccination programme and more protection then who cares what the R number is. If there is protection through the vaccination program and natural immunity, then why the clamour for even more mitigation? 
its not going away, do you suggest we wear masks indefinitely, we social distance indefinitely? Or do we have the jab (if you want too) and just get on with it? 

[1of4]

17 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

Why do you need to wear one though, we have a vaccine programme. You either choose to have the vaccine or not, if not you’ve took that risk and fair enough. So the protection is the vaccine, why do think we also need to wear masks? 
Going back to the seatbelt analogy that’s gets thrown about, I wear mine while driving but I don’t wear a crash helmet? Should I? 

Probably dependent on how good a driver you are.

[GboroRam]

2 minutes ago, maxjam said:

I can see the argument about protecting the wider population but the latest data shows us that being double jabbed doesn't prevent you from catching/spreading covid anyway so.... I guess we'll have to agree to disagree ?

It doesn't prevent it, but evidence is it reduces it. It does seem to severely reduce your risk of death or hospitalisation though, which has to be worth it?

[Gone]

Just now, 1of4 said:

Probably dependent on how good a driver you are.

I know it’s in jest….however you’d recommend all recently qualified drivers wear a crash helmet or those with a poor accident record do? 

[maxjam]

6 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

It doesn't prevent it, but evidence is it reduces it. It does seem to severely reduce your risk of death or hospitalisation though, which has to be worth it?

I'll agree that it reduces your chances of death/hospitalisation, but the younger generations - certainly the under 30s, or under 20s for example aren't at that greater risk to begin with. 

I am also not saying youngsters shouldn't ever take the vaccine, but my lads are certainly waiting until there is real world long term data available before deciding to take it.  If it is then proven safe in the long term, such as the Rubella vaccine you mentioned, then I would have no issues with teenagers taking it in the future. 

Edited October 22, 2021 by maxjam