The coronabrexit thread. I mean, coronavirus thread

[Tamworthram]

5 minutes ago, Olton Ram said:

I'd love to see the scientific reasoning behind some of these. There appear to be glaring contradictions and some of them make no sense at all. You can crowd onto a bus or train with no passport, but having travelled on said train or bus to get to a festival you'll need a passport to sit in the open air in a field listening to music. ????????

Has the list actually been released or is this just speculation? I guess the thing with public transport is it’s perhaps a little more essential than attending an event.

I can see pro’s and con’s of vaccine passports and it’s a tough one to call. I’m probably just about in favour provided 1) the vaccination roll out continues as fast as possible and 2) it’s only a short term plaster whilst the wound heals.

I think the two strongest arguments are firstly, it must be a good thing financially for venues to open as soon as they can and secondly,  just because I can’t go to the cinema for a few months why should I deprive my neighbour? What would I, my neighbour or the venue gain?

I know some will talk about an erosion of civil liberties but I think public health, protecting the NHS and trying to get the economy back on it’s feet trump these civil liberties as we try to recover from a pandemic.

As I say though, I’m only just, not strongly, in favour.

[Olton Ram]

4 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Has the list actually been released or is this just speculation? I guess the thing with public transport is it’s perhaps a little more essential than attending an event.

I can see pro’s and con’s of vaccine passports and it’s a tough one to call. I’m probably just about in favour provided 1) the vaccination roll out continues as fast as possible and 2) it’s only a short term plaster whilst the wound heals.

I think the two strongest arguments are firstly, it must be a good thing financially for venues to open as soon as they can and secondly,  just because I can’t go to the cinema for a few months why should I deprive my neighbour? What would I, my neighbour or the venue gain?

I know some will talk about an erosion of civil liberties but I think public health, protecting the NHS and trying to get the economy back on it’s feet trump these civil liberties as we try to recover from a pandemic.

As I say though, I’m only just, not strongly, in favour.

Actually, by the sounds of it we have very similar opinions on this. The point I was making was there seems to be a lack of consistency in how the scheme is being drawn up. This policy is already controversial without there being glaring contradictions in its use. Public confidence will be fatally damaged if people think the use of passports (or the exceptions) are politically/financially driven, rather than being scientifically driven

[Tamworthram]

6 minutes ago, Olton Ram said:

Actually, by the sounds of it we have very similar opinions on this. The point I was making was there seems to be a lack of consistency in how the scheme is being drawn up. This policy is already controversial without there being glaring contradictions in its use. Public confidence will be fatally damaged if people think the use of passports (or the exceptions) are politically/financially driven, rather than being scientifically driven

I think we probably do. The point I was making is has the scheme actually been released yet? Is this speculation or a reliable leak?

I agree, there shouldn’t be anything remotely political behind the decision. With regard to “financially driven” I think it’s perfectly valid for the rationale to include helping the economy, protecting businesses and preventing too many going bust - all of which are financial drivers. 
 

Whatever happens, it’s a tough decision, will have its flaws (it’s difficult to see a perfect solution) and will attract criticism. 

[Gerry Daly]

I think most reasonable people can see that in these exceptional circumstances something like this is needed. Its clear it will only be temporary. I think the people worrying about civil liberties of 'ethical concerns' just need to accept that we are not in the right place for idealism and some rough and ready make the best of a bad job measures are the best we can do  

[jono]

5 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

There is no news anymore. This will be just leaks to the media about vague ideas which may be considered. Depending on how this is taken, parts of these rules may be rolled out in different places with little or no consistency.

Some people will be beaten by police for having a small family outdoor bbq without full vaccine certificates, where other forces will allow huge indoor raves. The police will have to try and work out the "rules" themselves from a midnight tweet from a journalist.

It's called freedom. With great power comes literally no responsibility.

I just wish we could all employ more common sense, police included. I doubt there is a single person on here that hasn’t, at the very least, skirted with none compliance in some minor way. It would be impossible not to.

Regardless of what those in power and the departments that enforce the law do, there are a spectacular number of people who don’t employ any common sense or have any modesty in their self judgement. Even if they know what common sense is, they believe they have a divine right to ignore it and have books full of self written justifications. 

[BIllyD]

6 hours ago, David said:

If you have recently passed a negative test or antibody test you can still go.

How recent? Unknown right now, it’s clear though the intention is to force people into vaccinations and I don’t like that at all.

Forgive me if I’m wrong, as I don’t follow the news too closely anymore, but I’m led to believe having the vaccination doesn’t prevent transmission, just prevents serious illness which would hospitalise you?

Looking at the numbers of people already vaccinated, would the strain on the NHS already been lifted to cope with the number of those that choose to risk going without?

Happy to admit I’m wrong on the above, as I say I largely try to avoid the news now.

The vaccine does prevent transmission. Both the moderna and Pfizer vaccines are 90% effective at preventing transmission after 2nd dose and 80% after 1st dose, AZ slightly less I believe.

Not just your post, but people are too happy to give their opinion on what should or shouldn't be done without even knowing what they are talking  about. 

I'm not sure if the list is correct or not, but the biggest risk to the country is the people who aren't vaccinated, there is no doubt about that. The argument about the under 50s being at little risk is true, but once again it's around the ones that have underlying health issues that do not know and limiting the number of hosts to stop the virus evolving.
 

Anyone been to Brighton, ID is needed to go into any pub and this is recorded, they then have a record of you in case any trouble happens, really can't see the issue of producing an app showing that you don't have the virus or not in the short term to stop transmission ?‍♂️.

[Mucker1884]

36 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

...Not just your post, but people are too happy to give their opinion on what should or shouldn't be done without even knowing what they are talking  about...

 

But surely when that is backed up with a "Forgive me if I’m wrong..." or "Happy to be corrected" type post, it's ok isn't it?

Surely that's worthy of a nice polite "Actually, the facts are..." type riposte?  Perhaps capped off with an all-educating factual link? Particularly as this specific topic still remains relatively new and complex the world over?

Otherwise, shall we just lock this thread, as I doubt there's a 100% know-all expert out there, never mind on this forum!

Edited April 4, 2021 by Mucker1884

[Gone]

34 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

as I doubt there's a 100% know-all expert out there, never mind on this forum!

Oh Mucker

[BIllyD]

55 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

 

But surely when that is backed up with a "Forgive me if I’m wrong..." or "Happy to be corrected" type post, it's ok isn't it?

Surely that's worthy of a nice polite "Actually, the facts are..." type riposte?  Perhaps capped off with an all-educating factual link? Particularly as this specific topic still remains relatively new and complex the world over?

Otherwise, shall we just lock this thread, as I doubt there's a 100% know-all expert out there, never mind on this forum!

So I caveat every post with I may be wrong to back up an opinion on something that would take 30 seconds to google. It's not about being an expert, had the post being not being necessary because of risk or something like that fair enough, but It wasn't, it was based on something that just isn't true.

Im sure the poster would admit, if I put something about Derby's owner for example that wasn't correct they'd be very quick to point out the mistake, caveated or not. 
 

Just my opinion, battling a virus that kills  and with the way "false news" can spread and the way people take it on board.

Anyway a link for you if you really wanted it ?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7013e3.htm?s_cid=mm7013e3_w

 

 

[Gone]

60% of adults in the UK have now been vaccinated against Coronavirus - these groups (1-9) account for 99% of Covid deaths.  I’d have a passport if needed (when I ever get my turn for the jab that is) but given the stats above, I don’t see the need for them as those who need to be protected against Covid now are, or am I missing something? 

[BIllyD]

28 minutes ago, TexasRam said:

60% of adults in the UK have now been vaccinated against Coronavirus - these groups (1-9) account for 99% of Covid deaths.  I’d have a passport if needed (when I ever get my turn for the jab that is) but given the stats above, I don’t see the need for them as those who need to be protected against Covid now are, or am I missing something? 

40 million possible hosts, only 3k ICU beds is one risk, the other is the country being overrun again with cases and the virus mutates, vaccine becomes ineffective etc.

My own opinion is that it even without the passports we would be fine, but it seems a "better safe than sorry" approach is being taken.

[jono]

2 hours ago, BIllyD said:

The vaccine does prevent transmission. Both the moderna and Pfizer vaccines are 90% effective at preventing transmission after 2nd dose and 80% after 1st dose, AZ slightly less I believe.

Not just your post, but people are too happy to give their opinion on what should or shouldn't be done without even knowing what they are talking  about. 

I'm not sure if the list is correct or not, but the biggest risk to the country is the people who aren't vaccinated, there is no doubt about that. The argument about the under 50s being at little risk is true, but once again it's around the ones that have underlying health issues that do not know and limiting the number of hosts to stop the virus evolving.
 

Anyone been to Brighton, ID is needed to go into any pub and this is recorded, they then have a record of you in case any trouble happens, really can't see the issue of producing an app showing that you don't have the virus or not in the short term to stop transmission ?‍♂️.

For me I wouldn’t legislate one way or the other .. the wonderful thing about licensing law in the UK is that a land lord makes his own rules. Most land lords I have met are sound logical folk when it comes to deciding who they welcome in their hostelry. I’d have no problem showing my NHS jab card. .. the thing goes wrong when law enforcement agencies have the right to demand “your papers” for just walking on the street. In that circumstance I would be vehemently opposed. It’s about logic .. indoor space with volumes of people = increased risk .. thus precautions( temporarily)  are needed. 

[Gone]

9 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

40 million possible hosts, only 3k ICU beds is one risk, the other is the country being overrun again with cases and the virus mutates, vaccine becomes ineffective etc.

My own opinion is that it even without the passports we would be fine, but it seems a "better safe than sorry" approach is being taken.

Agree with the better safe than sorry approach. Don’t agree with the mutations theory or the country being overrun again it’s never been overrun , think its just more MSM brainwashing scaremongering. 

[BIllyD]

Just now, TexasRam said:

Agree with the better safe than sorry approach. Don’t agree with the mutations theory or the country being overrun again it’s never been overrun , think its just more MSM brainwashing scaremongering. 

It's a possibility, but a very remote one from what I have read. The ICU beds have been overrun, which is what I meant, from a younger generation I can understand the view point of disagreement with lockdown based on risk.
 

For me, today marked the reopening of the country with grassroots football, I don't want to risk that being closed again, so a safe approach is something I'm not adverse to, hopefully to get rid of the thing once and for all. (Yup, I know it will never go completely)

[Andicis]

6 hours ago, Gerry Daly said:

I think most reasonable people can see that in these exceptional circumstances something like this is needed. Its clear it will only be temporary. I think the people worrying about civil liberties of 'ethical concerns' just need to accept that we are not in the right place for idealism and some rough and ready make the best of a bad job measures are the best we can do  

Why is it needed? We've already vaccinated 60% of the population, people are willingly taking it, why do we need to resort to extortion? This is the **exact** purpose of civil liberties, there are no circumstances where they should be trampled over. 

 

[Archied]

How long does it take to set up and run properly, if it’s only supposed to be a temporary thing is it not needed by the time it’s done ? Coupled with rate we are vaccinating and the number already had it an have antibodies it’s probably fair to have concerns on where we are going

[Mucker1884]

13 hours ago, BIllyD said:

So I caveat every post with I may be wrong...

 

Well, that's my usual approach, yeah! ?

 

Hey, I'm with you on the dangers of posting such misinformation, particularly on a topic such as this, but I guess we all know something that could correct a misinformed post by others, and imo, there are ways to correct such misinformation.  Some are polite, some aren't.  

Personally, I'm not enamoured with phrases like "people are too happy to give their opinion on what should or shouldn't be done without even knowing what they are talking  about", but I concede, it's not the most pompous phrase I've ever read, but it ain't particularly matey either. 
I just get the impression that such a riposte could put others off from posting... not good for a discussion forum.

Anyway, it's done now, and nobody died, so ho-hum.  ?

Edited April 5, 2021 by Mucker1884

[Day]

Rapid, twice-weekly coronavirus tests to be offered to everyone in England - including home delivery

Anyone over the age of 18 will be able to collect boxes of seven tests from their local pharmacy, under the new plans.

https://news.sky.com/story/rapid-twice-weekly-covid-tests-to-be-offered-to-everyone-in-england-including-home-delivery-12266222

[Chester40]

1 hour ago, David said:

Rapid, twice-weekly coronavirus tests to be offered to everyone in England - including home delivery

Anyone over the age of 18 will be able to collect boxes of seven tests from their local pharmacy, under the new plans.

https://news.sky.com/story/rapid-twice-weekly-covid-tests-to-be-offered-to-everyone-in-england-including-home-delivery-12266222

Ever get the feeling someone has over ordered on some dodgy merchandise and have lots of excess stock and they desperately don't want to admit it? 

[ariotofmyown]

33 minutes ago, Chester40 said:

Ever get the feeling someone has over ordered on some dodgy merchandise and have lots of excess stock and they desperately don't want to admit it? 

They come with a free "HRH Prince Andrew" baseball cap and a poster of an artist's impression of the garden bridge over the Thames.