Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


Recommended Posts

36 minutes ago, Wee Bully said:


It certainly started like that (and I agree it’s nonsense) but you read the last 5 or 6 pages, it gets more and more strident. I’m not sure this is good for a lot of peoples mental health.

We need to remember the “batshit mental ramblings” are not those of a decision maker. Deep breaths everyone.

You are right. But NS has previously said she listens very closely to what DS has to say.

She's not some outlier lunatic; she is influential.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

f**k ye then. NEXT! 
Yes and no. I agree with the sentiment but that level of refusal amongst the most vulnerable isn't going to help reduce hospitalizations and deaths to a level to enable measures to be lifted. 90% efficacy plus 20+% refusal is going to extend the wait a fair bit.
That said no idea who the person was or if that figure is remotely accurate but the Sky presenter made no attempt to challenge her on it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Billy Jean King said:

Yes and no. I agree with the sentiment but that level of refusal amongst the most vulnerable isn't going to help reduce hospitalizations and deaths to a level to enable measures to be lifted. 90% efficacy plus 20+% refusal is going to extend the wait a fair bit.
That said no idea who the person was or if that figure is remotely accurate but the Sky presenter made no attempt to challenge her on it.

Well it will given vaccine refusers won’t be taking up any resources,  They will be left to die,  and eventually chucked in the fire to get rid of their riddled body.  Not much more than the cost of a standard funeral. Don’t want it your choice, but don’t fucking expect any help once you suffer the consequences.

That is what is happening? If not why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Michael W said:

Sorry, but if people refuse the vaccine, that's tough shit for me. Once the vulnerable list has been done, they've made their choice and are on their own.

They are potentially infectious to the 5-10% of people for who the vaccine is not effective.

Utter c***s 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

Well it will given vaccine refusers won’t be taking up any resources,  They will be left to die,  and eventually chucked in the fire to get rid of their riddled body.  Not much more than the cost of a standard funeral. Don’t want it your choice, but don’t fucking expect any help once you suffer the consequences.

That is what is happening? If not why?

Except that won’t happen, unfortunately.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, invergowrie arab said:

They are potentially infectious to the 5-10% of people for who the vaccine is not effective.

Utter c***s 

Exactly. 

There are very limited circumstances I think refusal is justified, e.g. pregnancy, allergies to ingredients or medical reasons. The rest I imagine is purely down to anti-vax nonsense that they've picked up. 

One thing I sincerely hope for is that refusals do not cause delays for the rest of us whilst we try and persuade them. Let's keep moving. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folk continuing to ignore the fact that many people will have entirely valid reasons for refusing the vaccine, including pregnancy, breastfeeding, being immunocompromised, having autoimmune conditions or being allergic to any of the components of the vaccine. Probably not all of that 21% fall into that category, but a decent chunk might. Others might be "refusing" it because they're unable to attend the appointment they have been given for entirely valid reasons (eg working, childcare, self-isolating).

My wife has been offered it and is currently having to weigh it up because there is conflicting advice about breastfeeding. She's currently on maternity leave anyway and would rather wait, but her worry is that it won't be easily available to her when she goes back if she doesn't get it now. The posters above seem to be advocating that she shouldn't be allowed to get it at all if she does refuse.

Edited by craigkillie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Billy Jean King said:

Yes and no. I agree with the sentiment but that level of refusal amongst the most vulnerable isn't going to help reduce hospitalizations and deaths to a level to enable measures to be lifted. 90% efficacy plus 20+% refusal is going to extend the wait a fair bit.
That said no idea who the person was or if that figure is remotely accurate but the Sky presenter made no attempt to challenge her on it.

Yes and no. I’ve already seen folk having the debate about the 21% today and have to admit I felt myself agreeing with the stark reality of the harsh take on the situation. 

Obviously there are some genuinely valid medical reasons some will refuse the vaccine but for the rest - If vulnerable folk refuse the vaccine then you have to admit defeat. What is the other option? Is there another option? The NHS will be forced to soldier on until such time that enough other people have been vaccinated that herd immunity is inadvertently achieved by a combination of vaccination and the virus taking its toll on the vulnerable (through their own stupidity), albeit prolonging life alongside Covid for the rest of us until the virus fizzles out.

There was some comparison I read about the eradication of smallpox too. Apparently some people declined to be vaccinated back then too, prolonging it but not meaning there was no end in sight, and therefore refusing the covid jab makes this is a repeat of that  smallpox scenario.

Again, far from ideal and just prolonging this Covid misery for the rest of us. But if folk refuse to be vaccinated, what can you realistically do short of strapping them to a chair and forcing a syringe into their arms? 

Edited by 8MileBU
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

Folk continuing to ignore the fact that many people will have entirely valid reasons for refusing the vaccine, including pregnancy, breastfeeding, being immunocompromised, having autoimmune conditions or being allergic to any of the components of the vaccine. 

Why would being 'immunocompromised' etc. constitute a refusal of the vaccine though? If there are valid medical grounds to not take the vaccine then it shouldn't be offered to those groups in the first place. And presumably they have been given that advice and it hasn't. Other than a temporary behavioural reason such as breast-feeding, I find it very hard to believe that the bulk of the above medical grounds are relevant factors in the rates of refusal then.

And if you refuse a pre-booked vaccine appointment because och I'm meant to be working/watching the wean that day after the shitshow of the last ten months then no, either sort out your busy schedule or f**k off. We're not actually dragging people out of their houses at an hour's notice here - although if we did, then we'd probably get half as much bellyaching and excuses for not getting vaccinated. 

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

And that people only have to consider their own risks if they ignore any remaining restrictions when most of the vulnerable have been vaccinated.

What exactly are you advocating here? Continuing restrictions indefinitely for wider society even after vulnerable groups that are at risk are vaccinated to stop the hospitalisations/deaths of the 5% or so who might still be susceptible (this number would be very small in relative terms)? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, virginton said:

Why would being 'immunocompromised' etc. constitute a refusal of the vaccine though? If there are valid medical grounds to not take the vaccine then it shouldn't be offered to those groups in the first place. And presumably they have been given that advice and it hasn't. Other than a temporary behavioural reason such as breast-feeding, I find it very hard to believe that the bulk of the above are relevant factors in the rates of refusal then.

And if you refuse a pre-booked vaccine appointment because och I'm meant to be working/watching the wean that day after the shitshow of the last ten months then no, sort out your agenda or f**k off. We're not actually dragging people out of their houses at an hour's notice - although if we did, then we'd probably get half as much bellyaching and excuses for not getting vaccinated. 

People who are immunocompromised are being given unclear advice - a quick Google of it suggests it's along the lines of "can be offered the vaccine, but individual circumstances have to be taken into account". Ideally these folk would talk it over with their GP, but it's not clear that they'll be able to get an appointment to do so. Therefore I can quite imagine several people in that category being offered the vaccine but deciding against it.

Your point about people refusing their appointment due to work might be a valid one a couple of months down the line when they're offering it to folk working in office jobs and the like, but surely at the moment the very working age people who are being offered it are the frontline staff who can hardly just agree to work around it or swap their shifts at a couple of days' notice.

Edited by craigkillie
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, craigkillie said:

People who are immunocompromised are being given unclear advice - a quick Google of it suggests it's along the lines of "can be offered the vaccine, but individual circumstances have to be taken into account". Ideally these folk would talk it over with their GP, but it's not clear that they'll be able to get an appointment to do so. Therefore I can quite imagine several people in that category being offered the vaccine but deciding against it.

Your point about people refusing their appointment due to work might be a valid one a couple of months down the line when they're offering it to folk working in office jobs and the like, but surely at the moment the very working age people who are being offered it are the frontline staff who can hardly just agree to work around it or swap their shifts at a couple of days' notice.

Imagine and surely are doing some heavy lifting in those counterpoints. Are we really suggesting that the NHS or care home managers for example are unwilling for employees to take an hour out of their shift, to get a vaccination that will carry obvious and direct benefits for everyone in those organisations? 

There has been a fair amount of opinion poll evidence on willingness to take a vaccine throughout and the figures suggested so far are not surprising at all in that context. Working in a care home doesn't make you immune to anti-vax theories nor does it stop you genuinely - but wrongly - believing that it's 'just too soon' to risk a new jab. There are also plenty of old people living in the community who don't bother getting the seasonal flu vaccine never mind another one. Occam's razor suggests that the already well-documented reluctance is the cause rather than a series of unfortunate oversights.

Edited by vikingTON
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

What exactly are you advocating here? Continuing restrictions indefinitely for wider society even after vulnerable groups that are at risk are vaccinated to stop the hospitalisations/deaths of the 5% or so who might still be susceptible (this number would be very small in relative terms)? 

No. I'm just suggesting that people saying it's up to individuals to assess their own risks without thinking about the risk they pose to others is a bit dumb. I hope and expect that as the number of people vaccinated rise, restrictions will reduce, but I'm not going to put a number on it and say I'll throw my mask away when a certain percentage are done, whatever the infection and hospitalisation rate is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, welshbairn said:

No. I'm just suggesting that people saying it's up to individuals to assess their own risks without thinking about the risk they pose to others is a bit dumb. I hope and expect that as the number of people vaccinated rise, restrictions will reduce, but I'm not going to put a number on it and say I'll throw my mask away when a certain percentage are done, whatever the infection and hospitalisation rate is.

Yep. Some level of restriction will remain until we get to a point where ICUs are not being overrun with Covid patients, no matter how many people have been vaccinated. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does “refusal rate” mean? Would craigkillies wife be listed as a refuser if she didn’t get the vaccine in the circumstances described?

There are going to be people in the target groups who can’t take the vaccine, has the list been drawn up with them taken into account? So is everyone over 80 offered the vaccine and they have to opt out if they can’t take it or do they filter out all the people who can’t take it before offering it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...