Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[s_dog]

2 minutes ago, The Stig said:

But if you have vaccinated the people most likely to require hospitalation (majority but not exclusively older people) then the numbers of hospital admissions should not rise nearly as much which will then have a knock on effect on ICU and ultimately death figures

I was thinking more of before we'd even got to that stage, but yes definitely that must be the hope once they get through vaccinating everyone in the priority list. There'll probably still be some concern about trying to keep the cases as low as they can but it'll be much easier trade-off to open things up more as long as they can keep hospital admissions down.

For vaccinations, and the stuff about people potentially being required to get one in some cases. What do you all think about people who work in hospitals, care homes etc, would anyone ever agree that its acceptable they should be told they need to get a vaccine to continue in their roles (health reasons excepted), or should it always be up to the individual?

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

19 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

The french and Italians who already have laws aimed at preventing non-vaccinated kids into schools,  those french and Italians?

It’s clearly possible to try and keep kids from entering schools if unvacianted,  it’s being implemented in several countries worldwide.

On refusing to employing those who refuse(note not unable via health reasons) vaccines.  You can sack someone for not wearing a hard hat,  of course you should be able to sack someone for refusing to follow a rule that makes your company safer.

f**k being the guy being sued cos you sent an anti-vax c**t to a vulnerable customers house who later died. 

Great post

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, parsforlife said:

The french and Italians who already have laws aimed at preventing non-vaccinated kids into schools,  those french and Italians?

It’s clearly possible to try and keep kids from entering schools if unvacianted,  it’s being implemented in several countries worldwide.

On refusing to employing those who refuse(note not unable via health reasons) vaccines.  You can sack someone for not wearing a hard hat,  of course you should be able to sack someone for refusing to follow a rule that makes your company safer.

f**k being the guy being sued cos you sent an anti-vax c**t to a vulnerable customers house who later died. 

I appreciate the sentiment, however it's unworkable in practice given that we could be literally years away from having everyone worldwide vaccinated.

Over and above this there's no guarantee that new variants wont leave the current vaccines near to useless and this vaccination programme would then need to be never ending to keep up with the various strains.

Remember, this isn't like a "once in a lifetime" vaccination it's expected to be required at least once a year which would make blanket laws unenforceable and unworkable.

[Carnoustie Young Guvnor]

5 minutes ago, s_dog said:

I was thinking more of before we'd even got to that stage, but yes definitely that must be the hope once they get through vaccinating everyone in the priority list. There'll probably still be some concern about trying to keep the cases as low as they can but it'll be much easier trade-off to open things up more as long as they can keep hospital admissions down.

For vaccinations, and the stuff about people potentially being required to get one in some cases. What do you all think about people who work in hospitals, care homes etc, would anyone ever agree that its acceptable they should be told they need to get a vaccine to continue in their roles (health reasons excepted), or should it always be up to the individual?

Absolutely, that's already happening all over the shop with care homes and day care centres etc.  These are vulnerable people, absolutely anyone coming into contact with them on a daily basis will have to be vaccinated, as will they.

[Wee Bully]

Im not convinced Pimlico Plumbers are the type of organisation you would want to be championing tbh.

I’ve not seen anything, so interested. Why?

[Elixir]

1 hour ago, s_dog said:

When was this, got a link?

Especially as the JCVI priority list includes over 50's. But maybe after then..... 

I would have to trawl Twitter for it.

54 minutes ago, Sherrif John Bunnell said:

Front page of the FT tomorrow. The next step of Bill Gates' master plan to spy on us all via Covid jags.

Ultimately I just want to be be able to travel relatively freely again, and given it has always been an ordeal to board an aircraft, if it now means showing proof of vaccination in place of testing or mask wearing then so be it. Though I don't see where the responsibility will fall, i.e. at the point of entry or the airline. Ryanair have said they won't require proof of vaccination, for example.

The thing is, over the next year or so the virus will settle into the population and, as most scientists believe, will be no more of a threat than seasonal flu. Indeed, as I posted yesterday, there are also plausible suggestions it may ultimately end up being a fifth common cold strain in future.

So, regarding either of the above scenarios, there should be no need for health passports in the long-term. It is just overreach and mission creep for weirdo WEF-types, and a slippery slope for a whole host of other reasons.

24 minutes ago, s_dog said:

Isn't the interest they have in monitoring case numbers because they can very quickly start to rise in an out of control way, and despite what the covid-sceptics say about false positives and a PCR test not fit for purpose etc, when case numbers get high, soon after hospital admissions start to rise, ICU admissions go up and then deaths.  

But case numbers shouldn't 'spiral out of control' once the pandemic phase is over and there is embedded immunity in the population. Plus, any future cases of infection or re-infection should be mild in nature, as is now quite widely documented, and so again, will not impact on healthcare capacity.

While it's obviously understandable right now, I also wonder at what point the media will cease with this obsession.

[The Stig]

4 minutes ago, s_dog said:

I was thinking more of before we'd even got to that stage, but yes definitely that must be the hope once they get through vaccinating everyone in the priority list. There'll probably still be some concern about trying to keep the cases as low as they can but it'll be much easier trade-off to open things up more as long as they can keep hospital admissions down.

For vaccinations, and the stuff about people potentially being required to get one in some cases. What do you all think about people who work in hospitals, care homes etc, would anyone ever agree that its acceptable they should be told they need to get a vaccine to continue in their roles (health reasons excepted), or should it always be up to the individual?

Due to the myriad of employment laws no company could enforce a vaccination to work policy.  As for the outright refusers you would only hope that there is enough uptake In the rest of the population.  We should not have restrictions in everyday life to protect people who refuse the vaccine once they have been offered it.  

[welshbairn]

3 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

I appreciate the sentiment, however it's unworkable in practice given that we could be literally years away from having everyone worldwide vaccinated.

Over and above this there's no guarantee that new variants wont leave the current vaccines near to useless and this vaccination programme would then need to be never ending to keep up with the various strains.

Remember, this isn't like a "once in a lifetime" vaccination it's expected to be required at least once a year which would make blanket laws unenforceable and unworkable.

That's a very gloomy outlook, SARS 1 disappeared in a year or so, hopefully this one will too, with vaccination making it harder to spread and survive. Of course it may just go quiet for a few years and come back in a different form, like the Spanish Flu strain continues to do, but there's no point in assuming the worst all the time. And the new vaccine technologies mean that we should be able to react far more quickly next time by just tweaking the ones we have.

[Todd_is_God]

On the subject of vaccine passports, in the short term I don't think these are a dreadful idea, so long as they really are short term, especially domestically.

For example, there is a poster who is wanting to go to Italy in April. I can't imagine free travel to and from Italy will be on the cards in April, but at the same time, if everyone the poster is travelling with has had the vaccine then maybe they could go.

It's far from ideal, but if it allows businesses to at least get some trade in before the summer, then its not dreadful.

If the capacity for 400k per week is there then, come the end of March / April time those that want one should be able to book one within a reasonable time frame too.

[Aladdin]

1. Plenty countries already require proof of certain vaccinations before travel.

2. If you have a medical condition that could be construed as a disability or are pregnant, preventing you from getting a vaccine, denial of employment, services etc could arguably be unlawful discrimination. If you don't have such a condition, then tough.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

That's a very gloomy outlook, SARS 1 disappeared in a year or so, hopefully this one will too, with vaccination making it harder to spread and survive. Of course it may just go quiet for a few years and come back in a different form, like the Spanish Flu strain continues to do, but there's no point in assuming the worst all the time. And the new vaccine technologies mean that we should be able to react far more quickly next time by just tweaking the ones we have.

Yes, I agree, my post was more of a retort to the worst case "big brother" / "dystopian future" that was being predicted.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Todd_is_God said:

On the subject of vaccine passports, in the short term I don't think these are a dreadful idea, so long as they really are short term, especially domestically.

For example, there is a poster who is wanting to go to Italy in April. I can't imagine free travel to and from Italy will be on the cards in April, but at the same time, if everyone the poster is travelling with has had the vaccine then maybe they could go.

It's far from ideal, but if it allows businesses to at least get some trade in before the summer, then its not dreadful.

If the capacity for 400k per week is there then, come the end of March / April time those that want one should be able to book one within a reasonable time frame too.

As long as it's SAGA they should be ok........

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Snafu said:

Probably why -

I have heard that the richest countries like the USA, UK and Canada are snapping up most of the vaccines for themselves. It has been said the UK has stocked x4 the population, no idea why according to the article that the Canadians need to vaccinate their entire population six times over.

A bit like the human seagulls stripping the supermarket shelves of all the toilet paper back in last March leaving nothing for the pensioners.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/15/us/coronavirus-vaccine-doses-reserved.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55229894

 

 

Probably why the SG were ordered to remove the stats last night.

[Todd_is_God]

2 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

As long as it's SAGA they should be ok........

I dunno, I expect i'll have been done by April.

The wife won't have though so i'm not looking at this from a personal gain POV

[Left Back]

44 minutes ago, Fullerene said:

Maybe not.  If he was in an accident he might have gone to hospital, been placed into an induced coma and been given the jab without being concious.

Having said that, I suspect the person who gave him the jab (whatever the circumstances) will probably know.

Only in the Carnoustie lads alternate universe.

[Elixir]

4 minutes ago, Aladdin said:

1. Plenty countries already require proof of certain vaccinations before travel.

2. If you have a medical condition that could be construed as a disability or are pregnant, preventing you from getting a vaccine, denial of employment, services etc could arguably be unlawful discrimination. If you don't have such a condition, then tough.

I don't think countries in the far east and Oceania will have any choice but to make proof of vaccination a requirement. Countries in Europe and the Americas which have had rife epidemics, I'm not so sure.

[effeffsee_the2nd]

Its already happening.  Education may be a right but things evolve, I can absolutely see that being a thing very soon, either your parents are vaccinated or you are, or you can't go to school. Would you want your kids going to school knowing they could bring something home that might kill you? This has changed everything, the world will never be the same again now.

Listen tae this c**t [emoji38][emoji33]

[s_dog]

12 minutes ago, WATTOO said:

Over and above this there's no guarantee that new variants wont leave the current vaccines near to useless and this vaccination programme would then need to be never ending to keep up with the various strains.

Remember, this isn't like a "once in a lifetime" vaccination it's expected to be required at least once a year which would make blanket laws unenforceable and unworkable.

It's probably the time of year and just how shitty so  many of us feel right now, but this is my big fear. We'll get to May and they'll have pulled out all the stops to vaccinate everyone in their priority list, only to say, sorry looks like the virus is just going to mutate, so its far from over. 

 

3 minutes ago, Elixir said:

But case numbers shouldn't 'spiral out of control' once the pandemic phase is over and there is embedded immunity in the population. Plus, any future cases of infection or re-infection should be mild in nature, as is now quite widely documented, and so again, will not impact on healthcare capacity.

While it's obviously understandable right now, I also wonder at what point the media will cease with this obsession.

What like herd immunity through vaccinations and people that have already had the virus? It's not really comparable, but the only place that's possibly had a chance to see if herd immunity (albeit through infection only), is Manaus in Brazil where they estimated up to 75% of the population had been infected. Only for a few months later they've had to go back into lockdown again - though its worth nothing that they think most of their cases are now due to international travel into the area.

[vikingTON]

2 hours ago, welshbairn said:

I'm sure it has, but without putting human guinea pigs in a tank and feeding a vaccinated person the virus and see if he infects the other person, it will take time to get a conclusive finding. Also for how long it provides immunity, the longest study so far is 5 months, only because that was the earliest the vaccines were given out.

This is braying nonsense, because while we cannot produce magic double-blind studies to prove findings, we can still infer what we need to know to make reaaon-led decisions from the data that we have. Such as our civilisation's entire, gathered knowledge about how viruses and human immunity both work.

This idea that we ever needed to 'wait and see' until someone published a paper to confirm that yes, being infected by Covid confers you with immunity from Covid just like a vaccine does has been utter nonsense from the start. You establish a set of priors for how the disease will play out and then you adjust those according to the live data for infection rates and severity. We now know who it impacts, we know that there are at least three vaccines in play already - we really do not have to drum our fingers until we're absolutely, 100% certain that no possible harm will be done to anyone anywhere by lifting restrictions before proceeding, based on an objective measurement of costs to benefits of doing so.

We would not tolerate this level of neuroticism for any other issue that impacts society.

Edited January 14, 2021 by vikingTON

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, virginton said:

we really do not have to drum our fingers until we're absolutely, 100% certain that no possible harm will be done to anyone anywhere by lifting restrictions.

Nobody is. At the moment quite a few hospitals are full to capacity, and we don't know how long it will be for vaccination, or infection rates to reduce enough, for restrictions to be lifted. Long term immunity is still an unknown, but it isn't really an issue at the moment, it's the numbers needing hospitalisation that's driving the restrictions.