Jump to content

Coronavirus (COVID-19)


Recommended Posts

26 minutes ago, Bairnardo said:

Theres still a lot of folk going with "but Boris overpromises" and assuming his plan isnt happening. Boris has indeed over promised several times, always in rather vague ways. What they presented the other day was pretty unprecedented through this.

Theres no fucking way they let this particular cat out of the bag without knowing it was deliverable. They have all the data, the modelling etc etc. Way more than we do.The only explanation for this is that all of those at the table are in agreement that, to use the thread terminology, the vaccines are cigaring it and the protection offered supersedes any/all of the measures that are in place to the point of making them worthless.

Is this the same people that modelled herd immunity?

Not being snidey but really? One minute experts slagged off on here because lockdown continues then back them because lockdown ends?

I think things will be much better in the summer but there will be some changes in the winter. Things will happen that will cause this. You can't predict or control a virus unless you test alongside the vaccine and we aren't doing this. Not for zero covid but to catch outbreaks. There's areas or communities with only 20% take up.

Not saying it will be another lockdown but measures will happen due to unlocking too fast and the inevitable shitfest from the public.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Honest_Man#1 said:

Well the only footage I have to judge you on you are standing beside Jim Murphy so it probably doesn’t help you... but yes!

I’ll have you know my BMI at that point in life was two pounds lighter than the designation “slightly overweight” after a haircut.

It is no longer that.

But also I’m 5ft 8. Of course I’m a fucking “wee man” ya p***k. Away and shite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Ad Lib said:

So either vaccines don’t significantly reduce infectiousness (in which case we shouldn’t be as optimistic about lifting restrictions as a lot of people on this thread as it means a much higher proportion of the population need to be vaccinated)

Or vaccines significantly reduce infectiousness, in which case we should be shunning and treating like rabid dogs those who won’t take them as they’re a danger to other people while we are rolling out the vaccine.

Which is it?

Neither. In the first case it's irrelevant and in the second case vaccination, seasonality and natural immunity breaks the chain of infection regardless of say 30% of people unvaccinated. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Detournement said:

Neither. In the first case it's irrelevant

No it isn’t. If vaccines don’t significantly reduce infections then vaccinated people going back to life as normal pose a risk to unvaccinated people, who are at greater risk of serious illness and death than their vaccinated counterparts.

2 minutes ago, Detournement said:

and in the second case vaccination, seasonality and natural immunity breaks the chain of infection regardless of say 30% of people unvaccinated. 

You’ve literally just plucked that figure out of your arse. Most of the evidence suggests that 30% unvaccinated is at the very lowest end of the ranges the scientists think we could get away with. Most others put the necessary vaccination rate at closer to 90% of people to break the chain of transmission and protect those who aren’t yet vaccinated.

So gutterball. Try again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they choose not to accept a vaccine because of a religion or belief that is a protected characteristic and absolutely protected under the EA.
A belief doesn’t have to be religious, it can be philosophical and I’m sure lawyers would argue that ant-vax falls under that category.
People with the attitude of “f**k them, they chose not get vaccinated so exclude them from society” have no understanding of the wide ranging definition of equality.
Discrimination against unvaccinated groups is indirect discrimination. That can be justified if a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

Even if being antivax was accepted as being a protected belief, the more ridiculous the belief, the easier the justification will be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

No it isn’t. If vaccines don’t significantly reduce infections then vaccinated people going back to life as normal pose a risk to unvaccinated people, who are at greater risk of serious illness and death than their vaccinated counterparts

But the risk is the difference between small and miniscule, with the over 50s done to 80/90% you can pretty much rule out the mortuaries getting over whelmed and be fairly confident hospitals and ICU capacity could cope obviously the reason to get immunity across all age groups is the at risk groups aren't static and are increasing all the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, ICTChris said:

This guy is a mathematician who posts modelling and data based analysis of the pandemic on Twitter, I’ve found his stuff very interesting. He has produced modelling on the effect of opening up.

 

I think I understand what he's saying here. However is it not also fair to highlight that, as any "fourth wave" will be occurring within the group of people not yet vaccinated (i.e. those at least risk of severe disease), it would therefore be relatively insignificant in terms of strain on the NHS?

If the vaccines work as well as they appear then any future waves would be nothing like the previous ones in terms of people filling hospitals and dying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Dons_1988 said:

Increased working from home was coming pre-pandemic anyway.

Businesses now know (within reason) that they can still function as normal without people in the office, so I suspect very few will be 'forced' back into the office.

We had already been told that at best a phased return to the office would not start until the Autumn. We're now having calls about how many days folks want to work at home but also been told that the office should not be looked on anymore for day to day working if it can be done at home - it's to be a 'collaborative' space for meetings, workshops, training etc. They're effectively wanting to stop the social side of the office and i can't help but think they've probably realised that not only are folks getting the work done, they're getting through more. Folks are likely to log on earlier, stay on a bit later and not have travel issues, folk are also less likely to throw a sickie if they can just sit on the couch with the telly on and the laptop powered up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, EdinburghPar1975 said:

We had already been told that at best a phased return to the office would not start until the Autumn. We're now having calls about how many days folks want to work at home but also been told that the office should not be looked on anymore for day to day working if it can be done at home - it's to be a 'collaborative' space for meetings, workshops, training etc. They're effectively wanting to stop the social side of the office and i can't help but think they've probably realised that not only are folks getting the work done, they're getting through more. Folks are likely to log on earlier, stay on a bit later and not have travel issues, folk are also less likely to throw a sickie if they can just sit on the couch with the telly on and the laptop powered up.

Indeed. That's where most places are going, my own included.

Truth is the businesses that stick to rigid office working will lose talented people because the vast majority will be working flexibly. The trend is well in motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, true_rover said:

- Highest vaccine uptake ever achieved
- Massive reduction in social contact and increased hygiene awareness
- Potential that the Covid virus has an impact on the flu virus becoming dominant over it.

Total mothballing of the hospitality sector as well... 

Edited by Michael W
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Ad Lib said:

I’ll have you know my BMI at that point in life was two pounds lighter than the designation “slightly overweight” after a haircut.

It is no longer that.

But also I’m 5ft 8. Of course I’m a fucking “wee man” ya p***k. Away and shite.

I believe you.  You certainly come across like someone who has wee man syndrome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Bairnardo said:

Theres no fucking way they let this particular cat out of the bag without knowing it was deliverable. 

I'm with you mate, I really am, but this is beyond naïve. It might be deliverable but that doesn't make it likely. I hope it is and like Tynie I really hope Boris isn't just fluffing the nation again but I can't say I have any confidence in WM or the SG to give us our normal lives back by June. 

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
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...