Jump to content

Generic Virus Thread


villakram

Recommended Posts

I’m leaning towards the lifting restrictions side of the fence, but I have to wonder why it’s ok for FIFA president Gianni Infantino to mingle with the elites at Wembley, just 12 hours after attending a game in Brazil? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think restricting and unrestricting is counter intuitive.

At some point, fatigue will kick in. People will see high vaccine uptake, won't know anyone who's ill or died, and they'll simply stop doing anything to protect themselves or anyone else.

By lifting restrictions, and providing guidance, at least you're giving people the option, and they're more likely to follow.

The travel stuff for example. I haven't seen my family in a year and a half. They're fully vaccinated. So am I. My parents aren't getting younger; I'm losing potentially key years with them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Genie said:

Just caught a clip on the TV of the press conference.

Peak in August to be 1000-2000 hospitalisations a day, 100-200 deaths.

 

This is the plan though right?  This isn't the if everything goes wrong worst case scenario, this is the middle of the road projected outcome of the policy as it stands today.  The government are saying out lout that losing roughly 1000 people a week to a pandemic is acceptable policy.  I'm definitely struggling with this being a thing that is ok.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Chindie said:

Israeli report the other day suggested the Pfizer vaccine effectiveness reduces into the 60% range after 6 months.

Uh-oh.

Still, something about living with it.

It will be an annual booster shot like the flu vaccine 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Straggler said:

This is the plan though right?  This isn't the if everything goes wrong worst case scenario, this is the middle of the road projected outcome of the policy as it stands today.  The government are saying out lout that losing roughly 1000 people a week to a pandemic is acceptable policy.  I'm definitely struggling with this being a thing that is ok.

Yes, this is the working assumption of what will happen after the restrictions are removed.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I just think restricting and unrestricting is counter intuitive.

At some point, fatigue will kick in. People will see high vaccine uptake, won't know anyone who's ill or died, and they'll simply stop doing anything to protect themselves or anyone else.

By lifting restrictions, and providing guidance, at least you're giving people the option, and they're more likely to follow.

The travel stuff for example. I haven't seen my family in a year and a half. They're fully vaccinated. So am I. My parents aren't getting younger; I'm losing potentially key years with them.

But that's no one else's problem, fortunately.  I'm very eager to return to normal (I've lost 3 holidays and family time!!!!!!!! (poor me)), but the data appears to show we can't/shouldn't yet.

  Now with seemingly half of the UK not really giving much of a shit about restrictions (see football/tennis/festivals), and the data showing rises in cases AND hospitalisations, whilst we're still socially restricted, I'm unsure I want the Gov to say "yea, go for it now guys", because it'll be bad, then we'll get fully locked down again and the endless cycle repeats. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

I just think restricting and unrestricting is counter intuitive.

At some point, fatigue will kick in. People will see high vaccine uptake, won't know anyone who's ill or died, and they'll simply stop doing anything to protect themselves or anyone else.

By lifting restrictions, and providing guidance, at least you're giving people the option, and they're more likely to follow.

The travel stuff for example. I haven't seen my family in a year and a half. They're fully vaccinated. So am I. My parents aren't getting younger; I'm losing potentially key years with them.

Alternatively, you could keep the restrictions until we reach herd immunity levels, implement an effective test and trace system and quarantine/test people as they enter the country and go back to normal with very little chance of a repeated outbreak.  Yes international travel will be a ball ache, but it will be possible. There always has been a competent way to deal with this, we as a nation just don't seem to bothered about doing it.

My parents are in their 70's, they have hardly seen me or their grandkids in the last 2 years at all, but with the projected growth in covid that the UK govt deam to be acceptable, if anything happens to them as a result of their old age there may well be no room in the hospital or no one to come to their aid in an emergency.  Actively feeding a massive outbreak through policy doesn't help you at all.  The high vaccine uptake is great, but it is no where near high enough yet.

 

Edited by Straggler
bad spelling, i swear there used to be a spell check on here.
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, a m ole said:

What is it, 10000 to 20000 influenza deaths a year in the UK on average? Thats roughly 30-50 per day. So potentially around 3-4 times worse.

That's the thing with having a specific measuring system for a specific virus, we get more data on that specific virus than we ever would for anything else.

It would be very interesting to see the same measuring done for other things we usually take for granted, like colds/flu's etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stolen from elsewhere, but the government 'strategy' seems to be like saying there's no speed limits anymore and we trust everyone will be sensible.

Which'll surely work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I really dislike this argument. There is not actually anything inconsistent about government advice not to do something, and also it being legal. Generally things should be legal, and there should be a high bar to clear before making something illegal. We trust people to be sensible about all sorts of things; it is true that people do not have a 100% success rate at being sensible, but that's human nature for you. All sorts of things that people are legally allowed to do might not be 'sensible' from the perspective of possible transmission of viruses, of everything from flu to chlamydia (or from several other perspectives besides) but living in a free society does entail risk.

Well said 👍

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

 

I really dislike this argument. There is not actually anything inconsistent about government advice not to do something, and also it being legal. Generally things should be legal, and there should be a high bar to clear before making something illegal. We trust people to be sensible about all sorts of things; it is true that people do not have a 100% success rate at being sensible, but that's human nature for you. All sorts of things that people are legally allowed to do might not be 'sensible' from the perspective of possible transmission of viruses, of everything from flu to chlamydia (or from several other perspectives besides) but living in a free society does entail risk.

 

For instance, it is legal to smoke 40 cigarettes a day. Common sense says you shouldn’t, but many choose to.

 

However, what you can’t do, is walk around my shop, share an escalator, sit in the pub, or sit on the bus and smoke. What Johnson and Javid have promised people, is ‘freedom day’, and now like all populist moves they are realising too late that it was stupid because a significant proportion of people are ignorant of the ‘freedoms’ of others.

So now we have this idiotic attempt to both stand firm and walk it back where we are being told we are free to do as we please but we are being trusted not to, but we can, but we possibly shouldn’t, in some circumstances, but, but, but…

Wilful double speak, ignorance and idiocy from the people at the top is a form of leading by example that just might not be the best during a pandemic.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, a m ole said:

The Conservatives doing everything they can to squeeze positive PR from their decisions and making things worse doesn’t change what public policy should be though.

Do you believe the public policy should be ‘freedom day’?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, chrisp65 said:

Do you believe the public policy should be ‘freedom day’?

 

Absolutely not, that’s what I’m saying. But removing restrictions while remaining vigilant yes. They’re taking the right advice and spinning it into a PR exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

The travel stuff for example. I haven't seen my family in a year and a half. They're fully vaccinated. So am I. My parents aren't getting younger; I'm losing potentially key years with them.

This is the argument for vaccine passports. The various nations (includng the UK and EU) need to get their act together to help people in your kind of situation. But then again, there are plenty who feel vaccine passports are discrimantory against those who (for whatever reasons) are not yet vaccinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, a m ole said:

Absolutely not, that’s what I’m saying. But removing restrictions while remaining vigilant yes. They’re taking the right advice and spinning it into a PR exercise.

What does remaining vigilant mean? The policy, we’ve repeatedly been told, is the lifting of all restrictions, freedom day. The PM and the Health Minister have both said the changes will be irreversible. Why would you remain vigilant on the impact of an irreversible freedom day?

Nobody is going to read page 9 of the actual scientific advice. They are just hearing freedom day, yes, no, yes, no, harrumph, great british public, harrumph.

Unless the consensus of scientific advice was ‘freedom day’, they aren’t taking the right advice.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, blandy said:

This is the argument for vaccine passports. The various nations (includng the UK and EU) need to get their act together to help people in your kind of situation. But then again, there are plenty who feel vaccine passports are discrimantory against those who (for whatever reasons) are not yet vaccinated.

But even with 'vaccine passports' people are made to take tests, which aren't accessible for some, and even then, the current UK govt policy is only to accept vaccines given in the UK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, StefanAVFC said:

But even with 'vaccine passports' people are made to take tests, which aren't accessible for some, and even then, the current UK govt policy is only to accept vaccines given in the UK.

Exactly. As I said "The various nations (includng the UK and EU) need to get their act together "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...
Â