Generic Virus Thread

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

I could understand the 'infringing my human rights' business, if the authorities were compelling people to wear yellow stars, or walk around in handcuffs, or have numbers tattooed on them, or some such.

Or compelling people to supply 'papers' on demand.

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Smokers are not allowed to smoke in pubs and shops and indoors and stuff. "You can smoke, but you can't smoke in here and put other people's health at risk" isn't much different from "you can be unvaccinated, but you can't come in here and put other people's health at risk"

That's a poor example when used in that way. It implies that being unvaccinated and present in a location necessarily puts others' health at risk (and by such a sufficient amount to justify some potentially very onerous and sever restrictions on their liberties) and ignores the very real and much more likely possibility of someone vaccinated putting other people's health at risk in a particular location if, say, they have the **** virus.

 

Edited November 18, 2021 by snowychap

[bickster]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

et government restrictions aren't put on those who are obese or smokers that stop them from functioning the same as a non-smoker or skinnier person.

Yes they are, you can't smoke in your workplace, you can't smoke inside any publicly accessible building? Why, because other people don't want to develop a condition related to smoking. The restriction isn't because of the smell etc it's because its a health issue

[StefanAVFC]

2 minutes ago, bickster said:

Yes they are, you can't smoke in your workplace, you can't smoke inside any publicly accessible building? Why, because other people don't want to develop a condition related to smoking. The restriction isn't because of the smell etc it's because its a health issue

As I said to Blandy, not even remotely the same.

Smoking is smoking is smoking. 

If you're unvaccinated and restricted, you're restricted regardless of the status of your health.

Edited November 18, 2021 by StefanAVFC

[blandy]

15 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That's a poor example when used in that way. It implies that being unvaccinated and present in a location necessarily puts others' health at risk (and by such a sufficient amount to justify some potentially very onerous and sever restrictions on their liberties) and ignores the very real and much more likely possibility of someone vaccinated putting other people's health at risk in a particular location if, say, they have the **** virus.

I take the point. I think I'm trying (probably not very well) to highlight 2 things - the one you mention - "risk by a sufficient amount" (which is a pretty subjective measure/opinion) and secondly how (as many others have said) there are all kinds of restraints upon behaviour and "freedoms" in our society. Very few of which are now considered as "bad" (even if when they were brought in they were opposed).

I guess with a pandemic, we're not in "normal" times and the discussion over rights and restrictions and responsibility is a good one to have.

[blandy]

25 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

As I said to Blandy, not even remotely the same.

Of course smoking isn't covid, my point was that there are similarities - around choice and restrictions as a consequence of that personal choice. Also around relatively low, but nevertheless significant levels of risk to others. The government or society felt that restrictions needed introducing because of that (low) level of risk.

 

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

Of course smoking isn't covid, my point was that there are similarities - around choice and restrictions as a consequence of that personal choice. Also around relatively low, but nevertheless significant levels of risk to others. The government or society felt that restrictions needed introducing because of that (low) level of risk.

 

The only way this analogy works is if we ban people who are confirmed to be ill with Covid from being in the pub.

To make it work, we need to ban all smokers from being in pubs, in case they light up.

[bobzy]

9 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

As I said to Blandy, not even remotely the same.

Smoking is smoking is smoking. 

If you're unvaccinated and restricted, you're restricted regardless of the status of your health.

word removed tax.

[El Zen]

Austria heading into full lockdown again, according to the news. Seems absolutely mental to me that this is still even an option, almost two years into this ****. 

[sidcow]

4 minutes ago, El Zen said:

Austria heading into full lockdown again, according to the news. Seems absolutely mental to me that this is still even an option, almost two years into this ****. 

I guess having people dropping dead in the street is the other option.  They won't do that for shits and giggles will they? 

[El Zen]

26 minutes ago, sidcow said:

I guess having people dropping dead in the street is the other option.  They won't do that for shits and giggles will they? 

People dropping dead in the streets from COVID obviously isn’t an option. That’s hyperbole.

But that wasn’t the point. To go into lockdown is admitting complete failure to make necessary improvements in intensive care and hospital capacity, a failure to vaccinate (or let oneself be vaccinated) and a failure to come up with better, more targeted approaches to a virus and a disease that isn’t necessarily very dangerous to most of those who are exposed to it.

Going into lockdown again now means we as a society haven’t done a good enough job over the last two years, and would be a f***ing tragedy and almost intolerable. 

[Genie]

4 minutes ago, El Zen said:

People dropping dead in the streets from COVID obviously isn’t an option. That’s hyperbole.

But that wasn’t the point. To go into lockdown is admitting complete failure to make necessary improvements in intensive care and hospital capacity, a failure to vaccinate (or let oneself be vaccinated) and a failure to come up with better, more targeted approaches to a virus and a disease that isn’t necessarily very dangerous to most of those who are exposed to it.

Going into lockdown again now means we as a society haven’t done a good enough job over the last two years, and would be a f***ing tragedy and almost intolerable. 

I have to agree, “we” really should have put the capacity into place so that a lockdown this winter wasn’t needed. 2 years and pretty much unlimited funds (to be paid back later) we should have covid hospital capacity for surges.

It’s only a matter of time before the UK starts to see the ramping up in Europe, are we prepared? I doubt it. 

The UK government can sign off cheques for £200m for unusable PPE multiple times but building in capacity that keeps people living as normal as possible? Nope. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Genie

[sidcow]

12 minutes ago, Genie said:

I have to agree, “we” really should have put the capacity into place so that a lockdown this winter wasn’t needed. 2 years and pretty much unlimited funds (to be paid back later) we should have covid hospital capacity for surges.

It’s only a matter of time before the UK starts to see the ramping up in Europe, are we prepared? I doubt it. 

The UK government can sign off cheques for £200m for unusable PPE multiple times but building in capacity that keeps people living as normal as possible? Nope. 

I'm not convinced of this.

We've let it run wild and had higher levels for months compared to other countries.   Also we left a much longer gap between doses than the EU which has proven to give better protection, so our double jabbed are probably at higher protection levels than many in Europe.

And we've been living with the far more virulent Delta version for 9 months or so now, the rest of Europe are still in fairly early days with this version.

That said we had a much bigger number yesterday than we've had in the previous couple of weeks, lets see what the next couple of says figures bring.

[Jareth]

For anyone equating going to the cinema, pub or shopping centre - as a 'freedom' - seriously needs to understand what a freedom actually is. Hint - it is not a luxury. 

[est1874]

Long time reader, first time poster (in this thread).

Any country going into a full lockdown again is tantamount to admitting they've lost the battle and that "living with Covid" is not an option, so I would ask, what's next then?

This virus is never going away. It may evolve into less deadly forms in time but its micro-evolution to date has been towards becoming a more insidious pathogen, if anything. This is possibly in response to how we have tried to manage it globally - if you lock people down and give the majority (in developed world) vaccines, it forces the virus to evolve very quickly to survive in those conditions. So now we have a virus that jumps around with greater ease than the first iteration, because it has to; and a virus that is already breaking through the immune response (to a certain extent).

Living with Covid is the only option we haven't really tried so far. Granted this may sound dreadful, but the only way Spanish Flu evolved into H1N1 which is a less deadly/vicious virus was letting everyone catch it. People either died (and they did, lots of them), or they survived and had very robust immunity. This forced the virus to change and created a world where people could catch a flu, pass it on, and only the very very vulnerable (who are vulnerable to any sickness) perished.

It's a bit of a Sophie's choice and I'm not advocating a laissez-faire approach, per se, but it does strike me that we have reached a fork in the road as a civilization here.

Edited November 19, 2021 by est1874

[Jareth]

7 minutes ago, est1874 said:

Living with Covid is the only option we haven't really tried so far. Granted this may sound dreadful, but the only way Spanish Flu evolved into H1N1 which is a less deadly/vicious virus was letting everyone catch it. People either died (and they did, lots of them), or they survived and had very robust immunity. This forced the virus to change and created a world where people could catch a flu, pass it on, and only the very very vulnerable (who are vulnerable to any sickness) perished.

It's a bit of a Sophie's choice and I'm not advocating a laissez-faire approach, per se, but it does strike me that we have reached a fork in the road as a civilization here.

I think that's a widely shared sentiment and I don't disagree with it - I will say that I know at least 3 people who do not have the necessary immune systems to deal with a virus like covid, and that whilst many folks across society are happy to go without masks and shriek about their freedoms being impinged, the immunosuppressed do not have that luxury and cannot take any chances, at all. For too long we have been focused on the self and 'what is good for me' over what is good for everyone - and while that cannot be changed overnight I think it explains a heck of a lot. The only way out of this fortunately is upon us, a drug that can be taken once infected that has a 90% chance of preventing hospitalisation or death - and many more options are coming online too, so hopefully by the spring this debate will become old and we can 'all' crack on. 

[blandy]

22 minutes ago, est1874 said:

Living with Covid is the only option we haven't really tried so far. Granted this may sound dreadful, but the only way Spanish Flu evolved into H1N1 which is a less deadly/vicious virus was letting everyone catch it.

What do you mean by that? - Do you mean the abandoned "plan" that the government first had - "let it run rife and it'll all be over soon"?

Or do you mean something different? And the something different is basically vaccinating everyone who wants to be vaccinated in order to protect as many people as possible?

Or are you referring to social measures and restrictions just being abandoned, because, y'know, fed up?

I ask because in one form or another we've all been "living with covid" for the past 20 months.

[StefanAVFC]

Locking down vaccinated people. That’ll end well. Civil disobedience and a new wave of anti-vaxxers incoming. 

stupid stupid stupid 

[Genie]

It looks like 3rd and other regular jabs are going to be required. 
Travel being first up

Quote

Travellers from England who have had a booster or third dose of vaccine will be able to demonstrate their vaccine status through the NHS Covid pass, which will allow them to travel to countries requiring proof for entry, ministers have announced.

Israel, Croatia and Austria are among countries that have already introduced a time limit for the Covid-19 vaccine to be valid for quarantine-free travel.

However, it will not be necessary to show evidence of a booster for travel into England at this time, the Department of Health and Social Care said.

Evidence suggests immunity provided by two doses of any of the approved Covid vaccines has waned six months after the second jab.

Guardian

[bobzy]

I get a flu jab every year, I have no issue getting a covid booster every 6 months.

It's easy.