Generic Virus Thread

[ml1dch]

2 hours 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 ****. 

And making vaccinations mandatory from February. 

Edit - according to the interwebs anyway.

Edited November 19, 2021 by ml1dch

[Dante_Lockhart]

On 18/11/2021 at 11:20, Ingram85 said:

The problem being, these stupid word removed’s don’t care about infecting other people either. So part of me thinks they shouldn’t be allowed to mingle with sensible people who have a right not to be infected by these selfish pricks. 

Way to group 'anti-vaxxers' in with the 'choose not to have the vaccine but still take precautions' crowd.

Lumping everyone who has been vaccinated as 'sensible' and everyone who hasn't as 'stupid words removed' makes you as bad as the extreme opposite side mate.

[Wainy316]

41 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

And making vaccinations mandatory from February. 

Edit - according to the interwebs anyway.

How do you make them mandatory without physical force or imprisonment?

[est1874]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

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.

You are right, it's a vague phrasing that's been influenced too much by political speak.

I suppose what it means to me is being about to live alongside the virus without the knee-jerk reaction to impose harsh restrictions on society and/or lockdowns every time the fear sets in.

I just don't see a way out of this damaging cycle at present unless we accept that it's never going away and that it will evolve into irrelevance if we allow it to.

Trying to defeat or outthink nature as we have been doing was/is hubris and folly after a certain point; because nature doesn't "think", it just survives. The virus was always going to survive, in some form or other, because that's what viruses do. The question for me becomes, how do we want it to survive? Do want to keep forcing it to mutate into something that circumvents our measures, or do we want to arm people as best we can with the vaccine and the best antiviral medications, invest appropriately in the health service, and take the risk on getting on with our lives?

The reality is that we've already been beaten, which was inevitable to be quite honest. Countries like New Zealand who had decent short-term success with a zero Covid policy now admitting defeat in that policy shows that things are too far gone now. Intermittent, predictable, cyclical lockdowns with major restrictions on society in the meantime periods just doesn't strike me as living with Covid. It's fighting a wildfire, but unlike fire, a virus won't just "burn itself out", as its sole purpose is to survive and replicate.

It's an uncomfortable fact, but we can't beat it. The incidence is too high for us to adequately contain it. We can force it back for a few weeks, but in that time it will have found new ways to infiltrate and when we reopen again, it will just bounce back stronger.

That's been the pattern for 2 years since its discovery, it will continue ad nauseum if we keep trying to manage it the way we are.

Edited November 19, 2021 by est1874

[PaulC]

4 minutes ago, Wainy316 said:

How do you make them mandatory without physical force or imprisonment?

Prisons are full as well, maybe fines. 

[bobzy]

17 minutes ago, est1874 said:

Trying to defeat or outthink nature as we have been doing was/is hubris and folly after a certain point; because nature doesn't "think", it just survives. The virus was always going to survive, in some form or other, because that's what viruses do. The question for me becomes, how do we want it to survive? Do want to keep forcing it to mutate into something that circumvents our measures, or do we want to arm people as best we can with the vaccine and the best antiviral medications, invest appropriately in the health service, and take the risk on getting on with our lives?

Depends how crucial the last point of this is because there simply won't be appropriate investment in the health service.  It isn't going to happen.

Largely, if we have effective vaccines and boosters and there is a drug which can help treat people who have the virus, then we should be "fine".  I think absolutely everyone (or certainly 99.99% of people) agree that we will live with covid for the foreseeable, much as we live with other viruses.  I guess that's why it's quite frustrating that people don't get vaccinated and help out with the overall effort to control the virus as much as is possible.  But, hey, each to their own.

 

Personally, aside from an incredibly empty office space, there isn't too much different in my life now than pre-covid times.  It doesn't feel that different at all.

[chrisp65]

Mandatory state organised injections.

Cool.

 

As I’ve already mentioned, a greater threat is global warming. The scientists need to make the politicians understand we need forced sterilisation programmes. 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

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

It's easy.

That utterly misses the point.

[bobzy]

14 minutes ago, snowychap said:

That utterly misses the point.

The point of what?  

[PaulC]

29 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Mandatory state organised injections.

Cool.

 

As I’ve already mentioned, a greater threat is global warming. The scientists need to make the politicians understand we need forced sterilisation programmes. 

Harsh but I agree with you 

[JoshVilla]

To be honest, I can fully see what's happening in Austria happening over here.

Flash back to a year or so ago - mentioning the idea that we'd end up needing vaccine passports and things of that nature was generally dismissed as conspiracy theory tittle tattle, but rightly or wrongly, here we are.

I can see this going the same way.

[blandy]

58 minutes ago, est1874 said:

You are right, it's a vague phrasing that's been influenced too much by political speak.

I suppose what it means to me is being about to live alongside the virus without the knee-jerk reaction to impose harsh restrictions on society and/or lockdowns every time the fear sets in.

I just don't see a way out of this damaging cycle at present unless we accept that it's never going away and that it will evolve into irrelevance if we allow it to.

Trying to defeat or outthink nature as we have been doing was/is hubris and folly after a certain point; because nature doesn't "think", it just survives. The virus was always going to survive, in some form or other, because that's what viruses do. The question for me becomes, how do we want it to survive? Do want to keep forcing it to mutate into something that circumvents our measures, or do we want to arm people as best we can with the vaccine and the best antiviral medications, invest appropriately in the health service, and take the risk on getting on with our lives?

The reality is that we've already been beaten, which was inevitable to be quite honest. Countries like New Zealand who had decent short-term success with a zero Covid policy now admitting defeat in that policy shows that things are too far gone now. Intermittent, predictable, cyclical lockdowns with major restrictions on society in the meantime periods just doesn't strike me as living with Covid. It's fighting a wildfire, but unlike fire, a virus won't just "burn itself out", as its sole purpose is to survive and replicate.

It's an uncomfortable fact, but we can't beat it. The incidence is too high for us to adequately contain it. We can force it back for a few weeks, but in that time it will have found new ways to infiltrate and when we reopen again, it will just bounce back stronger.

That's been the pattern for 2 years since its discovery, it will continue ad nauseum if we keep trying to manage it the way we are.

I know what you're getting at but I see it differently, I think

I don't think we are trying to "defeat" the virus. I think we're (the scientists and medics etc) trying to essentially get to the point where it is a negligible threat to humans. This meant initially, in the absence of vaccine, all those lockdown and distancing type measures. Then once we had vaccines, the idea was to protect people from serious harm by vaccinating them. Viruses mutate all the time, if they mutate to become "too lethal" they run out of hosts to infect, if they mutate to the point where they are pretty harmless, then they can be much more infectious and still survive. I guess that's the aim with covid - if we're protected against any serious harm then it'll be like any number of mild bugs - kind of similar to the common cold, basically. Until it gets to that point we need to be protected through vaccinations.

"We" are not beaten, nor is the virus either "winning, or losing" it's not a fight in that way. As you say, the virus's aim is exactly the same as ours - to continue to exist.

The smallpox analogy, where it was eradicated completely via vaccination is not really what's being aimed for by humans in the case of covid, I don't think. The imposition or more lockdown type stuff is basically because not enough humans are getting themselves vaccinated, either through absence of vaccines (in poorer nations) or because of "fears" [trying to stay neutral] in sections of the population.

[chrisp65]

32 minutes ago, PaulC said:

Harsh but I agree with you 

Austria have always been ahead of the curve on this sort of thing.

[HanoiVillan]

On 18/11/2021 at 10:49, snowychap said:

It is tricky to navigate. A lot of the mood and discussion doesn't reflect that, however - there's a lot of '**** 'em, a lot of mixing people questioning things with 'anti-vaxxers' or 'refuseniks', a lot of 'pin them down', force people to submit to governments and even just 'experts', &c.

Also, if we look at the care sector example then if it were really about trying not to spread illness that could have really serious consequencs to a vulnerable group of the population then they might want to tackle it in a wider sense rather than focus on mandatory covid vaccinations, e.g. addressing sick pay policies for care workers which might have the consequences of forcing people in to work environments when they are not well - be it with Covid, 'flu, a really shit cold, &c.

There are many more ways of skinning a cat than a/this mandatory approach and the narrowness of the focus of such an approach in the care sector would suggest that the claimed purpose is of less importance than the political significance of appearing to attempt to address a specific covid situation.

A like not sufficient for this post. This is multiple nails being hit firmly on the head, couldn't agree more with every word.

[Ingram85]

2 hours ago, Dante_Lockhart said:

Way to group 'anti-vaxxers' in with the 'choose not to have the vaccine but still take precautions' crowd.

Lumping everyone who has been vaccinated as 'sensible' and everyone who hasn't as 'stupid words removed' makes you as bad as the extreme opposite side mate.

No it doesn’t. If you don’t have the vaccine for anything other than medical grounds then you are a word removed. If you are an anti vaxxer then you are a word removed also. The word removed rainbow is a wide spectrum of word removed’s. There’s enough space for both sides. 

Edited November 19, 2021 by Ingram85

[sharkyvilla]

2 hours ago, Dante_Lockhart said:

Way to group 'anti-vaxxers' in with the 'choose not to have the vaccine but still take precautions' crowd.

Lumping everyone who has been vaccinated as 'sensible' and everyone who hasn't as 'stupid words removed' makes you as bad as the extreme opposite side mate.

Yeah calling people words removed is a bit extreme but not having a jab seems less and less logical by the week and really unhelpful for getting us all through this.  I've said before I would just make it as hard as possible to function in society without having one and hopefully it will force people to reluctantly do their bit.

[fightoffyour]

On 18/11/2021 at 11:22, StefanAVFC said:

I'm nearly 30. I've had 2 jabs. If I choose not to have a booster, how am I risking the health of others if they have a booster?

(this doesn't reflect if I will get it or not. If I have to to not be restricted then I will)

Why wouldn't you want to get a booster though? And I don't mean to live restriction free, if that becomes necessary, but for increased protection of yourselves and others (if the transmissibility thing is still a thing).

Admittedly I am in a slightly different situation than you and probably everyone else on here in that I went for J&J to get mine as quickly as possible, and the efficacy of this may have dropped to something like 17% according to one report I read (can't be bothered to link or verify that, but it's low and probably should have been a double dose vaccine too), yet I can get a Moderna boost and multiply my antibody levels 75-fold (again just one report, but you get the idea).

As such, I'm very eager to get a booster for myself, even if I'm probably low risk of suffering from Covid anyway. It's free, and it will take me less than an hour out of the house. I can book it online whenever and wherever I want to go. And for this I reduce this risk of damaging my health. What's the catch?

Edited November 19, 2021 by fightoffyour

[Dante_Lockhart]

1 hour ago, sharkyvilla said:

Yeah calling people words removed is a bit extreme but not having a jab seems less and less logical by the week and really unhelpful for getting us all through this.  I've said before I would just make it as hard as possible to function in society without having one and hopefully it will force people to reluctantly do their bit.

It's the 'force people' that is the problem dude.

Do you really think that all this would be over with if every single person was jabbed? Of course it wouldn't be. The virus would still be there, the virus would still be changing/mutating, more boosters would be needed - then it you didn't have your 4th booster you'd be 'part of the problem' and round and round we go.

[StefanAVFC]

1 hour ago, fightoffyour said:

Why wouldn't you want to get a booster though? And I don't mean to live restriction free, if that becomes necessary, but for increased protection of yourselves and others (if the transmissibility thing is still a thing).

Admittedly I am in a slightly different situation than you and probably everyone else on here in that I went for J&J to get mine as quickly as possible, and the efficacy of this may have dropped to something like 17% according to one report I read (can't be bothered to link or verify that, but it's low and probably should have been a double dose vaccine too), yet I can get a Moderna boost and multiply my antibody levels 75-fold (again just one report, but you get the idea).

As such, I'm very eager to get a booster for myself, even if I'm probably low risk of suffering from Covid anyway. It's free, and it will take me less than an hour out of the house. I can book it online whenever and wherever I want to go. And for this I reduce this risk of damaging my health. What's the catch?

I'm not against getting my booster, and I'll certainly get it, but the idea that the goalposts will keep moving around what constiututes fully vaccinated, and able to live restriction free despite own personal choice/health position concerns me.

[Rugeley Villa]

I’ve had the text from NHS saying I can get my booster . That means the efficiency of the first two jabs has dropped and I need the booster. So how long does this go on for ? Keep getting vaccinated every 6 months or whatever. Not sure I’m keen on that tbf .