vikingTON Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 (edited) 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 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 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. -1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scosha Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 France changing their curfew from 20:00-06:00 to 18:00-06:00. Only allowed outside during curfew time if you are returning from work or school. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 18 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. It could be normal (and indeed is today) that countries that have prevalence of a disease/virus require a vaccination against it before entering that country. No-one has a right to enter a foreign country. Your second point is discriminatory. In employment law in this country everyone has the right to be treated fairly and equally. I’m not a lawyer but can’t imagine a court supporting your view. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 (edited) Quote 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. I believe the paper reporting infection rates of 75% in Manaus has been treated with scepticism regarding how they got to that number. In any case, it is also a largely uncontrolled epidemic so it was allowed to spread wildly to more people than 'necessary' before prior immunity would start to have an impact on slowing transmission. Unfortunately, in the northern hemisphere there was always going to be a more painful second wave this winter, which will ultimately at least have the byproduct of high degrees of immunity with or without the assistance of vaccines: Edited January 14, 2021 by Elixir 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 4 minutes ago, Scosha said: France changing their curfew from 20:00-06:00 to 18:00-06:00. Only allowed outside during curfew time if you are returning from work or school. I'm sure it will have as much impact as their previous curfew measures... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin_Nevis Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Jesus f**k. Is Pep still spamming the arse out of this thread [emoji23] 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladdin Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 It could be normal (and indeed is today) that countries that have prevalence of a disease/virus require a vaccination against it before entering that country. No-one has a right to enter a foreign country. Your second point is discriminatory. In employment law in this country everyone has the right to be treated fairly and equally. I’m not a lawyer but can’t imagine a court supporting your view.From a pure discrimination point of view, you need a protected characteristic before being able to invoke the protection of the Equality Act 2010. Employment is trickier, as existing employees have other protections.For what its worth, I don't think many employers could justify a requirement for a vaccine but, depending on how things pan out, its not completely outlandish when considering those who work in settings such as care homes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanius Mullarkey Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 9 minutes ago, Day of the Lords said: Jesus f**k. Is Pep still spamming the arse out of this thread Paula Sergio’s sensational return as an epidemiologist is the 2021 content we’ve all been waiting for tho. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elixir Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 3 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkey said: Paula Sergio’s sensational return as an epidemiologist is the 2021 content we’ve all been waiting for tho. I'm just glad to see that most people on here seem to be sensible and pragmatic about the situation, and want to return to living normal, fulfilling lives. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bennett Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 6 minutes ago, Melanius Mullarkey said: Paula Sergio’s sensational return as an epidemiologist is the 2021 content we’ve all been waiting for tho. Hearts must be winning some games then. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 (edited) 27 minutes ago, welshbairn said: 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. None of the above has got anything to do with your 'well until we get a study on how vaccines affect transmission as well we can't expect to do much' stance, which is utter nonsense. We already have a set of fairly objective criteria for tiered restrictions: hospitalisation numbers and overall ICU capacity are quite rightly central to of that scheme. This criteria should be reapplied: only with the total cases increasingly reduced in the overall weighting as vulnerable groups are protected, because 20 year olds getting a cough is not of itself a public health issue. And now that treatment is available, we can also punt all remaining restrictions in tier 0 into the sea. Nobody is demanding that Glasgow is put into that tomorrow morning - there must however be an objective route-map going forward. The movement between tiers and the various restrictions - up and down - should be set by default under the law. That movement should be based on the published public health data and not by Clownshoes Leitch and the gang once again pulling arbitrary tier numbers out of a tombola again at press briefings. If they wish to override any local authority's default tier then the government should be forced to put its case before parliament first and gain approval for each time-limited exception. Edited January 14, 2021 by vikingTON 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wee Bully Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Im not convinced Pimlico Plumbers are the type of organisation you would want to be championing tbh.I asked this a while ago of you. Why? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 8 minutes ago, Aladdin said: From a pure discrimination point of view, you need a protected characteristic before being able to invoke the protection of the Equality Act 2010. Employment is trickier, as existing employees have other protections. For what its worth, I don't think many employers could justify a requirement for a vaccine but, depending on how things pan out, its not completely outlandish when considering those who work in settings such as care homes. Asking questions about health is viewed as discriminatory. Not employing someone or victimising someone on the basis of a disease they might be diagnosed with is unlikely to stand up in court. The guidance clearly mentions ability to do the job now, not at some undetermined point in the future. This nonsense is similar to the hysteria when HIV was an unknown quantity. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aladdin Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Asking questions about health is viewed as discriminatory. Not employing someone or victimising someone on the basis of a disease they might be diagnosed with is unlikely to stand up in court. The guidance clearly mentions ability to do the job now, not at some undetermined point in the future. This nonsense is similar to the hysteria when HIV was an unknown quantity.Section 60 of the 2010 Act outlines the circumstances about when a potential employer can ask about the health of an interviewee.It would be a bit of a minefield given the complexity of the law and, as I said above, I don't see how the majority of employers could or would want to justify it. Its more likely to crop up with access to services but even then only if COVID remains a long standing issue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 1 hour ago, s_dog said: 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. 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. This is my biggest fear, there seems to be a growing narrative about international travel spreading the virus and causing lockdowns and it basically being the root of all evil. Having said that, I'm sure there will be major pushback from the aviation, tourism and hospitality sectors soon enough. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tamthebam Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 41 minutes ago, Elixir said: I'm just glad to see that most people on here seem to be sensible and pragmatic about the situation, and want to return to living normal, fulfilling lives. What makes you think I had a normal fulfilling life before Covid? I'm an Edinburgh City supporter for f**k's sake.. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Todd_is_God Posted January 14, 2021 Share Posted January 14, 2021 Update on Israel for anyone interested. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob1885 Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 This thread is fucking mental. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TheJTS98 Posted January 15, 2021 Share Posted January 15, 2021 Is this thread in the Guiness Book of Records for most uses of the phrase 'in the sea' yet? Be nice if we could get a break from it for a minute or two. I think some people spend too much time on Twitter. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.