LongTimeLurker Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 1 minute ago, Michael W said: How far does this go - do you think the non-vaccinated should be denied medical treatment, for example? Think I have already made it clear how far I think it should go if you read back through my posts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 7 hours ago, Bairnardo said: Covid: Austrians heading towards lockdown for unvaccinated - BBC News Good grief man..... Completely impossible to police. The people who haven't had the vaccine are also the group least likely to bother with self policing lockdown measures like 'dont visit your granny's house'. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 10 minutes ago, Detournement said: You link to that study but other studies have found that vaccination makes no difference to transmission. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/covid-vaccinated-likely-unjabbed-infect-cohabiters-study-suggests That study doesn't say that at all. That states that, within a household, it makes no difference. Obviously. If you are 63% less likely to transmit something then the more time and space you share with someone the further that will reduce until it reaches zero. However we're discussing the likelihood of transmission within shared spaces outside the home. If someone is, for instance, doing a lap of the supermarket to get their bits and bobs there is 63% less chance of anyone they walk by getting infected if they have Covid. If they walk round them again then that would half (not quite but you understand the mathematical idea) and so on. Comparing the effectiveness of transmission in public spaces with minimal contact to people we spend 16 hours a day with eating and sleeping together is farcical. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 (edited) 27 minutes ago, oaksoft said: Yeah. We used to have one which imprisoned gay people. Pretty sure Hitler's Germany had one too. As did Mao's China. And Stalin's Russia/Soviet Union. And Pol Pot's Cambodia. Not sure what your point is here. I find it disturbing these frequent attempts on the right to trivialise the holocaust by comparing it to infection control measures. Like wearing a mask is equivalent to wearing a yellow star. If you don't see my point you didn't read the post I was replying to. Edited November 12, 2021 by welshbairn 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsimButtHitsASix Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 4 minutes ago, oaksoft said: I assume you didn't read that article because right at the top of that link it says the following. This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice. Nah. I read it. It's not been peer reviewed yet but the team who published it (Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands) are pretty legit. It's not like there aren't plenty other studies that say the same thing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 28 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said: Comparing the effectiveness of transmission in public spaces with minimal contact to people we spend 16 hours a day with eating and sleeping together is farcical. 2 minutes ago, AsimButtHitsASix said: Nah. I read it. It's not been peer reviewed yet but the team who published it (Center for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Netherlands) are pretty legit. It's not like there aren't plenty other studies that say the same thing. Did you really read it? "Household contacts". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bairnardo Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 The natural conclusion for fans of this policy is that are now happy for the government to mandate medication under pain of exclusion from society. If you don't disagree with the principle itslef, its going to pretty fucking difficult to close the door based on your perception of other medicines or treatments that may come along later. You are endorsing the govt being able to effectively place you under house arrest and prevent you from working based on the fact that you want the right to choose what goes into your body, and they want to decide for you. Thats the principle at stake here and personally, I think we ought to be very fucking hesitant. I am basing this on the inherent untrustworthiness of politicians and the people who help to drive their decisions. In short, this is very, painfully obviously a dangerous pandora's box type scenario. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williemillersmoustache Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 An actual "basically Hitler." Amazing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottsdad Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 1 hour ago, Detournement said: What's clear from case rates in the UK since vaccination began is that even with 100% coverage nothing would fundamentally change other than a small reduction in hospital, ICU, death figures. That's why they don't give targets or end dates. What is your definition of a small reduction? According to the ONS, the vaccines reduce hospitalisations and deaths by over 90%. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1025358/Vaccine-surveillance-report-week-41.pdf I'm all for hearing other sides of arguments but this anti-vax stuff you're putting out here is wearing a bit thin. The vaccines work, and work well. Worldwide, millions of people are alive today thanks to the vaccines that would otherwise be dead. Tens (if not hundreds) of millions more have avoided hospital and illness. Scratching around for data to minimise the effectiveness of this or even - as you did yesterday - suggest a link between vaccination and excess deaths is just harmful. As we're seeing in the news there are many people out there not taking the vaccine, even losing their jobs, because social media is full the kind of stuff you've been spouting here. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Detournement Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 (edited) @scottsdad They don't reduce by 90% they offer 90% protection. Two very different things which I would have thought an educator would have picked up. The document you linked to shows that the rate of infection is now higher amongst vaccinated than unvaccinated. The rate of hospitlisation is higher in the unvaccinated but that will always be the case. If we had full vaccine coverage there would still be people who can't be vaccinated for health reasons being hospitalised with Covid. Edited November 12, 2021 by Detournement 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICTChris Posted November 12, 2021 Author Share Posted November 12, 2021 They gave me a Covid booster as well as my flu vaccine. Massive queues at Ingilston though - over an hour to wait. Watching the Scotland game on the phone made it a bit less boring. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny van Axeldongen Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 If you restrict the unvaccinated and cases continue to rise – then what? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aubrey Maturin Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 1 minute ago, Johnny van Axeldongen said: If you restrict the unvaccinated and cases continue to rise – then what? Put the blame back on football and pubs of course. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 22 minutes ago, Johnny van Axeldongen said: If you restrict the unvaccinated and cases continue to rise – then what? You find another group of people to scapegoat. Probably football fans and the hospitality/leisure sectors. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 4 hours ago, AsimButtHitsASix said: This would be a good argument if people weren't rationally adapting to the changing degree of personal risk. This is why disabled people are still dying in horrifying rates. So if we expect people to go about their daily lives as best they can knowing they are more at risk or death or illness then those who seek to endanger them further through wilful ignorance can stay the f**k at home and lessen that risk. That has been the reality for clinically vulnerable people every flu season: we don't mandate flu vaccines for the entire population; indeed they are not even made free for low-vulnerability groups. Because we apply a rational calculation of costs and benefits on a society-wide basis. The idea that we are just not doing enough to help disabled people after shutting down the country and setting our economy on fire for a virus that had a ~0% death rate among the healthy to begin with and after shovelling huge amounts of resources on three vaccination rollouts and counting is just unsustainable. There is absolutely zero evidence that a vaccine mandate will confer any greater protection anyway. 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingTON Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 https://www.thenational.scot/news/19710177.vaccine-passports-scotland-health-care-leaders-back-extending-scheme/ The absolute, fucking brass neck of this: Quote Macaskill, chief executive of Scottish Care, said given the “undeniable” relationship between transmission in the community and what happens in the care sector, he “personally would be in favour of the extension of the use of vaccination passports”. However he stressed efforts should also be made to step-up existing measures, such as mask wearing. Speaking about the possible extension of the vaccine passport scheme, he told the committee: “I think we’ve got to be careful that we don’t see that somehow as a panacea to address the rising number of cases. “I live in Ayrshire, I wander around and I see increasing evidence of people being very lax in wearing masks. While Scotland thankfully has a policy which is about encouraging mask wearing in public spaces, I think we need to look at toughening the stance on that and removing the abuses of that very, very important protective measure.” Stick to getting your story straight when it comes to the public inquiry on why thousands died in your own fucking sector, rather than braying about the general public not wearing face coverings. Macaskills seem to genetically programmed to make total clowns of themselves in public office. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welshbairn Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 29 minutes ago, virginton said: That has been the reality for clinically vulnerable people every flu season: we don't mandate flu vaccines for the entire population; indeed they are not even made free for low-vulnerability groups. Because we apply a rational calculation of costs and benefits on a society-wide basis. The idea that we are just not doing enough to help disabled people after shutting down the country and setting our economy on fire for a virus that had a ~0% death rate among the healthy to begin with and after shovelling huge amounts of resources on three vaccination rollouts and counting is just unsustainable. There is absolutely zero evidence that a vaccine mandate will confer any greater protection anyway. The vaccine roll out cost f**k all compared to the testing regime that I've never understood the logic for, and all the PPE side deals for friends of the Tories. The thing that's seriously wrong is thinking the vaccine job is done for a global pandemic, while most of the world hasn't seen one, far less a booster. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongTimeLurker Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 Over 4 billion people have received at least one dose globally so not sure that's accurate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 9 minutes ago, welshbairn said: The vaccine roll out cost f**k all compared to the testing regime that I've never understood the logic for, and all the PPE side deals for friends of the Tories. The thing that's seriously wrong is thinking the vaccine job is done for a global pandemic, while most of the world hasn't seen one, far less a booster. Estimated at close to £12bn spent on the vaccine rollout almost a year ago. Bound to have gone up since then so hardly buttons. https://www.ft.com/content/58b11945-71b1-4f96-b389-695e162642fb 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Left Back Posted November 12, 2021 Share Posted November 12, 2021 8 minutes ago, LongTimeLurker said: Over 4 billion people have received at least one dose globally so not sure that's accurate. It’s not. More than half of the global population have received at least one vaccine dose. https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=OWID_WRL 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.