Coronavirus

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, benjii said:

 

Its pretty simple: if you refuse a safe vaccine you are a selfish bellend.

I don’t think anyone is arguing with that, the debate is around the definition of “safe”. 

[ecuk268]

19 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

What about people who smoke. They  know they’ve got a higher risk of getting lung cancer, should they sign a waiver. What about fat bastards, or piss artists. The more we spend treating them, the less money available to treat righteous people, like yourself,  who fall ill. 

Yep, the lot of them. Everyone's always going on about their "rights". There should also be responsibilities, one of which should be to look after yourself and not expect the state to pick up the pieces of your irresponsible behavior. I'd have thought that a right-winger like you would approve.

[Jimmy_D]

Really promising, the numbers so far on the Oxford vaccine.

90% efficacy with a half dose followed by a full dose, instead of the two full does they were expecting to need, and NO serious cases in the whole trial is way better than they'd have hoped for.

Similar caveats to the other vaccines in that these are still early results, and additionally to the caveats from the other trials, also the caveat that the 90% efficacy came from a relatively small subset of the full trial. Will be a real bonus if those numbers do play out on the wider scale though, only needing a half dose initially lets us treat 33% more people than we were expecting to if two doses were needed.

Absolutely fantastic news for the UK if this one comes through, it's the one we've got most doses ordered already, as well as going further than expected, and on top of that, it's good news for everyone else too.

Out of the vaccines that results have been shown to be effective so far, it's the cheapest, easiest to produce, fastest to produce, and easiest to store and transport.

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, ecuk268 said:

Yep, the lot of them. Everyone's always going on about their "rights". There should also be responsibilities, one of which should be to look after yourself and not expect the state to pick up the pieces of your irresponsible behavior. I'd have thought that a right-winger like you would approve.

That sounds like a very simplistic plan.

Should also be applied to benefits shouldn't it? After all, it's the 'responsibility' of everyone to "look after themselves and not expect the state to pick up the pieces of their irresponsible behaviour" (like not having a job).

[sadoldgit]

17 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

That sounds like a very simplistic plan.

Should also be applied to benefits shouldn't it? After all, it's the 'responsibility' of everyone to "look after themselves and not expect the state to pick up the pieces of their irresponsible behaviour" (like not having a job).

Is it irresponsible behaviour to be out of work? Tell that to the thousands of people laid off through the effects of covid that haven’t found another job yet. 

[Lighthouse]

Qantas become the first airline to confirm you wont be able to travel with them, on international flights at least, without proof of vaccine.

[Weston Super Saint]

19 minutes ago, sadoldgit said:

Is it irresponsible behaviour to be out of work? Tell that to the thousands of people laid off through the effects of covid that haven’t found another job yet. 

Sarcasm escaped you once again soggy

[Lord Duckhunter]

2 hours ago, ecuk268 said:

Yep, the lot of them. Everyone's always going on about their "rights". There should also be responsibilities, one of which should be to look after yourself and not expect the state to pick up the pieces of your irresponsible behavior. I'd have thought that a right-winger like you would approve.

What a load of old pony.

 

Who decides who receives treatment. The Government, maybe a quango, what about local GP’s.

 

In your glorious world of responsibility, why should Keith Richards taxes fund the NHS, when you won’t let him use it? He probably doesn’t use it, but I do, and I drink about 25 units of LEGAL alcohol a week, does this disqualify me from using the NHS?

 

What about my snap dragon, I presume you’re ok with her working in it, treating you, but because she likes a noggin you’d ban her from actually using it.  

Edited 23 November, 2020 by Lord Duckhunter

[whelk]

LD wants his stomach stapled

[aintforever]

4 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I don’t think anyone is arguing with that, the debate is around the definition of “safe”. 

As long as there actually is a proper debate ie: between experts in virology. Not the worlds best scientists vs a bunch of conspiracy theory whack-jobs who have no interest in actual science.

Reminds me of the climate change ‘debate’.

[Lighthouse]

5 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

I don’t think anyone is arguing with that, the debate is around the definition of “safe”. 

If a vaccine kills 10,000 people in Britain, it’s still a hell of a lot safer than actually catching the virus.

[hypochondriac]

3 hours ago, Jimmy_D said:

Really promising, the numbers so far on the Oxford vaccine.

90% efficacy with a half dose followed by a full dose, instead of the two full does they were expecting to need, and NO serious cases in the whole trial is way better than they'd have hoped for.

Similar caveats to the other vaccines in that these are still early results, and additionally to the caveats from the other trials, also the caveat that the 90% efficacy came from a relatively small subset of the full trial. Will be a real bonus if those numbers do play out on the wider scale though, only needing a half dose initially lets us treat 33% more people than we were expecting to if two doses were needed.

Absolutely fantastic news for the UK if this one comes through, it's the one we've got most doses ordered already, as well as going further than expected, and on top of that, it's good news for everyone else too.

Out of the vaccines that results have been shown to be effective so far, it's the cheapest, easiest to produce, fastest to produce, and easiest to store and transport.

And you could argue the safest given that it's using methods that have been tried before unlike the RNA versions.

[buctootim]

10 hours ago, Lord Duckhunter said:

In your glorious world of responsibility, why should Keith Richards taxes fund the NHS, when you won’t let him use it? He probably doesn’t use it, but I do, and I drink about 25 units of LEGAL alcohol a week, does this disqualify me from using the NHS?

What about my snap dragon, I presume you’re ok with her working in it, treating you, but because she likes a noggin you’d ban her from actually using it.  

I don't mind if you kill yourself, it saves on the pension. However, not sure if you know, but the health effects of drinking too much aren't infectious. It's only you who dies, no-one is going to catch it from you. 

Edited 24 November, 2020 by buctootim

[Weston Super Saint]

1 hour ago, buctootim said:

I don't mind if you kill yourself, it saves on the pension. However, not sure if you know, but the health effects of drinking too much aren't infectious. It's only you who dies, no-one is going to catch it from you. 

You appreciate that argument doesn't work when it comes to refusing the vaccine don't you?

The only people who are going to catch the virus (and potentially die) in your scenario are people who have also refused to have the vaccine.  Kind of a circular argument really.

[egg]

1 hour ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You appreciate that argument doesn't work when it comes to refusing the vaccine don't you?

The only people who are going to catch the virus (and potentially die) in your scenario are people who have also refused to have the vaccine.  Kind of a circular argument really.

Wrong.

Someone could be waiting to get jabbed, but catch the virus beforehand from someone who could already have had the vaccine but declined. 

 

[sadoldgit]

15 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Sarcasm escaped you once again soggy

Probably Weston. Lockdown dementia kicking in 🥴

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, egg said:

Wrong.

Someone could be waiting to get jabbed, but catch the virus beforehand from someone who could already have had the vaccine but declined. 

 

So in your scenario, a person who is deemed to be a far lesser risk (because they are waiting longer for the vaccine than someone who has declined theirs) is going to catch it from someone who is a higher risk and likely to be in hospital anyway!

But I do get your point that there is a miniscule risk that what you describe could happen, but only until the vaccine program is finished - 6 months? 12 months? - after that it will only be refusers infecting refusers...

[hypochondriac]

5 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You appreciate that argument doesn't work when it comes to refusing the vaccine don't you?

The only people who are going to catch the virus (and potentially die) in your scenario are people who have also refused to have the vaccine.  Kind of a circular argument really.

Or people who are unable to have the vaccine because they have a compromised immune system... 

[hypochondriac]

Personally I think you're a bellend if you refuse to have the vaccine if it passes safety checks. 

[Lighthouse]

The more people who don’t have it, the more potential hosts are walking around allowing it to spread and mutate until eventually we get a strain which the vaccine can’t protect us from.

 

Some people who desperately want the vaccine won’t be able to have it for other medical reasons, people who are already at increased risk from the virus. As hypo says, if it passes safety checks and you refuse based on nothing more than principles you’ve acquired from Karen on buzzfeed, you’re a bellend.

[buctootim]

7 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

 

,,

Edited 24 November, 2020 by buctootim

[aintforever]

3 hours ago, Weston Super Saint said:

So in your scenario, a person who is deemed to be a far lesser risk (because they are waiting longer for the vaccine than someone who has declined theirs) is going to catch it from someone who is a higher risk and likely to be in hospital anyway!

But I do get your point that there is a miniscule risk that what you describe could happen, but only until the vaccine program is finished - 6 months? 12 months? - after that it will only be refusers infecting refusers...

What about the 10% or so of the people that the vaccine doesn't work for?

[rallyboy]

Shapps and Hancock, when they make up stuff, do they not realise we can see right through it?

You'd have to be as thick as mince to believe anything that comes out of their mouths now.

This is by far the least talented cabinet in living memory.

[Weston Super Saint]

4 hours ago, aintforever said:

What about the 10% or so of the people that the vaccine doesn't work for?

Looks like CoVid is coming their way, doesn't it?

What demographic do they sit in - will tell you how much of a risk it will be when they catch it - if they haven't already....

[Weston Super Saint]

7 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Or people who are unable to have the vaccine because they have a compromised immune system... 

Looks like good news for this group...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55022288

Quote

A possible alternative to a vaccine, for people without functioning immune systems, is entering its final stage of trials.

The injection was developed using antibodies - made by the immune system to fight infection - produced by a single Covid patient in the US.

It is hoped it could provide at least six months' protection for patients who cannot receive vaccines.

 

[Lighthouse]

28 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Looks like CoVid is coming their way, doesn't it?

What demographic do they sit in - will tell you how much of a risk it will be when they catch it - if they haven't already....

What’s your point?

 

Let’s say 10% of the population can’t take the vaccine for whatever reason and it doesn’t work for another 10%. Best case scenario, 20% of the population are walking around, exposed to the virus. If another 20% stand on their anti-vax principles, you’ve got about 1/3 of the population walking around unvaccinated and spreading it.

[Weston Super Saint]

2 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

What’s your point?

 

Let’s say 10% of the population can’t take the vaccine for whatever reason and it doesn’t work for another 10%. Best case scenario, 20% of the population are walking around, exposed to the virus. If another 20% stand on their anti-vax principles, you’ve got about 1/3 of the population walking around unvaccinated and spreading it.

Even assuming that all of those groups are completely seperate from one another and would have their own 'stand alone' circle in a venn diagram, that would still leave 67% of the population that would be vaccinated and immunised.

Given that herd immunity is expected to happen when between 60 and 70% of the population have antibodies, that will eventually see the virus 'die out' based on your figures.

Not only that, the percentages you've given don't take into account people that have already been infected - some of them will have natural antibodies and will statistically have to sit within the 10% that can't take the vaccine and the additional 10% for whom the vaccine doesn't work as well as the (potential) 20% of anti vaxers.  Which would of course increase the 67% of immune people who are vaccinated.....

[hypochondriac]

8 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Even assuming that all of those groups are completely seperate from one another and would have their own 'stand alone' circle in a venn diagram, that would still leave 67% of the population that would be vaccinated and immunised.

Given that herd immunity is expected to happen when between 60 and 70% of the population have antibodies, that will eventually see the virus 'die out' based on your figures.

Not only that, the percentages you've given don't take into account people that have already been infected - some of them will have natural antibodies and will statistically have to sit within the 10% that can't take the vaccine and the additional 10% for whom the vaccine doesn't work as well as the (potential) 20% of anti vaxers.  Which would of course increase the 67% of immune people who are vaccinated.....

Will you be taking the vaccine if offered it?

[Weston Super Saint]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Will you be taking the vaccine if offered it?

Yep.

I'll be way down on the list though, so probably between Easter and summer for me.

Why wouldn't I take it? 

[hypochondriac]

13 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Yep.

I'll be way down on the list though, so probably between Easter and summer for me.

Why wouldn't I take it? 

Good. Lets hope as many people as possible feel the same way so there's no reason to argue about people not having it.

[Weston Super Saint]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

Good. Lets hope as many people as possible feel the same way so there's no reason to argue about people not having it.

They don't, the discussions will continue!  Just look at MMR where there was a backlash about 10-15 years ago with people refusing to immunise their kids.  Hey presto this was followed by measles outbreaks!  People are stupid.  Isn't it best to start from that assumption and plan for the worst?

[Lighthouse]

31 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Even assuming that all of those groups are completely seperate from one another and would have their own 'stand alone' circle in a venn diagram, that would still leave 67% of the population that would be vaccinated and immunised.

Given that herd immunity is expected to happen when between 60 and 70% of the population have antibodies, that will eventually see the virus 'die out' based on your figures.

Not only that, the percentages you've given don't take into account people that have already been infected - some of them will have natural antibodies and will statistically have to sit within the 10% that can't take the vaccine and the additional 10% for whom the vaccine doesn't work as well as the (potential) 20% of anti vaxers.  Which would of course increase the 67% of immune people who are vaccinated.....

1st para - Yes, that’s basically what I’m saying. I’m assuming 70% take the vaccine and it works on 90% of them, that’s 63% vaccinated, so roughly 1/3. Minus, as you say, a number who don’t take the vaccine AND already have natural immunity. Even if that’s another 1/3 of the other 37% (a wildly optimistic overestimate), you’ve still got around 1/4 of the population not in any way protected.

 

You can argue that with 75% herd immunity we will eventually get rid of the virus but I don’t want it gone eventually. I want it gone as soon as possible, the fewer people walking around not immune the better. The longer this sticks around, the more chance it has to mutate and reinfect.

[hypochondriac]

7 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

They don't, the discussions will continue!  Just look at MMR where there was a backlash about 10-15 years ago with people refusing to immunise their kids.  Hey presto this was followed by measles outbreaks!  People are stupid.  Isn't it best to start from that assumption and plan for the worst?

I said as many people as possible. I realise that some people are idiots and won't take it but hopefully that number is small enough that it won't matter. Hopefully these people will have their lives disrupted to the point that they will have it eventually anyway. 

[Lighthouse]

4 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I said as many people as possible. I realise that some people are idiots and won't take it but hopefully that number is small enough that it won't matter. Hopefully these people will have their lives disrupted to the point that they will have it eventually anyway. 

It’s tragic, I’ve seen so many people reacting to the Qantas statement as if their human rights are being abuse. I honestly don’t know how much some people think they’re entitled to in life.

[The Cat]

By the time the vaccine had rolled out to the wider population we'll be in a period of very low covid anyway. Cases are clearly heading back down now but there will most likely be another mini rise after Xmas once everyone has spent 5 days pissed with their families and friends followed by a big drop off in spring. 

Chuck a vaccine in and we'll all be shagging in the streets come May.

[hypochondriac]

18 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

It’s tragic, I’ve seen so many people reacting to the Qantas statement as if their human rights are being abuse. I honestly don’t know how much some people think they’re entitled to in life.

It's pathetic making up some conspiracy theory or demanding that companies allow people not to be vaccinated and then walk around doing whatever they want. The more rights the anti vaxxers lose the better as far as I'm concerned. Quick jab in my arm for me and then I can get on with my life as normal. 

[hypochondriac]

29 minutes ago, Lighthouse said:

1st para - Yes, that’s basically what I’m saying. I’m assuming 70% take the vaccine and it works on 90% of them, that’s 63% vaccinated, so roughly 1/3. Minus, as you say, a number who don’t take the vaccine AND already have natural immunity. Even if that’s another 1/3 of the other 37% (a wildly optimistic overestimate), you’ve still got around 1/4 of the population not in any way protected.

 

You can argue that with 75% herd immunity we will eventually get rid of the virus but I don’t want it gone eventually. I want it gone as soon as possible, the fewer people walking around not immune the better. The longer this sticks around, the more chance it has to mutate and reinfect.

Let's not forget that no children will be receiving the vaccine as far as I know so that's a big chunk of the population. 

Edited 24 November, 2020 by hypochondriac

[Lighthouse]

33 minutes ago, The Cat said:

By the time the vaccine had rolled out to the wider population we'll be in a period of very low covid anyway. Cases are clearly heading back down now but there will most likely be another mini rise after Xmas once everyone has spent 5 days pissed with their families and friends followed by a big drop off in spring. 

Chuck a vaccine in and we'll all be shagging in the streets come May.

As far as I’m aware Covid can’t be sexually transmitted, so I’m not sure that was ever stopping you. So long as it’s outdoors and only with one person from another household....

 

On a serious note, a good friend of mine who’s a popular poster on here (well, he’s tolerable at least) has just been released from a week in hospital on a drip, oxygen and steroids. I’ll let him out himself if he chooses but it doesn’t sound like he’s had a pleasant time and he’s neither obsese, a smoker nor elderly. I’ll take my chances on being one of the 0.01% of vaccine takers who get headaches and dizziness, or whatever people think might happen, over actually having the virus, please.

[Whitey Grandad]

2 hours ago, Lighthouse said:

What’s your point?

 

Let’s say 10% of the population can’t take the vaccine for whatever reason and it doesn’t work for another 10%. Best case scenario, 20% of the population are walking around, exposed to the virus. If another 20% stand on their anti-vax principles, you’ve got about 1/3 of the population walking around unvaccinated and spreading it.

They would only be spreading it amongst themselves and it would fade away.

[whelk]

 Can you put a bet on a surge of cases in January as a result of the Christmas rules? And who will be the scapegoat for Hancock and co to blame?

Seems mad to to have a 4 day free for all and then on the 28th it becomes unsafe again. Sure many would’ve have ignored anyway but is stupid if you ask me

Edited 25 November, 2020 by whelk

[hypochondriac]

13 minutes ago, whelk said:

 Can you put a bet on a surge of cases in January as a result of the Christmas rules? And who will be the scapegoat for Hancock and co to blame?

Seems mad to to have a 4 day free for all and then on the 28th it becomes unsafe again. Sure many would’ve have ignored anyway but is stupid if you ask me

I expect they've done behaviour modelling and the least worst option in the face of mass disobedience was to allow a loosening of the rules and hope that the majority follow them. If they did nothing and everyone broke the rules anyway then it becomes easier to break in the future. 

[buctootim]

8 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

I expect they've done behaviour modelling and the least worst option in the face of mass disobedience was to allow a loosening of the rules and hope that the majority follow them. If they did nothing and everyone broke the rules anyway then it becomes easier to break in the future. 

Depends who you listen to. This guy below was fairly graphic  - no point meeting your family at Christmas if it means burying them in January and February. Second one below, no idea why I cant separate.

 

   

 

Edited 25 November, 2020 by buctootim

[hypochondriac]

1 hour ago, buctootim said:

Depends who you listen to. This guy below was fairly graphic  - no point meeting your family at Christmas if it means burying them in January and February. Second one below, no idea why I cant separate.

 

   

 

What's your point? I'm not denying that there won't likely be a spoke in deaths as a consequence of loosening restrictions. The majority of the country wouldn't have listened anyway so clearly the best thing to do is to acknowledge the reality and give some rules with the hope that more people will actually follow them and reduce the impact of Christmas. 

[aintforever]

1 hour ago, hypochondriac said:

I expect they've done behaviour modelling and the least worst option in the face of mass disobedience was to allow a loosening of the rules and hope that the majority follow them. If they did nothing and everyone broke the rules anyway then it becomes easier to break in the future. 

I'm not sure it will work like that. Most people will just read the words 'it's OK to meet up at Christmas' and just rip the arse out of it.

Plus you have all the people of other religions who were not allowed to celebrate their religious festivals who will just say fuck you and do what they want for the whole of December.

[buctootim]

15 minutes ago, hypochondriac said:

What's your point? I'm not denying that there won't likely be a spoke in deaths as a consequence of loosening restrictions. The majority of the country wouldn't have listened anyway so clearly the best thing to do is to acknowledge the reality and give some rules with the hope that more people will actually follow them and reduce the impact of Christmas. 

I'm saying hard chopping and changing the rules and inconsistency breeds contempt - 'you can do this now, today but not later, tomorrow or yesterday'. It's much better to have a consistent core pattern of restrictions which everyone knows, with additional measures which are gently tightened or relaxed depending on infection rates.  As my 15yr old daughter says "it makes no sense we spend all day together in class with no ventilation and then at 3pm we're separated and not even allowed to walk home together".   

 

  

Edited 25 November, 2020 by buctootim

[hypochondriac]

19 minutes ago, buctootim said:

I'm saying hard chopping and changing the rules and inconsistency breeds contempt - 'you can do this now, today but not later, tomorrow or yesterday'. It's much better to have a consistent core pattern of restrictions which everyone knows, with additional measures which are gently tightened or relaxed depending on infection rates.  As my 15yr old daughter says "it makes no sense we spend all day together in class with no ventilation and then at 3pm we're separated and not even allowed to walk home together".   

 

  

I get that but I was talking specifically about Christmas. It's obvious that if they just carried on like now that no one would listen and do what they wanted and once everyone decides to break the rules they are more likely to do it in the future. One thing I don't understand is with sports. If its safe to have 4000 spectators now then why not four months ago? The chopping and changing does give the impression that it's arbitrary I agree but I absolutely see why they view Christmas as a special case. 

[CB Fry]

1 hour ago, aintforever said:

I'm not sure it will work like that. Most people will just read the words 'it's OK to meet up at Christmas' and just rip the arse out of it.

Plus you have all the people of other religions who were not allowed to celebrate their religious festivals who will just say fuck you and do what they want for the whole of December.

All that can be achieved is a reasonable percentage of people will decide not to travel halfway across the country to sleep on the put-up bed at their parents house, or decide to have a "small Christmas this year" and so on. 

I have no doubt there will be a % decline in household get togethers, the average family Christmas table will be smaller than usual, Christmas travel less than usual etc etc.

To be honest that is all that can be reasonably delivered. Some people will rip the arse out of it but no one is going to get a knock on the door on Christmas day, so they can. Let them get on with it.

But the number of arse-rippers will be balanced out by an equally significant number of the super-cautious or the "its only one year, let's stay here" people who will go the other way.

[hypochondriac]

23 minutes ago, CB Fry said:

All that can be achieved is a reasonable percentage of people will decide not to travel halfway across the country to sleep on the put-up bed at their parents house, or decide to have a "small Christmas this year" and so on. 

I have no doubt there will be a % decline in household get togethers, the average family Christmas table will be smaller than usual, Christmas travel less than usual etc etc.

To be honest that is all that can be reasonably delivered. Some people will rip the arse out of it but no one is going to get a knock on the door on Christmas day, so they can. Let them get on with it.

But the number of arse-rippers will be balanced out by an equally significant number of the super-cautious or the "its only one year, let's stay here" people who will go the other way.

Exactly. If the government kept the lockdown in place over Christmas then loads of people will ignore it anyway. 

[Lord Duckhunter]

I welcome the  Xmas restrictions in the ale house. December is a pain in the arse with a load of amateur drinkers getting in the way. A permanent end to Xmas parties and drinks would actually be a good thing. 
 

I’d have thought New Years Eve will be a bigger mixing  issue particularly with the sweaties & nippers. 

[Fan The Flames]

10 hours ago, hypochondriac said:

Exactly. If the government kept the lockdown in place over Christmas then loads of people will ignore it anyway. 

And once people break the rules they continue to, better to allow them, then compliance returns afterwards, so the theory goes.