Coronavirus

[Rico1304]

But with choices come consequences.  If the consequence is that people get ill take up resources and pass it on then those consequences are not just for the unvaxxed.  
 

As for denying unmasked services the court would balance the loss (the person not getting a pint) against reason for discrimination (potentially making people ill). Would go all the way to the top.  

[Curly]

18 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

But with choices come consequences.  If the consequence is that people get ill take up resources and pass it on then those consequences are not just for the unvaxxed.  
 

As for denying unmasked services the court would balance the loss (the person not getting a pint) against reason for discrimination (potentially making people ill). Would go all the way to the top.  

But the vaccine isn’t stopping the spread is it? It’s preventing hospitalisation and serious illness, so one person not getting it isn’t impacting the next from what I can gather.

 

Mask wearing I don’t see the problem with, personally. If there is debate about how effective it is, fine, but as there is no real impact on anyone by doing it, we should all really do it just in case. Just my opinion, but I think not wearing a mask is more selfish than not having a covid vaccine.

[TD_LFC]

25 minutes ago, Belarus said:

It’s not a victim narrative and it isn’t only echoed by the unvaccinated.

 

Im triple jabbed now, but think any one person should have the choice about what they put into their own body. People calling others selfish cunts and accusing them of being the problem, are just as cunty as people protesting about and criticising everyone for getting a vaccine if they choose to.

 

You keep mentioning to listen to science and ignore the politicians - there’s more than one message coming from science, and the science you’re listening to is linked to our government, so what makes them more believable?

 

Im not shouting for either side. I don’t think anyone should be. Make your decision and leave others to do the same. It’s not politics.

That only works if your actions impact you and you alone.

 

With COVID, like drink driving, it doesn't. So while you can choose what you put in your body it's also your responsibility not to put others at risk.

 

[Curly]

9 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

That only works if your actions impact you and you alone.

 

With COVID, like drink driving, it doesn't. So while you can choose what you put in your body it's also your responsibility not to put others at risk.

 

Yeah, agreed in regards to the sentiment around that, but as I mention in my post above, vaccines aren’t preventing the spread. We are at record levels of infection day after day, with 80+% double jabbed and over two thirds boosted prior to Christmas. 
 

The stats say it’s saving lives, not preventing infection, so negates the personal choice and impact on others angle.

[Rico1304]

10 minutes ago, Belarus said:

But the vaccine isn’t stopping the spread is it? It’s preventing hospitalisation and serious illness, so one person not getting it isn’t impacting the next from what I can gather.

 

Mask wearing I don’t see the problem with, personally. If there is debate about how effective it is, fine, but as there is no real impact on anyone by doing it, we should all really do it just in case. Just my opinion, but I think not wearing a mask is more selfish than not having a covid vaccine.

You are 60 times less likely to pass it on if you have the vaccine.

[Arniepie]

What happens if the NHS have to  start prioritising people?

Should it make a difference if you are unvaccinated or not?

I know it's a whole can of worms but if 2 people are waiting to be treated, one vaccinated and 1 not, should that be a factor?

[TD_LFC]

12 hours ago, Red Phoenix said:

 

Good to have a control group for stuff like this I suppose, even if the establishment would rather we didn't exist.

Covid would rather you didn't exist, people would rather you got the vaccine.

[Rico1304]

1 minute ago, Belarus said:

Yeah, agreed in regards to the sentiment around that, but as I mention in my post above, vaccines aren’t preventing the spread. We are at record levels of infection day after day, with 80+% double jabbed and over two thirds boosted prior to Christmas. 
 

The stats say it’s saving lives, not preventing infection, so negates the personal choice and impact on others.

None of that makes sense. 

[Curly]

2 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

None of that makes sense. 

Course not

[Jairzinho]

5 minutes ago, Belarus said:

 

The stats say it’s saving lives, not preventing infection, so negates the personal choice and impact on others angle.

Not really, as they're considerably more likely to take a bed in a hospital. And push back treating non covid related stuff.

 

I've no issue with people not taking the vaccine. They should be completely free to make the decision, they just shouldn't be allowed to use the NHS when they inevitably get ill.

[Curly]

5 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

You are 60 times less likely to pass it on if you have the vaccine.

It’s 60% lower risk of symptoms within a 4 week window of vaccine.

 

Its around 40% less risk to transmit. Again, within a 3 or 4 week window.

[TD_LFC]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

Not really, as they're considerably more likely to take a bed in a hospital. And push back treating non covid related stuff.

 

I've no issue with people not taking the vaccine. They should be completely free to make the decision, they just shouldn't be allowed to use the NHS when they inevitably get ill.

Whereas the likelyhood is they'll be sicker as a result and will be given priority care.

[Curly]

6 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Not really, as they're considerably more likely to take a bed in a hospital. And push back treating non covid related stuff.

 

I've no issue with people not taking the vaccine. They should be completely free to make the decision, they just shouldn't be allowed to use the NHS when they inevitably get ill.

Completely understand your point there mate, but where does that stop? Smokers denied cancer treatment? I’m not trying to argue or be contrary, just don’t feel strongly towards people who are nervous about this vaccine and wanting to have it.

 

The NHS is a wonderful thing and I’m eternally grateful to all involved, but I don’t think it should ever be used as a tool to promote and direct people to make what people believe should be seen as the correct choices in life.

[Jairzinho]

6 minutes ago, TD_LFC said:

Whereas the likelyhood is they'll be sicker as a result and will be given priority care.

Yep. While the person that did take the vaccine waits at home for 18 months for their hip operation / cancer treatment.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

27 minutes ago, Belarus said:

It’s not a victim narrative and it isn’t only echoed by the unvaccinated.

 

Im triple jabbed now, but think any one person should have the choice about what they put into their own body. People calling others selfish cunts and accusing them of being the problem, are just as cunty as people protesting about and criticising everyone for getting a vaccine if they choose to.

 

You keep mentioning to listen to science and ignore the politicians - there’s more than one message coming from science, and the science you’re listening to is linked to our government, so what makes them more believable?

 

Im not shouting for either side. I don’t think anyone should be. Make your decision and leave others to do the same. It’s not politics.

There aren't really two sides to the science on the fundamentals of this.

- There is a viral pandemic that has killed 5 million people.

- The virus is transmitted from person to person.

- Vaccines greatly reduce the transmission rates of the disease.

- The alternatives to vaccination programmes are either for people to carry on mingling and spreading a potentially-lethal disease (i.e. let more people die) or for people to stop mingling with each other to stop the spread of the virus (i.e. some form of lockdown).

 

Those points are proven beyond the need for any further debate. There is no other message coming from science to contradict them. The question is, what to do about the fourth point. 

 

When you say "make your decision and let others do the same" I sort of agree, on the condition that everyone accepts the responsibility that comes with their decision. If you decide to drive to and from the pub, then you have to accept that it's your responsibility not to drink. If you go sobbing about how unfair that is, I'll tell you to shove that victim narrative up your arse.

[Jairzinho]

5 minutes ago, Belarus said:

Completely understand your point there mate, but where does that stop? Smokers denied cancer treatment? I’m not trying to argue or be contrary, just don’t feel strongly towards people who are nervous about this vaccine and wanting to have it.

 

The NHS is a wonderful thing and I’m eternally grateful to all involved, but I don’t think it should ever be used as a tool to promote and direct people to make what people believe should be seen as the correct choices in life.

The NHS is a wonderful example of doing things collectively. About putting society first.

[Curly]

1 minute ago, Jairzinho said:

The NHS is a wonderful example of doing things collectively. About putting society first.

Exactly - you completely remove that notion if they start punishing people for their life choices.

[Curly]

10 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

There aren't really two sides to the science on the fundamentals of this.

- There is a viral pandemic that has killed 5 million people.

- The virus is transmitted from person to person.

- Vaccines greatly reduce the transmission rates of the disease.

- The alternatives to vaccination programmes are either for people to carry on mingling and spreading a potentially-lethal disease (i.e. let more people die) or for people to stop mingling with each other to stop the spread of the virus (i.e. some form of lockdown).

 

Those points are proven beyond the need for any further debate. There is no other message coming from science to contradict them. The question is, what to do about the fourth point. 

 

When you say "make your decision and let others do the same" I sort of agree, on the condition that everyone accepts the responsibility that comes with their decision. If you decide to drive to and from the pub, then you have to accept that it's your responsibility not to drink. If you go sobbing about how unfair that is, I'll tell you to shove that victim narrative up your arse.

There was a large group of scientists who opposed the boosters a few months ago from the WHO and FDA I think, saying they weren’t needed. Some even offered their resignations if I remember correctly? There’s also lots of scientists who question the practise of “rushing” a vaccine out. I was grateful it came quick as was hopeful it would get us back to normal, which it did for a while, but to say that no qualified people were against this vaccine isn’t correct at all.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

20 minutes ago, Arniepie said:

What happens if the NHS have to  start prioritising people?

Should it make a difference if you are unvaccinated or not?

I know it's a whole can of worms but if 2 people are waiting to be treated, one vaccinated and 1 not, should that be a factor?

Not for me, Clive. The NHS already has to prioritise finite resources, based on the chances of positive outcomes for the patient; that's already enough of a moral minefield. Any judgement of the patient's previous behaviour shouldn't come into it.

[TheHowieLama]

13 hours ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

"Pah! I'm not wasting good money on fire escapes. I should be free to decide what my business wants to enforce!"

You have mixed two things up here.

It is a good example.

The fire codes are regulated and enforced by the Fire department. They set them and do the inspections.

So this is a "mandate" that is enforced by the entity that created it.

[TD_LFC]

12 minutes ago, Belarus said:

Exactly - you completely remove that notion if they start punishing people for their life choices.

Don't they already do that?

 

If you continue to drink, take drugs or smoke don't be surprised if you find yourself slipping down the transplant list for example.

[Arniepie]

9 minutes ago, AngryOfTuebrook said:

Not for me, Clive. The NHS already has to prioritise finite resources, based on the chances of positive outcomes for the patient; that's already enough of a moral minefield. Any judgement of the patient's previous behaviour shouldn't come into it.

Thats why I posed it as a question. 

Someone was talking about it last night and saying if say an 85 year old came in,would they not be treated as a priority?

I really dont know how the NHS works,and I agree they already have enough tough decisions to make,but I can see the argument in someone who has deliberately chosen not to have the vacvine,been given priority.

Maybe they dont even work like that, I just thought it was an interesting point.

[Captain Howdy]

52 minutes ago, Jairzinho said:

Not really, as they're considerably more likely to take a bed in a hospital. And push back treating non covid related stuff.

 

I've no issue with people not taking the vaccine. They should be completely free to make the decision, they just shouldn't be allowed to use the NHS when they inevitably get ill.

Can’t agree with that, you could use the same argument against fat people, smokers, alcoholics, drug dependant people etc. It’s a very slippery slope imo 

[Jairzinho]

1 minute ago, Captain Howdy said:

Can’t agree with that, you could use the same argument against fat people, smokers, alcoholics, drug dependant people etc. It’s a very slippery slope imo 

Personally I think those comparisons would be ridiculous. 

 

Nobody is addicted to not taking a vaccine.

[A Red]

57 minutes ago, Belarus said:

Yeah, agreed in regards to the sentiment around that, but as I mention in my post above, vaccines aren’t preventing the spread. We are at record levels of infection day after day, with 80+% double jabbed and over two thirds boosted prior to Christmas. 
 

The stats say it’s saving lives, not preventing infection, so negates the personal choice and impact on others angle.

With respect, you are missing the whole point of the vaccines. You can argue they don't stop the spread of the virus or that they do, its pretty much irrelevant really.

 

The whole point is the NHS, the more that are fully jabbed up the less likely is that it is overrun. That's why people should choose to take the jabs, so that people that need treatment for covid or other issues can get it. Imagine a scenario where the hospitals are full of covid patients with absolutely no spare capacity.