Main Coronavirus / Covid-19 Discussion Thread

[highflyer]

Getting vaccinated is to protect yourself. The difference it makes to others is marginal in comparison. I'm standing next to an unvaccinated person, I'm double jabbed. Who is at increased risk in that situation?

It's just a way for people to raise their own self esteem by saying "look at me, I help others".

A separate point, you mention anti vax sentiment, yes anyone spreading it or protesting outside clinics is a stain on society.

(continued discussion from Good news thread)


That's such an individualistic perspective.And also wrong.

You are double jabbed and standing next to someone that is vulnerable, but (let's imagine) couldn't get jabbed for medical reasons.
Yes, you are protected from them and that's good for you. But you are also less of a risk to them having been jabbed. So obviously it helps them as well.

The overall impact of many individuals getting jabbed is to significantly reduce the overall impact of the pandemic across the whole of society. It's not a coincidence that the UK is now the most open society in Europe and has one of the highest vaccination rates.

Of course it's partly about protecting yourself. But vaccination programmes are public health programmes. They are about more than the individual. If it was only about the individual, public health experts woudn't be pressing for younger people get get jabbed.


The main reason we vaccinate younger people who are at low risk, is to protect others. If was only about self esteem why would public health officials be so keen to get younger people vaccinated?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

SAGE warn government to act urgently or risk up to 7,000 hospitalisations a day

We really should be locking down now, in 6 weeks time the modelling shows 300k cases a day.

I hope the army are ready

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

We really should be locking down now, in 6 weeks time the modelling shows 300k cases a day.

I hope the army are ready

I know the model you refer to has been derided as being ludicrous, which on face value it was - however, are you not just a tiny bit worried about the way the figures are going?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I know the model you refer to has been derided as being ludicrous, which on face value it was - however, are you not just a tiny bit worried about the way the figures are going?

Cases are going down?

You also have the danger of being so ridiculous in predictions of 7k a day in 6 weeks no one takes them seriously.

 

[LamieRobertson]

Great news everyone, the Health Secretary has confirmed this morning it's impossible to give Covid to people you know

[tweet]1438023721017556994[/tweet]

I like big bubbles

 

[Fat Boy Fat]

Cases are going down?

You also have the danger of being so ridiculous in predictions of 7k a day in 6 weeks no one takes them seriously.

Agree, predicting 2,000 to 7,000 does rather make it look like guess work!

Back to the original question, are you not at all concerned?

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Agree, predicting 2,000 to 7,000 does rather make it look like guess work!

Back to the original question, are you not at all concerned?

As it stands I’m not, no. - this is what Whitty said would be end game.

I’m annoyed they didn’t bring in passports for the winter for everything as the only people that are causing issues at the moment are the unvaccinated.

I’m sure the Guardian and indisage will be pushing lockdowns (they wanted us to go back to step 2 on the 19th)when the yearly pressure on the NHS happens ,which wasn’t acceptable in any year and needs to be sorted.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

I like big bubbles

Nicki Minaj?

 

[Billy the Fish]

(continued discussion from Good news thread)


That's such an individualistic perspective.And also wrong.

You are double jabbed and standing next to someone that is vulnerable, but (let's imagine) couldn't get jabbed for medical reasons.
Yes, you are protected from them and that's good for you. But you are also less of a risk to them having been jabbed. So obviously it helps them as well.

The overall impact of many individuals getting jabbed is to significantly reduce the overall impact of the pandemic across the whole of society. It's not a coincidence that the UK is now the most open society in Europe and has one of the highest vaccination rates.

Of course it's partly about protecting yourself. But vaccination programmes are public health programmes. They are about more than the individual. If it was only about the individual, public health experts woudn't be pressing for younger people get get jabbed.


The main reason we vaccinate younger people who are at low risk, is to protect others. If was only about self esteem why would public health officials be so keen to get younger people vaccinated?

I guess this is just a difference in how we view things, I've had the same circular conversation about masks with [MENTION=2223]e77[/MENTION]. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but for me it is a big mostly (not partly) about protecting yourself. It's not my job to look after every other person in the world, I haven't got the headspace to be worrying about that stuff 24/7, I deal with my own issues and those close to me. If I was vulnerable and couldn't get the jab I'd make sure I avoided crowed places and would wear an N95 face mask, I certainly wouldn't expect everyone else to do it for me.

I'm with the JCVI on vaccinating teenagers. We shouldn't be putting them at risk, no matter how small, to protect people who are already vaccinated themselves. That is likely a political decision because they're worried about criticism from people who share your ideology who seem to be noisier about it than those who share mine. You're praised for helping others, I appear selfish but the end result is the same.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Agree, predicting 2,000 to 7,000 does rather make it look like guess work!

Back to the original question, are you not at all concerned?

Today's Daily Telegraph suggests that excluding the unvaccinated, the number of people dying of the "big three" respiratory diseases (covid, flu, CRD) is about the same a usual for the time of year. The suggestion being that covid is basically fatal for the people for whom flu and CRD would be fatal anyway, and so in itself it isn't so much causing extra deaths, as causing people to die of a different cause.

As for the people who chose not to be vaccinated and are dying as a result, I'm not concerned. Perhaps I should be. But they have been offered a simple and easy way to survive, and chosen not to take it - I can't live their life for them.

 

[A1X]

I like big bubbles

And you cannot lie?

 

[LamieRobertson]

And you cannot lie?

It’s best to be UPFRONT

 

[crodonilson]

To put into perspective at the height of the January peak there were approx 4,000 daily hospitalisations. 7,000 is huge and unsustainable. Surely now reintroducing some basic baseline measures can help the NHS avoid those sorts of figures?? Let's not make the same mistakes of last early Autumn.

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

To put into perspective at the height of the January peak there were approx 4,000 daily hospitalisations. 7,000 is huge and unsustainable. Surely now reintroducing some basic baseline measures can help the NHS avoid those sorts of figures?? Let's not make the same mistakes of last early Autumn.

Shoot the ill, save the NHS

 

[beorhthelm]

To put into perspective at the height of the January peak there were approx 4,000 daily hospitalisations. 7,000 is huge and unsustainable. Surely now reintroducing some basic baseline measures can help the NHS avoid those sorts of figures?? Let's not make the same mistakes of last early Autumn.

once again news being driven by high-end estimates not supported in current data. and seemingly assume vaccines arent having any effect.

 

[dsr-burnley]

To put into perspective at the height of the January peak there were approx 4,000 daily hospitalisations. 7,000 is huge and unsustainable. Surely now reintroducing some basic baseline measures can help the NHS avoid those sorts of figures?? Let's not make the same mistakes of last early Autumn.

Would it help if we discovered an efficient vaccine?

 

[Billy the Fish]

once again news being driven by high-end estimates not supported in current data. and seemingly assume vaccines arent having any effect.

They need to keep the SPI-M reports private. I suspect they're doing all kinds of damage under the surface.

 

[Yoda]

To put into perspective at the height of the January peak there were approx 4,000 daily hospitalisations. 7,000 is huge and unsustainable. Surely now reintroducing some basic baseline measures can help the NHS avoid those sorts of figures?? Let's not make the same mistakes of last early Autumn.

New cases in mid July were similar to case numbers in January. These are the from the number of patients in hospital (admissions isn't the be all and end all to measure by):



I wonder what the big difference is?

 

[e77]

I guess this is just a difference in how we view things, I've had the same circular conversation about masks with [MENTION=2223]e77[/MENTION]. I don't disagree with what you're saying, but for me it is a big mostly (not partly) about protecting yourself. It's not my job to look after every other person in the world, I haven't got the headspace to be worrying about that stuff 24/7, I deal with my own issues and those close to me. If I was vulnerable and couldn't get the jab I'd make sure I avoided crowed places and would wear an N95 face mask, I certainly wouldn't expect everyone else to do it for me.

I'm with the JCVI on vaccinating teenagers. We shouldn't be putting them at risk, no matter how small, to protect people who are already vaccinated themselves. That is likely a political decision because they're worried about criticism from people who share your ideology who seem to be noisier about it than those who share mine. You're praised for helping others, I appear selfish but the end result is the same.

My suspicion is the decision was made to start vaccinating teenagers - although it is important to note it isn't mandatory - when they didn't get the take up amongst adults.

Immunity isn't an absolute but a scale. In all reality some people shouldn't be in crowded public places and no amount of specialist mask wearing should change that but others who are somewhere in the middle for reasons such as age might get scared away from public events due to lack of following the current guidelines.

To be fair your view on mask wearing seems to be the majority view but if cases rise and face coverings become mandated again I won't have any sympathy as people didn't follow the advice when it was optional.

 

[Bozza]

Agree, predicting 2,000 to 7,000 does rather make it look like guess work!

Back to the original question, are you not at all concerned?

Models aren't predictions. A lot of people (maybe not you) fail to grasp this fundamental principle.

A model attempts to define a possible end result, or range of end results, based on a set of inputs and assumptions.

Attempting to model the likely courses of a pandemic where you have c66 million moving parts, a huge number of variables and numerous unknowns is clearly incredibly difficult. But should we just not bother? Should we just cross our fingers and see what happens? Or should a responsible government attempt to understand the scenarios they may have to deal with, in order that they can plan for the worst (whilst hoping for the best)?

I suspect if I could be arsed to delve back into this thread to around this time last year I would find the same old names, who've never attempted to model anything of note in their lives, slinging mud at Messrs Vallance and Whitty based on them indicating that the UK could be in for a rough winter. Apparently, they were trying to scare everyone without good reason. How did last winter turn out in the end?