[Misc] Will we have another lockdown ?

[Brovion]

No. Some level of local or national restrictions maybe, but not the whole "close the economy and all stay at home on furlough to protect the NHS" thing.

PS - I couldn't vote on the poll as whilst I want to vote 'NO' I don't believe Boris is a man of his word.

 

[larus]

Oh boy!!

Let me try to help.

Do you think that countries investing BILLIONS into covid vaccine research and scientists in labs all over the world directing their attention to just one thing, finding a vaccine and then factories diverting all their production into producing the vaccine could possibly, just maybe, have been why the vaccines were available so quickly?

Give it some thought.

Then go get your vaccine.

Give it some thought - clinical trails take years, yet now they aren’t needed. Scientists were under pressure to produce something quickly, so have used new UNPROVEN methods of delivering these vaccines where the long term effects aren’t understood.

Take your head out of your ar**.

 

[Driver8]

Give it some thought - clinical trails take years, yet now they aren’t needed. Scientists were under pressure to produce something quickly, so have used new UNPROVEN methods of delivering these vaccines where the long term effects aren’t understood.

Take your head out of your ar**.

As someone who is taking part in a trial for one of the vaccines I can assure you they are very thorough and well run.

 

[drew]

What about the original poster saying he wanted those not vaccinated to be in lockdown?

It’s that attitude which pisses people off. I respect others lifestyle choice - they should respect mine. If people want a vaccine to protect themself as they are worried about Covid, it’s their choice. But to expect other to be vaccinated to protect you is wrong.

Also, I am very sceptical about the true scale of covid deaths. The current method of reporting deaths is “If someone has tested positive for covid within the last 28 days”. What does that really mean?
If someone had terminal lung cancer, would you class that as a covid death?

I remember Chris Whitty saying in the early days (paraphrasing here).
Most people won’t catch covid.
Of those who catch it, most won’t know they have it.
Of those who know they have it, most cases will be mild.
Of those where it’s not, most won’t need to go to hospital.
Of those that do, most most need ICU.
Of those which do, most will survive.

Once we get true meaningful statistics of what type of people are getting seriously ill/dying (%’s), then I will choose to remain sceptical.

Also, just because number are increasing now, the average deaths are still staying low. More testing = more positives, but how many would not have been tested in the past but were also positive.
Stats can be used to control the narrative.

That's all well and good but the other side of the coin was that not that long ago, we had anti lockdown sympathisers wanted to open earlier and suggesting we should 'shield' the vulnerable. Of course, by shield they pretty much meant keep them in permanent lockdown!!

With regard to stats, you won't accept any stats that go against what you want. The 28 day reference has literally been done to death but again because it doesn't suit your agenda you'll bang on and on about it.

Going back to your opening line, I agree, I wouldn't suggest non vaccinated people should go into lockdown but equally they shouldn't start whinging when they are restricted on what they do because they don't have a 'vaccine passport' which may well include going to football.

 

[larus]

As someone who is taking part in a trial for one of the vaccines I can assure you they are very thorough and well run.

I’m not saying the trials aren’t well run. I’m saying it takes years to run trials and see the results from side effects. All drugs/medicines have side effects, and with this new technology they have no idea what they are.

The drug companies have waivers in liability for these vaccines. Doesn’t that say something?

 

[Brovion]

I won’t get the vaccine. My body - my choice. I am fit and have a healthy lifestyle. I am not concerned about catching covid. I’m not anti-vax, I’m anti THIS vaccine. Vaccines takes years to develop and run trials on. This has been rushed through and is a totally new method (altering RNA). I’m happy that my immune system will work better than a vaccine, which you will constantly need boosters for.

However, I would like NHS to charge people who abuse their bodies by drink, drugs, smoking and excess/junk food. Maybe boot-camps for the slobs to get them fit and learning how to eat a healthy diet so they aren’t a drain the NHS, after all, we must protect the NHS. Can’t be selective in how we protect it.

It's not all about you ...

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

If we go into restrictions after the jab has been rolled out that will be it for ever - in and out of restrictions.

Realistically the UK (most of the world) cant take another lockdown

We are starting to see the damages of lockdown now - we are also in the position that was the end goal for Sage.

Sadly there are people more that are more than happy to live in restrictions forever more for other goals other than covid.

 

[maffew]

B, then c, then d

 

[larus]

That's all well and good but the other side of the coin was that not that long ago, we had anti lockdown sympathisers wanted to open earlier and suggesting we should 'shield' the vulnerable. Of course, by shield they pretty much meant keep them in permanent lockdown!!

With regard to stats, you won't accept any stats that go against what you want. The 28 day reference has literally been done to death but again because it doesn't suit your agenda you'll bang on and on about it.

Going back to your opening line, I agree, I wouldn't suggest non vaccinated people should go into lockdown but equally they shouldn't start whinging when they are restricted on what they do because they don't have a 'vaccine passport' which may well include going to football.

We should be given honest stats and not manipulated/selective figures. I don’t have an agenda - I just want to be able to live my life how I want. I don’t want others to dictate to me, but when I say stuff like that, the sheeple react.

If the vaccines are there to protect those vaccinated, why should you worry if A.N.Other chooses to take a risk (as you see it) with their health. According to the stats (which are from the government so I am sure you would approve of), once people are vaccinated, their risk of catching serious covid is dramatically reduced, so my choice should not impact others.

Anyway, this started in reaction so the earlier poster wanting those not vaccinated in lockdown, as though the state should have the right to have control over your body. Where does that lead eh?

 

[Wardy's twin]

I'm sorry - he most certainly did. In one of his briefings on the BBC he described the steps on the road map as "irreversible".

Now we know that Boris is a deceitful lying oaf....so I wouldn't be backing against him re-writing history and claiming he never described the road map as "irreversible"?

Can't you hear him now screaming "FAKE NEWS"?

I thought people were criticising him because he would not give that assurance maybe i got that wrong. To be fair to me I don't listen to what he says anyway as its usually nonsense or lies.

 

[Creaky]

What about the original poster saying he wanted those not vaccinated to be in lockdown?

It’s that attitude which pisses people off. I respect others lifestyle choice - they should respect mine. If people want a vaccine to protect themself as they are worried about Covid, it’s their choice. But to expect other to be vaccinated to protect you is wrong.

Also, I am very sceptical about the true scale of covid deaths. The current method of reporting deaths is “If someone has tested positive for covid within the last 28 days”. What does that really mean?
If someone had terminal lung cancer, would you class that as a covid death?

I remember Chris Whitty saying in the early days (paraphrasing here).
Most people won’t catch covid.
Of those who catch it, most won’t know they have it.
Of those who know they have it, most cases will be mild.
Of those where it’s not, most won’t need to go to hospital.
Of those that do, most most need ICU.
Of those which do, most will survive.

Once we get true meaningful statistics of what type of people are getting seriously ill/dying (%’s), then I will choose to remain sceptical.

Also, just because number are increasing now, the average deaths are still staying low. More testing = more positives, but how many would not have been tested in the past but were also positive.
Stats can be used to control the narrative.

I have no problem with those refusing to be vaccinated against Covid. - as you say, your right to choose should be accepted.

The problem I have is with those taking that stance and then complaining about the consequences.

Don’t complain if airlines refuse to accept your bookings, there is refusal to allow entry to clubs, football grounds, theatres etc., if those venues make that their choice. The NHS app makes it easy to prove vaccination status and if Covid cases rise even more dramatically then I can see more and more demand for proof of vaccination status being required.

I can’t see this government being willing to reverse the removal of lockdown, not because BJ is a ‘man of his word’ but rather because politically it would not be a viable political decision following his recent utterances.

I’m vulnerable, have been vaccinated but am also quite capable of making my own choices with regards to activities and the associated risks.

 

[Audax]

I won’t get the vaccine. My body - my choice. I am fit and have a healthy lifestyle. I am not concerned about catching covid. I’m not anti-vax, I’m anti THIS vaccine. Vaccines takes years to develop and run trials on. This has been rushed through and is a totally new method (altering RNA). I’m happy that my immune system will work better than a vaccine, which you will constantly need boosters for.

Depending on how old you are: AstraZeneca is *not* the new RNA vaccine - it's the same old de-activated virus technology as is used in the yearly Flu vaccine. Yes, there's a very small risk of blood clots from it. Very, very small. That risk isn't a byproduct of how quickly the vaccine was developed, though. It's more likely to be a byproduct of using the de-activated virus technique, as one of the potential killer symptoms for those who die from Covid happens to be blood clots.

Anyway, in regards the mRNA vaccines: there's nothing "new" about the mRNA vaccines. They've been in development (not specifically for Covid) for decades - the first successful test in mice being 1990. Unfortunately, as is often the case with new bio technology, it took a long time for the funding to arrive and progress was slow until around 10 years ago. The Moderna company that produces one of the mRNA vaccines only exists because of the mRNA research and a specific breakthrough in mRNA that opened the door to funding. It's name is specifically created from the word "Modfied" and "RNA": Mod(e)rna.

As far as the charge that it takes years to produce vaccines: yes, it does. If you follow the traditional approach of doing step 1, assessing, step 2, re-assessing, step 3, re-re-assessing, etc etc and all the time having to scrape for funding. Thing is, the Covid vaccines didn't follow the traditional approach. They had the funding to be able to run several stages in parallel. They also had the perfect conditions to be able to recruit a large number of participants for the trials in a very short time frame, which allowed for scientifically accurate and statistically significant results to be obtained more rapidly than normal.

Think of it this way: the traditional way of making a vaccine was a lot like trying to make fish and chips with mushy peas by doing it this way:

Start by realising you only have funding for 1 chef, then:

1. Cut the potatoes into chip shapes.
2. Measure the chip shapes. Do they work as chips?
3. Cook the chips.
4. Taste the chips - are they tasty?
5. Prepare batter for the fish.
6. Check the batter.
7. [...]

You get it. Instead with the Covid vaccines, where possible they did things in parallel - there was funding in place to have multiple chefs. They had some do the chips, someone else do the fish, someone else do the peas, etc. They overlapped some of the trial phases, starting each next phase as soon as they had sufficient data to be confident they could do so. And, as mentioned above, they had perfect conditions to be able to get a large volume of study participants in short order.

What they absolutely didn't do was cut any corners. Especially in the case of the mRNA vaccines. For those, they already had the base technology in place. They'd been working on it for years. All they needed to do was get the technology to produce the Covid spike protein and then run their clinical trials. Job done.

If anything, the Covid vaccines are *better* tested at the point of receiving approval for use than most other vaccines are on the day they are approved.

 

[Bry Nylon]

I've had both vaccinations but respect the decision of those who choose not to, for whatever reason.

I must admit, the timeframe to develop the vaccines and gain approval for use did surprise me. I watched a few bits on tv that explained how certain clinical steps had been undertaken in parallel, which dramatically accelerated the process; but to be honest, much of the detail went over my head. There's only so much news footage of little glass tubes in racks being carried about a laboratory and graphics of spike proteins you can watch before you glaze over.

So in the end I took a leap of faith. I'm sure it will all be ok but if it turns out there are side-effects down the line I wouldn't be massively surprised.

 

[Nitram]

I find it interesting that the level of mistrust of this government and its complete lack of leadership has led to many businesses going their own way and keeping many restrictions such as table service in pubs and face coverings in indoor settings.
Javid the blustering Boris sidekick getting COVID just when he’s ready to reopen everything and causing Boris to self isolate just exposes the complete ineptitude of this shower.

 

[Audax]

If the vaccines are there to protect those vaccinated, why should you worry if A.N.Other chooses to take a risk (as you see it) with their health. According to the stats (which are from the government so I am sure you would approve of), once people are vaccinated, their risk of catching serious covid is dramatically reduced, so my choice should not impact others.

The problem with that stance is that the vaccines are not 100% effective, especially for those in vulnerable demographics. Your choice is yours to make, as you say - but make it being aware that your choice could kill someone else if you are unlucky enough to a) catch Covid, and b) encounter and pass it on to one of those vulnerable people. Also do it in the full awareness that you might be contributing towards allowing the virus to mutate further and in doing so escape the vaccine.

Your choice, sure. Just make it fully informed, and don't make it for selfish reasons. Not having the vaccine might be the right choice for you personally, but it could be a very bad one for society. If you aren't going to get vaccinated, at least do what you can to minimise the risk for others: wear a mask in public indoor places, and keep your distance from others.

Full disclosure: my family and I are now (as far as we can) shielding. That's because my wife is on immune-suppression treatment for the next few months. It puts her in the highly vulnerable category despite having already had both vaccine doses.

 

[larus]

I have no problem with those refusing to be vaccinated against Covid. - as you say, your right to choose should be accepted.

The problem I have is with those taking that stance and then complaining about the consequences.

Don’t complain if airlines refuse to accept your bookings, there is refusal to allow entry to clubs, football grounds, theatres etc., if those venues make that their choice. The NHS app makes it easy to prove vaccination status and if Covid cases rise even more dramatically then I can see more and more demand for proof of vaccination status being required.

I can’t see this government being willing to reverse the removal of lockdown, not because BJ is a ‘man of his word’ but rather because politically it would not be a viable political decision following his recent utterances.

I’m vulnerable, have been vaccinated but am also quite capable of making my own choices with regards to activities and the associated risks.

The problem with vaccine passports is that some people can’t take the vaccine. Therefore, are you saying that those people should be banned from flying?

With all these things, it’s not a simple black/white answer.

Vaccine passports would be a bad step on the road the a very sinister way of controlling people. The UK has always been a liberal society (in terms of our rights - common law assumes you can do something unless it’s illegal). Once we go down this path, be wary as to where it leads. A lot of politicians like the power/control (Matt Handcock being a good example), yet the rules don’t apply to them.

I believe in freedom/choice for the individual. Although I said about drugs earlier (in terms of lifestyle choices), I would, for example, actually legalise drugs (even though I’ve never used them) as I think it’s personal choice.
Only make something criminal/restricted if it clearly endangers/harms others. Not getting a covid vaccine is not in that category.

 

[Albion Dan]

If we go into restrictions after the jab has been rolled out that will be it for ever - in and out of restrictions.

Realistically the UK (most of the world) cant take another lockdown

We are starting to see the damages of lockdown now - we are also in the position that was the end goal for Sage.

Sadly there are people more that are more than happy to live in restrictions forever more for other goals other than covid.

They are here to stay until the economy is wrecked. The great reset = Majority of society will basically live on hand downs from the rich/government as AI and robots take over most of what everybody does. You will own nothing and enjoy it.

https://youtu.be/mD-ioJM8v64

 

[Wardy's twin]

We should be given honest stats and not manipulated/selective figures. I don’t have an agenda - I just want to be able to live my life how I want. I don’t want others to dictate to me, but when I say stuff like that, the sheeple react.

If the vaccines are there to protect those vaccinated, why should you worry if A.N.Other chooses to take a risk (as you see it) with their health. According to the stats (which are from the government so I am sure you would approve of), once people are vaccinated, their risk of catching serious covid is dramatically reduced, so my choice should not impact others.

Anyway, this started in reaction so the earlier poster wanting those not vaccinated in lockdown, as though the state should have the right to have control over your body. Where does that lead eh?

You clearly do have an agenda , you want to live your life as you want. So what do you do about speed limits or seat belt laws which are imposed by 'other people' . We live in a society where we all (should) confirm to acceptable behaviours for the benefit of the whole of society the alternative is anarchy i.e. we all go out and not follow the rules that we don't like. It's pretty clear that even with the Delta variant people will die, people will have Long Covid and a lot of pressure will be put on the NHS and so other Hospital treatments will stop again causing more deaths. This can be reduced if more people (all people) have the jabs. It does not eliminate COVID , it might not cope with the next variant but currently it is one of the best ways to reduce it along with masks, good hand washing and appropriate social distancing.

The state already has control over your mind and body because it sets the laws.

 

[Billy the Fish]

No, vaccines are already doing their job.

10 million low risk people currently waiting for their second jab. 50,000 a day developing natural immunity.

This wave will be over by the autumn.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I've had both vaccinations but respect the decision of those who choose not to, for whatever reason.

I must admit, the timeframe to develop the vaccines and gain approval for use did surprise me. I watched a few bits on tv that explained how certain clinical steps had been undertaken in parallel, which dramatically accelerated the process; but to be honest, much of the detail went over my head. There's only so much news footage of little glass tubes in racks being carried about a laboratory you can watch and graphics of spike proteins before you glaze over.

So in the end I took a leap of faith. I'm sure it will all be ok but if it turns out there are side-effects down the line I wouldn't be massively surprised.

I think that most of us submit to the hundreds of thousands of experts who have spent their lives studying and working on these very specialist areas (as we do in so many things) as we can't all be experts in everything. We even have some who are involved in these very specialist fields on NSC and they give great insight.

Then you always have a few who have done their own research on the Internet, aren't sheeple and 'think differently'