Coronavirus

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Again, it can reduce the chances of transmission.

I’m not sure why you don’t accept this? Perhaps it’s because it doesn’t fit your narrative ?

Not by much.

I don't accept it and having a narrative is irrelevant - because I work in the healthcare industry, i've seen and witnessed countless colleagues, 90% of them double jabbed, catch the virus and be off ill with it, as well as having to still self isolating to stop them spreading it because, yes they can still spread this virus, being double jabbed but hey, lets not punish these folk or curtail their freedoms, even though they have helped to spread it before discovering they have tested positive...

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Paul

Of course, but you need to think about why.

It will reduce the chances of transmission because you body reacts to you getting the virus, and kills it off before you have chance to "transmit" it.

It does not change how transmissible a virus actually is, that would require a mutation.

So, if it can kill the virus off before you have a chance to transmit it surely there is a reason to be vaccinated, as without it you potentially transmit it to someone who doesn’t have the same level of protection even when vaccinated.

Like I said it’s a difficult one, makes for an interesting discussion however.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Mick

Not by much.

I don't accept it and having a narrative is irrelevant - because I work in the healthcare industry, i've seen and witnessed countless colleagues, 90% of them double jabbed, catch the virus and be off ill with it, as well as having to still self isolating to stop them spreading it because, yes they can still spread this virus, being double jabbed but hey, lets not punish these folk or curtail their freedoms, even though they have helped to spread it before discovering they have tested positive...

Correlation does not imply causation

All the statistics show far more unvaccinated are hospitalized over vaccinated. Studies also show dramatically that vaccinated spread it less than unvaccinated. Working in healthcare you would have seen that kinda of number, plenty working in other industries would have seen the opposite

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Mick

Not by much.

I don't accept it and having a narrative is irrelevant - because I work in the healthcare industry, i've seen and witnessed countless colleagues, 90% of them double jabbed, catch the virus and be off ill with it, as well as having to still self isolating to stop them spreading it because, yes they can still spread this virus, being double jabbed but hey, lets not punish these folk or curtail their freedoms, even though they have helped to spread it before discovering they have tested positive...

Hi Mick. As the government says a single dose is between 40-60% reduction. I don’t doubt that as you’re in healthcare you’ve witnessed more than most of us first hand what’s going on.

Again & just imho those who choose not get vaccinated are to a degree punishing those who don’t have the same level of protection from vaccination. Therefore their freedoms are being curtailed as they be fearful of visiting supermarkets etc.

Like I said, it’s a difficult difficult balancing act, whichever way you go you infringe to a degree peoples lives. So, your rights vs the potential wider safety of society. That’s the decision that people get to make.

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

So, if it can kill the virus off before you have a chance to transmit it surely there is a reason to be vaccinated

Its a perfectly good reason, but protecting yourself is a better reason.
Neither is a reason to force people into doing it if they dont want to.

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

not precise at all. All the evidence points to there being less chance of passing it on if you are vaccinated

how does this defend not having the vaccine??? if anything it reinforces the reasons to have it

Yes precisely, nothing you say will sway what Paul says, the facts are that vaccination doesn't stop transmission.

What evidence> show it or are you just talking conjecture ?

See above - All the evidence I have seen for myself shows that vaccination does not stop transmissibility, very very far from it.

[Jaymoss]

Its Spocks logic verses Kirks logic

Spock, end of Wrath of Khan “Logic clearly dictates that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.”

Kirk in The Voyage home "sometimes the need of one outway the needs of the many" (I think that is close cannot find it)

I would rather go with Spock

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Paul

Its a perfectly good reason, but protecting yourself is a better reason.
Neither is a reason to force people into doing it if they dont want to.

Totally understand, my counter point would be is what about the people who cannot have the vaccine? Or to those who aren’t afforded the same level of protection?

Do we not have a duty of care/responsibility to try and protect them from something they either can’t protect themselves from or have limited protection to ?

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Mick

Yes precisely, nothing you say will sway what Paul says, the facts are that vaccination doesn't stop transmission.

What evidence> show it or are you just talking conjecture ?

See above - All the evidence I have seen for myself shows that vaccination does not stop transmissibility, very very far from it.

I posted a link to NewScientist a number of posts back. Clearly stating it reduces it. You are right it does not stop it but it is better to reduce it than do nothing. Unless as posted you have Kirks logic

Your evidence is massively flawed.
One would assume most of the people you know at work in health are double jabbed so it stands to reason you will mostly see double jabbed people
In the wild as it were 80% are double jabbed yet the vast majority in hospital as not vaccinated .

Both me and you can not say who passed on Covid, for all you know the unvaccinated passed it to everyone you know who got sick. You can not prove different and neither can I

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

how does this defend not having the vaccine??? if anything it reinforces the reasons to have it

Only one question mark is required.
I suggest you calm down before you rant your way into trouble.

If people choose not to have it, so be it, I think they are daft, but its their choice.

[Jaymoss]

Originally Posted by Paul

Only one question mark is required.
I suggest you calm down before you rant your way into trouble.

If people choose not to have it, so be it, I think they are daft, but its their choice.

I am perfectly calm Paul. <removed>

[Blackshep]

We've had all this for two years now and an increasing number are still getting it that sort of points to things not working I've not caught it despite barely applying so called preventative measures most of the people I know haven't had it or know anyone that's had it. There's a difference between the official line from the NHS and what staff say when they feel safe to talk and the two don't match not even close.

I've asked before but didn't get a real answer how far is too far in term's of infringing on individual rights and as somebody who was familiar with eastern European communism and it's modern iterations the term "for the common good" scares the hell out of me more then any virus. What we're doing isn't working and that's why increasing numbers are disregarding it not because they are selfish or more stupid then others they have gotten tired of trying the same thing over and over expecting different results.

I wonder how long it will be till I see people in noddy suits there's plenty scared enough that's for sure.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Jaymoss

None of us are free Mick each and every one of us have our freedoms curtailed every single day. Pretty much our whole life is dictated to us by the system. Anyone who thinks they are truly free they are sadly mistaken

Our parents tell us what to do when we are kids, we have to have some sort of education for at least 12 years and then we are expected to work for 50 years on the off chance we get to do more of what we want when we are to old to enjoy it fully. All this to survive in a capitalistic society where on top of all the rest we are encouraged to acquire material wealth some of which ruins our lives instead of making them better

You don’t have to work for the rest of your life and some in our society never do!

What would you judge to be ‘freedom’?

You’ve been educated. Now you are free to choose.

However, this is a diversion. I am firmly on the side of those who say that if you are fully vaccinated, you should not have your freedoms curtailed for the sake of the unvaccinated.

Vulnerable people are susceptible to any virus, not just Covid. The sensible approach for them is to remain at home in lockdown until this virus goes away - if it ever does.

All 3.7 million of them?

Aren't you then proposing curtailing the freedom of all those people who have no choice because of their conditions, in favour of those who actually have a choice?

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Hugh

All 3.7 million of them?

Aren't you then proposing curtailing the freedom of all those people who have no choice because of their conditions, in favour of those who actually have a choice?

Yes. If you are too ill or vulnerable to meet others, then it is good advice not to meet them, or do so as little as possible. This is what they called ‘shielding’ during the emergency measures.

If your answer to this is to stop all 60 million of the rest of us from living normal lives, then you need to get a sense of balance. Sorry.