You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I think that’s fair enough – but to say you shouldn’t be allowed in pubs and on public transport is completely OTT IMO
Well - as you might have noticed - nobody is allowed into pubs at the moment. I get tested for covid twice a week, at huge expense to my employer and before I can turn up to work I have to make a declaration, every single day, confirming amongst other things that I haven't used public transport - so in practice I'm banned from using public transport too. If pubs were open I'd have to confirm I hadn't been in one.
The tools to achieve those freedoms - to extend those individual liberties - are now available and people want to refuse to use them in the name of 'choice'. The purpose of a vaccination program is for everyone to be able to do those normal things again.
There would have to be exemptions, hence why I put choose in caps.
How realistic is this though? Think of the logistics for implementing and enforcing it, and that’s even before you get to human rights.
And would it extend to other diseases like measles? Or HIV?
Would we also have limits on BMI?
The comparison with measles or especially hiv is utterly wrong.
Neither of those viruses are as infectious or dangerous and even less so they are no where near as prevalent so the relative risk of being in contact with someone positive is tiny and even lower to be infected by them.
Covid incidence is both higher and your chance of subsequent infection is higher again.
Anyway for people bleating, just wait until we get a really bad pandemic and see what happens
^ I was working on the assumption that chrispo was presenting some kind of ‘slippery slope’ hypothetical argument based upon violating people’s human rights by denying them entry to places unless they are vaccinated. Maybe chrispo, you would clarify how that figures/equates with BMI (?), HIV, measles etc? What did you mean?
Yes, P7, you are right. Sorry, the BMI reference is a bit obscure. Ignore it.
I realise the human rights aspects don't worry most here, but the practicalities are the main point given the government record on track and trace etc. ID cards and iris scanners fitted on every bus is it?
Bill Gates must be rubbing his hands 😉
I realise the human rights aspects don’t worry most here
Here we go again. With that, I’m oot. Play nice all. Depressing though it is.
What have I done wrong now?
The tools to achieve those freedoms – to extend those individual liberties – are now available and people want to refuse to use them in the name of ‘choice’. The purpose of a vaccination program is for everyone to be able to do those normal things again.
That's the message that needs hammering home. Restrictions and vaccines are the only way to get on top of this virus, if people want their "normal" and "freedoms" back, they need to knuckle down.
And would it extend to other diseases like measles? Or HIV?
Would we also have limits on BMI?
Please make it stop. 😩
I believe it should be down to individual choice, however, if you chose not to & then find yourself excluded from international travel for example the EU…..
I think that’s fair enough – but to say you shouldn’t be allowed in pubs and on public transport is completely OTT IMO
I don't believe it should be legislated against but rather it should be down to individual owners to decide who to allow in or turn away. Which they can already do anyway so long as it's not a decision made out of prejudice.
Otherwise, you're rallying against mandatory vaccinations (which is a straw man in itself because no-one in the UK has ever seriously suggested such a thing in the history of ever outside of opinions* on the Internet) and championing personal choice; then in the next breath you're saying that it's OTT to allow pub owners etc to be able choose whether or not to allow potential plague carriers into their establishments and they should be forced to let you in.
If that is what you're proposing - and apologies if it's not, I'm really just thinking out loud generally rather than having a go at you personally - then all other things aside it would be a monumentally hypocritical standpoint. You cannot be be pro-choice when it's your own and anti-choice when it's someone else's.
(* - oh look, there they are again.)
How realistic is this though? Think of the logistics for implementing and enforcing it,
Doorman checking for either certification of immunisation or a medical exemption certificate. We've been doing it to validate minimum ages for decades, go try and buy fags aged 16 and see what happens.
and that’s even before you get to human rights.
I hate to break this to you, but not being able to go to Wetherspoons because you might have an infectious disease is not a human rights issue. And frankly it's kind of offensive to equate the two.
And would it extend to other diseases like measles? Or HIV?
Would we also have limits on BMI?
Have you not been paying attention to anything for the last year? You're like someone who walks in 20 minutes before the end of a film and starts going "Who's he? Why's she doing that? What's in the briefcase?"
The difference between this virus and any other whataboutery you can come up with is that it has an unusually long and invisible incubation period. Ie, you could be infected, not know, and be randomly spreading it to all and sundry. This is what I used to refer to in the brexit thread as a "page 2 argument," we shouldn't still be having to explain this.
Last I checked, measles was visible (and commonly immunised against), HIV was not airborne and you can't inadvertently catch obesity. Once more with feeling: these things are not equivalent.
Bill Gates must be rubbing his hands 😉
You know he retired like 20 years ago, right? The only way he'll be 'rubbing his hands' is with sanitising gel.
What have I done wrong now?
Mostly not understanding the scale of an epidemic and the actions required to stop it going on for another 3 years and making ridiculous statements about people not caring about human rights.
Bill Gates must be rubbing his hands
This surely has to be the stupidest bit of this particularly idiotic conspiracy theory though. Bill Gates demanding control through a 5G implant of a bunch of mumbling incontinent housebound 80 year olds that can't tell you what day it is, but like that nice young man off the telly Englebert Humperdink, and who's only concerns are when Blankety Blank is on, and if there's going to be trifle or treacle pudding...
Sorry, I do realise that the words "dumb" and "****ers" are rising in my throat, I promise not to say it out loud this time...
I seem to recall someone said something about trolls and feeding once upon a time,welcome back to the dark ages.
Doorman checking for either certification of immunisation or a medical exemption certificate. We’ve been doing it to validate minimum ages for decades, go try and buy fags aged 16 and see what happens.
In my experience, you give them your money and walk off with your fags 🙂
I'm not sure the system would/could work. Doorpeople absolutely everywhere? Unfakeable passes? Working databases? In the near future?
I hate to break this to you, but not being able to go to Wetherspoons because you might have an infectious disease is not a human rights issue. And frankly it’s kind of offensive to equate the two.
But I didn't. Do you really not think excluding people from public transport/buildings would raise all kinds of civil liberties/human rights issues?
we shouldn’t still be having to explain this.
You don't. Why are you?
these things are not equivalent.
I didn't say they were. It was a "where do you draw the line" argument. But forget that. I realise now that is against the rules here.
Bill Gates must be rubbing his hands 😉
That was a joke. People worrying about microchips aren't going to be up for presenting ID everywhere they go, and if there are enough of them to affect herd immunity then there's going to be big problems policing your new normal.
oh look, there they are again (opinions)
What have you presented other than opinions? It's a discussion. I've presented my opinion: excluding people is not practicable.
I also believe it is fundamentally wrong. The way to deal with the issue is to include people, not to exclude them.
It's like excluding kids from school: finding ways to include them is a far better way of dealing with it. Put the effort into getting people on board with getting vaccinated instead.
Mostly not understanding the scale of an epidemic and the actions required to stop it going on for another 3 years
You don't yet know that vaccination will stop the spread.
Why the constant assumptions that I haven't understood just because I have a different view? I really am not stupid. (Teed it up nicely there.)
making ridiculous statements about people not caring about human rights.
You are, in my view, advocating removing people's human rights by excluding them from society.
Sorry, I do realise that the words “dumb” and “****” are rising in my throat, I promise not to say it out loud this time…
It was ironic. A joke. Hence the smiley just to make sure it was taken that way. What more can I do? And I'm actually not going to say out loud what I'm thinking.
I seem to recall someone said something about trolls and feeding once upon a time,welcome back to the dark ages.
If you don't like what I say, and you don't want to engage with it, why don't you just ignore it? What's the point of all the snide digs?
It’s a discussion.
It doesn’t read like one.
Because this thread has now turned into an 'everybody look at me, me me' thread about you asking stupid questions, rather than being something interesting about the topic?
I'm sure you think you're being terribly clever with your 'devil's advocate' positions and 'rhetorical questions' but you're really not. How old are you, out of interest?
OK, I'll try again.
I do not think excluding the unvaccinated is a realistic option due to the logistics for implementing and enforcing it.
There are human rights/civil liberties issues too, which would further delay the rollout.
I think that allaying these people's concerns in a positive and constructive manner would be a better way forward.
Do you really not think excluding people from public transport/buildings would raise all kinds of civil liberties/human rights issues?
No, it's wouldn't. With rights come responsibilities. All sorts of "rights" come with an over arching "greater public good" exclusion on them. It's just that as a society, we/the media tend to ignore that aspect.
There already are processes to exclude people with notifiable diseases from public places.eg:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/notifiable-diseases-and-causative-organisms-how-to-report
and an example of an institution and what they will do.
https://www.umsuea.co.uk/info.aspx?p=18
with there being an obligation to notify PHE where they occur. Is this an infringement of human rights too?
[edit]
I do not think excluding the unvaccinated is a realistic option due to the logistics for implementing and enforcing it.
I think an app that ties into eg: NI number and shows your immunisation status *could* very easily be set up. Now, whether I'd trust the Gov to do it, not **** it up and not outsource it to Dom's mates with potential malicious outcomes is a different matter (I hope you've read enough to know there are MANY on here for whom civil liberties / rights are a significant issue)
I was extremely concerned by the T&T app and the bodge that went on there, but I still have it on my phone because IN SPITE OF concerns I can see the greater good and risk/benefit balance.
How do you propose to do that,these people do not have rational reasons for their beliefs,why would they respond to rational arguments? And yes I feel like I'm feeding him,the attention is what trolls crave.
Im for letting the market decide on this one. Though my sympathies are definitely with the "make everyone have it" types if I were King of the World.
Ie, insurance companies/ H&S make going abroad and many other liberties and jobs impossible or pain in the rear for those not wishing to be vaccinated.
Doing that without penalising those that can't have the vaccine is the concern I have.
Doing that without penalising those that can’t have the vaccine is the concern I have.
Me too, but unfortunately that's the way of the world. My Dad's had cancer, to get medical insurance now either excludes or massively hikes the premium if you want it covered.
I do not think excluding the unvaccinated is a realistic option due to the logistics for implementing and enforcing it.
The logistics are easy if you use bullets to exclude them.
I jest, but this is what they deserve from a moral standpoint.
substantial prosecutions for breaking as well.
Try getting into india from a yellow fever endemic country without a yellow fever vaccination card
All sorts of “rights” come with an over arching “greater public good” exclusion on them. It’s just that as a society, we/the media tend to ignore that aspect
I'll bow to your greater knowledge there, but I can't see it not being controversial. Especially if it's affecting 10-20% of the population.
There already are processes to exclude people with notifiable diseases from public places
These people don't necessarily have the disease. Would that make a difference?
It still feels authoritarian to me.
these people do not have rational reasons for their beliefs,why would they respond to rational arguments?
That's a good point. Some clearly don't. But some definitely do. Their approach is definitely rational. It's very carefully thought through and intensively researched. Flawed but rational.
I think they could be won round by methodically debunking each individual argument or piece of evidence reasonably and fairly (and acknowledging uncertainties and where they might actually have a point) rather than just saying vaccines are safe, end of.
(I joined this thread in good faith to talk about vaccines in general, and not Covid which is a special case. I realise that this is not the best time for that conversation. Well, it is for me, but not for everyone else. I honestly have no desire to be me, me, me but there are 10-20 people on one side and only me on the other, so yes I have been more involved than I envisaged.)
Do you really not think excluding people from public transport/buildings would raise all kinds of civil liberties/human rights issues?
Is this a starter for 10? Have you read any Human rights legislation? (hint; it's pretty woolly when it comes to individual rights over those of society at large) Hell, even as a PM of a run of the mill suburban GP surgery I've got some pretty impressively wide leeway...
There are some arguments that are very hard to overcome rationally. One i have seen recently is:
"Women who are pregnant or trying to get pregnant should not have the vaccine". This turns into "If i have the vaccine i risk becoming sterile. I want a family in the future so I won't have the vaccine"
That (semi rational) argument came from an intelligent anti-vaxx, covid denying Corbyn lover/now Labour hater.
It still feels authoritarian to me.
They do lots of stuff in places like NZ and Singapore now that we might think of as authoritarian - the trade off is that they mostly now get to live their lives as normal while we are in a seemingly unending nightmare/shambles.
You pays your money you takes your choice. I know which I'd prefer.
These people don’t necessarily have the disease. Would that make a difference?
Not really, because the vaccination is designed to prevent them having it. You didn't answer my question though, is excluding people who are carrying a disease an infringement of their rights?
There are no human rights implications in refusing service to potential plague rats. Which article of the hra do you think it breeches?
Can't the Tories now decide what human rights are in the UK as we are no longer under the ECOHR?
is excluding people who are carrying a disease an infringement of their rights?
I would say so if you’re excluding them from everything. How are they supposed to live?
There are no human rights implications in refusing service to potential plague rats. Which article of the hra do you think it breeches?
You’re a potential plague rat right now...
Well I’m not a human rights lawyer. Freedom of conscience? It seems to me that it ends up as coercing people into consenting to medical treatment they don’t want. That’s surely wrong? (And yes I know what they’re doing is wrong too)
You seem to be saying there are no rights issues. OK. Next problem: can you see the government actually going down this route?
Hell, even as a PM of a run of the mill suburban GP surgery I’ve got some pretty impressively wide leeway
Don’t you have the Hippocratic oath?
It's just conditional access like loads of other things.
Tories being hard right libertarians won't do it but individual businesses might
You seem to be saying there are no rights issues. OK. Next problem: can you see the government actually going down this route?
Yeah, definitely - at least with international travel. I can easily imagine the UK government making durty forriners have a vaccination certificate to enter the UK, and that will be reciprocal...
Hell, even as a PM of a run of the mill suburban GP surgery I’ve got some pretty impressively wide leeway
Don’t you have the Hippocratic oath?
FFS - I've been quite supportive of your position so far, but that is either pig ignorant or your trolling fu has got a lot weaker
FFS – I’ve been quite supportive of your position so far, but that is either pig ignorant or your trolling fu has got a lot weaker
Not a clue...
Crispoo - he is the practice manager not a doctor.
I would say so if you’re excluding them from everything. How are they supposed to live?
As they do now, with deliveries of groceries, friends dropping things off, and keep that up until the virus is eradicated or at least at a level that can be managed.
It's a choice.
In my experience, you give them your money and walk off with your fags 🙂
How long is it since you were 16?
I’m not sure the system would/could work.
It'd work for maybe 80-90% of the population.
Hmm. Where have we seen that figure before?
Do you really not think excluding people from public transport/buildings would raise all kinds of civil liberties/human rights issues?
It is a human right to expect a fair trial when accused of a crime. It is a human right not to be put to death for being a different religion or creed. It is not a human right to be able to get on a plane to Benidorm when you might be contagiously ill.
What 'public transport' are you referring to? Most of it is privately owned.
I didn’t say they were. It was a “where do you draw the line” argument.
AKA the "slippery slope" logical fallacy.
That was a joke.
As was my reply. But it's one which weakens your argument.
What have you presented other than opinions?
Facts. Science. All the things you claim to want. I've given the odd personal opinion sure, but I've been arguing against the relevance of 'opinion' for several pages now.
Do pay attention or this discussion is pointless, you're now wasting my time as well as everyone else's.
What have I done wrong now?
I didn’t say you’d done anything ‘wrong’. I said that I was disengaging. And so I am.
Look up the term ‘sealioning’.
Seems that antivaxx and Christian Nationalism go hand in hand, at least un the US.
#noshitsherlock
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/christian-nationalism-s-covid-vaccine-doubt-threatens-america-s-herd-ncna1252515
Look up the term ‘sealioning’.
Ha! That one is new to me.
Lol, i like the term sealioning.
not sure he is up to the levels required to pull that off
me too......but there's a picture of Chrispo in the definition!
(they'll now do the aggrieved 'who, me?' thing)
Seems like a very lazy way of shutting down anyone you disagree with.
You don’t know my motives. Fact.
As it happens I came in good faith, so you got the wrong cartoon animal. But yes I did work very hard to remain polite when almost none of you did.
I’m out. Enjoy!
I’m out. Enjoy
I fervently hope he means it this time.
Hehe
I do not think excluding the unvaccinated is a realistic option due to the logistics for implementing and enforcing it.
Piece of piss, I've already told you how it could work.
There are human rights/civil liberties issues too, which would further delay the rollout.
What issues are they?
I can’t see it not being controversial
So what? Be controversial. We're in the middle of a global pandemic.
These people don’t necessarily have the disease.
Prove it.
It still feels authoritarian to me.
So what? Be authoritarian. We're in the middle of a global pandemic.
We are, like it or not, now an authoritarian state. Which a lot of people voted for recently despite repeated warnings. "Take back control" never referred to you and me, it referred to the Tory party.
I think they could be won round by methodically debunking each individual argument or piece of evidence
Bollocks they could, that's utterly naive at best. They don't care about evidence, they just want to be one-up on everyone else. Debunk one thing and they'll just change the subject, you'd be better served playing whack-a-mole.
there are 10-20 people on one side and only me on the other
And what conclusions might we draw from this?
I would say so if you’re excluding them from everything. How are they supposed to live?
Well, I dunno, they could perhaps take the ****ing vaccine?
The people in ICU due to their (in)actions, how are they supposed to live? Fingers crossed that they actually might.
Well I’m not a human rights lawyer.
So, right, look. You're crying about human rights one minute and then when challenged you're then claiming that you aren't an expert. So if you freely admit you don't know what the **** you're talking about, why don't you start listening to those who do rather than playing the bloody victim card?
Page 2 argument.
You don’t know my motives. Fact.
That at least is easy remedied. Is it a secret?
you’d be better served playing whack-a-mole.
That's what it's like seeing crispo's never ending circle of questions. Answer 1 and another one randomly pops up elsewhere
Which a lot of people voted for recently despite repeated warnings
And just one short year later they are already regretting it, even though the Tory part "got Brexit done" people have maybe realised that the single issue of Brexit maybe wasn't that important after all with the perspective that 2020 has provided.
Are they?
Yes given the polls. large majority thing it a mistake, tories dropping in the polls. another election now would see a minority labour government
Fortunately it seems all the major religious groups have accepted the vaccine, but what would everyones opinon be if a large group of society had rejected the vaccine on religious grounds?
Same. their choice but no access to public buildings or services. It would never be " a large group" anyway
This is a clear example of where an individuals decision not to have the vaccine impinges on the rest of the population. remember the vaccine is not 100% effective
I have no time for those who refuse vaccinations on stupid grounds and thus put me and the rest of the population at risk - especially the % of the population that cannot have the vaccine
NO schools for unvaccinated kids, no GP appointments, no entry to any public building
There are some arguments that are very hard to overcome rationally. One i have seen recently is:
“Women who are pregnant or trying to get pregnant should not have the vaccine”. This turns into “If i have the vaccine i risk becoming sterile. I want a family in the future so I won’t have the vaccine”
That (semi rational) argument came from an intelligent anti-vaxx, covid denying Corbyn lover/now Labour hater.
JCVI guidance on this has been updated.
Women who are pregnant
There is no known risk associated with giving non-live vaccines during pregnancy. These vaccines cannot replicate, so they cannot cause infection in either the woman or the unborn child.
Although the available data do not indicate any safety concern or harm to pregnancy, there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine use of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy.
JCVI advises that, for women who are offered vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech or AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines, vaccination in pregnancy should be considered where the risk of exposure to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infection is high and cannot be avoided, or where the woman has underlying conditions that put them at very high risk of serious complications of COVID-19. In these circumstances, clinicians should discuss the risks and benefits of vaccination with the woman, who should be told about the absence of safety data for the vaccine in pregnant women.
JCVI does not advise routine pregnancy testing before receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine. Those who are trying to become pregnant do not need to avoid pregnancy after vaccination.
I deliberately bolded 'insufficient evidence' because it is easy for people to jump on that as an example of insufficient testing. The fact is that there has been sufficient testing to show the vaccine as safe for the majority of the population, but certain groups will require further data in sufficient volume.
it may have been covered earlier, but its also important to note that these vaccines, and especially the Pfizer version, have been approved by the regulatory bodies in a growing number of countries.
I deliberately bolded ‘insufficient evidence’ because it is easy for people to jump on that as an example of insufficient testing.
If one is starting from "dangerous until proven safe" instead of "safe until proven dangerous" then it says a lot about what they really think despite any "I'm not racist but" -esque protestations to the contrary.
Fortunately it seems all the major religious groups have accepted the vaccine, but what would everyones opinon be if a large group of society had rejected the vaccine on religious grounds?
What do we think about something which hasn't happened and is extremely unlikely to happen in the UK in any sort of statistically significant manner?
I believe my views on people using religion as an excuse to do as they please are already fairly well documented on earlier threads and see little reason to derail this one.
Just in case anyone cares, an update: I failed to convince the people in question and they have turned down the jab.
I am not, however, planning to excommunicate them from my life for doing so.
I am not, however, planning to excommunicate them from my life for doing so.
No need for that, covid can't be transmitted via the telephone or Zoom.
Mind you, they probably think it can...
My BIL is anti vaccine. My Mrs has warned him about flying long haul to America (or anywhere else for that matter).
That's it really.
I am not, however, planning to excommunicate them from my life for doing so.
You think that’s brave/commendable of you? Or ‘typical’ of others? My antivaxxing cousin has (via email) openly excommunicated their entire family and friends (excepting fellow antivaxxers and/or conspiracy-theorists) for having had the jab. Quite literally. They say we’ve all ‘committed suicide’ (by having the vaccine) that we’re ‘wilfully ****ing stupid/dumb’ and that they won’t be seeing us again. I’ve half a mind to send them an email response and sign off with a serial number and Windows XP shutdown WAV 🤣
That's weird.
Even if he were right, how does he think that is likely to affect him? You can't catch vaccination from someone else (unfortunately).
Oh, wait. "Think."
Just wait till we get a proper nasty pandemic ebola type virus.
We can then have fun filling mass graves with anti-vaxxers - "Here lie 2000 idiots" etc.
Just wait till we get a proper nasty pandemic ebola type virus.
We can then have fun filling mass graves with anti-vaxxers – “Here lie 2000 idiots” etc.
Funnily enough I think you'll find that the anti-vaxxers will put their 'principles' to one side in that case.
But just this once, mind.
I expect bleeding out of your eyes and arse probably trumps instagram emojis.
All this talk about vaccine certificates we should surely be more interested in actual antibodies and covid tests , having the had the vaccine doesn't mean you necessarily have the antibodies and it also doesn't stop you getting or spreading it either it just hopefully reduces your chances of ending up in hospital, surely an antibody certificate and a clear test would be much more useful
Ps. I have just yet again tested positive for antibodies 11 months now from my positive covid test fingers crossed on my next test ill have had them a full year, I get tested for covid twice a week at work and at the moment I have declined the vaccination, based on the fact that I already have natural antibodies when I dont ill get it til then no thanks
Just wait till we get a proper nasty pandemic ebola type virus.
We can then have fun filling mass graves with anti-vaxxers – “Here lie 2000 idiots” etc.
I actually suspect that many of the anti vaxx brigade say one thing online, while at the same time checking to see if their vaccination appointment has come through yet. If they haven't had it already.
It is incredulous though when we get an anti vaxxer who has caught the virus and is hit very hard with it, just missing out dying and being left with terrible side effects.
Then claiming how wrong they were and how people shouldnt listen to anti vaxxers that they were once a loud voice in. Its hard not to laugh at them.
I expect bleeding out of your eyes and arse probably trumps instagram emojis.
There’s got to be a Tik Tok joke in here somewhere.
All this talk about vaccine certificates we should surely be more interested in actual antibodies and covid tests , having the had the vaccine doesn’t mean you necessarily have the antibodies and it also doesn’t stop you getting or spreading it either it just hopefully reduces your chances of ending up in hospital, surely an antibody certificate and a clear test would be much more useful
This is the sensible thing to do.
Therefore we won’t do it.
I expect bleeding out of your eyes and arse probably trumps instagram emojis.
I've had curries like that too......
having the had the vaccine doesn’t mean you necessarily have the antibodies and it also doesn’t stop you getting or spreading it either
There was no promise that it would prevent you from spreading it as it wasn't a factor that could be readily measured in the trials - as you can only have data from the people who have been vaccinated, not the people they've met - but the best outcome is that it will. Many vaccines have their real benefit in eradicating the disease rather than protecting only the vaccinated. Diseases like measles are most dangerous to children too young to have been vaccinated - the rest of us protect those kids by not being a vector for the disease ourselves.
It appears theres been a drop in infections in the households of healthcare workers who've been vaccinated - ie people most exposed to covid, once vaccinated, aren't passing infection on.
Well mac my wives hospital (4 wards all live in mental health) has been vaccinated including staff and most patients now have covid and the staff too in fact the biggest stand out thing is that the staff that had covid last year are the ones that don't have it,
Also on my station most have had the vaccine but its recently spread round the whole station including the cleaners but our watch was untouched but most of my watch had it last April so the vaccine doesn't appear to be doing a great deal from what I can see, the numbers have dropped but we did go into lockdown around the same time as the vaccine rollout began, but hey what do I know lol, that said as I said once I have no antibodies ill get a vaccine
^^Genuine wuestion here firestarter.
Of those that now have Covid that were vaccinated, are any in hospital over the condition?
Cheers mate.
No mate they aren't. Which is good news but my concern is that it still appears to spread like mad unless you have natural antibodies
having the had the vaccine doesn’t mean you necessarily have the antibodies and it also doesn’t stop you getting or spreading it
Isn’t there some evidence that a (non-vaccinated) person who catches the virus from a vaccinated person will develop a less-severe disease?
firestarter
Free Member
No mate they aren’t. Which is good news but my concern is that it still appears to spread like mad unless you have natural antibodies
Glad to hear that for their sakes and for my own personal selfishness, I won't like. Cheers bud.