• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Coronavirus

Coronavirus - The Poll

  • Total voters
    97
Alsty said:
I do find anti-vaxx to be a strange crowd. Do they know you can go to the park and not have the vaccine?
Click to expand...

also do they think there are NHS staff going round like the child catcher giving out vaccines? It’s quite clear that the walk in vaccine centres are only for those over 18. Over 18s are adults and can make their own decisions in life.

I wonder how many other venues such as leisure centres they are boycotting as vaccines are being offered.
 
Definitely a targeted effort by an anti vaxxer group. They clearly have zero idea of the park's clientele, basically all they've done is seen a theme park offering vaccinations and then made the link of theme park=kids. Despite all the safeguards in place (it's a vaccination centre the same as a pharmacy is), the fact that it's voluntary to get the vaccine and that nothing has changed in terms of eligible age groups, I've seen all sorts of ridiculousness on that post. It'd be hilarious if it weren't so damn dangerous. Always laugh at the ones that end with "do you own research" without pointing to a damn thing qualifying a single thing they're saying.
 
jon81uk said:
Many universities will still be offering online lectures as well.
So asking those who wish to attend on-site to have a vaccine does not surprise me. Will still be able to receive the education just online instead of in person.
Click to expand...
Agreed but asking and telling are 2 separate things.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Lots of football stadiums have already been acting as vaccination centres anyway.

Any Leeds anti-vax fans who are so inherently against anywhere giving out vaccines will have to consider if they can visit (not that they'll be allowed to in all likelihood anyway).
 
To be quite perfectly honest, I don't want to be around too many people who refuse the vaccine, even more so if they are anti-vax loonies. It is one thing turning the vaccine down because you have some genuine medical concerns (despite the fact that all these concerns go against expert advice) but it is another thing completely to go around spreading lies about the vaccines, trying to make people scared of it, just because you are not right in the head and think this whole pandemic is a crazy conspiracy that every single government in the world has agreed to (HA!).

It's why I am not against vaccine passports or whatever you want to call them for travel, large events and even students going back to halls of residence. We all know what happened with the university students went back last year.

We are in a world now where we are going to have to live with Covid for a very very long time. It is a severe disease and it is not going to vanish. You utilise vaccines and other treatments that have become available for those who are ill, and live with the disease as best you can. Or you don't, and live in a world where lockdowns are always just around the corner (looking at you Australia with you zero Covid policy and terrible vaccine rollout).

Vaccine passports are a way to try and keep life functioning, and they could be key in allowing us to do the things we love over the winter period.
 
Thing is you can still catch and spread the virus even when you are fully vaccinated. I know the risk is lower but doesn't that make them practically useless? I just think it is a slippery slope. Several countries which have implemented them have now stopped using them, such as Israel for example.

I'm not anti vax by the way, I've had both jabs. Personally I think it's just an attempt to coerce young people into getting vaccinated, as our vax rates are quite low.

I agree we will have to live with the virus as best we can in the future, but I dont think vaccine passports are the way forward.
 
But vaccines do not stop someone getting the virus and then spreading it...this is fact now. This surely renders any use of Vaccine Passports utterly pointless. Not to mention unethical, discriminatory and ultimately illegal. A slightly reduced risk? Creating a two-tier society based on that would be a disgrace.

If unvaccinated people are allowed to enter nightclubs for two months without any precautions, what is the purpose of THEN installing a vaccine requirement two months after? Either it's necessary now or not at all. Rather odd use of science if you ask me.

It trouble me that so many people are supportive of this. What is happening in Australia and other parts of the world is utterly sinister. Overriding a person's autonomy over their own body is nothing short of tyranny.

2020 - Anyone claiming there's a plan to implement Vaccine Passports is a Conspiracy Theorist and their dangerous information must be stopped!

2021- Anyone opposed to Vaccine Passports is a Conspiracy Theorist and their dangerous misinformation must be stopped!

Personally, I couldn't care less if anyone is vaccinated or not..it's not really any of my Business for a start, and everyone is always welcome round mine.
 
The vaccine does not mean you are never going to be infected with Covid, fact. Vaccines are not 100% effective, it would be great if they were but they're not and getting a Covid vaccine that was going to be 100% effective was always extremely unlikely.

But they do reduce the risk of infection quite significantly (latest figures say 88% for 2 doses of Pfizer against the Delta variant). It is pretty obvious that if you have two rooms full of say 1000 people, and in one of those rooms everyone is vaccinated and in the other room only 20% of people are vaccinated, then the room where everyone is vaccinated is a safer environment. Is it risk free? Nope. But it is absolutely safer.

It is also worth remember that you never really see the impact that vaccines are having. You don't ever see that someone did not get infected because they had the vaccine. They just carry on being fine. But you obviously do see when somone does become infected. These last few months we have been more socially free that at any point since the start of the pandemic. Without vaccines cases, long covid, hospitalisations and deaths would all be far far far higher than they are right now.

SirDossa said:
If unvaccinated people are allowed to enter nightclubs for two months without any precautions, what is the purpose of THEN installing a vaccine requirement two months after? Either it's necessary now or not at all. Rather odd use of science if you ask me.
Click to expand...

I agree, but I think it was a case of they wanted to let nightclubs re-open as the industry was on the verge of collapse. However they could not mandate that you have to be vaccinated as on 19th July it would have been impossible for younger people to have had two doses of the vaccine. So they would have been discriminated against on the basis of age. I suppose they could have kept clubs shut until September/October but I'm sure that would have caused uproar also.

I think it is important to remember that everything we do going forward with Covid measures is about reducing risk, no erradicating risk. Vaccine passports reduce risk, a venue where everyone is fully vaccinated is safer.

If we are being honest with ourselves, this is going to be a hard winter and not just because of Covid. There's a pretty good chance that flu is going to return as we won't have the social distancing measures in place that kept it at bay last winter. Most of the population have not been exposed to these other respiritory viruses for well over a year now, so our natural immunity will be lower. The NHS will probably come under huge pressures this winter. If vaccine passorts help to alleviate this pressure then that is a good thing. If things do get bad then the other options are let the NHS suffer which will have an impact on care for other diseases such as cancer as well as routine treatment, or bring in some restrictions over the winters such as capacity limits at events. I'd rather not have either of those options!
 
SirDossa said:
But vaccines do not stop someone getting the virus and then spreading it...this is fact now.
Click to expand...
This is not fact at all.

While the primary purpose of the vaccines is to stop people who catch the virus from getting seriously ill, they do have an effect on transmissibility. I was looking at an article today where research had found "that two doses of the vaccine made by pharmaceutical company Pfizer ... are 81% effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infections. And vaccinated people who do get infected are up to 78% less likely to spread the virus to household members than are unvaccinated people". Granted this is for the Alpha variant (more research is ongoing for Delta), but it's not insignificant.

The way I see it is you can operate a premises with social distancing, or you can operate a premises without social distancing but impose other measures to reduce the infection rate instead. You cannot just remove restrictions without having something else take up the slack.

SirDossa said:
If unvaccinated people are allowed to enter nightclubs for two months without any precautions, what is the purpose of THEN installing a vaccine requirement two months after? Either it's necessary now or not at all. Rather odd use of science if you ask me.
Click to expand...
Well that's more political than scientific. I suspect that is to encourage younger people to get the vaccine but not restrict them until they've had the opportunity. Perhaps the government would like to impose it immediately but cannot because the clubs would instantly become unprofitable.
 
Between it being very unfair to implement a vaccine passport prior to the population actually being allowed to have both jabs and the likelihood that there's still an attempt at getting herd immunity on the table through natural measures that'll be why there's a two month period.

It's pretty clear that the lack of travel restrictions have caused the variants. So limiting those who are be their own choice (not to be confused by those medically exempt) is a reasonable decision. The absolute last thing we really want is to allow further mutation of the disease that then becomes vaccine resistant and we end up at square 1 again.

Besides, actions have consequences. Those at risk should not have to be limited by the actions of those who refuse to be vaccinated. Went very quickly from the "be nice to everyone" to "old and vulnerable people should stay indoors so I can go pub".

We already live in a tiered system anyway in life.
 
If this pandemic has taught me one thing is that a lot more of the population are selfish than I originally thought.

'its only affecting older people and vulnerable, why should I have to be in lockdown'
'I should be allowed to go abroad, it is my right'
'Why should I wear a mask, it won't affect me badly if I get it'

I get people couldn't wear masks for certain reasons, but for example someone was boasting on Facebook they had lied to get a sunflower lanyard purely so they didn't have to wear one.
 
I have seen that the Chester FC manager has been on a ventilator and has kidney failure. 38 years old, seems in relatively good shape and most likely had at least 1 jab. Still proves this thing is a lottery with or without vaccines.

I personally know of one socially loud anti-vaxxer who has had 2 jabs, I'm sure there many more out there.
 
Rob said:
The vaccine does not mean you are never going to be infected with Covid, fact. Vaccines are not 100% effective, it would be great if they were but they're not and getting a Covid vaccine that was going to be 100% effective was always extremely unlikely.

But they do reduce the risk of infection quite significantly (latest figures say 88% for 2 doses of Pfizer against the Delta variant). It is pretty obvious that if you have two rooms full of say 1000 people, and in one of those rooms everyone is vaccinated and in the other room only 20% of people are vaccinated, then the room where everyone is vaccinated is a safer environment. Is it risk free? Nope. But it is absolutely safer.
Click to expand...

You could compare it to the likes of wearing a seatbelt in vehicle or a crash helmet on a bike. If you happen to be involved in an accident, they won't 100% prevent you from dying , but your chances of surviving an accident increases when wearing one.

The more people get vaccinated, the quicker we can get back to some sort of normality. I've lost count on how many people have been reported to dismiss the virus as real or refuse to take up the vaccine to either go on to die or become very ill and regret not listening.

At the end of the day, if you don't wear a seatbelt, helmet or have the vaccine, it's the like of the emergency service/NHS that have to pick up the pieces because of their selfishness.
 
@RoyJess but if you're wearing a seatbelt why should I have to? Im not going to die from an accident, I shouldn't be FORCED to wear a seatbelt (this is a joke, wear your seatbelt people)
 
Those who are medically exempt from taking the vaccine aside, are we saying that other people should be ostracised from day to day life as a result of not wishing to take a Vaccine that could potentially pose them more risks than the Virus itself ever would? Let’s also leave the whole selfish argument at the door as not everyone is refusing it due to selfish reasons. For example, someone told me that they won’t be taking the vaccine because they would rather someone else in the world who is more vulnerable to the virus have their dosage. How very selfish of them!

It’s also worth noting that not everyone who wishes to not take the vaccine is a crazy tin hat donning conspiracy theorist loon.

Let’s also not forget that these drug companies are not liable for any potential side effects and deaths (of which there have been many) and the long-term effects of which are largely unknown. Should someone otherwise fit and health really be coerced in to getting it? Remember when it was only the vulnerable and elderly who were going to require vaccination?

I find it crazy how the whole thing has become so politicised. As a nation, we’ve been manipulated and divided on so many different issues over the past few years- Left, right, leave, stay, race, class, culture, gender, sexuality and the list goes on. Division based on someone’s personal health choices is something that doesn’t sit right with me at all.

Oh, and as RoyJess mentioned helmets, may I point out that NASA says there is a 0.042% chance of an asteroid hitting Earth. CDCGov states that there is a 0.026 % chance of dying from Covid 19. Therefore, based on the odds, shouldn’t anyone wearing a mask also be wearing a helmet??
 
If your “personal health choice” has the potential to prolong restrictions aimed at ending the pandemic then yes - it’s selfish.

That is unless you’re a leading virologist who has cross referenced hundreds of peer reviewed sources and research papers, and are the one to find substantial concern that flys in the face of the WHO advice
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top