Coronavirus

[pluk]

I'm pro vaccine but also pro choice too. You can't divide a country into two groups and treat people this way. It's all gone too far now.

There is a choice. You can chose to get a vaccine and go shopping and drinking or you can chose not to.

I'm being a bit glib. It's not ideal but understandable with the position Germany and much of Europe are in with vaccinations. I imagine this is a relatively short term plan until the new variant is properly understood and/or vaccination uptake has picked up a lot.

Also, I'm currently on a train on a London mainline. I'd say mask wearing is at about 50%, certainly a marked increase on what I've seen in recent weeks but just as certainly not what it should be with the change in law.

 

[rob666]

I'm pro vaccine but also pro choice too. You can't divide a country into two groups and treat people this way. It's all gone too far now.

You can if your democratically elected government decides it is in the best interests of society and civilisation as a whole.
Why should the shop/bar staff (as well as punters) be put at additional risk by people who chose not to take the vaccine?
Do they not have a right to minimise the risks around them?
There is still a choice.

 

[Benzin]

I'm pro vaccine but also pro choice too. You can't divide a country into two groups and treat people this way. It's all gone too far now.

Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequences!

 

[Benjsh]

Freedom of choice does not mean freedom from consequences!

You can't mandate vaccines. It's your own body and you get to choose what you do with it.

I believe vaccines do a lot more good than harm and that's why I had mine. But that doesn't mean I believe people should be forced to get one.

Dividing a country into two groups is such a dangerous way to go about it. It will end in tears and probably riots.

 

[Benjsh]

You can if your democratically elected government decides it is in the best interests of society and civilisation as a whole.
Why should the shop/bar staff (as well as punters) be put at additional risk by people who chose not to take the vaccine?
Do they not have a right to minimise the risks around them?
There is still a choice.

If you stop people from going to restaurants, shops and bars then you're basically forcing them to get one. But you knew that already didn't you?

If we're all getting vaccinated and then booster jabs but still have to worry about the small percentage of non vaccinated people....then the whole thing has been a huge waste of time surely?

You can't make people do this whether you agree with it or not. I hope more and more people see sense and get a jab but I don't believe in this forced approach.

It will end badly.

 

[pluk]

.
It will end badly.

And unrestrained epidemics won't? It's the lesser of two evils. An uneviable position to be in making these choices.

 

[Benjsh]

Example of how stupid this is:

My friends have just got pregnant and the baby is due end of March. They plan on trying for a second child soon after the first one is . They have said they will both get their vaccines after the second one is born due to initially being told not get the vaccine just yet whilst attempting to get pregnant due to insufficient data.

Should these kinds of people being excluded from having a life too then? No restaurants, pubs, theatre etc?

Can't you see how ridiculous it is? I wouldn't want to live in such a place. Can't see it ever passing here.

 

[rob666]

They make the choice, they prioritise conception and parenthood for theatre and pubs, and have to rely on online shopping.
I have no issue with that.
Three of my customers died of covid in a care setting, all good decent people who paid their taxes throughout their lives.
One of my customers died in hospital, he had a new hip, and got covid in hospital while in recovery.
Arthur had a right to live.
Joan and Doris had mental health problems of old age, both died of covid in a care home.
They both had a right to live.
They were excluded from having a life.
Because the nursing staff had their right to refuse vaccination.
Can you see how ridiculous that is?
I wouldn't want to live in such a care home.

 

[Benjsh]

They make the choice, they prioritise conception and parenthood for theatre and pubs, and have to rely on online shopping.
I have no issue with that.
Three of my customers died of covid in a care setting, all good decent people who paid their taxes throughout their lives.
One of my customers died in hospital, he had a new hip, and got covid in hospital while in recovery.
Arthur had a right to live.
Joan and Doris had mental health problems of old age, both died of covid in a care home.
They both had a right to live.
They were excluded from having a life.
Because the nursing staff had their right to refuse vaccination.
Can you see how ridiculous that is?
I wouldn't want to live in such a care home.

Any loss of life is terribly sad.

Begs the question then how good these vaccines we've all had are then surely? I assume your customers were vaccinated? If a nurse in full ppe, who is trying to be as careful as they can, is a threat to a vaccinated patient then we are doomed anyway.

Don't agree with this view point whatsoever. The whole of the population can't put their lives on hold forever to protect the 1%.

I don't agree with banning anyone to go to anything. Ever. It's not a society I want to live in.

 

[rob666]

If the new variant turns out to be nasty, it may well happen.
Large parts of the nhs are already at their limits, before we hit the winter peak.
The whole population isn't being asked to put their lives on hold forever, they are being asked to get on with their lives, as safely as they can, while the new variant is assessed.

 

[Craig]

I'd probably sit in the middle of this argument. Should people be forced to have the vaccination? Generally, my view would be no - it is their personal choice. However on the flip side though, when the majority of people who are admitted to hospital with serious illness are unvaccinated, should everyone else who has chosen to be vaccinated have their own freedoms heavily restricted? Statistically they are far less likely to end up in hospital with serious illness because that vaccination is the single biggest mitigation method that we have.

The country needs to keep moving as much as possible, more than enough has been spent/lost on lockdowns already. If there comes to be a choice between a full lockdown, or trying to reduce that pressure on hospitals by only allowing those who are vaccinated into leisure destinations and non essential shops, then I know which option would be more preferable for me and, to be frank the vast majority of others. Yes, it does essentially create a two tier society, but provided it was time limited over the period when the health service was under extremely heavy pressure and there were suitable exclusions for those who are medically unable to be vaccinated, then that would have to be something I would reluctantly agree with considering the alternative.

 

[Benjsh]

If the new variant turns out to be nasty, it may well happen.
Large parts of the nhs are already at their limits, before we hit the winter peak.
The whole population isn't being asked to put their lives on hold forever, they are being asked to get on with their lives, as safely as they can, while the new variant is assessed.

The new variant? There's going to be a new variant every 4 months for at least the next decade so they say. And they can't create a vaccine that is effective against strains that haven't happened yet so there will always be a shred of doubt over them being effective anyway. You're going to react this way with everyone of them? That's basically what you're saying.

 

[rob666]

The new variant? There's going to be a new variant every 4 months for at least the next decade so they say. And they can't create a vaccine that is effective against strains that haven't happened yet so there will always be a shred of doubt over them being effective anyway. You're going to react this way with everyone of them? That's basically what you're saying.

Don't put words in my mouth that I didn't say.
We are going into winter with an overburdened nhs.
This is a particularly "mutant" variation, that is known to be highly infectious.
If people choose to put themselves, and therefore others, at needless risk of infection, then that risk to the majority needs to be minimised.
I'm not saying compulsory vaccination for all.

 

[shakey]

Are you putting others more at risk if you don't get vaccinated?

I was under the impression that the vaccines do not stop you catching and passing on the virus.

If that's the case then what does it matter if some people choose not to have the vaccine?

I'm off for my booster tomorrow.

Sent from my ELS-NX9 using Tapatalk

 

[AstroDan]

Well, personally I think wherever someone travels to and from inside the EU, outside it, should have a test on departure and arrival. Might actually spot these new variants at point of origin a bit quicker. Having freedom of movement with little monitoring in the middle of a pandemic seems a little hair brained to me! But that’s just my view.

Being vaccinated might stop you going in to hospital but it doesn’t stop you catching or transmitting it to others.

The whole purpose of vaccination is to reduce the strain on hospitals. If we've achieved that, and we've done our bit to get jabbed - what then? In perpetuality we just accept paid private sector tests and no freedom to travel as we please? Knee-Jerk travel changes? The inability to plan a holiday? To see loved ones abroad over a weekend because you have to self isolate for 48 hours on return? Is that we get for rolling our sleeves up? What is the end point?

I maintain the view that there is absolutely no scientific merit for travellers between France and the UK requiring a test at the current time.

Have your jabs, you are almost zero risk to hospitals.

 

[Matt N]

Are you putting others more at risk if you don't get vaccinated?

I was under the impression that the vaccines do not stop you catching and passing on the virus.

If that's the case then what does it matter if some people choose not to have the vaccine?

I'm off for my booster tomorrow.

Sent from my ELS-NX9 using Tapatalk

The vaccines do both lower the chance of you catching COVID (even asymptomatically) and lower the chance of you passing it on; I believe the vaccines were proven to be highly effective against asymptomatic COVID during the initial trials, and I seem to remember them saying that disease transmission was lowered by about two thirds among the vaccinated during clinical trials and by at least half in real world data. Hence why the governments of the world are so keen for even those at lower risk of COVID to get the vaccine.

It's also worth remembering that even those who do catch COVID with the vaccine usually get less severe symptoms, as the vaccine stops the virus from reproducing more quickly. This also means that the infected person's viral load is made lower by the vaccine, therefore they are less susceptible to passing it on.

However, hospitalisation and death are still the things they succeed most at reducing.

 

[GaryH]

No problem with people travelling or going on holiday but I still think people should test before travelling and upon arrival in another country. Just needs to be a common and easy to understand testing protocol in every country

 

[shakey]

The vaccines do both lower the chance of you catching COVID (even asymptomatically) and lower the chance of you passing it on; I believe the vaccines were proven to be highly effective against asymptomatic COVID during the initial trials, and I seem to remember them saying that disease transmission was lowered by about two thirds among the vaccinated during clinical trials and by at least half in real world data. Hence why the governments of the world are so keen for even those at lower risk of COVID to get the vaccine.

It's also worth remembering that even those who do catch COVID with the vaccine usually get less severe symptoms, as the vaccine stops the virus from reproducing more quickly. This also means that the infected person's viral load is made lower by the vaccine, therefore they are less susceptible to passing it on.

However, hospitalisation and death are still the things they succeed most at reducing.

Fair enough

Sent from my ELS-NX9 using Tapatalk

 

[AstroDan]

No problem with people travelling or going on holiday but I still think people should test before travelling and upon arrival in another country. Just needs to be a common and easy to understand testing protocol in every country

There is just no need to test carte-blanche between every country. It's a waste of human resources, money and effort and these LFT cartridges are dreadful for the environment to boot. Why have paid tests between France and the UK right now!? What does it serve? I get it between, say, countries with wildly differing vaccination levels, or wildly differing infection rates, or where there's a variant of concern emerging... but just carte-blanche... madness.

The only people rubbing their hands are the private sector health company shareholders and execs.

Imagine driving from the UK to the Netherlands. How many tests would you need then!?

Keeping up to date with your jabs has to be the way for folk to live their life. That is what we have done to protect ourselves and healthcare systems.

 

[Alsty]

I was under the impression that the vaccines do not stop you catching and passing on the virus.

If that's the case then what does it matter if some people choose not to have the vaccine?

Notwithstanding that vaccines do reduce the risk of passing on the virus, the unvaccinated are more likely to be hospitalised. I'm sure the people working in our hospitals would rather not be treating people for things that could've been avoided. This also puts pressure on the health service meaning routine procedures have to be deferred, some early diagnoses may get missed, people may be scared off seeking medical treatments, and it potentially puts lives at risk if there's, for example, not enough ICU beds. This has an impact on everybody, even those who are vaccinated.

If I was in a car accident but couldn't get into an ICU ward at the nearest hospital because it was full of people who were there unnecessarily, it very much would impact on me.

Additionally if lockdowns are a way to prevent hospitals being overwhelmed, but the majority of those hospitalisations are people who are not vaccinated, why should everybody be locked down and carry the burden for the minority?