Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Ulysses]

5 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

The whole of Scotland has the exact same strict approach to 8 weeks now. That’s been in place for 4-5 weeks. Vaccinators have been told they are not insured to vaccinate under 8 weeks and it’s gross misconduct if they do. The odd one slips through the net even despite that warning it seems.

 

Is that 8 weeks between AZ shots?

 

We had 8 weeks for AZ and 4 weeks for Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, but a few weeks ago we reduced the waiting time for AZ to 4 weeks.

[JimmyCant]

1 hour ago, Back to 2005 said:

Seriously?! If this goes ahead youngsters are unable to go clubbing without taking a vaccine. In all likelihood you will be unable to go to football a restaurant or to the pub without a passport

So explain to me how that is not coercion? 

You are looking under the wrong rocks here. This is not about coercing people to be vaccinated. Think about why they have 2 months of unrestricted access to clubs first. Think about why they allowed Wembley, Silverstone and Royal St Georges . This is about herd  immunity and letting the virus run rife through a population that largely won’t die of it Not only do they accept 100,000 infections per day, they actively want that number. More if they can get it. No one will ever need a certificate to go clubbing. That will be rescinded.

[JimmyCant]

4 minutes ago, Ulysses said:

 

Is that 8 weeks between AZ shots?

 

We had 8 weeks for AZ and 4 weeks for Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna, but a few weeks ago we reduced the waiting time for AZ to 4 weeks.

8 weeks for everything here. The AZ 8 weeks is a clinical decision. Clinically it should not be given before 8 weeks. Pfizer and Moderna are logistical decisions that will probably change once hardly anyone left needs AZ.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

6 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

You are looking under the wrong rocks here. This is not about coercing people to be vaccinated. Think about why they have 2 months of unrestricted access to clubs first. Think about why they allowed Wembley, Silverstone and Royal St Georges . This is about herd  immunity and letting the virus run rife through a population that largely won’t die of it Not only do they accept 100,000 infections per day, they actively want that number. More if they can get it. No one will ever need a certificate to go clubbing. That will be rescinded.

They'll actually want it to run through schools when they restart if that is the plan.

[Costanza]

20 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

You are looking under the wrong rocks here. This is not about coercing people to be vaccinated. Think about why they have 2 months of unrestricted access to clubs first. Think about why they allowed Wembley, Silverstone and Royal St Georges . This is about herd  immunity and letting the virus run rife through a population that largely won’t die of it Not only do they accept 100,000 infections per day, they actively want that number. More if they can get it. No one will ever need a certificate to go clubbing. That will be rescinded.

They might not largely die of it but a number will get long covid and have long term health problems as a result. I can't believe the Government's strategy is to allow a significant number of people getting long term sickness as part of a mass infection plan.

[Ulysses]

26 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

8 weeks for everything here. The AZ 8 weeks is a clinical decision. Clinically it should not be given before 8 weeks. Pfizer and Moderna are logistical decisions that will probably change once hardly anyone left needs AZ.

 

Oops, I had my post arseways.  We had AZ at 12 and reduced to 8.  Brain-fart in my post.

 

According to the CDC, the recommended interval for Pfizer/BioNTech is 21 days and for Moderna it's 28.  I think we went for 28 for both for logistical reasons; it was easier to schedule mass vaccinations in blocks of 4 weeks.

[The Mighty Thor]

6 hours ago, Gizmo said:

Self-signing landyard wearers like "anxious" Lawrence Fox yet who can be seen all over his social media wearing crash helmets or buffs, quite the thing. It's amazing the lengths some grifters will go to because their being mildly inconvenienced is too high a price to pay to potentially protect others. I'm pretty sure some of them would stop wearing seat-belts if it transpired it helped someone else.

Bang on the cash.

 

Hours spent trawling the Internet for spurious bollocks to 'prove their point' and, as already seen a few posts back, comparisons to the treatment of Jews by the Nazis. 

 

What a time to be alive. 

 

 

[FWJ]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57854811
 

Hmmm ....

[Bindy Badgy]

9 hours ago, Francis Albert said:

Again I bow to your greater knowledge of clubs. I have to say that in  my more familiar environment of pubs if I were lucky enough to be under 18 I think I could easily get a drink. Let's see if distinguishing between vaccinated and non vaccinated is easier.

 

The attitude towards underage drinking has changed a lot in the last 10-20 years. I found myself being asked for ID a lot more when I was 25 than I did when I was 18.

[Bindy Badgy]

7 hours ago, Back to 2005 said:

The flaw is of course being vaccinated does not stop you getting or passing on covid.

Moat people who have refused the jab are not anti vaxx. They have the intelligence to do their own risk assessment on the risk of a trial period vaccination against the risk of covid.

 

 

Being vaccinated reduces the probability that you will pass it onto someone else. In a similar vein, sticking to the speed limit whilst driving does not guarantee that you will not kill someone but, it does reduce the probability. You will never get rid of all risk but, you can reduce it.

Edited July 20, 2021 by Bindy Badgy

[Governor Tarkin]

6 hours ago, JimmyCant said:

The whole of Scotland has the exact same strict approach to 8 weeks now. That’s been in place for 4-5 weeks. Vaccinators have been told they are not insured to vaccinate under 8 weeks and it’s gross misconduct if they do. The odd one slips through the net even despite that warning it seems.

 

I've been gross misconducted. Even better.

 

8 hours ago, jack D and coke said:

 

The internet has ruined people’s heads. So far down rabbit holes they’ll never come back out. 

 

The most certifiable fact of the thread, bud.

[A Boy Named Crow]

7 hours ago, JamesM48 said:

They have a “ duty of care “ to their patrons ??! Then happily serve them a substance which is highly addictive and ruins lives and is one of the root causes of Saturday night violence in town and domestic violence in homes ? Good one 

Yes, they have a duty of care, which is why they're not allowed to serve someone who has had enough.  There is no contradiction there,  but you know that,  really, don't you?

 

[Dazo]

7 hours ago, JimmyCant said:

The whole of Scotland has the exact same strict approach to 8 weeks now. That’s been in place for 4-5 weeks. Vaccinators have been told they are not insured to vaccinate under 8 weeks and it’s gross misconduct if they do. The odd one slips through the net even despite that warning it seems.

Me & the mrs were both under 8 weeks and judging by this thread it seems like the odd one slipping through the net is way off. 

[Unknown user]

17 minutes ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

Yes, they have a duty of care, which is why they're not allowed to serve someone who has had enough.  There is no contradiction there,  but you know that,  really, don't you?

 

 

I have documentation somewhere detailing the legally mandated duty of care that nightclubs have toward their patrons. Trying to argue it doesn't exist because Alcohol Bad isn't exactly a great look

[A Boy Named Crow]

4 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I have documentation somewhere detailing the legally mandated duty of care that nightclubs have toward their patrons. Trying to argue it doesn't exist because Alcohol Bad isn't exactly a great look

He's all over the place, this thread doesn't bring out the best in him. 

[frankblack]

2 minutes ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

He's all over the place, this thread doesn't bring out the best in him. 

 

 

If you go through this thread he is backtracking and contradicting himself all over it, starting off with him rinsing his messages, and not that long ago being concerned about having to self-isolate because someone he came in contact with tested positive.

[Governor Tarkin]

40 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

I have documentation somewhere detailing the legally mandated duty of care that nightclubs have toward their patrons. 

 

Lawson, what have you done with Smithee?

[frankblack]

Cummings is back sticking the boot into the blustering buffoon PM:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-57854811

 

In a WhatsApp message sent on 15 October, shared with the BBC, Mr Johnson appears to have described himself as "slightly rocked by some of the data on Covid fatalities".

The "median age" for those dying was between 81 and 82 for men and 85 for women, the prime minister allegedly wrote, adding: "That is above life expectancy. So get Covid and Live longer.

"Hardly anyone under 60 goes into hospital... and of those virtually all survive. And I no longer buy all this NHS overwhelmed stuff. Folks I think we may need to recalibrate... There are max 3m in this country aged over 80."

He reportedly went on to write: "It shows we don't go for nationwide lockdown."

 

That worked out well, Bojo.

[Unknown user]

1 minute ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

Lawson, what have you done with Smithee?

 

Imagine Lawson as a bouncer

[Costanza]

1 hour ago, Lord BJ said:

Well the JVCI concluded (and their equivalent in other countries) that  under 40’s ( actually higher in some countries) are at greater risk from the AZ vaccine than COVID as they offering alternate jabs to it. 
 

It’s not really a difficult exercise to do either, your comparing risk profiles, based on the data available  The biggest issue is limited data but considering the number of people been jabbed that’s becoming less of a issue

Whilst many countries are also at present not planning to vaccinate healthy under 18’s as they are not comfortable with the risk profile. 
 

I’ve posted this a couple of times but a double jab 60 year old is at greater risk than a unvaccinated 30 year old. Source a govt statistician 

You just need a few stat monkeys to get it done and the appropriate data to establish the profiles 

 

A vaccine shouldn’t cause greater risk to the individual taking it than they face from the threat IMO. 

That's correct on AZ but they still recommended other vaccines, not that under 40's shouldn't get one and think the MHRA recommendation was that if offered a vaccine it should be taken.

The US and Israel have approved vaccination for the under 18s and I guess if there were issues we would have heard about it  by now ? (I appreciate we disagree on this aspect).

 

On the double jabbed 60 year old v the 30 year old, is that an outcome just based on death?

I still think this country is massively downplaying long covid and even last night on Newsnight, Robert Dingwall of the JCVI  basically said Long Covid was largely anecdotal, which was an astonishing statement in the light of the available evidence, not least that the UK Government has set up Long Covid Hubs across England and Wales.

 

Totally agree on your last point but that risk to getting the virus has to be measured in risk of death as well as risk of long term illness, and I'm not sure we are doing that effectively in this country (and why I think mass infection is a monumentally stupid idea).

[Taffin]

1 hour ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

Yes, they have a duty of care, which is why they're not allowed to serve someone who has had enough.  There is no contradiction there,  but you know that,  really, don't you?

 

 

Licensed venues break the above every single day...well maybe not the last 500 days or so.

 

Do you think every drunk person in every pub, bar, club got that way by bringing in their own booze?

 

James has gone a bit all over the shop here but he started by saying it was unworkable and then told it wasn't. The above is a perfect example of why it's unworkable...yes licensed premises have a duty of care and should adhere to those rules etc. But they don't. We all know they don't, people pretending they do are at the ham. I could go to one tonight and get drunk via drink acquired in the venue, guaranteed.

Edited July 20, 2021 by Taffin

[Governor Tarkin]

22 minutes ago, Barack said:

30 minutes ago, Smithee said:

 

Imagine Lawson getting melted by a bouncer

 

 

[Back to 2005]

9 hours ago, Geoff Kilpatrick said:

Why 35? Why not 25? Or 45?

 

The point again is vaccination protects yourself and offers secondary benefits to others. If society chooses to preference those who have been vaccinated because it helps prevents things like lockdowns to protect health services then it should be free to do so. If that feels discriminatory to anti-vaxxers then tough titties.

Lockdown does not protect the health service. Thank you for confirming you are in favour of medical apartheid. 

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

1 minute ago, Back to 2005 said:

Lockdown does not protect the health service. Thank you for confirming you are in favour of medical apartheid. 

 

Given people like my wife are already mandated to be fully vaxxed so that they can look after children who are potentially immuno-compromised, I'm happy to support "medical apartheid" as you put it.

[Costanza]

1 minute ago, Lord BJ said:

 

So you agree we should be looking at the risk profile before dishing vaccines out 👍

 

Jabbing people up for fear of long COVID, when you neither understand long COVID or potential long terms issue of vaccine is a mistake imo. You make decisions based on things you understand or can at least estimate with a degree of certainty. I’m not sure we understand either well enough, especially to start jabbing up millions of under 18’s. I accept you feel differently. 
 

This about balance of risk between options, that said I have little doubt they are long term factors and external issue such as education. That why JVCI has made certain decisions.
 

They’re using information not emotions, unlike many people, to make decisions 

 

 

 

 

Of course we should do a risk profile before we give vaccines, never disagreed with that. It's just personally I don't see the risk greater with the vaccine than getting Covid.

On the long term issues of vaccine, I posted earlier that in almost all cases you know if there will be side effects after 2 months so unlikely we would find long term impacts after that.

On the opposite side, we don't know the long term impacts of covid either, so a policy of mass infection is a huge risk as well and personally one I feel we are making a mistake on.

I'd be a lot more confident with mass free movement of the unvaccinated if we had adopted a suppression policy and had a low infection rate. I just get the dreaded feeling that we will end up with mass hospitalisation and impact other medical care once again and end up in yet another bloody lockdown.

[JimmyCant]

17 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

Lockdown does not protect the health service. Thank you for confirming you are in favour of medical apartheid. 

 

That’s nonsense. Without lockdown the NHS in some parts of the country would have been overwhelmed. Even with lockdown some parts where overwhelmed. That’s where Boris’s pile the bodies high quote came from because that’s precisely what would have happened without lockdowns. Dying people would have been turned away and left to die.

 

That seems to be the preferred outcome for the anti vaccine anti lockdown tree hugging mob.

[A Boy Named Crow]

30 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Licensed venues break the above every single day...well maybe not the last 500 days or so.

 

Do you think every drunk person in every pub, bar, club got that way by bringing in their own booze?

 

James has gone a bit all over the shop here but he started by saying it was unworkable and then told it wasn't. The above is a perfect example of why it's unworkable...yes licensed premises have a duty of care and should adhere to those rules etc. But they don't. We all know they don't, people pretending they do are at the ham. I could go to one tonight and get drunk via drink acquired in the venue, guaranteed.

I think there's a difference between the barstaff not enforcing the rules when they are very subjective and an easily enforceable, check at the door. Maybe a better comparison is the notion of under-age kids in the pub. Folk get asked for ID all the time,  if covid  certificates become a thing,  that'd be a doddle to check. 

[Dazo]

7 hours ago, JimmyCant said:

The whole of Scotland has the exact same strict approach to 8 weeks now. That’s been in place for 4-5 weeks. Vaccinators have been told they are not insured to vaccinate under 8 weeks and it’s gross misconduct if they do. The odd one slips through the net even despite that warning it seems.

Me & the mrs were both under 8 weeks and judging by this thread it seems like the odd one slipping through the net is way off. 

[JimmyCant]

1 hour ago, Dazo said:

Me & the mrs were both under 8 weeks and judging by this thread it seems like the odd one slipping through the net is way off. 

Yes I saw that the first time you posted it.

 

I can get figures for people turned away at less than 8 weeks in the last month if you’d like. Plus, 4 times over last weekend the police were called to Lothian vaccine centres for people who refused to accept it and leave the premises, with one arrested. Getting arrested for abusing a vaccinator who refused to vaccinate you. That’s about as low as it gets.

Edited July 20, 2021 by JimmyCant

[Dazo]

1 minute ago, JimmyCant said:

I can get figures for people turned away at less than 8 weeks in the last month if you’d like. Plus, 4 times over last weekend the police were called to Lothian vaccine centres for people who refused to accept it and leave the premises, with one arrested. Getting arrested for abusing a vaccinator who refused to vaccinate you. That’s about as low as it gets.

Im not saying people aren’t getting turned away I’m just saying the odd one getting through the bet is clearly wrong. Makes no odds to me either way. 

[JimmyCant]

Just now, Dazo said:

Im not saying people aren’t getting turned away I’m just saying the odd one getting through the bet is clearly wrong. Makes no odds to me either way. 

It’s not clearly wrong. it’s my experience and knowledge vs your experience and knowledge and mines is far in excess of yours when it comes to the vaccination programme.

[Unknown user]

56 minutes ago, Barack said:

 

[Ray Gin]

35 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

Lockdown does not protect the health service. Thank you for confirming you are in favour of medical apartheid. 

 

 

 

[JimmyCant]

4 minutes ago, Barack said:

They had appointments, went through the booking in process, then kicked up a fuss once inside, making a point? Or just made nuisances of themselves at the entrance?

They were drop ins. Got checked in. Got refused. Made a fuss. Abused staff Wouldn’t leave. Police came and removed them, except one who got herself arrested

[Jeffros Furios]

36 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

Lockdown does not protect the health service. Thank you for confirming you are in favour of medical apartheid. 

 

Medical apartheid  sorry pal stop being a selfish bairn and man up .

Get yer jags and hopefully in the not to distant future we can have some sort of return to normality .

Your selfish attitude harms the self employed owners of pubs, restaurants, cafes etc who are already on thier knees .

You and the anti vax/weird libertian/selfish welts are an embarrassment.

 

[Taffin]

13 minutes ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

I think there's a difference between the barstaff not enforcing the rules when they are very subjective and an easily enforceable, check at the door. Maybe a better comparison is the notion of under-age kids in the pub. Folk get asked for ID all the time,  if covid  certificates become a thing,  that'd be a doddle to check. 

 

So it's only some of the licensing laws they break? Okay.

 

In the same way people had fake IDs/borrowed other people's and got into clubs underage, the same will happen with this. 

 

 

21 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

It is workable and enforceable. The fact people may get round it doesn’t change that. 
 

I can come up with about a dozen ways of doing it off the top of my head. Premises could easily ask for proof of vaccine before letting you in. I doubt all would do it but a good chunk would do and it would be more successful in reducing COVID n the club than no restrictions. 
 

We have speed limits on this country. Anyone can break them if they want. You have to be unlucky as to get caught. However, they still achieve a position albeit not perfectly, though effective in reducing speeds, accidents etc. 

 

Something not be 100% does not make unworkable 

 

As a aside I was person who said to @JamesM48 it was workable. He then stated it was the principal and conceded it wasn’t about management. Though agree he is all over the place. 

 

If it's as big a risk as it's being made out, not being 100% or near as damnit does make it unworkable imo. All it takes is one super spreader to get into a club unvaccinated (or even vaccinated but that's a different debate) and before you know it you've a major issue at that venue.

 

Also, they'll be on very shaky ground I'd imagine making all staff compulsory vaccinated at a nightclub. That's a very different kettle of fish than making care home staff compulsory vaccinated. Again, unless you do that, the principle doesn't work.

 

I'd rather be surrounded by people who'd done LFT and had to go to the effort to shove a swab up their nose and return a negative (albeit not very accurate) test than people who've had two jabs and now think their immune and can do absolutely whatever they like despite still being able to catch and spread it...but that is opinion/preference only.

 

 

[indianajones]

1 minute ago, Jeffros Furios said:

Medical apartheid  sorry pal stop being a selfish bairn and man up .

Get yer jags and hopefully in the not to distant future we can have some sort of return to normality .

Your selfish attitude harms the self employed owners of pubs, restaurants, cafes etc who are already on thier knees .

You and the anti vax/weird libertian/selfish welts are an embarrassment.

 

 

Yawn.

[Taffin]

2 hours ago, Dazo said:

Me & the mrs were both under 8 weeks and judging by this thread it seems like the odd one slipping through the net is way off. 

 

I was under 8 weeks and booked via the link that was text to me and actually chose the latest date that was available to me.

 

It's not people slipping through the net as you rightly say, in many cases their actively being invited before 8 weeks. Like you, my experience is first hand on this.

[Beni]

23 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

Dying people would have been turned away and left to die.

 

That seems to be the preferred outcome for the anti vaccine anti lockdown tree hugging mob.

 

Haud the bus.

Let's not confuse innocent bystanders with the tinfoil headgear wearers.

 

'Mon the trees!

[Governor Tarkin]

8 minutes ago, Barack said:

They had appointments, went through the booking in process, then kicked up a fuss once inside, making a point? Or just made nuisances of themselves at the entrance?

 

I just strolled in, showed them my appointment letter for the end of the week, explained why I couldn't make it and why it could be a further 10 weeks before I could, and they asked me which arm I'd like it in. Double vaxxed and ready for the nightclubs.

 

25 minutes ago, JimmyCant said:

That seems to be the preferred outcome for the anti vaccine anti lockdown tree hugging mob.

 

What an interesting agglomeration of profiles. 

 

Now you listen here, Cant, don't go lumping us tree huggers in with the spacejew haters.

 

[NANOJAMBO]

35 minutes ago, Back to 2005 said:

Lockdown does not protect the health service. Thank you for confirming you are in favour of medical apartheid. 

 

Can you elaborate ?

 

I'll give you some pointers as to why I'd suggest your talking complete bollocks :

I'm awaiting facial surgery which I was assured would be completed by end 2020 - I still don't have any assurance it will be completed in 2021. 

 

An acquaintance needs spinal surgery : he's been told "another 2 years" wait because there's such a backlog , part of which is caused by surgeons cancelling elective surgery for at-risk patients who might need a ventilator . These people can't get surgery because surgeons/hospitals didn't want to run the risk of having patients needing a ventilator who then end up dying because of the lack of them during the height of the pandemic.

A mate who needs hand surgery , was told "some time this year " now been told no chance and no prospect of any date.

 

Personally, I had to wait 6 months just for ECG (only takes 20 minutes) but had to pay for a private consultation & follow up scan because of waiting times and was then told I needed another scan for which the consultant couldn't even give me  a date and which I only got in the end due to a suspected heart attack, and even then that was 9 months in the making.  Consultant was clear : this is because of covid. 

 

Hospitals  in my area are over run with covid to the point they have used up all the local private resources for all kinds of outpatient stuff like MRI scans. 

 

Patient transport is a complete joke - 18 hour day - while in hospital - just to make a 90 mile round trip for a heart scan. Every time a covid patient is taken to hospital it means the ambulance has to be taken off line while it's deep cleaned. My driver said they only have 50% of their normal resource for day to day business. 

 

So if lockdown doesn't "protect the NHS" - what would ? 

[indianajones]

1 minute ago, Lord BJ said:

In Scotland when you get your second jab don’t they give you a piece of paper that says this ‘vaccine’ status may be used to determine entry into venues.

 

I it’s like a pre warning for the arrival of vaccine passport 

 

I still dont think it will happen. 

 

They will change the law to implement it but i can see it being abolished pretty shortly after. 

[Enzo Chiefo]

15 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

 

B follows A does not mean B was caused by A. 

[Governor Tarkin]

2 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

In Scotland when you get your second jab don’t they give you a piece of paper that says this ‘vaccine’ status may be used to determine entry into venues.

 

I it’s like a pre warning for the arrival of vaccine passport 

 

The nurse didn't give me any piece of paper, just a pat on the bum, a knowing wink, and an 'on your way, big fella'.

[Governor Tarkin]

3 minutes ago, Enzo Chiefo said:

B follows A does not mean B was caused by A. 

 

You're wasting your time, Enzo. Ray's still seething at our impending WALL OF IMMUNITY.

[Costanza]

18 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

That opinion is based on nothing except your own belief though🤷🏻‍♂️ As stated JVCI making decision on information not emotions. 
 

Anyway, think we’re about to start going round in circles. So take it easy 👍

Disagree a bit on the belief statement as I'm trying to base it on the evidence of side effects versus the risk of death and long term illness. Admittedly that is my own risk assessment, so we're probably agreeing here on people making their own risk assessment 😃

Can see the JCVI in last day have proposed that children at risk of serious illness from covid should get the vaccine, so they are evolving their position, anyway we have probably exhausted this so take it easy yourself 👍

[Taffin]

2 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

Do you believe it is as big risk being made out or do you think this is a strategy was to improve uptake amongst the young ones? Do you really believe we couldn’t enforce a passport scheme if govts. wanted.

 

I’m also not sure it’s being made out as such a big risk by virtue it’s a free for all until Sept. 

 

This IMO is nothing more than creating consequences to improve uptake. 
 

Not sure of the morales of all this but passport schemes are very doable. We have done much harder things than introducing a vaccine passport. 

 

The staff part is where it would unravel imo. So no, I don't think they could make it work. It will exist for a bit then compliance will slip and eventually it will just fade away, or (which I think is more likely) staff won't get vaccinated in enough numbers and will instead go and work in a pub or a bar and nightclubs will suffer more and many will close, in turn it won't actually be a carrot to dangle to encourage vaccination anymore.

 

I agree it's not a big risk, it's purely a coercion tactic. One that I don't think will work, nor one that makes any sense given they're still trying to make out it's being done to reduce risk. Either the LFT are so inaccurate as to not make it even worth doing them (if vaccination is less risky than returning a negative test) or as we both agree it's a straightforward strong arming to try and make younger people get vaccinated...in which case they should just say that's what it is. As ever they've now just undermined LFTs as a tool...I'm double vaccinated so I won't bother doing those anymore as they've just said there's no point effectively.

 

 

[escobri]

This is just warming up, gonna get much worse, your phone will soon be your pass to “freedom”, can’t wait till the preaching jagged can’t get in somewhere as they’ve not had their regular booster.

[Enzo Chiefo]

8 minutes ago, Governor Tarkin said:

 

You're wasting your time, Enzo. Ray's still seething at our impending WALL OF IMMUNITY.

😂The Great Wall of Immunity will be yet another world-leading British success story, Guv.👍

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 hours ago, frankblack said:

 

 

If you go through this thread he is backtracking and contradicting himself all over it, starting off with him rinsing his messages, and not that long ago being concerned about having to self-isolate because someone he came in contact with tested positive.

Oh it looks like I can’t win ! Got slagged for being over cautious ( washing messages ) then no respect for doing the right thing by self isolating when I was requested to , to now being viewed as irresponsible cause ill wear a mask when I decide I want to ( making my own risk assessment) 

2 hours ago, A Boy Named Crow said:

He's all over the place, this thread doesn't bring out the best in him. 

Awe , I always see the positives in comments like this as it infers there is some positives about my postings . Thank you 

1 hour ago, Taffin said:

 

Licensed venues break the above every single day...well maybe not the last 500 days or so.

 

Do you think every drunk person in every pub, bar, club got that way by bringing in their own booze?

 

James has gone a bit all over the shop here but he started by saying it was unworkable and then told it wasn't. The above is a perfect example of why it's unworkable...yes licensed premises have a duty of care and should adhere to those rules etc. But they don't. We all know they don't, people pretending they do are at the ham. I could go to one tonight and get drunk via drink acquired in the venue, guaranteed.

Well said 

59 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

 

So you agree we should be looking at the risk profile before dishing vaccines out 👍

 

Jabbing people up for fear of long COVID, when you neither understand long COVID or potential long terms issue of vaccine is a mistake imo. You make decisions based on things you understand or can at least estimate with a degree of certainty. I’m not sure we understand either well enough, especially to start jabbing up millions of under 18’s. I accept you feel differently. 
 

This about balance of risk between options, that said I have little doubt they are long term factors and external issue such as education. That why JVCI has made certain decisions.
 

They’re using information not emotions, unlike many people, to make decisions 

 

 

 

 

Good posting 

46 minutes ago, Lord BJ said:

It is workable and enforceable. The fact people may get round it doesn’t change that. 
 

I can come up with about a dozen ways of doing it off the top of my head. Premises could easily ask for proof of vaccine before letting you in. I doubt all would do it but a good chunk would do and it would be more successful in reducing COVID n the club than no restrictions. 
 

We have speed limits on this country. Anyone can break them if they want. You have to be unlucky as to get caught. However, they still achieve a position albeit not perfectly, though effective in reducing speeds, accidents etc. 

 

Something not be 100% does not make unworkable 

 

As a aside I was person who said to @JamesM48 it was workable. He then stated it was the principal and conceded it wasn’t about management. Though agree he is all over the place. 

Disappointing 

17 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

So it's only some of the licensing laws they break? Okay.

 

In the same way people had fake IDs/borrowed other people's and got into clubs underage, the same will happen with this. 

 

 

 

If it's as big a risk as it's being made out, not being 100% or near as damnit does make it unworkable imo. All it takes is one super spreader to get into a club unvaccinated (or even vaccinated but that's a different debate) and before you know it you've a major issue at that venue.

 

Also, they'll be on very shaky ground I'd imagine making all staff compulsory vaccinated at a nightclub. That's a very different kettle of fish than making care home staff compulsory vaccinated. Again, unless you do that, the principle doesn't work.

 

I'd rather be surrounded by people who'd done LFT and had to go to the effort to shove a swab up their nose and return a negative (albeit not very accurate) test than people who've had two jabs and now think their immune and can do absolutely whatever they like despite still being able to catch and spread it...but that is opinion/preference only.

 

 

If we thought about clubs and their responsibility and their “ duty of care “ they actually wouldn’t or shouldn’t sell alcohol Really ! If they took that duty of care principle to the extreme ! Alcohol is a risk and danger to many people for various reasons . I know this may anger Some on this but it’s true . So stop going on about “ duty of care “ regarding night clubs and vaccine passports