Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[Herbert.]

57 minutes ago, Alex Kintner said:

 

 

 

If your vaccinated you don't have to worry about covid.

[redjambo]

Just now, SuperstarSteve said:

I don’t understand that opinion either but people are entitled to it. 
 

You could vaccinate everyone in the world and covid would still be spreading. It’s here to stay and it’s no the vaccinated or the unvaccinated fault. 

 

 

Yes, because vaccination doesn't eliminate Covid (not yet, anyway), it slows it down and helps prevent worse illness in vaccinated individuals. It gives us a chance of coping with Covid infection in our society, and frees resources that would otherwise be tied up in handling Covid patients.

 

That is why the unvaccinated, although it is their choice, are effectively selfish. They are putting their own personal considerations before the health of society as a whole, as well as increasing the possibility that they personally will catch Covid, need to be hospitalised for it, thus using up even more resources, and passing it on to other people. But I am sure that you are aware of that.

[John Gentleman]

I don't think anyone could claim to have had a playbook for this pandemic. In its early stages

2 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

I don’t understand that opinion either but people are entitled to it. 
 

You could vaccinate everyone in the world and covid would still be spreading. It’s here to stay and it’s no the vaccinated or the unvaccinated fault. 

 

Of course it would. Bloody hard to double-vaccinate (and then boost) 7.8 billion people simultaneously! That simple fact shouldn't be used as an excuse to do sod all though.

Interestingly, the B/Yamagata strain of flu (one of the four that constitute the annual flu jab) hasn't been detected in over 18 months, anywhere in the world. Now I wonder why that might be?

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

 

If your vaccinated you don't have to worry about covid.

 

Not true. You can certainly worry less though on a personal level, although it depends to what extent you are vaccinated and how recently. You can still of course, if you are not entirely selfish, also worry about how Covid infection rates in the community are affecting other people and also the abilities of hospitals and emergency services to properly do their job without being overwhelmed.

 

We're all in this together by necessity, and our individual actions affect each other and society as a whole. Unless you live in an isolated community which has no contact with the rest of society.

[redjambo]

Just now, John Gentleman said:

I don't think anyone could claim to have had a playbook for this pandemic. In its early stages

Of course it would. Bloody hard to double-vaccinate (and then boost) 7.8 billion people simultaneously! That simple fact shouldn't be used as an excuse to do sod all though.

Interestingly, the B/Yamagata strain of flu (one of the four that constitute the annual flu jab) hasn't been detected in over 18 months, anywhere in the world. Now I wonder why that might be?

 

Sunshine and bleach?

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Yes, because vaccination doesn't eliminate Covid (not yet, anyway), it slows it down and helps prevent worse illness in vaccinated individuals. It gives us a chance of coping with Covid infection in our society, and frees resources that would otherwise be tied up in handling Covid patients.

 

That is why the unvaccinated, although it is their choice, are effectively selfish. They are putting their own personal considerations before the health of society as a whole, as well as increasing the possibility that they personally will catch Covid, need to be hospitalised for it, thus using up even more resources, and passing it on to other people. But I am sure that you are aware of that.

 

Is the correct answer.

 

Unnecessary and preventable strain on healthcare resources.

 

Unnecessary and preventable acute illness necessitating restrictions and lockdowns on everyone else.

 

Everyone enduring unnecessarily prolonging effects due to the irresponsible minority.

[John Gentleman]

1 minute ago, redjambo said:

 

Sunshine and bleach?

Sounds a bit Trumpian....

[SuperstarSteve]

2 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Yes, because vaccination doesn't eliminate Covid (not yet, anyway), it slows it down and helps prevent worse illness in vaccinated individuals. It gives us a chance of coping with Covid infection in our society, and frees resources that would otherwise be tied up in handling Covid patients.

 

That is why the unvaccinated, although it is their choice, are effectively selfish. They are putting their own personal considerations before the health of society as a whole, as well as increasing the possibility that they personally will catch Covid, need to be hospitalised for it, thus using up even more resources, and passing it on to other people. But I am sure that you are aware of that.

i am aware of all that but I’m still of the opinion the unvaccinated are not selfish. 
 

purely on the basis there is unvaccinated people walking around that are better protected than those who have been vaccinated. 
 

If there is a healthy unvaccinated person who has immunity from catching covid and recovering, if they refuse the vaccine on the belief they have antibodies working there magic already without a vaccine then I’m happy enough to say they aren’t selfish. 

If I was to have the opinion they are selfish for not taking a jab that comes with a risk of death (however little that risk is) I’d be selfish of to think someone is selfish for making their own risk assessment. 
 

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, jonesy said:

And I thank you, redjambo, for pointing out its efficacy in reducing transmission when I was swithering about whether or not get chipped.

 

However, it is mahoosively hypocritical for countries to effectively bar people from participating in society based on one metric when there are many other everyday actions that cause sickness and death in others that are condoned or even encouraged.

 

I thought you were already jabbed?

[Victorian]

One irony that will be completely lost on the vaccine refuseniks is that they have all existed for the past 12 months in societies that have been largely open with minimal restrictions.  They've been able to do all of the things that the vaccinated have been able to do.  This is all because of vaccines and the people who have taken them.

 

A vaccine shot provides personal protection to the individual against acute illness.  But collectively they provide a quality of life to everyone,  including the refuseniks.  

[Alex Kintner]

32 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

 

If your vaccinated you don't have to worry about covid.

 

 

31 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Yes, because vaccination doesn't eliminate Covid (not yet, anyway), it slows it down and helps prevent worse illness in vaccinated individuals. It gives us a chance of coping with Covid infection in our society, and frees resources that would otherwise be tied up in handling Covid patients.

 

That is why the unvaccinated, although it is their choice, are effectively selfish. They are putting their own personal considerations before the health of society as a whole, as well as increasing the possibility that they personally will catch Covid, need to be hospitalised for it, thus using up even more resources, and passing it on to other people. But I am sure that you are aware of that.

 

24 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Not true. You can certainly worry less though on a personal level, although it depends to what extent you are vaccinated and how recently. You can still of course, if you are not entirely selfish, also worry about how Covid infection rates in the community are affecting other people and also the abilities of hospitals and emergency services to properly do their job without being overwhelmed.

 

We're all in this together by necessity, and our individual actions affect each other and society as a whole. Unless you live in an isolated community which has no contact with the rest of society.

 

 

22 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Is the correct answer.

 

Unnecessary and preventable strain on healthcare resources.

 

Unnecessary and preventable acute illness necessitating restrictions and lockdowns on everyone else.

 

Everyone enduring unnecessarily prolonging effects due to the irresponsible minority.

 

[Herbert.]

10 minutes ago, Victorian said:

One irony that will be completely lost on the vaccine refuseniks is that they have all existed for the past 12 months in societies that have been largely open with minimal restrictions.  They've been able to do all of the things that the vaccinated have been able to do.  This is all because of vaccines and the people who have taken them.

 

A vaccine shot provides personal protection to the individual against acute illness.  But collectively they provide a quality of life to everyone,  including the refuseniks.  

 

 

People in 100% vaxed Gibraltar are gonna be enjoying life soon.

[Herbert.]

25 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Is the correct answer.

 

Unnecessary and preventable strain on healthcare resources.

 

Unnecessary and preventable acute illness necessitating restrictions and lockdowns on everyone else.

 

Everyone enduring unnecessarily prolonging effects due to the irresponsible minority.

 

 

Will sacking people who are unvaxed not cause more strain on a already weak health and social care system?

[Beni]

9 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

i am aware of all that but I’m still of the opinion the unvaccinated are not selfish. 
 

purely on the basis there is unvaccinated people walking around that are better protected than those who have been vaccinated. 
 

If there is a healthy unvaccinated person who has immunity from catching covid and recovering, if they refuse the vaccine on the belief they have antibodies working there magic already without a vaccine then I’m happy enough to say they aren’t selfish. 

If I was to have the opinion they are selfish for not taking a jab that comes with a risk of death (however little that risk is) I’d be selfish of to think someone is selfish for making their own risk assessment. 
 

 

But we know that across a population if everyone takes that view then we'd still be at square one.

There are only 2 ways to get antibodies, vaccination and infection. The protection offered by both to future illness is almost identical, but we know infection carries a far higher risk of serious illness, hospitalisations and death, so why risk it?

The argument that it's an insufficiently tested vaccine loses potency with every passing day, and ever billion people who are vaccinated.

Unfortunately for a lot of people it's become a political issue, so they're not interested in the scientific or societal arguments for rolling up their sleeves.

[SuperstarSteve]

27 minutes ago, John Gentleman said:

I don't think anyone could claim to have had a playbook for this pandemic. In its early stages

Of course it would. Bloody hard to double-vaccinate (and then boost) 7.8 billion people simultaneously! That simple fact shouldn't be used as an excuse to do sod all though.

Interestingly, the B/Yamagata strain of flu (one of the four that constitute the annual flu jab) hasn't been detected in over 18 months, anywhere in the world. Now I wonder why that might be?

I have never considered people who don’t get the flu jab selfish. I have that same opinion on covid vaccine. 
 

if the vaccine stopped spread effectively I’d be of a different opinion completely. 
 

I had read there was plans for an inhaler vaccine, no idea if that was on here or elsewhere but I’d imagine if successful the inhaler could be very effective at stopping the spread. 

 

 

 

 

[redjambo]

7 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

i am aware of all that but I’m still of the opinion the unvaccinated are not selfish. 
 

purely on the basis there is unvaccinated people walking around that are better protected than those who have been vaccinated. 
 

If there is a healthy unvaccinated person who has immunity from catching covid and recovering, if they refuse the vaccine on the belief they have antibodies working there magic already without a vaccine then I’m happy enough to say they aren’t selfish. 

If I was to have the opinion they are selfish for not taking a jab that comes with a risk of death (however little that risk is) I’d be selfish of to think someone is selfish for making their own risk assessment. 
 

 

The immune response from vaccination is more reliable than the one from infection. See here: https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-public-engagement-resources/covid-immunity-natural-infection-vaccine,.

 

The risk of dying from a blood clot after vaccination is also extremely small. There are far riskier activities in life, most of them involved in you just going about your business doing your everyday living. Far outweighed by the advantages.

 

Ah, the old "risk assessment" lark. So if someone who is the back seat passenger in a car decides not to wear a seatbelt and then kills the person in front of them by smashing into their skull during a crash, it's fine because the person "did their own risk assessment". Or someone decides to speed in town, because they reckon they are safe enough to do so and reckon themselves a good driver, and then ploughs into pedestrians, it's ok, because they did their own risk assessment. Obviously these situations aren't ok though. Why? Because the person's "risk assessment" didn't take the effects on others into consideration. And the same goes for Covid vaccination. There is not only a risk that you catch Covid and be hospitalised, taking up resources, but, even if you're fit as a fiddle, you have a greater chance of unknowingly passing it on to someone else who may not be so fit as a fiddle. Sounds kind of selfish, doesn't it?

[Alex Kintner]

9 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Indeed. Doubly so  

 

I'm not interested in protecting myself with a vaccine on this occasion, but can appreciate the impact reduced transmission rates have on others. You posted about that months ago on here, which helped make up my mind.

If you don’t me asking, why?

[redjambo]

12 minutes ago, Herbert said:

 

 

Will sacking people who are unvaxed not cause more strain on a already weak health and social care system?

 

There aren't that many people in that situation who will be sacked, in this country at least. The benefits significantly outweigh the costs. In saying that however, its not a case of "if you're unvaccinated then you *will* infect those whom you are caring for", it's a case of there being a higher probability that you will. I suppose there may also be an element of thought that if folk can't make the small sacrifice of being vaccinated in order to protect those who they care for, then perhaps they shouldn't be in a caring job, but I'm not sure how much of an effect that has.

[redjambo]

11 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Indeed. Doubly so  

 

I'm not interested in protecting myself with a vaccine on this occasion, but can appreciate the impact reduced transmission rates have on others. You posted about that months ago on here, which helped make up my mind.

 

You star. You've suddenly become my favourite anarchist.

[Taffin]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

Yes, because vaccination doesn't eliminate Covid (not yet, anyway), it slows it down and helps prevent worse illness in vaccinated individuals. It gives us a chance of coping with Covid infection in our society, and frees resources that would otherwise be tied up in handling Covid patients.

 

That is why the unvaccinated, although it is their choice, are effectively selfish. They are putting their own personal considerations before the health of society as a whole, as well as increasing the possibility that they personally will catch Covid, need to be hospitalised for it, thus using up even more resources, and passing it on to other people. But I am sure that you are aware of that.

 

I don't disagree Red, and it's what drove me to get vaccinated but regards the bit in bold most people do that every single day in a variety of ways. Yes, it's whataboutery but it's hypocritical when people then go on to criticise others for it (which I know you're not doing but plenty are).

 

People are selfish every day. 

[SuperstarSteve]

3 minutes ago, Beni said:

 

But we know that across a population if everyone takes that view then we'd still be at square one.

There are only 2 ways to get antibodies, vaccination and infection. The protection offered by both to future illness is almost identical, but we know infection carries a far higher risk of serious illness, hospitalisations and death, so why risk it?

The argument that it's an insufficiently tested vaccine loses potency with every passing day, and ever billion people who are vaccinated.

Unfortunately for a lot of people it's become a political issue, so they're not interested in the scientific or societal arguments for rolling up their sleeves.

I’ve heard a few people use the not been tested enough argument but most I know who refuse is down to the fact they have had the disease and recovered without a vaccine and there is nobody who can convince them or prove they don’t have the antibodies in their system to keep recovering. 
 

If they offered antibody testing before vacccination then I feel  more people would comply. Being shown the evidence you might have recovered from covid and have/had immunity but that immunity has lowered significantly possibly even no protection it would give them the nudge they need in my opinion. 
 

 

There is plenty selfish vaccinated and unvaccinated. I just couldn’t tar all with the same brush. 

[SuperstarSteve]

21 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

The immune response from vaccination is more reliable than the one from infection. See here: https://www.immunology.org/coronavirus/connect-coronavirus-public-engagement-resources/covid-immunity-natural-infection-vaccine,.

 

The risk of dying from a blood clot after vaccination is also extremely small. There are far riskier activities in life, most of them involved in you just going about your business doing your everyday living. Far outweighed by the advantages.

 

Ah, the old "risk assessment" lark. So if someone who is the back seat passenger in a car decides not to wear a seatbelt and then kills the person in front of them by smashing into their skull during a crash, it's fine because the person "did their own risk assessment". Or someone decides to speed in town, because they reckon they are safe enough to do so and reckon themselves a good driver, and then ploughs into pedestrians, it's ok, because they did their own risk assessment. Obviously these situations aren't ok though. Why? Because the person's "risk assessment" didn't take the effects on others into consideration. And the same goes for Covid vaccination. There is not only a risk that you catch Covid and be hospitalised, taking up resources, but, even if you're fit as a fiddle, you have a greater chance of unknowingly passing it on to someone else who may not be so fit as a fiddle. Sounds kind of selfish, doesn't it?

I honestly believe everyone is different. There is people out there who have better protection from natural immunity than some who are vaccinated, those people won’t be a risk. Minority or not if they have immunity and next to no chance of catching, passing on or dying from the disease. I refuse to be of the opinion that they need to take a risk of dying and If they don’t they are selfish. 
 

[Des Lynam]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

Yes, because vaccination doesn't eliminate Covid (not yet, anyway), it slows it down and helps prevent worse illness in vaccinated individuals. It gives us a chance of coping with Covid infection in our society, and frees resources that would otherwise be tied up in handling Covid patients.

 

That is why the unvaccinated, although it is their choice, are effectively selfish. They are putting their own personal considerations before the health of society as a whole, as well as increasing the possibility that they personally will catch Covid, need to be hospitalised for it, thus using up even more resources, and passing it on to other people. But I am sure that you are aware of that.

 

I understand the frustration with the unvaccinated but that's not the whole story. If we're concerned with the resources being overrun then we need to be honest and show more frustration with those that are overweight or obese. A study in America found that 78% of those dying from covid were in those two groups. 

[SuperstarSteve]

28 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

There aren't that many people in that situation who will be sacked, in this country at least. The benefits significantly outweigh the costs. In saying that however, its not a case of "if you're unvaccinated then you *will* infect those whom you are caring for", it's a case of there being a higher probability that you will. I suppose there may also be an element of thought that if folk can't make the small sacrifice of being vaccinated in order to protect those who they care for, then perhaps they shouldn't be in a caring job, but I'm not sure how much of an effect that has.

Don’t disagree with any of that but surely giving nurses a pcr test before arriving at work and antibodies test is better for everyone rather than sacking them completely. 
 

The question I have on NHS staff being sacked is if the unvaccinated were that much of a risk to their patients why are the government waiting until after the winter has been and gone before removing them? Surely you remove them first and take away that added risk before the winter!

 

The decision to risk patients during the most serious time of the disease then sack those who are a risk afterwards makes zero sense to me personally. 

[redjambo]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I don't disagree Red, and it's what drove me to get vaccinated but regards the bit in bold most people do that every single day in a variety of ways. Yes, it's whataboutery but it's hypocritical when people then go on to criticise others for it (which I know you're not doing but plenty are).

 

People are selfish every day. 

 

They are indeed. Jonesy has alluded to that as well.

[Des Lynam]

43 minutes ago, jonesy said:

Indeed. Doubly so  

 

I'm not interested in protecting myself with a vaccine on this occasion, but can appreciate the impact reduced transmission rates have on others. You posted about that months ago on here, which helped make up my mind.

 

I'll second that motion. I was dubious/worried about getting vaccinated but read a post by @redjambo outlining the benefits which helped make up my mind. 

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Des Lynam said:

 

I'll second that motion. I was dubious/worried about getting vaccinated but read a post by @redjambo outlining the benefits which helped make up my mind. 

 

Right, that's it. I'd better log off JKB before I start getting the cocky feeling that in some very small way I have "made a difference".

 

Thanks for being part of the solution, Des.

[Beni]

37 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

I’ve heard a few people use the not been tested enough argument but most I know who refuse is down to the fact they have had the disease and recovered without a vaccine and there is nobody who can convince them or prove they don’t have the antibodies in their system to keep recovering. 
 

If they offered antibody testing before vacccination then I feel  more people would comply. Being shown the evidence you might have recovered from covid and have/had immunity but that immunity has lowered significantly possibly even no protection it would give them the nudge they need in my opinion. 
 

 

There is plenty selfish vaccinated and unvaccinated. I just couldn’t tar all with the same brush. 

 

People not getting vaccinated because they think they already have antibodies isn't an argument I've heard a lot of people making. Even at this stage most people haven't had the virus, so most unvaccinated people won't have antibodies.

The key phrase you use is "there is nobody who can convince them".

If people have closed their minds than that's the end of that.

As I said earlier it is now a political issue for a lot of people.

Unless they have concerns about the safety of the vaccine, I don't see why the possibility of having antibodies would make them hesitate.

[SuperstarSteve]

Just now, Beni said:

 

People not getting vaccinated because they think they already have antibodies isn't an argument I've heard a lot of people making. Even at this stage most people haven't had the virus, so most unvaccinated people won't have antibodies.

The key phrase you use is "there is nobody who can convince them".

If people have closed their minds than that's the end of that.

As I said earlier it is now a political issue for a lot of people.

Unless they have concerns about the safety of the vaccine, I don't see why the possibility of having antibodies would make them hesitate.

It isn’t an argument if you haven’t had covid and I agree most won’t have. Those who have had covid and recovered have an argument.

That’s why I’m of the belief doing antibody testing before vaccines could convince them. If they do a test and show evidence your natural immunity has been and gone more people will be convinced of getting it because as far as am aware if your natural immunity has disappeared so does your protection for yourself and others. 

Certainly those who are of the opinion they are protected for the foreseeable. 
granted I am aware that idea won’t convince others who are refusing for different reasons. 
 

The way the government go about things doesn’t help convince people.

NHS staff are being told they can work through the winter when the virus is at its worse without a vaccine, but when they are less of a risk after the winter they must get protected more or lose their job? 
 

That makes zero sense to me, none at all so how is that gonna convince NHS staff to get a vaccine? For what purpose because the risking Patients argument goes out the window once you let them work through winter without a jab I must admit.  

[escobri]

28 minutes ago, Beni said:

 

People not getting vaccinated because they think they already have antibodies isn't an argument I've heard a lot of people making. Even at this stage most people haven't had the virus, so most unvaccinated people won't have antibodies.

The key phrase you use is "there is nobody who can convince them".

If people have closed their minds than that's the end of that.

As I said earlier it is now a political issue for a lot of people.

Unless they have concerns about the safety of the vaccine, I don't see why the possibility of having antibodies would make them hesitate.

You might want to update ONS as they think very different. 

[Beni]

27 minutes ago, escobri said:

You might want to update ONS as they think very different. 

 

Got a link for these figures?

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases 

 

 

 

 

[Alex Kintner]

1 hour ago, jonesy said:

Two reasons.

 

1. I have no fear of CV19 - at least, not any more or less than I have of other likely causes of suffering and death in the world that could hit at any time.

2. I'm a bit of a CU Next Tuesday.

You’re a braver man than me then Jonesy. Not sure what age you are but I’m 41, pretty fit and healthy and double-vaccinated. When I was really ill with Covid I was so glad I had the vaccine antibodies there fighting it. No doubt I’d have been in hospital and possibly worse otherwise.

[Rocco_Jambo]

2 hours ago, SuperstarSteve said:

I don’t understand that opinion either but people are entitled to it. 
 

You could vaccinate everyone in the world and covid would still be spreading. It’s here to stay and it’s no the vaccinated or the unvaccinated fault. 

 

The opinion appears to help a lot of people ignore any morality issues over having and wanting perfectly healthy people in their 20’s who are very unlikely to be affected by this virus have it before vulnerable people based on which country or continent they live in.

 

A lot of these people would usually be highlighting vaccine procurement as a terrible example of the legacy of white colonialism, systemic racism in the world and asking white people to start owning their white privilege.

 

Because it might actually affect them in the real world it helps with the mental gymnastics if they keep telling themselves the act of taking the vaccine  is a selfless act done for those around them and for the greater good even when they’re are people in the world who need and deserve it far more.

[escobri]

4 minutes ago, Beni said:

 

Got a link for these figures?

 

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases 

 

 

 

 

Sorry meant to expand but had to attend to something, I was referring to the statement about antibodies. It has been reported for some time now that 90% plus of the adult population of Scotland has antibodies,  source is ONS report. 

[Beni]

7 minutes ago, escobri said:

Sorry meant to expand but had to attend to something, I was referring to the statement about antibodies. It has been reported for some time now that 90% plus of the adult population of Scotland has antibodies,  source is ONS report. 

 

Not sure what your point is.

About 90% of Scotland's adults have been vaccinated, so that's the number you'd expect to have antibodies, and in the post you replied to the conversation was about antibodies in the unvaccinated.

[Beni]

1 hour ago, SuperstarSteve said:

It isn’t an argument if you haven’t had covid and I agree most won’t have. Those who have had covid and recovered have an argument.

That’s why I’m of the belief doing antibody testing before vaccines could convince them. If they do a test and show evidence your natural immunity has been and gone more people will be convinced of getting it because as far as am aware if your natural immunity has disappeared so does your protection for yourself and others. 

Certainly those who are of the opinion they are protected for the foreseeable. 
granted I am aware that idea won’t convince others who are refusing for different reasons. 
 

The way the government go about things doesn’t help convince people.

NHS staff are being told they can work through the winter when the virus is at its worse without a vaccine, but when they are less of a risk after the winter they must get protected more or lose their job? 
 

That makes zero sense to me, none at all so how is that gonna convince NHS staff to get a vaccine? For what purpose because the risking Patients argument goes out the window once you let them work through winter without a jab I must admit.  

 

I've no Idea how practical widespread antibody testing is, and if a test would convince some people to get vaccinated then there's no harm in doing it. But if the possibility that they might already have antibodies is the only thing that's stopping them, and they'd happily get vaccinated if it was negative, then it sounds a wee bit like they're looking for an excuse.

As for medical staff the authorities have to be pragmatic as I think you said earlier, they can't lay off all unvaccinated staff if it ends up crippling services. But if people think they have to get it eventually then it might be enough to nudge them over the line.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by Beni

[escobri]

20 minutes ago, Beni said:

 

Not sure what your point is.

About 90% of Scotland's adults have been vaccinated, so that's the number you'd expect to have antibodies, and in the post you replied to the conversation was about antibodies in the unvaccinated.

👓 now on 👍

[Beni]

1 minute ago, escobri said:

👓 now on 👍

 

👍

[SuperstarSteve]

35 minutes ago, Beni said:

 

I've no Idea how practical widespread antibody testing is, and if a test would convince some people to get vaccinated then there's no harm in doing it. But if the possibility that they might already have antibodies is the only thing that's stopping them, and they'd happily get vaccinated if it was negative, then it sounds a wee bit like they're looking for an excuse.

As for medical staff the authorities have to be pragmatic as I think you said earlier, they can't lay off all unvaccinated staff if it ends up crippling services. But if people think they have to get it eventually then it might be enough to nudge them over the line.

 

 

I don’t consider it an excuse as there is a valid argument behind there thinking, Israel im sure it is, hand out green passes to those who have  tested positive and recovered. Those people are considered fully vaccinated without having a vaccine. 
 

I only know one person who works for the NHS and she refused the vaccine. At first she wanted to wait until end of trials but with UK decision they will allow NHS staff to work through winter without a vaccine and it’s mandatory afterward. She’s absolutely not getting. That’s only one example of course but the government are gonna push people in the opposite direction due to making decisions that make no sense. 

[The Real Maroonblood]

4 hours ago, redjambo said:

 

Yes, because vaccination doesn't eliminate Covid (not yet, anyway), it slows it down and helps prevent worse illness in vaccinated individuals. It gives us a chance of coping with Covid infection in our society, and frees resources that would otherwise be tied up in handling Covid patients.

 

That is why the unvaccinated, although it is their choice, are effectively selfish. They are putting their own personal considerations before the health of society as a whole, as well as increasing the possibility that they personally will catch Covid, need to be hospitalised for it, thus using up even more resources, and passing it on to other people. But I am sure that you are aware of that.

Spot on.

[Jambo-Jimbo]

39 minutes ago, Beni said:

 

I've no Idea how practical widespread antibody testing is, and if a test would convince some people to get vaccinated then there's no harm in doing it. But if the possibility that they might already have antibodies is the only thing that's stopping them, and they'd happily get vaccinated if it was negative, then it sounds a wee bit like they're looking for an excuse.

As for medical staff the authorities have to be pragmatic as I think you said earlier, they can't lay off all unvaccinated staff if it ends up crippling services. But if people think they have to get it eventually then it might be enough to nudge them over the line.

 

 

 

Heard someone on TV mention that, we are almost a year into administering covid vaccines, so there has been plenty of time and opportunities for people to have had at least one dose, therefore if someone hasn't had at least one dose by now, they are most likely not going to get vaccinated at all. Of course some people can't medically get vaccinated, but that's not who I'm on about.

 

Medical workers need to be vaccinated against Hep B just to be able to work in the sector, it's mandatory, so what's the issue with the covid vaccine........I'll tell you, what a lot of it is, it's the shite they've read on fakebook from Karen and the other shysters who are out to cause trouble, imo.

[SuperstarSteve]

1 minute ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Heard someone on TV mention that, we are almost a year into administering covid vaccines, so there has been plenty of time and opportunities for people to have had at least one dose, therefore if someone hasn't had at least one dose by now, they are most likely not going to get vaccinated at all. Of course some people can't medically get vaccinated, but that's not who I'm on about.

 

Medical workers need to be vaccinated against Hep B just to be able to work in the sector, it's mandatory, so what's the issue with the covid vaccine........I'll tell you, what a lot of it is, it's the shite they've read on fakebook from Karen and the other shysters who are out to cause trouble, imo.

That is a fair point and I have asked that question but the argument the NHS worker I know had for that was. She signed her contract knowing that. Changing it mid contract is not acceptable, If they required new workers to get the vaccine who don’t currently have contract that would be more acceptable as they will know what they are signing up for. I couldn’t argue with that answer. 

[Taffin]

Isn't the number of people who have had the virus somewhat of an known unknown?

 

When 1 in 3 confirmed cases are asymptomatic there could surely be millions who had it but never been tested as they never displayed any symptoms or contacted via tracing.

[indianajones]

7 minutes ago, Taffin said:

Isn't the number of people who have had the virus somewhat of an known unknown?

 

When 1 in 3 confirmed cases are asymptomatic there could surely be millions who had it but never been tested as they never displayed any symptoms or contacted via tracing.

 

It is almost impossible to have accurate figures for it. If its as bad as they say it is then it must be likely that most of the population have had it at some point. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

4 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

That is a fair point and I have asked that question but the argument the NHS worker I know had for that was. She signed her contract knowing that. Changing it mid contract is not acceptable, If they required new workers to get the vaccine who don’t currently have contract that would be more acceptable as they will know what they are signing up for. I couldn’t argue with that answer. 

 

A once in a 100 year global pandemic changes everything, especially within the medical profession, who need to adapt quickly to the changing situation facing them.  Does your friend refuse to carry out new procedures or work different shift patterns or work on different wards, because none of that is in her contract..........I'll bet she doesn't, I'll bet your friend has done hundreds of things which aren't in her contract, so hiding behind 'it's not in my contract' isn't an excuse, I'm afraid.

[Beni]

34 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

I don’t consider it an excuse as there is a valid argument behind there thinking, Israel im sure it is, hand out green passes to those who have  tested positive and recovered. Those people are considered fully vaccinated without having a vaccine. 
 

I only know one person who works for the NHS and she refused the vaccine. At first she wanted to wait until end of trials but with UK decision they will allow NHS staff to work through winter without a vaccine and it’s mandatory afterward. She’s absolutely not getting. That’s only one example of course but the government are gonna push people in the opposite direction due to making decisions that make no sense. 

 

Don't know about Israel, but as I said earlier if antibody testing is what's needed to reassure some of the vaccine hesitant then it's another tool to use, but as you mention, your friend isn't getting it under any circumstances, so antibody testing won't convince her.

The government's position seems reasonable to me, they want everyone working in health and social care to be vaccinated to reduce infection and transmission in these settings, but that isn't possible at the moment so they've announced a future date when it'll become mandatory.

 

[SuperstarSteve]

Just now, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

A once in a 100 year global pandemic changes everything, especially within the medical profession, who need to adapt quickly to the changing situation facing them.  Does your friend refuse to carry out new procedures or work different shift patterns or work on different wards, because none of that is in her contract..........I'll bet she doesn't, I'll bet your friend has done hundreds of things which aren't in her contract, so hiding behind 'it's not in my contract' isn't an excuse, I'm afraid.

A contract is a contract in my personal opinion and am sure many lawyers would agree which is why I believe they won’t go through with it.

 

As beni said it’s just a scare tactic to give NHS staff a nudge and although it may nudge a few it will push others in the opposite direction. 
 

If you personally agree with changing contract terms after the fact that’s fair enough, I would also agree but there is the small issue that they have set the date for after the most serious virus period rather than before. If they are a risk like the government is saying then that decision makes no sense. If they work through the winter they aren’t a risk otherwise why would government let them? They need to start making sense that’s for sure. 

 

 

[Beni]

29 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Heard someone on TV mention that, we are almost a year into administering covid vaccines, so there has been plenty of time and opportunities for people to have had at least one dose, therefore if someone hasn't had at least one dose by now, they are most likely not going to get vaccinated at all. Of course some people can't medically get vaccinated, but that's not who I'm on about.

 

Medical workers need to be vaccinated against Hep B just to be able to work in the sector, it's mandatory, so what's the issue with the covid vaccine........I'll tell you, what a lot of it is, it's the shite they've read on fakebook from Karen and the other shysters who are out to cause trouble, imo.

 

Agree with that, although we shouldn't be too down on social media, as it's been revealed today that K̶i̶c̶k̶b̶a̶c̶k̶'̶s̶ ̶B̶i̶l̶l̶ ̶G̶a̶t̶e̶s̶ @redjambo has been instrumental in 2 posters getting the jab.

[Beni]

19 minutes ago, Taffin said:

Isn't the number of people who have had the virus somewhat of an known unknown?

 

When 1 in 3 confirmed cases are asymptomatic there could surely be millions who had it but never been tested as they never displayed any symptoms or contacted via tracing.

 

I can't see any antibody surveys that filter out the unvaccinated, but the number of primary school pupils (ie the only wholly unvaccinated age group) who have antibodies is 11.3%.

Whether that bears any resemblance to reality among the wider population is anybody's guess. 

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/antibodies

[Jambo-Jimbo]

19 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

A contract is a contract in my personal opinion and am sure many lawyers would agree which is why I believe they won’t go through with it.

 

As beni said it’s just a scare tactic to give NHS staff a nudge and although it may nudge a few it will push others in the opposite direction. 
 

If you personally agree with changing contract terms after the fact that’s fair enough, I would also agree but there is the small issue that they have set the date for after the most serious virus period rather than before. If they are a risk like the government is saying then that decision makes no sense. If they work through the winter they aren’t a risk otherwise why would government let them? They need to start making sense that’s for sure. 

 

 

 

If they had said NHS staff had to be vaccinated by next month, people would have kicked up feck about that, remember the travel bans, people moaned that they made it immediately, give people the chance to get back.....then when they gave people 3 days to get back, people moaned that it should have been immediate, you can't win sometimes.

 

I will agree, it smacks of being cynical to get the winter out of staff before it's mandatory, it does, however, give the staff plenty of time to reconsider and get the vaccine.