Coronavirus Super Thread ( merged )

[redjambo]

4 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

These people don't owe anyone anything.

 

And I never mentioned "owing" anywhere in my post. They should certainly have the right not to be vaccinated but, if they do, then the rest of society should have the right to restrict their ability to infect those who have been responsible, whether for selfish and/or altruistic reasons, and actually had the vaccine.

[Francis Albert]

 

The Telegraph does a good job in questioning and challenging experts, including using the contradictory opinions of other experts. There is a wide range of expert views. 

And experts are not all totally objective and solely seekers after truth. They also have to worry about and lobby for funding of their research products.

I am not a Tory - never thought of voting for them - but value reading alternative views.  

If you read the Guardian and Telegraph you get a range of different selections of what "news" and opinions there are both scientifically and on the non-science impact of measures proposed by scientists to combat Covid.

If you only read or value opininions you agree with on the other hand ... well you get the "debates" we have on here.

 

Edited December 24, 2021 by Francis Albert

[Victorian]

4 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

If the booster is for you then why are people giving a **** if they choose to get it?

 

It is clear that in most cases the vax and the booster are for the government and 'others'.

 

 

 

Drivel.  You moaned about why you haven't had your booster.  The only answer is that it is for your own benefit.  Nobody else gives a ****.

 

Get it for you and quit boring everyone else.  Ok?

[redjambo]

7 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

Yes, yes it is.

 

When did you and reality have such a falling out? Do you think you might ever get back together again, even if just for a drink for old times?

[felix]

39 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Of course you would, but you know what cancer is and what it does, can you really say with any certainty the same with Covid-19, I doubt you can, none of us can, none of us really knows what the next evolutionary variant is going to be, do we, therefore we have to keep fighting it.

 

As for listening to the likes of Edwina Curry or BoJo or Sturgeon et al, well I use my own mind, I hear what they say but more often than not pay little to no attention to it and I certainly won't be influenced by anything any of them said, as I do what keeps me & my family safe and by extension the wider community. 

 

Each of us have different circumstances, mine is that even a mild dose of Covid could have adverse effects on my heart, therefore I will do whatever it takes to try and stay as protected as I can.

 

Think the last 2 yrs have taught us what Covid is & what it does. The genetics of cancer are still a mystery, as I understand, but everyone knows the outcomes.  I'm not disagreeing however and you obviously  have to do what's best for your own circumstances. Stay safe.

[JudyJudyJudy]

21 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

If they're not going to be responsible and help the rest of society by being vaccinated, then the probabilities of them infecting folk should be limited by restricting their access to events and situations where the public have close physical interactions. That's just common sense. So, in other words, no we shouldn't be "chasing them around with a syringe", but on the other hand they should realise that with rights come responsibilities, and that the protection of the general public is a priority and more important than their individual standpoints.

 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

37 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

The people saying "**** it" are not budging and nor should they imo.  So what do we do, chase them around with a syringe for the rest of our days?  They are not going to get vaxxed - theerefore we keep the wheels in motion.

 

The people saying 'feck it' was more in relation to those who have had one or two vaccines maybe even a booster but are saying 'feck it' to having anymore, that's whom I was meaning, you must have mis-understood me.

 

As for the anti-vaxxers, well they won't change their minds, nor would I waste time on them either, no point.

Edited December 24, 2021 by Jambo-Jimbo

[steve123]

South Africa have scrapped self isolation and testing for contacts of positive cases.

[escobri]

With talk of 4th jag and enough purchased for 5, if someone like myself (0 jags) goes to be vaxxed should we start at jag No1 or will we reach a point where the most recent jag will be enough for our covid passes?

[Gizmo]

18 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

There is absolutely no way at all to prove this.

 

There is also many examples of countries not locking down and being no more or less affected.

 

Dense you say?  I am not the one who as an adult believes in all this bollocks.

Yet you've taken 2 vaccines but not the booster?

I don't think it's my grasp on reality that is flawed here.

Do yourself a favour, take the booster. 

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, escobri said:

With talk of 4th jag and enough purchased for 5, if someone like myself (0 jags) goes to be vaxxed should we start at jag No1 or will we reach a point where the most recent jag will be enough for our covid passes?

 

That's actually a very good question. If it ever gets to it, it may end up being that you have to have had 2 jags at least 6 months apart within the last year, or something like that, i.e. a rolling requirement. However, I don't expect it to get to that point without a lot of confusion and fecking around, so the current answer would be that you have to start at jag 1 until they do develop a more coherent approach to what is, admittedly, a fluid situation regarding jags.

[Gizmo]

6 minutes ago, escobri said:

With talk of 4th jag and enough purchased for 5, if someone like myself (0 jags) goes to be vaxxed should we start at jag No1 or will we reach a point where the most recent jag will be enough for our covid passes?

If that's a genuine question, it does raise a point. Some younger people will be on their first vaccinations too. 

Whether the govt/app creators factored this in, well I hate to be cynical but their record isn't fantastic. 

It also invites a reasonable line of questioning as to how long the covid passports will apply for - these should not be afforded any longer a "welcome" than is strictly necessary imo. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

30 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Last paragraph.  You get the booster to increase your own protection.  Nothing more or less.  Attaching political hand-wringing to it is batshit mental.

 

Booster is for you.  Get over yourself ffs.

Aye why you and others getting your knickers in a twist cause others choose not to get the vaccine? 

27 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

If the booster is for you then why are people giving a **** if they choose to get it?

 

It is clear that in most cases the vax and the booster are for the government and 'others'.

 

 

Exactly

27 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

Haha well played.
 

BECAUSE of lockdown. FFS i8, are you really this dense?
 

So you believe in vaccinations but because someone put your nose out of joint, you won't? 

We are further foward.

Contrast with last year.

Christmas? Not cancelled.
Lockdown? No, minor restrictions.
Deaths? Down massively despite a large wave.
Vaccines? Protecting against severe disease and hospitalizations. 

We also have new treatments becoming available soon. We absolutely are not in the same place.  

Xmas wasnt cancelled at mine last year. 

 

and im sure those restaurants , venues and pubs may not view the " minor restrictions" as minor. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

20 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

The body's immunity to specific invaders reduces over time. Covid also mutates, thus presenting new attack profiles. Until we get a handle on producing a vaccine which lasts longer and handles more strains (and future strains too by being more generic), which we will, or Covid mutates to a relatively harmless virus, which is more than possible, then having boosters makes perfect sense. We are a lot further forward than we were regarding vaccinations and treatments, and at the rate that research is advancing, and the amount of resources were throwing at it, we'll get there. There is no "magic potion", just hard work.

 

Exactly, what many are missing is that we are extremely lucky and the first in history to have treatments and a vaccine within a year or so of a new virus emerging.
If we didn't have them, then we'd just have to do what our ancestors had to do and live with 50%-60%+ mortality rates whenever some new virus or variant of a virus came along.  And also it would take decades of infections and re-infections before enough natural immunity was built up within the population to get the mortality rates down.

 

As I alluded to earlier, people of today have no patience, they want an instant cure and they want it now.

[i8hibsh]

25 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

 

Get it for you and quit boring everyone else.  Ok?

 

 

I know you have about a trillion posts on this thread Vic but it is not your thread man ok. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

25 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

When did you and reality have such a falling out? Do you think you might ever get back together again, even if just for a drink for old times?

You used to be quite a leftie ? judging by your previous postings. What happened to peoples right to choice over the autonomy over their own body and what has it to do with you? 

[Gizmo]

1 minute ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

As I alluded to earlier, people of today have no patience, they want an instant cure and they want it now.

I think the govt definitely erred when selling the vaccines initially on a "this is the ticket to return to normality". 

I get why they did it and we are less restricted than that last horrendous lockdown, infact looking back over the year I'm quite surprised how much stuff I've been able to get on with overall. But it's not the "end of pandemic" that people perhaps expected.

That said, when we were only a few weeks into the first lockdown and people were out protesting because of trival shite like "I need my roots or nails done" or crying that they "couldn't get lawn seed" - those people have all the fortitude of a blancmange sitting in the midday sun. No time for such a spineless lack of stoicism from soft, selfish namby-pambies. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Just now, i8hibsh said:

 

 

I know you have about a trillion posts on this thread Vic but it is not your thread man ok. 

 

[JudyJudyJudy]

7 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

50%-60%+ mortalit

for covid? 

[Dennis Denuto]

Just now, JamesM48 said:

You used to be quite a leftie ? judging by your previous postings. What happened to peoples right to choice over the autonomy over their own body and what has it to do with you? 

They have a right to choose and I would not deny them treatment for anything. BUT they should be under lockdown so the NHS can get on with the day job of treatments cancer, hearts disease etc. 

 

If vaccinations are the way out of this ( it is the only way BTW) then those not vaccinated by choice should be the first placed under restrictions when the Government introduces them. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Dennis Denuto said:

They have a right to choose and I would not deny them treatment for anything. BUT they should be under lockdown so the NHS can get on with the day job of treatments cancer, hearts disease etc. 

 

If vaccinations are the way out of this ( it is the only way BTW) then those not vaccinated by choice should be the first placed under restrictions when the Government introduces them. 

what about fatties? drug users? alcoholics? should they be on lockdown until the pandemic is over ? its a choice.  (  I don't tend to agree with addiction theory) 

[Victorian]

7 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

I know you have about a trillion posts on this thread Vic but it is not your thread man ok. 

 

It's your own fault for hacking people off with your constant snash.  

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

BUT they should be under lockdown so the NHS can get on with the day job of treatments cancer, h

why don't the vulnerable shield ? you do know there is going to be a tusnami or mental health and physical health issues after all this is over due to lockdowns? Much worse that the death rates from covid. IMO.

[escobri]

9 minutes ago, Gizmo said:

If that's a genuine question, it does raise a point. Some younger people will be on their first vaccinations too. 

Whether the govt/app creators factored this in, well I hate to be cynical but their record isn't fantastic. 

It also invites a reasonable line of questioning as to how long the covid passports will apply for - these should not be afforded any longer a "welcome" than is strictly necessary imo. 

It is a genuine question, why would you doubt me 🤷‍♂️🤣 the thought of cramming 4 jags in a short space of time to keep my job(if made mandatory)gives me the fear 😨 

[redjambo]

Just now, escobri said:

It is a genuine question, why would you doubt me 🤷‍♂️🤣 the thought of cramming 4 jags in a short space of time to keep my job(if made mandatory)gives me the fear 😨 

 

You may as well start now then, so that there isn't too much cramming to be done.

[i8hibsh]

6 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

It's your own fault for hacking people off with your constant snash.  

 

 

Ffs how up yourself are you. It is a two way street man. Your path is not the righteous one.

[Lord Montpelier]

18 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Exactly, what many are missing is that we are extremely lucky and the first in history to have treatments and a vaccine within a year or so of a new virus emerging.
If we didn't have them, then we'd just have to do what our ancestors had to do and live with 50%-60%+ mortality rates whenever some new virus or variant of a virus came along.  And also it would take decades of infections and re-infections before enough natural immunity was built up within the population to get the mortality rates down.

 

As I alluded to earlier, people of today have no patience, they want an instant cure and they want it now.

Im pretty sure this time last year Professor Van Tam suggested the progress against Covid was done to penalty kicks

 

The messaging has a lot to do with people losing patience, as I have now. 

[escobri]

7 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

You may as well start now then, so that there isn't too much cramming to be done.

[Seymour M Hersh]

1 hour ago, redjambo said:

 

You forgot to use the word "sheeple". Tut, tut. You do realise that on numerous occasions, NHS trusts have had to limit themselves to emergencies and urgent cases only due to the strain on their capacity caused by Covid. Or is that fake alarmist news too?

 

I wonder why then, the NHS themselves have been reducing bed numbers for the past few decades. And while we're at it have the NHS bosses never thought to have contingency plans for winter? Every year for as long as I can remember they've (the NHS and Unions) have been screaming about being overwhelmed at this time of year. Governments telling us we have to save the NHS!!! Excuse me for being old fashioned but I always thought the NHS was there to save s. 

[Adam_the_legend]

45 minutes ago, steve123 said:

South Africa have scrapped self isolation and testing for contacts of positive cases.

The safa’s showing us the way forward again. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

21 minutes ago, Victorian said:

hacking people

some 

[Don Dan]

The growing number of people testing positive for Covid after coming into hospital for another illness is a 'major problem', an intensive care doctor in Omicron hotspot London admitted today.

There is growing pressure from experts and politicians to distinguish between admissions from Covid and patients with the virus after MailOnline yesterday revealed up to two-thirds of new coronavirus patients are not being treated by the NHS because of the disease.

Tory MP Craig Mackinlay said that this distinction is vital before ministers can make any decision on further lockdown curbs because it will show how much pressure the NHS is actually under.

In the two weeks to December 21, hospitals in England recorded 563 new coronavirus inpatients — the majority of which are believed to be Omicron now that the variant is the country's dominant stain. 

But just 197 (35 per cent) were being primarily treated for Covid, with the remaining 366 (65 per cent) only testing positive after being admitted for something else. 

Dr Zudin Puthucheary, a member of the Intensive Care Society and physician in London, said the number of patients coming into hospital who 'happen to be Covid positive' is skewing the statistics. 

And he added the figures are further boosted by the number of people catching the virus on wards — with separate data showing 31 per cent of patients test positive seven days after treatment for other illnesses.

Ministers are keeping a close eye on hospitalisation statistics in the capital, with lockdown restrictions expected to be brought down if admissions exceed 400 a day.

The figure is considered to be the breaking point of the NHS — despite daily admissions reaching 977 in January during the height of the last winter wave of the pandemic. The latest data show hospitalisations are currently just shy of the threshold, with 301 Covid patients admitted on Monday.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10342211/Doctor-admits-number-patients-testing-positive-Covid-admission-major-problem.html

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I wonder why then, the NHS themselves have been reducing bed numbers for the past few decades. And while we're at it have the NHS bosses never thought to have contingency plans for winter? Every year for as long as I can remember they've (the NHS and Unions) have been screaming about being overwhelmed at this time of year. Governments telling us we have to save the NHS!!! Excuse me for being old fashioned but I always thought the NHS was there to save s. 

exactly

[Victorian]

15 minutes ago, i8hibsh said:

 

 

Ffs how up yourself are you. It is a two way street man. Your path is not the righteous one.

 

Never said or thought it was.  You on the other hand have consistently ridiculed others.  It's you who seems determined to appear righteous.  Every single time you come on you're hell bent on telling everyone where they're going wrong.  

 

You have no unique insight Si.  You're not even mildly interesting.  The sheer number of posters who appear to think similarly should give you a clue.  

[Gizmo]

8 minutes ago, Seymour M Hersh said:

 

I wonder why then, the NHS themselves have been reducing bed numbers for the past few decades. And while we're at it have the NHS bosses never thought to have contingency plans for winter? Every year for as long as I can remember they've (the NHS and Unions) have been screaming about being overwhelmed at this time of year. Governments telling us we have to save the NHS!!! Excuse me for being old fashioned but I always thought the NHS was there to save s. 

Funds should be made available for winter contingencies on the specific basis they are used to increase capacity.

We made those temporary hospitals pretty quickly, yet the govt made no provision for additional staffing. It's like they think resourcing could just be spread even more thinly had it been needed.

I don't know if Labour would invest properly, cull some of the middle-management wasters and highly paid consultants and sort this out. But it's clear the tory government either can't or won't fix it. 

[Adam_the_legend]

40 minutes ago, Jambo-Jimbo said:

 

Exactly, what many are missing is that we are extremely lucky and the first in history to have treatments and a vaccine within a year or so of a new virus emerging.
If we didn't have them, then we'd just have to do what our ancestors had to do and live with 50%-60%+ mortality rates whenever some new virus or variant of a virus came along.  And also it would take decades of infections and re-infections before enough natural immunity was built up within the population to get the mortality rates down.

 

As I alluded to earlier, people of today have no patience, they want an instant cure and they want it now.

Even pre vaccine the mortality rate for covid was tiny compared to your 50-60% figure. Also, despite Spanish Flu killing huge numbers of people the pandemic lasted 2 years before the virus became endemic and much milder. Facts are important. 

[redjambo]

20 minutes ago, escobri said:

 

Sorry, escobri, couldn't resist it.

[Victorian]

2 minutes ago, Adam_the_legend said:

Even pre vaccine the mortality rate for covid was tiny compared to your 50-60% figure. Also, despite Spanish Flu killing huge numbers of people the pandemic lasted 2 years before the virus became endemic and much milder. Facts are important. 

 

Spanish flu is not that comparable tbh.  The world has about 4 times the population now compared to then.  Plus interconnectivity is light years in advance.  Things such as the incubation period and the peak time of infectiousness can also have quite a big bearing on how easily a virus is driven back.  Comparisons to Spanish flu are frought with difficulty.

[JudyJudyJudy]

4 minutes ago, Adam_the_legend said:

Even pre vaccine the mortality rate for covid was tiny compared to your 50-60% figure. Also, despite Spanish Flu killing huge numbers of people the pandemic lasted 2 years before the virus became endemic and much milder. Facts are important. 

👌

[Adam_the_legend]

40 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

They have a right to choose and I would not deny them treatment for anything. BUT they should be under lockdown so the NHS can get on with the day job of treatments cancer, hearts disease etc. 

 

If vaccinations are the way out of this ( it is the only way BTW) then those not vaccinated by choice should be the first placed under restrictions when the Government introduces them. 

You mean treating cancers and heart disease many of which will be caused by poor lifestyle choices? My fear with the whole lockout the unvaccinated approach is it sets a precedent. If you smoke, drink too much, eat shite and don’t excerise then you aren’t doing your bit so should go to the back of the queue. That’s a fundamental change in how our society has worked, we should at least have a proper discussion about what that means for us all before clambering to lock people out of society for their choices. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

Some people say its " u turns" i dont think so....

 

 

[redjambo]

1 minute ago, Adam_the_legend said:

You mean treating cancers and heart disease many of which will be caused by poor lifestyle choices? My fear with the whole lockout the unvaccinated approach is it sets a precedent. If you smoke, drink too much, eat shite and don’t excerise then you aren’t doing your bit so should go to the back of the queue. That’s a fundamental change in how our society has worked, we should at least have a proper discussion about what that means for us all before clambering to lock people out of society for their choices. 

 

Restricting the unvaccinated from close physical contact with the vaccinated is all to do with limiting the spread of an infectious disease. It's a huge non-sequitur of a  leap to the subject of the unequal medical treatment of folk who drink, smoke, etc., because of their lifestyle choices. Almost as if you're looking for things to be afraid of.

[escobri]

13 minutes ago, redjambo said:

 

Sorry, escobri, couldn't resist it.

Tbf it was set up perfectly, you were just the quickest 🤣

[redjambo]

2 minutes ago, escobri said:

Tbf it was set up perfectly, you were just the quickest 🤣

 

You have to get up before you go to bed at night to beat old Red.

[Adam_the_legend]

11 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Spanish flu is not that comparable tbh.  The world has about 4 times the population now compared to then.  Plus interconnectivity is light years in advance.  Things such as the incubation period and the peak time of infectiousness can also have quite a big bearing on how easily a virus is driven back.  Comparisons to Spanish flu are frought with difficulty.

I wasn’t making a direct comparison. The poster I was replying to stated population immunity/reduced mortality would take decades which isn’t true or at the very least not a given. 

[Jambo-Jimbo]

53 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

for covid? 

 

16 minutes ago, Adam_the_legend said:

Even pre vaccine the mortality rate for covid was tiny compared to your 50-60% figure. Also, despite Spanish Flu killing huge numbers of people the pandemic lasted 2 years before the virus became endemic and much milder. Facts are important. 

 

Who said anything that those figures were for covid, read the post again, in fact I'll save you the trouble and I'll quote the relavant piece.

 

"then we'd just have to do what our ancestors had to do and live with 50%-60%+ mortality rates"

Ancestors being the key word here, and things like the plague killed as much as 50%+ of the European population at the time, so yes facts are important.

[Victorian]

3 minutes ago, Adam_the_legend said:

I wasn’t making a direct comparison. The poster I was replying to stated population immunity/reduced mortality would take decades which isn’t true or at the very least not a given. 

 

But then referenced Spanish flu as a short lived pandemic.  So a comparison.  It was shorter lived than decades but that was inevitably due to some of the factors mentioned.

[Footballfirst]

29 minutes ago, Boy Daniel said:

Ministers are keeping a close eye on hospitalisation statistics in the capital, with lockdown restrictions expected to be brought down if admissions exceed 400 a day.

The figure is considered to be the breaking point of the NHS — despite daily admissions reaching 977 in January during the height of the last winter wave of the pandemic. The latest data show hospitalisations are currently just shy of the threshold, with 301 Covid patients admitted on Monday.

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10342211/Doctor-admits-number-patients-testing-positive-Covid-admission-major-problem.html

Today's ONS infection survey estimates that 1 in 20 people in London would test positive just now.

 

England as a whole is 1 in 35

Northern Ireland 1 in 40

Wales 1 in 45

Scotland 1 in 65

 

It would be great news if the claimed "threshold" wasn't exceeded, but with those infection levels it may be  difficult to avoid.

[i8hibsh]

22 minutes ago, Victorian said:

 

Never said or thought it was.  You on the other hand have consistently ridiculed others.  It's you who seems determined to appear righteous.  Every single time you come on you're hell bent on telling everyone where they're going wrong.  

 

You have no unique insight Si.  You're not even mildly interesting.  The sheer number of posters who appear to think similarly should give you a clue.  

 

 

Your side of the fence is not exactly showering the other side with respect and compliments.  Again it is the moral high ground with you.  Damn straight I am ridiculing your side but let us please get one thing straight, I am treating your side the exact same as your side is treating my side.

 

The me good, you bad attitude stinks.  Big bad me ridiculing, wtf.  It is nothing but ridicule from the 'pros'.  "Conspiracy theorists", "selfish", "misinformed", "dense", "scum" to name but a few.

 

So I ask you please to take that argument of the table - we (both sides) are both as bad!  I respect your sides right to an opinion but I have zero respect for the opinion you hold on this matter as the way I see it - it is damaging.

 

As for the last part there you go again speaking on behalf of the masses.  I know many view me as a laughing stock, etc on here, but many I dare say do find my posts interesting.  I can't stress this enough....I give zero ****s either way.

[Norm]

Day 4 of covid symptoms - the body aches are subsiding but still feel a bit sore. Some mild headaches, brain fog, slight cough and a runny nose. Definitely a lot better than day 1 and 2. That was awful. 

 

Wife now has it and is on day 2 of symptoms, feeling pretty much the same as I did. 

 

Funny enough, both of us tested negative on lateral flows on day 1 of symptoms. Something for folk to bear in mind.