Jump to content

Vaccination certificates needed at Tynecastle?


Niemi’s gloves

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Back to 2005 said:

Every few months? Is everyone getting told about side effects?  Fair enough if that is the case.

 

Just now, Ray Gin said:

 

Every few months? I've not had any boosters at all yet.

Well according to the stats you are now more likelyto have COVID than someone unvaccinated.... I hope you are not going to the games? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 4.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • JudyJudyJudy

    555

  • frankblack

    195

  • Taffin

    185

  • sadj

    182

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 minute ago, JoeBugner2 said:

 

Well according to the stats you are now more likelyto have COVID than someone unvaccinated.... I hope you are not going to the games? 

 

That would make him pretty selfish so I'm sure he won't consider it.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Boab said:

Fair enough. The point I’m making is you were under the control of the rules at the time. 
I disagree with the way they have implemented this, so I take your point in the discriminating aspect of this latest rule. How 9K people can attend a game with no checks and 10K do, doesn’t make sense to me. 
It’s these aspects which create dissent and confusion. 
Either bring it in across the board or explain the reasoning behind the levels set. 

 

Come on Boab the level had to be set somewhere. It's like saying how can 69mph be deemed safe to drive on a motorway but 71mph isn't. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Back to 2005 said:

Fair enough. There is no rational of course as with all the other nonsense they have inflicted on us.

I don’t think the reason for it is nonsense, only that the implementation is wrong. I have already stated a scenario earlier where checks are required at a certain venue, a nightclub, but not required at a pub with the exact same number of people inside. 
They have, granted, said they will “ re-tune “ things before Oct 1st, and, frankly, I think they will need to.

A lively boozer with a band on is no different to a nightclub in terms of people being a bit mental in their behaviour !

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

 

Well according to the stats you are now more likelyto have COVID than someone unvaccinated.... I hope you are not going to the games? 

 

 

I'm more likely to not get any serious effects.

Edited by Ray Gin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean Winchester
8 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

 

Well according to the stats you are now more likelyto have COVID than someone unvaccinated.... I hope you are not going to the games? 

 

Selective stats though. Lets just ignore the sample sizes :lol: 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

 

The risk we are discussing here is that after a few months the vaccinated are MORE likley to catch COVID than those not vaccinated. So that short term gain of reducing deaths (for a few months after vaccination) has a longer term negative impact on your ability to fight off a virus? Were you informed about that likelihood when you took the vaccine? 

 

This is because after the vaccine more people have relaxed and gone back to living life as normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

 

Well according to the stats you are now more likelyto have COVID than someone unvaccinated.... I hope you are not going to the games? 

 

 

According to the stats we are far more likely to not end up in hospital or worse, die than someone unvaccinated.... I hope you are not going to the games?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Awbdy Oot said:

 

Come on Boab the level had to be set somewhere. It's like saying how can 69mph be deemed safe to drive on a motorway but 71mph isn't. 

Ach, Ken, mate. I’ve kinda went off on one regarding this. Maybe it’s a question of numbers attending games in Scotland. This weekend, for example, around 100K will attend the SPL games. If the passport thingy was in place, it would affect 80K of those attending.

 

Shit, I think I’ve answered my own question ! 😂

 

Sorry, Nicola !

🥴

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Awbdy Oot said:

 

According to the stats we are far more likely to not end up in hospital or worse, die than someone unvaccinated.... I hope you are not going to the games?

So when the vaccine wanes after a few months and you end up more likely to catch COVID than those unvaccinated, at that point you still have the reduced likelihood from death? How does that work then? Surely that death protection has waned also? Or are you just hoping / guessing that is the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Awbdy Oot said:

 

According to the stats we are far more likely to not end up in hospital or worse, die than someone unvaccinated.... I hope you are not going to the games?

So it's all about you? .... as someone more likley to have covid you are happy to go and spread it to everybody else? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Dean Winchester said:

Selective stats though. Lets just ignore the sample sizes :lol: 

Selective stats, how so? the stats Im referring to are based on ALL cases between week 32 and week 35, 2021.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

So it's all about you? .... as someone more likley to have covid you are happy to go and spread it to everybody else? 

 

Happier to spread it to people who are much less likely to end up in ICU or die than you by the sounds of it.

 

Letting everyone in isn't an option so the alternative is nobody gets in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

So when the vaccine wanes after a few months and you end up more likely to catch COVID than those unvaccinated, at that point you still have the reduced likelihood from death? How does that work then? Surely that death protection has waned also? Or are you just hoping / guessing that is the case?

my question would be are those who are double vaccinated more likely to get a test if there is a slight symptom or even take regular LFTs compared to those not vaccinated? realistically what i would like to see would be the proportion of positive tests to number of tests taken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

So when the vaccine wanes after a few months and you end up more likely to catch COVID than those unvaccinated, at that point you still have the reduced likelihood from death? How does that work then? Surely that death protection has waned also? Or are you just hoping / guessing that is the case?

 

The Pfizer vaccines are still about 74% effective after 5-6 months and the AZ vaccine is still 67% effective after 4-5 months. I would say that means a reduced likelihood of death.

 

https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/covid-jab-protection-wanes-within-six-months-uk-researchers-2021-08-25/

 

I'll tell you my hope, my hope is that the current vaccines buy us enough time to develop better vaccines.

 

What's your hope?

Edited by Awbdy Oot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SuperstarSteve
9 minutes ago, Awbdy Oot said:

 

Happier to spread it to people who are much less likely to end up in ICU or die than you by the sounds of it.

 

Letting everyone in isn't an option so the alternative is nobody gets in.

The alternative is let the vaccined in and let the non vaccined provide a negative test. 
That way everyone gets in and everyone is safe. 
 

The reason given for not letting people provide a negative test is because they want push the vaccines on the younger ones. It’s ridiculous. A simple solution is there and it’s not been taken. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sarah O said:

I honestly don't understand the hoo ha.

 

Just get the passport if needed. 

 

Or accept you won't get to do certain things, or have your civil liberties impinged as some would say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

This is because after the vaccine more people have relaxed and gone back to living life as normal.

Well we dont know that, but does it really matter if it's a medical reason or a lifestyle reason? The double jabbed adults are more likely to have covid. Thats the important bit? If that is the case and the double jabbed are all happy to mix in a football stadium then whats the issue with letting the unvaccinated in? So to be clear here... based on these recent figures, a full football stadium of unvaccinated peolpe woul have much less COVID carriers than a stadium of double jabbed! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

The alternative is let the vaccined in and let the non vaccined provide a negative test. 
That way everyone gets in and everyone is safe. 
 

The reason given for not letting people provide a negative test is because they want push the vaccines on the younger ones. It’s ridiculous. A simple solution is there and it’s not been taken. 

 

Safe? Crowded places are not deemed to be safe. Anyone there unvaccinated is at a much higher risk of getting seriously ill if they catch the virus than someone vaccinated. We've already established that some double vaccinated people in the crowd will be carrying the virus so the only sensible option is to not allow anyone in who isn't vaccinated. It won't reduce the risk to zero but it will greatly reduce it.

Younger ones maybe getting vaccinated as a result of this decision is an added bonus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JoeBugner2 said:

Well we dont know that, but does it really matter if it's a medical reason or a lifestyle reason? The double jabbed adults are more likely to have covid. Thats the important bit? If that is the case and the double jabbed are all happy to mix in a football stadium then whats the issue with letting the unvaccinated in? So to be clear here... based on these recent figures, a full football stadium of unvaccinated peolpe woul have much less COVID carriers than a stadium of double jabbed! 

 

Jesus!!  But they would be at far greater risk of ending up in ICU or dying.

 

Why can't you comprehend this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Awbdy Oot said:

 

Happier to spread it to people who are much less likely to end up in ICU or die than you by the sounds of it.

 

Letting everyone in isn't an option so the alternative is nobody gets in.

another (and much more logical) alternative is that if you are scared of catching COVID, dont go to a football match! That is how it always has been and always should be IMHO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Awbdy Oot said:

 

Jesus!!  But they would be at far greater risk of ending up in ICU or dying.

 

Why can't you comprehend this?

If someone hasnt taken the vaccine that is their own decision to make. WTF are you to tell someone they cant do something in case it is too risky for them?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Sarah O said:

I honestly don't understand the hoo ha.

 

Just get the passport if needed. 

This

 

some weirdos seem to think getting a vaccine goes against their - so called - human rights 😂 they’re just acting like twits 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mikey1874 said:

 

It is still the case that the vaccine does reduce the spread. 

 

So you are looking at overall numbers. It's now being said 12-15 getting the vaccine will be the tipping point to help get hospitals back to normal. 

Oh they will come for the 5-12 years age bracket next . Mark my words 

59 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

 

Well according to the stats you are now more likelyto have COVID than someone unvaccinated.... I hope you are not going to the games? 

 

Good point 

53 minutes ago, Boab said:

I don’t think the reason for it is nonsense, only that the implementation is wrong. I have already stated a scenario earlier where checks are required at a certain venue, a nightclub, but not required at a pub with the exact same number of people inside. 
They have, granted, said they will “ re-tune “ things before Oct 1st, and, frankly, I think they will need to.

A lively boozer with a band on is no different to a nightclub in terms of people being a bit mental in their behaviour !

 

 

Yes this is the slippery slope this scum Govt will do . Nightclubs Will be defined as places which are opened till 12 or sucj so effectively making pubs passport controlled . 

38 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

So it's all about you? .... as someone more likley to have covid you are happy to go and spread it to everybody else? 

👍

13 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

The alternative is let the vaccined in and let the non vaccined provide a negative test. 
That way everyone gets in and everyone is safe. 
 

The reason given for not letting people provide a negative test is because they want push the vaccines on the younger ones. It’s ridiculous. A simple solution is there and it’s not been taken. 

Yes that’s the most logical answer 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SuperstarSteve
12 minutes ago, Awbdy Oot said:

 

Safe? Crowded places are not deemed to be safe. Anyone there unvaccinated is at a much higher risk of getting seriously ill if they catch the virus than someone vaccinated. We've already established that some double vaccinated people in the crowd will be carrying the virus so the only sensible option is to not allow anyone in who isn't vaccinated. It won't reduce the risk to zero but it will greatly reduce it.

Younger ones maybe getting vaccinated as a result of this decision is an added bonus.

Once a negative test is provided you are not a risk to anybody else. That alone should be enough to attend. 
 

They would be attending at their own risk and natural immunity for many of the the unvaccinated will stop them going into hospital or getting seriously ill. 
 

Personally that is the best option all round and I hope to see it in place once they reach whatever number of vaccines they are needing. At the moment they still want an uptake which is fair enough but it would be criminal to have no negative test option permanently. 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean Winchester
39 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

Selective stats, how so? the stats Im referring to are based on ALL cases between week 32 and week 35, 2021.  

Yes the data has been plucked from one column. But the number of vaccinated people vs unvaccinated people matters within an age group (especially the older ranges where the number of unvaccinated becomes a very small minority) otherwise a sample size of only 500 unvaccinated people can skew the totals for that column.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeBugner2 said:

So when the vaccine wanes after a few months and you end up more likely to catch COVID than those unvaccinated, at that point you still have the reduced likelihood from death? How does that work then? Surely that death protection has waned also? Or are you just hoping / guessing that is the case?

 

The other day you were convinced that Covid was a plan hatched by the CCP and Claus Schwab to take over the world.

Now you're all excited because one set of figures suggest the vaccine might not be as effective against transmission as previously thought.

 

If the very future of the world hangs in the balance, why are you getting so worked up about the minutiae of the vaccine?

 

 

Edited by Beni
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

Well we dont know that, but does it really matter if it's a medical reason or a lifestyle reason? The double jabbed adults are more likely to have covid. Thats the important bit? If that is the case and the double jabbed are all happy to mix in a football stadium then whats the issue with letting the unvaccinated in? So to be clear here... based on these recent figures, a full football stadium of unvaccinated peolpe woul have much less COVID carriers than a stadium of double jabbed! 

 

The issue is the unvaccinated ending up in hospital.

 

That NHS backlog isn't going to get better any time soon when there are lots of covid patients using up resources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dean Winchester said:

Yes the data has been plucked from one column. But the number of vaccinated people vs unvaccinated people matters within an age group (especially the older ranges where the number of unvaccinated becomes a very small minority) otherwise a sample size of only 500 unvaccinated people can skew the totals for that column.

 

The irony is the people who've been decrying the accuracy of PCR tests for 18 months are suddenly all over them like a tramp on chips the first time they appear to show something they like.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SuperstarSteve said:

Once a negative test is provided you are not a risk to anybody else. That alone should be enough to attend. 
 

 

 

For the brief moment after taking the test, as long as you're not in contact with anyone after taking it.

 

You can test negative and then catch covid 10 mins later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trouble is now everyone thinks they are experts and scientific fonts of knowledge. Even scientists can't agree so I take it they are all arseholes.

 

 

I have my life saving piece of paper but couldn't give a shit if others don't fancy it. If I was that scared I wouldn't be attending mass gatherings. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

The issue is the unvaccinated ending up in hospital.

 

That NHS backlog isn't going to get better any time soon when there are lots of covid patients using up resources.

But will they end up in hospital? According to the stats most of the unvaccinated are the youth who are able to shake of the virus without too much trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, GBJambo said:

But will they end up in hospital? According to the stats most of the unvaccinated are the youth who are able to shake of the virus without too much trouble.

 

Only a small number of them, but significant enough to pose a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SuperstarSteve
1 minute ago, Ray Gin said:

 

For the brief moment after taking the test, as long as you're not in contact with anyone after taking it.

 

You can test negative and then catch covid 10 mins later.

Fair point. Take the test before entering the stadium. Of course someone with the vaccine can pass it on to you as they might have covid but that would be at their own risk.   As long as negative on entry I don’t see the issue.

 

Hopefully we can then reach a point where tests and passports are no longer required. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JoeBugner2 said:

so the school bully demands the victim's lunch money or he will beat him up... the victim has a choice so that is acceptable?

 

 

You’ll need to explain that analogy for me. I’m not seeing connection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Dean Winchester said:

Yes the data has been plucked from one column. But the number of vaccinated people vs unvaccinated people matters within an age group (especially the older ranges where the number of unvaccinated becomes a very small minority) otherwise a sample size of only 500 unvaccinated people can skew the totals for that column.

I  can't tell if you are joking or not? Of course Ive "plucked" figures from the last 2 columns as they are the important ones! It's like saying ive "plucked" the points column from the league table when we are talking about league positions!   I assume you don’t know how to interpret rates per 100,000? You can google that mate, its not complicated. There are no sample sizes either, this is ALL the cases.

Edited by JoeBugner2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

another (and much more logical) alternative is that if you are scared of catching COVID, dont go to a football match! That is how it always has been and always should be IMHO. 

 

Anyone who is scared probably won't go whether they are allowed to or not, that's not even relevant to the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

If someone hasnt taken the vaccine that is their own decision to make. WTF are you to tell someone they cant do something in case it is too risky for them?  

 

It's not me that's telling them FFS.  It's the government that is telling them, the sad thing is that you probably haven't got a bloody clue why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ray Gin said:

 

For the brief moment after taking the test, as long as you're not in contact with anyone after taking it.

 

You can test negative and then catch covid 10 mins later.

And a vaccinated person going to the pub can get it then walk in no problems to the stadium 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not sure we will all need boosters at the rate we are going, cases are high so vaccinated (an non vaccinated) folk are coming up against the virus quite a bit and dealing with it, a sort of natural booster to your immune memory.

 

This is how we live with other viruses, from an early age we are exposed and continue to be exposed throughout life, which gives a little reminder to our immune system when it has started to wane a bit.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

And a vaccinated person going to the pub can get it then walk in no problems to the stadium 

 

The good news is there won't be many unvaccinated in the stadium to pass it on to and clogging up the hospital wards, icu's and morgues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dean Winchester
10 minutes ago, JoeBugner2 said:

I  can't tell if you are joking or not? Of course Ive "plucked" figures from the last 2 columns as they are the important ones! It's like saying ive "plucked" the points column from the league table when we are talking about league positions!   I assume you don’t know how to interpret rates per 100,000? You can google that mate, its not complicated. There are no sample sizes either, this is ALL the cases.

:lol: You're clueless. 11k for vaccinated vs 545 for unvaccinated means there is a massive difference in the rates per 100,000 when cases go up or down by just 1 in the unvaccinated column.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Awbdy Oot said:

 

The good news is there won't be many unvaccinated in the stadium to pass it on to and clogging up the hospital wards, icu's and morgues.

I doubt the morgues are full 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...