Vaccination certificates needed at Tynecastle?

[Taffin]

20 minutes ago, Nunya Business said:

 

Surely that isn't a genuine question.

 

Of course it is. How is a vaccine passport protecting the unvaccinated? 

 

They'll be in as close proximity to the same number of people going on a train, a bus, the tube, their office, in a restaurant or a pub etc. You're not at risk from everyone in the stadium, or the club etc. So it's not removing them from risky situations (it is potentially reducing them slightly). Even reducing it though, the majority of younger people (who make up most of the unvaccinated) are still not at a major risk (it was mentioned above a vaccinated old person has the same risk as a non-vaccinated middle aged person) so if it's about risk to the person themselves it would be no riskier to let an unvaccinated 25 year old in than it is to let a vaccinated 80 year old in. It's about stopping the vaccinated 80 year old or anyone else vaccinated in the ground being infected by the increased likelihood (in theory) of a non-vaccinated person spreading it.

[Dennis Denuto]

1 minute ago, luckydug said:

You're not debating. 

You are bullying imo. 

I agree, I've even seen the 'franky' chat from him on the terrace, not sure why he is allowed to get away with it.

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

The theory is to prevent the unvaccinated from attending events/areas where the government consider they are at most risk of catching Covid. This policy is in place to try and reduce serious illness from covid to a level where it will not impact on other health services.

 

It is not really that complicated.

 

As pointed out above a vaccinated 80 year old has the same personal risk as an unvaccinated 40 year old...so that doesn't tally. Their risk is the same. The majority of the unvaccinated are younger people, so you'd actually reduce the risk of health services being overwhelmed if you said under 30s only, vaccinated or not. It isn't about that though, it's about protecting the vaccinated who remain at risk and those who cannot be vaccinated.

 

They also don't stop people attending games or clubs in England, or going to the pub, or a restaurant or to work in a vaccine secured venue. They don't prevent you taking a coach trip, or a tube journey. 

 

I'd love to see the data that shows an outdoor all seater football stadium is higher risk that a packed tube or heaving pub.

Edited October 18, 2021 by Taffin

[Dennis Denuto]

4 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

As pointed out above a vaccinated 80 year old has the same personal risk as an unvaccinated 40 year old...so that doesn't tally. Their risk is the same. The majority of the unvaccinated are younger people, so you'd actually reduce the risk of health services being overwhelmed if you said under 30s only, vaccinated or not. It isn't about that though, it's about protecting the vaccinated who remain at risk and those who cannot be vaccinated.

I disagree, but I'm not certain I agree with the policy as it is either.

 

If it was as you say then a negative test would be a better solution.

[Taffin]

Just now, Dennis Denuto said:

I disagree, but I'm not certain I agree with the policy as it is either.

 

If it was as you say then a negative test would be a better solution.

 

I certainly agree on the negative test element and happy to disagree on the target of whom vaccine passports are designed to protect 👍👍

[The Hogfather]

14 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Of course it is. How is a vaccine passport protecting the unvaccinated? 

 

They'll be in as close proximity to the same number of people going on a train, a bus, the tube, their office, in a restaurant or a pub etc. You're not at risk from everyone in the stadium, or the club etc. So it's not removing them from risky situations (it is potentially reducing them slightly). Even reducing it though, the majority of younger people (who make up most of the unvaccinated) are still not at a major risk (it was mentioned above a vaccinated old person has the same risk as a non-vaccinated middle aged person) so if it's about risk to the person themselves it would be no riskier to let an unvaccinated 25 year old in than it is to let a vaccinated 80 year old in. It's about stopping the vaccinated 80 year old or anyone else vaccinated in the ground being infected by the increased likelihood (in theory) of a non-vaccinated person spreading it.

 

You're removing them from a risky situation. The expectation is that people are wearing masks when they get on a train/bus, go to a pub/restaurant or the office. This expectation has clearly not transferred to sitting in an open air stadium. So there is a quantifiable difference.

 

The whole mantra around this pandemic has been to protect the NHS. So by limiting unvaccinated peoples access to these riskier situations is also designed to reduce the number of hospital admissions. Whether you agree with the measure or not, asking why it's designed to protect the unvaccinated rather than the vaccinated is a tad naive.

[frankblack]

28 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Sorry, is that your explanation of how vaccine passports protect the unvaccinated? Or just a general statement?

 

 

 

It is quite clearly to protect the unvaccinated from getting seriously ill and clogging up the NHS at a busy time over winter.  Its a personal choice to opt in or out of mass gatherings.

[frankblack]

5 minutes ago, Nunya Business said:

 

You're removing them from a risky situation. The expectation is that people are wearing masks when they get on a train/bus, go to a pub/restaurant or the office. This expectation has clearly not transferred to sitting in an open air stadium. So there is a quantifiable difference.

 

The whole mantra around this pandemic has been to protect the NHS. So by limiting unvaccinated peoples access to these riskier situations is also designed to reduce the number of hospital admissions. Whether you agree with the measure or not, asking why it's designed to protect the unvaccinated rather than the vaccinated is a tad naive.

 

[Taffin]

2 minutes ago, Nunya Business said:

 

You're removing them from a risky situation.

 

 

Are you though? Or are you moving them to another one, such as the pub, or a restaurant.

 

Have you actually got any data to show an outdoor all seater event is a risky situation full stop, never mind riskier than some that the passport doesn't apply to? 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Nunya Business said:

 

The expectation is that people are wearing masks when they get on a train/bus, go to a pub/restaurant or the office. This expectation has clearly not transferred to sitting in an open air stadium. So there is a quantifiable difference.

 

The whole mantra around this pandemic has been to protect the NHS. So by limiting unvaccinated peoples access to these riskier situations is also designed to reduce the number of hospital admissions. 

 

Except their risk isn't any higher than a number of the vaccinated...given the majority of the unvaccinated are young. An unvaccinated 25 year old is no more likely to be hospitalised than a vaccinated 80 year old...yet one can attend and one cannot. The 25 year old is of course more of a risk to the 80 year than vice versa...

 

2 minutes ago, Nunya Business said:

 

Whether you agree with the measure or not, asking why it's designed to protect the unvaccinated rather than the vaccinated is a tad naive.

 

I don't agree. I think it's naive to think it's designed to protect the unvaccinated. It's there to protect those who are vaccinated but remain vulnerable and those who cannot be vaccinated.

 

I'm not passing on any opinion of whether it's a good or bad idea...I just done believe the targeted beneficiaries are the unvaccinated.

[Taffin]

4 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

It is quite clearly to protect the unvaccinated from getting seriously ill and clogging up the NHS at a busy time over winter.  Its a personal choice to opt in or out of mass gatherings.

 

Except there's lots of equally as risky, if not more risky things they can still do.

 

And for a lot of them going to the football unvaccinated would be less risky than a vulnerable or elderly vaccinated person so how is it stopping the NHS getting clogged up? At least any more than usual over the winter.

 

I'm firmly in the camp it's to stop them making those who remain vulnerable despite vaccination becoming ill. Even before the vaccine existed the majority of those who now remain unvaccinated where barely registering on the hospitalisations so I'm not sure why they'd now suddenly take up loads of resources.

[The Hogfather]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Are you though? Or are you moving them to another one, such as the pub, or a restaurant.

 

Have you actually got any data to show an outdoor all seater event is a risky situation full stop, never mind riskier than some that the passport doesn't apply to? 

 

 

 

Except their risk isn't any higher than a number of the vaccinated...given the majority of the unvaccinated are young. An unvaccinated 25 year old is no more likely to be hospitalised than a vaccinated 80 year old...yet one can attend and one cannot. The 25 year old is of course more of a risk to the 80 year than vice versa...

 

 

I don't agree. I think it's naive to think it's designed to protect the unvaccinated. It's there to protect those who are vaccinated but remain vulnerable and those who cannot be vaccinated.

 

I'm not passing on any opinion of whether it's a good or bad idea...I just done believe the targeted beneficiaries are the unvaccinated.

 

Nope, but I'm not paid to collate data to suggest where unvaccinated people are most at risk and, I'd hazard a guess, neither are you. What about vaccinated 25 year olds? 30? 35? Are they more likely to be admitted to hospital with covid symptoms than an unvaccinated 25 year old? Yes.

 

Believe what you want mate. That's your prerogative. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 hour ago, Nucky Thompson said:

You don't really think that's true, do you 

 

 

He does ! 

1 hour ago, Dennis Denuto said:

Why is BhB constant bullying/harassing of frankbalck allowed to continue on this thread? It is astonishing that this is considered an acceptable level of debate.

 

That aside BhB clearly doesn't realise that vaccine passports are in place to protect the unvaccinated rather than to protect the vaccinated. 

Oh no the dreaded “ B” word the taboo word on JKB is rearing it’s ugly head. Frank Black can handle himself . He gives as much as he gets . He’s certainly no victim 

1 hour ago, Taffin said:

 

It's not the passport protecting them, it's the vaccine itself. The vaccine passport inherently protects the vaccinated...as it prevents the unvaccinated being at certain gatherings. Given they're not there, how is it protecting them?

It isn’t 

53 minutes ago, **** the SPFL said:

The only problem is I could be in a pub or restaurant no requirement for passport and could more readily pass it onto an unvaccinated person than I would at a football match out in the open just a thought 

Don’t . You’ll be recommending the extension of it next to these venues . 

37 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Sorry, is that your explanation of how vaccine passports protect the unvaccinated? Or just a general statement?

 

 

😎

34 minutes ago, been here before said:

 

Franky chopds definition of "debating"...

 

'Anti vaxxerz'

Gif/meme

'Time for the stick'

Gif/meme

'Anti vaxxerz'

Hide behind other posters

Gif/meme

'Anti vaxxer'

Avoid any questions

Gif/meme

'Anti vaxxer'

 

 

Good to see you back on the thread Mrs black. Can I just say your son is hilarious.

 

 

 

😂😂

32 minutes ago, luckydug said:

You're not debating. 

You are bullying imo. 

😂😂😂

28 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

As pointed out above a vaccinated 80 year old has the same personal risk as an unvaccinated 40 year old...so that doesn't tally. Their risk is the same. The majority of the unvaccinated are younger people, so you'd actually reduce the risk of health services being overwhelmed if you said under 30s only, vaccinated or not. It isn't about that though, it's about protecting the vaccinated who remain at risk and those who cannot be vaccinated.

 

They also don't stop people attending games or clubs in England, or going to the pub, or a restaurant or to work in a vaccine secured venue. They don't prevent you taking a coach trip, or a tube journey. 

 

I'd love to see the data that shows an outdoor all seater football stadium is higher risk that a packed tube or heaving pub.

Correct 

19 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

I certainly agree on the negative test element and happy to disagree on the target of whom vaccine passports are designed to protect 👍👍

👍👍

[Dennis Denuto]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

 

I'm not passing on any opinion of whether it's a good or bad idea...I just done believe the targeted beneficiaries are the unvaccinated.

The targeted beneficiaries are the whole public, it is designed to keep hospital numbers down, now you could make loads of arguments about public health policy that could reduce hospital admissions by improving the nations health, but this is the short term pandemic one they have gone with.

[Taffin]

Anyway, we've gone through the looking glass here. Go back 30 off pages and you'll have the same people crying that the unvaccinated should be banned because they're a risk to others and they don't want them there...now it's they're a risk to themselves. There's no consistent or coherent narrative to the arguments...much like the government enforcing them.

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, Nunya Business said:

 

Nope, but I'm not paid to collate data to suggest where unvaccinated people are most at risk and, I'd hazard a guess, neither are you. What about vaccinated 25 year olds? 30? 35? Are they more likely to be admitted to hospital with covid symptoms than an unvaccinated 25 year old? Yes. 

 

Again, data for that please. 

 

1 minute ago, Nunya Business said:

 

Believe what you want mate. That's your prerogative. 

 

I was and I will thanks. You are too, I've been quite clear my opinion is just that and stated why I think it. You and others have declared things definitively and then do have anything to back it up.

 

Similar to earlier on this thread. Bun fight goes off, I provided data and asked some questions that cast doubt on the effect of masks and lo and behold stoney silence.

[Dennis Denuto]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

Anyway, we've gone through the looking glass here. Go back 30 off pages and you'll have the same people crying that the unvaccinated should be banned because they're a risk to others and they don't want them there...now it's they're a risk to themselves. There's no consistent or coherent narrative to the arguments...much like the government enforcing them.

Except for me, i wasn't posting then. I don't believe an unvaccinated person is a bigger danger to a vaccinated person.

[frankblack]

 

8 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Except there's lots of equally as risky, if not more risky things they can still do.

 

And for a lot of them going to the football unvaccinated would be less risky than a vulnerable or elderly vaccinated person so how is it stopping the NHS getting clogged up? At least any more than usual over the winter.

 

You are guessing, and don't have the data to back up your assertions.

 

Quote

I'm firmly in the camp it's to stop them making those who remain vulnerable despite vaccination becoming ill. Even before the vaccine existed the majority of those who now remain unvaccinated where barely registering on the hospitalisations so I'm not sure why they'd now suddenly take up loads of resources.

 

Again, do you have data to prove that?  What percentage of hospitalisations are unvaccinated?

 

Are you aware of the stresses the NHS gets under with seasonal flu and winter illnesses?  Why don't you think the government is correct to prevent lockdowns and shutdowns of mass gatherings - that is the alternative.

Edited October 18, 2021 by frankblack

[JudyJudyJudy]

3 minutes ago, Taffin said:

Anyway, we've gone through the looking glass here. Go back 30 off pages and you'll have the same people crying that the unvaccinated should be banned because they're a risk to others and they don't want them there...now it's they're a risk to themselves. There's no consistent or coherent narrative to the arguments...much like the government enforcing them.

Well Said . That’s it in a nutshell . All over the place with their VP arguments . Only consistency seems to be their relish that fellow supporters won’t be allowed into their stadia. Shameful really . 

[Taffin]

4 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

The targeted beneficiaries are the whole public, it is designed to keep hospital numbers down, now you could make loads of arguments about public health policy that could reduce hospital admissions by improving the nations health, but this is the short term pandemic one they have gone with.

 

 

So you agree they aren't designed to protect the unvaccinated rather than the vaccinated...as was claimed which I was disputing. 

 

I reckon we're actually not in disagreement here.

 

1 minute ago, Dennis Denuto said:

Except for me, i wasn't posting then. I don't believe an unvaccinated person is a bigger danger to a vaccinated person.

 

Yeh that's fair 👍

[frankblack]

Just now, JamesM48 said:

Well Said . That’s it in a nutshell . All over the place with their VP arguments . Only consistency seems to be their relish that fellow supporters won’t be allowed into their stadia. Shameful really . 

 

No, the alternative is that gigs will stop again and football will go back to closed doors.  The government decided to go with the popular approach to save jobs, protect the NHS, and keep entertainment open, and those that want to exclude themselves can easily fix it if they want to.

[Dennis Denuto]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

Again, data for that please. 

 

 

I was and I will thanks. You are too, I've been quite clear my opinion is just that and stated why I think it. You and others have declared things definitively and then do have anything to back it up.

 

Similar to earlier on this thread. Bun fight goes off, I provided data and asked some questions that cast doubt on the effect of masks and lo and behold stoney silence.

I don't think data is required here, it is the Scottish Government's belief that Night Clubs and mass events are high risk, this is evident if you look at the opening up sequence. Now if you wanted to argue the policy was correct you would need data that isn't available, therefor a better policy would be Level 4 restrictions for all unvaccinated.

 

Like you I am perfectly comfortable that we disagree, the why isn't really that big an issue, I just brought it up as a counter point to the (IMHO) bullying that was going on.

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Again, data for that please. 

 

 

I was and I will thanks. You are too, I've been quite clear my opinion is just that and stated why I think it. You and others have declared things definitively and then do have anything to back it up.

 

Similar to earlier on this thread. Bun fight goes off, I provided data and asked some questions that cast doubt on the effect of masks and lo and behold stoney silence.

It’s the classic “ them and us “ “ divide and conquer “ vaccinated v unvaccinated . The SG led by Nippoloeon thriving with this divide . 

[JudyJudyJudy]

5 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

 

You are guessing, and don't have the data to back up your assertions.

 

 

Again, do you have data to prove that?  What percentage of hospitalisations are unvaccinated?

 

Are you aware of the stresses the NHS gets under with seasonal flu and winter illnesses?  Why don't you think the government is correct to prevent lockdowns and shutdowns of mass gatherings - that is the alternative.

 

I'd imagine

Hint ! Check the date 

[frankblack]

Just now, JamesM48 said:

It’s the classic “ them and us “ “ divide and conquer “ vaccinated v unvaccinated . The SG led by Nippoloeon thriving with this divide . 

 

No, its protect the NHS or start shutting down the economy again and keep everyone indoors.

[Dennis Denuto]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

 

So you agree they aren't designed to protect the unvaccinated rather than the vaccinated...as was claimed which I was disputing. 

 

I reckon we're actually not in disagreement here.

 

 

Yeh that's fair 👍

I still like the narrative that we are doing it to protect them from themselves.............

[JudyJudyJudy]

1 minute ago, Dennis Denuto said:

I don't think data is required here, it is the Scottish Government's belief that Night Clubs and mass events are high risk, this is evident if you look at the opening up sequence. Now if you wanted to argue the policy was correct you would need data that isn't available, therefor a better policy would be Level 4 restrictions for all unvaccinated.

 

Like you I am perfectly comfortable that we disagree, the why isn't really that big an issue, I just brought it up as a counter point to the (IMHO) bullying that was going on.

There has never been any significant data regarding hospitality indoors being a high risk ! Never . It’s an easy target picked on by the bullies in Govt . I’ll use the “ B” word as that’s what they are . 

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, JamesM48 said:

Hint ! Check the date 

 

So you agree that adding Covid to Winter flu is a perfect storm for the NHS?

[JudyJudyJudy]

2 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

No, its protect the NHS or start shutting down the economy again and keep everyone indoors.

And how’s England geting on sans masks ? Vp ? 

[Dennis Denuto]

1 minute ago, JamesM48 said:

There has never been any significant data regarding hospitality indoors being a high risk ! Never . It’s an easy target picked on by the bullies in Govt . I’ll use the “ B” word as that’s what they are . 

I'm sorry James, but I do not feel that engaging with you in debate a worthwhile way for me to spend my time.

[frankblack]

Just now, JamesM48 said:

And how’s England geting on sans masks ? Vp ? 

 

Increasing infection rates as we head into winter.  Next few months will be telling.

[Taffin]

4 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

 

You are guessing, and don't have the data to back up your assertions.

 

Of course I'm guessing, as are you and everyone else making definitive statements. We've been told all along hospitality is the most dangerous and outdoors is much safer. Now it's dangerous outdoors and safe enough indoors before a certain time and then dangerous again. 

 

4 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Again, do you have data to prove that?  What percentage of hospitalisations are unvaccinated? 

 

Question one - see graph 1; The majority of unvaccinated are under 40.

See graph 2; Nowhere near enough under 40s alone are hospitalised to create a strain.

 

Question 2 - It's nothing to do with my answer, but as a percentage I don't think it's the answer you're looking for. More vaccinated will be hospitalised than non-vaccinated...but that is simply as there are a lot more vaccinated people, especially in more vulnerable age groups.

 

 

4 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

Are you aware of the stresses the NHS gets under with seasonal flu and winter illnesses?  Why don't you think the government is correct to prevent lockdowns and shutdowns of mass gatherings - that is the alternative.

 

I'd imagine

 

There's another alternative...being carried out where I live where we've got better hospitalisations and deaths per capita than Scotland, hint it's just a bit South.

 

[luckydug]

4 minutes ago, JamesM48 said:

And how’s England geting on sans masks ? Vp ? 

The English government is failing to protect the public. 

They have encouraged the idea of 'freedom' people down there are showing covid no respect at all. 

No masks or social distancing of any kind on buses and trains. 

They think its all over. 

[Taffin]

2 minutes ago, luckydug said:

The English government is failing to protect the public. 

They have encouraged the idea of 'freedom' people down there are showing covid no respect at all. 

No masks or social distancing of any kind on buses and trains. 

They think its all over. 

 

Interesting take on it luckydug.

 

Let me post this again. Look at them, killing us with Covid... at a rate less than Scotland, Wales and NI were they all still have restrictions? 

Edited October 18, 2021 by Taffin

[frankblack]

2 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Of course I'm guessing, as are you and everyone else making definitive statements. We've been told all along hospitality is the most dangerous and outdoors is much safer. Now it's dangerous outdoors and safe enough indoors before a certain time and then dangerous again. 

 

 

Question one - see graph 1; The majority of unvaccinated are under 40.

See graph 2; Nowhere near enough under 40s alone are hospitalised to create a strain.

 

Question 2 - It's nothing to do with my answer, but as a percentage I don't think it's the answer you're looking for. More vaccinated will be hospitalised than non-vaccinated...but that is simply as there are a lot more vaccinated people, especially in more vulnerable age groups.

 

 

 

There's another alternative...being carried out where I live where we've got better hospitalisations and deaths per capita than Scotland, hint it's just a bit South.

 

 

The data you are looking for will be on the Scottish Government website or NHS if you want it.

 

Your whole line of questioning is loaded and missing the point.  Do you or do you not think the NHS needs to be protected over the winter from a covid spike mixed with seasonal respiratory illnesses?

 

Perhaps you missed the news about the Army being considered to support ambulances?

[Beni]

19 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

Except for me, i wasn't posting then. I don't believe an unvaccinated person is a bigger danger to a vaccinated person.

 

I posted the below study on the main Covid thread the other day. It's a pre-print so not yet peer reviewed, but it's a recent large scale study and concludes that all other things being equal, a fully vaccinated person is 63% less likely to become inflected than an unvaccinated person.

 

https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/91999

[XB52]

1 hour ago, Taffin said:

 

Sorry, is that your explanation of how vaccine passports protect the unvaccinated? Or just a general statement?

 

 

One of the main reasons for the passport was to encourage the unvaccinated younger adults to get the jags. This seems to have persuaded many to be vaccinated so it's doing the job. 

[JudyJudyJudy]

14 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

I'm sorry James, but I do not feel that engaging with you in debate a worthwhile way for me to spend my time.

 

[Taffin]

Just now, frankblack said:

 

The data you are looking for will be on the Scottish Government website or NHS if you want it.

 

I'm yet to find it, but I'll take your word for it.

 

Just now, frankblack said:

Your whole line of questioning is loaded and missing the point.  Do you or do you not think the NHS needs to be protected over the winter from a covid spike mixed with seasonal respiratory illnesses? 

 

My line of questioning? I didn't ask a question. I said vaccine passports are not intended to protect the unvaccinated rather than the vaccinated. 

 

No, I don't think it need protected from a Covid spike over winter as demonstrated by the data in England. However, again, it's a totally different question you're now asking and I note that once again when someone does actually go and get you data you just gloss over it as if it doesn't exist. 

 

Just now, frankblack said:

 

Perhaps you missed the news about the Army being considered to support ambulances?

 

 

[The Hogfather]

28 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Again, data for that please. 

 

31 minutes ago, Nunya Business said:

 

Nope, but I'm not paid to collate data to suggest where unvaccinated people are most at risk  

I can do selective post editing too. 

[Taffin]

3 minutes ago, XB52 said:

One of the main reasons for the passport was to encourage the unvaccinated younger adults to get the jags. This seems to have persuaded many to be vaccinated so it's doing the job. 

 

Agree and I think it's an effective tool for that. The benefit of that those younger adults being vaccinated is less about their outcome though, and more about them spreading it to others, imo.

[JudyJudyJudy]

9 minutes ago, luckydug said:

The English government is failing to protect the public. 

They have encouraged the idea of 'freedom' people down there are showing covid no respect at all. 

No masks or social distancing of any kind on buses and trains. 

They think its all over. 

Wow ! 

5 minutes ago, frankblack said:

 

The data you are looking for will be on the Scottish Government website or NHS if you want it.

 

Your whole line of questioning is loaded and missing the point.  Do you or do you not think the NHS needs to be protected over the winter from a covid spike mixed with seasonal respiratory illnesses?

 

Perhaps you missed the news about the Army being considered to support ambulances?

 

3 minutes ago, XB52 said:

One of the main reasons for the passport was to encourage the unvaccinated younger adults to get the jags. This seems to have persuaded many to be vaccinated so it's doing the job. 

“ encourage “ ? Don’t you mean blackmail , threaten and coercion ? 

[XB52]

18 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

I'm sorry James, but I do not feel that engaging with you in debate a worthwhile way for me to spend my time.

10 posts and you've seen the light already, well done. 

[Dennis Denuto]

4 minutes ago, Beni said:

 

I posted the below study on the main Covid thread the other day. It's a pre-print so not yet peer reviewed, but it's a recent large scale study and concludes that all other things being equal, a fully vaccinated person is 63% less likely to become inflected than an unvaccinated person.

 

https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/91999

I'll try and read that later, does that mean that a vaccinated person is less likely to infect me than an unvaccinated person? 

 

I get that we would all be better off if everyone got vaccinated, so I just wish everyone would do it.

[XB52]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

Agree and I think it's an effective tool for that. The benefit of that those younger adults being vaccinated is less about their outcome though, and more about them spreading it to others, imo.

Agree

[frankblack]

1 minute ago, Taffin said:

 

I'm yet to find it, but I'll take your word for it.

 

 

My line of questioning? I didn't ask a question. I said vaccine passports are not intended to protect the unvaccinated rather than the vaccinated. 

 

No, I don't think it need protected from a Covid spike over winter as demonstrated by the data in England. However, again, it's a totally different question you're now asking and I note that once again when someone does actually go and get you data you just gloss over it as if it doesn't exist. 

 

 

 

 

We aren't into the winter yet.

 

There are many ways to present statistics for both sides of the debate and your complacency over the NHS is startling, considering the warning signs as we go into Autumn.

 

This argument is all academic of course, because VPs are here and will remain over the winter.  I wouldn't be surprised if they get extended to cover hospitality if NHS figures get worse.

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, Nunya Business said:

 

I can do selective post editing too. 

 

Good for you. 

 

You stated a vaccinated 25 year old is less likely to get admitted to hospital with Covid symptoms than a non-vaccinated one. 

 

I've my doubts on that so asked for data.

 

Once again, you don't have any. You're very keen to throw out certainties based on seemingly nothing.

 

It's not a debate I'd like to have so have a good evening.

[Dennis Denuto]

4 minutes ago, Taffin said:

 

Agree and I think it's an effective tool for that. The benefit of that those younger adults being vaccinated is less about their outcome though, and more about them spreading it to others, imo.

I think there are multiple reasons why the population getting vaccinated is a good idea, I don't like the targeting of mass events or night clubs though, I would have preferred a more general restriction to persuade people to get vaccinated.

[Taffin]

1 minute ago, frankblack said:

 

We aren't into the winter yet.

 

There are many ways to present statistics for both sides of the debate and your complacency over the NHS is startling, considering the warning signs as we go into Autumn.

 

This argument is all academic of course, because VPs are here and will remain over the winter.  I wouldn't be surprised if they get extended to cover hospitality if NHS figures get worse.

 

The warning signs?

 

Your cases, hospitalisations and deaths are all on a clear downward curve...without vaccine passports precisely as we've entered autumn. The signs are the opposite of a warning really but worry away.

 

What I shared was from Traveling Tabby and were simply what the number were. No case made either way.

 

Anyway, we're now tied in knots over something very unimportant (the target of vaccine passports) because I didn't agree with another poster. So let's agree to disagree and enjoy our evenings 👍

[Beni]

3 minutes ago, Dennis Denuto said:

I'll try and read that later, does that mean that a vaccinated person is less likely to infect me than an unvaccinated person? 

 

I get that we would all be better off if everyone got vaccinated, so I just wish everyone would do it.

 

Yes, the study concluded all other things being equal (age sex etc) a vaccinated person is 63% less likely to infect you.

[Des Lynam]

14 minutes ago, XB52 said:

One of the main reasons for the passport was to encourage the unvaccinated younger adults to get the jags. This seems to have persuaded many to be vaccinated so it's doing the job. 

This is definitely the main motivation behind the vaccine passports.