Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint
 Share

Recommended Posts


3 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

Hardly shitting the bed when an epidemiologist has this warning

"This is what early exponential rises look like and we're seeing loss of control of the pandemic in many parts of Scotland, and the situation is likely much wider and other places will follow unless action is taken to actually prevent this and pre-empt this now."

I can selectively quote too. That expert also said this:-

Dr Gurdasani said it is too early to say whether it will lead to an increase in hospital admissions.

She said: “Given there’s always a lag between when infections rise and hospitalisations rise, I would have expected to see a rise in hospitalisations at this point in time so it’s hard to make inferences from that.

If you look at cases in older age groups they’re quite flat at this point in time, so we’re not really seeing infections in those groups and that might be a vaccine effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, beyond our ken said:

Hardly shitting the bed when an epidemiologist has this warning

"This is what early exponential rises look like and we're seeing loss of control of the pandemic in many parts of Scotland, and the situation is likely much wider and other places will follow unless action is taken to actually prevent this and pre-empt this now."

Epidemiologists have consistently, almost methodically gotten their modelling and predictions wildly wrong throughout this pandemic. 

That people are still taking their guesses as gospel is batshit mental. 

At this point in proceedings, it shouldn't matter a jot how many people are getting covid as the vaccines are doing almost all of the heavy lifting. 

Easy wee example... 

Last year if 100k people caught it, mostly elderly and vulnerable and 30k of them ended up in hospital and risk of dying that was clearly a bad thing. 

Now if 100k people catch it, the overwhelming majority of people who were most at risk last year won't be in that figure it as they are fully vaccinated and those that do catch it are either healthy enough to fight it, or vaccinated to a degree it reduces the disease to a mild fever. 

 

We've been conditioned the last 16 months to know that people under 40 are almost non risk. Look at the ages of most new cases.... Under 40. And very few of these people are getting seriously ill to the extent that hospital and ICU numbers continue to fall lthrough this 'out of control' event.

So who cares if it blasts through the under 40s population who we know could shake it off in a week?! I'm under 40 and I could fight it off with relative ease, that's always been the case. My biggest fear was always passing it on to someone who couldn't but that risk is now almost nil given that section of society is almost completely double jagged now. 

Edited by djchapsticks
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

Epidemiologists have consistently, almost methodically gotten their modelling and predictions wildly wrong throughout this pandemic. 

That people are still taking their guesses as gospel is batshit mental. 

At this point in proceedings, it shouldn't matter a jot how many people are getting covid as the vaccines are doing almost all of the heavy lifting. 

Easy wee example... 

Last year if 100k people caught it, mostly elderly and vulnerable and 30k of them ended up in hospital and risk of dying that was clearly a bad thing. 

Now if 100k people catch it, the overwhelming majority of people who were most at risk last year won't be in that figure it as they are fully vaccinated and those that do catch it are either healthy enough to fight it, or vaccinated to a degree it reduces the disease to a mild fever. 

 

We've been conditioned the last 16 months to know that people under 40 are almost non risk. Look at the ages of most new cases.... Under 40. And very few of these people are getting seriously ill to the extent that hospital and ICU numbers continue to fall lthrough this 'out of control' event.

So who cares if it blasts through the under 40s population who we know could shake it off in a week?! I'm under 40 and I could fight it off with relative ease, that's always been the case. My biggest fear was always passing it on to someone who couldn't but that risk is now almost nil given that section of society is almost completely double jagged now. 

Good luck with that strategy 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, djchapsticks said:

Epidemiologists have consistently, almost methodically gotten their modelling and predictions wildly wrong throughout this pandemic. 

That people are still taking their guesses as gospel is batshit mental. 

At this point in proceedings, it shouldn't matter a jot how many people are getting covid as the vaccines are doing almost all of the heavy lifting. 

Easy wee example... 

Last year if 100k people caught it, mostly elderly and vulnerable and 30k of them ended up in hospital and risk of dying that was clearly a bad thing. 

Now if 100k people catch it, the overwhelming majority of people who were most at risk last year won't be in that figure it as they are fully vaccinated and those that do catch it are either healthy enough to fight it, or vaccinated to a degree it reduces the disease to a mild fever. 

 

We've been conditioned the last 16 months to know that people under 40 are almost non risk. Look at the ages of most new cases.... Under 40. And very few of these people are getting seriously ill to the extent that hospital and ICU numbers continue to fall lthrough this 'out of control' event.

So who cares if it blasts through the under 40s population who we know could shake it off in a week?! I'm under 40 and I could fight it off with relative ease, that's always been the case. My biggest fear was always passing it on to someone who couldn't but that risk is now almost nil given that section of society is almost completely double jagged now. 

Sadly the uncertainty regarding everything to do with this pandemic is driving the decisions of government.

Unfortunately, if you give this virus the opportunity to spread throughout the population unchecked, it increases the rate of mutation. Fortunately, most mutations don't make the virus more dangerous, but why give it an increased opportunity to do so?

Quote

The more people infected with the virus, the more random mutations arise. Some of these mutations are beneficial to viral replication so they self-perpetuate,” said Thomas Rademacher, co-founder and CEO of the UK firm Emergex Vaccines. “It’s a game of chance that could be equated to rolling a die and getting a six. The more dice you roll, the higher the likelihood of getting a six.”

For now the vaccinations seem to be keeping up with the different mutations, but if history has told us anything, there will be a mutation that outfoxes the vaccines. Unfortunately, the viral spike that most vaccines currently target, is subject to greater selection pressures, causing more mutations, when the virus is allowed to spread through the population unchecked.

There is work being done to target other parts of the virus that don't mutate as quickly, but I can't find any up to date data on their development.

Can Covid-19 Vaccines Keep up with an Evolving Virus? (labiotech.eu)

I'm quite conflicted about the Glasgow situation, but having had good read of different articles on the matter, IMO giving another week or so to to suss out the latest variant is the right thing to do. Others like yourself don't and I totally get your take on the matter and also those in the hospitality sector.

From a government's pov if they do nothing and it all goes Pete Tong, then the public will criticise them. Damned if you and damned if you don't.

I see Boris is being criticised, due to his lax approach to banning travel from India, which allowed the virus to gain a quicker foothold in the UK. The BMA are also expressing real concerns regarding the latest easing of restrictions in England.

I desperately hope that this is a storm in a tea cup and that the "all clear" for a return to level 2 in the affected areas is given as soon as possible.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, FTOF said:

Sadly the uncertainty regarding everything to do with this pandemic is driving the decisions of government.

Unfortunately, if you give this virus the opportunity to spread throughout the population unchecked, it increases the rate of mutation. Fortunately, most mutations don't make the virus more dangerous, but why give it an increased opportunity to do so?

For now the vaccinations seem to be keeping up with the different mutations, but if history has told us anything, there will be a mutation that outfoxes the vaccines. Unfortunately, the viral spike that most vaccines currently target, is subject to greater selection pressures, causing more mutations, when the virus is allowed to spread through the population unchecked.

There is work being done to target other parts of the virus that don't mutate as quickly, but I can't find any up to date data on their development.

Can Covid-19 Vaccines Keep up with an Evolving Virus? (labiotech.eu)

I'm quite conflicted about the Glasgow situation, but having had good read of different articles on the matter, IMO giving another week or so to to suss out the latest variant is the right thing to do. Others like yourself don't and I totally get your take on the matter and also those in the hospitality sector.

From a government's pov if they do nothing and it all goes Pete Tong, then the public will criticise them. Damned if you and damned if you don't.

I see Boris is being criticised, due to his lax approach to banning travel from India, which allowed the virus to gain a quicker foothold in the UK. The BMA are also expressing real concerns regarding the latest easing of restrictions in England.

I desperately hope that this is a storm in a tea cup and that the "all clear" for a return to level 2 in the affected areas is given as soon as possible.

 

Been this since day one yet there's been the most distasteful comments against government/leaders throughout. 

Sure they, as their position warrants, are open to criticism and different viewpoints but some of the stuff, while not surprising, is  over the top.

I've swayed from dismissing the whole thing, early days, to being very strict on following the rules/guidelines.

While I, as many have, have seen some of these rules as absurd I/we have stuck to them.

As for Glasgow/Moray, the "numbers" are still very low and I'm unconvinced these variants that keep popping up deserve the media attention they get as it's common for most viruses to change. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A big day for many business's today, a major step towards normality.

I await the media to magnify any slight increase as they have done for the last 14-15 months.

I'm due my 2nd jag in the next 3-4  weeks, by that time I'd hope, foreign travel apart, mostly to be back to normal.

Still some nutters, had an interesting discussion with a couple of them last night on Facebook, who are still convinced the vaccine is more risky than covid. :1eye

Edited by faraway saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The MP for Bolton South is blaming the slow rollout infrastructure.

Also the fact that some people would need to get 2 or 3 buses to get to where the vaccine was getting done. 

In other word, lazy f**kers wouldn't get off their arses to get on 2 or 3 buses for something that may save their lives  :shockaroony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a bit conflicted on all of this.

I don't know why anyone would refuse a vaccine and would encourage everyone to get this when offered.

But nobody owes anyone anything. I am very much of the opinion that it's your body and your rules. You are under no obligation whatsoever to take a vaccine if you don't want one. And there's no moral issue about leaving others vulnerable as a result. That argument is just childish nonsense and sanctimonious shite

All I would ask is that that who don't want to take the vaccine stop trying to encourage others to avoid it by spreading lies and misinformation about microchips, Bill Gates, 5G or any other bat-shit crazy nonsense. I don't think that is an unreasonable request

Should we allow those people to use the NHS if they get ill? Of course we should. We have no knowledge of why these people have refused the vaccine and we are in no position to judge their actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

But nobody owes anyone anything. I am very much of the opinion that it's your body and your rules. You are under no obligation whatsoever to take a vaccine if you don't want one. And there's no moral issue about leaving others vulnerable as a result. That argument is just childish nonsense and sanctimonious shite

Total Bollocks in my opinion and you of course are entitled to yours.

We as part of a civilised society do have a moral obligation to protect ourselves and others in society. TB was eradicated in the UK due to vaccination as well as polio, you only get that eradication when  enough people in society become immune via surviving  disease or vaccination, vaccination being the obvious and more palatable method. If someone has a genuine reason not to get the vaccine and I mean medical reason not religious or stupidity reasons then fully agree they of course should not but they are the very people being protected by the rest of us taking the vaccine.

Too much bullshit is posted on social media nowadays and is too easily spread and sections of the f**kwit population seem to believe the bullshit contained therein.

If we are individuals that dont give a toss about others then you are right no moral reason and to argue against it would be sanctimonious but if we are a society then that comes or should come with obligations to the weaker in society. If you believe this is a childish nonsense then that says more about you than it does about others.

 

SS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Swiss_Saint said:

Total Bollocks in my opinion and you of course are entitled to yours.

We as part of a civilised society do have a moral obligation to protect ourselves and others in society. TB was eradicated in the UK due to vaccination as well as polio, you only get that eradication when  enough people in society become immune via surviving  disease or vaccination, vaccination being the obvious and more palatable method. If someone has a genuine reason not to get the vaccine and I mean medical reason not religious or stupidity reasons then fully agree they of course should not but they are the very people being protected by the rest of us taking the vaccine.

Too much bullshit is posted on social media nowadays and is too easily spread and sections of the f**kwit population seem to believe the bullshit contained therein.

If we are individuals that dont give a toss about others then you are right no moral reason and to argue against it would be sanctimonious but if we are a society then that comes or should come with obligations to the weaker in society. If you believe this is a childish nonsense then that says more about you than it does about others.

 

SS

Best me to it.

One thing I would add is the cost to us all in paying for these fcukwits when they end up in hospital, taking up valuable resources which, IMO, are better used for people that deserve it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Best me to it.

One thing I would add is the cost to us all in paying for these fcukwits when they end up in hospital, taking up valuable resources which, IMO, are better used for people that deserve it. 

Just send them the bill for their treatment if they are infected after refusing (on non-health grounds) to have the vaccination.  In a similar way to freedom of speech, having the right to choose does not mean you are immune from the consequences of your choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Swiss_Saint said:

Total Bollocks in my opinion and you of course are entitled to yours.

We as part of a civilised society do have a moral obligation to protect ourselves and others in society. TB was eradicated in the UK due to vaccination as well as polio, you only get that eradication when  enough people in society become immune via surviving  disease or vaccination, vaccination being the obvious and more palatable method. If someone has a genuine reason not to get the vaccine and I mean medical reason not religious or stupidity reasons then fully agree they of course should not but they are the very people being protected by the rest of us taking the vaccine.

Too much bullshit is posted on social media nowadays and is too easily spread and sections of the f**kwit population seem to believe the bullshit contained therein.

If we are individuals that dont give a toss about others then you are right no moral reason and to argue against it would be sanctimonious but if we are a society then that comes or should come with obligations to the weaker in society. If you believe this is a childish nonsense then that says more about you than it does about others.

 

SS

You're confusing "moral obligation" and "things which end up being good for society".

Those are not the same thing.

Society operates on consent, not on coercion. This isn't China.

BTW, I said nothing about not giving a toss about anyone else. Neither did I say an anything about bullshit being spread on social media.

You seem to have got a bit carried away with yourself here bud.

Instead of preaching morality and losing your rag, why not make a reasonable suggestion about how you force people to have vaccinations when they won't take one. Because unless you want to move to China, this is the reality of the situation in the UK today.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Slarti said:

Just send them the bill for their treatment if they are infected after refusing (on non-health grounds) to have the vaccination.  In a similar way to freedom of speech, having the right to choose does not mean you are immune from the consequences of your choices.

And there is some merit in this argument.

The threat of vaccine passports might be another although I would resist actually imposing them for real.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Swiss_Saint said:

Total Bollocks in my opinion and you of course are entitled to yours.

We as part of a civilised society do have a moral obligation to protect ourselves and others in society. TB was eradicated in the UK due to vaccination as well as polio, you only get that eradication when  enough people in society become immune via surviving  disease or vaccination, vaccination being the obvious and more palatable method. If someone has a genuine reason not to get the vaccine and I mean medical reason not religious or stupidity reasons then fully agree they of course should not but they are the very people being protected by the rest of us taking the vaccine.

Too much bullshit is posted on social media nowadays and is too easily spread and sections of the f**kwit population seem to believe the bullshit contained therein.

If we are individuals that dont give a toss about others then you are right no moral reason and to argue against it would be sanctimonious but if we are a society then that comes or should come with obligations to the weaker in society. If you believe this is a childish nonsense then that says more about you than it does about others.

 

SS

Oh and while I'm at it, you appear to have wrongly concluded that I think, people should avoid the vaccine.

I don't.

I think they SHOULD take it.

Because it's best for everyone.

But I'm not about to start finger-wagging and trying to force them to do anything.

Neither am I going to start yelling insults via some form of "moral compass".

That is not how you persuade anyone to do anything.

Persuasion is absolutely the only way and you don't persuade anyone to do anything by telling them they are acting in an immoral, selfish manner.

Calm doon FFS. We're actually on the same page over this.

Edited by oaksoft
Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, oaksoft said:

Calm doon FFS

Don't see where I was not totally calm and rational in my  post perhaps you are projecting there.

 

Point 1 

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

You're confusing "moral obligation" and "things which end up being good for society"

Actually I am not confused, definition of moral obligation from the dictionary "A duty which one owes, and which he ought to perform, but which he is not legally bound to fulfill." at no point did I mention coercion hence why I believe it is a moral obligation.

Point 2 

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

BTW, I said nothing about not giving a toss about anyone else. Neither did I say an anything about bullshit being spread on social media

Where did I say you did not? please point it out, I did mention you thinking moral obligation as an argument being childish perhaps saying more about you but you clearly said you advised everyone to get the jab so why would you think I thought otherwise? I was also agreeing with you about social media as again I could clearly read that you were also calling out the bullshit on there and did not say anything abut you believing it.

Point 3

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Instead of preaching morality and losing your rag

 

1 hour ago, oaksoft said:

Calm doon FFS. We're actually on the same page over this.

Back to this imaginary losing my rag thing 🙄

 

Unfortunately I have no answer for the idiots not getting jabs and agree we as a country cannot force people to get them However once everyone has had the option to get one then would be the time to create a covid passport, if you separate the  f**kwits from the pub and benidorm there would be a stampede to the vax centres, hard to police for the pubs mind you.

Only thing I disagreed with you on was the moral obligation not existing everything else as you say we are agreement on and I did not try and disagree with.

SS

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Swiss_Saint said:

Don't see where I was not totally calm and rational in my  post perhaps you are projecting there.

 

Point 1 

Actually I am not confused, definition of moral obligation from the dictionary "A duty which one owes, and which he ought to perform, but which he is not legally bound to fulfill." at no point did I mention coercion hence why I believe it is a moral obligation.

Point 2 

Where did I say you did not? please point it out, I did mention you thinking moral obligation as an argument being childish perhaps saying more about you but you clearly said you advised everyone to get the jab so why would you think I thought otherwise? I was also agreeing with you about social media as again I could clearly read that you were also calling out the bullshit on there and did not say anything abut you believing it.

Point 3

 

Back to this imaginary losing my rag thing 🙄

 

Unfortunately I have no answer for the idiots not getting jabs and agree we as a country cannot force people to get them However once everyone has had the option to get one then would be the time to create a covid passport, if you separate the  f**kwits from the pub and benidorm there would be a stampede to the vax centres, hard to police for the pubs mind you.

Only thing I disagreed with you on was the moral obligation not existing everything else as you say we are agreement on and I did not try and disagree with.

SS

 

Careful, if you don’t argue in only the ways @faraway saint & @oaksoft think are appropriate for BAWA, you’ll be labelled as the ‘problem’ 

There are rules in place for those wanting to post hundreds of times a month apparently. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites



More stories of confusion on countries that you can/should/mibbie shouldny visit. 
As much as I'm gagging for a holiday abroad, even Portugal isn't doing it for me with the stuff you have to do before, during and on return.
Patience, I'm still hopeful October might be an option. 


You do know that Patience isn't a real place.

https://residentalien.fandom.com/wiki/Patience
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

More stories of confusion on countries that you can/should/mibbie shouldny visit. 

As much as I'm gagging for a holiday abroad, even Portugal isn't doing it for me with the stuff you have to do before, during and on return.

Patience, I'm still hopeful October might be an option. 

I'm with you on this, anyone off abroad at moment, 1) going because they can, they don't have to. For me at the moment its a huge no. And 2) must be loaded to be paying for tests and isolating when coming back and not earning.

 

On seeing GMTV this morning its shocking we are still allowing flights in from 'red' countries. Never get out of this whilst still making stupid decisions.

 

Only watch it for Susana Reid😉👍👍

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.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...