Covid - coming out of Lockdown 3 - no politics, less opinion and more facts and information.

[hayfield]

14 hours ago, adb968008 said:

Dont be too confident, between Europe and Scotland is the south,  that “it wont get us” thinking has bitten the south twice before.

 

we are not immune.

 

The expectation of a rise in Europe might make the UK look a bit exposed if it doesn't happen, again statements of too much confidence.

To be fair, the governments made a lot of good decisions this year, much more than last year, so it can ride on the benefit of doubt. It could also demonstrate Pfizer vs AZ stengths / weaknesses given their relevant prevalence in each others jurisdictions too 

 

 

 

Far from it, in the south we got the Alpha variant long before everyone else and got absolutely clobbered, like most other parts we had small Delta outbreaks, we need to understand why the north has been so badly affected by it, thankfully the number of serious cases has been subdued

 

I do hope Europe will not follow us with the Delta variant, but they are behind us with vaccinations (which are making the difference in the UK) and there is a lot less acceptance of getting vaccinated. Certainly Ms Merkle is very concerned and Germany is doing very well at the moment in controlling the virus

 

Dont forget the rewards we are reaping now started with decisions and actions taken a year plus ago

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

 

 

Those tests can't be any good.........they tell me every time I'm negative!   

 

 

Who would ever say that Alastair? 

[boxbrownie]

1 hour ago, alastairq said:

A recent discussion with new SIL....[who 'volunteered' at the local hospital. A small affair compared to Barts]......who has been informed that local surgeries are looking at top-ups being jabbed along with flu jabs? [For those who qualify or flu jab call- ups]....to be conducted as early as September, if not August?

Also, each top-up will be a different make of jab to the one  received initially .

I received the Oxford jabs , so expect the pfizer one.

Not that I'[ve noticed anything untoward with the Oxford jabs?  Aside from a noted  tendency to start lurching all over the place, sometimes making unintelligible noises?

 

 

 

They have found the top up from a different source/manufacturer to be especially effective, it’s not that the first is lacking in any way.

[alastairq]

25 minutes ago, beast66606 said:

 

You're seriously saying that a lockdown is NOT a freedom denied ? I think "freedom" must be defined differently for some.

 

  Freedom will always be a personal concept!

 

However, I did not, and still don't , see this thing called 'lockdown' as a 'denial of freedom!'

 

It is a sensible precaution. A protection, for some of us , from, or against, the rest of you!

 

Strikes me that if this sort of denial of freedom attitude were taken on during WW2, then folk would be complaining about the blackout?

 

Even during the so-called 'lockdown',  everybody was still 'free' to do what was essential to life.

 

So what if folk were compelled to 'go back to the basics' of living?

 

In my view the fact people see public health precautions as a  restriction of their rights, or freedoms, shows me just how superficial life and lifestyles have become?

Just how selfish  society has become?

 

 

 

 

[alastairq]

26 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

They have found the top up from a different source/manufacturer to be especially effective, it’s not that the first is lacking in any way.

 Yes, I know...just observing, tis all........[lurching off to annoy a postman]

[Nearholmer]

27 minutes ago, alastairq said:

In my view the fact people see public health precautions as a  restriction of their rights, or freedoms, shows me just how superficial life and lifestyles have become?

It’s an objective fact that we have had our rights of free movement and association curtailed to varying degrees over the past 18 months.

 

Stating that doesn’t necessarily imply a lack of understanding of why, or an absence of agreement with the necessity of it, or that a person is having a tantrum about it; it’s just a fact.

 

Its also probably not far off a fact that we’d all like to get back to the degree of liberty we enjoyed up to last March, as soon as is practicable, even if we don’t all want to exercise our full liberties (Me go to nightclub or rave? A tad unlikely), because most of us don’t relish the sight of other people being prevented from enjoying themselves. Again, not a tantrum, more of a yearning for the old normality.

 

The degree of freedom we had until last March is, or at least should be, the default position. Nothing wrong in repeating that, and again it’s not the tantrum of a spoiled brat, or the raving of a libertine, or even a libertarian, it’s the statement of a boring old chap who has a consciousness of English history.

 

 

Edited June 29, 2021 by Nearholmer

[beast66606]

7 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 In my view the fact people see public health precautions as a  restriction of their rights, or freedoms, shows me just how superficial life and lifestyles have become?

Just how selfish  society has become?

 

If you are locked in your house / immediate vicinity by the Government it matters not what the reasons are, however good they may be, it's still freedom denied. Not really interested in the sanctimony part of the lecture thanks.

[Stephen Freeman]

At least, most of the continent have seen the sense of vaccinating their Secondary School pupils, if we don't follow suit we will be ending up with a large reservoir of infection with all the dangers that entails and if any more so-called "experts" say that children don't get it, I will not be responsible for my language! Many children are already suffering with Long Covid with all the dangers that ensue.

 

I also understand that even people (and children) who recover are liable to seriously suffer in the future, probably fatally if they get re-infected as their immune response systems have been weakened. I have heard them described as walking time-bombs.

 

Also don't think you are totally safe with 2 jabs either as Mr Marr and others have found out to their cost.

[woodenhead]

7 minutes ago, Stephen Freeman said:

At least, most of the continent have seen the sense of vaccinating their Secondary School pupils, if we don't follow suit we will be ending up with a large reservoir of infection with all the dangers that entails and if any more so-called "experts" say that children don't get it, I will not be responsible for my language! Many children are already suffering with Long Covid with all the dangers that ensue.

 

I also understand that even people (and children) who recover are liable to seriously suffer in the future, probably fatally if they get re-infected as their immune response systems have been weakened. I have heard them described as walking time-bombs.

 

Also don't think you are totally safe with 2 jabs either as Mr Marr and others have found out to their cost.

The vaccines are not your traditional view of a vaccine, they are merely to reduce the impact of Covid and avoid the complications which put you first into hospital and then potentially onto a ventilator.

 

So far the statistics are showing that the vaccines are doing that, you can still get pretty ill from Covid, and some people double vaccinated will still end up in hospital and may still die from it.

 

The older you are, the more weakened your immunity then the more important it is to be vaccinated, however, school children have been shown to be pretty robust when it comes to Covid, they will still get it but are less likely to be hospitalised.  Taking the vaccine is not without risk, they've already restricted the AZ to over 40s because the risk of reactions increase in younger people versus the benefits.  So wanting all children over the age of 12 vaccinated comes with risks, if the children are not going into hospital, do you want to be introducing a level of risk that outweighs the benefits.

 

We should leave that to the medical professionals to decide.

[alastairq]

13 minutes ago, beast66606 said:

If you are locked in your house / immediate vicinity by the Government it matters not what the reasons are,

 Nobody round these parts was 'locked in', by anybody.  

[3rd Rail Exile]

11 minutes ago, Stephen Freeman said:

Also don't think you are totally safe with 2 jabs either as Mr Marr and others have found out to their cost.

I don't think anyone has ever said "you are totally safe with 2 jabs" - just that the risk of catching it is much reduced and the risk of catching it seriously enough to require hospitalisation (or worse) is massively reduced.  

[boxbrownie]

I was going to give similar answers to the above two posts, but then thought…..why bother 

[3rd Rail Exile]

1 minute ago, alastairq said:

 Nobody round these parts was 'locked in', by anybody.  

The differences between "Don't go out unless it's for essential purposes" and being "locked in" are semantic to anyone whose normal life includes venturing out of the home for purely enjoyable purposes from time to time.  Which, I would contend, is most people... 

 

I would suggest that most people feel as if they have been "locked in" (or "locked down"), but understand why and have dutifully complied.  We just don't tend to hear about them as they don't make for sensationalist headlines...

[3rd Rail Exile]

3 minutes ago, boxbrownie said:

I was going to give similar answers to the above two posts, but then thought…..why bother 

I did give it some thought myself, but ultimately I felt the statements shouldn't go unchallenged...

[Stephen Freeman]

32 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

The vaccines are not your traditional view of a vaccine, they are merely to reduce the impact of Covid and avoid the complications which put you first into hospital and then potentially onto a ventilator.

 

So far the statistics are showing that the vaccines are doing that, you can still get pretty ill from Covid, and some people double vaccinated will still end up in hospital and may still die from it.

 

The older you are, the more weakened your immunity then the more important it is to be vaccinated, however, school children have been shown to be pretty robust when it comes to Covid, they will still get it but are less likely to be hospitalised.  Taking the vaccine is not without risk, they've already restricted the AZ to over 40s because the risk of reactions increase in younger people versus the benefits.  So wanting all children over the age of 12 vaccinated comes with risks, if the children are not going into hospital, do you want to be introducing a level of risk that outweighs the benefits.

 

We should leave that to the medical professionals to decide.

I give up! They are going into hospital etc! No doubt nothing will be done until the hospitals are all full of children sick and dying. Then it will be too late. I despair when once again there is a failure to take appropriate action.

[rocor]

46 minutes ago, Stephen Freeman said:

 

 

Also don't think you are totally safe with 2 jabs either as Mr Marr and others have found out to their cost.

 

On discovering this, my first thought was along the same lines as, finding out that I did not have as much money in my bank account as I thought I had.

 

https://www.fr24news.com/a/2021/06/nearly-30-of-people-who-die-with-the-delta-variant-of-covid-are-doubly-vaccinated.html

[adb968008]

Govern use of statistics is always fascinating…

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-57640397

 

Quote

15,000 pupils at home who are confirmed Covid cases

24,000 suspected cases

279,000 self-isolating due to potential contact in school

57,000 self-isolating due to potential contact in the community

Assumption is mother of evil, but lets give the government benefit of doubt..

15k pupils caught covid in 7 days..

 

Governments own website…. Average 10k cases per day = 70k.

 

my maths says 21% of cases as kids….
 

Thats a very long way from the narrative that only younger people are catching covid…

 

[Neil]

If you're in jail, slavery or a country where you have no meaningful democratic vote then you're not free. Because we can say that during lockdown there were limitations placed on our freedom I think we can argue that we were and are essentially free. None of us have ever been totally free to do whatever we want, we have to operate within the framework of what is legal, affordable (and very often) socially acceptable.

[adb968008]

44 minutes ago, woodenhead said:

Taking the vaccine is not without risk, they've already restricted the AZ to over 40s because the risk of reactions increase in younger people versus the benefits.  So wanting all children over the age of 12 vaccinated comes with risks, if the children are not going into hospital, do you want to be introducing a level of risk that outweighs the benefits.

 

We should leave that to the medical professionals to decide.

Doesnt that apply to all vaccines, including Flu and MMR…

 

however just about any other vaccine, medical professionals advise, parents decide.

 

[beast66606]

39 minutes ago, alastairq said:

 Nobody round these parts was 'locked in', by anybody.  

 

You selectively answered my point - I also mentioned local vicinity.

 

Which fantasy world do you live in ? - Government restrictions meant people had to "stay at home" (which translated to at or very near home), did you miss that ?

[Nearholmer]

10 minutes ago, adb968008 said:

Thats a very long way from the narrative that only younger people are catching covid…

Yes, that narrative is a bit misleading, to say the least, but I’m not sure where it actually comes from.

 

If you listen to the government profs, and look at the famous slides, they don’t say anything like “only younger people” (which in itself is a very elastic term. Younger than what or whom? Methuselah? My dog?). 
 

What they do say is that the current wave is affecting younger age-groups more than it is older, and is growing fastest specifically among 18-30yo (IIRC). School-age children seem to be slightly ‘behind the curve’ compared with young adults.

 

Its easy to see relative rates for age bands in your local area by looking on the Government Dashboard website. Here it is clear that ‘leaders of the pack’ are 18-24yo, followed by older schoolchildren and adults up to 30. Either side of that 18-24yo peak, the rates taper to low for infants and 65+.
 

But, “only” it surely isn’t.

[alastairq]

1 minute ago, beast66606 said:

 

You selectively answered my point - I also mentioned local vicinity.

 

Which fantasy world do you live in ? - Government restrictions meant people had to "stay at home" (which translated to at or very near home), did you miss that ?

 Nope, didn't miss that at all. To me that meant, don't go out to a pub, don't go aimlessly shopping, don't go to mass entertainment, don't go to see the christians being eaten, etc etc.

It did not prevent me from undertaking 'essential'' shopping runs. [I prevented myself, as i'm selective about where, and at what time, I shop anyway]

It did not prevent [me?] from going for a decent walk, or taking some form of this modernistic idea called ''exercise?''

One the initial hoohah had died down, it did not prevent me from driving to my local fast food drive-thru, for a coffee &/or snack, accompanied by any member of my support bubble.

I could still drink alcohol, if I so wished, either inside, or out in my garden.

I could still purchase stuff [with less expense than if I had enjoyed perfect freedom?]

 

What it did do was prevent me from going out and mixing with hundreds of others!  Something I wouldn't dream of doing anyway.....

 

I wasn't overly concerned for my own, personal, health..but I was concerned over threatening the health of others [regardless of how close they are to me.....]....simply because I wanted to enjoy some, ultimately meaningless, mass entertainment.  

 

Or exhibitions?

 

I couldn't take part in my other chosen hobbies due to restrictions, but  hey ho, I think of the money I've saved?

 

Freedom to do as one pleases [whether one wants to or not].....really is a myth, since there are so many restrictions on personal freedom without the threat of covid! 

Financial constraints, for example?

Familial restraints?

Even the constraint of being unable to drive [either through not having a licence, which doesn't seem to bother other people? Or not having a car? Doesn't apply to me, as yet]

Restriction of freedom simply because of the paucity of methods of getting about?

Restrictions due to personal health?

Restrictions because Turkey doesn't want the likes of me in their country??

 

Freedom, as we want it, is indeed a myth, for all but a very few people, that has nothing to do with covid.  

I think folk have always made the best of what they've got, rather than bemoaning the fact they haven't the wherewithal to exercise their ''freedom''.

 

 

Anyway, I should be extra aggrieved about it all...after all it was people, exercising their rights to freedom, that brought this nasty disease to my area anyway!

 

But nobody really wants to quantify the price of freedom, do they?

 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

5 minutes ago, alastairq said:

think folk have always made the best of what they've got, rather than bemoaning the fact they haven't the wherewithal to exercise their ''freedom''

Ah, that would be why people wriggled and squirmed until they were no longer serfs, and carried on wriggling and squirming until there was universal suffrage, and why they banged-on about ‘the yoke of Norman tyranny’, and made damned sure that they clung on to old-established rights of way (the French barely had any), and a host of other things, would it?

 

I get where you are coming from about the difference between political/theoretical freedoms, and the economic ability to exercise those freedoms, but as I’ve said to you before, your argument is a reductionist one, which deems any person who isn’t the most enslaved person in the world ‘free’.

 

Its not a sin to want freedoms, and to want to be able to exercise them. It’s ordinary human, indeed ordinary animal, nature. Which could take us on to a discussion of how we swap freedoms in becoming civilised, and thereby safe.

[AY Mod]

We'll all have different interpretations of liberty, seriousness of personal impacts etc and what we. as individuals, will tolerate. Personally, I'm very much against the 'sod it, I've had enough now and I'll do as I like' stance but I'm just about to launch the next survey (we previously did it in June and August last year) to temperature test what people feel in regard to the restart of exhibitions.

 

New survey here https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfhb9pL1JzfmsDTn08fdUGPmQumDJv6WEbK_0cRX7d42pOU5Q/viewform

 

Results link - https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfhb9pL1JzfmsDTn08fdUGPmQumDJv6WEbK_0cRX7d42pOU5Q/viewanalytics

 

No personal data is sought.

 

It will appear more widely over the next few days but I thought I'd capture thoughts from within this topic's readers first.

[AY Mod]

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Which could take us on to a discussion of how we swap freedoms in becoming civilised, and thereby safe.

 

Probably best that we do have some laws as I could have happily killed my dentist at 3.00 am on Sunday morning.