Coronavirus Thread

[Phil Bowman]

42 minutes ago, Stivo said:

Careful on that, statistics show that many people have adverse reactions  and can even die shortly after a MOT.  
I have seen experts on YouTube who explain that it’s much safer to drive with faulty seat belts…

I’ve heard some people have died in car crashes when they had seat belts on.

So what’s the point of seat belts?

In fact, can’t seat belts cause injuries? I’m not risking bruised ribs just to avoid the almost non-existent chance of flying through the windscreen and almost certainly dying.

[CosbehFox]

50 minutes ago, Samilktray said:

Looking for some answers regarding the isolating rules now. My girlfriend tested positively on the LFT tonight and I tested negative. We’ve booked PCR’s for tomorrow and my workplace seem to think if I test negative I can still go to work but a few people have said if it’s the omegatron variant she has, I have to isolate for 10 days like before.
 

So I guess I’d just like some absolutes on what I should do?

Workplace and people are correct. 
 

If you are negative and your partner tests positive for a non omicron variant, you carry on as normal provided you are double jabbed. 
 

If your partner is positive and it’s the omicron, ten days isolation for yourself. 

Edited 2 December 2021 by Cardiff_Fox

[orangecity23]

On the subject of risk, yes there is a risk of side effects on Vaccines. There is a risk of side effects from all medicine. I picked up a pack of Aspirin in the cupboard the other day, leaflet in that says there is a risk of it causing a stroke. Yet I bet we've all happily taken aspirin, or paracetemol, or any number of other tablets when we felt ill. The difference is that those risks from all the other stuff we ignore, or we don't think about it.

 

Earlier in the thread, there was discussion about that 25 minute video by the Youtube Dr chap, where he explained the abstract to a medical paper he hadn't actually read and went into a long explaination of everything in the abstract, before ending with a statement that even though it had been written by a Dr who had his own website flogging "healthy diet" items (i.e. - someone well positioned to flog a load of 'alternative' health gear to any anti-vaxxers drawn to his paper) it warrented further investigation. Which is fair enough, if there is something to the claims that the vaccine may cause a slightly increased risk of heart attack, then that should be researched further by other scientists. But why should any of us be overly concerned about that? It's one study. There's been loads of studies about red meat causing increased risk of cancer, doesn't stop us from wolfing down a bacon sandwich. Alcohol is proven to cause liver damage, yet we'll happily down a beer or two, but this vaccine, that's just too damn risky. Even though it has been designed by humans, extensively tested, subject to health and safety regulations, and constantly reviewed so in rare cases where there are unintended serious side effects, then it can be withdrawn from use or medical advice modified - like how the AZ is no longer given to younger patients.

 

But what's the alternative? It's not a choice between a risky vaccine and a no risk option. The virus has been around for 2 years already, and unless it's wiped out through full vaccination like Smallpox was (which still took a very long time), then it will be circulating for years to come, potentially for the rest of your life. Have you had a cold before? flu? The answer is yes. You could not avoid those viruses. Coming into contact with them is inevitable. With colds though, you catch your first one as a child, and have some inherited immunity from your mother - we've been exposed to colds many many times, and our immune systems are well equipped to cope with them. That being said, flu still kills people, esepcially the elderly or vulnerable. We don't fear them, as we have experienced them before. Covid is a completeley new virus though, which we haven't experienced, and we know it can kill - that's pretty scary stuff. So naturally people will be afraid at first, and panic, as they did at the beginning of the pandemic. But it's not possible to be afraid forever, so after a while, we naturally start to tell ourselves stuff to reassure ourselves, so we are less afraid - "it only kills the elderly", "it only affects people with pre existing medical conditions", "I've never met anyone who died", "they only tested positive with covid, they might have died of something else (tHeY mIgHt HaVe BeEn HiT bY a BuS)", "it doesn't kill young people", "it's just like the flu" - you explain away the danger a little at a time, assuring yourself that I'm alright jack, there's no danger to me" as you complacently resume your daily life with the fear gone. The risk to yourself from the virus never changed though - only your perception of the risk. You've spent 2 years lulling yourself into a false sense of security, and now think you are choosing between a risk and a risk free status quo.

 

With Covid though, you have no pre-existing immunity - your immune system has never come into contact with the virus. And contact with it will happen, sooner or later. So your choice is -  take a vaccine, acquire some form of immunity, and when you encounter the real virus, your immune system has a decent shot at fighting it off. Or go in with no immunity, and gamble on your immune system coping with a completely new virus it has never faced before. And each year that passes, you are getting older and "higher risk", that you may develop a "pre-existing medical condition" that makes you weaker and more at risk of being unable to fight the virus. There is risk in either choice, but don't kid yourself into thinking you're safe without a vaccine - sooner or later you are going to catch it, and you are making a bet on how well your immune system will handle it. Your choice is to face a dangerous virus with some or no immunity. There are no other options. If you think you are "safe" then you are completely deluded.

[Phil Bowman]

6 minutes ago, orangecity23 said:

There is risk in either choice, but don't kid yourself into thinking you're safe without a vaccine - sooner or later you are going to catch it, and you are making a bet on how well your immune system will handle it.

Yep.

Having informed myself as well as I reasonably could, and weighing up the likelihoods and risks on both sides, it seemed pretty clear that I was miles more likely (albeit still very unlikely) to die of covid if I didn’t have the vaccine than die of the vaccine if I did. I went for the option that carried the least likelihood of death.

And a vaccinated me is also less likely to cause the death of other people! Bonus or what?

[Otis]

2 hours ago, Phil Bowman said:

Speaking of masks, right, I know that they don’t remove all risk, but they do lessen it a bit, yeah?

 

Even if one person wearing a mask lessens the risk by 1%, are people really too stupid to see that if 100 people wear them that adds up to 100% and so there would be no risk at all?

 

It’s not rocket science, people!

I don't think that's how maths works.

 

If 1 person wears a mask that is 1% effective. Then if 100 people wear a mask it's still only 1% effective for each of those 100 people. 

[st albans fox]

5 minutes ago, Otis said:

I don't think that's how maths works.

 

If 1 person wears a mask that is 1% effective. Then if 100 people wear a mask it's still only 1% effective for each of those 100 people. 

Yeah - I don’t think that was quite the context he meant though. I assumed he meant that if all 100 people wore masks then there was 100% protection amongst that group 

 

Again context says if they are all wearing medical grade surgical ones then that’s only 95% protection against droplets getting through but given droplets that they exhale will be reduced by their own masks then you can see why the argument that it’s not v likely that any of the 100 will actually contract covid is made.

 

the problem with our current mask wearing is too many are fashion statements which have v little protective qualities against aerosol spread 

[Robo61]

5 minutes ago, Otis said:

I don't think that's how maths works.

 

If 1 person wears a mask that is 1% effective. Then if 100 people wear a mask it's still only 1% effective for each of those 100 people. 

And neither is that how maths works and remember masks protects everyone not just the wearer.  So say in a room of 100 people the chances are that 1 person will be carrying Covid-19.  If just 1 person in that room wears a  mask then its 99% certain that the virus is leaking into the room anyone in the room may catch the virus.  If 100 people are wearing a mask then it is certain that the virus is not leaking into the room and know one can catch it. Yes I know masks dont stop all of the leakage but the principle is the same.

[yorkie1999]

1 hour ago, Otis said:

I don't think that's how maths works.

 

If 1 person wears a mask that is 1% effective. Then if 100 people wear a mask it's still only 1% effective for each of those 100 people. 

Is it? Isn’t it, if one person wears a mask, that is 100% effective , so if 100 people wear a mask, it’s still 100% effective,. 

[danny.]

5 hours ago, Babylon said:

Studies have shown nothing of the sort. They have clearly shown that whilst peak viral load is similar in vaccinated and unvaccinated, it’s not at its peak for anywhere near the same length of time.

 

Once again you don’t seem to be able to talk in anything but absolutes. Your anecdote is pointless, nobody has said it stops ALL spread. It reduces the risk of spread.

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/covid-vaccinated-likely-unjabbed-infect-cohabiters-study-suggests
 

I watched an interview on TV this week talking about another study with the same results too. I can’t be bothered to try and find it on my phone and couldn’t care less if you dismiss that as pointless either. Scroll on. 

 

You’ve been living in a cave if you haven’t heard people saying vaccines stop spread; I hear it constantly in the media and from people. Quite absurd to say “nobody has said” this. 
 

I’m quite able to deal in relatives and not just absolutes, thanks for the ad hominem though. I’ve seen studies both stating that the vaccines make a difference in spread and some that say they don’t. I don’t have a clue what to believe to believe personally but luckily it doesn’t matter what I believe. 

[Robo61]

11 minutes ago, danny. said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/covid-vaccinated-likely-unjabbed-infect-cohabiters-study-suggests
 

I watched an interview on TV this week talking about another study with the same results too. I can’t be bothered to try and find it on my phone and couldn’t care less if you dismiss that as pointless either. Scroll on. 

 

You’ve been living in a cave if you haven’t heard people saying vaccines stop spread; I hear it constantly in the media and from people. Quite absurd to say “nobody has said” this. 
 

I’m quite able to deal in relatives and not just absolutes, thanks for the ad hominem though. I’ve seen studies both stating that the vaccines make a difference in spread and some that say they don’t. I don’t have a clue what to believe to believe personally but luckily it doesn’t matter what I believe. 

Did you actually read this,  it clearly shows that the rate of spread is greater amongst the unvaccinated than amongst the vaccinated.  

 

You keep saying that people are saying that vaccines stop the spread,  then give us an example. 

[DennisNedry]

On 01/12/2021 at 19:27, Line-X said:

Almost two years on and you along with the same few still don't get it.

 

I appreciate you might not remember what this above was a reply to, but you were implying it was selfish to not get the a booster.

 

I am 28, healthy, am double jabbed with Pfizer (second jab was only in August). I personally don't need another jab, not yet anyway.

 

And with this in the headlines https://news.sky.com/video/covid-19-no-evidence-boosters-to-whole-population-will-provide-greater-protection-from-omicron-12483965 it seems me having a booster will do very very little to contribute to the collective immunity of the UK.

 

So why bother? Why extend boosters to all over 18s? For me, the vaccines would be much better used being sent abroad for first doses.

[Soup]

100% won't get a booster if it's mandated. Seriously, **** them

 

 

[yorkie1999]

3 minutes ago, danny. said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/covid-vaccinated-likely-unjabbed-infect-cohabiters-study-suggests
 

I watched an interview on TV this week talking about another study with the same results too. I can’t be bothered to try and find it on my phone and couldn’t care less if you dismiss that as pointless either. Scroll on. 

 

You’ve been living in a cave if you haven’t heard people saying vaccines stop spread; I hear it constantly in the media and from people. Quite absurd to say “nobody has said” this. 
 

I’m quite able to deal in relatives and not just absolutes, thanks for the ad hominem though. I’ve seen studies both stating that the vaccines make a difference in spread and some that say they don’t. I don’t have a clue what to believe to believe personally but luckily it doesn’t matter what I believe. 

They make a difference in the spread simply because of time and numbers. In an ideal world where all things are equal, If you’ve been vaccinated, your body is able to get rid of the virus quicker than someone who hasn’t been vaccinated, so therefore the virus has less time to move on to the next host. The longer your body takes to get rid of the virus, the more time it survives for and consequently the greater amount of hosts it can move on to. The reason lockdowns and isolations and masks work is simply down to restricting the amount of hosts the virus can move on to, if it can’t get to another host, it dies. But, saying that, is what we have really a vaccine, I always thought a vaccine stops you actually getting a virus, you don’t get measles if you have a measle vaccination or rabies if you have an anti rabies jab do you?, this vaccine seems more like a bit of a vaccine, it stops you getting really ill, but you’re still a bit ill.

[Robo61]

11 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

 

I appreciate you might not remember what this above was a reply to, but you were implying it was selfish to not get the a booster.

 

I am 28, healthy, am double jabbed with Pfizer (second jab was only in August). I personally don't need another jab, not yet anyway.

 

And with this in the headlines https://news.sky.com/video/covid-19-no-evidence-boosters-to-whole-population-will-provide-greater-protection-from-omicron-12483965 it seems me having a booster will do very very little to contribute to the collective immunity of the UK.

 

So why bother? Why extend boosters to all over 18s? For me, the vaccines would be much better used being sent abroad for first doses.

No he wasn't.  He was commenting on some extremly inaccurate posts around the reasons peoe give not wanting a vaccine.

 

I agree with you though on your last point.

[yorkie1999]

11 minutes ago, Soup said:

100% won't get a booster if it's mandated. Seriously, **** them

 

 

Where do they draw the line? Will it end up being a jab every 6 months, then a jab a month followed by a jab a day.

[st albans fox]

14 minutes ago, DennisNedry said:

 

I appreciate you might not remember what this above was a reply to, but you were implying it was selfish to not get the a booster.

 

I am 28, healthy, am double jabbed with Pfizer (second jab was only in August). I personally don't need another jab, not yet anyway.

 

And with this in the headlines https://news.sky.com/video/covid-19-no-evidence-boosters-to-whole-population-will-provide-greater-protection-from-omicron-12483965 it seems me having a booster will do very very little to contribute to the collective immunity of the UK.

 

So why bother? Why extend boosters to all over 18s? For me, the vaccines would be much better used being sent abroad for first doses.

I don’t think it matters how fit you are. You genetic predisposition to becoming ill from a covid infection is a factor as mentioned in ric’s musings the other day.  If you had previously contracted covid and been double jabbed less than four months ago then I would agree that you don’t need a booster.  The govt are going to belt and braces in case omicron has some surprises  - reacting once the data is available will be too late. 
 

Certainly the mRNA vaccines may not provide the T cell immunity which would help you fight of the worst of the disease. Hence the attempt by the authorities to get everyone boosted asap

 

the ideal way through this is for those who have had prior infection to be checked for antibody levels and T cell immunity markers but that would be way more expensive than just delivering a £20 jab. 
 

given that the govt don’t believe that there is any risk in delivering jabs, why would they not try and get everyone boosted ASAP ??

 

they don’t care about the antis because they seem to have accepted they are beyond conversion but they really should be targeting the uncertain with more than just messaging ……that’s not going to work 

[st albans fox]

18 minutes ago, Soup said:

100% won't get a booster if it's mandated. Seriously, **** them

 

 

Principle is more important to you than your health ?? (And potentially others) 

 

I appreciate your stance (I’m against mandatory delivery atm) but I wouldn’t refuse to keep myself safe to make a point on this particular argument. 

[dsr-burnley]

1 hour ago, yorkie1999 said:

Is it? Isn’t it, if one person wears a mask, that is 100% effective , so if 100 people wear a mask, it’s still 100% effective,. 

Unfortunately masks aren't 100% effective.

 

Are we even sure they are effective at all?.  There was a survey not so long ago saying that wearing masks, even without any other measures like social distancing and hand washing, reduces transmission by 53%.  But what is the eventual result?  In England, children aged 11-14 don't wear masks at school.  In Scotland, they do.  I can't find Scottish stats for the 11-14 group, but in England children aged 0-14 suffered 1,164 coronavirus cases per hundred thousand in the period 12th July - 8th August, before schools went back, and Scotland had 701.

 

In the four week period to 21st November, England had 2,425 cases per hundred thousand in children aged 0-14, Scotland had 2,394.

 

I'm not saying that masks don't work.  But if they do work, what are the other factors in Scotland that stops them from reducing the level of cases to significantly below that of England?

[Guest Harrydc]

I've kept away from this thread, but I just wanted to pop my head in and say that as a society we need to be very careful what we wish for. I won't comment anymore after this for a while, I just need to get it off my chest. 

 

What's happening in Austria, Greece and now Germany is extremely dangerous. When you allow a government to gain that sort of power you will never know where it ends. Let's be honest, you'll never be considered 'fully vaccinated' as there will always be more boosters down the line - and its looking as though they will be fairly frequent. Let's say that you get your third jab, then your fourth and then decide you don't want anymore. But, if you don't get your fourth booster you lose your rights to socialise and do the things you love? 

 

Is that a world you want to live in? Because its certainly not a world I want to be a part of. This has gone way too far now, and it's making me feel extremely uneasy about the future. I feel physically sick. 

[Babylon]

7 hours ago, danny. said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/covid-vaccinated-likely-unjabbed-infect-cohabiters-study-suggests
 

I watched an interview on TV this week talking about another study with the same results too. I can’t be bothered to try and find it on my phone and couldn’t care less if you dismiss that as pointless either. Scroll on. 

 

You’ve been living in a cave if you haven’t heard people saying vaccines stop spread; I hear it constantly in the media and from people. Quite absurd to say “nobody has said” this. 
 

I’m quite able to deal in relatives and not just absolutes, thanks for the ad hominem though. I’ve seen studies both stating that the vaccines make a difference in spread and some that say they don’t. I don’t have a clue what to believe to believe personally but luckily it doesn’t matter what I believe. 

Read. The. ****ing. Study.

 

The study in that article literally says what I said. Lower viral loads, reduced chance of spread, ergo helps stop the spread.

 

Did you even read the article beyond the headline?

 

You clearly ****ing aren’t capable of dealing in anything but absolutes because you keep repeating the same ****ing shit. 

 

Really, the media have said vaccination stops all spread have they. Please do find that link for me. Or is it you not getting your brain around the fact it can help stop the spread, just not all of it.

Edited 3 December 2021 by Babylon

[Phil Bowman]

10 hours ago, Otis said:

12 hours ago, Phil Bowman said:

Speaking of masks, right, I know that they don’t remove all risk, but they do lessen it a bit, yeah?

 

Even if one person wearing a mask lessens the risk by 1%, are people really too stupid to see that if 100 people wear them that adds up to 100% and so there would be no risk at all?

 

It’s not rocket science, people!

Expand  

I don't think that's how maths works.

 

If 1 person wears a mask that is 1% effective. Then if 100 people wear a mask it's still only 1% effective for each of those 100 people. 

Well. How obvious does it have to be that something’s a joke for people to know it’s a joke?

More obvious than this, clearly!

[SpacedX]

8 hours ago, DennisNedry said:

 

I appreciate you might not remember what this above was a reply to, but you were implying it was selfish to not get the a booster.

 

I am 28, healthy, am double jabbed with Pfizer (second jab was only in August). I personally don't need another jab, not yet anyway.

 

And with this in the headlines https://news.sky.com/video/covid-19-no-evidence-boosters-to-whole-population-will-provide-greater-protection-from-omicron-12483965 it seems me having a booster will do very very little to contribute to the collective immunity of the UK.

 

So why bother? Why extend boosters to all over 18s? For me, the vaccines would be much better used being sent abroad for first doses.

I know exactly what I was replying to and why, and the individual it concerned thought the same as you. No, I really wasn't - you are absolutely incorrect. 

 

I most certainly think you should get the booster, the reasons why have been comprehensively covered in this thread. Also, Delta is the current strain. Regarding Omicron, we simply don't know enough about it yet.

 

But that wasn't what prompted my post. 

[Phil Bowman]

10 hours ago, st albans fox said:

I assumed he meant that if all 100 people wore masks then there was 100% protection amongst that group

Nope! It was supposed to be a joke!

[st albans fox]

7 hours ago, Harrydc said:

I've kept away from this thread, but I just wanted to pop my head in and say that as a society we need to be very careful what we wish for. I won't comment anymore after this for a while, I just need to get it off my chest. 

 

What's happening in Austria, Greece and now Germany is extremely dangerous. When you allow a government to gain that sort of power you will never know where it ends. Let's be honest, you'll never be considered 'fully vaccinated' as there will always be more boosters down the line - and its looking as though they will be fairly frequent. Let's say that you get your third jab, then your fourth and then decide you don't want anymore. But, if you don't get your fourth booster you lose your rights to socialise and do the things you love? 

 

Is that a world you want to live in? Because its certainly not a world I want to be a part of. This has gone way too far now, and it's making me feel extremely uneasy about the future. I feel physically sick. 

Harry, appreciate your position and your concerns. I’m sure the past eighteen months have been v difficult for you. The only thing I can say to help is to stop worrying about the future and what might happen. Perhaps only worry about what you can affect and try to concentrate far more on the here and now.  There are many people out there with your concerns who are perhaps better able to deal with the issues and to take them on. 

[SpacedX]

7 hours ago, Harrydc said:

I've kept away from this thread, but I just wanted to pop my head in and say that as a society we need to be very careful what we wish for. I won't comment anymore after this for a while, I just need to get it off my chest. 

 

What's happening in Austria, Greece and now Germany is extremely dangerous. When you allow a government to gain that sort of power you will never know where it ends. Let's be honest, you'll never be considered 'fully vaccinated' as there will always be more boosters down the line - and its looking as though they will be fairly frequent. Let's say that you get your third jab, then your fourth and then decide you don't want anymore. But, if you don't get your fourth booster you lose your rights to socialise and do the things you love? 

 

Is that a world you want to live in? Because its certainly not a world I want to be a part of. This has gone way too far now, and it's making me feel extremely uneasy about the future. I feel physically sick. 

This is not as you seem to think some sinister global political agenda to increase state control, although I do agree we need to be very wary of the future implications of the proposals already effected and those proposed - and this has been discussed in great detail on here. This is a war against nature, with one shape shifting common foe.

 

Personally, I am more concerned about the security threats from China and Russia who are investing billions in AI and biothech. Ultimately though, the average global temperature is likely to rise by more than 1.5°C within the next 20 years and if we do not take immediate action, very likely in excess of 2.5°C by the turn of the century. Trust me, if that happens, that certainly isn't a world anyone in the future wants to be part of.