ayrshire_blue
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 1 May 2008
- Messages
- 6,278
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Coronavirus (2021) thread
- Thread starter Ric
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Its going to get messy
M18CTID
Well-Known Member
I know he's a bellend most of the time but fair play to him for that!
Edit: Of course, I don't include those who can't have the vaccine for medical reasons and those who are mentally struggling to get their heads round having it, and I'm sure Macron doesn't either
Last edited:
Healdplace
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2013
- Messages
- 15,985
Yes, I think that is the right move. Life is a question of balance between many things and a fair society - which I trust we aspire to be - matches risk and reward not around who is the most greedy and selfish or believes the most outrageous theory.
However, as a certain Vulcan might say - a moral society is built around the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one.
We have given time for people to make their own choice between me first or the nation on vaccines
I believe we should indeed preserve their right to make individual choice.
But just as you can choose not to enter a lottery but if you do not enter you have no case for envy against the ones who do and then get a reward for that risk - then here we should give freedom of choice to those who think vaccines are not for them.
BUT after they have had a suitable period to reflect and choose if that decision has consequences for what they can do versus others who chose differently - that is not a dictatorship or infringement of rights. It is life in a democracy.
And here the appropriate course to take for the needs of the many which must take precedence above the wants of the few and their accepted right to say no. They are in effect just having to do a different kind of heavy lifting by isolation for a time that those who vaccinated did with the jab these ones declined.
It is not like it is forever, And the alternative would be nobody getting freedom for longer because of those who say no to getting protection.
They also have a very easy and free way to get what they want, It takes 5 minutes and tens of millions have done it before them.
However, as a certain Vulcan might say - a moral society is built around the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the one.
We have given time for people to make their own choice between me first or the nation on vaccines
I believe we should indeed preserve their right to make individual choice.
But just as you can choose not to enter a lottery but if you do not enter you have no case for envy against the ones who do and then get a reward for that risk - then here we should give freedom of choice to those who think vaccines are not for them.
BUT after they have had a suitable period to reflect and choose if that decision has consequences for what they can do versus others who chose differently - that is not a dictatorship or infringement of rights. It is life in a democracy.
And here the appropriate course to take for the needs of the many which must take precedence above the wants of the few and their accepted right to say no. They are in effect just having to do a different kind of heavy lifting by isolation for a time that those who vaccinated did with the jab these ones declined.
It is not like it is forever, And the alternative would be nobody getting freedom for longer because of those who say no to getting protection.
They also have a very easy and free way to get what they want, It takes 5 minutes and tens of millions have done it before them.
Last edited:
ell
Well-Known Member
France currently seeing 20k vaccine bookings a minute.
Its going to get messy
It will prove interesting for sure. Macron isn't very popular in France as it is. What's also interesting is if you were going to pick one country to implement "No vaccine no entry" rules as a tester it would be France. A bit like Thatcher taking on the miners, governments know if the expected French resistance to such measures crumble they will get such measures through in their countries more easily
PragueBlue
Well-Known Member
Hope it is successful and that it is brought in over here shortly.It will prove interesting for sure. Macron isn't very popular in France as it is. What's also interesting is if you were going to pick one country to implement "No vaccine no entry" rules as a tester it would be France. A bit like Thatcher taking on the miners, governments know if the expected French resistance to such measures crumble they will get such measures through in their countries more easily
Healdplace
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- 12 May 2013
- Messages
- 15,985
I do not see why vaccine passports is a political decision. It is an economic necessity for every country in one form or another.
As I said above the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.
There will be FAR more people with vaccinations than without by the point this happens.
Businesses have to weigh the custom they will lose from a group many times larger who may not come if they allow anyone in unchecked and no peace of mind that any or all around them have some immunity from a dangerous endemic disease.
Statistically they will lose more if they favour 'freedom for all' as there will just be far more of them than the vaccine rebels. And lots of alternatives taking away their custom who will follow this path whether it is government policy or not.
So this is a decision that will be driven by the ones who need to return to normality and rebuild their lives and livelihoods and it will be made on the basis that defending the right to say no may be trendy and win likes on Twitter but will not see them have a business this time next year if too many ordinary folk just say no and go elsewhere because of them choosing to being open to all.
As I said above the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.
There will be FAR more people with vaccinations than without by the point this happens.
Businesses have to weigh the custom they will lose from a group many times larger who may not come if they allow anyone in unchecked and no peace of mind that any or all around them have some immunity from a dangerous endemic disease.
Statistically they will lose more if they favour 'freedom for all' as there will just be far more of them than the vaccine rebels. And lots of alternatives taking away their custom who will follow this path whether it is government policy or not.
So this is a decision that will be driven by the ones who need to return to normality and rebuild their lives and livelihoods and it will be made on the basis that defending the right to say no may be trendy and win likes on Twitter but will not see them have a business this time next year if too many ordinary folk just say no and go elsewhere because of them choosing to being open to all.
it would appear to me, on a v quick look at the trends over lunch, that hospitalisation on a 10-day lag of cases has fallen to between 2.5 and 3% for the last fortnight, and has very gradually decreased over time.
Up to yesterday's cases then, we can expect hospitalisation figured to reach between 1100 and 1400 a day by August 2nd (ish).
given the steady the hospitalisation rate, albeit with a very slight downward trend, it would be surprising if this figure was not met, and if cases continue to rise then so does that admission number. Cases of ~100k will result in ~2,500 admissions, unless dramatic population level changes occur between now and IF 100k occurs.
Also evident is that net hospital cases (people in hospital with covid) do rise slower, because obviously people are discharged, than previous waves. It is day-of-week dependent, but when looking at admissions and the net cases in early mid-June, the net change in hospital cases was about 15% of the previous day's admissions, hinting that many folks were being discharged at the same time (not the same people!), for whatever reasons, i.e. net growth was much lower than admission rate. That has now changed slightly, lately net growth is about 25% of previous day's cases. My interpretation of this steady climb means more people admitted are being retained for slightly longer, or that some equilibrium has been passed?.
Deaths are a complicated picture, with the lag very hard to determine. using a standard 21 day lag, deaths appear to be between 0.25% and 0.3% of cases reported 21 days earlier (tracking VERY roughly hospitalisation rate / 10 to 12). Should this rate continue, we can expect early August daily deaths to be ~80 to 140, and the deaths from yesterday's figures to be ~90-160. I.e. the CFR is apparently ~0.25%.
(this all might continue to slowly decrease, but nothing dramatic will happen. The major remaining hope is that cases stall, steady and decline as of now, but i doubt it. We'll see).
Up to yesterday's cases then, we can expect hospitalisation figured to reach between 1100 and 1400 a day by August 2nd (ish).
given the steady the hospitalisation rate, albeit with a very slight downward trend, it would be surprising if this figure was not met, and if cases continue to rise then so does that admission number. Cases of ~100k will result in ~2,500 admissions, unless dramatic population level changes occur between now and IF 100k occurs.
Also evident is that net hospital cases (people in hospital with covid) do rise slower, because obviously people are discharged, than previous waves. It is day-of-week dependent, but when looking at admissions and the net cases in early mid-June, the net change in hospital cases was about 15% of the previous day's admissions, hinting that many folks were being discharged at the same time (not the same people!), for whatever reasons, i.e. net growth was much lower than admission rate. That has now changed slightly, lately net growth is about 25% of previous day's cases. My interpretation of this steady climb means more people admitted are being retained for slightly longer, or that some equilibrium has been passed?.
Deaths are a complicated picture, with the lag very hard to determine. using a standard 21 day lag, deaths appear to be between 0.25% and 0.3% of cases reported 21 days earlier (tracking VERY roughly hospitalisation rate / 10 to 12). Should this rate continue, we can expect early August daily deaths to be ~80 to 140, and the deaths from yesterday's figures to be ~90-160. I.e. the CFR is apparently ~0.25%.
(this all might continue to slowly decrease, but nothing dramatic will happen. The major remaining hope is that cases stall, steady and decline as of now, but i doubt it. We'll see).
I do not see why vaccine passports is a political decision. It is an economic necessity for every country in one form or another.
As I said above the needs of the many outweighing the needs of the few.
There will be FAR more people with vaccinations than without by the point this happens.
Businesses have to weigh the custom they will lose from a group many times larger who may not come if they allow anyone in unchecked and no peace of mind that any or all around them have some immunity from a dangerous endemic disease.
Statistically they will lose more if they favour 'freedom for all' as there will just be far more of them than the vaccine rebels. And lots of alternatives taking away their custom who will follow this path whether it is government policy or not.
So this is a decision that will be driven by the ones who need to return to normality and rebuild their lives and livelihoods and it will be made on the basis that defending the right to say no may be trendy and win likes on Twitter but will not see them have a business this time next year if too many ordinary folk just say no and go elsewhere because of them choosing to being open to all.
I'm with you if everyone fully vaccinated means a full return to normality. I am double jabbed so I'm no conspiracy theorist but I don't fully believe it will.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.