Coronavirus (2021) thread

[Alan Harper's Tash]

And what's the truth?

 

[M18CTID]

that being double jabbed for the vast majority of non-elderly and vulnerable people is sufficient in protecting against any meaningful illness against Omicron.

Oh right. I must've missed the fact that the boosters were being rolled out weeks and weeks before Omicron even became a thing and Delta was still the dominant strain. What did you want the country to do when Omicron arrived - halt the booster programme? And if you yourself have chosen not to have the booster, why the fuck are you so upset that anyone else has chosen to have it?

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Oh right. I must've missed the fact that the boosters were being rolled out weeks and weeks before Omicron even became a thing and Delta was still the dominant strain.

everyone other than elderly and vulnerable were being jabbed in the summer so, per the initial vaccine roll-out, were within their 6 month window for Delta protection, which is now largely superfluous as Omicron is annihilating it. The booster rollout was targeted on the elderly and vulnerable who were double jabbed first and who absolutely should have a booster, as I've said all along.

 

[M18CTID]

everyone other than elderly and vulnerable were being jabbed in the summer so, per the initial vaccine roll-out, were within their 6 month window for Delta protection, which is now largely superfluous as Omicron is annihilating it. The booster rollout was targeted on the elderly and vulnerable who were double jabbed first and who absolutely should have a booster, as I've said all along.

And what's wrong with anyone outside of those categories opting to give themselves the maximum possible protection? How does that affect your life and the way you live it? Why is it even an issue for you? If anything, by so many taking one for the team (or 3 if it's the booster) as opposed to hardly anyone having it, it can be argued that it's further protecting the wider world as well as themselves. Seriously, why would anybody have an issue with that?

 

[Rammy Blue]

Well my 82 year old mother has just tested positive, she’d chosen to have a couple of nights away in York for new year.

Just booked her a pcr for tomorrow morning, currently no symptoms whatsoever, not even a sniffle.

She‘s triple jabbed Pfizer so let’s see how this one plays out.

In some ways, assuming she stays well, this may be a blessing in disguise, as it should help take the fear away as they’ve become pretty much recluses through the pandemic.

 

[M18CTID]

Well my 82 year old mother has just tested positive, she’d chosen to have a couple of nights away in York for new year.

Just booked her a pcr for tomorrow morning, currently no symptoms whatsoever, not even a sniffle.

She‘s triple jabbed Pfizer so let’s see how this one plays out.

In some ways, assuming she stays well, this may be a blessing in disguise, as it should help take the fear away as they’ve become pretty much recluses through the pandemic.

Fingers crossed for her mate. She should be fine having been triple jabbed.

 

[Octavian]

that being double jabbed for the vast majority of non-elderly and vulnerable people is sufficient in protecting against any meaningful illness against Omicron.

Those who made the vaccines have stated clearly the difference between 2 and 3 jabs is significant. By significant, across society that could be a big difference in hospitalisations and deaths.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

And what's wrong with anyone outside of those categories opting to give themselves the maximum possible protection? How does that affect your life and the way you live it? Why is it even an issue for you? If anything, by so many taking one for the team (or 3 if it's the booster) as opposed to hardly anyone having it, it can be argued that it's further protecting the wider world as well as themselves. Seriously, why would anybody have an issue with that?

because there are wider implications of such a social policy and conditioning, as well as a lack of long-term data. It's a forum to discuss views, if we all agreed entirely then we'd have a boring life and at the mercy of the powers-that-be. If people choose, that's their prerogative. When they're coerced and propaganda'd into it, then it's not unreasonable to question the tactics involved.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Those who made the vaccines have stated clearly the difference between 2 and 3 jabs is significant. By significant, across society that could be a big difference in hospitalisations and deaths.

To certain groups, yes. To others, no, as shown by hospitalisation data. Of course, those who made it would put that perspective across, the third party data would need to reflect that.

 

[splinter]

Well my 82 year old mother has just tested positive, she’d chosen to have a couple of nights away in York for new year.

Just booked her a pcr for tomorrow morning, currently no symptoms whatsoever, not even a sniffle.

She‘s triple jabbed Pfizer so let’s see how this one plays out.

In some ways, assuming she stays well, this may be a blessing in disguise, as it should help take the fear away as they’ve become pretty much recluses through the pandemic.

Wise words..hope ya mam is OK

 

[hgblue]

Those who made the vaccines have stated clearly the difference between 2 and 3 jabs is significant. By significant, across society that could be a big difference in hospitalisations and deaths.

I'm sure Dr Sarah Gilbert said the boosters should be targeted to the vulnerable?

 

[M18CTID]

because there are wider implications of such a social policy and conditioning, as well as a lack of long-term data. It's a forum to discuss views, if we all agreed entirely then we'd have a boring life and at the mercy of the powers-that-be. If people choose, that's their prerogative. When they're coerced and propaganda'd into it, then it's not unreasonable to question the tactics involved.

Sorry but the tone of your posts smack of anti-vaxx Covid-denying nonsense disguised as something else. You can call it coercion and propaganda as much as you like but the fact of the matter is this: The more people who take the vaccine means the more lives are saved. What would you sooner have - no advertising of vaccines and boosters leading to, say, only a 50% take-up or prominent messaging leading to a 90% take-up? Have a look at Poland, for example. Less of a take-up and 500/600/700 deaths a day, every day, for months on end

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Sorry but the tone of your posts smack of anti-vaxx Covid-denying nonsense disguised as something else. You can call it coercion and propaganda as much as you like but the fact of the matter is this: The more people who take the vaccine means the more lives are saved. What would you sooner have - no advertising of vaccines and boosters leading to, say, only a 50% take-up or prominent messaging leading to a 90% take-up? Have a look at Poland, for example. Less of a take-up and 500/600/700 deaths a day, every day, for months on end

I don't like the fear based and restrictions based coercion of the public, simply put.

I'm double-jabbed, advocated for people to be double-jabbed, will argue against those who carelessly throw around "unvaccinated" as a group that doesn't deserve NHS treatment if they catch Covid and have advocated for older groups and the vulnerable to be boostered.

You read it how you want to read it. If the level of vitriol is going to be this strong against people who don't have the same number of jabs as you then the social conditioning is already in effect.

If you've had a third, good for you, there's no reason to hate others for not, in my view. The vitriol on here has prompted me to put my view across because I feel it needs to be heard.

 

[M18CTID]

I don't like the fear based and restrictions based coercion of the public, simply put.

I'm double-jabbed, advocated for people to be double-jabbed, will argue against those who carelessly throw around "unvaccinated" as a group that doesn't deserve NHS treatment if they catch Covid and have advocated for older groups and the vulnerable to be boostered.

You read it how you want to read it. If the level of vitriol is going to be this strong against people who don't have the same number of jabs as you then the social conditioning is already in effect.

If you've had a third, good for you, there's no reason to hate others for not, in my view. The vitriol on here has prompted me to put my view across because I feel it needs to be heard.

You're the one who started this by having a pop at those who have had a booster despite it not adversely affecting your own quality of life in any way, shape, or form. And added to that, you've spouted a load of "Big Pharma" bollocks into the bargain. Like it or not, there will always be people making money out of situations like this. However, regarding the vaccines it's not actually a closed shop for a privileged few because every fucker in the country could theoretically make some money out of the pharmaceutical companies involved in the vaccines due to the fact that anyone is entitled to buy shares in them if they so wished.

 

[blueparrot]

I'm sure Dr Sarah Gilbert said the boosters should be targeted to the vulnerable?

I may be thinking of somebody else, but if it is her I was reading she was talking anout going forward for future winter boosters.

 

[Johnny Mars Bar]

Those who made the vaccines have stated clearly the difference between 2 and 3 jabs is significant. By significant, across society that could be a big difference in hospitalisations and deaths.

Somewhere right now a medical researcher is shouting across the lab "shit lads, we've got it all wrong! According to this bloke on the Man City fan forum the booster campaign is a load of rubbish, so we better reconsider everything we know about immunology."

 

[Octavian]

I'm sure Dr Sarah Gilbert said the boosters should be targeted to the vulnerable?

All vaccines should first and foremost but everyone over the age of 18 is better with a booster.

 

[Gaylord du Bois]

@Rammy Blue
Three of the older residents at my daughters place have had it recently with barely a sign of symptoms. Hope it's a similar outcome for your mum, mate.

 

[Manc in London]

The Guardian is a left wing version of the Mail. It needs to generate clicks and it’s readership overwhelmingly wants to read anti Tory and anti Brexit articles so this is what they serve up. As the government is attempting not to impose lockdowns their editorial policy is to constantly promote anyone calling for them.

The Mail just operates by putting a scaremongering article up followed by another one saying there is nothing to worry about.

Both publications are shite and neither offers genuine reporting on Covid.

If The Guardian was left wing, they would not have attacked Corbyn so much. Centrist, with a slight left leaning. It probably appears leftist compared to the Daily Mail and Telegraph as they are pretty much far right.

As for their coverage of the pandemic, I do think they have been at times irresponsible. Possibly, the focus on kicking the Tories (can understand the temptation) has led to some OTT headlines and articles.

 

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Hospitals / trusts declaring ‘critical incidents’ is the latest hugely over the top Covid fad.

What they mean is that they have a temporary shortage of staff and they might have to cut back routine stuff until the situation improves.