COVID-19

You've just perfectly outlined a situation where people judge their own risks - whether perceived or real - and then react accordingly. That's not a negative is it?

 

The negative for me, is that some people clearly still feel the need to hide away after being doubled jabbed. Double jabbed, with a high likelihood of already having covid antibodies too. You’re never going to be safer than that.

 

Yes you are. When the rest of the adult population is double jabbed + 2 weeks to full immunity. That would be the time to relax social distancing and mask wearing, not in the middle of a third wave with those who are most socially active and potentially infectious still waiting to be vaccinated.
The vaccines may be 90% preventative of serious illness or death, but that remaining 10% still equals a lot of people when cases are rising exponentially as at present.
Removing mask wearing and social distancing at the same time is nuts. I know no one who doesn't believe that. Nowhere else in the world is behaving that recklessly.

 

I know plenty of people who believe that. And if you don't, then don't. Its not that hard. Personal choice. Everyone has the ability to protect themselves to the degree they see fit.

Having other people jabbed, doesn't make you safer. There'll always be a risk, indeed a likelihood, that the virus mutates in a dangerous direction - though viruses tend to become less dangerous over time, not more so. And if that day comes, then we may need to take action. But not everyone will want to take an experimental vaccine and to expect others to do so, to make you feel safer, is oppressive. If the vaccines work, and the masks work - which is debatable anyway - then take the vaccine, wear a mask and keep your distance. Just don't expect others to have to do so.

Added to which - if mask wearing and social distancing actually make a difference, why do those who preach such rules not actually follow them?

I'd say that the evidence of social distancing and mask wearing having a material impact on covid is inconclusive, at best. The trial events of mass gatherings appear to show no significant rate of covod transmission.

People have been hypnotised into a state of fear, to the extent that despite taking all reasonable precautions they feel is necessary, they see other human beings not doing the same as a threat to their safety. Its sad to see.

 

Why even bother inconvencing yourself to go get jabbed if it's not going to change your outlook or what you demand from other people?

Maybe they just fancied a couple of nice trips out to the chemist?

 

Indeed. Its heartbreaking really.

Other countries with a lower vaccine rate opened up fully, weeks ago, and appear to be doing just fine.

Thrown in the dreaded 'variant' word though, and everyone panics and wants to hide under the sofa again. People need to be allowed to make their own choices, not cowed by fear or forced into medical procedures to be entitled to certain social freedoms.

 

Amen

 

Although Holland are a county to keep an eye on..........lower vaccination coverage but removed 90% of their restrictions on the 26th June and their infection rate has increased by a factor of 14 in just 13 days. A ridiculous explosion!

 

Any idea whats happened to their hospitalisation rate as a result?

I think we need to move away from focusing on infection rates. Its the mortality and hospitalisation rates that have to be key.

 

Nothing yet but after just 2 weeks you wouldn't expect any change in hospitalisation at all. It's definitely the place to keep an eye on though.

They opened up with tiny infection rates as well, something like 500 a day but it's just rocketed.

 

https://nltimes.nl/2021/07/10/10345-netherlands-reports-new-coronavirus-cases-since-christmas

A couple of other interesting data points:

Testing rates have nearly doubled since restrictions were lifted.
Hospitalised cases have actually fallen.

Now, granted, there'll be a lag. But we need to set context - is it likely that a significant increase will be seen in detected infections among the least vaccinated sections of society, as restrictions lift and testing rates increase? Especially where those restrictions are likely to have the biggest impact in terms of where that population segment socialise in large numbers Of? Of course. But if there's negligible impact to the health care system, negligible impact in terms of death and that population has naturally developed covid antibodies as a result, is it actually a bad thing?

One to watch as you say.

 

Of course having other people jabbed makes you safer. The more people who are jabbed the lower the transmission rate, so everyone is safer.
And the lower the transmission rate the less chance of mutations.

The global scientific concensus is that social distancing and mask wearing are THE most important factors in reducing Covid transmission rates. But you know better. Wow.

Masks aren't primarily worn to protect the wearer, they're worn to protect others. It's a social duty to wear masks in enclosed public spaces to protect others, even if you don't feel endangered yourself.

If large numbers of younger people who are unvaccinated, and therefore by far the most likely to be carrying the virus, are wandering around in enclosed spaces without masks, then the incidence of transmission goes much higher. Which means the small, but significant proportion of vaccinated people who will catch the virus will increase to a much larger number than if masks were still being worn. Vaccines aren't perfect.

 

With no social distancing AND no mask wearing? Where exactly?

 

Because it reduces your chance of catching the virus and of passing it to others, obviously. But it doesn't eliminate it.

 

Of course. So you take a jab to reduce, but not eliminate, your risk.....and then stay at home because your risk is only reduced not elimated?

Isn"t that exactly whay they expected when they took it. If you're going to stay at home amyway you might as well not have bothered!

 

Don't be ridiculous. As I'm sure you know, it's not that simplistic.
However fit and healthy they are, older people's immune systems are much weaker than those of (even pretty unfit) younger people. Therefore, their propensity to catch Covid is higher and the likelihood of it causing them serious harm or death is much higher.
Back in May, before the third wave got properly underway, there was Covid around, but at a fairly low level - probably at the kind of level we're going to have to learn to live with. Older and middle aged people were feeling more confident to go out and about to shops, pubs, restaurants etc. They know that the vaccine isn't 100% effective and have no way of knowing, without catching it, whether they are one of the minority for whom it doesn't work well. But, with cases low, the combined risk of a) catching it and b) the vaccine not working, is acceptably low. That risk significantly changes when case numbers are going through the roof, as at present.
If older people trust the vaccine to protect them against a base level of Covid, but not so much against a full on wave of it, then removing social distancing and mask-wearing simultaneously (thereby guaranteeing that the already high case numbers are going to explode further) is bound to cause those people to rein back their activities in enclosed public spaces until the numbers subside back to base level.
Once the whole adult population is double jabbed and have reached max immunity then the case numbers will subside to base level and social confidence amongst older people will return. Most people I know think that's when social distancing and mask wearing should be removed, not in the middle of the third wave.

 

On the money side of the balance sheet because most deaths were the elderly covid has saved the government probably over a £billion a year in pension and support payments, Every cloud for the treasury as they say

 

@Faithful Bantam That study considers death or serious illness amongst kids admitted to hospital. It doesn't mention long Covid in kids, many of whom were never admitted to hospital.

@Frank Castle Given the rising numbers of long Covid cases amongst children, how do you know that the risks from vaccinating kids are greater than the risk of them contracting long Covid? Or are you just assuming this?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/11/their-childhood-has-been-stolen-calls-for-action-to-tackle-long-covid?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other

 

And now double COVID

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57761343

 

Just on oneof those points, Chand Nagpaul? Chairman of the BMA was on breakfast tv last week saying that we now have 3 times more people in hospital on ventilators than we had...I missed the comparison date!