COVID-19

There's a massive difference. People in 1930s Germany were persecuted because of who they were, not because of what they had or hadn't done. Nobody chooses the colour of their skin or the ethnic group they are born into. Excluding people on that basis is deeply and utterly wrong.
By contrast, some people are making a conscious and considered antisocial choice to refuse vaccinations at a time of the greatest global health emergency in living memory. It's absolutely their right to do that. Just as it's people's absolute right to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol to excess. But it's perfectly reasonable to deny the right to smoke in public buildings to protect others, or prohibit driving whilst intoxicated. Likewise, it is also perfectly reasonable for the vast majority in society who have done the decent thing and got vaccinated to say to those that won't do so, 'Fine - your choice, but don't be surprised if the responsible majority don't want you mixing with them'.
Choices have consequences. If people choose the selfish option of refusing to be vaccinated then that's their lookout. The rest of society shouldn't feel guilty about protecting itself from them.

 

There’s only one version of the NHS App that shows the Covid Pass. The issue of tests showing or not showing is more likely to be one of data quality or whatever algorithms are applied.

 

You're still missing the major point.

If you ban people who smoke from building then nobody in there will smoke.

If you ban unvaccinated people from a building it is still likely that someone within that building could have covid.

Its a tinkering of the ratios rather than a ban which causes true protection which is why it differs to standard public protection bans.

 

Bang on. If you don't want to trust government statistics / information etc., just talk to the medical people working respiratory diseases wards. Ending your days either gasping for air and not getting any in, or essentially drowning from the inside, are not pleasant ways to go. Perhaps seeing these things in person might change a few minds.

If by NPIs you mean distancing, and restrictions on workplaces and socialising etc., then perhaps your assertion needs questioning more than the General's. Before the vaccination campaigns really kicked in, these were the primary means of holding the virus at bay. They are not a long-term solution -- only vaccination is that -- but in the short term they worked. They bought us time -- to learn about the virus, to get better protocols in place, and to get the vaccines developed -- and relieved pressures on hospitals and ICUs.

I would suggest that Sweden, Texas, Florida et al. are not much different to the rest of the world in how the various waves of the virus have affected populations. The graphs at

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

show the same sorts of peaks (or spikes, if you prefer) and valleys as elsewhere, both in terms of cases, and deaths. Florida is in a bad way now, together with some others of the states with low vaccination rates. Indeed the US looks likely to be in for a rough time over the next little while. Sweden started off well with their approach, but couldn't maintain it.

Here in Ontario we've had three waves, the first controlled by some restrictions. Loosening of these contributed to a second wave, brought under control by tight restrictions (mostly) and the beginnings of vaccinations. Letting up on the restrictions too early led to a bad 3rd wave even as the vaccination campaign got properly going. Back to tight restrictions; these together with a truly excellent vaccination campaign have put us right again. It is the combination of approaches that has been key. (I have a link to an article with the latest Ontario graph in the "Vaccine poll" thread in General Chat. The rises and falls in cases are rather dramatic.)

RCB

 

Great post.

 

Yes it is possible (rather than likely). But
1.The chances are significantly lower.
2. The numbers of people in the building with Covid will be fewer, if any.
3. Those in the building with Covid will be be much less contagious than unvaccinated people, because the vaccine reduces transmission. They are therefore less of a risk to anyone for whom the vaccine does not work well or who cannot take the vaccine for medical reasons.

So, no, I don't think I'm missing the major point. Getting everyone vaccinated reduces incidence and transmission risk. Reducing contact with unvaccinated people does likewise.

 

Not sure they're significantly lower to be honest. If you work through the maths the 30% of the vaccinated population that could still be carriers is a much bigger factor than the 9% or 10% of people who chose not to be vaccinated.

But the key point is its not like the smoking ban. It would be like it if you banned smokers from pubs but then allowed 30% of the "non-smokers" to possibly spark up.

 

Ah, those were the good old days.

 

You can only transmit covid if you have covid. The way you are talking seems to suggest unvaccinated people have covid by default.

The vaccine take up is 87.5% of adults, that is amazing for a non mandatory vaccine. Yet for some that is not enough, however if you want to increase that take up the way to do it is not to take away their rights and freedoms.

As people are a little upset about the 1930s Germany comment I guess they don't like the fact it is being pointed out they are quite happy to oppress a section of society. I know you can't chose your skin colour or ethnic group, so if you want another example of people being oppressed through no fault of their own look at anyone who caught HIV/Aids in the 80s, instant social outcasts because of a virus.

 

I disagree with your 'key point'. The key point is reducing the risk levels, particularly those that can be controlled. Even (bizarrely) allowing 30% of smokers to smoke would be preferable to letting all of them do so. 30% of smokers smoking would put less tobacco smoke in the air than if 100% were doing so. So the risk to non smokers would be significantly reduced.

Any reduction is a reduction. Infected unvaccinated people are much more contagious than those who've been jabbed and they are an identifiable risk that can be managed, whereas infected jabbed people are not (other than by lockdowns).

 

I agree. But what is proportional in the middle of a still-raging global pandemic, and what is proportional before and after that pandemic, are different. This is the biggest global health emergency in living memory. Temporary exceptional measures are necessary.

If we are still excluding people in (say) two years, when the pandemic is over and Covid has reduced to a base level, then you'd have a good point. But when cases are again rising at an extreme rate and millions are still dying around the world, not so much.

 

For someone who is double jabbed you have absolutely no faith in the vaccines efforts to protect you if you rely on the unvaccinated to become social outcasts for this to work. You'll be pushing this vaccine you have little faith in on children soon.

 

The pandemic won't be over in two years. I think this is where you and I continually disagree. Waiting for eradication or it to settle down is a pipe dream and if we start excluding unvaccinated people from society there will never be a push to bring the lepers back. Its going to ebb and flow forever - or at least until we have more effective vaccines.

But in the mean time it all has to be proportional, if we were actually talking about the difference between the air being filled with smoke and there being no smoke then I'd be on board with you. If we're talking about the difference between 25 people and 40 people in a crowd of 14,000 carrying covid then not so much.

 

Rather than exlcuding people who make a free choice not to take an experimental vaccine, we should just exclude those above a certain age. For your own protection, obviously.

 

So the 12.5% of unvaccinated adults is your concern, even though everyone under the age of 18 will not be vaccinated? It's these adults who are putting you at risk.

 

Has there ever been a pandemic that ebbed and flowed forever? If so, why aren't we still getting Spanish Flu, Bubonic Plague, Black Death or Swine Flue? Vaccines will improve, vaccination rates will go up worldwide, treatments will improve, the virus will mutate and become less deadly (although possibly more infectious) etc etc. Eventually we will get to a situation, like flu, where it kills the extremely old and vulnerable but is a minor, and liveable, risk for the vast majority. In other words, it will no longer be a pandemic.

 

No, because I and millions of others can't choose our age, unlike those who make a choice to refuse the vaccine.

 

You are a drama Quee

You are a drama queen.

 

Under 18s aren't going to pubs, gigs, supermarkets etc in significant enough numbers to pose much of a risk to most adults, other than their immediate families, most of whom are under 50 and therefore at low risk of serious Covid. It's the unvaccinated adults who are the biggest risk to those who are vulnerable.

 

And that's a free choice. You've used the word 'selfish' to describe people who choose not to take a vaccine, which I find somewhat ironic. Its not selfish for a person to make a free and (partly) informed choice about whether to take an experimental medical procedure. People should do so on the balance of risk as they see fit for themselves. I'd say what IS selfish is enforcing or heavily coercing others to undertake a medical procedure against their will so you feel safer - or rather to protect the most vulnerable. Why make it the responsibility of younger generations to make sacrifices and expose their bodies to something they don't want to do, to protect the minority who're at higher risk? Lets just indefinitely exclude those at higher risk. For the good of society.

No?

I'm obviously being facetious. Nobody should be excluded. I'm making a point that its easy to advocate for the exclusion of others until the exclusion is being pointed your own way. There's no risk free approach here. Covid will become a permanent feature of our lives, it'll exist on an endemic basis. We can't sacrifice our liberty by means of living with the virus. Inform people, let people make their choices, get on with life.