COVID-19

And is it beyond the wit of our border staff to check where they originally set off from and give them the choice to go back from whence they came or fork out for two weeks hotel quarantine?
They apparently have no qualms about locking up EU nationals who arrive here without observing all the latest rules and protocols, and sometimes even when they have done. So, at a time of greatly reduced flight numbers and enhanced need for vigilance I'd expect them to be asking for proof of accommodation in the embarking country to find out if people have been plane hopping to evade quarantine.

 

I would hope they do more than just putting the passport into a machine to check that the holder is who it says they are, but if they apparently do it for EU nationals maybe they apparently do it for UK nationals as well.

 

The current narrative seems to be pointing the finger at the unvaccinated as being a reason why June 21st is delayed.

I've stuck throughout to no Covid passports and no mandatory vaccine.

The goalposts keep moving and this is another movement.

The narrative is becoming more agressive against those who choose not to take the vaccine, and no doubt they are looking to have the population pressure those who aren't vaccinated.

My own personal stance is where the risk of the virus is greater than that of the vaccine, then take it, but if you don't you should not be excluded from society.

It's worth noting, this Indian variant which has a higher transmission has seen us currently on a week for week comparison down on number of positive results, number of hospitalizations and number of deaths and in truth we won't know if any rise is down to the new variant or the relaxation of the lockdown.

 

When you get to an age 50/60 where you can get a flu jab to help ward off influenza will you get if or will you use the same arguement.
I get your arguement but by getting the jab you take yourself out of any possible restrictions going forward.

 

You talk about people being at low risk from the virus not needing to take the vaccine - but that is a big unknown. Some young long Covid sufferers are asymptomatic at first and only develop problems months after contracting the virus. There are also several studies looking at the possibility that young people who've had asymptomatic Covid and believe they've had no ill effects may actually have suffered heart/respiratory damage which could come back to haunt them in years to come when their immune systems are less robust. So the comparitive risks may be less clear cut than you like to believe.

The numbers are going up again and the spread is largely in the unvaccinated population. Getting vaccinated is the socially responsible thing to do to limit the spread and minimise the development of further domestically generated mutations. The risks from the vaccines are minimal, unless you have a valid medical reason why you can't take it, which is obviously different.

Obviously, you can choose not to be vaccinated. No one is going to force you. But personal choices come with consequences. People are getting vaccinated both to protect themselves and also to protect their loved ones, friends, neighbours and wider society. Don't therefore be surprised if those who have done the socially responsible thing regard those who haven't as selfish and part of the problem rather than the solution.

If you choose not to take the vaccine don't be surprised if the majority who have done would rather you weren't in their company and if events and businesses decide they would rather do without your custom, whether or not there are official vaccine passports. People everywhere are making sacrifices to reduce the spread of Covid and are, understandably, not well disposed towards those who choose not to.

That's my take on it.

It's also one that is widely shared by those who've taken the vaccine. I don't know a single person, of any age, who is refusing to be vaccinated. Most are completely bamboozled by the irrational and antisocial choice made by vaccine refuseniks.

 

I never such a thing. Where have I said anywhere about people not needing to take the vaccine, I'm talking about people making their own choice, and if they believe the risk of not taking it was higher than not taking it then I said take it, but I wouldn't exclude them from society for not doing so. Chris Whitty has said in a Press Conference that the risk of the AZ vaccine is as such to under 40s they advise another vaccine. He also says that the risk to children is higher taking the vaccine than it is from getting the virus.

The numbers are going up? Yesterday's data shows that cases were down 2.5% on the previous week, deaths were down 27.9% on the previous week, People admitted to hospital is down 2.1%. These are the government's own figures.
Daily summary | Coronavirus in the UK (data.gov.uk)

Where is your data that numbers are going up?

Such faith in the vaccine that you need people who haven't had the vaccine to be separated from society. I have had the vaccine and I don't give a shit if the person sat next to me on the bus has been vaccinated because I know I am and therefore if I catch it I know that the risk to me has been reduced, after all I can still catch the damn thing from someone who has been vaccinated anyhow. My kids aren't vaccinated so I guess you would expect me to bring my kids to any place you are such as the football?

You don't know anyone who has broken any rules either, so those people who have been hugging and been in each others houses must not exist. I posted a link to the T&A website that showed that in some places in Bradford 50% of people who were eligible for vaccination had decided not to get vaccinated.

 

I have taken the jab, I deemed the risk of getting the virus to be worse than that of getting the vaccine, some people may think different. However I will not exclude them from society for that choice. After all I can catch the virus from someone who has been vaccinated anyway.

 

But as we've seen with the Indian variant it is areas where there was a resistance to get the jab for whatever reason, we hear certain member of society won't have the jab are we surprised when the virus then spreads through these non vaccined people.

At the end of the day wouldnt it be easier to get the jab and then you/they would have no potential restrictions going forward.
I get the "it's my choice" argument but if your choice then impacts on what you ard allowed to do in the future you can't blame government for imposing restrictions on unvaccinated people.

 

People just need to be able to make their own decisions regardless of whether anyone else agrees with them or thinks their decision making to be justified. Nobody needs to justify their own medical choices.

I've had mine, I saw no reason not to despite it being a tiny risk/reward tradeoff for my age group. But my personal decision doesn't hold any more sway than anybody elses personal decision to do the opposite. The Daily Mail headline the other day about "Refuseniks" was a disgrace and another pointless attempt to divide people.

Similarly though where areas are largely unvaccinated we shouldn't be surprised if the infections go up, that's simply the flip side of the personal decisions. When that occurs we need to be careful not to overreact and scaremonger as it's simply the natural reaction to unprotected people going around their daily lives.

 

Agree with that but if individuals prefer not to have the vaccine and government put restrictions on unvaccined individuals then they will have to accept that or get a jab unfortunayly they have to think of the majority who have had the jab.

https://www-bbc-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/www.bbc.com/news/business-56460329.amp?amp_js_v=a6&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQHKAFQArABIA%3D%3D#aoh=16214230630574&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Fbusiness-56460329

The boss of Australian airline Qantas has told the BBC that "governments are going to insist" on vaccines for international travellers.

 

International travel is fair enough as far as i'm concerned - people have needed to take jabs to go to certain countrries for as long as i can remember so it's not too different.

There should be no internal restrictions though either for vaccinated or unvaccinated people. Their decisions are valid and the only repercussions should be the natural ones of infection/protection rather than governmental restrictions.

 

Well the fearmongering and the blame game is working, you can tell that by the people who want the unvaccinated removed from everyday life.

I have been vaccinated therefore I feel I have protected myself, I really am not worried about those who have decided not to vaccinated themselves because I have protected myself.

The government is pushing the unclean unvaccinated people screwing it up for everyone else message, in part as a diversion of them allowing the Indian variant into the UK in the first place. But as I have pointed out, figures are still going down, not up anyhow. It's the negative media which is making people believe that figures are going up when they aren't through fear.

There were 2k of the Indian variant last week, the week before it was 1k. Well there were 15k cases last week and there are 15k cases this week. The Kent variant in the middle of the flu season on an un vaccinated population v The Indian variant coming after what is seen as the flu season on a massively vaccinated population is only scary because the media keep pushing it down your throats that it is scary and in some way comparable.

 

But the growing evidence is that the vaccines do reduce the spread. You are less likely to give it to another person if having the vaccine means you are passing on a lower viral load.
A person refusing to take the vaccine is more likely to pass it on than a vaccinated person. That's why it's antisocial to refuse the vaccine and why those who have taken the vaccine are not best pleased at those who refuse. The more people who are vaccinated the slower the virus will spread, making it much less likely that the virus will further mutate through community transmission.

 

But they aren't just 'their medical choices' are they? It not like deciding not to have treatment for cancer - that's a personal decision that affects no one else's physical health.
Deciding not to take a vaccine against Covid impacts on those around you and society in general, by reducing the potential level of herd immunity and thereby perpetuating the spread of the virus.
Societies have been imposing quarantine, forced isolation and even forced treatment against highly infectious diseases for centuries. Simply expecting people to do the decent thing for society and get a simple jab is hardly onerous by comparison. And if people are prepared to be that selfish then they mustn't be surprised if wider society chooses to exclude them from certain activities. All choices have consequences.

 

Firstly, I never said I don't know anyone who has broken the rules. Of course I do. I said that most of my friends have largely followed them.
Secondly, the fact that most of the people I know stick to the rules for the vast bulk of the time does not mean that rule-breakers don't exist, as you and I know only too well.

The numbers may be going down overall, but they are increasing rapidly in specific areas. And the number of those areas is growing. It's no accident that they are growing fastest in areas with low vaccination rates. It's only a matter of time before they start growing all over the place amongst the unvaccinated population and also amongst some of those who are vaccinated. The vaccines aren't 100% effective - a friend of mine who'd been double jabbed recently spent 3 weeks flat on her back having contracted it - but the more people who get vaccinated the less it will spread, the less chance it will mutate and the sooner it will die out.

 

It's still a personal choice, just because it has some residual risk for the remainder of society doesn't change that.

If you're protected by the vaccine, and I'm not, then you have balanced your risks against the rewards as have I. If you then get infected it is a failing of the vaccine not simply because you came into contact with me. If anything the fact you can still get it even with the vaccine makes the importance of free choice even more important.

 

It is a forum there wil be posters with different opinions it doesn't make yours less valid.

 

Of course it changes it. There are many examples in society where we can take personal risks but are prevented from doing so if those risks potentially endanger other people.
Everyone knows that vaccines aren't 100% effective, but they significantly reduce one's chances of catching Covid, of suffering serious illness if you do catch it, and of passing on to others.
Having the vaccine is a social duty, to protect others as much as oneself, just like wearing a mask. If you refuse to do the socially responsible thing then you shouldn't be surprised if society excludes you from some activities.

 

Completely agree, but there are equally many examples in society where risks to others are freely accepted alongside personal risks. Driving being the most obvious example.

And everything you tell me about it having a benefit to society is 100% true and I fully agree with. It's just that we don't live in a society where you always have to comply with what is seen as the greater good to participate in it, free choice within the laws of the land is present even if it brings about some small risk or detriment to others. This has always, and should always, include medical treatments and all the vaccines we have at our disposal for every type of illness.

 

Just reading an update about EU regulations regarding travel for non-essential reasons from none member countries.

"EU envoys have also recommended that non-essential travel should be allowed from outside the EU for people who have been fully vaccinated. However, they say it should be up to member states to decide on measures they impose, such as Covid tests or quarantine."

If this is enforced it would restrict those that could go there this summer