COVID-19

Maybe. But so would be not driving or not smoking.

A tiny, tiny, tiny impact on the NHS.

 

Exactly right. Tomorrow's supposed to be very warm and sunny - i'll be honest, I'm worried that a lot of people won't wear enough sunscreen and I'll end up getting sunburnt...

 

The way the media are reporting the current situation that's the way its looking, the decision will be pushed back 4 weeks.

 

Complely agree they will. And it will be the wrong decision done for the wrong reasons.

 

Yes all because some people won't have a tiny tiny injection, with regards smoking it's not allowed inside because it has possible consequences for none smokers a positive move most would have thought, not sure about you driving comparison.

 

No, it's because the government are petrified of the implications of that.

But let's be absolutely clear, if people have been offered the jab now and haven't had it...then why would they have had it in 4 weeks time for the decision to be any different?

As for smoking and driving it's still personal choices and impact on the NHS. If you as a person who is double jabbed get covid it's not because someone else hasn't had the jab.

 

But the majority will suffer for the minority, if they use the situation in Lancashire as a reason, the medical people are saying this strain is 64% more infectious that should IMO be more of a reason to protect yourself and those around you, lets hope it doesn't mutate into an even more deadlier strain as many may not accept its a personal choice.

 

They don't need to if the government had some balls.

 

For context.

Number of COVID positive patients in UK hospitals 3 weeks ago = 900
Number of COVID positive patients in UK hospitals today = 936
Number of UK hospitals = 1257

Less than one patient per hospital as an average

Stay home. Save Lives. Protect the NHS from the disaster its clearly facing.

 

No it's not.
Not wearing a seat belt isn't infectious. If you choose to take your life in your hands then it's purely your risk.
Not having the vaccine makes you more likely to catch the virus and more likely to pass it to others. It's not the same thing at all.
Of course we can't force people to get vaccinated. But personal choice and responsibility, that you're always banging on about, has consequences. If you decide to opt out from doing the socially responsible thing then some elements of society may decide to exclude you from their activities.

 

This is 100% true but the outlook on it can be different. I take it from your stance that if an unvaccinated person passes it on it is their "fault"......its the wrong word but I can't think of a better one so please don't get caught up in semantics on that.

However, who can they actually pass it on to?

a) unvaccinated people.....where it either circles back to personal responsibility if they are "vulnerable" or they are currently in such a low risk category that it is basically of small severe risk.

Or

b) vaccinated people. However the reason they they caught covid isn't solely because they have come into contact with an infected person...its because the vaccine hasn't worked for them but they just don't know it. In that scenario they are going to get it anyway since over time they will eventually come into contact with an infected person and behave like they're protected when they're actually not.

So while previous to the vaccination of the at risk group you would be absolutely correct to go down the social responsibility line (and I would have agreed) at this stage that link is broken. Basically every severely infected person will currently only be affected because of their own personal choice or a vaccine that sadly hasn't worked on them....so what is 4 weeks going to change?

 

Hancock has had a month and still not backed that claim up with any figures even though he was asked for details at the time

 

so one said claims whereas the other side claim differently. Maybe we should have someone to make a decision based on the evidence available. It could be called MHRA?

 

So we seem to have 2 competing theories kicking around. 1 that they're not loosening up restrictions because of vulnerable people choosing not to get the jab and the other because people with low risk to the virus haven't had the opportunity to get jabbed yet. Neither of them make any sense to me and if Johnson is going to go down either of those routes he's going to need some serious science behind it because its not going to fly.

You're going to have to excuse my scepticism that 1,000 Covid patients are having even the merest impact on 5m people waiting for treatment though.

 

I get that. But why would they reduce in the next 4 weeks.

Infections are still going to keep going up. People who don't want the vaccine still won't have got it, people who haven't been fully protected by the vaccine still won't be protected.

So I see what the aim is (even if the low current numbers means we have an enormous amount of headway) but I don't see why we'll be better off in 4 weeks.

 

Unvaccinated people are more likely to pass on the virus to others. So the fewer unvaccinated people the better. If everyone is vaccinated then the chances of those for whom the vaccine doesn't work catching the disease goes down because there are few people likely to give it to them.

 

I agree with that but I asked who they were passing it on to? For the purposes of it being personal/social responsibility.

Of course the fewest number of unvaccinated people the better in general but I assume you're not advocating waiting until everyone is vaccinated before releasing restrictions?

The people for whom the vaccination hasn't worked are getting the virus at some point. There's no logical way around that.