COVID-19

I agree with your maths but those 15m people are going to get protected over that timescale anyway. It's not like vaccinations are going to stop when the restrictions do so it's not really "more"

Bolton came down for a number of reasons but its the only place. Blackburn has continued to go up so its very movable.

 

Why are they? Some might, but most shouldn't. If everyone is vaccinated and the R rate goes down so low that the virus is no longer in general circulation then who is going to give it to them?

 

The virus will always be in general circulation. You're still chasing this idea that one day it will have completely gone away but it won't, certainly not in the short term.

But at some lower level it will always be in circulation. As for who is going to give it to them, other people who have had the vaccine but aren't actually protected and those that have chosen not to.

 

But, even if it doesn't go away completely, the fewer unvaccinated people there are then the lower the R rate will be and the fewer people who will catch it. So if most people do their bit and get vaccinated then that reduces the risk to those for whom the vaccine doesn't work. So it's the socially responsible thing to do.

 

I completely agree. The fewer unvaccinated people there are the better but just because things are better doesn't make in obligatory. It's better for everyone if nobody drives cars or drinks alcohol, the purpose of our lives is not to have zero social impact.

But if we're in agreement that there will be people who are vaccinated, but not protected, then the virus will always circulate anyway so anybody who catches it will be down to their own personal choice or a vaccine who has failed to protect them.

 

I've just realised that we're now discussing how best to keep vaccinated people safe.

The world truly has gone mad!

 

No, we're accepting that vaccinations don't protect everyone. So we're discussing why it is socially irresponsible not to get vaccinated because, if you don't, you're more likely to infect those for whom the vaccine doesn't work.
There's nothing mad about that whatsoever.

 

It's socially irresponsible because you could infect people who have been vaccinated? Is that not right?

 

It's socially irresponsible because, if you refuse the vaccine, you could infect those for whom the vaccine is ineffective. And also infect others whose turn for the vaccine hasn't arrived yet.
Not sure what's so difficult to understand about that.
The fewer people who are vaccinated the more chance the virus has to keep circulating. If everyone gets vaccinated then the virus will wither away to almost nothing because the numbers who can catch it are limited to the minority for whom the virus doesn't work. And that won't be enough people for the virus to keep flourishing.
It's simple - the more of the population that's vaccinated the less chance the virus has to keep circulating to a significant degree.

 

All of that I agree with..but you could just have said "yes, it's socialy irresponsible because you could infect people who have been vaccinated"

Nothing difficult to understand, it's exactly what I said.

And also yes, I agree, the more people who get vaccinated the better it will be.

 

It is a play on words what you are saying. You comment implies it is to protect everyone that has been vaccinated when that isn’t how I read @Offcomedun comment. They seem to be saying it is to help protect those that the vaccination hasn’t worked for, yes vaccines are not always 100% effective. I know you haven’t said ALL but that is how it reads due to the lack of any other qualifier.

 

Not everyone, no, but we are still talking about protecting people who have had the jab aren't we?

 

The governement have done a great job of making people take the jab, then be total scared about removing lockdown because they have little faith in the vaccine.

Why have the vaccine if you believe you need lockdowns or restrictions on top.

The young haven't been hospitalised or died in numbers at any stage during he pandemic so why do some feel they all need vaccinating before we move forward?

 

Yes, the ones for whom it doesn't work. And also those whose turn to have it, or to have their second jab, hasn't arrived yet.

 

I haven't had my second jab and I can tell you, I don't need further restrictions to protect me.

 

Exactly what I said originally.

But by this point the people who are most vulnerable have had two jabs, the people who have had 1 jab (like myself) are of tiny, tiny risk. They're also the people who are out on the streets actually trying to live their normal lives.

The purposes of the restrictions were to protect the vulnerable and why everyone participated for the greater societal good regardless of their own risk. We're losing sight of that and are now trying to protect people who have statistically nominal risk or people who have been vaccinated and trying to present it as the same thing. It's not.

 

As with all vaccines they are not 100% for 100% of people which is why the idea is to get such a high percentage of people vaccinated. That gives protection to those that can not have it, haven’t had it and those that have had it and it hasn’t worked.

You are still playing with words even though I am presuming you fully understand

 

I don't feel like I'm playing with words, I feel like it might be your interpretation of them.

Everything you have said in that post I have said in the last two pages. Completely agree with everything.

 

Exactly.
And it's also not just about protecting the vulnerable and those for whom the vaccine doesn't work. Getting the R number down as low as possible is the best way to avoid the virus mutating and becoming more vaccine resistant.

 

I know you are very attached to your restrictions, I can only put it down to some sort of large scale Stockholm Syndrome. But when would you actually be willing to let go of them?

When there are zero people in hospital? When there are zero infections? When 100% of people are vaccinated? When there is no prospect of another mutation? When pigs fly?

The important data now is below where SAGE thought it would be when they set out the road map. If not now when the deaths and hospitalisations are low and every vulnerable person who wants the jab has had it........then when?