COVID-19

Would you have preferred the world governments to say to the companies making the vaccine "sorry we can't give you a free pass" so the vaccine would not have been available for maybe years as many vaccines aren't until they have been proven to be safe.
Thank goodness the vast majority of people were prepared to take that risk and get a hold of this terrible virus, I believe someone posted the vaccine was available far quicker because governments were throwing money at pharmaceutical companies to get a vaccine rolled out.
I do agree a vaccine passport is not required and can't see how any club with large home attendances can implement it.

 

So you are now contradicting yourself., nope i missed that my bad. we agree there

"it's asking why if the vaccine reduces the transmission is this not been seen on the maps linked." again this is what i mean about correlation does not mean causation. if the anti body levels in Bradford are at 90% compared to 70% in the wider population obviously the transmission would be HIGHER without the vaccine rather than assuming incorrectly the vaccines dont work. like i said to ricky the R is 5 without prior immunity. that immunity is either from vaccines or from catching the virus.

 

also @Edin Nowhere did you read the article i sent you? https://academic.oup.com/jtm/article/28/7/taab124/6346388

specifically the part where it says delta is worse than Spanish flu pandemic...

 

Which takes us full circle to vaccine passports, it is clear that large areas of Bradford have acquired immunity through the actual virus without taking the vaccine, so if they have immunity or have had Covid and recovered fully, why do they need to be treated as second class citizens for not taking the vaccine? What is it achieving if they already have antibodies and immunity?

 

ah! a good question!

remember though that second class citizen stuff is nonsense, you can still take a negative test (i am not going to discuss how easy it is to get around that again..) vaccination is not mandatory (personally i do disagree with that but hey ho)

the problem there is while sound is hard to implement. what about traveling home or away fans? is it worse to treat people based on location? I do think proof of having Covid recently should be included in the passport too. Spain do that as a possible entry requirement.

 

I actually think that the percentage of the population that has either a vaccine or had the virus (not those who have simple tested positive as I think the actual number of people who have had the virus is far far higher than those who have tested positive) is way above current estimates. I would go as far to say that 90% of the population is either vaccinated or has had the virus knowingly or unknowingly and the vast majority of those unknowingly will be children who have never had a test nor showed any symptoms at all.

 

possibly. i do think current antibody estimates are at around 90%

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/antibodies

turns out its 93.6% in England.

 

Which again brings me back round to my argument from the very start, if we have a 93.6% coverage, why the need for Covid Passports?

 

seems like you have missed it.. but for the 2nd time, here is the governments argument for needing a passport, i am finally starting to realise you might be a WUM.

Supporting evidence
The COVID-Status Certification Review concluded that there would be a public health benefit from certification. Certification of immunity for certain uses has the potential to enable access to a wide range of activities in ways that could reduce transmission of the virus.

There is good evidence to suggest certification will have a beneficial impact on infection rates. Vaccines reduce the likelihood of someone becoming infected, and, therefore, vaccine certification reduces the risk of onward transmission if an infected person does enter a venue. Vaccination also reduces the chances of someone who is infected being hospitalised or dying.

PHE analysis of the Events Research Programme found that, while proof of full vaccination or a negative LFD test would not completely eliminate the possibility of an infectious individual attending an event, it should reduce the likelihood of someone transmitting highly infectious amounts of virus to a large number of individuals attending the event. The study concluded that promoting attendance by fully-vaccinated individuals at events will be important to mitigate risks.

For venues, certification could allow settings that have experienced long periods of closure to remain open, compared to more stringent measures which may severely reduce capacity or cause them to close entirely.



upon rereading the whole doc which is here https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1020982/COVID-19-response-autumn-and-winter-plan-2021.pdf
(which i know without a doubt you will not read)
it looks like this is a replacement for a lockdown.

 

Forget £10 I will go £50 for the burns unit how's that.

I will go on record now and say between now and the end of may 2023 when football season ends that we will see an increase in death rates caused by the vaccine. I also believe that 2023 will actually be put back a further few years in terms of trying to prove its success or failure

I will also go on record and say people of a certain age will need double shots next year and that entering most places will require you to show proof of the vaccine.

 

I know that you have mentioned it several time, but you are ignoring the fact that close to 94% of the country has antibodies. So restrictions have to be in line with the actual benefit they are supposed to provide.

Is this really a step that is required if 94% of the population has antibodies?

It's quite a simple point I am making.

vaccine certification reduces the risk of onward transmission if an infected person does enter a venue - But 94% of people have antibodies so 94% of people have a reduced risk of onward transmission.

while proof of full vaccination or a negative LFD test would not completely eliminate the possibility of an infectious individual attending an event, it should reduce the likelihood of someone transmitting highly infectious amounts of virus to a large number of individuals attending the event. - 94% of people have antibodies.

The vaccine gives you antibodies which therefore allows you access to all these events, however 94% of people have antibodies. We are bringing this in for 6% and at the same time excluding millions of people who have natural immunity from having the virus who by looking at recent trend maps are showing a stronger immunity that vaccinated areas as we have previously discussed

Can you see where I am coming from, if we are going to impose something it has to have a significant benefit and not it's better than nothing.

What if we created an extra group, those who have had the virus and had two jabs and promote those above those who have just two jabs, would that work with as those people have far more immunity than anyone?

 

“I will go on record now and say between now and the end of may 2023 when football season ends that we will see an increase in death rates caused by the vaccine.”

£50 for that and that only, you are on. Deaths specifically caused by the vaccine.

 

The other option would be lockdown. Take it or leave it.

 

It's not the other option, you are accepting it is the other option, this is what happens when you just accept something unquestioned and why these things require scrutiny. If 94% of the population has anitbodies and we still need lockdowns then this will never end.

 

Why that ONLY why not on everything I mentioned or are you picking and choosing.

£50 on the 3 below

Death rates increase because of the vaccine uptake are we saying UK only or across the world your shout?

Passports will be needed in most places.

Double shots required in certain age groups

All by May 2023 if 2/3 or 3/3 turn out right for you I pay £50 to the burns unit.

If 2/3 3/3 turn out to be right in what I am saying you pay £50.

I actually do hope I end up paying but I ain't convinced one bit so do we have a deal on the 3 above.

 

I originally said £10 no problems past 2023. Clear Concise Obvious. then YOU changed it adding 5 extra amendments to the bet.

Originally this bet on was vaccines and then you've added passports which is government policy? why are YOU changing the goal posts?

I have no idea the effectiveness of double shots or whatever

all I was saying is no problems past 2023. take it or leave it. easy cop out from you that, change the deal then blame me. very Boris of you. the fact you changed it tells me you don't actually think there will be any problems as the bottom 2 actually have a high chance of going ahead. for shame man. weeing on me and telling me its rain. then you have the gall to blame me... shameful man.

 

so just be clear, YOU are the one picking and choosing not me.

 

£10 it does end by the end of 2022.

 

You're not going to make him see it. He seems like one of those posters wo simply responds fto reaffirm his position rather than taking the other person's points and positions on board.

I'm completely with you that passports won't do anything apart from coerce people into vaccination - which I presume is the whole point.

When there is a three pronged defense (vaccination, testing and natural immunity) but only one or two of these are accounted for it doesn't make sense. Plus the fact that even with a vaccination passport scheme in operation there is still almost certainly going to be people at any large-ish venue who are carrying the virus.

It's a little bit what happens when people get absolutely transfixed into a position because they've been told it's a positive and will leave their common sense at the door.

 

I would suggest that the lack of cases in the areas that are not taking part in the roll out could be down to people just not partaking in any of it eg testing etc so the only cases are those that get really bad