onewheeldave

1 minute ago, sibon said:

Yes. But, have you considered the effects that your decisions have on the health of others?’

 

 

Yes, I have. My conclusion is still the removal of compulsion.

Just now, Longcol said:

So were back into the conspiract theory scenario - whatever................................

Not really, Talkradio have been consistently anti lockdown and anti compulsion throughout most of this. As for youtube channels being taken down and censored, I've personally see quite a few go.

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

So were back into the conspiract theory scenario - whatever................................

Freedom to decide what risks you're going to expose other people to as well.

Just as the pro compulsion people seem to feel free to impose the considerable negatives of lockdowns on other people who don't want those negatives.

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Freedom to catch the virus and infect other members of society. Odd sort of freedom.

Freedom to choose whether to mask, freedom to decide what risks to your health you are willing to take.

1 minute ago, Longcol said:

Evidence?

I'll assume you're not asking for evidence of living in an age of divisiveness

Evidence that a significant portion of the population are anti lockdown and anti mask compuslion? Combination of just looking around and listening to what people I know are saying and then the fact that there is so much opposition to continuing the lockdowns. Media outlets like Talkradio, plus all the ones that got censored out of the public view.

6 minutes ago, makapaka said:

 

 

the government has decided to let a virus go through the population.

 

 

 

'Freedom Day' is being whittled away before it's even happened- it looks like local authorities can keep whatever restrictions they want- masks on public transport etc. Then it's likely that there will be another full lockdown soon after due to increasing infections and approaching cold weather.

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

I think taxpayers would soon get tired of idiots getting infected and stretching NHS resources.

We live in an age of divisiveness- woke vs anti woke, pro trans pronouns vs anti trans pronouns, racism is rife vs racism doesn't exist, left vs right, etc, etc.

You'll find that quite a large portion of taxpayers are anti lockdown and anti mask compulsion.

1 minute ago, Carbuncle said:

Your question was ridiculous.

It wasn't. Why do you think it was?

2 minutes ago, sibon said:

Ok.

 

No.

 

But we would need to live differently.

 

Your turn.

I'd remove the compulsion- let people choose if they want to mask or isolate or not.

2 minutes ago, Longcol said:

 

 

What do you propose - the human race being wiped out?

 

The human race will not be wiped out by covid- it's a minor pandemic compared to, say, the American flu- which also didn't wipe out humanity, it killed between 5 and 10% I believe- covid is nowhere near that serious.

3 minutes ago, Carbuncle said:

What if we have a plague of frogs?

Evading the question.

1 minute ago, sibon said:

Just supposing that we could carry on for a while yet, with face coverings and the current vaccines. Just supposing that those measures kept this thing under control. Just supposing that bought time to research a treatment for this terrible thing.

 

Would you still support attempts to undermine that?

1 minute ago, sibon said:

Just supposing that we could carry on for a while yet, with face coverings and the current vaccines. Just supposing that those measures kept this thing under control. Just supposing that bought time to research a treatment for this terrible thing.

 

Would you still support attempts to undermine that?

Answer my question, then I'll tackle yours

8 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

Just supposing the covid never stops coming- that is possible, constant new variations, some immune to the vaccine. If that happens, would you want to keep the masks and lockdowns going for ever?

1 minute ago, Longcol said:

If that's what it takes to stop public health resources being overwhelmed am happy to wear a mask and socially distance were appropriate - like we've done since March last year.

 

And of course take new vaccines developed to manage new variations.

 

 

 

So you would keep the lockdowns and masking going for ever. I'm surprised.

1 minute ago, Longcol said:

Hospitals have got to got to react to  what comes through the door.

 

Let's try to stop more covid cases coming through the door by getting vaccinated and wearing masks for mutual protection (indoors eg supermarkets or outdoors eg packed stadia) to stop more covid coming through the door

Just supposing the covid never stops coming- that is possible, constant new variations, some immune to the vaccine. If that happens, would you want to keep the masks and lockdowns going for ever?

1 minute ago, Longcol said:

So the sooner we get people vaccinated, wearing masks to protect each other and prevent hospitalisations due to Covid the sooner we can get on with dealing with the backlog of other cases / ave the resources to deal with other cases that will arise.

Albeit it at the cost of increasing the 'immunity debt' further

14 minutes ago, Thirsty Relic said:

I wonder if.........

 

I've never suffered from Hay Fever or had any problem around grass, but twice recently I've cut a relative's lawn, and on both occasions I've had sneezing and coughing fits, and a runny nose.  All symptoms go as soon as I am on my way home.

 

Surely in my later years I've not contracted Hay Fever?  If so, could it be due to the lockdown, and will it disappear IF we stay out of lockdown and things get better?

Could be just age- autoimmune issues often arise with increasing age- I've never had hay fever but over the past few years am getting a lot of eye irritation especially in summer.

54 minutes ago, FoxLady said:

...and now, for your further entertainment....

 

 

Norovirus.

Earlier than usual.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57865112

 

 

 

 

And another negative of lockdowns-

'

Prof Paul Hunter, from the Norwich School of Medicine at the University of East Anglia, said the increase of cases of norovirus in children "almost certainly" reflected reduced immunity to this infection as a result of not being exposed to it as the country locked down for Covid.

"We have already started to see cases rising for some of the other respiratory viruses and this reminds us that as we come out of lockdown we are likely to start seeing many other infections rising that may cause problems for public health and the NHS.

"Doctors in new Zealand have coined the phrase 'immunity debt' to describe this phenomenon.'

[from the quoted link]

50 minutes ago, Becky B said:

 

 

If you're young and fit, how much do you want to gamble that you don't have undiagnosed underlying health conditions that may suddenly materialise when you catch a virus that could be avoided?

For many, they just want the choice- the right to make their own decision about what risk they are willing to take.

49 minutes ago, Becky B said:

I think there are several posters on here who will deny anything that doesn't fit their theories.  Like those claiming that 99.4% of the population only get mild symptoms and everyone who is severely affected is old/has underlying health conditions (this may be split between this thread and the Covid megathread,  it's all getting a bit repetitive).

 

 

What is the true figure [roughly, with evidence]?

3 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

You simply will not have it that you can die without "underlying health conditions" will you.

I'm simply pointing out that underlying health conditions can easily remain undiagnosed. Given that so many people have had covid with little or no ill effects it seems reasonable that the minority who have suffered seriously would have had some underlying condition, even if it's only a genetic variation making them unusually susceptible to the virus. Do you have a alternative hypothesis as to why the virus is so harmless to so many, yet serious/fatal to others who have no diagnosed underlying conditions?

20 minutes ago, Longcol said:

Thank you.

 

There is also the presumption that anyone with an underlying / pre-existing condition is at deaths door (having had colleagues with diabetes for many years I know this simply isn't true).

Not Really, certainly not in my case. Look at heart disease- a major risk factor for serious issues when infected with covid; yet for many, heart disease is symptomless- the first sign being a [often fatal] heart attack.

57 minutes ago, Becky B said:

I hate to be the bearer of bad news but hospital admissions are on the rise again. ID wards here are full. 

STH have published a story today from a (fit and well) 25 year old encouraging young people to get vaccinated, as he suffered severe effects (you know, from this virus that only causes mild symptoms unless you have 'underlying conditions'). 'Twas on Facebook so I don't know if I can share it... 

More scaremongering. No one has ever denied that some young people with no diagnosed underlying conditions won't suffer from covid.

But it is rare- even the article this comes from states '“All of us who went out for the meal got it. We were all aged 25-28 with no underlying conditions, but I seemed to get it really badly, the doctors said I had every symptom."

i.e. everyone else in the group got covid and didn't end up in hospital.

Then consider that there is zero evidence this person didn't actually have  undiagnosed underlying conditions- when he says '“I would consider myself to be fairly fit,' and the article says 'James, who has no underlying health conditions and runs, plays football and goes to the gym....' we see the common error of confusing fitness with health. 

It is not uncommon to be extremely fit and not in good health, hence the  incidence of 'really fit' individuals dropping dead of a heart attack while running/lifting/playing football/squash.

I'm tired of seeing references to this tiny minority of 'young with no underlying health conditions' being brought up, with no evidence of, or even mention of, the possibility of them having had undiagnosed underlying conditions.

4 hours ago, butlers said:

And if course the recent polling saw 70 plus per cent say they were going to continue to use a mask in appropriate circumstances.

 

So no problem then, if such a majority will continue to mask when it isn't compulsory.

1 hour ago, RJRB said:

 

The economy is teetering largely because of poor guidance from our leaders.

 

Nothing to do with being crippled by only having a fraction of previous custom able to acess the business then? Nothing to do with huge swathes of staff off sick despite not being infected but unable to work due to being in a particular 'bubble' where someone tested positive [using tests which give large numbers of false positives]?

1 hour ago, Mister M said:

Boris Johnson’s policy poses ‘danger to the world’, as Whitty warns UK could face ‘trouble’

 

Covid news live: Latest updates as scientists say UK policy poses ‘danger to world’ | The Independent

 

Worrying, but it's been known for a while now that not keeping on top of infection rates leads to new variants. I suppose Johnson is keeping his fingers crossed that the new variant, if one does emerge, is not vaccine resistant. 

Needless to say if it is vaccine resistant, more lockdowns, and Britain will be known as 'plague island'.

or 'Freedom Island'?

9 hours ago, Longcol said:

So how long do you propose we wait - and how many deaths would that lead to?

 

Vaccines have reduced hospitalisations and deaths as a proportion of infections by a huge percentage. Does this upset you?

It is notable that you, and several others on this thread, assume that anyone mentioning the lack of long term testing on this vaccine must be in opposition to the vaccine.

I do not oppose the vaccine [as long as it is not compulsory], I just don't think that going into censorship mode about it's lack of long term testing, or any of it's side effects, is a good idea.

3 minutes ago, Longcol said:

 

Now, those same doctors -- the majority of which have no experience treating COVID-19 patients -- have launched a campaign to warn Americans that they should not be forced to take an "experimental vaccine," while failing to mention the safety trials and large phase III efficacy trials.......

 

Not the most reliable lot then 😎

I expect by "experimental vaccine," they are referring to the fact that the vaccine has no long term safety testing- why mention the 'the [not long term] safety trials and large phase III efficacy trials' when they in no way substitute for long term safety testing?

6 minutes ago, Longcol said:

......along with the fact that no vaccine mandate exists."

 

 

Yet.

26 minutes ago, Bargepole23 said:

Experimental in what different way to other vaccines?

No long term safety testing

19 minutes ago, sibon said:

 

 

We know the short term effects of both the vaccine and Covid. At the moment, the vaccine would be the choice of any numerate, rational human.

Not true- some numerate, rational humans are choosing not to receive the vaccine

22 minutes ago, sibon said:

I can’t be bothered to quote all the stuff up there^^*, but it is just as possible to invent reasons for not serving someone as it is for that person to invent an exemption.

 

I think you’ll see lots of people refused service for other reasons, such as rudeness, aggression, abuse of staff etc. The fact that they are also refusing to wear a mask will, of course, be coincidental.

 

And that's OK, if the person was actually being rude. It is not OK if there was no rudeness and the server is lying about it and the real reason was the mask.

44 minutes ago, makapaka said:

My original thought was that anyone who currently wears one would continue to do so.

 

I will in the circumstances described above.

 

 I understand some people have never worn them - I just assumed anyone else that thought it was necessary now would still think it necessary next Monday. 

There are plenty of people who wear the masks who don't consider them necessary- they wear them only because it is illegal not to. I personally know several people who really dislike the masks and are only wearing them because it is illegal not to. So I expect that quite a few people will cease masking when the legal compulsion is removed.

45 minutes ago, sibon said:

 

 

I’m not sure that our current government are gaining much by restricting freedom. If anything, it is probably driving some of their core support away. This is the bunch who thought that letting it rip was a good plan.  Maybe I’m underestimating them, if that’s possible.
 

 

This isn't really coming from governments.  I'm no fan of right wing tories, but, had labour been in power, the lockdowns/restritions, fines, bans and censorship would have been even more extreme.

The underlying motive energy behind all this is global, and governments are as much a victim as anyone. Both the UK conservative govt and Trump were forced to reverse their initial stances by the global demand for lockdowns and restrictions; forced to focus purely on infection control at the expense of economy, civil liberties etc.

52 minutes ago, sibon said:

 

As for what will change, I don’t know. I can see that lots has changed since last year, both in terms of freedoms and in terms of human behaviour. I’m hoping that the vaccine, coupled with natural infection will eventually win out. Thats a reasonable assumption, isn’t it? 

 

 

Not really- new 'variations' can easily be used to initiate further lockdowns and restrictions, especially if current vaccines are less or ineffective against them. A whole control industry has evolved in response to covid- at best that can be rolled out anytime by invoking variations, at worst, like many industries, it may turn out to be highly resistant to being closed down even if it isn't needed.