Grendel
Well-Known Member
What is the balance without forcing people?
If you assume everyone who hasn't had a first dose is actually anti-vax, which is a huge stretch, that puts the number at under 6.4m.
By comparison there's 3.8m people who are CEV. The current advise from the government is for them to avoid places where there might be people who aren't vaccinated. There's a further 8.8m in the CV group who are advised to pay more attention to social distancing, mask wearing etc than the minimum standards currently required. What about their freedoms?
Nobody is suggesting forcing anyone to get a vaccine but you need to strike a balance between protecting those at risk & allowing them to have a decent quality of life and people who think Bill Gates wants to track them being able to go to the pub.
The freedom to do what you feel like without consequence...
Wankers.The freedom to do what you feel like without consequence...
Wankers.
Isn’t that the woman who called for NHS staff to be hung?
How do the police let it get to the stage where a vaccination centre is closed and people end up missing appointments?
How do the police let it get to the stage where a vaccination centre is closed and people end up missing appointments?
Aye.Kate Shemarani by any chance?
“It’s toxic, don’t let them inject you with it”. Says woman with a face full of Botox.The freedom to do what you feel like without consequence...
SorryFor context, useful to understand the % of the population local to that hospital that have been vaccinated
Yet when asked 90% say they’re happy to have it: Coronavirus and vaccine hesitancy, Great Britain - Office for National Statistics
Which implies it’s a convenience not a moral standpoint issue.
Good to see Alabama are on top of itSorry
As of Monday, August 30, UAB Medicine has 170 COVID-19 hospitalizations. Of those hospitalizations, 19 are vaccinated, 151 are unvaccinated. In our ICU, 5 are vaccinated, 61 are unvaccinated. We have 44 patients on vents, 39 of which are unvaccinated.
UAB Medicine reviews the data for our inpatient cases to determine why vaccinated patients are hospitalized. In the vast majority of cases, vaccinated patients who are hospitalized are immunocompromised. For example, a recent sampling of 203 positive cases at UAB Hospital revealed 20 fully vaccinated cases (9.8%). Of those, 13 (65%) were immunocompromised. These numbers show another reason why vaccination is important—it helps to protect a vulnerable population that may not have a robust immunity response to the vaccine.
Find more information about receiving your COVID-19 vaccine at https://fal.cn/3hPnB.
I've recently noticed that the UK excess deaths figure (120K) is now considerably LOWER than the death figure for covid within 28 days (132K) or covid on the death certificate (155K)......
I think I'm right in saying the general consensus is that excess deaths will be the most accurate measure for comparison with other nations when all this is over......
...so interesting to note that the UK (and others) maybe appear to be over-recording covid deaths (?)....especially compared to many other nations where excess death figures suggest they have massively underplayed it.....
There would be a point where excess deaths fell below covid deaths given the people it affected most. A lot of elderly and at risk people died in a short space of time due to covid who would most likely have passed away in the next few years anyway.
Whereas those deaths ordinarily would be spread out they've all come at once because of covid. So we're currently seeing less 'natural' deaths of elderly people now because they passed away during the last year instead.
If we end up in another fucking lockdown this winter because people are too lazy, too stupid or too fucking crazy to get vaccinated then I'm going to be furious.
Also we aren’t back to normal yet from my experience. For a start lots of people are still WFH (and may always be) so road deaths for example, which is I think always high historically, will still be suppressed.
If we end up in another fucking lockdown this winter because people are too lazy, too stupid or too fucking crazy to get vaccinated then I'm going to be furious.
Surely nobody's too *lazy* to get the vaccine during a pandemic?!? I mean, if you were *that* lazy and not bothered about things, you wouldn't be leaving your house for *anything* so wouldn't be much of a risk anyway... surely?!?
You'd have to be a total cretin to not make time to get it, unless you were stationed in the Arctic! In many ways that'd be worse than the conspiracy theorists as they may be insane, but they at least believe what they're protesting about!
Why would that be the case?
I'm pretty sure there will be another lockdown anyway. Then everyone will need a third booster eventually, so the current status of being vaccinated will become insignificant to an extent at some point. What will be the uptake on the third one after that? Probably even less I would imagine.
Plenty of places in the US have reimposed restrictions, in part because vaccination rates are stubbornly low in large swathes of the country. I don't want to go back to that either.
Shrugging your shoulders and saying the vaccine is irrelevant because we might need to get a booster and/or go back into lockdown sometime in the future doesn't make any sense to me. It's just yet another excuse. Right now it's clearly the best way to keep yourself safe, slow down the spread of the virus and get us out of this ongoing shitshow.
Also we aren’t back to normal yet from my experience. For a start lots of people are still WFH (and may always be) so road deaths for example, which is I think always high historically, will still be suppressed.
Its about 1.800 a year isnt it and not really changed in the last few years
2020 road deaths down from about 1,800 to 1,472, biggest drop in well over a decade & road injuries down 25% in 2020, again a huge drop.
So its 300 less then which is my point to the original observation -- tiny in absolutes
25% reduction in serious injury is tiny? Its 30,000 fewer people on the roads.
Look at the trend, its pretty stark- runs at 1,800 every year but then drops steeply. Whatever your views are on WFH & whether it should continue, it certainly did cause a big drop in people getting hurt or killed on the roads.
tbf, in the context of 100,000+ it is small.25% reduction in serious injury is tiny? Its 30,000 fewer people injured on the roads.
Look at the trend, its pretty stark- runs at 1,800 every year but then drops steeply. Whatever your views are on WFH & whether it should continue, it certainly did cause a big drop in people getting hurt or killed on the roads.
But that wasn't really the point by Jimmyhillsfanclub and its not WFH in in all probability - its freight restrictions due to haulage declines, school closures, vacations, sporting venue attendances and travel to airports
tbf, in the context of 100,000+ it is small.
The general principle is there, but this specific example doesn't explain it alone. You'd have to add everything else on (or rather, subtract!) if you were that bothered.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?