Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Ah, trying to move the goalposts now are we Spartacus?

Your earlier post quite clearly stated that those that don't have the vaccine shouldn't get any medical treatment, and when I questioned why some might not want to take it, you said they would have to be educated and if failing that, reiterated they shouldn't receive medical treatment.

That has serious consequences, resulting in many simply being left to die.

People will draw their own conclusions as to whether they think you're in favour, or not, of a form of 'state sponsored genocide'...

So what's your solution DR ?


If people don't take up the vaccine and the virus mutates as a result and thousands more die as the vaccine stops protecting us , will you still point your finger at the government for not doing enough or will you say that's the consequence of free choice as you cough and splutter ?


It's not moving the goal posts it's having a discussion but you seem to think that the government doesn't do enough but if they do something then they are taking our liberties away.


That's the real crux of your arguments, damned if they do damned if they don't


For a change don't try and take people's legs away by mocking them because you disagree, but offer ideas and solutions.


And as I asked at the beginning of the response (but will reword it), what would your solution be if you were PM ?

Well, I certainly wouldn't advocate what you said, instead I think education is the key, but as KK has pointed out, you will always get a hardcore that won't have the vaccine for whatever reason, I'm afraid that goes with the territory of a modern, functioning democracy.

The question is what level of take-up is required to make the anti-vaxxers irrelevant/redundant? Do we actually need 100% take-up?

We already have a high percentage of people who are happy to have the vaccine compared to a lot of other countries, from memory in the low 80's, and I'd expect that to go higher.

Also, what are the conditions that cause a virus to mutate?

I'm sorry, you making me PM doesn't give me special powers to answer that, but I read somewhere that one reason could be the heavy viral loads that built-up when the schools and universities went back [insert criticism of another Gov failure here], which if the case could mean it's unlikely that the anti-vaxxers would cause a mutation themselves as they are a dispersed grouping, what with them tapping away on their keyboards all day and night in their 'command centre'.

Regardless, I'd listen to the science and follow it, something this Gov has failed to do, most notably prior to this deadly third wave.

And as an aside, there's no point the UK having a successful vaccine take-up if other countries don't, it needs to be a global effort, so 'vaccine nationalism' can fook right off.


So, vote DR for a brighter, happier future, and more importantly the banning of Spartacus' corny jokes...

diable rouge Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Well, I certainly wouldn't advocate what you said,

> instead I think education is the key, but as KK

> has pointed out, you will always get a hardcore

> that won't have the vaccine for whatever reason,

> I'm afraid that goes with the territory of a

> modern, functioning democracy.

> The question is what level of take-up is required

> to make the anti-vaxxers irrelevant/redundant? Do

> we actually need 100% take-up?

> We already have a high percentage of people who

> are happy to have the vaccine compared to a lot of

> other countries, from memory in the low 80's, and

> I'd expect that to go higher.

> Also, what are the conditions that cause a virus

> to mutate?

> I'm sorry, you making me PM doesn't give me

> special powers to answer that, but I read

> somewhere that one reason could be the heavy viral

> loads that built-up when the schools and

> universities went back , which if the case could

> mean it's unlikely that the anti-vaxxers would

> cause a mutation themselves as they are a

> dispersed grouping, what with them tapping away on

> their keyboards all day and night in their

> 'command centre'.

> Regardless, I'd listen to the science and follow

> it, something this Gov has failed to do, most

> notably prior to this deadly third wave.

> And as an aside, there's no point the UK having a

> successful vaccine take-up if other countries

> don't, it needs to be a global effort, so 'vaccine

> nationalism' can fook right off.

>

> So, vote DR for a brighter, happier future, and

> more importantly the banning of Spartacus' corny

> jokes...



Now we're having a debate


Good question concerning what percentage of people need to be vaccinated, I don't have an answer to that as I'm not doing the scientific research, I guess it needs to be low enough to halt transmission and stop mutations / variants that could negate the vaccine.


Education is good but if we get a (say) 30% refusal then education alone may non be enough. The "branding" of those that refused was designed to open a discussion on how do you manage a higher take up and not my preferred option.


The mutation caused by viral loads is possibly correct but as this one started in deepest darkest Kent then my thoughts are that it wasn't to do with schools / universities going back but it's spread may well have been speeded up by the return from university over Christmas.


It's interesting that we do about 48% of the world's genome sequencing so identified the new variant but there is no guarantee this variant started here so could have travelled from somewhere else (theory only) and if that's the case then the whole schools / university's debate is muted and the fact it's a government failure would have to be called into question.


Whilst anti Vaxers May be low in number, if (say) it's predominantly in certain communities then there may be large numbers of people in small areas where mutations could occur


one theory is that the mutation started with one person who was unsuccessfully treated for covid but it mutated and if that's the case then even small numbers of unvaccinated people could present a risk.


Totally agree about a global programme and as we are one off lead supporters of covax (second biggest funder) then we're doing a lot to make that happen


We also created one of the vaccines which wouldn't have happened without our scientific investments over the years and recent government investment


I sometimes feel that people knock the government for making mistakes but miss things that they get right. Yes mistakes have been made but would a different PM have got everything right ? Would there be questions about decisions made by Jezza or Teresa or David if things had gone differently over the years ? I suspect they would also have made mistakes.


Would you really like to be PM? It's a thankless job and the pressures must be horrendous.


Thank you for a proper debate, it's all I ask for (apart from my own comedy show of course)

Sorry to interrupt your debate - we were discussing Covid at work and one of my colleagues said "the problem is that we have overestimated the number of deaths" and then went onto criticise developing countries for under-reporting. Not sure if body language translated over a Teams meeting, but was rather stunned that someone in my general pier group subscribed to the conspiracy theory that government was making much of this up - for what reason heaven knows. We had a smattering of casual racism (or some colonial superiority or whatever) and no doubt would have got into Brexit if we had half a chance.


Not really a debating point as all the main parties are on board with the need to lockdown to protect the NHS. But as we are currently working on a Covid related area was rather surprised. I suppose it is an outer borough thing. May sound pompous/stereotyping but something I have witnessed before (reminds me of other conversation with someone from Bexley - "that Stephen Lawrence, he was no saint")

On twitter they list the average age of death of Covid sufferers being greater than the average age of death of the whole UK but don't look any further (if correct not checked) as to why that might be statistically.


There's also a feel that some think once you're 80 you're dead anyway - or project that impression - maybe they're young and really think that but most probably they're grabbing figures to enhance their argument.

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry to interrupt your debate - we were

> discussing Covid at work and one of my colleagues

> said "the problem is that we have overestimated

> the number of deaths" and then went onto criticise

> developing countries for under-reporting. Not

> sure if body language translated over a Teams

> meeting, but was rather stunned that someone in my

> general pier group subscribed to the conspiracy

> theory that government was making much of this up

> - for what reason heaven knows. We had a

> smattering of casual racism (or some colonial

> superiority or whatever) and no doubt would have

> got into Brexit if we had half a chance.

>

> Not really a debating point as all the main

> parties are on board with the need to lockdown to

> protect the NHS. But as we are currently working

> on a Covid related area was rather surprised. I

> suppose it is an outer borough thing. May sound

> pompous/stereotyping but something I have

> witnessed before (reminds me of other conversation

> with someone from Bexley - "that Stephen Lawrence,

> he was no saint")


I am unsure whether this would be classed as casual racisms or more a morbid comment on west african public health systems...but was chatting to a client who runs a large business in western africa (mali, Liberia, Burkina)...and he said that most of the people on the ground were pretty relaxed about COVID as they "see this sort of stuff all the time", and "Deaths are low from covid, as anyone at risk of COVID in this area is probably already dead of something else"


It was a slightly awkward moment in the meeting.

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------


> I am unsure whether this would be classed as

> casual racisms or more a morbid comment on west

> african public health systems...but was chatting

> to a client who runs a large business in western

> africa (mali, Liberia, Burkina)...and he said that

> most of the people on the ground were pretty

> relaxed about COVID as they "see this sort of

> stuff all the time", and "Deaths are low from

> covid, as anyone at risk of COVID in this area is

> probably already dead of something else"

>

> It was a slightly awkward moment in the meeting.



That's what annoys me - lifespan maybe 72 when you're born but once you reach 75 it extends and you're not necessarily at deaths door.


"For example, a girl born in 2016 in Mexico is expected to live to age 79, however the life expectancy of a 65-year-old woman in Mexico in 2016 is 84. Her life expectancy is higher because she has already reached 65 and is therefore more likely to live another 20 years."


https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-44107940

That's interesting JohnL


So by defying the odds to reach 65 the odds change to say that you will possibly live longer than expected as most things that would kill you before mid sixties are behind you. There possible is truth in that theory.


Cat, I spoke with friends in India recently and their view is that covid is a rich man's disease as the poor don't live in crowded cities and tend to die younger so the remaining "stock" outside of big cities are more hardy so more likely to be able to overcome the effects. On the down side they did say that the true number of deaths in India May never be known as outside of big cities they aren't always recorded as covid deaths.


It's an interesting concept and if right could our high mortality rates be down to something as simple as the western world not letting the elderly or weak die naturally by extending their lives with medication and treatment ?


That's something that I expect will come out in the future when different population studies are done.


(DR this is not an endorsement of your Interpretation of my earlier discussion as "state sponsored genocide")

Seabag Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe staple this to people?s heads, before you

> submit them to your state euthanasia programme

>

> https://apple.news/AiygvXqy0T7ec_kqc7S8REQ



OMG

I think it maybe a case that should be shown to people who deny covid exists to help change their points of view. Sadly I don't think he will be the last person who suffers the same fate after denying it exists and it's shocking that he was so young but that should help prove that no-one is invincible

TheCat Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seabag Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > I?d actually prefer a swab up the arse, my nose

> is

> > way more sensitive.

> >

> > Is that TMI?

>

> You're in the import/export business right?:)


Yes The 🐈 , for now anyways 🕳

Back to the topic in hand


There was a piece on BBC breakfast this morning talking about care homes and vaccines


It discussed the need for families to see the residents, the care homes saying not yet, and vaccinations plus take up.


It appears that currently 20% of staff haven't been vaccinated, some through not having the opportunity to get to a vaccination center or seeing a vaccinator. But some for reasons unknown are refusing the vaccine.


Is that acceptable or for the sake of the residents health that the stuff are in charge of, should vaccination be compulsory to work in a care home ?


Raises a whole raft of civil liberty questions, including flu vaccine take up and compulsory vaccination policies but what happens if one of the unvaccinated brings the virus in and half the residents die ?

You're not wrong johnl


I think it's a case of not knowing if you can still be a carrier even after both vaccinations as you can still get covid but the severity should be less. Equally how long the vaccine protects you for.


Lots of questions that will only come out over time.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Tommy has been servicing our boiler for a number of years now and has also carried out repairs for us.  His service is brilliant; he’s reliable, really knowledgeable and a lovely guy.  Very highly recommended!
    • I have been using Andy for many years for decorating and general handyman duties. He always does a great job, is very friendly and his prices are competitive. Highly recommend.
    • Money has to be raised in order to slow the almost terminal decline of public services bought on through years of neglect under the last government. There is no way to raise taxes that does not have some negative impacts / trade offs. But if we want public services and infrastructure that work then raise taxes we must.  Personally I'm glad that she is has gone some way to narrowing the inheritance loop hole which was being used by rich individuals (who are not farmers) to avoid tax. She's slightly rebalanced the burden away from the young, putting it more on wealthier pensioners (who let's face it, have been disproportionately protected for many, many years). And the NICs increase, whilst undoubtedly inflationary, won't be directly passed on (some will, some will likely be absorbed by companies); it's better than raising it on employees, which would have done more to depress growth. Overall, I think she's sailed a prudent course through very choppy waters. The electorate needs to get serious... you can't have European style services and US levels of tax. Borrowing for tax cuts, Truss style, it is is not. Of course the elephant in the room (growing ever larger now Trump is in office and threatening tariffs) is our relationship with the EU. If we want better growth, we need a closer relationship with our nearest and largest trading block. We will at some point have to review tax on transport more radically (as we see greater up take of electric vehicles). The most economically rational system would be one of dynamic road pricing. But politically, very difficult to do
    • Labour was right not to increase fuel duty - it's not just motorists it affects, but goods transport. Fuel goes up, inflation goes up. Inflation will go up now anyway, and growth will stagnate, because businesses will pass the employee NIC hikes onto customers.  I think farms should be exempt from the 20% IHT. I don't know any rich famers, only ones who work their fingers to the bone. But it's in their blood and taking that, often multi-generation, legacy out of the family is heart-breaking. Many work to such low yields, and yet they'll often still bring a lamb to the vet, even if the fees are more than the lamb's life (or death) is worth. Food security should be made a top priority in this country. And, even tho the tax is only for farms over £1m, that's probably not much when you add it all up. I think every incentive should be given to young people who want to take up the mantle. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...