Current Affairs Coronavirus Thread - Serious stuff !!!

[dholliday]

you also don’t want to accept that your choices impact other people.

How does it impact other people?

Sorry. The data says otherwise.

You haven't explained how the 3:1 swab-count data supports your theory that my choice impacts other people.

 

[Amw79]

How does it impact other people?


You haven't explained how the 3:1 swab-count data supports your theory that my choice impacts other people.

Yes I have. It’s all there. You just don’t want to get it. I’m gonna leave it now.

 

[dholliday]

Yes I have. It’s all there. You just don’t want to get it. I’m gonna leave it now.

Try at least to explain how my choice affects other people.

 

[Amw79]

Try at least to explain how my choice affects other people.

i already have.

 

[dholliday]

i already have.

right...would be useful if you could show me where. It's possible i missed it, i've replied to a ton of posts these last few hours.

 

[Amw79]

right...would be useful if you could show me where. It's possible i missed it, i've replied to a ton of posts these last few hours.

Yes. You can’t be bothered reading sources when you ask for a source, and then you can’t be bothered reading threads.

 

[dholliday]

Yes. You can’t be bothered reading sources when you ask for a source, and then you can’t be bothered reading threads.

ok...if you took the time to write that sentence, surely you can quickly point out where i can find the justification for your statement earlier that my choice impacts on other people.

 

[RAFUH]

Christ.... I didn't think this thread could go more down hill

 

[mill]

Yes, if you mean better protected from serious illness/death.


If better means less deaths/hospitalisations, then sure. Just like it would be better if no one drank alcohol or smoked or took drugs, as that would mean less deaths from them. Better if everyone drove carefully all the time, reducing the risk of traffic deaths. Better if no one got into fights, we could ban casual sex to prevent HIV-spread, we could put the suicidal in asylums to prevent self-harm, or all manner of other things we can do better to reduce the risk of people dying.

Or...we accept the world can be messy, chaotic and risky. With new risks arriving all the time. We accept risks if it means we have freedom-of-choice. And that's why we have a tax/NI-system which pays for medical-care structures to help people, regardless of how they got into their predicament.

One less question if you don’t mind. Do you think that taking the vaccine makes it easier for them to spread Covid. ie a vaccinated person is *more* likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated one?

I like your analogies by the way. Especially given that there are loads of limitations around all of them. Age restrictions, requirements around competence, safety measures that provide autonomy to those who may be at risk. In none of your examples do we actually accept that life is ‘chaotic and risky’.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

A PHE study concluded that unvaccinated covid cases infected around 10% of people in their households but that rate was nearly halved, to around 6%, if the original carrier had received a vaccine.

One dose of COVID-19 vaccine can cut household transmission by up to half

A new study by Public Health England (PHE) has shown that one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine reduces household transmission by up to half.

www.gov.uk

 

[BlueInNZ]

Going downhill day by day here and all because our vaccination rates were so low; and that is 100% down to the Govts "wait and see" policy.

We even stopped vaccinating when we went into lockdown, what a debacle that has been.

People have been getting texts confirming that their appointment is still on but arrive to find the centre closed. That happened to me. Managed to get a jab today, 25 minutes drive away.

 

[dholliday]

One less question if you don’t mind.

One less? lol

Do you think that taking the vaccine makes it easier for them to spread Covid. ie a vaccinated person is *more* likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated one?

No. As I've said about ten times now: on average, an unvaccinated person is more likely to spread it as s/he will be in the 18-30 age group, and thus on average more socially active than most of the vaxxed, who will be older. That young age group will also be less likely to wear masks, adding to the spread-potential.

There's no evidence the vaccine directly affects infection-spread rates, but we can say it indirectly does so.

I like your analogies by the way. Especially given that there are loads of limitations around all of them. Age restrictions, requirements around competence, safety measures that provide autonomy to those who may be at risk. In none of your examples do we actually accept that life is ‘chaotic and risky’.

Smoking & drinking have a similar age requirement to the vaccine, rendering that particular restriction moot in this comparison. Risky sex without protection may be akin to going out without a mask on. Do we want to control the private behaviour of these people because their choices may endanger their health? Some cultures do, some have banned alcohol & extra-marital sex.

Western society haven't banned these things, despite the risks to health. Why haven't we banned them? Because we believe in the individual's right to choose, within reason, his own risk levels. That same principle should apply to the vaccine.

A PHE study concluded that unvaccinated covid cases infected around 10% of people in their households but that rate was nearly halved, to around 6%, if the original carrier had received a vaccine.

One dose of COVID-19 vaccine can cut household transmission by up to half

A new study by Public Health England (PHE) has shown that one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine reduces household transmission by up to half.

www.gov.uk

Another outdated study. The Delta hadn't hit yet.

 

[Spadge Vernacular]

One less? lol


No. As I've said about ten times now: on average, an unvaccinated person is more likely to spread it as s/he will be in the 18-30 age group, and thus on average more socially active than most of the vaxxed, who will be older. That young age group will also be less likely to wear masks, adding to the spread-potential.

There's no evidence the vaccine directly affects infection-spread rates, but we can say it indirectly does so.



Smoking & drinking have a similar age requirement to the vaccine, rendering that particular restriction moot in this comparison. Risky sex without protection may be akin to going out without a mask on. Do we want to control the private behaviour of these people because their choices may endanger their health? Some cultures do, some have banned alcohol & extra-marital sex.

Western society haven't banned these things, despite the risks to health. Why haven't we banned them? Because we believe in the individual's right to choose, within reason, his own risk levels. That same principle should apply to the vaccine.



Another outdated study. The Delta hadn't hit yet.

The anti-vax movement had though.

 

[dholliday]

The anti-vax movement had though.

 

[mill]

One less? lol


No. As I've said about ten times now: on average, an unvaccinated person is more likely to spread it as s/he will be in the 18-30 age group, and thus on average more socially active than most of the vaxxed, who will be older. That young age group will also be less likely to wear masks, adding to the spread-potential.

There's no evidence the vaccine directly affects infection-spread rates, but we can say it indirectly does so.



Smoking & drinking have a similar age requirement to the vaccine, rendering that particular restriction moot in this comparison. Risky sex without protection may be akin to going out without a mask on. Do we want to control the private behaviour of these people because their choices may endanger their health? Some cultures do, some have banned alcohol & extra-marital sex.

Western society haven't banned these things, despite the risks to health. Why haven't we banned them? Because we believe in the individual's right to choose, within reason, his own risk levels. That same principle should apply to the vaccine.

Woah hang on you’ve introduced a new thing into my question there regarding behaviour. I’m assuming conditions are the same.

I’ll rephrase. Do you think a vaccinated 18 year old is *more* likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated one?

You are missing the point regarding risky sex. If someone refuses to wear protection, I can refuse to have sex with them. I don’t have the same autonomy if someone refuses to be vaccinated.

Also, alcohol and smoking don’t just have age restrictions. You can’t smoke in public places. You can’t drink in some public places. A surgeon can’t smoke or drink on the job. There are LOADS of restrictions associated with both. Same with driving. You can’t drive without a licence, for instance.