Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VI - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

polesheep

Herb Powell wrote: »

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Watch your eyes don't pop out of their sockets. Do you actually have anything to say?

Herb Powell

polesheep wrote: »

Watch your eyes don't pop out of their sockets. Do you actually have anything to say?

Your question is nonsense.

Happier with that?

nofools

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

So your answer is they cannot give any indication of long term or even mid-term effects of this rushed vaccine.

Then you say it is up to the individual to decide for themselves.

Yet, it seems that getting this time-unproven vaccine might well become mandatory in some if not all situations, regardless the individual's preference.

That is close to abuse IMO.

I agree with you but it is important to keep an open mind for now.

No good jumping up and down about it until someone actually does try to mandate an unproven vaccine.

Ya never know, it might just work.

charlie14

polesheep wrote: »

I'm assuming that by the time the vaccine has been rolled out the pandemic will be under control or significantly curtailed. That is the point of a vaccine. If we are going to test for Covid indefinitely then surely we should also be insisting on a flu test or proof of vaccination at Ticketmaster events.

That appears to be the general trend here with the "open up everything now regardless" proponents.
Ask a question that is inconvenient and rather than receive an answer you get another question.

JDD

polesheep wrote: »

In other words you will choose which restrictions you wish to adhere to, but you insist that everyone has to take the vaccine. You really can't see the hypocrisy?

I'm not insisting that anyone take the vaccine. I completely believe in bodily integrity. Where we disagree is how our health system should be structured and how our health taxes should be spent. I believe that once a vaccine is available, covid is a completely avoidable illness, and infection can be directly related to the decision not to take the vaccine. Let me say, I'm not saying that someone should be refused treatment, not at all. Just that the cost of that treatment should be recovered directly from that person, and not from the tax paying body at large.

Let me just say that I'm left leaning and believe in having a one-tier health system for all. But I also believe in personal responsibility. And I believe that, in the case of a very contagious infection, that has the risk of spreading widely through the population causing serious problems to the operation of the health system if left run free though a largely unvaccinated population, some kind of strict measure should be imposed in order to ensure the people that are just vaguely mistrustful with no real basis for their concerns understand that there is also a consequence if they don't take the vaccine.

polesheep

Herb Powell wrote: »

Your question is nonsense.

Happier with that?

No, that's still not saying anything of substance. Flu is marginally more dangerous to young people than Covid, so why hasn't Ticketmaster insisted on proof of the flu vaccine for gigs?

polesheep

charlie14 wrote: »

That appears to be the general trend here with the "open up everything now regardless" proponents.
Ask a question that is inconvenient and rather than receive an answer you get another question.

Maybe I'm slow today, but your response seems to be a non sequitur.

polesheep

JDD wrote: »

I'm not insisting that anyone take the vaccine. I completely believe in bodily integrity. Where we disagree is how our health system should be structured and how our health taxes should be spent. I believe that once a vaccine is available, covid is a completely avoidable illness, and infection can be directly related to the decision not to take the vaccine. Let me say, I'm not saying that someone should be refused treatment, not at all. Just that the cost of that treatment should be recovered directly from that person, and not from the tax paying body at large.

Let me just say that I'm left leaning and believe in having a one-tier health system for all. But I also believe in personal responsibility. And I believe that, in the case of a very contagious infection, that has the risk of spreading widely through the population causing serious problems to the operation of the health system if left run free though a largely unvaccinated population, some kind of strict measure should be imposed in order to ensure the people that are just vaguely mistrustful with no real basis for their concerns understand that there is also a consequence if they don't take the vaccine.

If nothing else, it couldn't be implemented.

Johnboy1951

JDD wrote: »

I'm not insisting that anyone take the vaccine. I completely believe in bodily integrity. Where we disagree is how our health system should be structured and how our health taxes should be spent. I believe that once a vaccine is available, covid is a completely avoidable illness, and infection can be directly related to the decision not to take the vaccine. Let me say, I'm not saying that someone should be refused treatment, not at all. Just that the cost of that treatment should be recovered directly from that person, and not from the tax paying body at large.

Let me just say that I'm left leaning and believe in having a one-tier health system for all. But I also believe in personal responsibility. And I believe that, in the case of a very contagious infection, that has the risk of spreading widely through the population causing serious problems to the operation of the health system if left run free though a largely unvaccinated population, some kind of strict measure should be imposed in order to ensure the people that are just vaguely mistrustful with no real basis for their concerns understand that there is also a consequence if they don't take the vaccine.

Taking that at face value, we should then expect health insurers to either insist on the vaccine for certain groups (their interpretation of vulnerable maybe) or all their clients, before they will be willing to quote for health insurance cover.

polesheep

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Taking that at face value, we should then expect health insurers to either insist on the vaccine for certain groups (their interpretation of vulnerable maybe) or all their clients, before they will be willing to quote for health insurance cover.

Just like pet insurance.

rob316

Level 3 is absolute bollox, we were told sacrifice the next 6 weeks and we can save Christmas. It's not christmas when you can't meet friends and family in a pub or restaurant or travel outside your county or mix households.

polesheep

rob316 wrote: »

Level 3 is absolute bollox, we were told sacrifice the next 6 weeks and we can save Christmas. It's not christmas when you can't meet friends and family in a pub or restaurant or travel outside your county or mix households.

There has been a poor level of compliance with the current lockdown, you can see it in the numbers, if not all around you. If the government make Christmas difficult for people they will lose even more buy-in.

Stormyteacup

Herb Powell wrote: »

Your question is nonsense.

Happier with that?

I guess because flu was mentioned.

If you were to use another vaccine as an example... why isn’t it mandatory to take the pneumococcal virus? And why is there no suggestion of segregating those that have from those that haven’t?

Herb Powell

polesheep wrote: »

No, that's still not saying anything of substance. Flu is marginally more dangerous to young people than Covid, so why hasn't Ticketmaster insisted on proof of the flu vaccine for gigs?

How many months will it take for people to stop bringing up the flu? This isn't the flu.

I'm all for serious questions like, but this is tiresome. It's not debatable which has the higher mortality rate (along with all the other good stuff it brings), and flu is endemic at this stage. We may well see Covid varieties become more like flu in the future but atm that is not the case.

Ray Donovan

rob316 wrote: »

Level 3 is absolute bollox, we were told sacrifice the next 6 weeks and we can save Christmas. It's not christmas when you can't meet friends and family in a pub or restaurant or travel outside your county or mix households.

100% agreed. We've been stuck at home more or less since March. The goodwill will be totally gone if they don't announce L2 for Christmas.

polesheep

Herb Powell wrote: »

How many months will it take for people to stop bringing up the flu? This isn't the flu.

I'm all for serious questions like, but this is tiresome. It's not debatable which has the higher mortality rate (along with all the other good stuff it brings), and flu is endemic at this stage. We may well see Covid varieties become more like flu in the future but atm that is not the case.

Wow, thanks, I'd never have known. The point still stands; the flu is out there and it kills people, so why isn't Ticketmaster insisting on a flu jab?

mikekerry

polesheep wrote: »

Wow, thanks, I'd never have known. The point still stands; the flu is out there and it kills people, so why isn't Ticketmaster insisting on a flu jab?

Because there is lots and lots ad lots of money to be made!

rob316

I read an article today of a woman warning people to take the virus seriously and wear a mask as her father and mother died of Covid. They were both 89. That's a fantastic age like, many don't reach that. Are we supposed to be deeply saddened by someone well above the average life expectancy dying?

polesheep

mikekerry wrote: »

Because there is lots and lots ad lots of money to be made!

The way Ticketmaster operate there will likely be a charge for having your vaccine or test cert verified by their handlers. They are a rip-off at the best of times.

JDD

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Taking that at face value, we should then expect health insurers to either insist on the vaccine for certain groups (their interpretation of vulnerable maybe) or all their clients, before they will be willing to quote for health insurance cover.

That'll be an interesting one alright. You already can't send your child to a private childcare provider without proving that they are up to date on their vaccinations. Private business do discriminate on the basis of vaccinated/not vaccinated already.

If half the population decide not to get vaccinated, and private health insurers refuse to quote for insurance, then I'd say some kind of regulation would have to be made. A bit like when certain insurance companies would refuse to quote for an under-25 motor insurance, and after regulation they HAD to quote something, even if it was a massive amount.

I doubt they'll refuse to quote though. Bottom line is that insurance companies want your money. If you are 20/30's and non-vulnerable they'll happily put a reasonable addition on to your premium knowing well that it's highly unlikely you will ever need it.

paw patrol

Ray Donovan wrote: »

100% agreed. We've been stuck at home more or less since March. The goodwill will be totally gone if they don't announce L2 for Christmas.

i know you mean well so i'm not attacking you.

But look at the state of us (me included), demanding level 2
fcuk that, we should be free of all levels - levels that a sham of a of a plan anyway.

The numbers show covid is over rated. 41000 active cases and 39 in icu like ffs. 285 in hospital with covid not all because of it.
they are rookie numbers as the film that became a meme said.

open the country up . let the people live.

paw patrol

JDD wrote: »

That'll be an interesting one alright. You already can't send your child to a private childcare provider without proving that they are up to date on their vaccinations. Private business do discriminate on the basis of vaccinated/not vaccinated already.

is this new? we were never asked but my kids been covered since birth - the policy is technically 20 years old...

JDD

paw patrol wrote: »

is this new? we were never asked but my kids been covered since birth - the policy is technically 20 years old...

I'm guessing some providers ask for it and some don't. We've used four childcare providers - three chains and one independent. One independent and one chain asked for proof of vaccination, one chain provider just made you sign a form to say your child was vaccinated, and the last one didn't ask for anything at all.

EDIT: The first provider (independent) asked for proof 7 years ago, so not new.

charlie14

polesheep wrote: »

No, that's still not saying anything of substance. Flu is marginally more dangerous to young people than Covid, so why hasn't Ticketmaster insisted on proof of the flu vaccine for gigs?

Could that not possibly be because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention seven year average for deaths due to influenza is 41,000 while U.S. Covid-19 deaths for just 8 months are 224,421.?

Lundstram

Leo today telling us it's highy unlikely people will be advised they can travel home to their families at Christmas. All the while tourists, jockeys, boxers, politicians etc were all given special dispensation to travel abroad and home since the Summer but he's tellling people they can't come home to their families at Christmas.

"it's tough on people but that's the it has to be"

Anyone who follows this rubbish is worse than the clown spouting this nonsense.

polesheep

charlie14 wrote: »

Could that not possibly be because the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention seven year average for deaths due to influenza is 41,000 while U.S. Covid-19 deaths for just 8 months are 224,421.?

What do you think the death rate for Covid will be once the vulnerable have been vaccinated?

Idbatterim

to semi save Christmas, you would wonder if they should do another week or ten day of level 3, to get numbers down so low, that the surge post christmas, will still be very manageable, I think giving people a bit of a breather and light at the end of the tunnel, would be a good idea, then face into the second half of this, with the rapid testing and vaccine allegedly not too far away...

JDD

Idbatterim wrote: »

to semi save Christmas, you would wonder if they should do another week or ten day of level 3, to get numbers down so low, that the surge post christmas, will still be very manageable, I think giving people a bit of a breather and light at the end of the tunnel, would be a good idea, then face into the second half of this, with the rapid testing and vaccine allegedly not too far away...

I suspect this is the idea. I wouldn't bank my house on it, but they may keep Level 3 until mid December, allow Level 2 until early January, and then go back up to Level 3 when cases start to climb following the intermingling that will happen during those three Level 2 weeks.

Idbatterim

JDD wrote: »

I suspect this is the idea. I wouldn't bank my house on it, but they may keep Level 3 until mid December, allow Level 2 until early January, and then go back up to Level 3 when cases start to climb following the intermingling that will happen during those three Level 2 weeks.

allowing hospitality or the pubs mostly, recoup a bit of the huge hit they have taken , would do a lot of good. Even just to give the population a break from this insufferable ****, now that it appears we will be on the home straight soon enough, but it will be months more, lilke 9-12 I suspect. I reckon they will try to salvage the tourist season this summer across europe and cant see their not being a proper christmas next year, cant see it being accepted rather...

Lundstram

JDD wrote: »

That'll be an interesting one alright. You already can't send your child to a private childcare provider without proving that they are up to date on their vaccinations. Private business do discriminate on the basis of vaccinated/not vaccinated already.

If half the population decide not to get vaccinated, and private health insurers refuse to quote for insurance, then I'd say some kind of regulation would have to be made. A bit like when certain insurance companies would refuse to quote for an under-25 motor insurance, and after regulation they HAD to quote something, even if it was a massive amount.

I doubt they'll refuse to quote though. Bottom line is that insurance companies want your money. If you are 20/30's and non-vulnerable they'll happily put a reasonable addition on to your premium knowing well that it's highly unlikely you will ever need it.

Anyone refusing the vaccine is a total idiot and deserve everything they get.

No sympathy.