Relaxation of Restrictions, Part XII *Read OP For Mod Warnings*

FFS Its not my argument.

I am using your "logic" and applying it in the same manner and asking you why you support banning all unvaccinated people (except kids??) and only using 8% of the population instead of 25% (the actual unvaccinated population) when comparing against ICU numbers. Last time I checked ICU wasn't exclusive to those above a certain age.

Or is it because you are fully aware children aren't going into ICU?

Therefore if children aren't to be counted because they won't end up in ICU, why is a 16-18 year old now counted? They arent going into ICU either.

So again I ask.

Why are you okay banning a health unvaccinated 18 year old. But not a 10 year old from indoor dining. Because that is age discrimination. Or will you want to ban a 10 year old from a meal with their family once the vaccines are approved for them?

So if we can discriminate by age. Why aren't you only calling for those most likely to end up in ICU (50+ unvaccinated)

Again. I am not asking for this to happen. I am pointing out the illogical use of covid passes using the same backward logic you use to promote them.

Children are going to ICU.

1 in ICU as of last night out of 13 in children's hospital. You seem to be spouting lies after lies.

So far its talk of working from home and vaccine passes ? ie the stuff we never even managed to get out from under before adding even more on top.

Let me know when Boris closes nightclubs and insists pantos and "Community events" (read: santa visits and/or anything that might bring joy to children or young people,) run at half capacity (which is really just a way to hobble them and hope they shut voluntarily.)

And as others said there's distraction at play in the UK also.

a bold but inaccurate statement

FFS are you dense?

Children dont end up in ICU in any way that would make sense to restrict their movements in society. Is this the point we are at?

If you think children in general are at risk from covid and they are unvaccinated do you support banning them from indoor dining?

Of course not because they aren't at risk. (risk being almost 0. We all know outliers who end up sick)

Into the weeds we go now.

Ill stick to my comment that Children (plural) aren't at risk.

They are actually very effective. Prior to vaccines we had much lower cases but a higher proportion of those getting sick. This year we have a much higher number of cases but a lower proportion of those getting sick.

Its basic maths, a large percentage of a small number can equal a small percentage of a large number.

I must try find that EMA graph that illustrates vaccine uptake vs deaths, it's a very vivid graphic of how well vaccines have worked.

Given the cumulative number of cases we have had over the last couple of months, the fall off in deaths has been extraordinary. Unfortunately, the large number of cases has the follow on effect of leading to some hospitalizations and ICU admissions.

"If the vaccines are as effective as you claim then we are done."

Maybe I read it wrong, I thought you were saying they dont work effectively. Maybe I should have ate lunch first before posting.

That's a very black and white way of looking at things. Unfortunately theres a significant amount of grey in the middle.

The other option is (amongst many others I'm sure):

The vaccines work very well but if you have enough cases the break through infections and hospitalizations can still overwhelm the system.

For what it's worth, I'm not delighted that we are restricting more, I wished we had opened up earlier in summer (I genuinely believe they didnt as they thought the vaccines would stop it and we wouldnt have to lock down further). I'm not in favour of mandatory vaccines and certainly wouldn't like them long term but we are in a pandemic and I'm not making the decisions. I made the above points more so to engage in debate and where I believe some people dont understand what is in reality a very complicated and constantly evolving situation.

At least they have a plan B 🤣🤣🤣

Looks like the 5-11 age group is next

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/other/niac-recommends-all-children-aged-5-to-11-should-be-offered-covid-vaccine/ar-AARBubX?ocid=entnewsntp

That headline is a bit misleading. In the article it says "NIAC have also “strongly recommended” that children aged 5-11 years who have an underlying condition, who live with a younger child with complex medical needs or who are living with a immunocompromised adult receive the Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine." To me that makes sense and it should be left up to parents of kids to decide if they will have their kids vaccinated. There is no need for kids to be vaccinated in most cases as Covid has very little to no impact on them.

Because they’ve plenty of vaccine in stock and immunocompromised & vulnerable would benefit from a booster. A company with so much to gain sure has a study out in double quick time re Omnicron. I would be interested to read it, where the populations are that have had boosters and are in touch with this strain & how they can reach this conclusion so fast.

I’m completely against the turn this has taken for the general population- mandatory vaccination requirements being brought in in Austria & Germany. Basically being forced to take these products who also have no liability if something goes wrong - it’s inhumane and disgraceful. The US are trying to bring in no jab no job policies in Democrat controlled states - which are being appealed to courts.

Agreed that it’s a good strategy for at risk groups. However it should not be used to disable a Covid cert or coerce the main population. And now they’ve moved on the unaffected groups like children and are even trialling their vaccine on babies 6 months - 4 years….where does it end?