The big Coronavirus thread

1…11301131113311351136…1346

Comments

  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    focuszing723 said:

    What about people with Cancer who have their immune systems knocked by chemotherapy?

    Don't forget 1 in 2 people in their lifetime will get some form of it.

    I am guessing if they are swanning around a supermarket between chemo treatments they don't think they are going to make it or are pretty thick. I want to cycle down the motorway against the flow of traffic. Surely you should all get out my way.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,270
    edited July 2021
    john80 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    What about people with Cancer who have their immune systems knocked by chemotherapy?

    Don't forget 1 in 2 people in their lifetime will get some form of it.

    I am guessing if they are swanning around a supermarket between chemo treatments they don't think they are going to make it or are pretty thick. I want to cycle down the motorway against the flow of traffic. Surely you should all get out my way.
    Are you saying that if you saw someone cycling down the motorway against the flow of traffic and it was straightforward and no risk to you for you to try to avoid them, you wouldn't bother?
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    kingstongraham said:

    john80 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    What about people with Cancer who have their immune systems knocked by chemotherapy?

    Don't forget 1 in 2 people in their lifetime will get some form of it.

    I am guessing if they are swanning around a supermarket between chemo treatments they don't think they are going to make it or are pretty thick. I want to cycle down the motorway against the flow of traffic. Surely you should all get out my way.
    Are you saying that if you saw someone cycling down the motorway against the flow of traffic and it was straightforward and no risk to you for you to try to avoid them, you wouldn't bother?
    I am certainly not going to choose to damage my vehicle and passengers with a cyclist through the window in this scenario unless absolutely necessary. I won't be driving below the limit to reduce their risk which is more the equivalent argument.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,270
    john80 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    john80 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    What about people with Cancer who have their immune systems knocked by chemotherapy?

    Don't forget 1 in 2 people in their lifetime will get some form of it.

    I am guessing if they are swanning around a supermarket between chemo treatments they don't think they are going to make it or are pretty thick. I want to cycle down the motorway against the flow of traffic. Surely you should all get out my way.
    Are you saying that if you saw someone cycling down the motorway against the flow of traffic and it was straightforward and no risk to you for you to try to avoid them, you wouldn't bother?
    I am certainly not going to choose to damage my vehicle and passengers with a cyclist through the window in this scenario unless absolutely necessary. I won't be driving below the limit to reduce their risk which is more the equivalent argument.
    Christ
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,589
    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    It’s fairly clear. The logic and context of the virus and how it is transmitted means that I am of the view it is selfish to be maskless inside in places where you mix with public in a period where not everyone had been able to be fully vaccinated.

    The logic of this is obvious, as are the mechanics of transmission.

    That’s the summary, no need to go around in circles.

    Consider the possibility people call it selfish because it might be?

    When do you think we will get to a situation where in your everyone is fully vaccinated? Given that will never happen 100%, are you prepared to accept a situation where we have to go on wearing masks indefinitely?
    I assume it to mean everyone who wants to have both jabs has had the opportunity. If people chose not to then they have accepted taking the risk.
    And as i asked above, how many do you think are vulnerable and have not been offered the jab? If some people choose not to be jabbed, they can also choose not to go to places where they may be at higher risk.
    Why should they need to be vulnerable? Surely it's good manners to try to protect others even if all you give them is amild illness? You've survived wearing a mask for 12 months so why stop now just because you're allowed to?
    It's good manners and backed up by the highway code to give cyclists as much room as a car. I wonder why there are so many close passes still being done.
    I'm not following this argument sorry. Are you saying because some motorists don't show courtesy to cyclists those vaccinated shouldn't show courtesy to those that aren't? It seems a really bad analogy.
  • orraloon
    orraloon Posts: 12,694
    D'ye reckon we could call time on all this latest behaviour comparison stuff, motorist and otherwise? Getting oh so tedious.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    Pross said:

    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    It’s fairly clear. The logic and context of the virus and how it is transmitted means that I am of the view it is selfish to be maskless inside in places where you mix with public in a period where not everyone had been able to be fully vaccinated.

    The logic of this is obvious, as are the mechanics of transmission.

    That’s the summary, no need to go around in circles.

    Consider the possibility people call it selfish because it might be?

    When do you think we will get to a situation where in your everyone is fully vaccinated? Given that will never happen 100%, are you prepared to accept a situation where we have to go on wearing masks indefinitely?
    I assume it to mean everyone who wants to have both jabs has had the opportunity. If people chose not to then they have accepted taking the risk.
    And as i asked above, how many do you think are vulnerable and have not been offered the jab? If some people choose not to be jabbed, they can also choose not to go to places where they may be at higher risk.
    Why should they need to be vulnerable? Surely it's good manners to try to protect others even if all you give them is amild illness? You've survived wearing a mask for 12 months so why stop now just because you're allowed to?
    It's good manners and backed up by the highway code to give cyclists as much room as a car. I wonder why there are so many close passes still being done.
    I'm not following this argument sorry. Are you saying because some motorists don't show courtesy to cyclists those vaccinated shouldn't show courtesy to those that aren't? It seems a really bad analogy.
    I am pointing out the futility of this argument. Some are arguing for the continuance of mask wearing even when the scenario Stevo initially described would suggest it is of limited value as if it is some real protection against a minority. If they are genuinely vulnerable and can't get vaccinated then they should be at home given current covid rates. If they can't be arsed to get vaccinated then good luck to them. The young unvaccinated either through choice or time are certainly not living the life of monks. Your mask wearing in low risk scenarios is of pretty much no use when they are out at the local nightclub.
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,316
    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    It’s fairly clear. The logic and context of the virus and how it is transmitted means that I am of the view it is selfish to be maskless inside in places where you mix with public in a period where not everyone had been able to be fully vaccinated.

    The logic of this is obvious, as are the mechanics of transmission.

    That’s the summary, no need to go around in circles.

    Consider the possibility people call it selfish because it might be?

    When do you think we will get to a situation where in your everyone is fully vaccinated? Given that will never happen 100%, are you prepared to accept a situation where we have to go on wearing masks indefinitely?
    I assume it to mean everyone who wants to have both jabs has had the opportunity. If people chose not to then they have accepted taking the risk.
    And as i asked above, how many do you think are vulnerable and have not been offered the jab? If some people choose not to be jabbed, they can also choose not to go to places where they may be at higher risk.
    Why should they need to be vulnerable? Surely it's good manners to try to protect others even if all you give them is amild illness? You've survived wearing a mask for 12 months so why stop now just because you're allowed to?
    It's good manners and backed up by the highway code to give cyclists as much room as a car. I wonder why there are so many close passes still being done.
    I'm not following this argument sorry. Are you saying because some motorists don't show courtesy to cyclists those vaccinated shouldn't show courtesy to those that aren't? It seems a really bad analogy.
    I am pointing out the futility of this argument. Some are arguing for the continuance of mask wearing even when the scenario Stevo initially described would suggest it is of limited value as if it is some real protection against a minority. If they are genuinely vulnerable and can't get vaccinated then they should be at home given current covid rates. If they can't be arsed to get vaccinated then good luck to them. The young unvaccinated either through choice or time are certainly not living the life of monks. Your mask wearing in low risk scenarios is of pretty much no use when they are out at the local nightclub.
    This seems to be a real stumbling block for you. I'm 36, had first jab as soon as I was able and have yet to have my 2nd. Then add 2 weeks to that. And there are millions of willing recipients younger than me.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    kingstongraham said:

    john80 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    john80 said:

    focuszing723 said:

    What about people with Cancer who have their immune systems knocked by chemotherapy?

    Don't forget 1 in 2 people in their lifetime will get some form of it.

    I am guessing if they are swanning around a supermarket between chemo treatments they don't think they are going to make it or are pretty thick. I want to cycle down the motorway against the flow of traffic. Surely you should all get out my way.
    Are you saying that if you saw someone cycling down the motorway against the flow of traffic and it was straightforward and no risk to you for you to try to avoid them, you wouldn't bother?
    I am certainly not going to choose to damage my vehicle and passengers with a cyclist through the window in this scenario unless absolutely necessary. I won't be driving below the limit to reduce their risk which is more the equivalent argument.
    Christ
    Try and see these sorts of comments as a learn about how others think
  • surrey_commuter
    surrey_commuter Posts: 18,866
    ugo.santalucia said:

    29,000 today

    I wonder if the downturn is real or just people not testing... it seems to be happening very fast...
    School closures? Is that all it takes?

    So 4 weeks ago my barber said Epsom Hospital was creating a red zone for Covid patients as there was a possibility things could get out of control again. Saw his yesterday and they are more relaxed with the number of Covid patients falling
  • ballysmate
    ballysmate Posts: 15,921
    edited July 2021
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pangolin said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pangolin said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Until everyone is fully vaccinated, in the context of all the sacrifices we’ve all made to get to this point, i do struggle to see past the idea that if you’re not wearing masks in indoor public spaces you’re being selfish.

    See my point above about when that might be.

    My trip around my local Waitrose on Friday was on the basis of what I said above - not busy and nice wide aisles so we were far from crammed in like sardines. I made my own decision as did many others.
    What about people who have had to wait for their jabs and haven’t been fully vaccinated yet?

    Is it basically that you don’t care and your minor discomfort re wearing masks is more important than the risk of you giving rona to someone who is waiting to be fully vaxxed?
    This isn't that complicated Stevo.
    True, see my points made over the last few pages for how straightforward this can be if we take a pragmatic attitude. Unfortunately for you, the position I am advocating is reality now.
    Think you misunderstood my post as your response seems to be directed at someone else. Why's it unfortunate for me?

    If the key thing you've recently (today?) decided to hang your hat on is vulnerable people all being vaccinated then why has your mask wearing changed in the last few days and not months ago... when all the vulnerable people were vaccinated?
    Unfortunate for you as you seem to disagree with it unless I've misunderstood.

    Not all, but the vast majority. As opposed to some who think that everyone can be fully vaccinated...

    In case you hadn't noticed, mask wearing was mandatory in many situations until just under a week ago. Now we have the choice, we can choose...
    @ballysmate :*
    Try debating the point instead of trying to stir. Not that it matters much as Bally and I can disagree on stuff you know.
    Sorry, wasn't directed at you - Bally said nobody would think like you did, so I think he's saying you're completely unique, and a bit simple, because you should have ditched the mask a while back because you were never going to get fined for it. I disagree.
    I think you'll find that I said people which is a general term and not nobody which is an absolute term, as I hadn't consulted everyone of the 50m adult population. But well done, you found one example. Much the same as I never referred to Stevo, or anyone as being stupid either.
    People have posted on here today that they have been out and about and encountered pretty much the same level of mask wearing as last week. Shock/horror how can this be because the law has been scrapped?
    FWIW I fully expect the number of people wearing masks to decrease in the following weeks as it has done in the previous weeks. Not because of the law being scrapped but because people's attitude towards the practice is evolving. People are not of the same mindset as they were 12 months ago.
    But I accept that I can't convince you that people would choose to ignore laws that they find unnecessary or inconvenient which carry no threat of sanction.
    Bit like riding on the footpath in Richmond Park really. If nobody enforces the law, people who find it inconvenient will just ignore it.

  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,560
    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    "I don't care about the announcement about someone with a severe nut allergy on the plane, I WANT MY CASHEWS."

    People die in car accidents so let's ban cars....

    You don't seem to understand risk management.
    You don't seem to understand what I said.
    I did and came up with a different example to make a point.
    You didn't, and came up with something a bit odd and completely unrelated about cars. I'll help you out.

    There is no law that says when someone else has a severe nut allergy that you have to forgo the cashews you enjoy, you actually enjoy cashews, so there is a loss of quality of life through not eating them - indeed your normal way of life is to eat those cashews. So you can eat those cashews, despite the added risk it might put to someone else, and that you've been asked not to. But... it would make you a bit of a censored .
    Look at likelihood and severity. If opening a bag of peanuts on a flight is certain to cause a reaction for a fellow passenger who is allergic and that is likely fatal, then clearly don't do it. In the Waitrose scenario likelihood of catching it is low (plenty space/no sustained proximity and the likely severity for those vaccinated is low, then its a just another risk. Like crossing the road.

    Are you starting starting to understand risk management now?
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,560
    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    "I don't care about the announcement about someone with a severe nut allergy on the plane, I WANT MY CASHEWS."

    People die in car accidents so let's ban cars....

    You don't seem to understand risk management.
    I would hope you would take reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of others dying in car accidents due to your actions e.g. making sure you passengers wear a seat belt and that you drive in a safe and considerate manner? Then again...
    Its not just about me. See below my point about risk management. Sounds like you need a few tips as well as KG.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,560
    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pinkbikini said:

    You can still catch covid if you’re vaccinated, so you can presumably still transmit it. I now know three people who have had covid, been vaccinated, and now caught covid again.

    Mask-wearing is the simplest way to stop transmission whilst getting things back to normal, but it’s an altruistic act. No wonder it meets such resistance from selfish people.

    If only the vaccine protected most people from serious cases....

    It's endemic, so this is new normal. I can't see when we would ever stop wearing masks if we follow your logic.
    How about when fewer than about 1 in 50 people you might meet actually have it?

    There's a difference between endemic and pandemic, Kermit.
    There will be calls to keep on wearing them for a long time to come regardless. I think the link between infection and serious illness has been broken to the extent that the relaxation is a sensible one.

    You may disagree, but that is now the reality.
    It has been weakened, but the link has not been broken. Otherwise there would not be roughly 40% of hospitalisations being fully vaccinated.
    'Broken to the extent that...' is saying the same thing.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,560
    pangolin said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pangolin said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pangolin said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pangolin said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Until everyone is fully vaccinated, in the context of all the sacrifices we’ve all made to get to this point, i do struggle to see past the idea that if you’re not wearing masks in indoor public spaces you’re being selfish.

    See my point above about when that might be.

    My trip around my local Waitrose on Friday was on the basis of what I said above - not busy and nice wide aisles so we were far from crammed in like sardines. I made my own decision as did many others.
    What about people who have had to wait for their jabs and haven’t been fully vaccinated yet?

    Is it basically that you don’t care and your minor discomfort re wearing masks is more important than the risk of you giving rona to someone who is waiting to be fully vaxxed?
    This isn't that complicated Stevo.
    True, see my points made over the last few pages for how straightforward this can be if we take a pragmatic attitude. Unfortunately for you, the position I am advocating is reality now.
    Think you misunderstood my post as your response seems to be directed at someone else. Why's it unfortunate for me?

    If the key thing you've recently (today?) decided to hang your hat on is vulnerable people all being vaccinated then why has your mask wearing changed in the last few days and not months ago... when all the vulnerable people were vaccinated?
    Unfortunate for you as you seem to disagree with it unless I've misunderstood.

    Not all, but the vast majority. As opposed to some who think that everyone can be fully vaccinated...

    In case you hadn't noticed, mask wearing was mandatory in many situations until just under a week ago. Now we have the choice, we can choose...
    I think all the major supermarkets still all customers to wear them though. So I'm struggling to see a persuasive argument not to, at least until everyone who wants to get vaccinated can do so.

    The younger end of the population have put up with a lot of censored mainly for the benefit of the older end. Doesn't seem like much of an ask to at least keep doing doing minor things like mask wearing for a little longer. You're not being asked to forgo the pub, or seeing family etc.

    Spare the tired old flu comparisons too. Don't hear much about a little understood illness called "long flu", or concerns that a bad flu year will mean we have to start from scratch on flu vaccines either.
    Did you mean '...still ask all...?

    I've already made my point about the supermarket example above in a reply to Rick and a few other posts so I won't repeat myself.

    What is tired about flu comparisons given how many it kills every year and what precautions we take against flu type illnesses? I take one - I have my flu jab every year and have never had an issue. We now have an effective jab for covid, so....
    Well for a start, the things I wrote in my post.

    "Don't hear much about a little understood illness called "long flu", or concerns that a bad flu year will mean we have to start from scratch on flu vaccines either."
    No idea what your point is.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • Stevo_666
    Stevo_666 Posts: 58,560
    john80 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Until everyone is fully vaccinated, in the context of all the sacrifices we’ve all made to get to this point, i do struggle to see past the idea that if you’re not wearing masks in indoor public spaces you’re being selfish.

    See my point above about when that might be.

    My trip around my local Waitrose on Friday was on the basis of what I said above - not busy and nice wide aisles so we were far from crammed in like sardines. I made my own decision as did many others.
    What about people who have had to wait for their jabs and haven’t been fully vaccinated yet?

    Is it basically that you don’t care and your minor discomfort re wearing masks is more important than the risk of you giving rona to someone who is waiting to be fully vaxxed?
    Ah, the usual 'you're so selfish' argument - how predictable. Where's the rolleyes emoticon when you need it - maybe we should call it Rickrolling? :smile:

    Maybe people who are not fully vaxxed and are potentially vulnerable (who will probably pretty rare now given anyone old an/or vulnerable was given priority) should consider whether online food shopping or other alternatives to them going round in a supermarket in person is a sensible idea? People have to take some responsibility for themselves based on their own appraisal of their situation.

    Although just to point out that I had no real problem maintaining distancing during my trip, so what is your issue here?
    The issue is others would like to control your behaviour regardless of the risk level. No risk could be low enough for Rick and others. As for waiting till everyone is vaccinated those that are not really are avoiding the needle at this point. In Cumbria there has been multiple calls online for anyone over 18. If you have not had your first jab you are trying really hard not to get it
    Well quite. They would have us with restrictions forever because they will never achieve their zero covid fantasy.
    "I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]
  • pinkbikini
    pinkbikini Posts: 876
    Stevo_666 said:

    john80 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Until everyone is fully vaccinated, in the context of all the sacrifices we’ve all made to get to this point, i do struggle to see past the idea that if you’re not wearing masks in indoor public spaces you’re being selfish.

    See my point above about when that might be.

    My trip around my local Waitrose on Friday was on the basis of what I said above - not busy and nice wide aisles so we were far from crammed in like sardines. I made my own decision as did many others.
    What about people who have had to wait for their jabs and haven’t been fully vaccinated yet?

    Is it basically that you don’t care and your minor discomfort re wearing masks is more important than the risk of you giving rona to someone who is waiting to be fully vaxxed?
    Ah, the usual 'you're so selfish' argument - how predictable. Where's the rolleyes emoticon when you need it - maybe we should call it Rickrolling? :smile:

    Maybe people who are not fully vaxxed and are potentially vulnerable (who will probably pretty rare now given anyone old an/or vulnerable was given priority) should consider whether online food shopping or other alternatives to them going round in a supermarket in person is a sensible idea? People have to take some responsibility for themselves based on their own appraisal of their situation.

    Although just to point out that I had no real problem maintaining distancing during my trip, so what is your issue here?
    The issue is others would like to control your behaviour regardless of the risk level. No risk could be low enough for Rick and others. As for waiting till everyone is vaccinated those that are not really are avoiding the needle at this point. In Cumbria there has been multiple calls online for anyone over 18. If you have not had your first jab you are trying really hard not to get it
    Well quite. They would have us with restrictions forever because they will never achieve their zero covid fantasy.
    Lovely invention of a strawman argument in an attempt to prove your point! Poor debating skills.
  • rick_chasey
    rick_chasey Posts: 72,738
    Stevo_666 said:

    john80 said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Until everyone is fully vaccinated, in the context of all the sacrifices we’ve all made to get to this point, i do struggle to see past the idea that if you’re not wearing masks in indoor public spaces you’re being selfish.

    See my point above about when that might be.

    My trip around my local Waitrose on Friday was on the basis of what I said above - not busy and nice wide aisles so we were far from crammed in like sardines. I made my own decision as did many others.
    What about people who have had to wait for their jabs and haven’t been fully vaccinated yet?

    Is it basically that you don’t care and your minor discomfort re wearing masks is more important than the risk of you giving rona to someone who is waiting to be fully vaxxed?
    Ah, the usual 'you're so selfish' argument - how predictable. Where's the rolleyes emoticon when you need it - maybe we should call it Rickrolling? :smile:

    Maybe people who are not fully vaxxed and are potentially vulnerable (who will probably pretty rare now given anyone old an/or vulnerable was given priority) should consider whether online food shopping or other alternatives to them going round in a supermarket in person is a sensible idea? People have to take some responsibility for themselves based on their own appraisal of their situation.

    Although just to point out that I had no real problem maintaining distancing during my trip, so what is your issue here?
    The issue is others would like to control your behaviour regardless of the risk level. No risk could be low enough for Rick and others. As for waiting till everyone is vaccinated those that are not really are avoiding the needle at this point. In Cumbria there has been multiple calls online for anyone over 18. If you have not had your first jab you are trying really hard not to get it
    Well quite. They would have us with restrictions forever because they will never achieve their zero covid fantasy.

    _
  • DeVlaeminck
    DeVlaeminck Posts: 8,744
    It's always going to be the case that masks help protect against the spread of viruses that can kill - we are talking about a sliding scale of risk really.

    Whether you stopped wearing a mask on Freedom Day or are holding out until double jabs have been offered to all you are still happy to increase the risk to others for the freedom to remove a mask - you just differ as to the amount of people you are willing to see die for this freedom.

    [Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,316
    Stevo_666 said:

    pangolin said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pangolin said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pangolin said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pangolin said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Until everyone is fully vaccinated, in the context of all the sacrifices we’ve all made to get to this point, i do struggle to see past the idea that if you’re not wearing masks in indoor public spaces you’re being selfish.

    See my point above about when that might be.

    My trip around my local Waitrose on Friday was on the basis of what I said above - not busy and nice wide aisles so we were far from crammed in like sardines. I made my own decision as did many others.
    What about people who have had to wait for their jabs and haven’t been fully vaccinated yet?

    Is it basically that you don’t care and your minor discomfort re wearing masks is more important than the risk of you giving rona to someone who is waiting to be fully vaxxed?
    This isn't that complicated Stevo.
    True, see my points made over the last few pages for how straightforward this can be if we take a pragmatic attitude. Unfortunately for you, the position I am advocating is reality now.
    Think you misunderstood my post as your response seems to be directed at someone else. Why's it unfortunate for me?

    If the key thing you've recently (today?) decided to hang your hat on is vulnerable people all being vaccinated then why has your mask wearing changed in the last few days and not months ago... when all the vulnerable people were vaccinated?
    Unfortunate for you as you seem to disagree with it unless I've misunderstood.

    Not all, but the vast majority. As opposed to some who think that everyone can be fully vaccinated...

    In case you hadn't noticed, mask wearing was mandatory in many situations until just under a week ago. Now we have the choice, we can choose...
    I think all the major supermarkets still all customers to wear them though. So I'm struggling to see a persuasive argument not to, at least until everyone who wants to get vaccinated can do so.

    The younger end of the population have put up with a lot of censored mainly for the benefit of the older end. Doesn't seem like much of an ask to at least keep doing doing minor things like mask wearing for a little longer. You're not being asked to forgo the pub, or seeing family etc.

    Spare the tired old flu comparisons too. Don't hear much about a little understood illness called "long flu", or concerns that a bad flu year will mean we have to start from scratch on flu vaccines either.
    Did you mean '...still ask all...?

    I've already made my point about the supermarket example above in a reply to Rick and a few other posts so I won't repeat myself.

    What is tired about flu comparisons given how many it kills every year and what precautions we take against flu type illnesses? I take one - I have my flu jab every year and have never had an issue. We now have an effective jab for covid, so....
    Well for a start, the things I wrote in my post.

    "Don't hear much about a little understood illness called "long flu", or concerns that a bad flu year will mean we have to start from scratch on flu vaccines either."
    No idea what your point is.
    I told you to stop comparing it to flu.

    I then gave a couple of examples for why it's not like flu, at least as far as we currently understand it.

    HTH.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,699
    edited July 2021
    Stevo_666 said:

    rjsterry said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    First.Aspect said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pinkbikini said:

    You can still catch covid if you’re vaccinated, so you can presumably still transmit it. I now know three people who have had covid, been vaccinated, and now caught covid again.

    Mask-wearing is the simplest way to stop transmission whilst getting things back to normal, but it’s an altruistic act. No wonder it meets such resistance from selfish people.

    If only the vaccine protected most people from serious cases....

    It's endemic, so this is new normal. I can't see when we would ever stop wearing masks if we follow your logic.
    How about when fewer than about 1 in 50 people you might meet actually have it?

    There's a difference between endemic and pandemic, Kermit.
    There will be calls to keep on wearing them for a long time to come regardless. I think the link between infection and serious illness has been broken to the extent that the relaxation is a sensible one.

    You may disagree, but that is now the reality.
    It has been weakened, but the link has not been broken. Otherwise there would not be roughly 40% of hospitalisations being fully vaccinated.
    'Broken to the extent that...' is saying the same thing.
    You can just say you didn't wear one because you didn't want to and no longer had to. The risk didn't suddenly drop last week.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • Pross
    Pross Posts: 40,589
    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    "I don't care about the announcement about someone with a severe nut allergy on the plane, I WANT MY CASHEWS."

    People die in car accidents so let's ban cars....

    You don't seem to understand risk management.
    I would hope you would take reasonable precautions to minimise the risk of others dying in car accidents due to your actions e.g. making sure you passengers wear a seat belt and that you drive in a safe and considerate manner? Then again...
    Its not just about me. See below my point about risk management. Sounds like you need a few tips as well as KG.
    I assess and manage risk to life on a daily basis as part of my job. I suspect I have far more of a handle on it than you do.
  • kingstongraham
    kingstongraham Posts: 26,270
    ballysmate said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    kingstongraham said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pangolin said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    pangolin said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    Until everyone is fully vaccinated, in the context of all the sacrifices we’ve all made to get to this point, i do struggle to see past the idea that if you’re not wearing masks in indoor public spaces you’re being selfish.

    See my point above about when that might be.

    My trip around my local Waitrose on Friday was on the basis of what I said above - not busy and nice wide aisles so we were far from crammed in like sardines. I made my own decision as did many others.
    What about people who have had to wait for their jabs and haven’t been fully vaccinated yet?

    Is it basically that you don’t care and your minor discomfort re wearing masks is more important than the risk of you giving rona to someone who is waiting to be fully vaxxed?
    This isn't that complicated Stevo.
    True, see my points made over the last few pages for how straightforward this can be if we take a pragmatic attitude. Unfortunately for you, the position I am advocating is reality now.
    Think you misunderstood my post as your response seems to be directed at someone else. Why's it unfortunate for me?

    If the key thing you've recently (today?) decided to hang your hat on is vulnerable people all being vaccinated then why has your mask wearing changed in the last few days and not months ago... when all the vulnerable people were vaccinated?
    Unfortunate for you as you seem to disagree with it unless I've misunderstood.

    Not all, but the vast majority. As opposed to some who think that everyone can be fully vaccinated...

    In case you hadn't noticed, mask wearing was mandatory in many situations until just under a week ago. Now we have the choice, we can choose...
    @ballysmate :*
    Try debating the point instead of trying to stir. Not that it matters much as Bally and I can disagree on stuff you know.
    Sorry, wasn't directed at you - Bally said nobody would think like you did, so I think he's saying you're completely unique, and a bit simple, because you should have ditched the mask a while back because you were never going to get fined for it. I disagree.
    I think you'll find that I said people which is a general term and not nobody which is an absolute term, as I hadn't consulted everyone of the 50m adult population. But well done, you found one example. Much the same as I never referred to Stevo, or anyone as being stupid either.
    People have posted on here today that they have been out and about and encountered pretty much the same level of mask wearing as last week. Shock/horror how can this be because the law has been scrapped?
    FWIW I fully expect the number of people wearing masks to decrease in the following weeks as it has done in the previous weeks. Not because of the law being scrapped but because people's attitude towards the practice is evolving. People are not of the same mindset as they were 12 months ago.
    But I accept that I can't convince you that people would choose to ignore laws that they find unnecessary or inconvenient which carry no threat of sanction.
    Bit like riding on the footpath in Richmond Park really. If nobody enforces the law, people who find it inconvenient will just ignore it.

    Bad example. Almost nobody rides on footpaths in Richmond Park, not because they don't want to, and not because of the threat of a fine.

    It's against the law, and people generally try to obey the law.

    Fair play for trying to keep this terrible sinking ship of an argument above water, but I'm going to stop playing with this one now.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    It’s fairly clear. The logic and context of the virus and how it is transmitted means that I am of the view it is selfish to be maskless inside in places where you mix with public in a period where not everyone had been able to be fully vaccinated.

    The logic of this is obvious, as are the mechanics of transmission.

    That’s the summary, no need to go around in circles.

    Consider the possibility people call it selfish because it might be?

    When do you think we will get to a situation where in your everyone is fully vaccinated? Given that will never happen 100%, are you prepared to accept a situation where we have to go on wearing masks indefinitely?
    I assume it to mean everyone who wants to have both jabs has had the opportunity. If people chose not to then they have accepted taking the risk.
    And as i asked above, how many do you think are vulnerable and have not been offered the jab? If some people choose not to be jabbed, they can also choose not to go to places where they may be at higher risk.
    Why should they need to be vulnerable? Surely it's good manners to try to protect others even if all you give them is amild illness? You've survived wearing a mask for 12 months so why stop now just because you're allowed to?
    It's good manners and backed up by the highway code to give cyclists as much room as a car. I wonder why there are so many close passes still being done.
    I'm not following this argument sorry. Are you saying because some motorists don't show courtesy to cyclists those vaccinated shouldn't show courtesy to those that aren't? It seems a really bad analogy.
    I am pointing out the futility of this argument. Some are arguing for the continuance of mask wearing even when the scenario Stevo initially described would suggest it is of limited value as if it is some real protection against a minority. If they are genuinely vulnerable and can't get vaccinated then they should be at home given current covid rates. If they can't be arsed to get vaccinated then good luck to them. The young unvaccinated either through choice or time are certainly not living the life of monks. Your mask wearing in low risk scenarios is of pretty much no use when they are out at the local nightclub.
    This seems to be a real stumbling block for you. I'm 36, had first jab as soon as I was able and have yet to have my 2nd. Then add 2 weeks to that. And there are millions of willing recipients younger than me.
    I take it you have been living like a monk. The reality is people are banging on about the risk of some guy not wearing a mask in a low occupancy supermarket yet likely attending many events with other people for their own benefit that are significantly higher risk. If they were really that worried about covid they would modify their behavior and not seek to control others pretty minor indiscretion regarding mask wearing. It is laughable from a risk management perspective. Stevo in the Supermarket is no more or less likely to have covid and any of the people you will have had significant contact with over the last 2 months unless you are actually living like a monk. Go and have a word with your local health authority as in Cumbria you would have had your vaccinations 2 months ago easily.
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,699
    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    It’s fairly clear. The logic and context of the virus and how it is transmitted means that I am of the view it is selfish to be maskless inside in places where you mix with public in a period where not everyone had been able to be fully vaccinated.

    The logic of this is obvious, as are the mechanics of transmission.

    That’s the summary, no need to go around in circles.

    Consider the possibility people call it selfish because it might be?

    When do you think we will get to a situation where in your everyone is fully vaccinated? Given that will never happen 100%, are you prepared to accept a situation where we have to go on wearing masks indefinitely?
    I assume it to mean everyone who wants to have both jabs has had the opportunity. If people chose not to then they have accepted taking the risk.
    And as i asked above, how many do you think are vulnerable and have not been offered the jab? If some people choose not to be jabbed, they can also choose not to go to places where they may be at higher risk.
    Why should they need to be vulnerable? Surely it's good manners to try to protect others even if all you give them is amild illness? You've survived wearing a mask for 12 months so why stop now just because you're allowed to?
    It's good manners and backed up by the highway code to give cyclists as much room as a car. I wonder why there are so many close passes still being done.
    I'm not following this argument sorry. Are you saying because some motorists don't show courtesy to cyclists those vaccinated shouldn't show courtesy to those that aren't? It seems a really bad analogy.
    I am pointing out the futility of this argument. Some are arguing for the continuance of mask wearing even when the scenario Stevo initially described would suggest it is of limited value as if it is some real protection against a minority. If they are genuinely vulnerable and can't get vaccinated then they should be at home given current covid rates. If they can't be arsed to get vaccinated then good luck to them. The young unvaccinated either through choice or time are certainly not living the life of monks. Your mask wearing in low risk scenarios is of pretty much no use when they are out at the local nightclub.
    This seems to be a real stumbling block for you. I'm 36, had first jab as soon as I was able and have yet to have my 2nd. Then add 2 weeks to that. And there are millions of willing recipients younger than me.
    I take it you have been living like a monk. The reality is people are banging on about the risk of some guy not wearing a mask in a low occupancy supermarket yet likely attending many events with other people for their own benefit that are significantly higher risk. If they were really that worried about covid they would modify their behavior and not seek to control others pretty minor indiscretion regarding mask wearing. It is laughable from a risk management perspective. Stevo in the Supermarket is no more or less likely to have covid and any of the people you will have had significant contact with over the last 2 months unless you are actually living like a monk. Go and have a word with your local health authority as in Cumbria you would have had your vaccinations 2 months ago easily.
    Cumbria has a population of less than 500,000. Which puts it below Leicester.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition
  • pblakeney
    pblakeney Posts: 25,805
    "This is my experience, so everyone else must experience the same."
    The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
    I am not sure. You have no chance.
    Veronese68 wrote:
    PB is the most sensible person on here.
  • john80
    john80 Posts: 2,965
    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    It’s fairly clear. The logic and context of the virus and how it is transmitted means that I am of the view it is selfish to be maskless inside in places where you mix with public in a period where not everyone had been able to be fully vaccinated.

    The logic of this is obvious, as are the mechanics of transmission.

    That’s the summary, no need to go around in circles.

    Consider the possibility people call it selfish because it might be?

    When do you think we will get to a situation where in your everyone is fully vaccinated? Given that will never happen 100%, are you prepared to accept a situation where we have to go on wearing masks indefinitely?
    I assume it to mean everyone who wants to have both jabs has had the opportunity. If people chose not to then they have accepted taking the risk.
    And as i asked above, how many do you think are vulnerable and have not been offered the jab? If some people choose not to be jabbed, they can also choose not to go to places where they may be at higher risk.
    Why should they need to be vulnerable? Surely it's good manners to try to protect others even if all you give them is amild illness? You've survived wearing a mask for 12 months so why stop now just because you're allowed to?
    It's good manners and backed up by the highway code to give cyclists as much room as a car. I wonder why there are so many close passes still being done.
    I'm not following this argument sorry. Are you saying because some motorists don't show courtesy to cyclists those vaccinated shouldn't show courtesy to those that aren't? It seems a really bad analogy.
    I am pointing out the futility of this argument. Some are arguing for the continuance of mask wearing even when the scenario Stevo initially described would suggest it is of limited value as if it is some real protection against a minority. If they are genuinely vulnerable and can't get vaccinated then they should be at home given current covid rates. If they can't be arsed to get vaccinated then good luck to them. The young unvaccinated either through choice or time are certainly not living the life of monks. Your mask wearing in low risk scenarios is of pretty much no use when they are out at the local nightclub.
    This seems to be a real stumbling block for you. I'm 36, had first jab as soon as I was able and have yet to have my 2nd. Then add 2 weeks to that. And there are millions of willing recipients younger than me.
    I take it you have been living like a monk. The reality is people are banging on about the risk of some guy not wearing a mask in a low occupancy supermarket yet likely attending many events with other people for their own benefit that are significantly higher risk. If they were really that worried about covid they would modify their behavior and not seek to control others pretty minor indiscretion regarding mask wearing. It is laughable from a risk management perspective. Stevo in the Supermarket is no more or less likely to have covid and any of the people you will have had significant contact with over the last 2 months unless you are actually living like a monk. Go and have a word with your local health authority as in Cumbria you would have had your vaccinations 2 months ago easily.
    Cumbria has a population of less than 500,000. Which puts it below Leicester.
    What is your point. It would seem to me that a city like Leicester should be able to get their populations vaccinated pretty easily. Did the people of Leicester have to travel 50 minutes in a car to get vaccinated. Its all back to my original point. The young are out partying so anything Stevo does in a supermarket is pretty much irrelevant.
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,316
    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    It’s fairly clear. The logic and context of the virus and how it is transmitted means that I am of the view it is selfish to be maskless inside in places where you mix with public in a period where not everyone had been able to be fully vaccinated.

    The logic of this is obvious, as are the mechanics of transmission.

    That’s the summary, no need to go around in circles.

    Consider the possibility people call it selfish because it might be?

    When do you think we will get to a situation where in your everyone is fully vaccinated? Given that will never happen 100%, are you prepared to accept a situation where we have to go on wearing masks indefinitely?
    I assume it to mean everyone who wants to have both jabs has had the opportunity. If people chose not to then they have accepted taking the risk.
    And as i asked above, how many do you think are vulnerable and have not been offered the jab? If some people choose not to be jabbed, they can also choose not to go to places where they may be at higher risk.
    Why should they need to be vulnerable? Surely it's good manners to try to protect others even if all you give them is amild illness? You've survived wearing a mask for 12 months so why stop now just because you're allowed to?
    It's good manners and backed up by the highway code to give cyclists as much room as a car. I wonder why there are so many close passes still being done.
    I'm not following this argument sorry. Are you saying because some motorists don't show courtesy to cyclists those vaccinated shouldn't show courtesy to those that aren't? It seems a really bad analogy.
    I am pointing out the futility of this argument. Some are arguing for the continuance of mask wearing even when the scenario Stevo initially described would suggest it is of limited value as if it is some real protection against a minority. If they are genuinely vulnerable and can't get vaccinated then they should be at home given current covid rates. If they can't be arsed to get vaccinated then good luck to them. The young unvaccinated either through choice or time are certainly not living the life of monks. Your mask wearing in low risk scenarios is of pretty much no use when they are out at the local nightclub.
    This seems to be a real stumbling block for you. I'm 36, had first jab as soon as I was able and have yet to have my 2nd. Then add 2 weeks to that. And there are millions of willing recipients younger than me.
    I take it you have been living like a monk. The reality is people are banging on about the risk of some guy not wearing a mask in a low occupancy supermarket yet likely attending many events with other people for their own benefit that are significantly higher risk. If they were really that worried about covid they would modify their behavior and not seek to control others pretty minor indiscretion regarding mask wearing. It is laughable from a risk management perspective. Stevo in the Supermarket is no more or less likely to have covid and any of the people you will have had significant contact with over the last 2 months unless you are actually living like a monk. Go and have a word with your local health authority as in Cumbria you would have had your vaccinations 2 months ago easily.
    Cumbria has a population of less than 500,000. Which puts it below Leicester.
    What is your point. It would seem to me that a city like Leicester should be able to get their populations vaccinated pretty easily. Did the people of Leicester have to travel 50 minutes in a car to get vaccinated. Its all back to my original point. The young are out partying so anything Stevo does in a supermarket is pretty much irrelevant.
    Yes and all cyclists jump red lights
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • pangolin
    pangolin Posts: 6,316
    To give you a bit of perspective John, if we stopped giving all 1st jabs today (and we are not doing that) there would be almost 10 million 2nd jabs to do to catch up.

    https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/vaccinations

    I know if feels like ages since you had yours so "everyone who wants their jabs must have had them by now" but this is just not the case.
    - Genesis Croix de Fer
    - Dolan Tuono
  • rjsterry
    rjsterry Posts: 27,699
    john80 said:

    rjsterry said:

    john80 said:

    pangolin said:

    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    john80 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    Pross said:

    Stevo_666 said:

    rick_chasey said:

    It’s fairly clear. The logic and context of the virus and how it is transmitted means that I am of the view it is selfish to be maskless inside in places where you mix with public in a period where not everyone had been able to be fully vaccinated.

    The logic of this is obvious, as are the mechanics of transmission.

    That’s the summary, no need to go around in circles.

    Consider the possibility people call it selfish because it might be?

    When do you think we will get to a situation where in your everyone is fully vaccinated? Given that will never happen 100%, are you prepared to accept a situation where we have to go on wearing masks indefinitely?
    I assume it to mean everyone who wants to have both jabs has had the opportunity. If people chose not to then they have accepted taking the risk.
    And as i asked above, how many do you think are vulnerable and have not been offered the jab? If some people choose not to be jabbed, they can also choose not to go to places where they may be at higher risk.
    Why should they need to be vulnerable? Surely it's good manners to try to protect others even if all you give them is amild illness? You've survived wearing a mask for 12 months so why stop now just because you're allowed to?
    It's good manners and backed up by the highway code to give cyclists as much room as a car. I wonder why there are so many close passes still being done.
    I'm not following this argument sorry. Are you saying because some motorists don't show courtesy to cyclists those vaccinated shouldn't show courtesy to those that aren't? It seems a really bad analogy.
    I am pointing out the futility of this argument. Some are arguing for the continuance of mask wearing even when the scenario Stevo initially described would suggest it is of limited value as if it is some real protection against a minority. If they are genuinely vulnerable and can't get vaccinated then they should be at home given current covid rates. If they can't be arsed to get vaccinated then good luck to them. The young unvaccinated either through choice or time are certainly not living the life of monks. Your mask wearing in low risk scenarios is of pretty much no use when they are out at the local nightclub.
    This seems to be a real stumbling block for you. I'm 36, had first jab as soon as I was able and have yet to have my 2nd. Then add 2 weeks to that. And there are millions of willing recipients younger than me.
    I take it you have been living like a monk. The reality is people are banging on about the risk of some guy not wearing a mask in a low occupancy supermarket yet likely attending many events with other people for their own benefit that are significantly higher risk. If they were really that worried about covid they would modify their behavior and not seek to control others pretty minor indiscretion regarding mask wearing. It is laughable from a risk management perspective. Stevo in the Supermarket is no more or less likely to have covid and any of the people you will have had significant contact with over the last 2 months unless you are actually living like a monk. Go and have a word with your local health authority as in Cumbria you would have had your vaccinations 2 months ago easily.
    Cumbria has a population of less than 500,000. Which puts it below Leicester.
    What is your point. It would seem to me that a city like Leicester should be able to get their populations vaccinated pretty easily. Did the people of Leicester have to travel 50 minutes in a car to get vaccinated. Its all back to my original point. The young are out partying so anything Stevo does in a supermarket is pretty much irrelevant.
    The length of time to get everyone vaccinated is down to the size of the population covered by the particular vaccination centres. Travel times to those centres are irrelevant. Bristol is ~35% bigger than Cumbria in population terms.
    1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
    Pinnacle Monzonite

    Part of the anti-growth coalition

Categories