The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
So what.pangolin said:
Yes and all cyclists jump red lightsjohn80 said:
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.rjsterry said:
Cumbria has a population of less than 500,000. Which puts it below Leicester.john80 said:
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.pangolin said:
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.john80 said:
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.Pross said:
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.john80 said:
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.Pross said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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.Pross said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
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?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?0 -
Are you suggesting that Bristol does not have adequate vaccinations centers for its population size. If that is the case then feel free to take them to task on it. Bristol was doing around 2500 people per day on the 7 day rolling average and now are doing around 500 per day. Are they running out of people, vaccine or centers. At what point can Stevo choose not to wear a mask in his local supermarket to protect those not vaccinated. When it gets to 100 per day, 10 per day, 1 per day. At some point it wont be worth breaking into a batch of Phizer.rjsterry said:
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.john80 said:
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.rjsterry said:
Cumbria has a population of less than 500,000. Which puts it below Leicester.john80 said:
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.pangolin said:
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.john80 said:
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.Pross said:
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.john80 said:
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.Pross said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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.Pross said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
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?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?0 -
There just weren't enough vaccinations to go around. Our vaccination programme has been trundling on at pretty much the same pace it started all year. But stating that it's a bit slow is as good as treason to some. It's only mid to late June you see numbers of 1st jabs start to slow down, until then they are being rationed out by the Government.john80 said:
Are you suggesting that Bristol does not have adequate vaccinations centers for its population size. If that is the case then feel free to take them to task on it. Bristol was doing around 2500 people per day on the 7 day rolling average and now are doing around 500 per day. Are they running out of people, vaccine or centers. At what point can Stevo choose not to wear a mask in his local supermarket to protect those not vaccinated. When it gets to 100 per day, 10 per day, 1 per day. At some point it wont be worth breaking into a batch of Phizer.rjsterry said:
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.john80 said:
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.rjsterry said:
Cumbria has a population of less than 500,000. Which puts it below Leicester.john80 said:
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.pangolin said:
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.john80 said:
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.Pross said:
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.john80 said:
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.Pross said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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.Pross said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
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?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?
I've said before they should be looking at how to complete this in something more like 2 months if a new vaccine is required, and I sincerely hope they are. But the main bottleneck this time around has been quantity of vaccines, not young people being too busy partying.
- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
I went to a restaurant on Saturday, therefore I may have caught it because there's quite a bit of it about and it was an indoor place with people not wearing masks. That's just logic. Read Piers Morgan's account of catching it as a double jabbed person at the Euros final.
I will wear a mask in shops to try to avoid passing it on to people who are avoiding places where there are unmasked people, in case I did catch it. I don't find this an imposition, and it doesn't stop me doing anything. If you find that a bit much, maybe just man up and stop whining.1 -
I'm just saying it takes longer to vaccinate a larger population than a smaller one. I would have thought that was obvious. Part of the reason rates have dropped is we are short of doses. Because we didn't order enough to finish the job.john80 said:
Are you suggesting that Bristol does not have adequate vaccinations centers for its population size. If that is the case then feel free to take them to task on it. Bristol was doing around 2500 people per day on the 7 day rolling average and now are doing around 500 per day. Are they running out of people, vaccine or centers. At what point can Stevo choose not to wear a mask in his local supermarket to protect those not vaccinated. When it gets to 100 per day, 10 per day, 1 per day. At some point it wont be worth breaking into a batch of Phizer.rjsterry said:
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.john80 said:
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.rjsterry said:
Cumbria has a population of less than 500,000. Which puts it below Leicester.john80 said:
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.pangolin said:
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.john80 said:
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.Pross said:
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.john80 said:
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.Pross said:
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?Stevo_666 said:
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.Pross said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
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?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?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
QUick question - wife was at a care home yesterday - found out this morning there is a rona outbreak there.
If we hypothosise she got the rona yesterday, how long before a PCR test would show up positive?0 -
pangolin said:
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.
Exactly. I was double jabbed+3weeks by early May*, and yet Miss6899 - late 30s - is only just double jabbed(+5days)... there are so so many people who want to be double jabbed, but simply haven't had the chance yet.
*make your own deductions on that and guess how much I'm shaking my head at this thread's last few pagesBen
Bikes: Donhou DSS4 Custom | Condor Italia RC | Gios Megalite | Dolan Preffisio | Giant Bowery '76
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ben_h_ppcc/
Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/143173475@N05/0 -
Anything between 2 and 7 days, I think.rick_chasey said:QUick question - wife was at a care home yesterday - found out this morning there is a rona outbreak there.
If we hypothosise she got the rona yesterday, how long before a PCR test would show up positive?
0 -
-
Belfast Nightingale, stood down in April is reopening
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
I take it you saw above that rick wants masks to remain until everyone has been vaccinated. How likely do you think that is?pinkbikini said:
Lovely invention of a strawman argument in an attempt to prove your point! Poor debating skills.Stevo_666 said:
Well quite. They would have us with restrictions forever because they will never achieve their zero covid fantasy.john80 said:
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 itStevo_666 said:
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?rick_chasey said:
What about people who have had to wait for their jabs and haven’t been fully vaccinated yet?Stevo_666 said:
See my point above about when that might be.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.
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.
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?
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?
Try reading the thread properly before playing the man not the ball."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Another value added post. However it does not justify your excessively over-cautious approach to risk.rick_chasey said:Stevo_666 said:
Well quite. They would have us with restrictions forever because they will never achieve their zero covid fantasy.john80 said:
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 itStevo_666 said:
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?rick_chasey said:
What about people who have had to wait for their jabs and haven’t been fully vaccinated yet?Stevo_666 said:
See my point above about when that might be.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.
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.
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?
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?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I doubt that given what I do for a living...Pross said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
Its not just about me. See below my point about risk management. Sounds like you need a few tips as well as KG.Pross said:
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...Stevo_666 said:
People die in car accidents so let's ban cars....kingstongraham said:"I don't care about the announcement about someone with a severe nut allergy on the plane, I WANT MY CASHEWS."
You don't seem to understand risk management."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
No, but the option to choose arose.rjsterry said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
'Broken to the extent that...' is saying the same thing.rjsterry said:
It has been weakened, but the link has not been broken. Otherwise there would not be roughly 40% of hospitalisations being fully vaccinated.Stevo_666 said:
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.First.Aspect said:
How about when fewer than about 1 in 50 people you might meet actually have it?Stevo_666 said:
If only the vaccine protected most people from serious cases....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.
It's endemic, so this is new normal. I can't see when we would ever stop wearing masks if we follow your logic.
There's a difference between endemic and pandemic, Kermit.
You may disagree, but that is now the reality."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
So it's not really about the risk, then? It sounds like the risk argument is just a post-rationalisation. Which is fine. Worth noting that the government health advice hasn't changed, just the removal of legal sanctions.Stevo_666 said:
No, but the option to choose arose.rjsterry said:
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.Stevo_666 said:
'Broken to the extent that...' is saying the same thing.rjsterry said:
It has been weakened, but the link has not been broken. Otherwise there would not be roughly 40% of hospitalisations being fully vaccinated.Stevo_666 said:
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.First.Aspect said:
How about when fewer than about 1 in 50 people you might meet actually have it?Stevo_666 said:
If only the vaccine protected most people from serious cases....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.
It's endemic, so this is new normal. I can't see when we would ever stop wearing masks if we follow your logic.
There's a difference between endemic and pandemic, Kermit.
You may disagree, but that is now the reality.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Professor Chris Whitty has laid out the three circumstances in which he will continue to wear a mask after 19 July.
He said: “I would wear a mask under three situations, and I would do so, particularly at this point when the epidemic is clearly significant and rising.
“And the first is in any situation which was indoors and crowded, or indoors with close proximity to other people and that is because masks help protect other people - this is a thing we do to protect other people, this is by far its principal aim.
“The second situation I’d do it is if I was required to by any competent authority. I would have no hesitation about doing that and I would consider that was a reasonable and sensible thing if they had good reason to do that.
“And the third reason is if someone else was uncomfortable if I did not wear a mask, as a point of common courtesy of course I would wear a mask so under all those circumstances I would do so.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/chris-whitty-masks-lockdown-covid-b1878776.html1 -
I've just had my second jab, so in a couple of weeks you can all stop wearing masks, thanks.
(If that seems like an outrageous position to take it's because it is)
Meanwhile the woman next to me in the post jab holding pen has her nose completely out of her mask.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
OK then - when you addresss two people by name (who have differing arguments) in a single summation you’re going to be wrong one way or another.Stevo_666 said:
I take it you saw above that rick wants masks to remain until everyone has been vaccinated. How likely do you think that is?pinkbikini said:
Lovely invention of a strawman argument in an attempt to prove your point! Poor debating skills.Stevo_666 said:
Well quite. They would have us with restrictions forever because they will never achieve their zero covid fantasy.john80 said:
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 itStevo_666 said:
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?rick_chasey said:
What about people who have had to wait for their jabs and haven’t been fully vaccinated yet?Stevo_666 said:
See my point above about when that might be.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.
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.
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?
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?
Try reading the thread properly before playing the man not the ball.
That’s why I said you had poor debating skills. Respond away if you like, but I’m not too fussed - you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on here.
0 -
Perhaps she just had a big nose?
0 -
Was it a big nose?0
-
Barry Manilow big for example?0
-
Hah! No, very average nose- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
Oh. I was hoping it was nose related.0
-
Nose uch luck- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
You are going to die. There is no other possible explanation. You should have got in a face to face shouting match to make sure of it.pangolin said:I've just had my second jab, so in a couple of weeks you can all stop wearing masks, thanks.
(If that seems like an outrageous position to take it's because it is)
Meanwhile the woman next to me in the post jab holding pen has her nose completely out of her mask.
0 -
Explanation? I think you mean outcome.john80 said:
You are going to die. There is no other possible explanation. You should have got in a face to face shouting match to make sure of it.pangolin said:I've just had my second jab, so in a couple of weeks you can all stop wearing masks, thanks.
(If that seems like an outrageous position to take it's because it is)
Meanwhile the woman next to me in the post jab holding pen has her nose completely out of her mask.
Pretending I am acting as though this will kill me gives you something to argue against, but I'm not so I'm not sure who it is you think you're arguing with.
Some people have been saying that those unfortunate youths who want both jabs but haven't had them yet should take personal responsibility and avoid shops (or wherever) if they want to.
They can hardly avoid going to get the jab though. And even somewhere like that there are people so thoughtless or incompetent that they can't or won't wear one properly.
This is just one example, the premise that 18-35 yr olds should just self isolate for the next 6 weeks is as silly as it was when people suggested old people should do it in 2020. Especially now the alternative is such a small ask.
I didn't think I would have to join these dots quite so slowly for you.- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono1 -
I think the good old fashioned British 'tut' would be more appropriate.john80 said:
You are going to die. There is no other possible explanation. You should have got in a face to face shouting match to make sure of it.pangolin said:I've just had my second jab, so in a couple of weeks you can all stop wearing masks, thanks.
(If that seems like an outrageous position to take it's because it is)
Meanwhile the woman next to me in the post jab holding pen has her nose completely out of her mask.
1
