The big Coronavirus thread

pblakeney

Pross said:

pblakeney said:

Pross said:

Can't see Boris putting us back into a lockdown after seeing what is happening over on the continent. He'd rather see people dying than looking unpopular with people rioting on the streets.

I remember reading similar posts last year.

They weren't watching riots in other European countries last year though.

I didn't say it would be popular. On one hand the vaccines might make all the difference but on the other we have generally been a couple of weeks behind Europe in waves.
Point was that the suggestions of unacceptability were made last year yet we had a lockdown.

DeVlaeminck

I think it depends what is meant by a lock down.

If it's a return to stay local stay home etc it's not unlikely we would see mass protests. If it's mandatory mask wearing and compulsory proof of vaccination to visit a nightclub then I can't see many taking to the streets to protest.

I suspect any restrictions would be aimed at businesses - it's far easier to shut a pubs than make sure nobody visits family at Christmas.

orraloon

Why should the vaccinated majority go into more social and economic chaos because of the idiots who refuse to get protected then end up in critical care.

Viz: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

Screw them.

Jezyboy

orraloon said:

Why should the vaccinated majority go into more social and economic chaos because of the idiots who refuse to get protected then end up in critical care.

Viz: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

Screw them.

Yea, I'm happy for you (geneic you, not the 'loon) to not have the vaccine, but f*** locking down again to save you.

Pross

DeVlaeminck said:

I think it depends what is meant by a lock down.

If it's a return to stay local stay home etc it's not unlikely we would see mass protests. If it's mandatory mask wearing and compulsory proof of vaccination to visit a nightclub then I can't see many taking to the streets to protest.

I suspect any restrictions would be aimed at businesses - it's far easier to shut a pubs than make sure nobody visits family at Christmas.

I don't see compulsory mask wearing or Covid passports as being a form of lockdown. Of course there will still be idiots going on about them being an infringement of their civil liberties because they are incapable of realising civil liberties also relate to people other than themselves.

briantrumpet

I'd be genuinely interested in what Test & Trace people are doing now. Doesn't strike me that they have any role at all in the 'controlled' spread experiment.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/england-covid-test-and-trace-spending-over-1m-a-day-on-consultants

Still, £1m-per-day for Spaffer's mates...

kingstonian

orraloon said:

Why should the vaccinated majority go into more social and economic chaos because of the idiots who refuse to get protected then end up in critical care.

Viz: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

Screw them.

Really is a great example of Darwinism, isn’t it.

joe2019

kingstonian said:

orraloon said:

Why should the vaccinated majority go into more social and economic chaos because of the idiots who refuse to get protected then end up in critical care.

Viz: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

Screw them.

Really is a great example of Darwinism, isn’t it.

Incredibly well written piece by an anonymous respiratory doctor.

rick_chasey

You can't not treat them - else you'd fall into a blackhole of moral problems.

I do think if the unvaccinated prove to be so burdensome that normal healthcare services cannot be fully provided then they have enough reason to legislate mandatory vaccination (with the only exceptions provided for by doctors)

rjsterry

orraloon said:

Why should the vaccinated majority go into more social and economic chaos because of the idiots who refuse to get protected then end up in critical care.

Viz: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

Screw them.

Because 1. it's not just idiots who end up in critical care, and 2. the numbers in critical care have an effect on the treatment of everything else for the 5 million-odd people on waiting lists.

orraloon

rjsterry said:

orraloon said:

Why should the vaccinated majority go into more social and economic chaos because of the idiots who refuse to get protected then end up in critical care.

Viz: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

Screw them.

Because 1. it's not just idiots who end up in critical care, and 2. the numbers in critical care have an effect on the treatment of everything else for the 5 million-odd people on waiting lists.

Illogical captain. Reduce the number of idiots in critical care by getting them protected, thereby easing capacity issues and follow on.

briantrumpet

rick_chasey said:

You can't not treat them - else you'd fall into a blackhole of moral problems.

I do think if the unvaccinated prove to be so burdensome that normal healthcare services cannot be fully provided then they have enough reason to legislate mandatory vaccination (with the only exceptions provided for by doctors)

Hmm. As one article tangentially mused, how, in practice, is the state going to force someone to be vaccinated? Arrested and strapped down?

Better to make the arm twisting irresistible: vaccine passports, and charging for treatment in this particular instance. It is different from lifestyle habits such as smoking or being overweight, in that this is not a habit that's 'hard to kick' - it's a wilful conscious snubbing of evidence and benefit to society. Neither physically forces a vaccine on anyone, but the penalties for ignorance are high.

kingstongraham

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2244783/

rjsterry

orraloon said:

rjsterry said:

orraloon said:

Why should the vaccinated majority go into more social and economic chaos because of the idiots who refuse to get protected then end up in critical care.

Viz: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin

Screw them.

Because 1. it's not just idiots who end up in critical care, and 2. the numbers in critical care have an effect on the treatment of everything else for the 5 million-odd people on waiting lists.

Illogical captain. Reduce the number of idiots in critical care by getting them protected, thereby easing capacity issues and follow on.

You missed point 1.

rick_chasey

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

You can't not treat them - else you'd fall into a blackhole of moral problems.

I do think if the unvaccinated prove to be so burdensome that normal healthcare services cannot be fully provided then they have enough reason to legislate mandatory vaccination (with the only exceptions provided for by doctors)

Hmm. As one article tangentially mused, how, in practice, is the state going to force someone to be vaccinated? Arrested and strapped down?

Better to make the arm twisting irresistible: vaccine passports, and charging for treatment in this particular instance. It is different from lifestyle habits such as smoking or being overweight, in that this is not a habit that's 'hard to kick' - it's a wilful conscious snubbing of evidence and benefit to society. Neither physically forces a vaccine on anyone, but the penalties for ignorance are high.

I mean, I see vaccine passports as essentially mandatory vaccination, in the sense that if you want to be treated as an equal citizen and be in places like restaurants or cinemas or go inside the job centre to pick up your dole money you need your vaccination passport.

Sure, you can't force people to do it, but you can deny their rights to certain things.

You can see why people really oppose that - and i am fairly sympathetic to it.

pblakeney

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

You can't not treat them - else you'd fall into a blackhole of moral problems.

I do think if the unvaccinated prove to be so burdensome that normal healthcare services cannot be fully provided then they have enough reason to legislate mandatory vaccination (with the only exceptions provided for by doctors)

Hmm. As one article tangentially mused, how, in practice, is the state going to force someone to be vaccinated? Arrested and strapped down?

Austria will find out in February.

First.Aspect

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

You can't not treat them - else you'd fall into a blackhole of moral problems.

I do think if the unvaccinated prove to be so burdensome that normal healthcare services cannot be fully provided then they have enough reason to legislate mandatory vaccination (with the only exceptions provided for by doctors)

Hmm. As one article tangentially mused, how, in practice, is the state going to force someone to be vaccinated? Arrested and strapped down?

Better to make the arm twisting irresistible: vaccine passports, and charging for treatment in this particular instance. It is different from lifestyle habits such as smoking or being overweight, in that this is not a habit that's 'hard to kick' - it's a wilful conscious snubbing of evidence and benefit to society. Neither physically forces a vaccine on anyone, but the penalties for ignorance are high.

I understand the exasperation, but it isn't this clear cut. Like it or not a lot of people genuinely believe in certain things, or are even afraid of certain things, that do not make any rational sense to the majority.

Vaccine passports are already a thing in the UK, by the way. And it would be straightforward for more employers to mandate them in order to attend their workplace. If being employed and travel becomes problematic enough for the non vaccinated (not including those who can't be vaccinated for whatever reason) then it will sweep up most of the rest.

All of this pandering to the shouty minority is starting to get irritating.

shirley_basso

rick_chasey said:

briantrumpet said:

rick_chasey said:

You can't not treat them - else you'd fall into a blackhole of moral problems.

I do think if the unvaccinated prove to be so burdensome that normal healthcare services cannot be fully provided then they have enough reason to legislate mandatory vaccination (with the only exceptions provided for by doctors)

Hmm. As one article tangentially mused, how, in practice, is the state going to force someone to be vaccinated? Arrested and strapped down?

Better to make the arm twisting irresistible: vaccine passports, and charging for treatment in this particular instance. It is different from lifestyle habits such as smoking or being overweight, in that this is not a habit that's 'hard to kick' - it's a wilful conscious snubbing of evidence and benefit to society. Neither physically forces a vaccine on anyone, but the penalties for ignorance are high.

I mean, I see vaccine passports as essentially mandatory vaccination, in the sense that if you want to be treated as an equal citizen and be in places like restaurants or cinemas or go inside the job centre to pick up your dole money you need your vaccination passport.

Sure, you can't force people to do it, but you can deny their rights to certain things.

You can see why people really oppose that - and i am fairly sympathetic to it.

I guess it depends who uses vaccine passports - if it's the government, then I'd be less supportive. For private enterprise - fill your boots and people can vote with their feet.

DeVlaeminck

I'm really uneasy about the prospect of forced vaccination- I am vaccinated and I intend having my booster but I just can't accept that the state should have the power to order a person to be vaccinated.

I admit there are arguments on both sides but these aren't short term emergency powers we are talking about here. As things stand I'd not support any measures to impose mass vaccination.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

All of this pandering to the shouty minority is starting to get irritating.

It's a good thing that religious exemptions don't apply to H&S regulations or anti-discrimination laws. There's equally no reason to exempt people from a public health measure because of their belief in anti-science conspiracy theories.

People can believe in whatever they want, but that doesn't give them a free pass for things that affect other people's wellbeing.

kingstongraham

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

All of this pandering to the shouty minority is starting to get irritating.

It's a good thing that religious exemptions don't apply to H&S regulations or anti-discrimination laws. There's equally no reason to exempt people from a public health measure because of their belief in anti-science conspiracy theories.

People can believe in whatever they want, but that doesn't give them a free pass for things that affect other people's wellbeing.

There is this : https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-overturns-turban-workplace-rule

(Only affects themselves.)

PMark

DeVlaeminck said:

I'm really uneasy about the prospect of forced vaccination- I am vaccinated and I intend having my booster but I just can't accept that the state should have the power to order a person to be vaccinated.

I admit there are arguments on both sides but these aren't short term emergency powers we are talking about here. As things stand I'd not support any measures to impose mass vaccination.

Completely agree. I have been vaccinated and am happy to tell someone that hasn’t, that they should be. But the implications of letting governments have the power to force something like this on us are so bad, that they far outweigh any benefits.

The most I would be willing to do would be having to partly pay for any treatment. There are other countries that have a similar Health service to us, but if you miss 2 DRs appointments, then you need to pay if you want a 3rd.

john80

kingstongraham said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

All of this pandering to the shouty minority is starting to get irritating.

It's a good thing that religious exemptions don't apply to H&S regulations or anti-discrimination laws. There's equally no reason to exempt people from a public health measure because of their belief in anti-science conspiracy theories.

People can believe in whatever they want, but that doesn't give them a free pass for things that affect other people's wellbeing.

There is this : https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-overturns-turban-workplace-rule

(Only affects themselves.)

I do find it entertaining that you would not just design a hard hat that works with a turban. Albeit a turban probably works pretty well for most thing that you can drop from height but are not forceful enough to kill a hard hat wearer.

rjsterry

john80 said:

kingstongraham said:

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

All of this pandering to the shouty minority is starting to get irritating.

It's a good thing that religious exemptions don't apply to H&S regulations or anti-discrimination laws. There's equally no reason to exempt people from a public health measure because of their belief in anti-science conspiracy theories.

People can believe in whatever they want, but that doesn't give them a free pass for things that affect other people's wellbeing.

There is this : https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-overturns-turban-workplace-rule

(Only affects themselves.)

I do find it entertaining that you would not just design a hard hat that works with a turban. Albeit a turban probably works pretty well for most thing that you can drop from height but are not forceful enough to kill a hard hat wearer.

Given the choice, I'd pick a purpose made bit of kit to withstand, say, a roof tile slipping off a scaffold 6m up.

imposter2.0

john80 said:

I do find it entertaining that you would not just design a hard hat that works with a turban. Albeit a turban probably works pretty well for most thing that you can drop from height but are not forceful enough to kill a hard hat wearer.

I do find it entertaining that you think a turban offers any kind of vertical impact protection which is in any way remotely equivalent to a hard hat.

First.Aspect

Hard hats just put people off construction work and can't save you from having a building collapse on top of you anyway, so they should not be compulsory.

Pross

Ah, that reminds me of my days first starting out in the construction industry when that was the prevailing attitude of the old timers. Away from the small scale cowboys there has been a huge change in attitude over the last 30 years and the industry is far more productive for it.

briantrumpet

First.Aspect said:

Hard hats just put people off construction work and can't save you from having a building collapse on top of you anyway, so they should not be compulsory.

That reminds me of watching this video, and wondering about his wearing a helmet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a0X9rdJ7hc

webboo

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

Hard hats just put people off construction work and can't save you from having a building collapse on top of you anyway, so they should not be compulsory.

That reminds me of watching this video, and wondering about his wearing a helmet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a0X9rdJ7hc

To protect against stonefall. He’s on the Eiger which is rather notorious for it.

Ben6899

briantrumpet said:

First.Aspect said:

Hard hats just put people off construction work and can't save you from having a building collapse on top of you anyway, so they should not be compulsory.

That reminds me of watching this video, and wondering about his wearing a helmet:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a0X9rdJ7hc

I wonder what jacket he's wearing.