Covid

[The Subhuman]

Don't think my partner will get the booster.. she said she's had two and that should be enough, last one only 5 months ago in May.

I won't be getting a passport, I carry that bit of card in my wallet so that should be good enough. Plus I don't own a mobile phone, smart or otherwise.

[Sara]

Businesses have to be open to pay their loans/ mortgages, employees need to work to do the same and the state needs tax rolling in to pay for the basic services they provide for their citizens.

Without vaccinations none of the above could happen, it would be varying degrees of ongoing lockdowns. So once you run with the idea of vaccinations then you have to have a system where gatherings of people can be allowed without them being spreader events for people who could get very sick and end up in hospital. The only way to do this is by only allowing people who can show they are vaccinated to be part of these gatherings. That is what the vaccination cert allows.

In that setting you can have groups back in pubs/cinemas/theatres and the economy gets going again without a surge in hospitalisations. This is what threatens the quality of care everyone gets in the health service.

The other way around certs/passes is that a level of vaccination of the population is hit which means that the health system could manage the number of hospitalisations that could occur amongst the unvaccinated and those that are vaccinated and still end up in hospital. I think that number would want to be north of 96% of the population - stand to be corrected on that.

There are unintended consequences in everything we do. I’m not sure which specific ones you are referring to, as by definition that could be an endless list. What has to be remembered though is that any government will be damned firstly for ignoring obvious consequences which could be fatal for their citizens or their economy by not doing something.

It's a complete nonsense given that vaccination doesn't prevent anyone from contracting or spreading the virus. I'm really not sure what part of this people advocating vaccine passes don't understand.

I'm referring to the consequences of social division, increased surveillance and micromanagement of our lives by government, the erosion of the principle of medical consent, and of the basic civil liberty to gather and move freely.

[rab_rant]

Protests against Green Pass in cities in Italy

[Sara]

It's a slippery slope; vaccine passes, identity cards, a social credit system...

[hector]

I must admit, I have had the vaccine, but to protect myself, no one else... And if the chances of catching it are the same with or without the vaccine (just the severity might be less with it), then what is the point of the vaccine passport?? It is not going to stop the spread, so I say bollox to it.

Now the majority of us elderly, and at risk have had the jabs, and all those over 20 that want it have too, let the Country get back to normal.... Yes we may get an infection spike, but hospital admittance should be down, so let's get this herd immunity thing going in full flow now, and let us get back on with our lives......

[VoiceofaLurker]

I lived in a house where 2 people had covid over a period of a couple of weeks. We were sensible but didn't go to the extremes of locking people away and not sharing space. I tested daily and did not catch it and had been double vaccinated. We were never told which variant it was but assuming it was the more prevalent delta variant something prevented me from catching it in what you would assume would be probably the most likely scenario in which you would. So potentially the combination of the infected being double vaccinated and the target being double vaccinated carries merit for being together for a prolonged period in a confined space
in reducing the spread.

VOAL

I must admit, I have had the vaccine, but to protect myself, no one else... And if the chances of catching it are the same with or without the vaccine (just the severity might be less with it), then what is the point of the vaccine passport?? It is not going to stop the spread, so I say bollox to it.

Now the majority of us elderly, and at risk have had the jabs, and all those over 20 that want it have too, let the Country get back to normal.... Yes we may get an infection spike, but hospital admittance should be down, so let's get this herd immunity thing going in full flow now, and let us get back on with our lives......

[Boo Radley]

It's a complete nonsense given that vaccination doesn't prevent anyone from contracting or spreading the virus. I'm really not sure what part of this people advocating vaccine passes don't understand.

I'm referring to the consequences of social division, increased surveillance and micromanagement of our lives by government, the erosion of the principle of medical consent, and of the basic civil liberty to gather and move freely.

The vaccine minimises the damage that the virus will do if someone catches the virus. Everyone accepts this now. Most won’t get sick, if you do it is less likely to be severe whereby you’re much less likely to end up in hospital and you won’t die from it. What don’t you get about allowing people who make this choice to gather freely.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. There is a free choice about not getting the vaccine. But if you don’t, along with many others, then you are more likely to end up in hospital if you catch Covid. This impacts hugely on other people who have absolutely no choice about needing to be looked after in the health system. Many of these will have crucial tests and operations cancelled because a cohort of the population decide not to be vaccinated and end up taking beds in the system. Do you really not recognise this “seen” consequence of deciding not to be vaccinated? There is a social responsibility on all of us in this pandemic.

I’m most definitely in favour of peoples’ right not to get vaccinated but there are responsibilities and consequences to every right. The pass system just means people who are less lightly to get seriously ill can be afforded the opportunity to gather in situations that could allow the spreading of the virus without dangerous consequences for them and the health service.

I’m all for the avoidance of creating social division, increased surveillance and the micromanagement of our lives but if you think that any of that, or even a small percentage of that, is attributable to vaccine passes then you are naive to say the least of it. Do you have a mobile phone, a bank card, a social security number, a passport, an email address or a social media presence online? If you have one or more of these then they know more than enough about you already.

The other news is that no civil right is absolute. As long as you are part of an organised society, ever right is only given in balance to other rights and other people’s rights. Your basic rights are not set up for you to do as you like. You can gather and move freely in public spaces. You’ll meet opposing rights that limit this right everywhere else outside of public places. And all bets are off in national emergencies.

[Sara]

The vaccine minimises the damage that the virus will do if someone catches the virus. Everyone accepts this now. Most won’t get sick, if you do it is less likely to be severe whereby you’re much less likely to end up in hospital and you won’t die from it. What don’t you get about allowing people who make this choice to gather freely.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. There is a free choice about not getting the vaccine. But if you don’t, along with many others, then you are more likely to end up in hospital if you catch Covid. This impacts hugely on other people who have absolutely no choice about needing to be looked after in the health system. Many of these will have crucial tests and operations cancelled because a cohort of the population decide not to be vaccinated and end up taking beds in the system. Do you really not recognise this “seen” consequence of deciding not to be vaccinated? There is a social responsibility on all of us in this pandemic.

I’m most definitely in favour of peoples’ right not to get vaccinated but there are responsibilities and consequences to every right. The pass system just means people who are less lightly to get seriously ill can be afforded the opportunity to gather in situations that could allow the spreading of the virus without dangerous consequences for them and the health service.

I’m all for the avoidance of creating social division, increased surveillance and the micromanagement of our lives but if you think that any of that, or even a small percentage of that, is attributable to vaccine passes then you are naive to say the least of it. Do you have a mobile phone, a bank card, a social security number, a passport, an email address or a social media presence online? If you have one or more of these then they know more than enough about you already.

The other news is that no civil right is absolute. As long as you are part of an organised society, ever right is only given in balance to other rights and other people’s rights. Your basic rights are not set up for you to do as you like. You can gather and move freely in public spaces. You’ll meet opposing rights that limit this right everywhere else outside of public places. And all bets are off in national emergencies.

Minimising the risk of serious illness is not the same as minimising the risk of transmission. You are using evidence of the former to justify a policy aimed at the latter; it's a complete non sequitur.

There is not a free choice not to be vaccinated if you will lose your job, your right to attend public events or access services, to send your children to school, or even to buy food. This is blatant coercion to accept an experimental medical product, the long term risks and effects of which are not known.

Blaming the shortcomings of the NHS on the unvaccinated is an insidious argument. Decades of underfunding, medical profiteering, globalised supply chains, wasteful mismanagement, coupled with a culture of high stress and poor diet, all play a more significant role; but now we have a convenient scapegoat who can be demonised to deflect from government failings, and force through the policy most profitable to the pharmaceutical corporations.

If public health is the aim, then encourage people to get vitamin D, to exercise and lose weight; install proper ventilation systems in public buildings, workplaces and schools, fund research into repurposed drugs and prophylactics. If social cohesion is the aim, then give accurate, unbiased information, don't censor debate, and allow people to exercise their social responsibility by making the choices which are right for them, their families and their communities freely.

The existence of digital surveillance and data mining is not a reason to shrug off the implications of further government encroachment on civil liberties. Quite the opposite; it should make us all the more vigilant to the dangers of mission creep when policies like medical passports are enacted. If you want to live in a society like China where our every move, and our willingness to comply with government authority, is monitored, then carry on. Otherwise try to be aware of the dangers inherent in government mandating particular forms of medical treatment, and requiring authorisation to go about our daily lives.

[Leeds1000]

Minimising the risk of serious illness is not the same as minimising the risk of transmission. You are using evidence of the former to justify a policy aimed at the latter; it's a complete non sequitur.

There is not a free choice not to be vaccinated if you will lose your job, your right to attend public events or access services, to send your children to school, or even to buy food. This is blatant coercion to accept an experimental medical product, the long term risks and effects of which are not known.

Blaming the shortcomings of the NHS on the unvaccinated is an insidious argument. Decades of underfunding, medical profiteering, globalised supply chains, wasteful mismanagement, coupled with a culture of high stress and poor diet, all play a more significant role; but now we have a convenient scapegoat who can be demonised to deflect from government failings, and force through the policy most profitable to the pharmaceutical corporations.

If public health is the aim, then encourage people to get vitamin D, to exercise and lose weight; install proper ventilation systems in public buildings, workplaces and schools, fund research into repurposed drugs and prophylactics. If social cohesion is the aim, then give accurate, unbiased information, don't censor debate, and allow people to exercise their social responsibility by making the choices which are right for them, their families and their communities freely.

The existence of digital surveillance and data mining is not a reason to shrug off the implications of further government encroachment on civil liberties. Quite the opposite; it should make us all the more vigilant to the dangers of mission creep when policies like medical passports are enacted. If you want to live in a society like China where our every move, and our willingness to comply with government authority, is monitored, then carry on. Otherwise try to be aware of the dangers inherent in government mandating particular forms of medical treatment, and requiring authorisation to go about our daily lives.

Agree with that Sara well said.

[Sara]

Friend in London has tested positive, with symptoms, just three weeks after his booster injection.

Studies show symptomatic breakthrough infections in the vaccinated are 27 times more likely than reinfection for those with natural immunity, yet we are still supposed to accept that covid passports will create safety through segregation for the vaccinated. Again, total fantasy.

https://science.thewire.in/health/natur ... ael-study/

[Leeds1000]

Its all Bull... Dr David to be precise.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTs5kf-tBxk&t=401s

[Broad Ford]

Jeez, I return home from work to find out a retired friend who fell I'll shortly after his booster has now died of Covid two weeks after having that booster jab.

Going through my mind is why didn't his wife listen to me. Weren't my words or my wisdom worthy of a second thought? Maybe if I had a TV channel she may have listened to me and then avoided those needles and subsequent booster jabs. Her son, like me, said never in a million years will he allow dodgy experiments to be performed upon him, his wife or his children.

I can't believe he has passed so quickly.

RIP mate.

[Aussieleeds]

Minimising the risk of serious illness is not the same as minimising the risk of transmission. You are using evidence of the former to justify a policy aimed at the latter; it's a complete non sequitur.

There is not a free choice not to be vaccinated if you will lose your job, your right to attend public events or access services, to send your children to school, or even to buy food. This is blatant coercion to accept an experimental medical product, the long term risks and effects of which are not known.

Blaming the shortcomings of the NHS on the unvaccinated is an insidious argument. Decades of underfunding, medical profiteering, globalised supply chains, wasteful mismanagement, coupled with a culture of high stress and poor diet, all play a more significant role; but now we have a convenient scapegoat who can be demonised to deflect from government failings, and force through the policy most profitable to the pharmaceutical corporations.

If public health is the aim, then encourage people to get vitamin D, to exercise and lose weight; install proper ventilation systems in public buildings, workplaces and schools, fund research into repurposed drugs and prophylactics. If social cohesion is the aim, then give accurate, unbiased information, don't censor debate, and allow people to exercise their social responsibility by making the choices which are right for them, their families and their communities freely.

The existence of digital surveillance and data mining is not a reason to shrug off the implications of further government encroachment on civil liberties. Quite the opposite; it should make us all the more vigilant to the dangers of mission creep when policies like medical passports are enacted. If you want to live in a society like China where our every move, and our willingness to comply with government authority, is monitored, then carry on. Otherwise try to be aware of the dangers inherent in government mandating particular forms of medical treatment, and requiring authorisation to go about our daily lives.

Great post Sara. 100% agree.

[rab_rant]

Climate change conference cop26 to be held in glasgow.... everyone will have to have covid passports NOT!?

[The Subhuman]

Imperial College London study has found that the double jabbed are as likely to spread covid as the unjabbed....

[Sara]

Imperial College London study has found that the double jabbed are as likely to spread covid as the unjabbed....

More likely to be asymptomatic and not realise they're spreading it too. We need some kind of two tier system to protect us from these dangerous, irresponsible people!

[BobHirst]

Friend in London has tested positive, with symptoms, just three weeks after his booster injection.

Studies show symptomatic breakthrough infections in the vaccinated are 27 times more likely than reinfection for those with natural immunity, yet we are still supposed to accept that covid passports will create safety through segregation for the vaccinated. Again, total fantasy.

https://science.thewire.in/health/natur ... ael-study/

Then I read this today.

"Vaccination is over five times more effective at preventing COVID-19 than immunity acquired by contracting and recovering from the virus, according to a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).The study, published Friday in the CDC journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report found that vaccine-induced immunity was 5.49 times more protective than immunity from infection. The study analyzed data from the VISION Network, which includes 187 hospitals across nine states. The results contradict an Israeli study released in August, which found that those who had previously been infected with COVID-19 were significantly less likely to become infected with the Delta variant than the vaccinated."

Mmmmmmmmm which study should I believe?

[Sara]

Then I read this today.

"Vaccination is over five times more effective at preventing COVID-19 than immunity acquired by contracting and recovering from the virus, according to a new study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).The study, published Friday in the CDC journal Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report found that vaccine-induced immunity was 5.49 times more protective than immunity from infection. The study analyzed data from the VISION Network, which includes 187 hospitals across nine states. The results contradict an Israeli study released in August, which found that those who had previously been infected with COVID-19 were significantly less likely to become infected with the Delta variant than the vaccinated."

Mmmmmmmmm which study should I believe?

Neither, probably. Not come across anything which takes into account all the variable factors; viral load, age, other health conditions, population density etc, and charted the natural immune response over time. The Israel study has come in for methodological criticism, but no one seems to have bettered it.

[Norm]

I don't believe the CDC on that one. Many people have become sick after having the vaccine.

I don't trust the CDC to be independently honest and self-sufficient any more.

It's time they were made to divulge their methodology and the results therefrom before presenting that conclusion.

[Norm]

Area 52 anyone?