Coronavirus - UK
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@broughie said in Coronavirus - UK:
Same with the flu.
No, it really isn't
We had Flu vaccines to protect vulnerable groups people long before Covid and lockdowns . We didn't have a Covid-19 vaccine until 9 months after any lockdown.
My point is that we can't contain a virus. Yes true we had vaccines but people still died of the flu despite vaccines and you and I may have transmitted it without knowing it.
Yes the covid vaccines helped the elderly/risk population although they did have side effects. Focus protection could have helped too!
Thanks for the info on Omicron and the point is? Never doubted the severity of Covid just the approach.
Grab a scotch and watch the video above. Both sides represented. Not confrontational.
-
@broughie said in Coronavirus - UK:
My point is that we can't contain a virus
No, your point is/was governments were stupid to try.
-
@Victor-Meldrew Indirectly yes but they could try to protect those more susceptible.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@broughie said in Coronavirus - UK:
My point is that we can't contain a virus
No, your point is/was governments were stupid to try.
They absolutely weren't, initially. But by the time a vaccine rolled out, and lockdowns (L4) in NZ weren't stopping the virus the game was up. It just took months to accept that.
I am still triggered by 'you're in lockdown until enough people are vaccinated, and we won't tell you how many or what the conditions for lifting lockdown are. Trust us.' Extraordinary.
-
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - UK:
They absolutely weren't, initially. But by the time a vaccine rolled out, and lockdowns (L4) in NZ weren't stopping the virus the game was up. It just took months to accept that.
V. different here. Tried to get out of lockdown ASAP - too early in hindsight according to some studies/data.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - UK:
They absolutely weren't, initially. But by the time a vaccine rolled out, and lockdowns (L4) in NZ weren't stopping the virus the game was up. It just took months to accept that.
V. different here. Tried to get out of lockdown ASAP - too early in hindsight according to some studies/data.
Yep and then there are those that say too late. What is for sure is that with the number of variables in play, there is no “right” answer. All you can hope for is for a reasoned response that is guided by an informed view of the trends, which I know is what you have basically been saying.
In hindsight there were glaring mistakes made, imo the most obvious, at the time, was allowing mass gatherings just days before a full lockdown. Championship football matches, Cheltenham Gold Cup etc. Just felt wrong at the time.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
You can't really do that with a highly infectious disease as one person's decision can negatively impact on others (e.g, kill them). Would have been anarchy.
FFS. You love and believe in the nanny state. I don't. Especially when it comes to health care.
But this (bullshit) argument that person A can kill person B so the Govt must act and force (or close to) vaccines (that kill or seriously harm the poor mugs who took them) etc. is I believe, big pharma promoted misinformation.
The reason person B dies is totally down to them. I'm old but due to old age if my in-built immune system is weak and my body frail, I wouldn't blame person A for killing me if I catch covid from them and almost die. It's totally down to me. I am no longer able to withstand the natural risks of being on this planet.
And the biggest danger we face in the West is not something like Covid. It's those that want a nanny state Govt to look after us. Rather than just providing information and letting the individual decide. Law abiding healthy people should never have been locked down or have their right taken away (including effectively being forced to take this so-called vaccine) like happened in many countries due to Covid
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
You can't really do that with a highly infectious disease as one person's decision can negatively impact on others (e.g, kill them). Would have been anarchy.
FFS. You love and believe in the nanny state. I don't. Especially when it comes to health care.
But this (bullshit) argument that person A can kill person B so the Govt must act and force (or close to) vaccines (that kill or seriously harm the poor mugs who took them) etc. is I believe, big pharma promoted misinformation.
The reason person B dies is totally down to them. I'm old but due to old age if my in-built immune system is weak and my body frail, I wouldn't blame person B for killing me if I catch covid from them and almost die. It's totally down to me. I am no longer able to withstand the natural risks of being on this planet.
And the biggest danger we face in the West is not something like Covid. It's those that want a nanny state Govt to look after us. Rather than just providing information and letting the individual decide. Law abiding healthy people should never have been locked down or have their right taken away (including effectively being forced to take this so-called vaccine) like happened in many countries due to Covid
First bolded bit - that depends entirely on the scale of things. If the risk is not particularly widespread then fine. I'd agree with you. If it was widespread then the Government have a duty to act to protect the population.
Second bolded bit. Any proof that this was a significant risk?
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
If it was widespread then the Government have a duty to act to protect the population.
By providing information and advising / recommending actions. And maybe closing down the obviously ill. But not law abiding & healthy people.
Govts haven't banned cars. Or sports that damage (it seems) the brain. Or not supported war or mostly outlawed abortion recently in the West. But I 100% believe they would if someone like Bill Gates could make big money by doing it. People need to see Govts for what they are. Not an idealized Mummy or Daddy figure.
Second bolded bit. Any proof that this was a significant risk?
I know people who ended up in hospital straight after the jab. They still haven't fully recovered
Regarding excess deaths. Some are certain of this. Others reject these claims. Time will tell.
-
You’re conflating things that have little or no correlation. Cars, sports, abortion and even war all have a purpose, a distinct aim and are more often than not a positive influence (ok war is debatable on the last point).
COVID did not have any of those plus points. It’s a nonsensical argument.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
COVID did not have any of those plus points. It’s a nonsensical argument.
?. I'm referring to the vaccine & mask wearing etc. They I assume had a purpose. Like making certain companies' lot of money for one. Without any liability risk for the people damaged by them thanks to (corrupt?) Govts around the world.
Govts are mostly the servants of the rich elite. They approve and promote what makes the elites lots of money. And are mostly well looked after when their time is finished (or even before). Or targeted if they don't comply. Like Trump for example.
-
OK I see a slightly different angle there but there really is still no correlation. The car/sports/etc argument is about banning something that can be dangerous whereas the vaccine/mask argument is not about banning something that was, for most people very positive.
-
@Catogrande said in Coronavirus - UK:
very positive.
I don't agree. The vaccine never protected people as initially promoted. And most masks were as good as useless.
But these arguments have been done to death. My view is they both did more harm than good. And I think in the future (assuming sanity ever returns) they will look back in amazement and wonder how it all happened. And not just regarding Covid.
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
The vaccine never protected people as initially promoted.
The vaccines showed real-life effectiveness pretty much in line with the clinical trials. A sample group/study of 15 million people over 2 years showed 77.6% and 93.2% effectiveness against hospitalisation and death respectively. link .
My view is they both did more harm than good.
Serious side effects (mainly inflammation of the heart muscles) are/were very, very rare. My neighbour - a Cardiology Professor - tells me the figures are tiny at about 15 in a million doses with only 1 in a million needing medical intervention.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
The vaccine never protected people as initially promoted.
The vaccines showed real-life effectiveness pretty much in line with the clinical trials. A sample group/study of 15 million people over 2 years showed 77.6% and 93.2% effectiveness against hospitalisation and death respectively. link .
As soon as their ability to prevent transfer of the virus dropped off, so did the argument for complusion. The argument went from 'protect others' to 'protect the health system' - but that is a very slippery slope to start down.
Disclaimer: think the vaccines are incredible, got the first 2 plus a booster, adn don't think bodies are piling up in mass graves that are hidden. I do think the civil liberties got trampled, which became less adn less justifiable as time went on
-
My personal pov is that the initial lockdown in NZ was a) justified - they looked at the mayhem in norther Italy and thought Fuck that and b) successful. We had a second lockdown in Spring 2020 but most people were behind the govt's response evidenced by the election result.
Roll on early 2021 it's summer and here in NZ life is pretty much normal, most ppl are OK with vacationing locally and feeling a bit smug compared to the rest of the world.
Then the wheels fall off. Both the government and the population in general are just too complacent and caught up in a congratulatory circle jerk. Authorities were way too slow to order vaccine in sufficient quantities and the population for a host of reasons didn't take it up until it was way too late.
So we get the inevitable community transmission and the inevitable happens back into lockdown. This is particularly long (until Xmas) in Auckland and Northland. This is the one where the government lost the people. Messaging which until then had been on point and very clear becomes confusing - we move from the Alert Level system to the traffic lights (why?) which muddies everything further.
Auckland comes out of lockdown just as the first community Omicron cases emerge.
2022 just seems like an ongoing series of pointless restrictions which more and more people ignore. Opposition becomes much more strident. Positions entrenched, everyone's over it and the government acts like its scared of its own shadow.
I'm sure those making the hard decisions were over it all even more than the general population. NZ seemed to become distracted by our initial success and fixated on achieving some sort of impossible dream of 100% resilience for the total population.
All restrictions should have been eased in Q3 2021. By then anyone who wanted to had been multiple jabbed. Efforts after that can justifiably be called nanny statism. Change the response then and I think we would have avoided a lot of discord. Labour might even have been able to focus on delivering some of the projects they had been elected to do. They might even have been re-elected. Either way we wouldn't have a society as divided as it is today.
-
This is the difficult thing, in that depending on where we lived, we have very different lived experiences of the virus, the lockdowns and the general effect on everyday life. It’s like we are all having different arguments. I can’t comment on the NZ perspective because all I know about that is stuff I read on the news or on social media. Neither of which fills me with any feeling of confidence.
Even on here, which usually I find a haven of common sense and reasoned debate, it has become a bi-partisan viewpoint.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
The vaccines showed real-life effectiveness pretty much in line with the clinical trials. A sample group/study of 15 million people over 2 years showed 77.6% and 93.2% effectiveness against hospitalisation and death respectively. link .
In some ways I wish I still had as much faith in these Govt reports produced by their hired (or employed) experts. Experts who are almost obligated to produce the 'right' figures especially if they ever want future work. Or promotion or a future high paying job with a big pharma company.
But these vaccines were initially sold as if you take one of these (so-called) vaccine then you will be protected. Then when this proved to be bullshit it was changed to 'but you would have been worse without the vaccine'.
And If it was this effective why effectively force people who don't want to be injected with a 'no liability' new experimental drug to have it.
"Serious side effects (mainly inflammation of the heart muscles) are/were very, very rare. My neighbour - a Cardiology Professor - tells me the figures are tiny at about 15 in a million doses with only 1 in a million needing medical intervention."
Yet I know three people (and I rarely discuss this with friends or especially workmates) who were ill enough to require hospital attention after having the 2nd vaccine or booster. And are still suffering from the side effects.
And I've heard second hand that doctors just refuse to accept its a vaccine injury. Maybe this factor plus some creative research and analysis results in these low figures.
-
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
The vaccine never protected people as initially promoted.
The vaccines showed real-life effectiveness pretty much in line with the clinical trials. A sample group/study of 15 million people over 2 years showed 77.6% and 93.2% effectiveness against hospitalisation and death respectively. link .
As soon as their ability to prevent transfer of the virus dropped off, so did the argument for complusion. The argument went from 'protect others' to 'protect the health system' - but that is a very slippery slope to start down.
I'm struck by how different the UK and NZ attitudes were to lockdowns and vaccination. While there was debate about their length, there was a very clear view here that lockdowns were damaging and that needed to be balanced against infections.
The authorities here took a conscious decision not to make vaccination mandatory, relying on people to make their own minds up and being as open as possible on the types of vaccines and how they worked. The UK had a very high take-up rate.
Note:there was a mandate for front-line Care Home staff dealing with vulnerable people (those who refused a vaccine were re-deployed) but it was seen as unnecessary and abandoned after a month or so
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@nzzp said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
The vaccine never protected people as initially promoted.
The vaccines showed real-life effectiveness pretty much in line with the clinical trials. A sample group/study of 15 million people over 2 years showed 77.6% and 93.2% effectiveness against hospitalisation and death respectively. link .
As soon as their ability to prevent transfer of the virus dropped off, so did the argument for complusion. The argument went from 'protect others' to 'protect the health system' - but that is a very slippery slope to start down.
I'm struck by how different the UK and NZ attitudes were to lockdowns and vaccination. While there was debate about their length, there was a very clear view here that lockdowns were damaging and that needed to be balanced against infections.
The authorities here took a conscious decision not to make vaccination mandatory, relying on people to make their own minds up and being as open as possible on the types of vaccines and how they worked. The UK had a very high take-up rate.
Note:there was a mandate for front-line Care Home staff dealing with vulnerable people (those who refused a vaccine were re-deployed) but it was seen as unnecessary and abandoned after a month or so
They were mandatory in everything but name