Lockdown’s Last Lingerings - (Covid since L2 ended)

[jonny777]

Politics is all about winning votes, but only at election time; and as another GE is likely to be three years away, there is plenty of time to make sure that the taxation to pay for Covid will not be coming from those in marginal constituencies. 

 

I see Matt Hancock has decided on yet another NHS reorganisation. The opposition have called it a 'power grab'. 

 

What is the average person to think regarding the government increasing their control, with comments such as that? I think it is a rather dangerous tactic to dismiss everyone who questions government policy as conspiracy theorists. 

 

 

[Hobby]

But it's the way opposition parties and their lackeys work. 

[Nearholmer]

17 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

I think it is a rather dangerous tactic to dismiss everyone who questions government policy as conspiracy theorists. 

 

 

Of course it would be, and I don't think anybody here is.

 

23 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

What is the average person to think regarding the government increasing their control, with comments such as that?

 

I should think the average person would have enough nous to know that what they are listening to is the ordinary politics of the ancient argument about whether the NHS should be centralised (which never worked effectively) or de-centralised (which didn't work effectively either).

 

If they somehow conflate that with a load of bonkers nonsense about global mind-control through vaccines, they are not average.

 

[boxbrownie]

35 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

 

 

What is the average person to think regarding the government increasing their control, with comments such as that? I think it is a rather dangerous tactic to dismiss everyone who questions government policy as conspiracy theorists. 

 

 

Could be worse, could be Myanmar......

[Hobby]

Or... China?!

[jonny777]

8 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

Of course it would be, and I don't think anybody here is.

 

 

I should think the average person would have enough nous to know that what they are listening to is the ordinary politics of the ancient argument about whether the NHS should be centralised (which never worked effectively) or de-centralised (which didn't work effectively either).

 

If they somehow conflate that with a load of bonkers nonsense about global mind-control through vaccines, they are not average.

 

 

But the problem I have is not with the detail of what those who are against the vaccine are saying. You are bound to get extremes with all debates. 

 

It is the labelling of these folk and corralling them into one group - this time it is 'anti-vaxxers', who can be dismissed as nut jobs at a stroke by the mention of that name and its association with mind control or whatever. 

 

I know a number of people who are reluctant to have the jab because they are worried that the usual lengthy development/double blind trial period for vaccines has not been adhered to with these doses now being given out in their millions. I think that is a very rational view to take; but because they have refused the jab they can be dismissed instantly as anti-vaxxers and, by implication, conspiracy theorists. Even when they are nothing of the sort. 

 

 

[Nearholmer]

19 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

I think that is a very rational view

 

FWIW, I too think its a rational view to worry slightly about thoroughness, given the speed with which vaccines have been developed and deployed, and with the famous "Oh, sh!t!" moments of medical history at the back of the mind.

 

But, it seems to me to be irrational, and frankly irresponsible, to translate those natural worries into declining vaccination, because to do so is to ignore the balance of probabilities, which tips massively in favour of vaccination doing an enormous amount more good than harm.

 

It would only be rational to decline vaccination if vaccination was more likely to kill you, or give you a serious illness, than circulating Covid is. Do those who you know that are declining vaccination believe that it is?

 

In summary, I'm not surprised that some people worry a bit, but neither am I surprised that if they translate that into refusing vaccination they are regarded as irrational.

 

 

 

 

Edited February 16, 2021 by Nearholmer

[woodenhead]

3 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

FWIW, I too think its a rational view to worry slightly about thoroughness, given the speed with which vaccines have been developed and deployed, and with the famous "Oh, sh!t!" moments of medical history at the back of the mind.

 

But, it seems to me to be irrational, and frankly irresponsible, to translate those natural worries into declining vaccination, because to do so is to ignore the balance of probabilities, which tips massively in favour of vaccination doing an enormous amount more good than harm.

Except when the vaccine becomes the problem like with Polio - where the vaccine strain has got into circulation, mutated and is causing more problems than the wild dose it was meant to eradicate.

 

I've got my first jab next week, was surprised it was so soon, I'm neither vulnerable nor very old - mid fifties, not going to turn it down of course.  

[Andy Hayter]

14 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

 

 

I know a number of people who are reluctant to have the jab because they are worried that the usual lengthy development/double blind trial period for vaccines has not been adhered to with these doses now being given out in their millions. I think that is a very rational view to take; but because they have refused the jab they can be dismissed instantly as anti-vaxxers and, by implication, conspiracy theorists. Even when they are nothing of the sort. 

 

 

The trial periods have been adhered to.  The ability to create a vaccine in such a short period of time is due to a number of factors:

1. The base work was already 4 years down the track because work had already started on MERS/ SARS1 vaccines.

2.  Phase 2 and phase 3 trials were run in parallel.

3.  The resources to push the work 24/7/365 were there.  Normally the resources are for 37 hours per week minus holidays, minus sickness etc.

4.  Government support meant that companies were prepared to set up and start manufacturing before the phase 2 trials were complete.  In some cases this has paid off.  In others it has not - Sanofi and Pasteur Institute being 2 examples of failure.

[Nearholmer]

1 minute ago, woodenhead said:

Except when the vaccine becomes the problem like with Polio

 

That was one of the famous "Oh, sh!t!" moments I had in mind. Another was thalidomide (yes, I know that wasn't a vaccine).

[Fenman]

21 minutes ago, jonny777 said:

...

I know a number of people who are reluctant to have the jab

...

 

That seems absolutely fine to me. Vaccination coverage is never 100%, and we are already way above the predicted vaccination levels in almost all the main groups so far (from memory the 80+ age group is over 90% vaccinated, which is staggeringly good). There's room for people to refuse vaccination if they want to provided, of course, they are willing to take on the chin whatever consequences flow from their decision. Equally, the public health people should be using evidence and information to persuade people of the potential benefits they are missing.

 

However, it would intensely annoy me if people who refused to be vaccinated then started arguing that, eg, the rest of us should not have vaccination passports to ease international travel because that would be "discriminatory". 

 

I'm less forgiving where parents decide their children shouldn't be vaccinated (or given a life-saving blood transfusion, for example), because it clashes with their own beliefs. But that doesn't really apply here.

 

Paul

 

[jonny777]

24 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

 

FWIW, I too think its a rational view to worry slightly about thoroughness, given the speed with which vaccines have been developed and deployed, and with the famous "Oh, sh!t!" moments of medical history at the back of the mind.

 

But, it seems to me to be irrational, and frankly irresponsible, to translate those natural worries into declining vaccination, because to do so is to ignore the balance of probabilities, which tips massively in favour of vaccination doing an enormous amount more good than harm.

 

It would only be rational to decline vaccination if vaccination was more likely to kill you, or give you a serious illness, than circulating Covid is. Do those who you know that are declining vaccination believe that it is?

 

 

 

 

 

 

From brief chats to them, I get the impression that they are just waiting to see what happens (if anything) to the majority being vaccinated. They have not been clear on how long they are prepared to wait, but I sense a modicum of irrationality (despite what I said about their decision) in that they seem to expect something dreadful is going to happen to vaccinated people in the future, due to the rush to get the vaccine accepted for the public. 

 

There may be other factors, but I am trying not to get involved in any arguments as I have had the first dose anyway. 

[monkeysarefun]

Reading the previous few pages  anit-vaccination misinformation in the UK seems to be blamed on BAME ( I guess thats some racial group /cultural reference?) and loonies - here the chief opposition is from the main stream churches.

 

Both the Catholic and C of E have joined forces to attempt to stop the use of AZ in favour of the Pfizer/Modena versions, and are threatening to delay the rollout. This isn't just some fringe evangelical part of the churches but the Archbishops of Melbourne and Sydney of both major faiths.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/churches-on-collision-course-with-the-government-over-astrazeneca-vaccine-20210212-p571ys.html

 

I don't know what the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Popes view on the AZ vaccine is, maybe the  less pressing COVID situation here in Australia  gives the church the luxury of feeling they can vent their viewpoints.

Edited February 16, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[Jonboy]

4 minutes ago, monkeysarefun said:

Reading the previous few pages  anit-vaccination misinformation in the UK seems to be blamed on BAME ( I guess thats some racial group /cultural reference?) and loonies - here the chief opposition is from the main stream churches.

 

Both the Catholic and C of E have joined forces to attempt to stop the use of AZ in favour of the Pfizer/Modena versions, and are threatening to delay the rollout. This isn't just some fringe evangelical part of the churches but the Archbishops of Melbourne and Sydney of both major faiths.

 

https://www.smh.com.au/national/churches-on-collision-course-with-the-government-over-astrazeneca-vaccine-20210212-p571ys.html

 

I don't know the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Popes view on the AZ vaccine is, maybe the  less pressing COVID situation here in Australia gives the church the luxury of venting their viewpoints.

But surely If the Pope says it’s ok.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55409693 ....

[monkeysarefun]

Here churches are open as normal and parishioners aren't currently sickening and/or dying, maybe this has given our local  clergy a distorted viewpoint of how important vaccination is, I don't know... They aren't anti vax, just anti the AZ vaccine due to the foetus thing.

Edited February 16, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[petethemole]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It would only be rational to decline vaccination if vaccination was more likely to kill you, or give you a serious illness, than circulating Covid is. Do those who you know that are declining vaccination believe that it is?

Yes. It's either going to kill you/us/them because it's not adequately tested and is therefore dangerous, OR it's part of the globalist agenda to cull the population.  Or in some cases, both. Also, for these people, opposition to government policies on Covid is not from the point of view of the parliamentary opposition as they are also part of the plan.  I have to share space with somebody of this mindset and despite avoiding the issue as much as possible I can't escape it entirely.  I've had the jab, no side effects, but apparently I will (not 'may') die horribly from it at some time in the future. 

[Reorte]

3 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It would only be rational to decline vaccination if vaccination was more likely to kill you, or give you a serious illness, than circulating Covid is. Do those who you know that are declining vaccination believe that it is?

 

I wouldn't go that far - if the risk from either to you is sufficiently low then not bothering getting vaccinated isn't something I'd condemn at all - both risks could come under "couldn't care less." At that point it's the risk to others rather than to yourself that's the consideration.

 

Generally speaking I'm a "not going to do something unless there's good reason to" type person, rather than a "will do something unless there's a good reason not to" one, so if only myself was the consideration I honestly doubt I'd bother being vaccinated (I'm not in a high risk group). It's the wider sitution that'll mean I'll get it.

Edited February 16, 2021 by Reorte

[Nearholmer]

I sort of understand that. I guess I was typing as a person who is old enough that, even being generally healthy, the probability of serious illness if I catch it is definitely in the "too high for comfort" zone (15-20%), and the probability of death "not to be completely ignored" (c1.5%), especially given that my children are still pretty young.

[snitchthebudgie]

3 hours ago, Andy Hayter said:

The trial periods have been adhered to. 

 

5. Plus the fact that there were thousands of cases to test the vaccines on (or against).  For other recent vaccines (perhaps meningitis?) the number of cases per annum is relatively low, and hence it takes a long time to carry out the full clinical trials. 

[Reorte]

59 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

I sort of understand that. I guess I was typing as a person who is old enough that, even being generally healthy, the probability of serious illness if I catch it is definitely in the "too high for comfort" zone (15-20%), and the probability of death "not to be completely ignored" (c1.5%), especially given that my children are still pretty young.

 

Yes, at that sort of level I'd find the vaccine a no-brainer even without the wider implications for everyone else.

[Hobby]

16 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

Reading the previous few pages  anit-vaccination misinformation in the UK seems to be blamed on BAME ( I guess thats some racial group /cultural reference?) and loonies - here the chief opposition is from the main stream churches.

 

I think perhaps the wording of that gives the wrong impression on those links I gave earlier. BAME is simply a name for Black, Asian and Minority Ethnics and certainly no-one is blaming them for anything. However there are people within that group that could be said to be anti-vaxxers and seem to have more influence within their community than the a-v's in the white community. Hence take-up in the BAME population is shown to be substantially lower than in the white population even though it's also be shown that the risk to the BAME population is higher.

 

 

15 hours ago, monkeysarefun said:

They aren't anti vax, just anti the AZ vaccine due to the fetus thing.

 

Not sure if it's been linked to before, but just to clarify...

 

https://factcheckni.org/articles/covid-19-vaccines-and-aborted-fetuses/

Edited February 17, 2021 by Hobby

[monkeysarefun]

10 minutes ago, Hobby said:

BAME is simply a name for Black, Asian and Ethnic Minorities

Thanks - I assumed it was some acronym, similar to when I watched the Bill in the '80's and they were always going "Suspect is IC1 male!" or whatever, had no idea what they were banging on about and in the pre-internet days it was surprisingly  hard to find out. 

Edited February 16, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[monkeysarefun]

To complete the latest saga of the UK strain here, Melbourne looks they  will complete  their emergency 5 day lockdown today since zero cases of the UK strain were recorded overnight. The outbreak  spread from a family staying in quarantine when a nebuliser was used in the room, which apparently spread the virus through the room and out into the corridor, infecting other guests and hotel workers.

 

Because some of the workers had been out to venues  before testing positive there were grave fears that the virus would spread given its nature in the UK but like Brisbane and Perth, apart from close family contacts already in isolation there was no community spread - this UK  version of the virus just doesn't seem to want to be here...  ("Its too hot!" ...."The beers too cold!" ...." Everything is so expensive!"  ...."You can't get a  Jellied Welk anywhere!" etc etc...)

 

Tennis Australia isn't mucking around - tickets for tonights  Australian Open went up for sale first thing..

Edited February 16, 2021 by monkeysarefun

[Nearholmer]

28 minutes ago, Hobby said:

certainly no-one is blaming them for anything.

 

Indeed.

 

I think there is very widespread understanding that a lot of anti-vax stuff is deliberately targeted at people from those backgrounds, and that especially older people are susceptible to charlatanism that comes direct from the countries that they originate from, courtesy of modern telecoms. From what I can glean there is a lot of frustration among younger people that their grandparents are being "taken in" by a load of nonsense.

 

Not helped by the fact that, within living memory, people in some African countries were effectively used as guinea-pigs in medical trials or were the victims of well-intentioned medical interventions that went awry.

 

[Hroth]

Thought this might amuse...

 

https://xkcd.com/