Why? Give a reason please.
Coronaviruses have long existed, they cause the common cold. Indeed there's reason to believe that current common cold strains began life causing pandemics like Covid19 before immunity meant that it was no longer an issue - Covid19 f***ed us last year since we had no immunity but now with vaccines we do.
If vaccines mean that this coronavirus joins the rest of the coronaviruses in background circulation basically causing common cold effects because it isn't causing hospitalisations and death then we should treat it like we treat the cold. If it spreads it spreads, who cares?
We don't lockdown the country for the flu or any other virus. If Covid19 is no longer causing deaths and hospitalisations, we should treat it exactly the same.
Plus if its going to spread amongst the unvaccinated then best for it to spread now in the summer when we don't have the NHS dealing with winter flu season.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/12/h...ty-future.html
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6530/741
Good to see some good questions being asked and not zero covid nonsense.
Its time to call a halt to the pandemic, end testing, tracing and isolations etchttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-5...ost_type=share
"We have to ask very hard questions," a virus expert says, about what restrictions and the test and trace programme are achieving in a largely vaccinated population.
Prof Robert Dingwall, who sits on the government's New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG), tells BBC Radio 4's The World At One programme there were "significant commercial interests" in prolonging things like test and trace but from a public policy point of view there were questions to be asked.
"We have never thought it was important to do differential diagnosis of school children with respiratory infections," he says. "If they're not well enough to go to school, they don't go to school, that's the sort of equilibrium we need to be moving towards when the school year restarts in the autumn."
On whether we should still be using the test and trace app he says: "It's very hard to see what the benefit of that is, if the most vulnerable people in the population have had the opportunity to be vaccinated and if those who are not vaccinated are confined predominantly to groups where the infection is a very low risk, what are we achieving by contact tracing, by isolation?
"Why is it relevant to me to know that someone in my network is infected when I have been vaccinated?"
Either you're vaccinated in which case should hopefully be safe and are as safe as we can reasonably make you, or you're not in which case take your chances.
Rand, there's usually a month between infections and deaths, a time span that has probably increased due to advances in treatment. Those same advances do a great job of preventing death, but perhaps not other long-term health issues.
Hope is the denial of reality
A very slow gradual increase from an incredibly low base is not what I'd define as a spike. Last time case numbers reached what they are now, following a similar path, the in-hospital figure was 12k - this time around it is 10% of that now and the evidence seems to be that the vast majority of those are people who refused their vaccine, which everyone is now eligible for. That about 10% have refused the vaccine and hospitalisations are about 10% seems an interesting coincidence - or not.
So what are we supposed to do? Lockdown the country to prevent some antivaxxers from getting infected? No, fuck them, they've made their choice, we've been locked down long enough. Lockdown went against all principles of civil liberties but it only ever made sense to take away fundamental human rights to prevent a collapse of the healthcare system (that's been achieved). There's no risk of the collapse of healthcare now, so if a few people get sick now then so be it, if a few people die so be it. People get sick and die every single day, it isn't the end of the world.
Some people seem to have lost all perspective. People need to realise they'll get their antibodies one way or another, you can get it the easy way with a needle, or the hard way naturally. But we're not going to lock the nation down to prevent something that's more like the cold for those who've had their vaccinations now from spreading.
PS if you're going to stay locked down to prevent antivaxxers from getting infected then how or when does this dystopian nightmare ever end? Staying locked down to develop and rollout vaccines is bad enough, but to do so post vaccines? What are we waiting for exactly before we say this thing is over and now its endemic rather than pandemic?
A good 5m British residents will not be able to travel to Schengen without a recent test because their shots are with an Indian version of the AZN vaccine.
Congratulations America
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Many things have long term effects. Smoking, obesity, diet, lack of exercise, alcohol and depression for example. Not a reason to have a lockdown and take away civil liberties. In fact there's a lot of evidence lockdown is making some of these worse - I don't know about smoking but all the others seem to have gotten worse for a chunk of the public due to lockdown.
If some people want to cower away in their home locking themselves away from the world and getting everything delivered to them then let them choose to do that, that's their choice. If some people want to wear a mask let them choose to do that, that's their choice. But for the rest of us, the vaccine has been rolled out and if people aren't dying and the hospitals aren't being overwhelmed there is no excuse to deny people their liberties.
Its time to end all legal restrictions, do away with masks and social distancing and everything else as an issue of law and let people make their own free choices.
All I am saying is; long term effects aren't irrelevant.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Not to the individuals who get them, no. And the NHS will need to be there in the future to support them, if needed.
But they're totally irrelevant to the argument we should remain locked down post-vaccinations. They're not an excuse to take away people's civil liberties which should only ever be a last resort. That a small minority of people may face long term effects is not a reason to take away people's fundamental human rights.
If people are afraid of the virus still, even post-vaccines, let them choose their own actions. Let them cower at home if they want to, I won't object. Personal choice, personal responsibility. But the pandemic is over now this is an endemic disease that needs to be lived with now just like any other coronavirus already present.
Randblade, the lead supporter. Cause screw the long term costs and still largely unknown scope of the long term side effects.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Oh don't be ridiculous.
Using lead was avoidable and not a good idea. Stopping the use of lead didn't involve a draconian stripping away of people's civil liberties.
You're being farcical conflating the two. Not the same at all. Are we to live in a totalitarian state that tells us when we can leave our house forevermore in case there's some long term costs?
Except the phasing out and everything it entailed was considered draconian and far more restrictive than being told to wear a mask. It resulted in more government interference in how homes were built (pipes), how they were decorated (paint), how our cars were built and operated (gas) as well how the public maintained their own land (contamination). Usually resulting in higher upfront expenses placed on the citizens; I mean Christ, the gas alone took 25 years to phase out. Hell, the fuckup in Flint shows how we are still dealing with the civil liberties of lead restrictions.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 07-02-2021 at 11:48 AM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Having product standards for health and safety is not remotely as draconian and telling people they can't be within a metre of each other by law, or that if seven people sit at the same table then that is a criminal offence etc
Product standards are hardly original, but taking away people's civil liberties is an order of magnitude worse.
Anyway the case needs to be proven that there's a good reason to remove liberties, not the other way around. Lead was banned once it was proved to be a problem and an alternative was there, that is not the case with Covid. Covid is not an end of the world problem, it is just a virus like any other virus now.
If you want to cower at home you have the right to do so, you should not have the right to take away other people's liberties though.
They're not irrelevant in the discussion about the lockdown. You might feel the long term effects aren't severe enough to warrant a lockdown, but that's different than calling them irrelevant.
Edit: using phrases like 'cowering at home' only makes you sound like an asshole.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Of course they're irrelevant. Unless you intend to lockdown forever, in which case argue for that, the only excuse for a lockdown is an immediate peril of deaths and the collapse of healthcare.
This is a problem with lockdown, I'm starting to think in hindsight that the Swedish government had this right in principle. People have so moved the Overton window that taking away people's freedoms is now considered acceptable even without the risk of imminent death or collapse of healthcare.
My apologies that I hurt your feelings with the terminology. If people wish to hide away from a virus they're immunised against then they can voluntarily shelter at home or whatever else you want to call it instead. Though when you're wanting to mandate people must stay at home or have other restrictions BY LAW even post vaccines then I think you're the asshole and I stand by the word cower.
If you're so terrified of the long term impacts of a virus whose vaccine program has been completed that you're willing to take away indefinitely people's human right then what exactly in your eyes is the end of this? What is your exit plan to get out of lockdown? Or do we cower/shelter at home indefinitely?
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Also, your choice of words doesn't hurt anyone's feelings, it just makes you sound like a hysterical idiot (no offense, and I don't mean you are, but it makes you sound like one). Not just in this post, but your posting style in general. IDK if you think that's something to be proud of, but it takes away from your credibility.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
What's hysterical is forbidding people by law from having a child's birthday party, when there's no risk of healthcare collapsing.
What's hysterical is making it illegal for a double vaccinated 91 year old to see their children and grandchildren together as they're from separate households, when nobody is dying from the virus.
The pandemic is over. It's time to restore our basic liberties. That's not hysterical.
As I said earlier this has become a zero covid cult for some people. The end of deaths or healthcare collapse isn't enough for some people. I have no time for such cultists.
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
Sure, fair argument. But your hyperbolic way of posting makes it very hard to take anything you write seriously. If that's what you want, you do you, but it's not constructive to the discussion.
Is it still illegal to visit other households in the UK? Because from your way of posting it's impossible to tell, and it's not like those of us who don't live in the UK know the rules there. I know at least some restrictions were lifted.
Arguably it isn't, at least not in all ways.The pandemic is over.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
I could have had class. I could have been a contender.
I could have been somebody. Instead of a bum
Which is what I am
I aim at the stars
But sometimes I hit London
What exactly is hyperbolic? If you have an issue then I'm happy to address it. I've not been hyperbolic at all that I know of: I said that I think the only possible reason to take away people's civil liberties is to prevent major amounts of deaths and the collapse of the healthcare system, disease as normal is something we simply have to live with and treat as a part of life as normal. I stand by that, that's not hyperbolic.
It is against the law to see friends or family indoors at the moment in groups of more than six, or two households. So for instance if I wanted to see my 91 year old grandad and my dad at the same time, that's against the law. Or having an indoors children's party, or a plethora of other indoor activities are all criminalised at the minute. Even though all the adults are vaccinated.
In my opinion I've not seen any good arguments to say it isn't. Not when deaths and hospitalisations have stopped. Cases without deaths or hospitalisations isn't a pandemic in any meaningful definition.Arguably it isn't, at least not in all ways.