My reason for still testing is so I am not passing it on to others and my dad has cancer with a poor immune system so cannot risk passing it on to him.
a few years ago when he got it for the first time he was in hospital for 4 days.
COVID-19 (Coronavirus) discussion
- Thread starter ThundyCat
- Start date
a few years ago when he got it for the first time he was in hospital for 4 days.
To be fair, for some people, flu would be worse. It’s subjective. Either one sucks massive donkey spheres and I am not in any way belittling the impact covid can have on some people- my father in law was on a ventilator for a month and nearly died
I know what you mean.
My wife had Covid, was in bed for 5/6 days really feeling like crap, she managed to get up and was still unwell for another week after but getting better.
My son got it next and just had a cough\blocked nose for a week or 2.
I had it for 24 hours, felt bad then every day after I was feeling much better.
All of us has had all the jabs offered and this was the first time we had covid and tested positive (Unable to test my son but me and the wife was positive).
May sound silly but we all isolated for 10 days so we didn't pass it on to others.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 12,169
- Location
- London, UK
A friend has a type of cancer that wasn't curable and kept coming back every 10 years or so. She just completed a long series of treatments where they killed off her bone marrow and the cancer and used her own stem cells to replace it. mRNA was a part of this treatment as was the monoclonal antibody. She won't suffer people slagging off a treatment that finally might have helped rid her of her cancer forever. Her doctors have said its a game changer.
Last edited:
So if you've got the flu then you'll visit him and potentially pass that on?
Nope, If I am unwell i'll not see him at all.
100% I'd take covid over the flu. The only covid symptom I ever got was a suppressed appetite for 2 weeks.
So why test?
Its odd that some people immediately assume worst case scenario if you get covid but not if you get flu..
I'd also rather have Covid than flu..
I'd rather have neither. Also, objectively COVID is the more serious disease (it's killed and put way more people in hospital than flu over the same time period) and it's pot luck as to whether you will be one of the unlucky ones to develop a serious case (even if you have had a very mild case before) or that you may develop the dreaded Long COVID and be disabled potentially for life with little help and no understanding from the state or your fellow man.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Oct 2007
- Posts
- 9,301
- Location
- newcastle
you have no idea what Covid might have done to your cardiovascular system though.
The only trouble with statistics is the way they are gathered and interpreted. Yes covid killed more people but there were more people infected. How many covid only deaths were there compared with flu only deaths. One of the reasons that covid killed so many, was the method of treatment at the beginning was not effective enough.
Aswell as not restricting movements of people across the globe quickly when they realised how big a problem it was(think 12 Monkeys)
Last edited:
Well obviously everyone would rather have neither - I don't believe it's pot luck that you get a serious case otherwise everyone would be eligible for boosters.
Similarly long covid not something I’m concerned about either - based on past experience flu would be a much worse experience.
COVID is still killing and hospitalising more people than flu right now and in the time period you are talking about COVID killed many more people despite all the restrictions on movement and mixing while flu almost disappeared.
The fact that COVID spreads so much better than the flu is a key factor that makes it more dangerous and allowed it to become such a consequential global pandemic.
You have way too much faith in the government. They care much more about penny pinching than the wellbeing of the population. Also, their very poor messaging (where they want everyone to forget) has led to a very low uptake in many eligible groups for the vaccines.
In some countries everyone is eligible for the boosters.
Last edited:
if they were just penny pinching then surely vaccines for all would be the cheaper option…
No because the problem with this government is they see the upfront cost and never the benefit of an investment. That's why they thought austerity was a good idea and they refuse to seriously tackle the climate crisis or fund the NHS up to the level of our European peers.
They are constantly trying to narrow the list of who is eligible for the COVID vaccines (redefining who is considered even mildly vulnerable or increasing the age at which you are considered vulnerable). This is all despite the chronically low uptake in all groups other than the very oldest ones.
This has resulted in the perverse situation where a significant number of people who are eligible for free flu vaccines no questions asked are not eligible for the COVID boosters despite the latter being a much more consequential disease.
However, this year they should at least allow us to buy the COVID vaccines, taking the decision out of their silly little hands (for those who can afford it).
Last edited:
The government is advised by the JCVI a committee under the Department of Health. As you point out only some 50% of some groups actually turn out to be vaccinated and unfortunate antivax sentiment does not help either.
I know what you're saying but a lot of deaths attributed to covid weren't actually caused by covid, it was only a secondary cause that had tipped their main health issue over the edge.
True, but the government don't have to follow their advice, particularly when it goes against the advice of the equivalent agencies in many of our peer countries. I doubt this government are asking very searching questions of the JCVI.
You are quite correct about the antivaxx sentiment being a big part of it too. Conspiracy theories are very much mainstream now, we have regressed as a species.