COVID-19 (Coronavirus) discussion

The vaccine did help cut hospitalisations down by looking at the charts.

The problem was the vaccine was a rush job so side effects would be higher than usual. Which is to be expected.

I think what rubbed people up the wrong way was the forcing people to take it, especially as the transmission element was never proven but governments promoted it. I think the government knew. Because look how people weren't allowed into care homes even when they had the vaccine.

It is the exploiting of a situation by the government that as caused the most trouble. It reminds me of the phrase "it's a good day to bury bad news" while 9/11 was happening. This is the calibre of people who rule over us.

My position is people can take the vaccine if they want to, just the same as those who want to still wear a face mask should continue if they want to. This is supposed to be a free country.
 
Jokester said:
I think we were pretty much all suckered into thinking we needed thousands of ventilators :(
Click to expand...
If you think about it logically, they were treating it in the conventional manner I would assume in the first instances. So obviously they thought that they would need more ventilators, it was only after a time they realised that that was the wrong approach for the majority of patients.
 
My brother picked it up most likely flying to or from Canada (probably on the way out from the timeline) - quite sick with it and everyone he knows who he has been in contact with seems to have picked it up now as well.

Seems a lot worse than the last lot which went around here which was very mild.
 
Last edited:
BowdonUK said:
My position is people can take the vaccine if they want to, just the same as those who want to still wear a face mask should continue if they want to. This is supposed to be a free country.
Click to expand...
its a fair point, one i respect, and am not even saying i disagree with you now that covid has ripped through and most of us have some natural immunity (which is probably better than the vaccine now anyway).

but equally on the free country thing......... it isnt really a free country. If you refuse to wear a crash helmet or a seatbelt you can be fined.

also where would you draw the line? lots of people were up in arms when some countries insisted on having a vaccine to enter them... however surely with the same logic as above (note i am not attacking your view just testing it if you will........ ) a country should be free to insist that visitors to them must have to be jabbed or stay away? visiting a country is a privilege not a right... their house, their rules as it were.

taking 1 step further.... what about private businesses? if i own a shop, should i not be allowed to say you are welcome to come in but only if you are jabbed and wear a mask........ if not please take your business somewhere else? free country should work both ways should it not (if that is your take)

where do you draw the line at it being a free country? do we go all the way to the freemen of the land people or what ever they called themselves?

--------------

My view is in principle we don't , nor should we live in a free country, sometimes governments and lawkeepers should be allowed to protect us from ourselves (also needs of the many do sometimes outweigh the needs of the few).

The problem with that principle is that does somewhat rely on the government not being corrupt as well as them being competent. And I can fully respect those people who have lost faith in both the government and the police because, combined with our "news" media it would appear they are a long way from being competent or honest. :(
 
Last edited:
mk1_salami said:
Show me the “loads of times” we have locked up the healthy population and I’ll eat my words.
Click to expand...

Knock yourself out with some reading while eating your words

Lessons from the History of Quarantine, from Plague to Influenza A - PMC

The complex and controversial history of this centuries-old public health strategy offers guidance for its future use. Keywords: infectious diseases, epidemics, public health measures, quarantine, isolation, maritime quarantine, sanitary cordons, ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Conclusions​

More than half a millennium since quarantine became the core of a multicomponent strategy for controlling communicable disease outbreaks, traditional public health tools are being adapted to the nature of individual diseases and to the degree of risk for transmission and are being effectively used to contain outbreaks, such as the 2003 SARS outbreak and the 2009 influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic. The history of quarantine—how it began, how it was used in the past, and how it is used in the modern era—is a fascinating topic in history of sanitation. Over the centuries, from the time of the Black Death to the first pandemics of the twenty-first century, public health control measures have been an essential way to reduce contact between persons sick with a disease and persons susceptible to the disease. In the absence of pharmaceutical interventions, such measures helped contain infection, delay the spread of disease, avert terror and death, and maintain the infrastructure of society.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
its a fair point, one i respect, and am not even saying i disagree with you now that covid has ripped through and most of us have some natural immunity (which is probably better than the vaccine now anyway).

but equally on the free country thing......... it isnt really a free country. If you refuse to wear a crash helmet or a seatbelt you can be fined.

also where would you draw the line? lots of people were up in arms when some countries insisted on having a vaccine to enter them... however surely with the same logic as above (note i am not attacking your view just testing it if you will........ ) a country should be free to insist that visitors to them must have to be jabbed or stay away? visiting a country is a privilege not a right... their house, their rules as it were.

taking 1 step further.... what about private businesses? if i own a shop, should i not be allowed to say you are welcome to come in but only if you are jabbed and wear a mask........ if not please take your business somewhere else? free country should work both ways should it not (if that is your take)

where do you draw the line at it being a free country? do we go all the way to the freemen of the land people or what ever they called themselves?

--------------

My view is in principle we don't , nor should we live in a free country, sometimes governments and lawkeepers should be allowed to protect us from ourselves (also needs of the many do sometimes outweigh the needs of the few).

The problem with that principle is that does somewhat rely on the government not being corrupt as well as them being competent. And I can fully respect those people who have lost faith in both the government and the police because, combined with our "news" media it would appear they are a long way from being competent or honest. :(
Click to expand...
Just a side note on the travel point. The wife and I went to Guernsey for a holiday during covid and were required to have the jab and show the relevant paperwork on arrival (managed to miss the fact you had to have proper paperwork not just the little card). Full on covid precautions taken as we left the ferry. Due to us not having the paperwork on arrival we were treated as having covid and put in the covid hotel not the one we had booked. It got sorted the following day but on the return trip there was no covid precautions everyone just drove out of the port.
Spock would be proud of your logic
 
tonys said:
Just a side note on the travel point. The wife and I went to Guernsey for a holiday during covid and were required to have the jab and show the relevant paperwork on arrival (managed to miss the fact you had to have proper paperwork not just the little card). Full on covid precautions taken as we left the ferry. Due to us not having the paperwork on arrival we were treated as having covid and put in the covid hotel not the one we had booked. It got sorted the following day but on the return trip there was no covid precautions everyone just drove out of the port.
Spock would be proud of your logic
Click to expand...
that sucks, esp as you had had the jab :( i hope it didnt totally ruin your hols!.

right at the start of the pandemic my inlaws were on holiday in Tenerife. For an entire week of their holiday they were not allowed to leave their room, luckily they were both readers so at least had something to do, but it was the literal holiday from hell (and their insurance didnt cover it as technically they were there and they had a room). On the bright side they were safe but as far as they knew no one at the hotel was ill!.

live long and prosper ;)
 
Last edited:
bigmike20vt said:
but equally on the free country thing......... it isnt really a free country. If you refuse to wear a crash helmet or a seatbelt you can be fined.
Click to expand...
I think the difference with the vaccine is it is a potential threat to your health. Wearing a seat belt or helmet aren't going to have any health threat.

When I'm talking about a free country I don't mean that it's lawless.

bigmike20vt said:
also where would you draw the line? lots of people were up in arms when some countries insisted on having a vaccine to enter them... however surely with the same logic as above (note i am not attacking your view just testing it if you will........ ) a country should be free to insist that visitors to them must have to be jabbed or stay away? visiting a country is a privilege not a right... their house, their rules as it were.
Click to expand...
I think visiting another country is a privilege, like going into somes house. Its not vital you go.

I stopped going to the US when they started scanning peoples eyes and taking fingerprints. I'm not sure if they still do that. But I wasn't keen on a foreign government holding that information, unless I was planning to make a long term future there. So I've never visited the US again. I mention the US as people had to have the vaccine to visit.

bigmike20vt said:
taking 1 step further.... what about private businesses? if i own a shop, should i not be allowed to say you are welcome to come in but only if you are jabbed and wear a mask........ if not please take your business somewhere else? free country should work both ways should it not (if that is your take)
Click to expand...
A private business can say that, and many had a mask requirement that some people objected too. If someone doesn't like the rules then there are alternative ways to get groceries that don't have those rules ie other shops or ordering online, which many did.

bigmike20vt said:
where do you draw the line at it being a free country? do we go all the way to the freemen of the land people or what ever they called themselves?
Click to expand...
I think the UK is unique in the sense we have a foundation built on the community, with policing by consent.

I think forcing someone to make a decision between potentially taking a hit to their health vs taking a financial hit was a unique situation as both choices had consequences.

There was also consequences for everyone else when health professionals were sacked for not taking the vaccine.

Less nurses meant less beds available. The reason why the nightingale hospitals weren't used properly is because there wasn't the nurses required to legally cover the number of beds. Regular hospitals weren't at physical capacity, though were at legal capacity because nurses were being sacked.

I think people were given the wrong impression that taking the vaccine would stop or reduce transmission. Having a 100% vaccinated staff were still spreading the virus. I think the transmission lie was promoted on purpose otherwise we'd have to take more drastic action.

Whether someone had the vaccine or not didn't stop the spread, or them getting covid.

The vaccine reduced the impact of acute covid by slowing down the number of covid deaths. The prospect of death was why most people made the decision to have it. But that choice should have been freely made.
 
Last edited:
Freakbro said:
Knock yourself out with some reading while eating your words

Lessons from the History of Quarantine, from Plague to Influenza A - PMC

The complex and controversial history of this centuries-old public health strategy offers guidance for its future use. Keywords: infectious diseases, epidemics, public health measures, quarantine, isolation, maritime quarantine, sanitary cordons, ...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Click to expand...
To quote the website you posted ...

"Quarantine (from the Italian “quaranta,” meaning 40) was adopted as an obligatory means of separating persons, animals, and goods that may have been exposed to a contagious disease."
Click to expand...

Not locking uninfected, or "healthy" people indoors.

Try again.

I'll help you: "locking healthy people up". Not the infected. Not ships coming from infected ports. A HEALTHY population, en masse.

Stay-at-home order - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

Interestingly, that page is littered with countless times this has happened before in history. Oh wait - it doesn't.

"The medical distinction between such an order and a quarantine is that a quarantine is usually understood to involve isolating only selected people who are considered to be possibly infectious rather than the entire population of an area"
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mk1_salami said:
To quote the website you posted ...

"Quarantine (from the Italian “quaranta,” meaning 40) was adopted as an obligatory means of separating persons, animals, and goods that may have been exposed to a contagious disease."

Not locking uninfected, or "healthy" people indoors.

Try again.

I'll help you: "locking healthy people up". Not the infected. Not ships coming from infected ports. A HEALTHY population, en mass.
Click to expand...

Yea, but you're just being pedantically absolutist. The whole point is that social control has been a method for controlling pandemics throughout history and have evolved (pun intended) over time, involving restrictions on peoples movements, health passports and quarantine restrictions of healthy people for a period of time to make sure they weren't carriers.

That governing bodies didn't previously have the ability* to completely lock down society exactly like we did this time, didn't mean that the measures they took weren't the same in principle.

* In enforcement or support, ie : so that people could still get an income/food/etc

Another article detailing historical measures

www.institutmontaigne.org

Past the Virus - Containing Pandemics Throughout History

Analysis by Dr. Eugenia Tognotti, researcher and medical historian, for Institut Montaigne.
www.institutmontaigne.org www.institutmontaigne.org
 
historically it was less of an issue as well........ people didnt tend to travel far which would then naturally limit the spread of disease.

if people leaving our shores in the uk for America back in the day were on a sailing ship, chances are by the time they got to North America everyone on board would either be dead or be recovered.

nowadays there isnt really such a thing as a natural barrier to limit the spread of disease.
 
Last edited:
I posted this days ago, and nobody has come forward with any credible sources showing healthy people being "locked down" en masse throughout history. I'd have thought it was plenty of time to be proven wrong.

You would look a lot less silly if you just said this …

“Actually you’re right, I can’t find any examples where healthy people were confined to their homes en masse throughout history, but I believe they helped with the COVID 19 pandemic”

Simple as that l, but maybe you’re too proud to do so?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: UTT
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom