Coronavirus - UK
-
@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
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
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.
Assuming you know 500 people well enough to know their medical history, that equates to a 0.6 % hospitalisation rate. With 200 million doses in the UK, that would mean 1.2 million being hospitalised after being vaccinated.
Huge cover-up eh?
-
There was a lot of social pressure and safety issues, sure, but no employer could sack anyone for not being vaccinated - not even those working in social care.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
There was a lot of social pressure and safety issues, sure, but no employer could sack anyone for not being vaccinated - not even those working in social care.
True
But once we were allowed out, if you didn't have the 'passport' you were treated like a second class citizen / barred
-
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
@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.
it really is very hard to argue with someone who refutes all peer reviewed science because it 'comes from the man' and then bases an argument on a three people he knows as though its somehow more reliable. I'm just glad that the people running this country take no advice or notice of people such as yourself.
-
@Dodge said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
@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.
it really is very hard to argue with someone who refutes all peer reviewed science because it 'comes from the man' and then bases an argument on a three people he knows as though its somehow more reliable. I'm just glad that the people running this country take no advice or notice of people such as yourself.
Is that the same people who said it came from a bat in a wet market?
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Dodge said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
@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.
it really is very hard to argue with someone who refutes all peer reviewed science because it 'comes from the man' and then bases an argument on a three people he knows as though its somehow more reliable. I'm just glad that the people running this country take no advice or notice of people such as yourself.
Is that the same people who said it came from a bat in a wet market?
Yes, they could have said "OK, lets not take any action and ignore advice from people until they are absolutely, 100% clear where it came from." Not too sure that would have been a sensible approach, though.
-
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Dodge said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Winger said in Coronavirus - UK:
@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.
it really is very hard to argue with someone who refutes all peer reviewed science because it 'comes from the man' and then bases an argument on a three people he knows as though its somehow more reliable. I'm just glad that the people running this country take no advice or notice of people such as yourself.
Is that the same people who said it came from a bat in a wet market?
Yes, they could have said "OK, lets not take any action and ignore advice from people until they are absolutely, 100% clear where it came from." Not too sure that would have been a sensible approach, though.
They had a pre-prepared plan which they totally ignored when they copied China
-
@MiketheSnow said in Coronavirus - UK:
@Victor-Meldrew said in Coronavirus - UK:
There was a lot of social pressure and safety issues, sure, but no employer could sack anyone for not being vaccinated - not even those working in social care.
True
But once we were allowed out, if you didn't have the 'passport' you were treated like a second class citizen / barred.
You needed a Covid pass for international travel to enter other countries - just as you needed to do a few decades ago for things like yellow fever. They were used internally for a few months as a way to end lockdowns as soon as possible and allow people to attend large venues like rugby matches.