COVID Vaccine !

[Rocky]

We're not ignoring it ... we go to work daily, we travel to support standby generation for hospitals, we work in the supermarkets you insist on staying open ..... we have followed the rules for nearly a year and it's getting worse.

Another thing to consider, vaccinating the vulnerable. 9 months ago their where X vulnerable, lots died. A whole new wave of vulnerable have appeared as a result of NHS neglect. A second wave. We will be vaccinating the vulnerable until the sun goes out at this rate.

I'm pleased you are following the rules. I am as well. However, a quick read of some of the posts on CC and today's newspapers will tell you many aren't. I have relatives who are front line doctors in the NHS - the service is overwhelmed with Covid patients (who are really sick). The William Harvey, Ashford, for example is operating at 120%. 1 in 2 of every patient has Covid and is very sick (and this has an effect on staff, many of whom are off sick themselves). It is not possible for the NHS to carry on as normal and treat other illnesses, however much we would like this to happen. The efforts going into vaccination are huge and will make a real difference but we still need to follow the rules.

 

[Landsurfer]

Seriously? Pretty much the entire global community of field related experts has got it wrong?

They (rules) work, it's the people that ignore them that impinge on their effectiveness.

Without responding with a 'look at all the deaths and the caseload numbers' reply can you explain why the rules don't work as you claim?

FWIW I'm as shocked and concerned at the economic damage thus far caused as you are but without any rules I'm pretty sure we'd have been sunk by now.

Of course we need rules ..... rules are important .... but rules that work, not slavishly following rules that patently don't ! Let one of these super paid experts come up with rules that work .... The Barrington lot maybe ?

 

[Rocky]

Of course we need rules ..... rules are important .... but rules that work, not slavishly following rules that patently don't ! Let one of these super paid experts come up with rules that work .... The Barrington lot maybe ?

Barrington has been hugely discredited.....have a look at my graph for example.

 

[Pale Rider]

Warming to my theme, as a Spurs fan, the pic of the Tottenham players really annoyed me.

It might not have been so bad if, as three single lads in a foreign country at Christmas, they had met at one of their houses.

But oh no, they went to a party attended by at least 15 others - there was 18 on the pic - which should be 19 because someone held the camera.

Goodness how many others were there, we can't see the kitchen, and as we all know, there's always someone in the kitchen at parties.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

Of course we need rules ..... rules are important .... but rules that work, not slavishly following rules that patently don't ! Let one of these super paid experts come up with rules that work .... The Barrington lot maybe ?

With all due respect you've not really answered my question.

Why don't the rules work?

For example - why does a reduction in population mingling not help slowing down the spread of the virus?

 

[kingrollo]

Massive pain in the ass ... fancy telling that to a room full of people who have lost their incomes, work , homes .... hope your a quick runner.

Ok - my point was that lockdowns work in slowing the spread. I'm not glossing over the economic pain caused to individuals that lose incomes, jobs, houses etc. I don't believe there are any good or easy options right now.

 

[Landsurfer]

With all due respect you've not really answered my question.

Why don't the rules work?

For example - why does a reduction in population mingling not help slowing down the spread of the virus?

No idea ... but we've seen it dosn't .... whats your theory ?

 

[kingrollo]

If there were rules that "worked" we would have implemented then months ago along with the rest of the world.

We have rules that give us a flavour of a least bad scenario (depending on how quickly and hard you lockdown) .

We don't know of any rules that 100% stop people getting infected and dying.

The blunt lockdowns we have are to ensure that anyone who needs treatment gets it - from what I read even that is looking fragile at the moment.

The alternative is not to lockdown and hope for the best. I don't think any govt could get away with that.

 

[SpokeyDokey]

No idea ... but we've seen it dosn't .... whats your theory ?

Again - you've avoided the question. Plus you've added in an unqualified statement.

I'll leave it there as, being modestly astute, I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to get a straight answer from you.

Off to watch the footy now and I'm hoping for at least one positive response today from beleaguered Chelsea.

 

[srw]

We don't know of any rules that 100% stop people getting infected and dying.

Yes we do.

Make sure that you have identified 100% of infective people, keep them isolated from everyone else until they're no longer infective, and make sure that nobody else infective enters the population.

It's basically what New Zealand and Australia did.

 

[kingrollo]

Yes we do.

Make sure that you have identified 100% of infective people, keep them isolated from everyone else until they're no longer infective, and make sure that nobody else infective enters the population.

It's basically what New Zealand and Australia did.

Touche

However with 50k infections per day - I think that ship has sadly sailed.

 

[rualexander]

Wonder if the elephant in the room is that we can't stop it, whatever we do ... 10 months of lockdown, masks, economy trashed, restrictions, destruction of liberty, schools and collages closed .. travel restrictions .... and not a blind bit of difference .... here we are ... highest daily infection rates ever .... Just a thought .... again.

We didn't have 10 months of lockdown though did we?
We had barely 3 months of lockdown then started opening everything up again, encouraging everyone to go to restaurants, letting people fly all over to go on holidays, etc, etc.
A bit more lockdown back then and some strict travel restrictions/controls and everthing could have been quite different, have a look at the countries which dealt with it successfully so far.

 

[Edwardoka]

Again - you've avoided the question. Plus you've added in an unqualified statement.

I'll leave it there as, being modestly astute, I'm pretty sure that I'm not going to get a straight answer from you.

Off to watch the footy now and I'm hoping for at least one positive response today from beleaguered Chelsea.

This is why you're a moderator. I would have been hurling insults like the Simpsons old lady hurling cats by now

 

[PK99]

Off to watch the footy now and I'm hoping for at least one positive response today from beleaguered Chelsea.

A forlorn hope, it would seem.

34mins and 0:3...oh dear!

 

[Landsurfer]

Thats the great thing about free speech .... you don't have to like it or agree with it ... you just have to defend it ....