[Offwidth]

That doesn't answer the underlying question. What is the current estimate of risk from serious illness due to covid, relative to the risk of serious illness due to a.n.other virus? I genuinely don't know, so I can't form an informed belief about the vaccination status of people.  Is the relative risk a bit higher/much higher/or lower? Bearing in mind there will always be immune-compromised people in the population - this fact hasn't emerged with the outbreak of the covid pandemic.

A lot is out there for individuals. Risks for the unvaccinated and previously uninfected for serious illness are a bit higher than the first waves and death a bit lower (but due to improvement in medical responses) and very age dependent and related to particular underlying health conditions (Infection fatality rate is still around 0.3-0.5% if hospitals are coping). Risks for the vaccinated for serious illness are a lot lower but still probably worse than a normal flu year. Looking at plots on CFRs by age bracket seems to match other information that for older people vaccination gives you an effective risk reduction of death being about a decade or more younger compared to the unvaccinated (a big risk reduction). The new medical treatments coming on line should reduce deaths and serious illness further for those who are hospitalised. We seem to be entering an endemic phase nationally, but there is massive uncertainty on that and the international picture mostly looks bad for months.

We do know the NHS is already in real trouble in November (unheard of at the levels of delays on life threatening emergency response, let alone in this month): higher vaccination levels and tighter covid restrictions is one of the few ways we can reduce that pressure.

Best to climb a bit safer than usual and try and persuade people to get vaccinated and take covid precautions (especially the vulnerable). Ventilation is the big helpful factor that is least understood by the general population but an domestic energy price crisis isn't going to help with that. Exercising together outside is the best way for people to meet.

[jwi]

Hi all, back here to wade in on the debate, in a nice way 💪

Am I right in thinking that the ‘vaccines’ do little to prevent catching and transmitting covid and as new strains develop seem to be less effective generally?

[further drivel disguised as “honest questions” deleted]

Voila! Why vaccine pass might be necessary to minimise the impact of imbecille conspiracy nuts like these.

[andy popp]

Hi all, back here to wade in on the debate

"Back here," with your first post? Who have you been on here before?

[andy popp]

I did wonder. Why don't you just post under your own name?

(though I suppose it's possible it's not Dan at all, just some lurker who's watched previous Dan incarnations. Who knows really?)

[andy popp]

I did wonder. Why don't you just post under your own name?

(though I suppose it's possible it's not Dan at all, just some lurker who's watched previous Dan incarnations. Who knows really?)

I don’t want to if that’s cool by you.

Of course it is, it's your choice. I was just wondering.

[petejh]

A lot is out there for individuals. Risks for the unvaccinated and previously uninfected for serious illness are a bit higher than the first waves and death a bit lower (but due to improvement in medical responses) and very age dependent and related to particular underlying health conditions (Infection fatality rate is still around 0.3-0.5% if hospitals are coping). Risks for the vaccinated for serious illness are a lot lower but still probably worse than a normal flu year. Looking at plots on CFRs by age bracket seems to match other information that for older people vaccination gives you an effective risk reduction of death being about a decade or more younger compared to the unvaccinated (a big risk reduction). The new medical treatments coming on line should reduce deaths and serious illness further for those who are hospitalised. We seem to be entering an endemic phase nationally, but there is massive uncertainty on that and the international picture mostly looks bad for months.

We do know the NHS is already in real trouble in November (unheard of at the levels of delays on life threatening emergency response, let alone in this month): higher vaccination levels and tighter covid restrictions is one of the few ways we can reduce that pressure.

Best to climb a bit safer than usual and try and persuade people to get vaccinated and take covid precautions (especially the vulnerable). Ventilation is the big helpful factor that is least understood by the general population but an domestic energy price crisis isn't going to help with that. Exercising together outside is the best way for people to meet.

I should have been clearer - I didn't mean what is the risk relative to another covid strain from the past. I meant what is the risk of serious illness from covid *now*, relative to a.n.other cause of serious illness currently? I'm still in the dark about that. I don't have any firm beliefs, because I can't form firm beliefs about stuff like this if I don't know the evidence for or against them.

Surely it's important to know this if you're considering placing restrictions on people's liberty. Because if restrictions are placed on people for the purpose of reducing pressure on the NHS - rather than restrictions being placed for the purpose of reducing the direct impact of covid due to its significant inherent risk, then that's problematic. The two purposes are obviously connected but aren't the same and appear to have different beliefs at root.

I assume pressure on NHS comes from a combination of sources all converging at one time, covid cases being one of them. So the logic for restricting behaviour might not be based in the inherent risk posed by catching covid but instead could be based on the side-effect risk to the NHS from 'increased pressure' of people catching covid. As per last year's lockdowns, when the health service struggled (to put it mildly) but didn't fail.

Like I say I'm still in the dark whether the evidence is clear that covid is in itself significantly more 'risky' than a load of other maladies that are also currently causing pressure on the NHS. Like you say we can actually do something about covid by restricting behaviour, voluntarily altering behaviour, or both (as well as medicating with vaccines and treatments..).

It appears to me that the health service is struggling, understandably, due to after effects of the massive shock of last year and from inherent long-term issues. But that issue should now be separated out, because it's a different issue to the question of what liberties society gets to enjoy in a country that isn't in a pandemic any longer. I don't think society should be subjected to any significant restrictions based on what its health service thinks would be best for the health service*. Except for in the most extreme circumstances which we all experienced last year, but we've now come out of that into a world with a new endemic virus.

I expect you and me will always differ on that view. I understand that what's good for a health service is likely also good for a society, but that principle only goes up to a certain fuzzy line beyond which are increasing grades (and slash-grades) of micromanagement over people's lives. Road to hell paved with.. etc.



* One reason being we could start looking at all sorts of behaviour that didn't pass a health service's 'pressure' smell test and justifiably restrict them as well.
Another being a health service, opposite to a company, will always have a massive incentive to not want people to need to use it.



** Dan, are your claims disprovable? Likely not. Handy that a lot of these types of claims can't be disproved. (presumably because of the massive forces of conspiracy against us that will forever prevent getting to the truth..). So they'll always be there for you to ponder on.

[Oldmanmatt]

Brandolini.

Can’t waste my life with all that.

Believe what you like, 50M doses administered in the UK alone, no pile of vaccine induced bodies, versus a very large pile of Covid inflicted deaths and a massive difference in the death/hospitalisation to infection ratios, pre to post vaccine program; has me convinced.

Question to everyone else that’s reading this thread, is Dan convincing you of anything?
If he is, point me to the bit worth looking at. Ta.

[SA Chris]

I'd rather go through another lockdown watching Dave Mac videos about keto diets than wade through the shit Dan spouts again.

[sheavi]

Hi all, back here to wade in on the debate, in a nice way

Am I right in thinking that the ‘vaccines’ do little to prevent catching and transmitting covid and as new strains develop seem to be less effective generally? "



No, the vaccines do significantly reduce the risk of catching and transmitting the virus including Delta. Of course you still can catch and transmit if fully vaccinated but at a much reduced rate.

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2294250-how-much-less-likely-are-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/amp/

[teestub]

Regarding mortality the U.K. is currently running at a 15% excess mortality rate which has been more or less consistent for a few months. I believe the current weeks breakdown is about half of the 1200 deaths were related to covid. So there certainly does appear to be ‘bodies piling up’

Weekly deaths would appear to be c.10,000-12,000 total from this data https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales so you’re accidentally out by a factor of 10, with there being 1,000 covid deaths last week.

[Oldmanmatt]

I have five minutes, whilst the better part of this relationship watches some crap soap.
Perhaps you could point out which of the figures above you feel is “about half” of 1200?

Edit:
I must be missing your argument completely here Dan, because:



Definitely less than 5 minutes of searching.

Looks like the vaccines are working. I had only assumed, prior to your input, nice to confirm it with a quick Google.
Cheers. I booked my booster just prior to this edit.

[sheavi]

There is quite a poor IMO longitudinal study in the lancet that shows effectiveness at reducing catching the delta variant however when there is a breakthrough infection ‘peak viral load’ was shown to be the same in fully vaccinated and unvaccinated persons.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00648-4/fulltext

Regarding mortality the U.K. is currently running at a 15% excess mortality rate which has been more or less consistent for a few months. I believe the current weeks breakdown is about half of the 1200 deaths were related to covid. So there certainly does appear to be ‘bodies piling up’

Edit - the authors of the lancet study suggested that this meant fully vaccinated individuals could just as readily transmit covid as the unvaccinated. This was apparent in my office recently when there was a covid outbreak of the fully vaccinated

https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-study-on-household-transmission-of-sars-cov-2-looking-at-vaccination-status-and-variant-type

The conclusion you draw appears to be incorrect re: peak viral load = same transmission overall etc. Anyway it seems you have an agenda and it won't matter if the data contradicts you. 

[Oldmanmatt]

Regarding mortality the U.K. is currently running at a 15% excess mortality rate which has been more or less consistent for a few months. I believe the current weeks breakdown is about half of the 1200 deaths were related to covid. So there certainly does appear to be ‘bodies piling up’

Weekly deaths would appear to be c.10,000-12,000 total from this data https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/weeklyprovisionalfiguresondeathsregisteredinenglandandwales so you’re accidentally out by a factor of 10, with there being 1,000 covid deaths last week.

The last time I looked it was data from the 22nd Oct which was as I said it was. You can trace the excess back over the weeks. Thanks for the update though, it looks like the booster program is really reducing those numbers now.

Obviously, ONS don’t see “15%” as “statistically significant” . 🤷‍♂️

The boss is finished watching shite, so, I plead Brandolini for the rest of the night.
Cheer up Dan, it’s just not as bad as you fear.

[Fiend]

Vaccine efficiency and safety are important factors to be taken into account regarding the original question, and M20s bump, about the justification of proving vaccine status.


Anyway, if anyone wants calm and unbiased reporting on potential vaccine risks and adverse side-effects of the vaccine, this site seems to cover it well................................. https://www.notonthebeeb.co.uk/news 

[Oldmanmatt]

Vaccine efficiency and safety are important factors to be taken into account regarding the original question, and M20s bump, about the justification of proving vaccine status.


Anyway, if anyone wants calm and unbiased reporting on potential vaccine risks and adverse side-effects of the vaccine, this site seems to cover it well................................. https://www.notonthebeeb.co.uk/news 

Still here. Not sure why.

I dunno.

I read a couple and thought “that all sounds really emotive” (reporting of adverse effects is on the bumf they give you when you get the jab, by the way. Three of my kids are in studies, so extra reporting). Anyway, thought I’d just go to the source material:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions/coronavirus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting

Reads a little differently.

“Fatal” for instance, just refers to fatalities that occurred after the vaccination, not as a result of.
Here, the text:
“ Events with a fatal outcome
Vaccination and surveillance of large populations means that, by chance, some people will experience and report a new illness or events in the days and weeks after vaccination. A high proportion of people vaccinated early in the vaccination campaign were very elderly, and/or had pre-existing medical conditions. Older age and chronic underlying illnesses make it more likely that coincidental adverse events will occur, especially given the millions of people vaccinated. It is therefore important that we carefully review these reports to distinguish possible side effects from illness that would have occurred irrespective of vaccination.

Part of our continuous analysis includes an evaluation of natural death rates over time, to determine if any specific trends or patterns are occurring that might indicate a vaccine safety concern. Based on age-stratified all-cause mortality in England and Wales taken from the Office for National Statistics death registrations, several thousand deaths are expected to have occurred, naturally, within 7 days of the many millions of doses of vaccines administered so far, mostly in the elderly.

The MHRA has received 597 UK reports of suspected ADRs to the COVID-19 Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine in which the patient died shortly after vaccination, 1,118 reports for the COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 19 for the COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna and 32 where the brand of vaccine was unspecified. The majority of these reports were in elderly people or people with underlying illness. Usage of the vaccines has increased over the course of the campaigns and as such, so has reporting of fatal events with a temporal association with vaccination. However, this does not mean that there is a link between vaccination and the fatalities reported. Review of specific fatal reports is provided in the summaries above. The patterns of reporting for all other fatal reports does not suggest the vaccines played a role in these deaths.

A range of other isolated events or series of reports of non-fatal, serious suspected ADRs have been reported. These all remain under continual review, including through analysis of expected rates in the absence of vaccine. There are currently no indications of specific patterns or rates of reporting that would suggest the vaccine has played a role.”

Which is somewhat less alarmist than the article linked too…

Otherwise, I agree, as calm and un-exciting as your taste in music, Fiend…

[teestub]

The last time I looked it was data from the 22nd Oct which was as I said it was. You can trace the excess back over the weeks. Thanks for the update though, it looks like the booster program is really reducing those numbers now.

Ah sorry were you just talking about excess deaths for the 1200? Where did you read that 600 were from Covid? On the gov figures https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/excess-mortality-in-england-weekly-reports it has respiratory disease (but not a Covid category), and the excess there was around 400 added up for the week you were talking about. Looking at the graphs there gives a good picture of where we are in terms of excess deaths compared to where were pre vaccine roll out.

[Oldmanmatt]

It isn’t conspiracy theory to say that all NHS requiring the vaccine under mandate will be asked to have a booster followed by another jab 6 months after. Several politicians, Macron, Dan Andrew’s and their ministers have suggested that they don’t yet know how many jabs people will be required to have.

Some people may be happy to continue having these injections whilst others may not. Considering the evidence for waning effectiveness, acquired natural immunity and the ability of vaccinated people to carry and transmit the virus it seems very harsh to impose segregation based on vaccine status.

In Canada at the moment you have to be fully up to date with Jabs and boosters to access public transport and other amenities. This is for everyone over the age of 12.

The question in my original post was - how many vaccines are you willing to take? 3? 4? 5? 2 per year to keep your job indefinitely. Considering the dubious safety profile this seems (no words)

There are a variety of jabs, that I am required to have, periodically. Some are yearly, some I only need every ten years or so. I have a little yellow, international, vaccine passport. I can’t work without it. I have had eight different vaccines in the last two months, I will be getting my Flu jab next week (finally) and my Covid booster, the week after. I will happily turn up for any future boosters, as often as they are required, for as long as they are required (though I anticipate a newer, less frequently required version will appear in time).
There are over 20k UK nationals, who work under the same conditions as me and are legally required to produce that little yellow book at the request of port state authorities, world wide.

So, no, I don’t see that people in the health care sector should be exempt from similar regulation.

[mrjonathanr]

Considering the dubious safety profile this seems (no words)

I’d consider the ‘dubious safety profile’ were I shown objective evidence of its existence. A talking head on a YT video is not that. Till then I’ll remain a trusting soul.

[Oldmanmatt]

I understand that some people in the military have been widely experimented on with a range of drugs. My uncle was in the gulf and given a cocktail which (he felt) severely damaged his health. I have read something to do with this and the anthrax vaccines. He died of heart complications at an early age.

Edit - I think this was known as ‘gulf war syndrome’?

Dude, this has nothing to do with the military, every merchant seaman, worldwide, has to comply.

For reference, though, I had all the jabs in 1990, prior to deploying to the Gulf War. I can promise you, there were a lot of things that might have adversely affected a person’s health during that conflict. Google the burning oil fields and bear in mind you could still smell it 150km away. Depleted Uranium munitions. I mean, shit, have you ever been through a Middle Eastern Sandstorm? Or thought about the crap that’s mixed up in that “Sand”. Add to that the psychological toll. You don’t have to be in combat, to feel that. In many ways, the anticipation of combat is almost as bad. War fucks you up. All of it.

[abarro81]

It's possible that I should give a shit about this... But for whatever reason I just struggle to  I guess there are just a lot of things about this country/gov/society that wind me up more so this doesn't make much impact.

The Austrian thing seems like a step too far but I'm pretty chill about some jobs having it as a requirement and had no objection to showing a pass to get into a restaurant in France

[Oldmanmatt]

School staff asked to call the police if unvaccinated teachers arrive to work in NZ

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10193565/New-Zealand-schools-urged-call-COPS-unvaccinated-teachers-up.html

In NSW Australia if you are over the age of 16 there are a whole range of things you cannot do if unvaccinated including leisure time with friends and access to libraries and other public facilities. You are also unable to get a hair cut at a hairdressers

https://www.nsw.gov.au/covid-19/stay-safe/rules/not-fully-vaccinated

Good.

I’d call.

Hopefully, that’s obviously not “true”, it’s just, you are ridiculously paranoid Dan. Feels like you are very very unhappy.
In truth, I just don’t see any of this as any more oppressive than my children being sent to sit on the stairs, or forced to wear a bike helmet. Or, come to that, jailing a drunk driver. Suitable precautions for society to function, under the circumstances. Much of your complaining, comes over to me (just an opinion, I can’t actually help holding) in the same way my children’s whining about that bike helmet. I know, the bike helmet isn’t a panacea, there’s a possibility it might even increase some risks, but I know it is, on balance, better than no helmet.
You focus on minutiae and rare effects and, somehow, filter out the overarching benefits.

[mrjonathanr]

I can’t imagine what it must feel like for someone that religiously followed all the guidelines had all 3 jabs, then had a stroke on the third, only to be told I’m sorry you can’t go to a restaurant or travel to see family.

Nor can I. We’d need to ask them. How many are there?

7.4 billion shots have been administered worldwide so we can quickly calculate a risk ratio.
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

[Oldmanmatt]

Historically when segregation measures have been implemented there is a significant minority support and a majority of indifference. It wouldn’t be good to make everyone’s life difficult, just create a class of people which can be scapegoated for a range of societies ills.

No, they aren’t. They are being held accountable for their choices. They made a choice, they weren’t born in to it, they are not being persecuted (at all, in any case) for reasons of bigotry.
Medically exempt people, who cannot have, or continue to have, a vaccine, are exactly the reason we need good take up by the remaining population. Medically exempt people, are not being detained or locked up. That’s a BS argument to tug at heart string and hides (even from yourself, I suspect) the weakness of your argument.

[abarro81]

School staff asked to call the police if unvaccinated teachers arrive to work in NZ

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10193565/New-Zealand-schools-urged-call-COPS-unvaccinated-teachers-up.html

Bit of a mischaracterization (or, less sympathetically, what could be described as deliberately disingenuous bollocks) - despite the clickbait headline if you read the article the advice was basically what you'd expect it to be:
'If staff do turn up on site after this date, we encourage school leaders to deal with this in the usual manner you would if other inappropriate people were to turn up on site.'
'If you feel your safety or the safety of ākonga (pupils or students) or other staff is compromised, you could consider contacting the police.'

One problem that the "pro vaccine choice" movement have is probably to convince people like me to give a shit when so many voices from that "side of the aisle" come across as anti-vax anti-science pro-Trump smackheads. Just see the comments below any vaccine-related post on facebook. Obviously this is irrelevant to the philosophical/ethical aspect of the debate, and I see the irony in some "liberals" being pro some of these kinds of restrictions, and I can see the objection, but it really does put a big block in the way of me giving a shit (even if that's philosophically moronic on my part). Your history on this forum (and your disingenuous post above) doesn't help you in that regard Dan.

[mrjonathanr]

Dan, I don’t know you, but I like your films and respect what you’ve done in the climbing footage I’ve seen.

I’m not going to engage further with the conspiracy nonsense because it’s plainly false and you don’t engage at a rational level- because it’s not rational and cannot be defended on that level

 If every time there’s a serious examination of an issue it dissolves into unsubstantiated assertion it’s clearly driven by emotional need not external reality.

So my -serious- question is this: do you think consuming these conspiracy theories is good for your mental health? Would it not be better trying to engage with the world as it is, rather than this retreat into fantasy?