[mark20]

Cheers Dan for derailing the thread from a reasoned debate about the ethics of vaccine passports and restrictions, to your usual disingenuous, click bait, conspiracy bollocks

[petejh]

This sort of thing wouldn't happen if UKB mandated for showing proof of vaccine before being allowed to post. Just saying.


(joke btw. just in case) 

[Fiend]

Genuine question for those with genuine concerns about increased restrictions on the un-vaccinated:

At the moment covid transmissions / hospitalisations / deaths seem to be at a fairly constant and "manageable" level in terms of government policy. If any of those (esp. the latter two) rises to a level where the govt determines it is unmanageable (e.g. too many deaths, too much pressure on the NHS) without bringing in further restrictions, and restrictions on the unvaccinated is one option - if that is unpalatable, what would be better alternatives?? (assuming the govt won't simply live with the virus and accept increased deaths / NHS pressure)

[petejh]

If that was the situation, then I think restrictions should be applied equally to everybody regardless of people's vaccination status.

Because, as OW points out, there's very little evidence that being jabbed significantly reduces transmission *if* you have covid. Being jabbed reduces your risk of catching covid, or getting seriously ill if you do. But in the situation you're talking about the issue is too many people have caught covid and are transmitting it. So vaccine status doesn't appear relevant to the solving the immediate problem.

[TobyD]

I haven't read all of the recent posts, but the anti vaxxer or indeed so called sceptic position is frankly just stupid. 

As I'm sure everyone else knows as well,  vaccination is safer than a thousand things most people do every day,  it benefits the individual and society,  it's free and easily available.  What's the bloody problem?

Millions of people in poorer countries would benefit hugely from vaccination and jump at the chance if their governments could fund and organise it properly.  It just seems selfish and ignorant to maintain a so called libertarian opinion and bicker.

[andy popp]

Off out for a beer with a friend. I'll have to show my Coronoapas, but I think I can live with it.

[andy popp]

I see the Danes have been putting some entertainment on with water cannons and tear gas.

I know stuff like that happened in the Netherlands, but if you have sources on events here too that would be appreciated.

[mrjonathanr]

It’s all very well to spout libertarian conspiracy guff but the reality is that failing to acknowledge climbing Covid rates and act accordingly directly contributes to increased deaths, not least amongst those who are unable to access the care they should for other illnesses because of the numbers of Covid patients.

In other words, it’s not just a bit of confused nonsense, it contributes to deaths of people who might otherwise have lived and reduced quality of life for the non urgent ill.

It’s nasty, not victimless, and deserves to be called out as such.

[Fiend]

where the govt determines it is unmanageable (e.g. too many deaths, too much pressure on the NHS) without bringing in further restrictions, and restrictions on the unvaccinated is one option - if that is unpalatable, what would be better alternatives??

Never mind, I've got the answer and it's a corker:

Mandate the voluntarily vaccine-refused to sign a legally binding document in which they forfeit any medical treatment for covid-19. They're still entitled to any and all treatment for any other issues but if they have covid-19 symptoms and test positive for it, they don't get medical treatment for it.
 
This tackles the actual potential problem with the voluntarily vaccine-refused i.e. the proven increased chance of serious illness and the strain that puts on NHS resources and other people who need them (and the chance of them contracting it) whilst retaining liberties and equalities in general including all other medical care.

Might drop C. Widdy an email now.

[teestub]

Weird that this is on some random website and not on The BMJ.

[Oldmanmatt]

Hey Matt, Peter Doshi’s statement about vaccine mandates is now viewable here. He is the deputy editor of the British Medical Journal, not ‘click bait’ and worth a watch.

https://odysee.com/@JWild:6/Peter-Doshi-BMJ:d

Doshi is a long standing anti-vaccine mandate character. Long before Covid appeared. Also, he is “a” senior editor (1 of 8 ) rather than “deputy” and his colleagues sought to distance themselves from his remarks, on the basis they were driven by his political liberalism, rather than good science. But, hey, you do you. “Seek and ye shall find” is the saying, I believe, if you look for expert support, you’ll find someone who looks credible. That’s why, as a layman, you should be looking at the consensus view, not individual opinion.

You’re just a bit lost, really. Stop. Look around. Look at the numbers. The vaccines work (nothing is perfect). Your fear is unfounded, people are not dying in droves from vaccine side effects (some people have adverse reactions, true of all vaccines and, Coca-Cola for that matter). Nobody, unable to have the vaccines, for genuine reasons, will be mandated against (it’s possible that people who refuse the vaccines, for reasons of personal choice, might be excluded from certain, social, activities. Their choice).
On the other hand, unvaccinated people are far, far, more likely to get very sick and burden everyone else, they are far more likely to catch and spread, too. Breakthrough cases, are a tiny percentage.

[webbo]

Weird that this is on some random website and not on The BMJ.

Yes I agree it is weird isn’t it.

Not in the slightest.

[webbo]

Mates of yours Dan.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-59274090

[webbo]

What conspiracy have put in this thread?

[abarro81]

. As for disingenuous [...]

I'd love to see you explain how the bit I referred to as disingenuous isn't disingenuous... Crack on ...

[Oldmanmatt]

Protests across Italy

https://mobile.twitter.com/AnonCitizenUK/status/1459600856983166983

You know, I once spent four hours, in sleepy Como, waiting for a riot to end and finally drive my car out of the garage, because the Mayor had raised parking meter charges by €0.05/hr.

Dude, people protest, about a lot of things. It’s not evidence of anything except that some people don’t like something. It hasn’t got anything at all to do with this thread. Pretty sure we’re all aware some people don’t agree with mandates.

[mrjonathanr]

Um.. mandates are a civil liberties issue. In a free society resolving freedoms when they collide is an ongoing dialogue. That’s the point of the thread- but it isn’t furthered by conspiracy nonsense, discussing the pandemic is vexed as it is.

[mrjonathanr]

Dan, I find it very frustrating to go round in circles on stuff like this so excuse me if I don’t continue to debate it beyond this.

Since you asked me a direct question.

I guess I’m using conspiracy as a bit of a catch all term for the rather paranoid collection of knowing references- a mandate you expect to become unceasingly oppressive here, a brave Cassandra-like dissenter there, fears for a dystopian future, insinuations and anecdotes about the medical dangers of vaccines which are not supported by data, and so on.

When this is put to you, the response is to avoid the issue and continue in the same, arch, it ain’t me gov honest style without really defending your assertions.

Let’s take one - ‘the dubious safety profile’ of vaccines. Evidence? Is there any? I asked you this upthread and of course you ignored it because…?

I think if you want to receive respectful responses you should be in the business of giving them, rather than a hit and run if hints and winks and never backing up your point with reasoned or evidenced argument.

Anyway. I wish you well, but don’t see the anti vaccine paranoia so afflicting our society as harmless, so hope you find a way out of the maze. There are serious civil Liberty issues at stake in how we collectively handle this and concurrently serious threats to our civil liberties from the current administration. But going off the vaccine deep end is a distraction from defending our rights, not a valiant or helpful act. Move on.

[abarro81]

Ah right the Mail headline, yeah well I’m sure we are all able to read between the lines to understand what is going on there.

I clearly can't because if someone asked me to write guidance I'd write something just like that 
The only thing I read between the lines is that the Mail likes to shit stir and is presumably authored by a bunch of pricks. Quelle surprise

[remus]

You can go to the VAERS database or watch the video of trial participants speaking out to get an understanding of the vaccine safety concerns. You can also read the stories of people affected by the covid vaccine throughout the media since the role out. There are websites that collate stories of patients with covid vaccine injuries and films of their stories. I mentioned my relative had a stroke within 24 hrs of their booster due to a clotting injury. It has also been mentioned by other posters on here that there has been a reported incidence of increased clotting injuries in outpatient clinics post vaccination. Allyson pollock a well respected left leaning public health professional posted on Twitter that she had ‘thousands’ of emails from vaccine injured people, she also linked to Peter Doshi’s talk and the trial participants stories. From an anecdotal perspective I know l people who have had wide ranging problems including stroke, menorrhagia, autoimmune problems , cardiac problems and blood disorders (low platelets). Non of this is conspiracy and all of these people will be affected by incoming mandates. This is not bringing into question that the vaccine has saved lives or isn’t effective at reducing serious illness. It is not denying that covid is a terrible illness.

The issue is that this is all anecdotal and not evidence of a systematic issue with the covid vaccines beyond what is already apparent from the vaccine trials. I stubbed my toe falling off a step once, it hurt like fuck and bled for 48hrs. I don't think we should all live in bungalows though.

[GazM]

"What conspiracy stuff?"

"Covid is a very horrible illness for some people no doubt. The evidence seems to suggest that it was manufactured in a lab with funding from the same people who had invested in the vaccine technology"

Hmmm.

[Offwidth]

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.

Sorry Pete I thought I gave that...or to be simpler: about the same risk for delta as previous strains if unvaccinated and about the previous risk of someone over a decade younger if you have been vaccinated (and have caught it, as vaccination also cuts infection risk, even for delta). Maybe around a factor of ten reduction in risk, if vaccinated, so still more serious than flu, so it doesn't make us invincible.

There are some nice clean plots around of calculated Infection Fatality Rate versus age, but I couldn't remember where I found them so the plots in this link will have to do (from data of unvaccinated):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289900/

If the NHS was running well the current system risks would be OK. However, pressures have never been worse for delays in getting people to hospital for the serious emergencies where time is vital (especially heart emergencies and strokes). Anything that cuts ambulance delays is good... it's one reason why we are vaccinating younger people for flu this year (alongside the individual risk reduction as the combination of flu and covid is greater than the sum of the parts) .

The restrictions in plan B were just mask use, improved ventilation mandates and vaccine passports for some venues (vaccinated, recently infected or recent negative test) ...hardly worth getting worried about impingement on personal freedoms, if the alternative is  you or loved ones ability to be treated in time in a medical emergency is seriously affected.

On Dan's point I would say it's bloody horrible if someone you love gets a serious side-effect but in the specific case of blood clots, risk is much higher from catching covid than from being vaccinated.

https://b-s-h.org.uk/about-us/news/covid-19-infection-much-more-likely-to-causes-blood-clots-than-vaccines-major-analysis/

Also on Dan's point about unfair exclusions for those who have serious side effects, they should see their doctor and the recommendation may well be no more jabs (and evidence to that effect).

[TobyD]

"What conspiracy stuff?"

"Covid is a very horrible illness for some people no doubt. The evidence seems to suggest that it was manufactured in a lab with funding from the same people who had invested in the vaccine technology"

Hmmm.

While that might make a mildly entertaining dystopian sci fi novel, it's not remotely credible.

[petejh]

Sorry Pete I thought I gave that...or to be simpler: about the same risk for delta as previous strains if unvaccinated and about the previous risk of someone over a decade younger if you have been vaccinated (and have caught it, as vaccination also cuts infection risk, even for delta). Maybe around a factor of ten reduction in risk, if vaccinated, so still more serious than flu, so it doesn't make us invincible.

There are some nice clean plots around of calculated Infection Fatality Rate versus age, but I couldn't remember where I found them so the plots in this link will have to do (from data of unvaccinated):

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33289900/

If the NHS was running well the current system risks would be OK. However, pressures have never been worse for delays in getting people to hospital for the serious emergencies where time is vital (especially heart emergencies and strokes). Anything that cuts ambulance delays is good... it's one reason why we are vaccinating younger people for flu this year (alongside the individual risk reduction as the combination of flu and covid is greater than the sum of the parts) .

That still isn't what I'm asking. (note I don't expect you, or anyone, to have all the answers!).

I'm simply interested in trying to understand how serious a risk to health is catching covid currently, relative to all the other common risks to health currently around - i.e. risk of heart disease, cancer, stroke, flu/pneumonia (for the elderly), COPD, traumatic injury, etc. etc. Knowing the IFR for covid is useful but how does it compare to the fatality rates of other maladies, and what are the likelihoods for those other maladies.   

I'd like to understand this so I can put covid in wider context. And therefore understand any proposed restrictions to liberty, mandates for vaccines etc. in a wider context.

I realise risk could only be calculated for an average person, and the average person doesn't exist. And risks differ for different age groups. I also realise 'a struggling health service' is, in itself, an added risk to health.

[TobyD]

Why isn’t it credible Toby?

Because of the structure of the virus, because it hasn't materially benefited China any more than it has us, because it just isn't very likely anyway...
Your preference for trying to collect anecdote, hearsay and innuendo in preference to listening to the opinion of every major health organisation in the world is pretty baffling to be honest.  You're siding with the likes of Bolsanaro, who has presided over a national disaster and thousands of unnecessary deaths. 
In the 1950s, smallpox vaccination was mandatory for nurses,  before it was largely eradicated.  It'd be nice if foolish quibbling doesn't prevent covid from going the same way.