Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Ah-so

Members
  • Posts

    8,453
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Ah-so

  1. Because I was answering a post from Nightowl who was worrying about the fictional dear of children being forced to be vaccinated. And my reply was basically the same. I think it's because we are relentlessly moving towards the stage where we will be completely open, and the imagined fears of anti-vaxxers have not come true, that they are creating new threats of state power which don't seem to have any basis in reality.
  2. I don't want to have children to be vaxxed either and I'm not talking about it (ironically I am now, but whatever). I know lots of people who have been jabbed, but absolutely no one I have ever heard discuss compulsory vaccination of children. Optional for the over 12s maybe, but it's mostly discussed by the vaccine-sceptical.
  3. The people talking about it most appear to be anti-vaxxers.
  4. This was covered by others yesterday, so I hope it clarified things for you, but just to add, there never was the assumption that things will automatically be more deadly, we are considering the risks of it does. If it mutates in a way that's less deadly, hurrah. If it goes the other way, then we're in real trouble. The reason people talk more about a deadly strain because that is where the worst outcome is and the one e want to avoid.
  5. You must be fun to be around. Perhaps if you stop banging on about it to everyone you meet you might get on better. Who are these people? Friends? Family? Random wedding guests? Or are they imaginary conversations that you want to have?
  6. I addressed this point earlier today - the risk of death from COVID-19 is substantially greater than flu, and so our response is proportionately greater. In addition, the greater the frequency of COVID-19, the greater the chance of a new and more lethal strain emerging.
  7. I'm of the view we should be out of lockdown, but that's a different issue. While vaccination massively reduces the chance of catching and therefore dying of COVID-19, it isn't 100% effective. Therefore, the groups most at risk should ideally minimise their exposure to infected people, and the best way to do that is to have as many vaccinated voluntarily as possible. This will reduce the disease's prevelence in society. Of course it needs to be a voluntary programme, but stopping this is more than about just vaccinating old people.
  8. Sorry, for a moment there I thought I was in a time warp and taken back to early 2020 when I saw you comparing flu and COVID. In case you have forgotten, which you clearly have, COVID-19 is significantly more likely to kill than flu, as the mortality statistics show. As a result, the steps that we take in resp are proportionately greater.
  9. Given that everyone now knows mutliple people who have had COVID and survived, they do know that it isn't a near death event. People want to get vaccinated for rational reasons: - it can be pretty nasty - you can pass it onto someone who is at high risk - you reduce the chances of mutations occurring - you contribute to a reduction in the overall number of deaths and the removal of any remaining restrictions. - you can travel with fewer restrictions. These are all logical reasons for wanting to be vaccinated. It isn't all about sheeple being whipped up by the media, as you so wish to believe.
  10. You would hope that the government would be capable of listening to advice rather than risking it all and keeping your fingers crossed. But you're right - it is complicated - if you get it right, the max Covid crew do claim that there was never anything to worry about and that any restrictions were unnecessary. Which is akin to noting that you've never been burgled so deciding to leave all your doors and window open in future. https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-no-evidence-indian-variant-can-get-around-vaccines-minister-says-12279043 Sometimes it's better to be safe than sorry...
  11. If we had reduced the number of infected people getting in by 90%, we would logically on have a fraction of the cases that we actually do have today. Less than 5000 anyway. We would have opened up in June and the economy would be heading back to normal. All because Boris ignored what was happening in India with the variant (or "scariant" as the usual suspects called it).
  12. It really wasn't hindsight. It was predicted. If everyone is telling you to switch off the gas because they can smell a leak, you ignore them because you really want to do a bit of cooking, and then your house explodes, you wouldn't be able to talk about "hindsight" given the events that subsequently occurred were widely predicted.
  13. At the time people were screaming at BJ to put India on the red list, but he was trying to get his trade deal through. And when they finally announced it, it was with a big enough gap for everyone who could get out to get out in a panic, taking the virus with them. Yes, it would have got out, of course, but it is easier to deal with in small numbers. However, the numbers that must have got in were already so high that we never had a chance of controlling it. Over 90% of UK cases are delta variant. Had it not been for this, we would probably have already removed all lockdown restrictions.
  14. https://www.reuters.com/world/uk/britains-lloyds-enters-private-rental-market-2021-07-07/ Lloyds bank launches home rental business | Financial Times (ft.com) So now you can bank with Lloyds, depend on it for your housing, insurance and car lease finance. You can now go through life not owning anything, but pay everything you have to LBG.
  15. The children will all catch it in time, leading to herd immunity.
  16. I imagine that there are plenty of places where we can discuss these issues. Question as to whether it is a "debate" in any meaningful sense is a rather different matter - there is scientific opinion based on the data and their is the emotional response of the uneducated - which is not necessarily a meaningful debate. Where there are valid concerns, the right thing to do is ask questions from those with information rather than think that you can contribute to a debate other than at a very superficial level. What you can have an argument for is lives vs economy, where we can validly hold different opinions on the cost/benefit of lockdown.
  17. What do you mean by "public debate"? You're in one now, surely. Or do you imagine it should be a huge, open mass debate?
  18. I understand - that is your choice. And talking generally, rather than about you, people over-estimate their personal abilities and over-estimate things like gut-instinct, using confirmation bias to back up their opinion. Gut instinct works very well in a number of fields, combining a lifetime of experience with hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution to make accurate decisions, but it is terrible in matters such as this, where it is easy to confuse some accurate gut instinct with effects of being over-exposed to misinfomation propaganda.
  19. No coincidence - old people are more likely to vote Conservative.
  20. And using this analogy, who would the smirking teenage boys be and who would the police be? The most obvious analogous bodies would be the anti-vaxxers for the boys and the medical establishment for the police. And I am only working on your assumption of 0.5% deaths in 50-year-olds for the sake of argument. I actually think that the real number is not as high as that. but accepting the imperfect knowledge world, we would be wise to either follow the consensus of experts or take a more risk-adverse reaction.
  21. Obviously, just not necessarily a logical one.
  22. I think that the odds have quite a lot to do with it. If the odds of dying moved from 0.5% to 99%, the odds would be very relevant. When the odds are lower, you can allow other factors to play more of an influence, although making a vague personal stand against the "establishment mantra" seems a pretty weak reason to risk a 1 in 200 chance of dying (and a risk which will increase every year you don't contract COVID-19).
  23. Absolutely, unless there is evidence that the vaccine kills in greater numbers. Imagine you are at a fairly large wedding or something. You are told in advance that one of the wine glasses will be laced with poison. Would it be really logical to start drinking, even though you know you have a relatively small chance of being the one who drinks the poison?
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.