I bloody hope you're right Baggy1, because it is an absolute minefield of problems. We cannot restructure society over an infectious disease. Its madness. The vaccines are working and protecting the NHS. Past that, infectious disease is simply part of life. Always has been, always will be.
The idea of vaccine passports has alarmed me big time. Not least because last year I laughed at a lot of conspiracy theory nonsense about this happening. These people were rightfully mocked. Now it seems like many are accepting it as a good idea!
Its incredible how a year of covid seems to have shaped people into thinking everything has to be done with covid at the forefront of their mind. That can't happen. The NHS are protected, and we must go back to normal as fast as possible, because the collateral damage from this virus and the lockdowns is absolutely enormous. A two tier society and we might as well give up.
There really will be an amount of politicking going on here from the government BB. There is a section of the younger adult population that simply won't be arsed if they don't see the benefit to them, tell them they might face restrictions will sharpen their minds and get them to get booked in. That in itself then allows those with genuine concerns to bide their time to get more information because they will be such a small group that it won't matter.
backsidebaggie Wrote:I bloody hope you're right Baggy1, because it is an absolute minefield of problems. We cannot restructure society over an infectious disease. Its madness. The vaccines are working and protecting the NHS. Past that, infectious disease is simply part of life. Always has been, always will be.
The idea of vaccine passports has alarmed me big time. Not least because last year I laughed at a lot of conspiracy theory nonsense about this happening. These people were rightfully mocked. Now it seems like many are accepting it as a good idea!
Its incredible how a year of covid seems to have shaped people into thinking everything has to be done with covid at the forefront of their mind. That can't happen. The NHS are protected, and we must go back to normal as fast as possible, because the collateral damage from this virus and the lockdowns is absolutely enormous. A two tier society and we might as well give up.
Good post. I've had my jab and I'm grateful to have had the opportunity. Having said that, I'm not entirely comfortable with having something that hasn't had any long term study. I made a decision to have it and place my trust in the researchers. I'm hoping that is the right call! Before anyone takes the piss, I'm from a generation whose sisters, mothers etc, were offered thalidomide. If there are people that worry about the vaccine, I understand that. There is something completely unsettling, IMO, to force people to show a passport to get into a pub.
(03-25-2021, 02:51 PM)baggy1 Wrote: [ -> ]There really will be an amount of politicking going on here from the government BB. There is a section of the younger adult population that simply won't be arsed if they don't see the benefit to them, tell them they might face restrictions will sharpen their minds and get them to get booked in. That in itself then allows those with genuine concerns to bide their time to get more information because they will be such a small group that it won't matter.
Unless, of course, this is introduced before vaccines are offered to everyone which is my major worry. Especially with a drop in the vaccine supplies being mooted and the fact that we're starting to prioritise second doses over first doses. The goalposts from the government keep shifting.
(03-25-2021, 10:58 AM)baggy1 Wrote: [ -> ]The take up so far is above 50% of the adult population, when the under 50s come online I would put a pessimistic estimate of 25% uptake then I don't think will so much of an issue for landlords to choose not to as most will be allowed with over 75% of the adult population vaccinated.
If those of us who were never at any real risk of dying from the virus, but stayed at home to protect those who were, have to wait any longer than the old arses to go out for a fucking drink then they can all cunt off and I will be throwing a house party every night of the week.
(03-25-2021, 11:03 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-25-2021, 10:58 AM)baggy1 Wrote: [ -> ]The take up so far is above 50% of the adult population, when the under 50s come online I would put a pessimistic estimate of 25% uptake then I don't think will so much of an issue for landlords to choose not to as most will be allowed with over 75% of the adult population vaccinated.
But the youngest adult categories won't have been offered the vaccine when they're targeting to introduce this, and we're getting to the point now where second doses are being prioritised over first doses which will delay that rollout further.
I can't see how this is in any way justifiable, especially considering that it's those least at risk from the virus and who have sacrificed the most being affected by it. It just smacks of a Conservative government not giving a shit about the rights offered to a subset of the population that doesn't vote for them yet again.
Correct. An utter bollocks notion.
(03-25-2021, 10:26 PM)Malcolm Tucker Wrote: [ -> ] (03-25-2021, 10:58 AM)baggy1 Wrote: [ -> ]The take up so far is above 50% of the adult population, when the under 50s come online I would put a pessimistic estimate of 25% uptake then I don't think will so much of an issue for landlords to choose not to as most will be allowed with over 75% of the adult population vaccinated.
If those of us who were never at any real risk of dying from the virus, but stayed at home to protect those who were, have to wait any longer than the old arses to go out for a fucking drink then they can all cunt off and I will be throwing a house party every night of the week.
(03-25-2021, 11:03 AM)Borin' Baggie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-25-2021, 10:58 AM)baggy1 Wrote: [ -> ]The take up so far is above 50% of the adult population, when the under 50s come online I would put a pessimistic estimate of 25% uptake then I don't think will so much of an issue for landlords to choose not to as most will be allowed with over 75% of the adult population vaccinated.
But the youngest adult categories won't have been offered the vaccine when they're targeting to introduce this, and we're getting to the point now where second doses are being prioritised over first doses which will delay that rollout further.
I can't see how this is in any way justifiable, especially considering that it's those least at risk from the virus and who have sacrificed the most being affected by it. It just smacks of a Conservative government not giving a shit about the rights offered to a subset of the population that doesn't vote for them yet again.
Correct. An utter bollocks notion.
Don't be daft Malc, nobodies saying anyone will have to wait clearly, the pubs will be open in a few weeks for all and are taking bookings now. What is being proposed is that when everyone has had the chance to be vaccinated that if some decide not to then they may face restrictions. The idea is, and always has been despite the 'goalposts have moved' misinformation, that the whole population gets vaccinated for the good of the whole population. If we just get half the population vaccinated the virus isn't restricted as much as it could be with the whole population, that allows the virus to spread and ultimately that means we face more lockdowns later on.
The argument that 'we are safe if the vulnerable are vaccinated' is a theory and if we want to gamble with this based on that assumption instead of carrying on with rolling out the vaccine then we must be ready to be grown up if that gamble doesn't work and get back to lockdowns. It makes sense to get the vaccine rolled out to as many as possible seeing as we have that opportunity.
And as for your view that this is based on the likelihood of people dying then you are wrong again, although i'm in my 50s I'm in better shape than when I was playing football, weights and martial arts in my 20s and 30s (apart from the odd reminder from the knees and back that I'm an old codger every now and again), I'm not in and never have been at risk from this but see the need to protect those that are.
Enjoy your pint(s) from the 12th April, you've earned it. No-one will be asking you for a badge or an app or a vaccine appointment card to prove you are not a walking incubator, they'll just be asking for your credit card because they don't accept cash. And when you get the opportunity get yourself jabbed.
If those who choose not to have the vaccine face restrictions, that is totally 100% out of order IMO. It is coercion and I am astounded anyone would support that. I very much hope that it is an idol threat to get uptake higher.
I also disagree that it’s always been the plan to vaccinate the whole population. That’s not misinformation at all. Well, if it was, they weren’t honest. The goalposts have moved repeatedly. Only a few weeks ago Boris said vaccine passports may be for foreign travel and not domestically. A few weeks later and it’s changed again. Sinister IMO.
https://www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-7889...e51355a751
(03-26-2021, 10:12 AM)backsidebaggie Wrote: [ -> ]If those who choose not to have the vaccine face restrictions, that is totally 100% out of order IMO. It is coercion and I am astounded anyone would support that. I very much hope that it is an idol threat to get uptake higher.
I also disagree that it’s always been the plan to vaccinate the whole population. That’s not misinformation at all. Well, if it was, they weren’t honest. The goalposts have moved repeatedly. Only a few weeks ago Boris said vaccine passports may be for foreign travel and not domestically. A few weeks later and it’s changed again. Sinister IMO.
https://www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-7889...e51355a751
But that's naive in itself bb, there will be restrictions for people no matter what based on international travel as a minimum, this was always obvious that there would likely to be restrictions of some sort.
And I think you need to look at who the quote is attributed to (Kate Bingham), she is not a minister but an appointee of the government based on her being married to a Conservative Government minister, she's now not in the role which was quietly done and replaced by Nadhim Zahawi. The quote is from an out of her depth private individual in position at a time when the government couldn't find it's own arse with both hands. If you want better guidance on what was proposed I would point you in the direction of the JVCI website which in December referred to the priority groups as the 1st priorities and not the only priorities.
Nothing sinister, (FFS stop using that word it really is tin hat territory wording) the experts have looked at the risks and tied thiat in with the available vaccines and made a decision that with the resources available we may as well further reduce the risks by vaccinating everyone.
(03-26-2021, 11:03 AM)baggy1 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2021, 10:12 AM)backsidebaggie Wrote: [ -> ]If those who choose not to have the vaccine face restrictions, that is totally 100% out of order IMO. It is coercion and I am astounded anyone would support that. I very much hope that it is an idol threat to get uptake higher.
I also disagree that it’s always been the plan to vaccinate the whole population. That’s not misinformation at all. Well, if it was, they weren’t honest. The goalposts have moved repeatedly. Only a few weeks ago Boris said vaccine passports may be for foreign travel and not domestically. A few weeks later and it’s changed again. Sinister IMO.
https://www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-7889...e51355a751
But that's naive in itself bb, there will be restrictions for people no matter what based on international travel as a minimum, this was always obvious that there would likely to be restrictions of some sort.
And I think you need to look at who the quote is attributed to (Kate Bingham), she is not a minister but an appointee of the government based on her being married to a Conservative Government minister, she's now not in the role which was quietly done and replaced by Nadhim Zahawi. The quote is from an out of her depth private individual in position at a time when the government couldn't find it's own arse with both hands. If you want better guidance on what was proposed I would point you in the direction of the JVCI website which in December referred to the priority groups as the 1st priorities and not the only priorities.
Nothing sinister, (FFS stop using that word it really is tin hat territory wording) the experts have looked at the risks and tied thiat in with the available vaccines and made a decision that with the resources available we may as well further reduce the risks by vaccinating everyone.
Well IMO restrictions to coerce vaccines are sinister. Vaccine passports were literally tin hat territory last year. I laughed at the idea. Now you seem to accept this as normal. Each to their own, but I think it’s appalling. You seem to have an incredible trust in this government and their appointed experts if you think we definitely require restrictions on people who don’t want to have the vaccine. But I guess if the scientists say we need restrictions on those that don’t want it, they must be right..... really? Is 70-80% take up not enough? One stage further by penalising those who don’t want it? Really?
(03-26-2021, 11:16 AM)backsidebaggie Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2021, 11:03 AM)baggy1 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-26-2021, 10:12 AM)backsidebaggie Wrote: [ -> ]If those who choose not to have the vaccine face restrictions, that is totally 100% out of order IMO. It is coercion and I am astounded anyone would support that. I very much hope that it is an idol threat to get uptake higher.
I also disagree that it’s always been the plan to vaccinate the whole population. That’s not misinformation at all. Well, if it was, they weren’t honest. The goalposts have moved repeatedly. Only a few weeks ago Boris said vaccine passports may be for foreign travel and not domestically. A few weeks later and it’s changed again. Sinister IMO.
https://www.ft.com/content/d2e00128-7889...e51355a751
But that's naive in itself bb, there will be restrictions for people no matter what based on international travel as a minimum, this was always obvious that there would likely to be restrictions of some sort.
And I think you need to look at who the quote is attributed to (Kate Bingham), she is not a minister but an appointee of the government based on her being married to a Conservative Government minister, she's now not in the role which was quietly done and replaced by Nadhim Zahawi. The quote is from an out of her depth private individual in position at a time when the government couldn't find it's own arse with both hands. If you want better guidance on what was proposed I would point you in the direction of the JVCI website which in December referred to the priority groups as the 1st priorities and not the only priorities.
Nothing sinister, (FFS stop using that word it really is tin hat territory wording) the experts have looked at the risks and tied thiat in with the available vaccines and made a decision that with the resources available we may as well further reduce the risks by vaccinating everyone.
Well IMO restrictions to coerce vaccines are sinister. Vaccine passports were literally tin hat territory last year. I laughed at the idea. Now you seem to accept this as normal. Each to their own, but I think it’s appalling.
So do you think that it is ok to accept individuals travelling from Brazil into the UK at this point in time given the risk that that carries to bringing the virus in?