Covid Vaccination ID

[backsidebaggie]

So let's say that an asymptomatic person spreads the virus in a pub which leads to a local outbreak and that pub having to close. As a landlord how would you view that?

I thought the vaccine reduced severe cases by 95% so we would live with this forever like flu? When have pubs ever closed as people caught flu there?

So on one hand you say we don't know about the long term effects and on the other hand you accept it is working and does what is required, you seem to want it both ways?

No I said it’s up to each individual to decide whether they are happy having the vaccine. And they may wish to know longer term effects.

The studies say it is working to an excellent degree so should significantly reduce severe cases to protect the nhs and the vulnerable. Society should therefore reopen. People catching infectious disease should not shut a premises down. That has never been the case and should not be.

It seems like covid has become at the forefront of so many people's minds, that they are wishing for a society based around keeping covid numbers down at a cost of anything else. While the NHS is in danger of being overwhelmed, that's fine, and required. But the vaccines are working. The vulnerable are being protected. The severe cases are reducing emphatically. There is simply no need for society not to reopen if the vaccines work (which they are), and we should go back to the way it was with infectious disease being part of life.

[baggy1]

So let's say that an asymptomatic person spreads the virus in a pub which leads to a local outbreak and that pub having to close. As a landlord how would you view that?

I thought the vaccine reduced severe cases by 95% so we would live with this forever like flu? When have pubs ever closed as people caught flu there?

So on one hand you say we don't know about the long term effects and on the other hand you accept it is working and does what is required, you seem to want it both ways?

No I said it’s up to each individual to decide whether they are happy having the vaccine. And they may wish to know longer term effects.

The studies say it is working to an excellent degree so should significantly reduce severe cases to protect the nhs and the vulnerable. Society should therefore reopen. People catching infectious disease should not shut a premises down. That has never been the case and should not be.

It seems like covid has become at the forefront of so many people's minds, that they are wishing for a society based around keeping covid numbers down at a cost of anything else. While the NHS is in danger of being overwhelmed, that's fine, and required. But the vaccines are working. The vulnerable are being protected. The severe cases are reducing emphatically. There is simply no need for society not to reopen if the vaccines work (which they are), and we should go back to the way it was with infectious disease being part of life.

So forgive me if I'm misunderstanding here but you are saying that both the government and individuals can see that the vaccine is safe and effective in the short term, but in the longer term you want the government to accept that it will continue to be so but allow individuals to hedge against that.

Now that isn't in itself a problem except that by individuals choosing not to have the vaccine it means that the likelihood of future variants or outbreaks increases. 

This sound like a theoretical argument as the number of individuals not having the vaccine will be low IMO, and also they are being allowed to make choices based on their knowledge of a subject, which is fine. But that decision must be made knowing the full situation and if airlines want to ensure that they don't have an asymptomatic individual cooped up with 500 other individuals for a 8 hour duration then they may take the decision not to allow them passage.

---

And also there does feel like there is some irony in people demanding to go into a pub without vaccination as they don't know the long term effects of that vaccine but accept the known long term effects of alcohol.

[backsidebaggie]

So let's say that an asymptomatic person spreads the virus in a pub which leads to a local outbreak and that pub having to close. As a landlord how would you view that?

I thought the vaccine reduced severe cases by 95% so we would live with this forever like flu? When have pubs ever closed as people caught flu there?

So on one hand you say we don't know about the long term effects and on the other hand you accept it is working and does what is required, you seem to want it both ways?

No I said it’s up to each individual to decide whether they are happy having the vaccine. And they may wish to know longer term effects.

The studies say it is working to an excellent degree so should significantly reduce severe cases to protect the nhs and the vulnerable. Society should therefore reopen. People catching infectious disease should not shut a premises down. That has never been the case and should not be.

It seems like covid has become at the forefront of so many people's minds, that they are wishing for a society based around keeping covid numbers down at a cost of anything else. While the NHS is in danger of being overwhelmed, that's fine, and required. But the vaccines are working. The vulnerable are being protected. The severe cases are reducing emphatically. There is simply no need for society not to reopen if the vaccines work (which they are), and we should go back to the way it was with infectious disease being part of life.

So forgive me if I'm misunderstanding here but you are saying that both the government and individuals can see that the vaccine is safe and effective in the short term, but in the longer term you want the government to accept that it will continue to be so but allow individuals to hedge against that.

Now that isn't in itself a problem except that by individuals choosing not to have the vaccine it means that the likelihood of future variants or outbreaks increases. 

This sound like a theoretical argument as the number of individuals not having the vaccine will be low IMO, and also they are being allowed to make choices based on their knowledge of a subject, which is fine. But that decision must be made knowing the full situation and if airlines want to ensure that they don't have an asymptomatic individual cooped up with 500 other individuals for a 8 hour duration then they may take the decision not to allow them passage.

---

And also there does feel like there is some irony in people demanding to go into a pub without vaccination as they don't know the long term effects of that vaccine but accept the known long term effects of alcohol.

I believe the government should allow people bodily autonomy yes. Absolutely 100%. I am astounded anyone would think otherwise frankly, but each to their own.

Why should an increase in the likelihood of an "outbreak" matter? The vulnerable are vaccinated. The nhs is protected. That's the idea of the vaccine.  There will be outbreaks. We will live with it like flu, as has been said many times, but have protected the nhs and vulnerable with the vaccine. People will catch it in pubs, shops and resturants, like many infectious diseases. That's life. Plenty have chosen not to have the flu jab before and this has never been said about them? They have effectively increased the likelihood of a bad flu year by not having the flu jab, have they not? (and I am NOT saying covid is the same as flu, but the same principle of my point applies here).

Do some people not having the vaccine increases the chance of variants? Definitely? Has that happened with the flu jab? What about if everyone is vaccinated? Does that increase the chance of more severe mutations as the hosts are 'blocking' the current variant? Genuine questions, I don't know. Its something that I find bizarre that never gets discussed in the huge amount of media related to covid. But that's the media for you, they don't ask the important questions IMO.

You've jumped to airlines from the pub which is different. Pub goers often frequent pubs 100 times a year. Not many people fly that much. The option for an airline to test instead is there, and is reasonable. Plus a vaccinated person can still be asymptomatic and spread covid on a plane anyway! (albeit reduced). The WHO have I believe stated that tests are better for flying as we have no idea how long vaccination antibodies last anyway. This can also be applied to pubs!

Your last point about knowing the long term effects of alcohol is frankly ridiculous. You've literally argued against yourself. People DO know the long term effects of alcohol so they choose to drink, or not. They DON'T know the long term effects of the vaccine and may choose not to have it for that exact reason. I don't believe there will be a significant proportion who don't, although I believe the younger the age group, the lower the uptake. But there will still be a big uptake overall, and a huge uptake in the vulnerable and over 50s, which we were told should protect the NHS. The goalposts now seem to be moving (back in October the taskforce said only over 50s would require the vaccine). If they keep moving any further, we're talking mandation or a two tier society, and I find that very sinister.

[Brentbaggie]

So let's say that an asymptomatic person spreads the virus in a pub which leads to a local outbreak and that pub having to close. As a landlord how would you view that?

How does this scenario make any sense? How does a local "outbreak" happen if say, 90% of people over 18 have been vaccinated?  Why does the pub close down? As in it goes out of business!? How?

People with asymptomatic covid have a lower viral load, so they are less likely to pass on the virus. Those very few people who have had the vaccine and subsequently catch covid have even lower viral loads which is related to infectiousness. An outbreak isn't going to occur in the situation where almost everyone has been vaccinated and there's one bloke with asymptomatic covid.

The scenario your proposing isn't realistic. If I was a landlord I'd want people to come into my pub.

I just read a BMJ report that shows that at least 20% of asymptomatic Covid carriers have comparable viral loads to severe symptomatic carriers so I don't know where you get your info from.  1 in 5 isn't bad but it does show that asymptomatic carriers are more than capable of initiating infections unknowingly in the wider population.

Track and trace and vaccination are the key.  Vaccination good - T&T still not so good sadly.

[backsidebaggie]

So let's say that an asymptomatic person spreads the virus in a pub which leads to a local outbreak and that pub having to close. As a landlord how would you view that?

How does this scenario make any sense? How does a local "outbreak" happen if say, 90% of people over 18 have been vaccinated?  Why does the pub close down? As in it goes out of business!? How?

People with asymptomatic covid have a lower viral load, so they are less likely to pass on the virus. Those very few people who have had the vaccine and subsequently catch covid have even lower viral loads which is related to infectiousness. An outbreak isn't going to occur in the situation where almost everyone has been vaccinated and there's one bloke with asymptomatic covid.

The scenario your proposing isn't realistic. If I was a landlord I'd want people to come into my pub.

I just read a BMJ report that shows that at least 20% of asymptomatic Covid carriers have comparable viral loads to severe symptomatic carriers so I don't know where you get your info from.  1 in 5 isn't bad but it does show that asymptomatic carriers are more than capable of initiating infections unknowingly in the wider population.

Track and trace and vaccination are the key.  Vaccination good - T&T still not so good sadly.

Of course infections will occur in the wider population. That's life. That's infectious disease. We were told this was to protect the vulnerable and the NHS, and the vaccine appears to be working very well. If there's outbreaks, there's outbreaks. We can't structure society around covid forever. It has been said many times that we will live with covid like we live with the flu. Vaccine passports, closing places down after outbreaks etc have simply never been part of life. Infectious disease is. With the nhs protected, life should go on.

[strawman]

It would seem that if has now been qualified that vaccine passports can only be implemented after everyone has been offered a jab. Which begs the question if say, 90% have been vaccinated then why would you need a vaccine passport.

It seems we may have gone from protect the NHS to eradication - and we ain't going to eradicate it. The only virus we have ever eradicated is smallpox. We are to a large extent going to have to live with it

[backsidebaggie]

It would seem that if has now been qualified that vaccine passports can only be implemented after everyone has been offered a jab. Which begs the question if say, 90% have been vaccinated then why would you need a vaccine passport.

It seems we may have gone from protect the NHS to eradication - and we ain't going to eradicate it. The only virus we have ever eradicated is smallpox. We are to a large extent going to have to live with it

Correct. Goalposts are moving.

Back in October the task force said only the over 50s would be vaccinated. Now there’s suddenly a rush get everyone to have it, a lot of shaming of those who don’t want it, and suggestions of passports to get in places. Sinister. We’ve been told we will live with covid like we live with flu. That needs to remain the case.

[baggiebuckster]

So let's say that an asymptomatic person spreads the virus in a pub which leads to a local outbreak and that pub having to close. As a landlord how would you view that?

I thought the vaccine reduced severe cases by 95% so we would live with this forever like flu? When have pubs ever closed as people caught flu there?

So on one hand you say we don't know about the long term effects and on the other hand you accept it is working and does what is required, you seem to want it both ways?

No I said it’s up to each individual to decide whether they are happy having the vaccine. And they may wish to know longer term effects.

The studies say it is working to an excellent degree so should significantly reduce severe cases to protect the nhs and the vulnerable. Society should therefore reopen. People catching infectious disease should not shut a premises down. That has never been the case and should not be.

It seems like covid has become at the forefront of so many people's minds, that they are wishing for a society based around keeping covid numbers down at a cost of anything else. While the NHS is in danger of being overwhelmed, that's fine, and required. But the vaccines are working. The vulnerable are being protected. The severe cases are reducing emphatically. There is simply no need for society not to reopen if the vaccines work (which they are), and we should go back to the way it was with infectious disease being part of life.

So forgive me if I'm misunderstanding here but you are saying that both the government and individuals can see that the vaccine is safe and effective in the short term, but in the longer term you want the government to accept that it will continue to be so but allow individuals to hedge against that.

Now that isn't in itself a problem except that by individuals choosing not to have the vaccine it means that the likelihood of future variants or outbreaks increases. 

This sound like a theoretical argument as the number of individuals not having the vaccine will be low IMO, and also they are being allowed to make choices based on their knowledge of a subject, which is fine. But that decision must be made knowing the full situation and if airlines want to ensure that they don't have an asymptomatic individual cooped up with 500 other individuals for a 8 hour duration then they may take the decision not to allow them passage.

---

And also there does feel like there is some irony in people demanding to go into a pub without vaccination as they don't know the long term effects of that vaccine but accept the known long term effects of alcohol.

I thought the vaccine reduced severe cases by 95% so we would live with this forever like flu? When have pubs ever closed as people caught flu there?

So on one hand you say we don't know about the long term effects and on the other hand you accept it is working and does what is required, you seem to want it both ways?

No I said it’s up to each individual to decide whether they are happy having the vaccine. And they may wish to know longer term effects.

The studies say it is working to an excellent degree so should significantly reduce severe cases to protect the nhs and the vulnerable. Society should therefore reopen. People catching infectious disease should not shut a premises down. That has never been the case and should not be.

It seems like covid has become at the forefront of so many people's minds, that they are wishing for a society based around keeping covid numbers down at a cost of anything else. While the NHS is in danger of being overwhelmed, that's fine, and required. But the vaccines are working. The vulnerable are being protected. The severe cases are reducing emphatically. There is simply no need for society not to reopen if the vaccines work (which they are), and we should go back to the way it was with infectious disease being part of life.

So forgive me if I'm misunderstanding here but you are saying that both the government and individuals can see that the vaccine is safe and effective in the short term, but in the longer term you want the government to accept that it will continue to be so but allow individuals to hedge against that.

Now that isn't in itself a problem except that by individuals choosing not to have the vaccine it means that the likelihood of future variants or outbreaks increases. 

This sound like a theoretical argument as the number of individuals not having the vaccine will be low IMO, and also they are being allowed to make choices based on their knowledge of a subject, which is fine. But that decision must be made knowing the full situation and if airlines want to ensure that they don't have an asymptomatic individual cooped up with 500 other individuals for a 8 hour duration then they may take the decision not to allow them passage.

---

And also there does feel like there is some irony in people demanding to go into a pub without vaccination as they don't know the long term effects of that vaccine but accept the known long term effects of alcohol.

I believe the government should allow people bodily autonomy yes. Absolutely 100%. I am astounded anyone would think otherwise frankly, but each to their own.

Why should an increase in the likelihood of an "outbreak" matter? The vulnerable are vaccinated. The nhs is protected. That's the idea of the vaccine.  There will be outbreaks. We will live with it like flu, as has been said many times, but have protected the nhs and vulnerable with the vaccine. People will catch it in pubs, shops and resturants, like many infectious diseases. That's life. Plenty have chosen not to have the flu jab before and this has never been said about them? They have effectively increased the likelihood of a bad flu year by not having the flu jab, have they not? (and I am NOT saying covid is the same as flu, but the same principle of my point applies here).

Do some people not having the vaccine increases the chance of variants? Definitely? Has that happened with the flu jab? What about if everyone is vaccinated? Does that increase the chance of more severe mutations as the hosts are 'blocking' the current variant? Genuine questions, I don't know. Its something that I find bizarre that never gets discussed in the huge amount of media related to covid. But that's the media for you, they don't ask the important questions IMO.

You've jumped to airlines from the pub which is different. Pub goers often frequent pubs 100 times a year. Not many people fly that much. The option for an airline to test instead is there, and is reasonable. Plus a vaccinated person can still be asymptomatic and spread covid on a plane anyway! (albeit reduced). The WHO have I believe stated that tests are better for flying as we have no idea how long vaccination antibodies last anyway. This can also be applied to pubs!

Your last point about knowing the long term effects of alcohol is frankly ridiculous. You've literally argued against yourself. People DO know the long term effects of alcohol so they choose to drink, or not. They DON'T know the long term effects of the vaccine and may choose not to have it for that exact reason. I don't believe there will be a significant proportion who don't, although I believe the younger the age group, the lower the uptake. But there will still be a big uptake overall, and a huge uptake in the vulnerable and over 50s, which we were told should protect the NHS. The goalposts now seem to be moving (back in October the taskforce said only over 50s would require the vaccine). If they keep moving any further, we're talking mandation or a two tier society, and I find that very sinister.

I agree with everything you have said.

[Sliced]

So let's say that an asymptomatic person spreads the virus in a pub which leads to a local outbreak and that pub having to close. As a landlord how would you view that?

How does this scenario make any sense? How does a local "outbreak" happen if say, 90% of people over 18 have been vaccinated?  Why does the pub close down? As in it goes out of business!? How?

People with asymptomatic covid have a lower viral load, so they are less likely to pass on the virus. Those very few people who have had the vaccine and subsequently catch covid have even lower viral loads which is related to infectiousness. An outbreak isn't going to occur in the situation where almost everyone has been vaccinated and there's one bloke with asymptomatic covid.

The scenario your proposing isn't realistic. If I was a landlord I'd want people to come into my pub.

I just read a BMJ report that shows that at least 20% of asymptomatic Covid carriers have comparable viral loads to severe symptomatic carriers so I don't know where you get your info from.  1 in 5 isn't bad but it does show that asymptomatic carriers are more than capable of initiating infections unknowingly in the wider population.

Track and trace and vaccination are the key.  Vaccination good - T&T still not so good sadly.

What's the study in the BMJ about this? If you're talking about the one published in Thorax from early last year then the conclusion was that the viral load two weeks after detection for asymptomatic vs MILDLY symptomatic patients was comparable for the 1 in 5 individuals. Dare I say it: yeah, no shit, the viral load will drop off after two weeks in all patients, the rate of that drop on average will be proportional to the initial viral load so everything comes closer together anyway. 

It's worth also pointing out if you read that paper, that the viral loads actually were lower in asymptomatic individuals. Hence the choice of wording "comparable" rather than the more scientific term of being "equivalent". The study basically says that in some asymptomatic cases the viral load was only a bit lower than those with mild symptoms.

However, even if the findings of the study were applicable to immediately after diagnosis, I'm speaking in general, I don't claim that every single person with asymptomatic covid has a lower viral load than those with symptomatic covid but in general they do. 

Viral load is directly related to COVID severity and is a predictor of death:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanre...4/fulltext


As for where I get my information from, medical journals and 10 years of experience working in epidemiology and medical devices, four years of which were PhD study. Since March of last year I've been working almost exclusively in developing COVID antigen and antibody tests and have also conducted experiments around viral loads, and we've always struggled when it comes to identifying asymptomatic COVID patients.

[baggy1]

I believe the government should allow people bodily autonomy yes. Absolutely 100%. I am astounded anyone would think otherwise frankly, but each to their own.

This is probably why you misunderstand my position, I can't see where anyone has said any differently to this. They have the right to make choices and back to my original point so do businesses in the short term, as we both agree on, until there is more clarity on opening up the pubs and any extra transmission that causes.

Comparing to the flu is really unhelpful, we have had the Flu for over a century now and have had vaccines since the 50s so yes we can live with the damage because we know the virus and have changing vaccines to enhance the herd immunity that is in place.