Covid Vaccination ID

[backsidebaggie]

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.

Pubs do have the right to make choices, but I'm not comfortable with it. I hope many choose not to.

I must also query again, why should extra transmission from pubs matter? Again, the vaccine protects the NHS by its enormous reduction in severe cases. That's the idea, so the vaccine can return us to normal and we can live with it like flu and other infectious disease. If there's an "outbreak" in a pub (whatever an outbreak would be defined as), so what? There's no need to shut the pub. If flu goes through a pub its not closed down by the government. The vaccines are reducing deaths by 99% and hospitalisations by almost the same I believe. Therefore covid can happily get caught be some people in a pub, and they'll have minor symptoms. That's fine. That's infectious disease. Its something that our immune systems are based on, always have been, and will continue to forever more. There may be a small amount of people who succumb to a bad illness but that's always been the case again, and as long as the NHS can cope (which it should be able to following the vaccinations), that's life.

I'm not comparing covid to the flu itself. I'm comparing two aspects:

1. The shaming of people who have chosen not to have the vaccine (and yes there is a lot of shaming and silly anti-vaxxer comments, when most people who don't want it have had many other vaccines and are not anti-vax in general), when no such name calling has ever occurred for those who have not chosen to have the flu vaccine.

2. The actual government, scientists have repeatedly said we will "live with covid" like we live with flu eventually. That's their words, not mine.

[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.

Pubs do have the right to make choices, but I'm not comfortable with it. I hope many choose not to.

I must also query again, why should extra transmission from pubs matter? Again, the vaccine protects the NHS by its enormous reduction in severe cases. That's the idea, so the vaccine can return us to normal and we can live with it like flu and other infectious disease.

I'm not comparing covid to the flu itself. I'm comparing two aspects:

1. The shaming of people who have chosen not to have the vaccine (and yes there is a lot of shaming and silly anti-vaxxer comments, when most people who don't want it have had many other vaccines and are not anti-vax in general), when no such name calling has ever occurred for those who have not chosen to have the flu vaccine.

2. The actual government, scientists have repeatedly said we will "live with covid" like we live with flu eventually. That's their words, not mine.

We don't need to have 100% take up on the flu vaccine because we have a fair degree of herd immunity after living with it for 100 years. The flu vaccine is to address new variants, not the whole virus and therefore is only required in the 'vulnerable'. Plus flu isn't as transmissible even in the non-vaccinated population.

You were the one that mentioned pubs, I just carried that point on. My point is businesses in general, of which pubs fall into that group. It makes no sense to accept airlines having restrictions but not other businesses. And where has the shaming occurred? No one here from what I can see, I've said it is entirely up to the individual but they will need to take in the consequences of their decisions.

And I think the key word in your 2nd point is eventually. We both agree that we are still learning about this virus and need to take certain steps to get to that understanding, if part of that is holding back on introducing non-vaccinated people into the wider society so that eventually when each step is seen to be ok then that might be the course they set.

[baggiebuckster]

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.

Pubs do have the right to make choices, but I'm not comfortable with it. I hope many choose not to.

I must also query again, why should extra transmission from pubs matter? Again, the vaccine protects the NHS by its enormous reduction in severe cases. That's the idea, so the vaccine can return us to normal and we can live with it like flu and other infectious disease.

I'm not comparing covid to the flu itself. I'm comparing two aspects:

1. The shaming of people who have chosen not to have the vaccine (and yes there is a lot of shaming and silly anti-vaxxer comments, when most people who don't want it have had many other vaccines and are not anti-vax in general), when no such name calling has ever occurred for those who have not chosen to have the flu vaccine.

2. The actual government, scientists have repeatedly said we will "live with covid" like we live with flu eventually. That's their words, not mine.

We don't need to have 100% take up on the flu vaccine because we have a fair degree of herd immunity after living with it for 100 years. The flu vaccine is to address new variants, not the whole virus and therefore is only required in the 'vulnerable'. Plus flu isn't as transmissible even in the non-vaccinated population.

You were the one that mentioned pubs, I just carried that point on. My point is businesses in general, of which pubs fall into that group. It makes no sense to accept airlines having restrictions but not other businesses. And where has the shaming occurred? No one here from what I can see, I've said it is entirely up to the individual but they will need to take in the consequences of their decisions.

And I think the key word in your 2nd point is eventually. We both agree that we are still learning about this virus and need to take certain steps to get to that understanding, if part of that is holding back on introducing non-vaccinated people into the wider society so that eventually when each step is seen to be ok then that might be the course they set.

Will those same people not be allowed to go to work either?

[backsidebaggie]

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.

Pubs do have the right to make choices, but I'm not comfortable with it. I hope many choose not to.

I must also query again, why should extra transmission from pubs matter? Again, the vaccine protects the NHS by its enormous reduction in severe cases. That's the idea, so the vaccine can return us to normal and we can live with it like flu and other infectious disease.

I'm not comparing covid to the flu itself. I'm comparing two aspects:

1. The shaming of people who have chosen not to have the vaccine (and yes there is a lot of shaming and silly anti-vaxxer comments, when most people who don't want it have had many other vaccines and are not anti-vax in general), when no such name calling has ever occurred for those who have not chosen to have the flu vaccine.

2. The actual government, scientists have repeatedly said we will "live with covid" like we live with flu eventually. That's their words, not mine.

We don't need to have 100% take up on the flu vaccine because we have a fair degree of herd immunity after living with it for 100 years. The flu vaccine is to address new variants, not the whole virus and therefore is only required in the 'vulnerable'. Plus flu isn't as transmissible even in the non-vaccinated population.

You were the one that mentioned pubs, I just carried that point on. My point is businesses in general, of which pubs fall into that group. It makes no sense to accept airlines having restrictions but not other businesses. And where has the shaming occurred? No one here from what I can see, I've said it is entirely up to the individual but they will need to take in the consequences of their decisions.

And I think the key word in your 2nd point is eventually. We both agree that we are still learning about this virus and need to take certain steps to get to that understanding, if part of that is holding back on introducing non-vaccinated people into the wider society so that eventually when each step is seen to be ok then that might be the course they set.

Up until October only the over 50s and vulnerable were required to be vaccinated. Then the goalposts moved.

I mentioned pubs as that was today's story in the news. You talked about them needing to close if there was an outbreak, and I responded to that and said there was no need. You then moved to airlines.

But there is a huge difference to airlines. Most people fly once or twice a year therefore can take a test if they don't wish to have the vaccine. Expecting people to take a test for every pub visit is absurd - as then you'd have to do the same for a supermarket, post office, any shop, hairdresser, all sorts. They are totally different. What about work? Can people not go to work? To the chemist? If you don't believe in mandation, then coercion through making it impossible to operate without having the vaccine is just as bad. Its sinister.

Where has shaming occurred? Are you joking? I made it clear I wasn't talking about you btw. But to answer your question, on this forum, in the media, on social media, from politicians, from paid celebrities, just about everywhere. The stupid phrase being used "anti-vax" for those who don't want THIS vaccine, I have heard/read more times per day over the course of this year than I have previously in the rest of my life. Boris himself used it at the start of the campaign to get people vaccinated and has continued to. There is loads of shaming going on, and its going to get worse IMO. The instant assumption that people who don't want the vaccine are "idiots who get their info off facebook" is an example. The assumption is everywhere. The name anti-vax is stupid when most who don't want this vaccine are happy to have other long standing vaccines. If you haven't seen or heard any shaming, you're doing well to avoid it.

Holding back on introducing non-vaccinated people into wider society? No way, absolutely no way will I ever agree with that in the slightest. Why? Because a two tier society is not acceptable temporarily, nor permanently. The goalposts have already moved. If you think that would stay as temporary, I think you're being naive. The vaccines have worked. Its time to open up to everyone at the same time. This was the promise of the scientists and the government. If the goalposts keep moving, and we are looking at vaccine passes to operate in normal society, then I'm afraid some of the conspiracy theorists had a point. 12 months ago I read a lot of bollocks on social media about this happening. Surely, surely, that cannot be the case.

[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.

Pubs do have the right to make choices, but I'm not comfortable with it. I hope many choose not to.

I must also query again, why should extra transmission from pubs matter? Again, the vaccine protects the NHS by its enormous reduction in severe cases. That's the idea, so the vaccine can return us to normal and we can live with it like flu and other infectious disease.

I'm not comparing covid to the flu itself. I'm comparing two aspects:

1. The shaming of people who have chosen not to have the vaccine (and yes there is a lot of shaming and silly anti-vaxxer comments, when most people who don't want it have had many other vaccines and are not anti-vax in general), when no such name calling has ever occurred for those who have not chosen to have the flu vaccine.

2. The actual government, scientists have repeatedly said we will "live with covid" like we live with flu eventually. That's their words, not mine.

We don't need to have 100% take up on the flu vaccine because we have a fair degree of herd immunity after living with it for 100 years. The flu vaccine is to address new variants, not the whole virus and therefore is only required in the 'vulnerable'. Plus flu isn't as transmissible even in the non-vaccinated population.

You were the one that mentioned pubs, I just carried that point on. My point is businesses in general, of which pubs fall into that group. It makes no sense to accept airlines having restrictions but not other businesses. And where has the shaming occurred? No one here from what I can see, I've said it is entirely up to the individual but they will need to take in the consequences of their decisions.

And I think the key word in your 2nd point is eventually. We both agree that we are still learning about this virus and need to take certain steps to get to that understanding, if part of that is holding back on introducing non-vaccinated people into the wider society so that eventually when each step is seen to be ok then that might be the course they set.

Will those same people not be allowed to go to work either?

I would imagine it depends on the individual circumstances. If they can work from home that is something they can build into their decision, if they work in the care community then I would expect restrictions on that. Businesses will be very aware of potential law suits against them if they allow covid into a premises (work or otherwise) without controls or mitigation and someone suffers or even dies because of that decision. Businesses will have to make decisions in the same way that the individual is making their decisions.

[backsidebaggie]

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.

Pubs do have the right to make choices, but I'm not comfortable with it. I hope many choose not to.

I must also query again, why should extra transmission from pubs matter? Again, the vaccine protects the NHS by its enormous reduction in severe cases. That's the idea, so the vaccine can return us to normal and we can live with it like flu and other infectious disease.

I'm not comparing covid to the flu itself. I'm comparing two aspects:

1. The shaming of people who have chosen not to have the vaccine (and yes there is a lot of shaming and silly anti-vaxxer comments, when most people who don't want it have had many other vaccines and are not anti-vax in general), when no such name calling has ever occurred for those who have not chosen to have the flu vaccine.

2. The actual government, scientists have repeatedly said we will "live with covid" like we live with flu eventually. That's their words, not mine.

We don't need to have 100% take up on the flu vaccine because we have a fair degree of herd immunity after living with it for 100 years. The flu vaccine is to address new variants, not the whole virus and therefore is only required in the 'vulnerable'. Plus flu isn't as transmissible even in the non-vaccinated population.

You were the one that mentioned pubs, I just carried that point on. My point is businesses in general, of which pubs fall into that group. It makes no sense to accept airlines having restrictions but not other businesses. And where has the shaming occurred? No one here from what I can see, I've said it is entirely up to the individual but they will need to take in the consequences of their decisions.

And I think the key word in your 2nd point is eventually. We both agree that we are still learning about this virus and need to take certain steps to get to that understanding, if part of that is holding back on introducing non-vaccinated people into the wider society so that eventually when each step is seen to be ok then that might be the course they set.

Will those same people not be allowed to go to work either?

I would imagine it depends on the individual circumstances. If they can work from home that is something they can build into their decision, if they work in the care community then I would expect restrictions on that. Businesses will be very aware of potential law suits against them if they allow covid into a premises (work or otherwise) without controls or mitigation and someone suffers or even dies because of that decision. Businesses will have to make decisions in the same way that the individual is making their decisions.

Law suits if they allow covid into the premises? Since when has there been law suits about catching an infectious disease that can kill you? The mitigation is that the vulnerable and over 50s have been vaccinated. Then life goes back to normal - where infectious disease is a part of life. What about the supermarket? Shops? Cinema? Law suits? We are literally going down restructuring the entire world and social and working practice over an infectious disease if we go down that line. Its ridiculous. Do you think an old granny's family could take legal action against tesco if she caught influenza shopping and died? Do you think some of the vulnerable people where I work could take legal action if they caught flu and died? Its infectious disease. Its life.

[baggy1]

Up until October only the over 50s and vulnerable were required to be vaccinated. Then the goalposts moved.

I mentioned pubs as that was today's story in the news. You talked about them needing to close if there was an outbreak, and I responded to that and said there was no need. You then moved to airlines.

But there is a huge difference to airlines. Most people fly once or twice a year therefore can take a test if they don't wish to have the vaccine. Expecting people to take a test for every pub visit is absurd - as then you'd have to do the same for a supermarket, post office, any shop, hairdresser, all sorts. They are totally different. What about work? Can people not go to work? To the chemist? If you don't believe in mandation, then coercion through making it impossible to operate without having the vaccine is just as bad. Its sinister.

Where has shaming occurred? Are you joking? I made it clear I wasn't talking about you btw. But to answer your question, on this forum, in the media, on social media, from politicians, from paid celebrities, just about everywhere. The stupid phrase being used "anti-vax" for those who don't want THIS vaccine, I have heard/read more times per day over the course of this year than I have previously in the rest of my life. Boris himself used it at the start of the campaign to get people vaccinated and has continued to. There is loads of shaming going on, and its going to get worse IMO. The instant assumption that people who don't want the vaccine are "idiots who get their info off facebook" is an example. The assumption is everywhere. The name anti-vax is stupid when most who don't want this vaccine are happy to have other long standing vaccines. If you haven't seen or heard any shaming, you're doing well to avoid it.

Holding back on introducing non-vaccinated people into wider society? No way, absolutely no way will I ever agree with that in the slightest. Why? Because a two tier society is not acceptable temporarily, nor permanently. The goalposts have already moved. If you think that would stay as temporary, I think you're being naive. The vaccines have worked. Its time to open up to everyone at the same time. This was the promise of the scientists and the government. If the goalposts keep moving, and we are looking at vaccine passes to operate in normal society, then I'm afraid some of the conspiracy theorists had a point. 12 months ago I read a lot of bollocks on social media about this happening. Surely, surely, that cannot be the case.

I don't think it's helpful to call me naive, it would be the same as me accusing you of over-reacting and being alarmist. Having come of twitter a couple of months ago I find it much easier to sleep at night if that helps.

The goalposts may have moved since October but it is very clear we have had a very big learning event since that point as well with the spike in the interim, so I am confused why you think they haven't had to rethink their ideas based on lessons learned.

You also talk about shaming, will you be taking the same approach of allowing people to make their own decisions on whether they allow non-vaccinated individuals into their premises or not. I expect there will be an explosion of shaming and boycotting premises if they make that decision which seems a bit hypocritical. 

My stance is simple, allow individuals to make their own decision as to whether or not to have the vaccine and allow businesses to make the decision as to whether or not they will allow this individuals into their premises.

---

Pubs do have the right to make choices, but I'm not comfortable with it. I hope many choose not to.

I must also query again, why should extra transmission from pubs matter? Again, the vaccine protects the NHS by its enormous reduction in severe cases. That's the idea, so the vaccine can return us to normal and we can live with it like flu and other infectious disease.

I'm not comparing covid to the flu itself. I'm comparing two aspects:

1. The shaming of people who have chosen not to have the vaccine (and yes there is a lot of shaming and silly anti-vaxxer comments, when most people who don't want it have had many other vaccines and are not anti-vax in general), when no such name calling has ever occurred for those who have not chosen to have the flu vaccine.

2. The actual government, scientists have repeatedly said we will "live with covid" like we live with flu eventually. That's their words, not mine.

We don't need to have 100% take up on the flu vaccine because we have a fair degree of herd immunity after living with it for 100 years. The flu vaccine is to address new variants, not the whole virus and therefore is only required in the 'vulnerable'. Plus flu isn't as transmissible even in the non-vaccinated population.

You were the one that mentioned pubs, I just carried that point on. My point is businesses in general, of which pubs fall into that group. It makes no sense to accept airlines having restrictions but not other businesses. And where has the shaming occurred? No one here from what I can see, I've said it is entirely up to the individual but they will need to take in the consequences of their decisions.

And I think the key word in your 2nd point is eventually. We both agree that we are still learning about this virus and need to take certain steps to get to that understanding, if part of that is holding back on introducing non-vaccinated people into the wider society so that eventually when each step is seen to be ok then that might be the course they set.

Will those same people not be allowed to go to work either?

I would imagine it depends on the individual circumstances. If they can work from home that is something they can build into their decision, if they work in the care community then I would expect restrictions on that. Businesses will be very aware of potential law suits against them if they allow covid into a premises (work or otherwise) without controls or mitigation and someone suffers or even dies because of that decision. Businesses will have to make decisions in the same way that the individual is making their decisions.

Law suits if they allow covid into the premises? Since when has there been law suits about catching an infectious disease that can kill you? The mitigation is that the vulnerable and over 50s have been vaccinated. Then life goes back to normal - where infectious disease is a part of life. What about the supermarket? Shops? Cinema? Law suits? We are literally going down restructuring the entire world and social and working practice over an infectious disease if we go down that line. Its ridiculous. Do you think an old granny's family could take legal action against tesco if she caught influenza shopping and died? Do you think some of the vulnerable people where I work could take legal action if they caught flu and died? Its infectious disease. Its life.

If you have someone that works in an enclose area for a large period of time (8 hours) and they catch covid and subsequently die, I would expect people to look at the mitigations that the business has put in place in the same way that we have H&S laws in place. If they haven't got mitigations and haven't evaluated the risks involved then they could face law suits, that is the real world nowadays I'm afraid, the employer / business has to show a duty of care.

[backsidebaggie]

Up until October only the over 50s and vulnerable were required to be vaccinated. Then the goalposts moved.

I mentioned pubs as that was today's story in the news. You talked about them needing to close if there was an outbreak, and I responded to that and said there was no need. You then moved to airlines.

But there is a huge difference to airlines. Most people fly once or twice a year therefore can take a test if they don't wish to have the vaccine. Expecting people to take a test for every pub visit is absurd - as then you'd have to do the same for a supermarket, post office, any shop, hairdresser, all sorts. They are totally different. What about work? Can people not go to work? To the chemist? If you don't believe in mandation, then coercion through making it impossible to operate without having the vaccine is just as bad. Its sinister.

Where has shaming occurred? Are you joking? I made it clear I wasn't talking about you btw. But to answer your question, on this forum, in the media, on social media, from politicians, from paid celebrities, just about everywhere. The stupid phrase being used "anti-vax" for those who don't want THIS vaccine, I have heard/read more times per day over the course of this year than I have previously in the rest of my life. Boris himself used it at the start of the campaign to get people vaccinated and has continued to. There is loads of shaming going on, and its going to get worse IMO. The instant assumption that people who don't want the vaccine are "idiots who get their info off facebook" is an example. The assumption is everywhere. The name anti-vax is stupid when most who don't want this vaccine are happy to have other long standing vaccines. If you haven't seen or heard any shaming, you're doing well to avoid it.

Holding back on introducing non-vaccinated people into wider society? No way, absolutely no way will I ever agree with that in the slightest. Why? Because a two tier society is not acceptable temporarily, nor permanently. The goalposts have already moved. If you think that would stay as temporary, I think you're being naive. The vaccines have worked. Its time to open up to everyone at the same time. This was the promise of the scientists and the government. If the goalposts keep moving, and we are looking at vaccine passes to operate in normal society, then I'm afraid some of the conspiracy theorists had a point. 12 months ago I read a lot of bollocks on social media about this happening. Surely, surely, that cannot be the case.

I don't think it's helpful to call me naive, it would be the same as me accusing you of over-reacting and being alarmist. Having come of twitter a couple of months ago I find it much easier to sleep at night if that helps.

The goalposts may have moved since October but it is very clear we have had a very big learning event since that point as well with the spike in the interim, so I am confused why you think they haven't had to rethink their ideas based on lessons learned.

You also talk about shaming, will you be taking the same approach of allowing people to make their own decisions on whether they allow non-vaccinated individuals into their premises or not. I expect there will be an explosion of shaming and boycotting premises if they make that decision which seems a bit hypocritical. 

My stance is simple, allow individuals to make their own decision as to whether or not to have the vaccine and allow businesses to make the decision as to whether or not they will allow this individuals into their premises.

I don't mean the naive comment in a bad way, apologies for that. But the goalposts have moved, and it would not be temporary IMO. I think we've lived enough to know how many "temporary" things stick, that's what I meant. But its not acceptable for a two tier society temporarily or permanently.

I don't think it should be legal. It is illegal to stop people coming into premises for race/gender/disability, and rightfully so. I know you have no choice over those things, whereas the vaccine is a choice, but medical autonomy is not medical autonomy if you are excluded from places. Its is coercion. I don't see how its acceptable to stop people coming in due to their choice of what they put into their body. That is clear coercion if its stops them enjoying the same rights as other people, and I believe it would be found to be the nuremberg code and human rights. It is as bad as mandation IMO. Particularly as their premises could still get a covid outbreak even if everyone was vaccinated! Its actually farcical IMO.

And if you say what about protecting those who are in the premises, that's just as important - well I would point to the fact they can have the vaccine for a start (99% protection!), and also point towards the fact this has never been done for any other infectious disease in the history of mankind. I have an old relative who would die if she caught flu, guaranteed, she's very old and frail and weak. No one else should have to be vaccinated in order to protect her. Its never even been considered. She protects herself by having the vaccine. That's how society has always worked. If she gets unlucky, she gets unlucky. Infectious disease is part of life. It is coercion to not allow people in to places, and it would create a two tier society. The trouble it will cause is enormous IMO.

---

Up until October only the over 50s and vulnerable were required to be vaccinated. Then the goalposts moved.

I mentioned pubs as that was today's story in the news. You talked about them needing to close if there was an outbreak, and I responded to that and said there was no need. You then moved to airlines.

But there is a huge difference to airlines. Most people fly once or twice a year therefore can take a test if they don't wish to have the vaccine. Expecting people to take a test for every pub visit is absurd - as then you'd have to do the same for a supermarket, post office, any shop, hairdresser, all sorts. They are totally different. What about work? Can people not go to work? To the chemist? If you don't believe in mandation, then coercion through making it impossible to operate without having the vaccine is just as bad. Its sinister.

Where has shaming occurred? Are you joking? I made it clear I wasn't talking about you btw. But to answer your question, on this forum, in the media, on social media, from politicians, from paid celebrities, just about everywhere. The stupid phrase being used "anti-vax" for those who don't want THIS vaccine, I have heard/read more times per day over the course of this year than I have previously in the rest of my life. Boris himself used it at the start of the campaign to get people vaccinated and has continued to. There is loads of shaming going on, and its going to get worse IMO. The instant assumption that people who don't want the vaccine are "idiots who get their info off facebook" is an example. The assumption is everywhere. The name anti-vax is stupid when most who don't want this vaccine are happy to have other long standing vaccines. If you haven't seen or heard any shaming, you're doing well to avoid it.

Holding back on introducing non-vaccinated people into wider society? No way, absolutely no way will I ever agree with that in the slightest. Why? Because a two tier society is not acceptable temporarily, nor permanently. The goalposts have already moved. If you think that would stay as temporary, I think you're being naive. The vaccines have worked. Its time to open up to everyone at the same time. This was the promise of the scientists and the government. If the goalposts keep moving, and we are looking at vaccine passes to operate in normal society, then I'm afraid some of the conspiracy theorists had a point. 12 months ago I read a lot of bollocks on social media about this happening. Surely, surely, that cannot be the case.

I don't think it's helpful to call me naive, it would be the same as me accusing you of over-reacting and being alarmist. Having come of twitter a couple of months ago I find it much easier to sleep at night if that helps.

The goalposts may have moved since October but it is very clear we have had a very big learning event since that point as well with the spike in the interim, so I am confused why you think they haven't had to rethink their ideas based on lessons learned.

You also talk about shaming, will you be taking the same approach of allowing people to make their own decisions on whether they allow non-vaccinated individuals into their premises or not. I expect there will be an explosion of shaming and boycotting premises if they make that decision which seems a bit hypocritical. 

My stance is simple, allow individuals to make their own decision as to whether or not to have the vaccine and allow businesses to make the decision as to whether or not they will allow this individuals into their premises.

---

We don't need to have 100% take up on the flu vaccine because we have a fair degree of herd immunity after living with it for 100 years. The flu vaccine is to address new variants, not the whole virus and therefore is only required in the 'vulnerable'. Plus flu isn't as transmissible even in the non-vaccinated population.

You were the one that mentioned pubs, I just carried that point on. My point is businesses in general, of which pubs fall into that group. It makes no sense to accept airlines having restrictions but not other businesses. And where has the shaming occurred? No one here from what I can see, I've said it is entirely up to the individual but they will need to take in the consequences of their decisions.

And I think the key word in your 2nd point is eventually. We both agree that we are still learning about this virus and need to take certain steps to get to that understanding, if part of that is holding back on introducing non-vaccinated people into the wider society so that eventually when each step is seen to be ok then that might be the course they set.

Will those same people not be allowed to go to work either?

I would imagine it depends on the individual circumstances. If they can work from home that is something they can build into their decision, if they work in the care community then I would expect restrictions on that. Businesses will be very aware of potential law suits against them if they allow covid into a premises (work or otherwise) without controls or mitigation and someone suffers or even dies because of that decision. Businesses will have to make decisions in the same way that the individual is making their decisions.

Law suits if they allow covid into the premises? Since when has there been law suits about catching an infectious disease that can kill you? The mitigation is that the vulnerable and over 50s have been vaccinated. Then life goes back to normal - where infectious disease is a part of life. What about the supermarket? Shops? Cinema? Law suits? We are literally going down restructuring the entire world and social and working practice over an infectious disease if we go down that line. Its ridiculous. Do you think an old granny's family could take legal action against tesco if she caught influenza shopping and died? Do you think some of the vulnerable people where I work could take legal action if they caught flu and died? Its infectious disease. Its life.

If you have someone that works in an enclose area for a large period of time (8 hours) and they catch covid and subsequently die, I would expect people to look at the mitigations that the business has put in place in the same way that we have H&S laws in place. If they haven't got mitigations and haven't evaluated the risks involved then they could face law suits, that is the real world nowadays I'm afraid, the employer / business has to show a duty of care.

A duty of care cannot include breathing air, that is absurd. Hence its not part of H&S and never has been. I'm not aware of a lawsuit for death from catching an infectious airborn disease passed between people. Its part of life. The duty of care is keeping things reasonably clean. Same as shops, cinemas etc.

[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.

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.

Sliced, I bow to your superior knowledge - and I'm not being sarcastic.  The BMJ article was simply the one I found when I looked up asymptomatic/viral load. The danger of a little learning - on my part.  I do understand that viral load is a major factor, if not the major factor in mortality, so the reduction in hospital numbers must suggest that better treatments, lower viral loads among those infected, and the result of improved protection of the elderly/vaccinations are in effect.

I did say 1-5 was pretty good odds and only wished to point out that there will always be asymptomatic carriers who are infectious, while acknowledging that it is the clearly symptomatic carriers who are the major ongoing risk. I remember when everyone was going bonkers - or at least one or two on here - about the long term effects of Covid that it seemed to me the govt. strategy was to hang on hopefully until vaccines were available, and that seems to have happened.

Long term it would seem to make sense to vaccinate as many as possible and while I acknowledge people's right not to be vaccinated there is clearly a balance to be struck between the protection of society a a whole and the right of the individual.  I'm not convinced it's sinister - I wish I could believe this govt. could be sinister rather than just incompetent - but more a case of Boris & Co. not wanting to carry the can if the shit hits the fan and we get a major outbreak/s again this year.

[baggy1]

I do think that a lot of this will be moot anyway, by the time that we get to offering the vaccination to the whole adult population we will find a take up of well over 90% and that in itself will negate the need for any vaccine passports. I also think that the government need to put this proposal out there because without it there will be a lower uptake, not because people have an issue with vaccination but because they can't be arsed to get up and have one - give a potential scenario that they can't get to the costa del sol, or into the pub and they will be straight down the black country museum with their sleeves rolled up.