Covid Vaccination ID

[backsidebaggie]

And as long as you give them the bigger picture that by them having the vaccine it will reduce the spread and protect their wider community that is fine because you thengiving them the full picture. Also it’s probably pointing them in the direction of cases in other parts of the world that are showing a higher risk to the younger population than we have experienced in the UK so far.

It really isn’t as simple as “it’s a small risk to them” it’s also as far as we know at this point.

I ain't giving anyone any picture in my day to day life, people are grown adults and they can make their own mind up. Its really none of my business what they do.

It actually surprises me how many people I know tell me they've had it when I'd never think of asking, or that they're not getting it, funnily enough. Their medical choices are none of my business. But that's neither here nor there.

[baggy1]

What you are saying is exactly what Boris was saying last March, “it’s a small risk and we’ll be ok”. If you knew at the time what you know now you would have been shouting from the rooftops, don’t make the same mistake as Boris did last year and underestimate this.

---

And in fairness I’m not entrenched but I do see the warning signs. You might be right but I’d rather urge caution and as many vaccinated as possible because this isn’t something worth playing with.

No I’m not! I’m saying to a young healthy individual, who has to make the choice on whether he/she has the vaccine, covid is a small risk TO THEM. The data fully supports that. And I’m not underestimating anything, I’m saying some will simply rather not have the vaccine. 

The division is going to get poisonous. I’m convinced. And I’ve already decided not to become part of that. Each to their own with the vaccine. Thems my onions.

And as long as you give them the bigger picture that by them having the vaccine it will reduce the spread and protect their wider community that is fine because you thengiving them the full picture. Also it’s probably pointing them in the direction of cases in other parts of the world that are showing a higher risk to the younger population than we have experienced in the UK so far.

It really isn’t as simple as “it’s a small risk to them” it’s also as far as we know at this point.

I ain't giving anyone any picture in my day to day life, people are grown adults and they can make their own mind up. Its really none of my business what they do.

It actually surprises me how many people I know tell me they've had it when I'd never think of asking, or that they're not getting it, funnily enough. Their medical choices are none of my business. But that's neither here nor there.

But from the post above you are happy to tell them about how small the risk is to them, surely that is none of your business to tell them that in the first place. I'm just suggesting that if you are happy to advise them of one side, it would be better to give them both.

[backsidebaggie]

What you are saying is exactly what Boris was saying last March, “it’s a small risk and we’ll be ok”. If you knew at the time what you know now you would have been shouting from the rooftops, don’t make the same mistake as Boris did last year and underestimate this.

---

And in fairness I’m not entrenched but I do see the warning signs. You might be right but I’d rather urge caution and as many vaccinated as possible because this isn’t something worth playing with.

No I’m not! I’m saying to a young healthy individual, who has to make the choice on whether he/she has the vaccine, covid is a small risk TO THEM. The data fully supports that. And I’m not underestimating anything, I’m saying some will simply rather not have the vaccine. 

The division is going to get poisonous. I’m convinced. And I’ve already decided not to become part of that. Each to their own with the vaccine. Thems my onions.

And as long as you give them the bigger picture that by them having the vaccine it will reduce the spread and protect their wider community that is fine because you thengiving them the full picture. Also it’s probably pointing them in the direction of cases in other parts of the world that are showing a higher risk to the younger population than we have experienced in the UK so far.

It really isn’t as simple as “it’s a small risk to them” it’s also as far as we know at this point.

I ain't giving anyone any picture in my day to day life, people are grown adults and they can make their own mind up. Its really none of my business what they do.

It actually surprises me how many people I know tell me they've had it when I'd never think of asking, or that they're not getting it, funnily enough. Their medical choices are none of my business. But that's neither here nor there.

But from the post above you are happy to tell them about how small the risk is to them, surely that is none of your business to tell them that in the first place. I'm just suggesting that if you are happy to advise them of one side, it would be better to give them both.

No!! I’m telling you that that is what some have told me is part of their reasoning! (And looking at the U.K. data, they are right about the chances of death in healthy under 45s). I’ve not asked anyone, and I’ve not advised anyone what to do. It’s none of my business and I’m not going to pressure, or advise, or suggest anyone does anything. They can make their own mind up.

My phrase “I’m saying” was meant as ”this is my point”... that a young individual etc etc. Not “I’m saying to a young individual”. Perhaps I missed a comma out!

[baggy1]

Fair enough, we need Hudds to run a punctuation seminar for all of us at times

[Sliced]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56750460

Buried at the bottom of the BBC page: "Covid: 82% of positive rapid tests 'were correct' - BBC News"

Framed as if this is really good by the BBC, but it means that out of 16,000 positive tests of children over 3,000 were actually negative, almost 1 in 5. As the prevalence of COVID decreases this proportion of false positives will be higher.

As I said before, this is exactly why mass testing just won't work.

Symptomatic testing? Absolutely, makes perfect sense. Mass testing? definitely not

[backsidebaggie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56750460

Buried at the bottom of the BBC page: "Covid: 82% of positive rapid tests 'were correct' - BBC News"

Framed as if this is really good by the BBC, but it means that out of 16,000 positive tests of children over 3,000 were actually negative, almost 1 in 5. As the prevalence of COVID decreases this proportion of false positives will be higher.

As I said before, this is exactly why mass testing just won't work.

Symptomatic testing? Absolutely, makes perfect sense. Mass testing? definitely not

Totally agree Slice.

[Brentbaggie]

What about the mass testing as a result of the South African variant surfacing in south London? Do you think that this may be a good idea? I'm not being prescriptive, I merely ask whether in that particular situation it makes sense to mass test to try and determine how widespread this particular variant has become before it gets much worse?

[backsidebaggie]

What about the mass testing as a result of the South African variant surfacing in south London?  Do you think that this may be a good idea?  I'm not being prescriptive, I merely ask whether in that particular situation it makes sense to mass test to try and determine how widespread this particular variant has become before it gets much worse?

Yes focussed in an area for a specific variant is a different thing, I'd agree.

Schools is bonkers though.

[Sliced]

What about the mass testing as a result of the South African variant surfacing in south London?  Do you think that this may be a good idea?  I'm not being prescriptive, I merely ask whether in that particular situation it makes sense to mass test to try and determine how widespread this particular variant has become before it gets much worse?

I think it's very difficult to know. If we're testing for a specific new variant then there's a possibility that the accuracy of tests will be lower due to the rate at which these tests have been developed.

It depends on the resources but if we could mass test an area using a rapid test and then retest the positives with a more rigorous method (assuming there are not too many) then I don't see a problem with this approach. We'd at least get more accurate results.

A countrywide testing program though is monumentally flawed

I guess the argument on the flip side is that if your main goal is to find everyone with a new variant, mass testing will pretty much do this, however it will also find quite a few that don't have it.

[Borin' Baggie]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56750460

Buried at the bottom of the BBC page: "Covid: 82% of positive rapid tests 'were correct' - BBC News"

Framed as if this is really good by the BBC, but it means that out of 16,000 positive tests of children over 3,000 were actually negative, almost 1 in 5. As the prevalence of COVID decreases this proportion of false positives will be higher.

As I said before, this is exactly why mass testing just won't work.

Symptomatic testing? Absolutely, makes perfect sense. Mass testing? definitely not

Also ignores the issue of false negatives.