UK Covid death toll

[backsidebaggie]

Its simple for me the nhs has looked after me for more years than i care to remember  in the past if they told me to take a prescriptiion  i took it if they told me to be vaccinated i did so and i am still hear
they told me i should get a covid jab so i did 
why would we argue with the nhs  I trust the nhs

Cuz they dun their research… 

Translation they have read bullshit on Twitter and Facebook and watched YouTube ‘experts’.

And DH throws in the usual label that people who have made a different decision are idiots who made their decision based on YouTube. Jesus Christ, pathetic. You are completely enveloped in the divide I have talked about by presuming millions of people have made a decision based on YouTube and are idiots, when that is simply not the case. But you love grouping and stereotyping, you revel in such division and I’m sure whatever anyone’s opinion on this, most posters realise that such a generalisation is immature, inaccurate and divisive.

Have you read the summary from the Doctors on the front line I posted from the Metro? It goes some way to dispelling nonsense that they don’t care if people haven’t had the vaccine and that it doesn’t effect younger non vaccinated people. I don’t care what mental gymnastics those who refuse to have the jab take. It’s an irresponsible position with no basis in science or logic. I’ve given up with the niceties. How much more education and understanding do they need to see having the vaccine helps not only them but others?

Yes I have read it.

Now, have you read the official figures on vaccinated and unvaccinated in ICU? I dare you. Go on. Check them. See if they match that doctor's personal experience of "virtually all" are unvaccinated. But you don't want to see the official figures, you prefer anecdotal evidence from one doctor in an ICU. The fact is there are many vaccinated in ICU. Check it. Look up the official figures. Now, the statistics DO indicate that the vaccine definitely reduces the chances of being in ICU. I would agree that far. I am not anti vax, I am not anti covid vax. I can just see from the official figures, the science, that there is a low risk to a young person getting covid. Not "no risk", but a low risk. And I can see from the official statistics that the vaccine does definitely reduce the chances of a serious illness. But when a young person has such a low risk from covid anyway, and you're reducing a tiny chance to an even tinier chance, that's what many young people are weighing up. Surely you're bright enough to understand that? But that's not even my point. My point is that bodily autonomy, and your immature post regarding that, is a way bigger picture than the one you presented from on doctor's experience in an ICU.

No one said it "doesn't affect younger people". That's a total lie, a silly exaggeration by yourself as usual. NO ONE has said that. But the official figures show that its only a very small percentage of younger people who get in a bad way. That's a fact. Look up the figures if you can be bothered to actually look at the evidence. The scientific evidence. Look it up. I'm not saying that means they should not take the vaccine, as it clearly does have a benefit as I have described above, but that's up to each individual.

You say you don't care what "mental gymnastics" people use. Well guess what, they don't care what you think. You say its irresponsible. I don't agree, its none of my business what anyone does with their body.

There is a basis in science and logic not to have it for young people. You may not agree, I may not agree, but the fact is the numbers of young people who die or end up in serious condition is very small. Those who have already had covid and have natural immunity have even less chance of ending up in big trouble. There IS science and logic indicating that its reasonable for young people not to have it. The JVCI didn't even recommend 12-15 year olds having it (it was a close call). Do you think they did not use "science and logic"? That's the JCVI. Scientists. You are as usual completing ignoring nuance and the fact it isn't black and white. Well the JCVI wouldn't agree with you for a 15 year old, so do you think they are thick and getting their information off youtube? Do you think the JCVI are anti science? Do you think they are thick? No, they make their recommendations by weighing up a number of factors, both scientific and otherwise, by analysing these and realising this isn't black and white. So by your logic, they're thick. My god do you know how silly you sound?

You never did do niceties to give them up. You've become fully enveloped into the divide that has been created, as you are showing by your "all or nothing" posts, calling people idiots and stupid and presuming they have made a decision based on youtube. You DH, are unfortunately showing a complete lack of critical thought and nuance.

So, how much more education do YOU need to understand that this is not black and white, young people are at a small risk from covid (I did not say "no risk"), and it is a reasonable decision for THEM to make regarding their own bodies (whether you or I agree or not), and even the JCVI could not recommend it for a 15 year old on a cost benefit analysis, which is in itself scientific and logical evidence that this is not black and white. How much more education do you need to understand there is also a wider implication relating to bodily autonomy in addition to this one vaccine? The more you say about this, the more you show a complete lack of critical thought regarding different situations, different statistics for different age groups, and then as usual, you decide everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, and you start calling them thick.

The funny thing is there are a small proportion who do indeed see something on youtube and make their decision from there. A small proportion. They fail to look at any other evidence, and they take a stance that is based on one or two anecdotes. You are literally, exactly like them, but on the other side of the debate, yet you don't see it. Its the same with brexit. You label and stereotype and call people flag shaggers and idiots and infer they are racists. You generalise. You do exactly what you say you dislike about them. You are so similar to the bigots you hate, but on the other side of the coin. I'm a remainer, but I'm not divisive or immature enough to think 17M people are flag shaggers and racists and thick etc. But you revel in the division. Its embarrasing. You're riddled with anger and hate and division.

I digress. Seriously, grow up and debate like an adult, and stop the divisiveness. I disagree with a lot of what Baggy1 says on here, but he responds in detail to my points, and I do the same with him (I only questioned him yesterday when he labelled a couple of things tin foil which was not true). But 99% of the time Baggy1 debates with me like an adult, despite our disagreements. Take a leaf out of his book, despite the fact I disagree with him, he uses critical thought, accept nuance, responds to specific points and leaves out the divisiveness and hate. You're simply showing post after post how immature you are and that you're unable to consider wider implications, a number of factors, and then you resort to calling people thick. You're making a fool of yourself.

[Derek Hardballs]

Its simple for me the nhs has looked after me for more years than i care to remember  in the past if they told me to take a prescriptiion  i took it if they told me to be vaccinated i did so and i am still hear
they told me i should get a covid jab so i did 
why would we argue with the nhs  I trust the nhs

Cuz they dun their research… 

Translation they have read bullshit on Twitter and Facebook and watched YouTube ‘experts’.

And DH throws in the usual label that people who have made a different decision are idiots who made their decision based on YouTube. Jesus Christ, pathetic. You are completely enveloped in the divide I have talked about by presuming millions of people have made a decision based on YouTube and are idiots, when that is simply not the case. But you love grouping and stereotyping, you revel in such division and I’m sure whatever anyone’s opinion on this, most posters realise that such a generalisation is immature, inaccurate and divisive.

Have you read the summary from the Doctors on the front line I posted from the Metro? It goes some way to dispelling nonsense that they don’t care if people haven’t had the vaccine and that it doesn’t effect younger non vaccinated people. I don’t care what mental gymnastics those who refuse to have the jab take. It’s an irresponsible position with no basis in science or logic. I’ve given up with the niceties. How much more education and understanding do they need to see having the vaccine helps not only them but others?

Yes I have read it.

Now, have you read the official figures on vaccinated and unvaccinated in ICU? I dare you. Go on. Check them. See if they match that doctor's personal experience of "virtually all" are unvaccinated. But you don't want to see the official figures, you prefer anecdotal evidence from one doctor in an ICU. The fact is there are many vaccinated in ICU. Check it. Look up the official figures. Now, the statistics DO indicate that the vaccine definitely reduces the chances of being in ICU. I would agree that far. I am not anti vax, I am not anti covid vax. I can just see from the official figures, the science, that there is a low risk to a young person getting covid. Not "no risk", but a low risk. And I can see from the official statistics that the vaccine does definitely reduce the chances of a serious illness. But when a young person has such a low risk from covid anyway, and you're reducing a tiny chance to an even tinier chance, that's what many young people are weighing up. Surely you're bright enough to understand that? But that's not even my point. My point is that bodily autonomy, and your immature post regarding that, is a way bigger picture than the one you presented from on doctor's experience in an ICU.

No one said it "doesn't affect younger people". That's a total lie, a silly exaggeration by yourself as usual. NO ONE has said that. But the official figures show that its only a very small percentage of younger people who get in a bad way. That's a fact. Look up the figures if you can be bothered to actually look at the evidence. The scientific evidence. Look it up. I'm not saying that means they should not take the vaccine, as it clearly does have a benefit as I have described above, but that's up to each individual.

You say you don't care what "mental gymnastics" people use. Well guess what, they don't care what you think. You say its irresponsible. I don't agree, its none of my business what anyone does with their body.

There is a basis in science and logic not to have it for young people. You may not agree, I may not agree, but the fact is the numbers of young people who die or end up in serious condition is very small. Those who have already had covid and have natural immunity have even less chance of ending up in big trouble. There IS science and logic indicating that its reasonable for young people not to have it. The JVCI didn't even recommend 12-15 year olds having it (it was a close call). Do you think they did not use "science and logic"? That's the JCVI. Scientists. You are as usual completing ignoring nuance and the fact it isn't black and white. Well the JCVI wouldn't agree with you for a 15 year old, so do you think they are thick and getting their information off youtube?

You never did do niceties to give them up. You've become fully enveloped into the divide that has been created, as you are showing by your "all or nothing" posts, calling people idiots and stupid and presuming they have made a decision based on youtube. You DH, are unfortunately showing a complete lack of critical thought and nuance.

So, how much more education do YOU need to understand that this is not black and white, young people are at a small risk from covid (I did not say "no risk"), and it is a reasonable decision for THEM to make regarding their own bodies (whether you or I agree or not), and even the JCVI could not recommend it for a 15 year old on a cost benefit analysis, which is in itself scientific and logical evidence that this is not black and white. How much more education do you need to understand there is also a wider implication relating to bodily autonomy in addition to this one vaccine? The more you say about this, the more you show a complete lack of critical thought regarding different situations, different statistics for different age groups, and then as usual, you decide everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, and you start calling them thick.

The funny thing is there are a small proportion who do indeed see something on youtube and make their decision from there. A small proportion. They fail to look at any other evidence, and they take a stance that is based on one or two anecdotes. You are literally, exactly like them, but on the other side of the debate, yet you don't see it. Its the same with brexit. You label and stereotype and call people flag shaggers and idiots and infer they are racists. You generalise. You do exactly what you say you dislike about them. You are so similar to the bigots you hate, but on the other side of the coin. I'm a remainer, but I'm not divisive or immature enough to think 17M people are flag shaggers and racists and thick etc. But you revel in the division. Its embarrasing. You're riddled with anger and hate and division.

I digress. Seriously, grow up and debate like an adult, and stop the divisiveness. You're simply showing post after post how immature you are and that you're unable to consider wider implications, a number of factors, and then you resort to calling people thick. You're making a fool of yourself.

I have debated with you politely on numerous occasions and put forward erudite arguments on this subjects. You seem completely oblivious to your own bias where you skew the arguments towards the rights of those who refuse the vaccines. You will defend them to the hilt whilst dismissing the rights of those who are put at greater risk by their lack of thought for others who are more vulnerable than them. Any measure to keep others safe other than hoping someone takes a lateral flow test and tells the truth about the result is dismissed with a growing sense of conspiracy. Take a look at the debates we have had and see who starts the personal jibes because you don't like someone else who has an equal and opposite opinion to yours. You are no more nuanced in your argument than I am. The only difference is one of us knows they aren't and the other thinks they are putting up a balanced well thought out argument.

[backsidebaggie]

Cuz they dun their research… 

Translation they have read bullshit on Twitter and Facebook and watched YouTube ‘experts’.

And DH throws in the usual label that people who have made a different decision are idiots who made their decision based on YouTube. Jesus Christ, pathetic. You are completely enveloped in the divide I have talked about by presuming millions of people have made a decision based on YouTube and are idiots, when that is simply not the case. But you love grouping and stereotyping, you revel in such division and I’m sure whatever anyone’s opinion on this, most posters realise that such a generalisation is immature, inaccurate and divisive.

Have you read the summary from the Doctors on the front line I posted from the Metro? It goes some way to dispelling nonsense that they don’t care if people haven’t had the vaccine and that it doesn’t effect younger non vaccinated people. I don’t care what mental gymnastics those who refuse to have the jab take. It’s an irresponsible position with no basis in science or logic. I’ve given up with the niceties. How much more education and understanding do they need to see having the vaccine helps not only them but others?

Yes I have read it.

Now, have you read the official figures on vaccinated and unvaccinated in ICU? I dare you. Go on. Check them. See if they match that doctor's personal experience of "virtually all" are unvaccinated. But you don't want to see the official figures, you prefer anecdotal evidence from one doctor in an ICU. The fact is there are many vaccinated in ICU. Check it. Look up the official figures. Now, the statistics DO indicate that the vaccine definitely reduces the chances of being in ICU. I would agree that far. I am not anti vax, I am not anti covid vax. I can just see from the official figures, the science, that there is a low risk to a young person getting covid. Not "no risk", but a low risk. And I can see from the official statistics that the vaccine does definitely reduce the chances of a serious illness. But when a young person has such a low risk from covid anyway, and you're reducing a tiny chance to an even tinier chance, that's what many young people are weighing up. Surely you're bright enough to understand that? But that's not even my point. My point is that bodily autonomy, and your immature post regarding that, is a way bigger picture than the one you presented from on doctor's experience in an ICU.

No one said it "doesn't affect younger people". That's a total lie, a silly exaggeration by yourself as usual. NO ONE has said that. But the official figures show that its only a very small percentage of younger people who get in a bad way. That's a fact. Look up the figures if you can be bothered to actually look at the evidence. The scientific evidence. Look it up. I'm not saying that means they should not take the vaccine, as it clearly does have a benefit as I have described above, but that's up to each individual.

You say you don't care what "mental gymnastics" people use. Well guess what, they don't care what you think. You say its irresponsible. I don't agree, its none of my business what anyone does with their body.

There is a basis in science and logic not to have it for young people. You may not agree, I may not agree, but the fact is the numbers of young people who die or end up in serious condition is very small. Those who have already had covid and have natural immunity have even less chance of ending up in big trouble. There IS science and logic indicating that its reasonable for young people not to have it. The JVCI didn't even recommend 12-15 year olds having it (it was a close call). Do you think they did not use "science and logic"? That's the JCVI. Scientists. You are as usual completing ignoring nuance and the fact it isn't black and white. Well the JCVI wouldn't agree with you for a 15 year old, so do you think they are thick and getting their information off youtube?

You never did do niceties to give them up. You've become fully enveloped into the divide that has been created, as you are showing by your "all or nothing" posts, calling people idiots and stupid and presuming they have made a decision based on youtube. You DH, are unfortunately showing a complete lack of critical thought and nuance.

So, how much more education do YOU need to understand that this is not black and white, young people are at a small risk from covid (I did not say "no risk"), and it is a reasonable decision for THEM to make regarding their own bodies (whether you or I agree or not), and even the JCVI could not recommend it for a 15 year old on a cost benefit analysis, which is in itself scientific and logical evidence that this is not black and white. How much more education do you need to understand there is also a wider implication relating to bodily autonomy in addition to this one vaccine? The more you say about this, the more you show a complete lack of critical thought regarding different situations, different statistics for different age groups, and then as usual, you decide everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, and you start calling them thick.

The funny thing is there are a small proportion who do indeed see something on youtube and make their decision from there. A small proportion. They fail to look at any other evidence, and they take a stance that is based on one or two anecdotes. You are literally, exactly like them, but on the other side of the debate, yet you don't see it. Its the same with brexit. You label and stereotype and call people flag shaggers and idiots and infer they are racists. You generalise. You do exactly what you say you dislike about them. You are so similar to the bigots you hate, but on the other side of the coin. I'm a remainer, but I'm not divisive or immature enough to think 17M people are flag shaggers and racists and thick etc. But you revel in the division. Its embarrasing. You're riddled with anger and hate and division.

I digress. Seriously, grow up and debate like an adult, and stop the divisiveness. You're simply showing post after post how immature you are and that you're unable to consider wider implications, a number of factors, and then you resort to calling people thick. You're making a fool of yourself.

I have debated with you politely on numerous occasions and put forward erudite arguments on this subjects. You seem completely oblivious to your own bias where you skew the arguments towards the rights of those who refuse the vaccines. You will defend them to the hilt whilst dismissing the rights of those who are put at greater risk by their lack of thought for others who are more vulnerable than them. Any measure to keep others safe other than hoping someone takes a lateral flow test and tells the truth about the result is dismissed with a growing sense of conspiracy. Take a look at the debates we have had and see who starts the personal jibes because you don't like someone else who has an equal and opposite opinion to yours. You are no more nuanced in your argument than I am. The only difference is one of us knows they aren't and the other thinks they are putting up a balanced well thought out argument.

You are the one who calls people thick for having a different opinion, same as you do with brexit.

I am not skewing the arguments. I am telling you to look at the scientific evidence and statistics. I am the one confirming the JCVI looked at scientific evidence and do not agree with your position for a 15 year old. Yet you won't address that point, as usual. I am the one talking about the scientific evidence of percentage chances of a young healthy person getting in big trouble with covid. You're ignoring that. I'm not the one telling people what they should do with their bodies. You are. I'm not the one judging anyone's decision to have the vax or not. Both can be very good decisions depending on a number of factors (which I have described many times), and in most cases I agree getting the vax is the best decision. But I'm not judging anyone. You are.

You put the rights of others above the right to bodily autonomy. I believe its the other way around. We can go round in circles with that all day. But only one of us has called people thick for favouring one side, and made the massive generalisation that they're all making a decision based on one thing (youtube vids). Its not me making the immature generalisations. Its you.

If you're seriously saying I start personal jibes more than you, well, I'm very very happy for other posters to read all this and make their mind up! You're riddled with hate and division.

I'm happy to debate my reasonings, and I do with Baggy1. We disagree on plenty, but we respond to each other with details and specifics. You ignore detail, nuance, and wider implications. And you're riddled with divisiveness. You thrive on it.

I'm very happy to leave it there, and keep debating details and specifics with Baggy1 and others. And anyone reading can make their mind up - not whether they agree with me or not on the covid situation - but whether they think some (not all) of your posts are divisive and lacking in detail and nuance. You revel in division, you love generalising and stereotyping negatively, and you often call people thick who don't agree with you. People may agree or disagree with points I make, but I darn well steer clear of these kind of traits as much as possible. So carry on as you wish, and people can make their own mind up.

[Derek Hardballs]

And DH throws in the usual label that people who have made a different decision are idiots who made their decision based on YouTube. Jesus Christ, pathetic. You are completely enveloped in the divide I have talked about by presuming millions of people have made a decision based on YouTube and are idiots, when that is simply not the case. But you love grouping and stereotyping, you revel in such division and I’m sure whatever anyone’s opinion on this, most posters realise that such a generalisation is immature, inaccurate and divisive.

Have you read the summary from the Doctors on the front line I posted from the Metro? It goes some way to dispelling nonsense that they don’t care if people haven’t had the vaccine and that it doesn’t effect younger non vaccinated people. I don’t care what mental gymnastics those who refuse to have the jab take. It’s an irresponsible position with no basis in science or logic. I’ve given up with the niceties. How much more education and understanding do they need to see having the vaccine helps not only them but others?

Yes I have read it.

Now, have you read the official figures on vaccinated and unvaccinated in ICU? I dare you. Go on. Check them. See if they match that doctor's personal experience of "virtually all" are unvaccinated. But you don't want to see the official figures, you prefer anecdotal evidence from one doctor in an ICU. The fact is there are many vaccinated in ICU. Check it. Look up the official figures. Now, the statistics DO indicate that the vaccine definitely reduces the chances of being in ICU. I would agree that far. I am not anti vax, I am not anti covid vax. I can just see from the official figures, the science, that there is a low risk to a young person getting covid. Not "no risk", but a low risk. And I can see from the official statistics that the vaccine does definitely reduce the chances of a serious illness. But when a young person has such a low risk from covid anyway, and you're reducing a tiny chance to an even tinier chance, that's what many young people are weighing up. Surely you're bright enough to understand that? But that's not even my point. My point is that bodily autonomy, and your immature post regarding that, is a way bigger picture than the one you presented from on doctor's experience in an ICU.

No one said it "doesn't affect younger people". That's a total lie, a silly exaggeration by yourself as usual. NO ONE has said that. But the official figures show that its only a very small percentage of younger people who get in a bad way. That's a fact. Look up the figures if you can be bothered to actually look at the evidence. The scientific evidence. Look it up. I'm not saying that means they should not take the vaccine, as it clearly does have a benefit as I have described above, but that's up to each individual.

You say you don't care what "mental gymnastics" people use. Well guess what, they don't care what you think. You say its irresponsible. I don't agree, its none of my business what anyone does with their body.

There is a basis in science and logic not to have it for young people. You may not agree, I may not agree, but the fact is the numbers of young people who die or end up in serious condition is very small. Those who have already had covid and have natural immunity have even less chance of ending up in big trouble. There IS science and logic indicating that its reasonable for young people not to have it. The JVCI didn't even recommend 12-15 year olds having it (it was a close call). Do you think they did not use "science and logic"? That's the JCVI. Scientists. You are as usual completing ignoring nuance and the fact it isn't black and white. Well the JCVI wouldn't agree with you for a 15 year old, so do you think they are thick and getting their information off youtube?

You never did do niceties to give them up. You've become fully enveloped into the divide that has been created, as you are showing by your "all or nothing" posts, calling people idiots and stupid and presuming they have made a decision based on youtube. You DH, are unfortunately showing a complete lack of critical thought and nuance.

So, how much more education do YOU need to understand that this is not black and white, young people are at a small risk from covid (I did not say "no risk"), and it is a reasonable decision for THEM to make regarding their own bodies (whether you or I agree or not), and even the JCVI could not recommend it for a 15 year old on a cost benefit analysis, which is in itself scientific and logical evidence that this is not black and white. How much more education do you need to understand there is also a wider implication relating to bodily autonomy in addition to this one vaccine? The more you say about this, the more you show a complete lack of critical thought regarding different situations, different statistics for different age groups, and then as usual, you decide everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, and you start calling them thick.

The funny thing is there are a small proportion who do indeed see something on youtube and make their decision from there. A small proportion. They fail to look at any other evidence, and they take a stance that is based on one or two anecdotes. You are literally, exactly like them, but on the other side of the debate, yet you don't see it. Its the same with brexit. You label and stereotype and call people flag shaggers and idiots and infer they are racists. You generalise. You do exactly what you say you dislike about them. You are so similar to the bigots you hate, but on the other side of the coin. I'm a remainer, but I'm not divisive or immature enough to think 17M people are flag shaggers and racists and thick etc. But you revel in the division. Its embarrasing. You're riddled with anger and hate and division.

I digress. Seriously, grow up and debate like an adult, and stop the divisiveness. You're simply showing post after post how immature you are and that you're unable to consider wider implications, a number of factors, and then you resort to calling people thick. You're making a fool of yourself.

I have debated with you politely on numerous occasions and put forward erudite arguments on this subjects. You seem completely oblivious to your own bias where you skew the arguments towards the rights of those who refuse the vaccines. You will defend them to the hilt whilst dismissing the rights of those who are put at greater risk by their lack of thought for others who are more vulnerable than them. Any measure to keep others safe other than hoping someone takes a lateral flow test and tells the truth about the result is dismissed with a growing sense of conspiracy. Take a look at the debates we have had and see who starts the personal jibes because you don't like someone else who has an equal and opposite opinion to yours. You are no more nuanced in your argument than I am. The only difference is one of us knows they aren't and the other thinks they are putting up a balanced well thought out argument.

You are the one who calls people thick for having a different opinion, same as you do with brexit.

I am not skewing the arguments. I am telling you to look at the scientific evidence and statistics. I am the one confirming the JCVI looked at scientific evidence and do not agree with your position for a 15 year old. Yet you won't address that point, as usual. I am the one talking about the scientific evidence of percentage chances of a young healthy person getting in big trouble with covid. You're ignoring that. I'm not the one telling people what they should do with their bodies. You are. I'm not the one judging anyone's decision to have the vax or not. Both can be very good decisions depending on a number of factors (which I have described many times), and in most cases I agree getting the vax is the best decision. But I'm not judging anyone. You are.

You put the rights of others above the right to bodily autonomy. I believe its the other way around. We can go round in circles with that all day. But only one of us has called people thick for favouring one side, and made the massive generalisation that they're all making a decision based on one thing (youtube vids). Its not me making the immature generalisations. Its you.

If you're seriously saying I start personal jibes more than you, well, I'm very very happy for other posters to read all this and make their mind up! You're riddled with hate and division.

I'm happy to debate my reasonings, and I do with Baggy1. We disagree on plenty, but we respond to each other with details and specifics. You ignore detail, nuance, and wider implications. And you're riddled with divisiveness. You thrive on it.

I'm very happy to leave it there, and keep debating details and specifics with Baggy1 and others. And anyone reading can make their mind up - not whether they agree with me or not on the covid situation - but whether they think some (not all) of your posts are divisive and lacking in detail and nuance. You revel in division, you love generalising and stereotyping negatively, and you often call people thick who don't agree with you. People may agree or disagree with points I make, but I darn well steer clear of these kind of traits as much as possible. So carry on as you wish, and people can make their own mind up.

Exactly you won't budge from your position that vulnerable people's rights are not of the same importance as those who refuse to have the vaccine. You will now probably argue you didn't say this but the vulnerable and those unable to have the vaccine also have a body and their autonomy to keep it as safe as possible has not been possible since arguably lockdowns stopped, unless you consider that they should stay indoors for the next one, two, three, years perhaps longer is acceptable. I will always argue that provision for their safety and the ability to lead as normal a life as possible is every bit as important to them and their families as for those who decide not to have the vaccine. One group in this discussion has a choice the other has had their choices taken away from them. You have chosen to champion the cause of those who have a choice and made them out to be victims of a draconian system. 

Those unable to have the vaccine or are still vulnerable despite having it have to compromise to uphold the rights of others who put put them at risk. Every day someone who is at high risk from the virus has to compromise to keep themselves safe. They might want to go to the shops, eat out at a restaurant, go to the cinema, attend a sporting event, get an education but they can't or they put themselves at serious risk and why? Because there are people out there who don't care, don't think of others and will not take the slightest precautions (one of which is getting vaccinated) to help others lead as full and active life as they should be able to.  

If you accept our rights are more than just arbitrary human construct then, you must accept that people have responsibilities to wider society. No functioning society can have one without the other and to bastardise the quote, the way to judge society is to see how it treats the most vulnerable and weakest. If that is true then the UK currently has pretty much abandoned them in terms of Covid safety to the whims of the individuals rights. For those who don't and who won't get a vaccine for the protection of themselves and others I defend my opinion that it's a stupid and selfish decision. You don't like that opinion fine, but my arguments on this subject have been nuanced as this reply in my opinion demonstrates as have numerous others to you. You caricature my replies on this subject by selecting a couple of lines I have used recently. My lack of nuance in those replies is my exasperation at others making decisions that not only may effect them badly but have the potential harm others. 

Last thing... 

I have never argued that having the vaccine eliminates someone from catching or spreading the disease. I have argued it does offer more protection to them and importantly other.s who come into contact with them.  If it was just them and their risk to themselves then that is up to them but it still has the potential to put unnecessary strain on the NHS.

I have never said or did not recognised that there wouldn't be implications for those who refuse the vaccine and work(ed) in the care sector. or those they no longer care for. I can see it will create a problem or more accurately make a short fall in staff worse. Sadly though, I cannot say to myself that it's ok for someone continuing to work on the frontline in the Care or Medical sectors who refuses the jab whilst working with vulnerable patients. 

Covid Passports would make those who are still vulnerable to the disease and their families feel more comfortable going to places they have been pretty much barred from for two years unless they put themselves at considerable risk of severe illness or worse. I don't particularly like the idea and their are clearly some flaws in so much as you can still be spreading the disease but unless they tighten up on lateral flow test abuse as seen at Wembley for example in the Euro's it may be a compromise that those who show a responsibility to society as a whole and the vulnerable are afforded entrance to things others have CHOSEN not to. With the caveat that those for medical reasons are exempt.

[baggiebuckster]

In order for that risk to be reduced massively then everyone needs to be vaccinated. So are you suggesting all children be jabbed too?

[backsidebaggie]

Have you read the summary from the Doctors on the front line I posted from the Metro? It goes some way to dispelling nonsense that they don’t care if people haven’t had the vaccine and that it doesn’t effect younger non vaccinated people. I don’t care what mental gymnastics those who refuse to have the jab take. It’s an irresponsible position with no basis in science or logic. I’ve given up with the niceties. How much more education and understanding do they need to see having the vaccine helps not only them but others?

Yes I have read it.

Now, have you read the official figures on vaccinated and unvaccinated in ICU? I dare you. Go on. Check them. See if they match that doctor's personal experience of "virtually all" are unvaccinated. But you don't want to see the official figures, you prefer anecdotal evidence from one doctor in an ICU. The fact is there are many vaccinated in ICU. Check it. Look up the official figures. Now, the statistics DO indicate that the vaccine definitely reduces the chances of being in ICU. I would agree that far. I am not anti vax, I am not anti covid vax. I can just see from the official figures, the science, that there is a low risk to a young person getting covid. Not "no risk", but a low risk. And I can see from the official statistics that the vaccine does definitely reduce the chances of a serious illness. But when a young person has such a low risk from covid anyway, and you're reducing a tiny chance to an even tinier chance, that's what many young people are weighing up. Surely you're bright enough to understand that? But that's not even my point. My point is that bodily autonomy, and your immature post regarding that, is a way bigger picture than the one you presented from on doctor's experience in an ICU.

No one said it "doesn't affect younger people". That's a total lie, a silly exaggeration by yourself as usual. NO ONE has said that. But the official figures show that its only a very small percentage of younger people who get in a bad way. That's a fact. Look up the figures if you can be bothered to actually look at the evidence. The scientific evidence. Look it up. I'm not saying that means they should not take the vaccine, as it clearly does have a benefit as I have described above, but that's up to each individual.

You say you don't care what "mental gymnastics" people use. Well guess what, they don't care what you think. You say its irresponsible. I don't agree, its none of my business what anyone does with their body.

There is a basis in science and logic not to have it for young people. You may not agree, I may not agree, but the fact is the numbers of young people who die or end up in serious condition is very small. Those who have already had covid and have natural immunity have even less chance of ending up in big trouble. There IS science and logic indicating that its reasonable for young people not to have it. The JVCI didn't even recommend 12-15 year olds having it (it was a close call). Do you think they did not use "science and logic"? That's the JCVI. Scientists. You are as usual completing ignoring nuance and the fact it isn't black and white. Well the JCVI wouldn't agree with you for a 15 year old, so do you think they are thick and getting their information off youtube?

You never did do niceties to give them up. You've become fully enveloped into the divide that has been created, as you are showing by your "all or nothing" posts, calling people idiots and stupid and presuming they have made a decision based on youtube. You DH, are unfortunately showing a complete lack of critical thought and nuance.

So, how much more education do YOU need to understand that this is not black and white, young people are at a small risk from covid (I did not say "no risk"), and it is a reasonable decision for THEM to make regarding their own bodies (whether you or I agree or not), and even the JCVI could not recommend it for a 15 year old on a cost benefit analysis, which is in itself scientific and logical evidence that this is not black and white. How much more education do you need to understand there is also a wider implication relating to bodily autonomy in addition to this one vaccine? The more you say about this, the more you show a complete lack of critical thought regarding different situations, different statistics for different age groups, and then as usual, you decide everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, and you start calling them thick.

The funny thing is there are a small proportion who do indeed see something on youtube and make their decision from there. A small proportion. They fail to look at any other evidence, and they take a stance that is based on one or two anecdotes. You are literally, exactly like them, but on the other side of the debate, yet you don't see it. Its the same with brexit. You label and stereotype and call people flag shaggers and idiots and infer they are racists. You generalise. You do exactly what you say you dislike about them. You are so similar to the bigots you hate, but on the other side of the coin. I'm a remainer, but I'm not divisive or immature enough to think 17M people are flag shaggers and racists and thick etc. But you revel in the division. Its embarrasing. You're riddled with anger and hate and division.

I digress. Seriously, grow up and debate like an adult, and stop the divisiveness. You're simply showing post after post how immature you are and that you're unable to consider wider implications, a number of factors, and then you resort to calling people thick. You're making a fool of yourself.

I have debated with you politely on numerous occasions and put forward erudite arguments on this subjects. You seem completely oblivious to your own bias where you skew the arguments towards the rights of those who refuse the vaccines. You will defend them to the hilt whilst dismissing the rights of those who are put at greater risk by their lack of thought for others who are more vulnerable than them. Any measure to keep others safe other than hoping someone takes a lateral flow test and tells the truth about the result is dismissed with a growing sense of conspiracy. Take a look at the debates we have had and see who starts the personal jibes because you don't like someone else who has an equal and opposite opinion to yours. You are no more nuanced in your argument than I am. The only difference is one of us knows they aren't and the other thinks they are putting up a balanced well thought out argument.

You are the one who calls people thick for having a different opinion, same as you do with brexit.

I am not skewing the arguments. I am telling you to look at the scientific evidence and statistics. I am the one confirming the JCVI looked at scientific evidence and do not agree with your position for a 15 year old. Yet you won't address that point, as usual. I am the one talking about the scientific evidence of percentage chances of a young healthy person getting in big trouble with covid. You're ignoring that. I'm not the one telling people what they should do with their bodies. You are. I'm not the one judging anyone's decision to have the vax or not. Both can be very good decisions depending on a number of factors (which I have described many times), and in most cases I agree getting the vax is the best decision. But I'm not judging anyone. You are.

You put the rights of others above the right to bodily autonomy. I believe its the other way around. We can go round in circles with that all day. But only one of us has called people thick for favouring one side, and made the massive generalisation that they're all making a decision based on one thing (youtube vids). Its not me making the immature generalisations. Its you.

If you're seriously saying I start personal jibes more than you, well, I'm very very happy for other posters to read all this and make their mind up! You're riddled with hate and division.

I'm happy to debate my reasonings, and I do with Baggy1. We disagree on plenty, but we respond to each other with details and specifics. You ignore detail, nuance, and wider implications. And you're riddled with divisiveness. You thrive on it.

I'm very happy to leave it there, and keep debating details and specifics with Baggy1 and others. And anyone reading can make their mind up - not whether they agree with me or not on the covid situation - but whether they think some (not all) of your posts are divisive and lacking in detail and nuance. You revel in division, you love generalising and stereotyping negatively, and you often call people thick who don't agree with you. People may agree or disagree with points I make, but I darn well steer clear of these kind of traits as much as possible. So carry on as you wish, and people can make their own mind up.

Exactly you won't budge from your position that vulnerable people's rights are not of the same importance as those who refuse to have the vaccine. You will now probably argue you didn't say this but the vulnerable and those unable to have the vaccine also have a body and their autonomy to keep it as safe as possible has not been possible since arguably lockdowns stopped, unless you consider that they should stay indoors for the next one, two, three, years perhaps longer is acceptable. I will always argue that provision for their safety and the ability to lead as normal a life as possible is every bit as important to them and their families as for those who decide not to have the vaccine. One group in this discussion has a choice the other has had their choices taken away from them. You have chosen to champion the cause of those who have a choice and made them out to be victims of a draconian system. 

Those unable to have the vaccine or are still vulnerable despite having it have to compromise to uphold the rights of others who put put them at risk. Every day someone who is at high risk from the virus has to compromise to keep themselves safe. They might want to go to the shops, eat out at a restaurant, go to the cinema, attend a sporting event, get an education but they can't or they put themselves at serious risk and why? Because there are people out there who don't care, don't think of others and will not take the slightest precautions (one of which is getting vaccinated) to help others lead as full and active life as they should be able to.  

If you accept our rights are more than just arbitrary human construct then, you must accept that people have responsibilities to wider society. No functioning society can have one without the other and to bastardise the quote, the way to judge society is to see how it treats the most vulnerable and weakest. If that is true then the UK currently has pretty much abandoned them in terms of Covid safety to the whims of the individuals rights. For those who don't and who won't get a vaccine for the protection of themselves and others I defend my opinion that it's a stupid and selfish decision. You don't like that opinion fine, but my arguments on this subject have been nuanced as this reply in my opinion demonstrates as have numerous others to you. You caricature my replies on this subject by selecting a couple of lines I have used recently. My lack of nuance in those replies is my exasperation at others making decisions that not only may effect them badly but have the potential harm others. 

Last thing... 

I have never argued that having the vaccine eliminates someone from catching or spreading the disease. I have argued it does offer more protection to them and importantly other.s who come into contact with them.  If it was just them and their risk to themselves then that is up to them but it still has the potential to put unnecessary strain on the NHS.

I have never said or did not recognised that there wouldn't be implications for those who refuse the vaccine and work(ed) in the care sector. or those they no longer care for.  I can see it will create a problem or more accurately make a short fall in staff worse. Sadly though, I cannot say to myself that it's ok for someone continuing to work on the frontline in the Care or Medical sectors who refuses the jab whilst working with vulnerable patients. 

Covid Passports would make those who are still vulnerable to the disease and their families feel more comfortable going to places they have been pretty much barred from for two years unless they put themselves at considerable risk of severe illness or worse. I don't particularly like the idea and their are clearly some flaws in so much as you can still be spreading the disease but unless they tighten up on lateral flow test abuse as seen at Wembley for example in the Euro's it may be a compromise that those who show a responsibility to society as a whole and the vulnerable are afforded entrance to things others have CHOSEN not to. With the caveat that those for medical reasons are exempt.

And then I could just say you believe the rights of the vulnerable are more important than everyone else’s! And you’re selfish to expect people to have something they may not want. And round and round we go. And you won’t budge from your position either. And I don’t believe that wider society is more important than the individuals choice when it comes to medical treatment. You do. I don’t believe society can be completely judged on how it protects the vulnerable and that responsibilities to wider society stretches as far as you believe. It has to be balanced, and for a vaccine that doesn’t stop transmission, I don’t believe it makes the vulnerable significantly safer enough, when testing does a pretty good job. Some cases will sneak through, but they do with vaccinated people anyway. Science has not found that covid passports make any difference to spread of covid. And Scotland has rightly IMO just added a negative test to their covid passports as an option.

I have not seen you comment on how far you’d go when it comes to those who don’t want it. Prison? Fines? Banned from leaving the house? Create outcasts from society? Only allowed to buy food? Walk round with an unvaccinated badge on? How far would you go, given the vax passes so far have shown no evidence of even having a reduction in spread? You have a stance but don’t comment on the implications and fall out of that stance, or how far you’d take it, and how you’d then deal with the problems it creates in relation to economics, segregation in society, shortages in staff in some jobs, and the wider implications of the state deciding or coercing on a medical treatment. How much power do you want the state to have over your medical decisions? There’s a massive issue here. That’s why I say you don’t see or take into account the bigger picture.

Lots of things put a strain on the nhs. Being overweight does. Smoking and drinking do. How much do you want the state to control our behaviours to protect the nhs? Again you’re not seeing the bigger picture. Obviously smoking and drinking aren’t transmitted to others, but as I’ve explained above banning unvaccinated people from places has no evidence of limiting transmission anyway!

As buckster has pointed out, do you think kids should be banned from places if they don’t want it? Covid jab for no school? No cinema or restaurant visits? I think you’re going to be shocked at the low uptake amongst 5-11 year olds when it happens. What would you do then if half the kids don’t have it? Ban from school? All this theoretically makes it more risky for the vulnerable. So how far would you go? You don’t provide answers to the questions of dealing with implications, you just take the stance that it’ll help the vulnerable feel safer, despite the fact that there is no evidence that the covid passes even do that! Many of the countries who have them have seen enormous rises is cases and hospitalisations anyway! And Scotland did not find any evidence of any benefit. You’re talking like covid passes make a significant difference. There’s no evidence of it, let alone the other problems they cause. There’s no evidence that care staff being unvaccinated but having tests instead causes increased problems in care homes. Again, you’re deciding as it doesn’t sit right with you.

You’re deciding on principles rather than evidence. And you’re not offering solutions to the wider implications of your stance.

[Fido]

You’re deciding on principles rather than evidence. And you’re not offering solutions to the wider implications of your stance.

DH in a nutshell.

[Protheroe]

All I can say Dekka is thank fuck you don't live in Germany where a third of the of population remain unvaccinated and reckon homeopathy is going to do the trick.

[baggy1]

It's been a decent debate with bb on the points and to be fair I am comfortable with the view that it is up to anybody what they put in their body (who wouldn't be), although I will add that if there is an upturn in hospitalisations we do have to look at restrictions for all or part of the population. One of the key points that we have to consider is that we need to encourage as many people as possible to have the vaccine (I believe we are in a very good position with vaccine take up btw but it could be better), and as draconian as it is, by restricting peoples access to venues, travel etc then that does encourage those that 'can't be arsed' to step forward - i can testify that is true based on the behaviour of both my kids (25 and 32) who didn't see the point until it meant they might be restricted. I think we all agree that having the vaccine improves the situation for everyone.

The valid point that bb makes is that having had the virus allows us a level of immunity that is equivalent to having had the jab and, on the face of it, i agree. But the problem is that 1stly how do you measure that to evidence it, I don't think the testing process as it stands will provide the comfort that the test result being provided relates to the person in front of the door staff at the club or has been completed effectively enough to say they are negative. Until we can provide a quick test that doesn't involve someone sticking a cotton bud into their nose or throat and randomly swirling it around in possibly the right place then we have a problem in confidently saying the person wanting access is unlikely to carry and spread the virus to a room packed full of people that will transmit it exponentially.

And 2ndly waning immunity - we simply don't know enough about this yet to say whether we need boosters on a regular basis or not. I personally, as i'm over 50, will continue to have boosters when they are offered in the same way that I have the flu jab each year, and believe that we should keep rolling that out to as many people as possible. So, as much as you disagree bb, I do think that continued jabs, in the short to medium term, are the way out of this. 

How would I approach it having had nearly two years of learning on the subject? I would be implementing a serious drive on education about the effectiveness of the jab across the different media providers, TV, social media, in schools, in the workplace. I would be driving an open debate with those who do not agree with the jab; not the anti-vaxxers particularly because I don't believe they deserve the oxygen of publicity, but the communities and age groups where the take up isn't good. I would involve community leaders in that to hep get the message across.

Also I would be driving development of a quick measure that is effective for people that haven't had the jab so that they can have access to what they need. This might be through some quick blood prick that can identify if the virus is present.

I would also be ensuring that hospitality venues are only allowed to open if they have effective ventilation in place. This would require state help to put in place for some venues where cost would be restrictive, but it is a key element in helping reduce spread.

And finally I would be pushing the medical companies to come up with another method of getting the vaccine out (tablet, patch etc) to make it easier to receive it. My daughter has a serious phobia of needles which is why she was reluctant initially and this would have made that process easier.\

However, having said all that we are going into a crucial period for this country over the next few months with the virus. This is when we need to have a big push to get vaccinations even higher and return to some form of basic responsibility taken by individuals - mask wearing in public which should be mandated on public transport and in classrooms; regular reminders to wash or sanitise hands; regular testing by everybody aligned with being responsible if you do test positive. I do believe we have broken the back of this looking at the last 4 months of numbers in hospital but we will see rising numbers over the next few months, now is not the time to relax especially as we see what happens when we don't take care with new variants.

Covid will be with us forever now, we have to learn to live with it, but we also have to learn that we need to maintain a level of respect for it and not think we are safe and can do what we like.

[Brentbaggie]

What I would say is that the unvaccinated young are and have been one of the most potent vectors of the virus, even though they themselves may be the least likely to suffer its worst ill-effects It would seem to make sense - given that so many of them live with adults - that the young should be vaccinated to protect others and limit the further spread of COVID. To that end, while the vaccine(s) can never fully eliminate the virus it would seem logical to encourage young people in its take-up as well as the rest of adult society.