c4countdown

Graeme Cole wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 5:54 pm I'm sure you could find that level of support for all sorts of crazy things. I dare say the 19% who want a permanent 10pm curfew also wanted that before Covid.

It's still worries me though. A bit like when I found out people actually enjoy "Mrs. Brown's Boys".

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Wed Jul 14, 2021 6:11 pmMaybe it's too late now, but arguably if every country had taken the Australia / New Zealand approach, we could have got rid of it. They basically eliminated it.

Melbourne’s now on its fifth - yes, fifth - lockdown.

My daughter is currently on a train journey from Leeds to London, and she says a number of passengers (about 50%) are refusing to wear masks, even when asked to by train staff. (She isn't one of them).

A lot of people are worried that this complete opening up isn't going to work with infections rising. If restrictions have to be put back in place at any point, then it will look very bad for Boris Johnson. He's gained a reputation in this pandemic for resisting restrictions but then making it much worse and having to give in to them anyway, so the worst of both worlds. If it happens again, especially with it supposedly being "irreversable" I think it will be one fuck-up too far and he'll have to resign.

Obviously he won't actually. The response will be "But what does Keir Starmer actually stand for?"

Because nobody thought to provide a chair?

If Kier Starmer is the answer, it must be a bloody stupid question

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 5:40 pm He's gained a reputation in this pandemic for resisting restrictions

The fuck he has!!

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:29 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 5:40 pm He's gained a reputation in this pandemic for resisting restrictions

The fuck he has!!

He has. For holding out just that bit longer than he should in blind hope that he won't need to introduce restrictions and then having to come down hard. Very reactive rather than proactive.

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 10:30 pm If Kier Starmer is the answer, it must be a bloody stupid question

If it's "Boris Johnson or Keir Starmer?" then stupid as the question might be, he is the answer.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:41 am

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:29 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 5:40 pm He's gained a reputation in this pandemic for resisting restrictions

The fuck he has!!

He has. For holding out just that bit longer than he should in blind hope that he won't need to introduce restrictions and then having to come down hard. Very reactive rather than proactive.

Are you talking about the original lockdown? If so, go back and read your original post on this thread, which was made the day before the government abandoned their "squash the sombrero" plan and went for full lockdown.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:48 pm . Fortunately I don't think the UK will actually enforce a full lockdown, but other countries have and I think a lot of it might be about being seen to do the right thing. Obviously we need to take this seriously, but that doesn't mean the more drastic your measures, the more sensible you are. We can't turn into lunatics over this.

Remember last year when it seemed the plan was to let the virus spread in order to get herd immunity, but that plan had to be aborted when it became apparent how many deaths that would lead to? We're back there again, except this time the vaccines have reduced the death count forecast so this time the brakes aren't getting slammed on.

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 8:35 am Remember last year when it seemed the plan was to let the virus spread in order to get herd immunity, but that plan had to be aborted when it became apparent how many deaths that would lead to? We're back there again, except this time the vaccines have reduced the death count forecast so this time the brakes aren't getting slammed on.

No but the seat belt is optional now and the car has crap brakes and an iffy driver

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 8:27 am

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Jul 18, 2021 6:41 am

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Sat Jul 17, 2021 11:29 pm

The fuck he has!!

He has. For holding out just that bit longer than he should in blind hope that he won't need to introduce restrictions and then having to come down hard. Very reactive rather than proactive.

Are you talking about the original lockdown? If so, go back and read your original post on this thread, which was made the day before the government abandoned their "squash the sombrero" plan and went for full lockdown.

Gavin Chipper wrote: ↑Sun Mar 22, 2020 9:48 pm . Fortunately I don't think the UK will actually enforce a full lockdown, but other countries have and I think a lot of it might be about being seen to do the right thing. Obviously we need to take this seriously, but that doesn't mean the more drastic your measures, the more sensible you are. We can't turn into lunatics over this.

I never agreed with the "house arrest" lockdown that some countries have gone for and we never had that. But what we did have came too late and also the one in the winter as well.

How is freedom day for you?
No change or are you liberated?
Personally, on the bus or in a shop its mask on but everwhere else its off unless i have to queue for something

Marc Meakin wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 9:30 am How is freedom day for you?
No change or are you liberated?
Personally, on the bus or in a shop its mask on but everwhere else its off unless i have to queue for something

Well luckily I don't live in England, but no difference either way.

Still a bit cautious, personally. Still sticking with mask-wearing until the situation eases- and judging by the petrol station I visited today, most others are too. Having said that, intending to attend a Parkrun this Saturday, so maybe that's not such a cautious move after all...

"It's all changed. We're free."
"Are we?"
"Yeah!"
"What shall we do?"
"... Dunno."

Tom S wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:48 pm ... intending to attend a Parkrun this Saturday, so maybe that's not such a cautious move after all...

It's outdoors; you'll be reet.

Callum Todd wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:09 pm

Tom S wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 12:48 pm ... intending to attend a Parkrun this Saturday, so maybe that's not such a cautious move after all...

It's outdoors; you'll be reet.

Yeah, was just thinking about the whole distancing business, which may be a tad on the tricky side at the startline.

Tom S wrote: ↑Mon Jul 19, 2021 4:34 pm startline.

Sterilant

Oddly apt given the thread

While I love to see a Tory squirm, this is a complete non-event.

What is more relevant is Robert Peston publishing a load of fake news today and NOT retracting it.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Sun Jul 25, 2021 9:24 pm What is more relevant is Robert Peston publishing a load of fake news today and NOT retracting it.

So relevant that you don't bother to provide any links to what was said or explain why it was wrong.

Well, call me old-fashioned, but I'm not really a fan of linking to fake news.

He claimed that there is "deep disquiet" amongst "government sources" reinfections are not included in Covid case numbers.

Which is bollocks.

They are published on a weekly basis. Page 18-19 here. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... w28_v2.pdf

His theory comes from the fact that people who (say) test positive twice, 3 days apart, are not included twice. The reason for this is the LFD-confirmed-by-PCR policy at the moment. Cool story: a friend of mine, having tested positive by PCR, tested himself every day with LFDs for the simple reason of "it looks cool when you put them next to each other to see the line start to fade". The suggestion therefore is he should be added as 7-10 new cases, which would just be laughable, and not including them is a rare case of common sense actually winning for once.

Went to get my second dose at a walk-in clinic in central Birmingham yesterday-Brum and Solihull NHS trust have cut the gap between doses to six weeks. I had dose one on 21st June, so five weeks and four days from yesterday. Was turned away because I was three days too early. One wonders what medical difference three days would make. I know there are arguments about a longer gap giving, but whilst trying to get people protected, jobsworthing like this seems mind-bogglingly counter-productive

Matt Rutherford wrote: ↑Thu Jul 29, 2021 11:45 pm Went to get my second dose at a walk-in clinic in central Birmingham yesterday-Brum and Solihull NHS trust have cut the gap between doses to six weeks. I had dose one on 21st June, so five weeks and four days from yesterday. Was turned away because I was three days too early. One wonders what medical difference three days would make. I know there are arguments about a longer gap giving, but whilst trying to get people protected, jobsworthing like this seems mind-bogglingly counter-productive

It's a medical procedure. Hardly "jobsworthing".

They would have to have some cut-off anyway. And it's probably better for it to be an explicit cut-off rather than the given cut-off minus an arbitrary number of days. Otherwise it would be a lottery for those turning up at 5 weeks and 2 days, 5 weeks and 3 days etc.

It's just another 'where do you draw the line?' thing. They have to draw it somewhere and stick to it. If they let you have it because you were only three days early, suddenly it's okay at five weeks and four days. Then somebody else comes along at five weeks and one day then they have to be allowed to have it for the same reason. And so on...

8 weeks to the day today I have had my second one. Find it interesting that I have had the same side effect (a stiff shoulder) twice.

Rhys Benjamin wrote: ↑Fri Jul 30, 2021 8:42 pm 8 weeks to the day today I have had my second one. Find it interesting that I have had the same side effect (a stiff shoulder) twice.

I wouldn't say that a stiff shoulder is a side-effect of the vaccine, but rather a primary effect of being stabbed in the arm with a needle.

That's the only thing I've had as well in response to the injection. It's not as bad after this second jab, just a bit tender but I could barely move my arm after the first one. Doesn't seem to kick in until the day after though. Was fine on the day I got the jab.

Glad to be fully vaccinated now. If you have the ability to be vaccinated but are choosing not to you are a selfish moron. Don't think I've seen any anti-vax sentiments here which is good but it's worth saying.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sat Jul 31, 2021 12:07 pm If you have the ability to be vaccinated but are choosing not to you are a selfish moron. Don't think I've seen any anti-vax sentiments here which is good but it's worth saying.

I wouldn't be overly critical if someone under the age of 30 decided to refuse the vaccination, providing they were doing so on a risk/benefit consideration, rather than a conspiracy theory.

Unless your doctor advises you not to get it due to your current health situation, at which point I would say you no longer have the ability to get it so I have covered that, then the risk/benefit calculation you are doing is the conspiracy theory.

If you have the ability to get the vaccine and, having done a risk/benefit calculation decided not to get it, you have miscalculated and are a selfish moron. The vaccines are safe. The more people who aren't vaccinated the more chance vaccine resistant variants have of mutating.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 10:47 am Unless your doctor advises you not to get it due to your current health situation, at which point I would say you no longer have the ability to get it so I have covered that, then the risk/benefit calculation you are doing is the conspiracy theory.

If you have the ability to get the vaccine and, having done a risk/benefit calculation decided not to get it, you have miscalculated and are a selfish moron. The vaccines are safe. The more people who aren't vaccinated the more chance vaccine resistant variants have of mutating.

Would you say the same for the annual flu vaccine? I'm 59 and have never had it, though I'm sure I would have been given it if I had asked for it in 2019.

Sure, why not. If you can get it for free, get the flu vaccine unless advised by a medical professional not to. The point is vaccines are safe.

Mark James wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 12:46 pm The point is vaccines are safe.

I don't dispute it. My point is that some people are at so little risk that they should be free to decide whether they have the vaccination or not. i read a report that suggested that 91% of the population have antibodies to Covid, which is way past "herd immunity", so I don't believe it is selfish to forego a vaccination either.

If we had herd immunity it wouldn't still be able to spread like it is. Herd immunity isn't defined by the number of people with antbodies - that's just a prediction tool. Also having antibodies just means having some antibodies, not that someone is immune, so that could be where the discrepency is. Also, I read in New Scientist that with the higher transmissibility of the Delta/Indian variant, it might require 90% of people to be immune.

People are free not to take the vaccine and I'm free to call them selfish morons.

Normally you only call something selfish if the action leads to personal gain - since there's no personal gain to be had from refusing a vaccine I think you can drop the "selfish" and leave the rest.

What is this need to pedantically defend morons? What's the actual argument here? It's fine to call them morons but not selfish morons?

Anyway, of course there is personal gain. They are not having to do something that they don't want to do. That is a gain even if they are too stupid to realise it would be in their interest to do it.

May have missed the mark there. I wasn't defending anyone - I was just trying to amplify the point that there's no good reason to refuse the vaccine. You can still call them what you like.

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:55 pm I was just trying to amplify the point that there's no good reason to refuse the vaccine.

Really? Just because most people who refuse the vaccine give bad reasons as to why they do so, doesn't mean there aren't good reasons.

If you are a healthy 20 something, you are at virtually zero risk of being hospitalised by Covid, so whether you get vaccinated should be a personal choice.

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 11:21 pm

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote: ↑Sun Aug 01, 2021 9:55 pm I was just trying to amplify the point that there's no good reason to refuse the vaccine.

Really? Just because most people who refuse the vaccine give bad reasons as to why they do so, doesn't mean there aren't good reasons.

If you are a healthy 20 something, you are at virtually zero risk of being hospitalised by Covid, so whether you get vaccinated should be a personal choice.

What part of variants have a higher chance of mutating among unvaccinated populations are you not understanding? You get the vaccine because it benefits everyone not just yourself. That's why it is selfish not to get it. Can you give an example of one of these good reasons not to get it?

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:06 am What part of variants have a higher chance of mutating among unvaccinated populations are you not understanding?

The bit about it being true.

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:48 am

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 12:06 am What part of variants have a higher chance of mutating among unvaccinated populations are you not understanding?

The bit about it being true.

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/mount ... -does-work

Mounting evidence suggests vaccines do reduce transmission rates. Reducing transmission rates reduces mutations. Still waiting on the good reason not to get the vaccine.

I have a good friend and colleague who hasn't been vaccinated.

I think he's wrong and I don't think his reasons are sound, but the important thing is that he does think they're sound. While I will discuss and attempt to persuade, I won't call him a selfish moron.

Everything these days has become so divisive - you either agree with 'us' or you're wrong. It's toxic and horrible, and I much preferred the days where you could have strong differences of opinion on important topics, and respect that others may not always agree with you.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:07 am Everything these days has become so divisive - you either agree with 'us' or you're wrong. It's toxic and horrible, and I much preferred the days where you could have strong differences of opinion on important topics, and respect that others may not always agree with you.

There are topics where there is room for legitimate disagreeement and there are topics where there is not. My conviction is that the importance of widespread vaccination is one of those topics where there is not. Sometimes you do just have to tell people they're wrong.

I like to use the seat belt analogy when it comes to having a jab or wearing a mask.
It may not be ideal but it may save your life.

The thing about some of these anti vaxers is that a lot of them are happy to snort coke or smoke weed without knowing what exactly is in it but think having the vaccine is somehow dangerous

Sam Cappleman-Lynes wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:24 am

Fiona T wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:07 am Everything these days has become so divisive - you either agree with 'us' or you're wrong. It's toxic and horrible, and I much preferred the days where you could have strong differences of opinion on important topics, and respect that others may not always agree with you.

There are topics where there is room for legitimate disagreeement and there are topics where there is not. My conviction is that the importance of widespread vaccination is one of those topics where there is not. Sometimes you do just have to tell people they're wrong.

But there are ways of telling people. It might not matter to call people selfish morons on c4c because no-one reads it but it's not the way to persuade people.

A bit like persuading people not to vote Tory! You can't publicly blame the voters when they get elected. Privately, sure!

The part of the post I quoted isn't anything to do with persuasion methods.

I think everyone who has been double jabbed will have the chance to get a passport and thus will create an underclass of anti vaxers being denied entry to a lot of places they would want to go to and thus everyone who doesn't want to fall of the grid will comply.
Even job applications will have a vaccination tick box.

Fiona T wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:07 am I have a good friend and colleague who hasn't been vaccinated.

I think he's wrong and I don't think his reasons are sound, but the important thing is that he does think they're sound. While I will discuss and attempt to persuade, I won't call him a selfish moron.

Everything these days has become so divisive - you either agree with 'us' or you're wrong. It's toxic and horrible, and I much preferred the days where you could have strong differences of opinion on important topics, and respect that others may not always agree with you.

Sure, shame is a poor motivator. I only call people who have decided not to get the vaccine selfish morons not people who haven't decided yet.

I do wonder though, which days were these that you think existed when it was fine to have opinions on important decisions and respect that others may not always agree with you? Can you name a decade, or even a year? Was it after women got the vote. After the civil rights movement? When homosexuality was decriminalised? When abortion was legalised? Every good thing we have today had to be fought for and people had to put their lives on the line. People are still being killed today fighting for their rights but people post some mean tweets or forum posts and that's the toxic part?

Seriously, fuck civility politics. https://youtu.be/MAbab8aP4_A

Fiona T wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 8:07 am I have a good friend and colleague who hasn't been vaccinated.

I think he's wrong and I don't think his reasons are sound, but the important thing is that he does think they're sound. While I will discuss and attempt to persuade, I won't call him a selfish moron.

Quite right, too. You should call him a fucking idiot.

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:38 am Still waiting on the good reason not to get the vaccine.

What was your reason for not getting a flu vaccine in 2019? I'll use that.

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:38 amStill waiting on the good reason not to get the vaccine.

Be fair - some people cannot medically have the vaccine (is my understanding, anyway). I think I've said it before, but that would be a major reason as to why a vaccine passport system would be unfair.

Err, I don't think Mark is talking about vaccine passports, nor is he concerned with people who have a medical reason to be exempt, which is obviously a valid reason.

Paul Worsley wrote: ↑Tue Aug 10, 2021 11:13 pm

Mark James wrote: ↑Mon Aug 02, 2021 1:38 am Still waiting on the good reason not to get the vaccine.

What was your reason for not getting a flu vaccine in 2019? I'll use that.

But what if my reason for not getting it was not a good reason?

Anyway, the flu vaccine is not offered for free for people in my age group. Nor is it recommended to people in my age group. This is not true of the covid vaccine. You'll need a better reason than that. Or stop trying to find excuses and get the vaccine and encourage everyone who can get it to get it.

Mark James wrote: ↑Wed Aug 11, 2021 6:57 pm Or stop trying to find excuses and get the vaccine and encourage everyone who can get it to get it.

I've had the vaccine, and would encourage others to do so.

What I said, and stand by, is that if you are fit and young you can decide not to get vaccinated against something that is unlikely to make you ill.

Never in medical history have we insisted on vaccinating a group of people who are at little or no risk, in order to protect another group of people who have already been vaccinated.

People who are high risk can choose not to get the vaccine too. The issue is whether it's a good idea to not got the vaccine. You said there were good reasons not to but have been unable to give an example. The current medical advice is for the people who can get the vaccine to get it. Whether that's unprecedented in medical history is irrelevant if it's the correct course of action. If you want to disagree that it is best course of action fine but can you explain why the medical consensus is wrong?

I've caught the coronavirus over this past week, and while I don't have anything important or interesting to add to the discussion, I will say that I've been a bit iller than I thought I would be considering I have long since had the vaccine. In no way has there been any danger, breathing difficulties, significant cognitive impairment or need for hospital - it's just been like having the flu, mostly. Except it's been accompanied by a lot of pain, especially in the lower half. Wasn't expecting that. I was expected to be tired and anosmic and briefly feverish and clogged up and sore, but the headaches and hip pain (for some reason) caught me slipping. Anyhoo, it's fine, just a bit less fine than I assumed.