• We invite you to join UKWorkshop.
    Members can turn off viewing Ads!

One-jab efficacy questions

UKworkshop.co.uk

Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rorschach

Wicker man.
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
5,857
Reaction score
826
Location
Devon
This is outright wrong.

My partner works in the NHS, through her I saw what happened first hand. You are simply covid denying now because you didn't see it first hand, and don't trust media or scientists.
I am not denying Covid, I said that the lockdown was to prevent the NHS from being overwhelmed which was a lie because as soon as the pressure on the hospitals dropped the lockdown should have stopped, it didn't, so they lied. We are still under restrictions now, the NHS is not in danger of being overwhelmed, it was a lie.
 

Selwyn

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2013
Messages
841
Reaction score
94
Location
west wales
This is outright wrong.

My partner works in the NHS, through her I saw what happened first hand. You are simply covid denying now because you didn't see it first hand, and don't trust media or scientists.
Some hospitals did get very very busy for sure, and they did lack PPE and probably in the very early days were caught out. I think to claim the whole NHS was overwhelmed would be incorrect though.

There was a lot of PPE hoarding going on too.

I don't deny Covid either. Its a nasty disease. Nightingales were dismantled pretty quickly after weren't they? Birminghams treated no one person and costs £66 million.
 

Chris152

Established Member
Joined
26 Apr 2017
Messages
2,367
Reaction score
154
Location
Cardiff
I think it's important to use the word 'narrative' as frequently as possible, it's a sure sign you've thought things through. And I'm disappointed in the infrequency with which 'msm' is appearing at the moment, can we see more of that, please? Tia.
 

Rorschach

Wicker man.
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
5,857
Reaction score
826
Location
Devon
I think it's important to use the word 'narrative' as frequently as possible, it's a sure sign you've thought things through. And I'm disappointed in the infrequency with which 'msm' is appearing at the moment, can we see more of that, please? Tia.
I think they changed the name to Skype now.
 

ey_tony

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2015
Messages
26
Reaction score
35
Location
East Yorkshire
If people could be trusted to actually act responsibly then there would be little or no reason for there to be full lock-downs. Lockdowns are a result of failure by society to behave responsibly.
Unfortunately Boris expected the British public to do the right thing before the first lockdown....how mistaken he was! Anyone who watched his Covid update put out on 16th March 2020 could have been under no illusion what was needed for everyone to stay safe and avoid full lockdown but sadly many just ignored the advice. Unfortunately everyone suffers because of the selfish.
I recognised the issue early and I was already shielding by the end of February 2020. I didn't need government intervention in order to get me to act responsibly.

I'm retired and having survived the SARS virus while out in Hong Kong when it was in full swing back in the early 2000s, a virus which left me with seriously damaged lungs and COPD, I wasn't going to let this virus get me so I've spent a virtual year shielding myself from the ravages of the virus and the behaviour of the irresponsible.
Just because someone is retired, that doesn't or shouldn't devalue their lives. Sadly I see too many people believing that the lives of the young are more important than those of maturity. From my perspective, ALL lives are important both young and old and those who believe that the lives of the older people should be sacrificed for the sake of the rest, makes you wonder what our society has actually degenerated into.

In retrospect I could have safely left my home and interacted with society albeit in a somewhat restricted manner if only others had adopted a similar approach to safety and hygiene as myself and those around me but unfortunately many people as we have seen are just too stupid and selfish to do that.
It's humans who are the transporter of the virus. Without humans transporting and transmitting the virus then the chances of being infected are actually pretty slim. All it needs is common sense, discipline and good hygiene. Hardly rocket science and we could have avoided most of the issues brought on by lockdowns.

Sadly I suspect that the amelioration/reduction in numbers currently affected by the virus will be short lived as restrictions are relaxed. Many people just don't get it. They think it's all over but the truth is we're going to have to possibly live with this for some time to come and returning back to full normality, whatever that is, is just not going to happen any time soon.
 

rafezetter

Troll Hunter
Joined
11 Jun 2013
Messages
2,863
Reaction score
135
Location
Bristol
Except that it is not proven at all. Plenty of other countries haven't locked down. In fact lockdown may even make things worse by keeping people more confined.

Right - because India has been the very model of low numbers of cases due to thier "no lockdown" approach. I cannot for the life of me understand how adults allowed to walk the streets unsupervised can argue that limiting human interaction has little to no effect on spreading a pathogen.... it beggers belief and makes me seriously question thier sanity. Now, shall we talk about how the flu season was an almost complete non event this last winter? I wonder what factor was in play to reduce it.....

I personally put all those people into the same box labelled "flat earthers & antivaxxers", stupid people best ignored and avoided at all costs.

Just as an FYI - India has now reached 400,000 cases per day, and that's just an estimate, which just shows how "no lockdown" is really working for them.

The more I read this sort of "head in the sand" BS, the more I start to wonder who is the real "enemy" to our way of life - is it China and Russia, or are they already here, spouting this utter, and very dangerous, nonsense.
 

rafezetter

Troll Hunter
Joined
11 Jun 2013
Messages
2,863
Reaction score
135
Location
Bristol
Thank you @ey_tony for proving me right so perfectly!

Actually he didn't, but you take that win you're not entitled to anyway, never stopped you before.

You've always said "we don't need lockdowns (coz I'm losing money and a few dead old people is OK)"

What ey_tony means is "we shouldn't have to have lockdowns, but people are stupid and can't be trusted to be selfless, so we need lockdowns to reduce the stupid, ignorant and selfish people from spreading the virus as much as we can, but we know there will STILL be stupid ignorant and selfish people breaching the rules and thinking they know better based on nothing more factual than the information they pulled from their @RSE, and complaining about losing money and not GAF that other people are dying as a result".

Two very different things rorshach, but I can see how you might think they are the same, because facts and "what's actually happening" was never your forte, going by your posts of the last 18 months.

(I also predict he will add a "haha" to this post just like pretty much all the others that don't agree with him)

edit oh and one more thing - ey_tony YOU would have been one of those "old people" that rorshach would have happily sacrified for "no lockdown" (I can dig out his post from a year ago as proof if you wish). Ironicially interesting how he is now claiming he supports what you are saying.
 
Last edited:

Terry - Somerset

Established Member
Joined
22 Dec 2012
Messages
829
Reaction score
324
Location
Taunton
A few things which I regard as factually reasonable assumptions:
  • covid exists, affects mainly the elderly and vulnerable
  • it is spread through human interaction
  • uncontrolled it will initially increase exponentially
  • insulating the elderly and vulnerable from the rest of the community is not feasible
Exponential spread reduces as herd immunity increases. In the UK the probability of R >1 is now low overall, although individual communities may still be vulnerable.

The reluctance of UK government to impose lockdown was obvious - when lockdown was implemented it was late.

Thus it is difficult to separate the impact of lockdown on virus spread from the change in behaviours as a result of reported virus spread and fatalities.

This does not mean lockdown was unnecessary - it is a way of enforcing necessary behaviours upon all of the community.
 

Rorschach

Wicker man.
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
5,857
Reaction score
826
Location
Devon
Actually he didn't, but you take that win you're not entitled to anyway, never stopped you before.

You've always said "we don't need lockdowns (coz I'm losing money and a few dead old people is OK)"

What ey_tony means is "we shouldn't have to have lockdowns, but people are stupid and can't be trusted to be selfless, so we need lockdowns to reduce the stupid, ignorant and selfish people from spreading the virus as much as we can, but we know there will STILL be stupid ignorant and selfish people breaching the rules and thinking they know better based on nothing more factual than the information they pulled from their @RSE, and complaining about losing money and not GAF that other people are dying as a result".

Two very different things rorshach, but I can see how you might think they are the same, because facts and "what's actually happening" was never your forte, going by your posts of the last 18 months.

(I also predict he will add a "haha" to this post just like pretty much all the others that don't agree with him)

edit oh and one more thing - ey_tony YOU would have been one of those "old people" that rorshach would have happily sacrified for "no lockdown" (I can dig out his post from a year ago as proof if you wish). Ironicially interesting how he is now claiming he supports what you are saying.
It's spelled Rorschach :)
 

Selwyn

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2013
Messages
841
Reaction score
94
Location
west wales
If people could be trusted to actually act responsibly then there would be little or no reason for there to be full lock-downs. Lockdowns are a result of failure by society to behave responsibly.
Unfortunately Boris expected the British public to do the right thing before the first lockdown....how mistaken he was! Anyone who watched his Covid update put out on 16th March 2020 could have been under no illusion what was needed for everyone to stay safe and avoid full lockdown but sadly many just ignored the advice. Unfortunately everyone suffers because of the selfish.
I recognised the issue early and I was already shielding by the end of February 2020. I didn't need government intervention in order to get me to act responsibly.

I'm retired and having survived the SARS virus while out in Hong Kong when it was in full swing back in the early 2000s, a virus which left me with seriously damaged lungs and COPD, I wasn't going to let this virus get me so I've spent a virtual year shielding myself from the ravages of the virus and the behaviour of the irresponsible.
Just because someone is retired, that doesn't or shouldn't devalue their lives. Sadly I see too many people believing that the lives of the young are more important than those of maturity. From my perspective, ALL lives are important both young and old and those who believe that the lives of the older people should be sacrificed for the sake of the rest, makes you wonder what our society has actually degenerated into.

In retrospect I could have safely left my home and interacted with society albeit in a somewhat restricted manner if only others had adopted a similar approach to safety and hygiene as myself and those around me but unfortunately many people as we have seen are just too stupid and selfish to do that.
It's humans who are the transporter of the virus. Without humans transporting and transmitting the virus then the chances of being infected are actually pretty slim. All it needs is common sense, discipline and good hygiene. Hardly rocket science and we could have avoided most of the issues brought on by lockdowns.

Sadly I suspect that the amelioration/reduction in numbers currently affected by the virus will be short lived as restrictions are relaxed. Many people just don't get it. They think it's all over but the truth is we're going to have to possibly live with this for some time to come and returning back to full normality, whatever that is, is just not going to happen any time soon.
You are writing from a position of extreme comfort. I don't think you have any idea of the number of people out there who have to keep things going in order for you to be able to spend a year shielding. Strangling our economy hits the poor hardest and they have lost the most, them and the young.
 

Selwyn

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2013
Messages
841
Reaction score
94
Location
west wales
Right - because India has been the very model of low numbers of cases due to thier "no lockdown" approach. I cannot for the life of me understand how adults allowed to walk the streets unsupervised can argue that limiting human interaction has little to no effect on spreading a pathogen.... it beggers belief and makes me seriously question thier sanity. Now, shall we talk about how the flu season was an almost complete non event this last winter? I wonder what factor was in play to reduce it.....

I personally put all those people into the same box labelled "flat earthers & antivaxxers", stupid people best ignored and avoided at all costs.

Just as an FYI - India has now reached 400,000 cases per day, and that's just an estimate, which just shows how "no lockdown" is really working for them.

The more I read this sort of "head in the sand" BS, the more I start to wonder who is the real "enemy" to our way of life - is it China and Russia, or are they already here, spouting this utter, and very dangerous, nonsense.
I think all countries and latitudes have viral seasons. Almost certainly covid deaths displaced flu deaths ie a large amount of those deaths recorded as covid deaths would previously have been flu deaths in the very old, same with pneumonia. When you are old you don't just have one virus - you have loads of different ones.

You may want to believe a hard lockdown would have saved India from covid and I understand the appeal of that because it ought to make sense, however like the UK lockdowns there are a host of reasons why it doesn't. There will be some things India should have done better but its unlikely lockdown and furlough would have worked - most of the population wouldn't even have bank accounts let alone government aid. You may not like the fact that you have been decieved, but deceived you have been.
 

Selwyn

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2013
Messages
841
Reaction score
94
Location
west wales
Actually he didn't, but you take that win you're not entitled to anyway, never stopped you before.

You've always said "we don't need lockdowns (coz I'm losing money and a few dead old people is OK)"

What ey_tony means is "we shouldn't have to have lockdowns, but people are stupid and can't be trusted to be selfless, so we need lockdowns to reduce the stupid, ignorant and selfish people from spreading the virus as much as we can, but we know there will STILL be stupid ignorant and selfish people breaching the rules and thinking they know better based on nothing more factual than the information they pulled from their @RSE, and complaining about losing money and not GAF that other people are dying as a result".

Two very different things rorshach, but I can see how you might think they are the same, because facts and "what's actually happening" was never your forte, going by your posts of the last 18 months.

(I also predict he will add a "haha" to this post just like pretty much all the others that don't agree with him)

edit oh and one more thing - ey_tony YOU would have been one of those "old people" that rorshach would have happily sacrified for "no lockdown" (I can dig out his post from a year ago as proof if you wish). Ironicially interesting how he is now claiming he supports what you are saying.
I'd have thought Rorsach would have advised Tony that given that he is potentially vulnerable and seemed to have a steady pension then he should have voluntarily done his own lockdown as it was not such a hardship for him?
 

Selwyn

Established Member
Joined
31 Oct 2013
Messages
841
Reaction score
94
Location
west wales
A few things which I regard as factually reasonable assumptions:
  • covid exists, affects mainly the elderly and vulnerable
  • it is spread through human interaction
  • uncontrolled it will initially increase exponentially
  • insulating the elderly and vulnerable from the rest of the community is not feasible
Exponential spread reduces as herd immunity increases. In the UK the probability of R >1 is now low overall, although individual communities may still be vulnerable.

The reluctance of UK government to impose lockdown was obvious - when lockdown was implemented it was late.

Thus it is difficult to separate the impact of lockdown on virus spread from the change in behaviours as a result of reported virus spread and fatalities.

This does not mean lockdown was unnecessary - it is a way of enforcing necessary behaviours upon all of the community.
It increases exponentially from a low base yes, but nearly all viral curves show it levels off quite quickly too. This is pretty well researched stuff ie nothing new.

Insulating the elderly is eminent feasible. They do it anyway lots of the time.

The evidence from places that didn't lockdown are demonstrating that lockdown wasn't necessary.
 

Rorschach

Wicker man.
Joined
6 Jan 2016
Messages
5,857
Reaction score
826
Location
Devon
I'd have thought Rorsach would have advised Tony that given that he is potentially vulnerable and seemed to have a steady pension then he should have voluntarily done his own lockdown as it was not such a hardship for him?
You will notice that is what Tony did, he took responsibility for his own welfare and protected himself, he didn't need the government to tell him what to do he made his own choices about what was safe and what wasn't. I called for that from the beginning but people like him think only they can be trusted to do the right thing, no-one else can.
 

ey_tony

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2015
Messages
26
Reaction score
35
Location
East Yorkshire
You will notice that is what Tony did, he took responsibility for his own welfare and protected himself, he didn't need the government to tell him what to do he made his own choices about what was safe and what wasn't. I called for that from the beginning but people like him think only they can be trusted to do the right thing, no-one else can.
I'm from a poor background. I've worked for myself since I left school at 15 with no parents, no money and no siblings for support so taking responsibility for my own personal welfare and doing the right thing has been second nature throughout my entire life. Shielding certainly wasn't a difficult choice for me...it was the sensible and socially responsible thing to do.

I've cost no one anything! I've not needed any subsidies or help unlike the many, many millions who needed government financial intervention. Had those who ignored rules and guidelines behaved responsibly, the spread of the virus could have been controlled and the impact mitigated but it's rendering down to blaming the at risk people for something that they were unable to control. The people to blame are those who ignored their social responsibilities.

I've left my home only a handful of times in almost 15 months, not seeing my children, grandchildren and friends. 15 months without leaving one's home isn't exactly being lucky or fortunate.
I've not acted socially irresponsibly and have not endangered anyone by spreading the virus as hundreds of thousands of others have. done so I don't know what all the fuss is about!

The 2.5 million at-risk people such as myself who were shielding during the past year weren't the ones spreading the virus. They weren't breaking social distancing or socialising rules. Millions of people acted socially responsibly but so too did millions who didn't behave responsibly so it's little wonder that there had to be lockdowns.

I don't say all others can't be trusted but a good many simply can't be trusted to act responsibly in order to protect others and that includes people in authority as well as ordinary people.
 
Last edited:

Peterm1000

Guest
Joined
18 Dec 2018
Messages
342
Reaction score
118
Location
UK
I think all countries and latitudes have viral seasons. Almost certainly covid deaths displaced flu deaths ie a large amount of those deaths recorded as covid deaths would previously have been flu deaths in the very old, same with pneumonia. When you are old you don't just have one virus - you have loads of different ones.

You may want to believe a hard lockdown would have saved India from covid and I understand the appeal of that because it ought to make sense, however like the UK lockdowns there are a host of reasons why it doesn't. There will be some things India should have done better but its unlikely lockdown and furlough would have worked - most of the population wouldn't even have bank accounts let alone government aid. You may not like the fact that you have been decieved, but deceived you have been.
You know India's moved on since the time of the Jungle book and the Raj, right? Your comments about India are total nonsense. 80% of Indians above the age of 15 have a bank account. India does provide free healthcare to the whole population but it is very badly funded and is not nearly a match of our own NHS. Almost all Indians now have access to sanitation, but its effectiveness is far lower than the UK.

When the initial wave of Covid hit in 2020, India did go into a very firm lockdown and despite no vaccines, there were very few Covid related deaths. Therefore - a hard lockdown in India did reduce Covid related deaths. However, the lockdown had brutal economic consequences and India has not implemented a lockdown this time around (I believe).

Here is a picture of Indians from just a day or two ago taking the sensible approach to social distancing that you say comes from the government allowing people to make their own decisions about how to act.

033020indiamassmigration1_960x540.jpg
 

Peterm1000

Guest
Joined
18 Dec 2018
Messages
342
Reaction score
118
Location
UK
You will notice that is what Tony did, he took responsibility for his own welfare and protected himself, he didn't need the government to tell him what to do he made his own choices about what was safe and what wasn't. I called for that from the beginning but people like him think only they can be trusted to do the right thing, no-one else can.
Some pictures of a few people taking responsibility for their own welfare, protecting themselves and being trusted to do the right thing. I think some of these people might find a tape measure useful as I would suggest those distances might be a little under 2 metres.

london2.jpg
NINTCHDBPICT000630578403.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top