Forum menu
Also met my 1st real life anti vaxxer last week, chap down the road that I've chatted with many times and attended street BBQ's and drinks with, recently retired policeman, he was walking up the road as I left to pick my daughter up from school, he had his litter picker and bag and was going litter picking at the park, what a good citizen I thought. We chatted about life and cancelled plans/holidays, I then asked him if he'd had his jab as he's 55ish I think, his reply was "it's not for me, I won't bore you with my reasons". He then bored me with his reasons, classic "I've done my research, it's been rushed, I know NHS workers and the hospitals were never that busy". "I'll take my chances". Was so shocked I barely knew what to say, just wasn't expecting it. If my sister in law was with me (NHS worker) I think I'd have had to hold her back from inserting the litter picker somewhere. Everyone else I've spoke to, family/friends/work colleagues are chomping at the bit to get jabbed. Day of my jab I was excited and I hate needles!
^ that to me is not an anti-vaxxer particularly. Misinformed, misguided, certainly in my opinion. I'd hope to convince them but as we did a few pages ago, that's not easy when in their mind a bloke down the pub with a twitter account carries as much weight as a scientist with 25 years of experience and a peer reviewed paper.
Anti-vaxxers - are a different breed entirely. Setting out to misinform and mislead. I'm sure some of them are convinced they're right and everyone else is wrong, but some are just doing it to stir trouble, thinking they're sticking it to the man, or whatever.
Is it possible for a person to refuse the cv19 vaccine at the current point in time and not be labelled an antivaxxer?
I think its a perfectly reasonable position for a person to take to decide that the vaccine has not been tested enough (yet!) - and that you will wait a bit longer before taking it, especially if you are relatively young.
I think it is unreasonable to refuse the cv19 vaccine because you think that bill gates is using it to implant microchips to control people via 5g signals.
Both these result in the same thing - a person doesnt have the vaccine, but for different reasons.
Just interested in how tolerant people are of different peoples views and decisions?
For full disclosure (in case this post sets the mob loose on me) - I have had my first vaccine dose a couple of weeks ago, and will be following up with the second in july.
I think so, yes. As per my post above.
I think they're wrong, but I am sympathetic to why they are wrong (broadly, don't understand the situation properly or been misled into not understanding the situation)
I personally wavered over the AZ, i was first vaxed about 4 weeks ago when clots were first being mentioned. I wavered, did some reading, asked some questions on here and listened to the answers, and then on reflection realised the balance of risk - benefit was still heavily on Yes. Others are presumably doing the same and coming down on No - why? As above, but convincing someone to admit they are wrong is difficult, we seem to have lost the ability.
[edit - address a specific point]
'It's reasonable to believe it hasn't been tested enough - yet'
I think it's reasonable for someone to have that as a concern, but if you read (and trust) the information about how this has been managed at such speed, using proper sources and credible commentary, then that can be addressed. If they are willing to listen. It's not reasonable IMHO to continue to believe that after you've properly understood the situation.
Put it this way, most of the care home residents ‘saved’ last year are now dead anyway of old age-related illnesses.
Surprised this has come up again when the stats have been mentioned elsewhere to disprove it? Statistically if you reach 80 you are likely to reach 90?
Batfink again absolutely nails it. Thought about running for office over here?
I think its a perfectly reasonable position for a person to take to decide that the vaccine has not been tested enough (yet!)
Except it was one of the most widely tested vaccines ever as everyone was focused on it? Its taken literally millions of doses of AZ to throw up the clotting issue because the risk was so (relatively) small.
Except it was one of the most widely tested vaccines ever as everyone was focused on it? Its taken literally millions of doses of AZ to throw up the clotting issue because the risk was so (relatively) small.
Any (negative) long term consequences of the vaccine cannot be fully known yet - as the vaccine has only been in existance for a few months - we can take a very educated guess that it is safe over the long term (based on other vaccines etc ), but until its been around for a long time (however you define that) , we cannot be certain.
there are different levels of antivaxxing, for sure. But if someone takes this stance:
I think its a perfectly reasonable position for a person to take to decide that the vaccine has not been tested enough (yet!)
They had better have good information and strong views on exactly what constitutes adequate testing of any and all vaccines and other food and drugs; rahter than just "too quick dont trust it"
Any (negative) long term consequences of the vaccine cannot be fully known yet – as the vaccine has only been in existance for a few months – we can take a very educated guess that it is safe over the long term (based on other vaccines etc ), but until its been around for a long time (however you define that) , we cannot be certain.
Absolutely true. Risk benefit though....
It's like a motorcyclist in a crash. You're told don't move them to protect the neck and the spinal cord. But they aren't breathing. So you have to turn them over and remove their helmet; you do it as carefully as you can in the circumstances, but you do it.
On the balance of all the similarities to other vaccines, the testing that has been done, the data being gathered daily (it's not just thrown out there and get on with it; a clinical trial would probably not have revealed the clotting until much later) it's clearly in favour of vax. Others disagree.
Surprised this has come up again when the stats have been mentioned elsewhere to disprove it? Statistically if you reach 80 you are likely to reach 90?
You arent discussing the same thing there though. That applies to the wider population and not care homes which, pretty much by definition, will have the more vulnerable people.
Someone entering a carehome will on average live another 2 years so whilst the claim of "most" is incorrect its not debunked by the average life expectancy across the entire population figure.
@dissonance - even if you put all your eggs in that basket your 2 years is 3x the expectancy of those needlessly saved last summer as the cake scoffer heartlessly commented
I’d hope to convince them but as we did a few pages ago, that’s not easy when in their mind a bloke down the pub with a twitter account carries as much weight as a scientist with 25 years of experience and a peer reviewed paper.
This is that competence/incompetence, conscious/unconscious, four stages thing.
1, unconscious incompetence - so bad at something, you're not in possession of the necessary tools to even know you're awful at it
2, conscious incompetence - now you are aware of how bad you are, and have some idea to improve
3, conscious competence - being able to do something, when you concentrate on it
4, unconscious competence - you can do it in your sleep, everything is reflex, expert
w.r.t. critical thinking as applied to vaccine studies, bulk of population is at stage 1
a mountain to climb before they even realise how bad they are at making decisions
my concern is with 2a - aware of how bad you are, but unwilling to admit any sort of weakness and so keep on with shouting ever more angrily to cover it up
an entirely different problem altogether...
Put it this way, most of the care home residents ‘saved’ last year are now dead anyway of old age-related illnesses.
Typical residency in a nursing home is two years. So about a third to a half have died. To be replaced by new resident who have not died. Mortality from COVID in the 85+ has fallen dramatically.
Buying future vaccines that may not materialise uses a lot less political capital than shutting down an economy. No surprise that we succeeded on the first (where vaccine success was not guaranteed) and failed on the second. Conservatively, 25k additional deaths might have been avoided this year with prompt and consistent intervention. Mortality always peaks in mid-January due to Christmas interactions. This year shows the same. The comparison is with Europe, not historic UK (which looks more favourable due to reduced other mortality).
Any (negative) long term consequences of the vaccine cannot be fully known yet
Sadly the same is true for infection. Speaking to my consultant yesterday, she has seen a large number of mildly infected otherwise healthy people, who have subsequently gone on to develop Long COVID symptoms. Vaccines will afford protection from morbidity. As I have said previously, everyone will catch SARS-CoV2 eventually. It will be better if one has some pre-existing immunity of any form.
even if you put all your eggs in that basket your 2 years is 3x the expectancy of those needlessly saved last summer
And I did say they were wrong. Its just I am not a fan of trying to beat bad figures with equally bad ones.
Speaking to my consultant yesterday, she has seen a large number of mildly infected otherwise healthy people, who have subsequently gone on to develop Long COVID symptoms.
How are you doing TiRed?
Surprised this has come up again when the stats have been mentioned elsewhere to disprove it? Statistically if you reach 80 you are likely to reach 90?
I was specifically talking about care home residents. The average stay is about 2 years IIRC. Assuming a normal distribution this means anyone resident at a given time has about a year to live on average?
And what about new residents? And staff? They were also protected (to an extent) by trying to keep the virus out of care homes... do their lives not count?
At one point it looked as if the winter wave would take my Aunt with it (she's in charge of nursing at a care home, and is, er, quite senior) but her hospital stay was quite short in the end, and she recovered at home with remote monitoring. They lost people... some of whom weren't in the home in March last year. All the testing, monitoring, and limited access that had kept the virus out for months wasn't enough when we failed to stop the entirely predictable, and long predicted, winter wave from spreading though the wider community.
I think my general point is that I understand where some of the lockdown sceptics are coming from. Kids have lost over a year of school (which is massive for them), many young peoples' life changes are severely diminished by being in the 'covid cohort' and thousands of business have been trashed. The logic of the lockdowns was not so much about reducing covid to 'livable' levels but on the basis that all lives must be saved.
you're failing the empathy test again
The logic of the lockdowns was not so much about reducing covid to ‘livable’ levels but on the basis that all lives must be saved.
Well, that isn't true, is it. At no point has the government claimed this, or aimed to make it so. I mean, look at the UK's death toll from covid "with" our lockdowns. It's not exactly zero.
Well, that isn’t true, is it. At no point has the government claimed this, or aimed to make it so. I mean, look at the UK’s death toll from covid “with” our lockdowns. It’s not exactly zero.
It's certainly implicit within certain circles. The Guardian, for example, is campaigning for inquests into certain individual deaths.
The Guardian, for example, is campaigning for inquests into certain individual deaths.
Can you provide examples?
Although I cant see why wanting some inquests somehow translates into "all lives must be saved".
For example you could say there needs to be an inquest into some of the public transport workers deaths. That isnt "all lives must be saved" but just "were some basic safeguards missed which could have saved lives".
The Guardian, for example, is campaigning for inquests into certain individual deaths.
You claimed the lockdowns were on the basis that all lives must be saved, rather than to reduce deaths. Inquests into why so many died, and why certain people died, aren't precluded by the fact that the government accepted, and told us, that many would die, even with lockdowns.
I think that in some cases there is a justification for individual inquests.
If we don't learn from errors made then how do we improve ready for the next time (and i have no doubt there will be a next time)
Its the lack of lessons learnt from Lockdown
1 which cost us so badly in Lockdowns 2 and 3.
Well, the refusal to accept the lessons of Lockdown 1 and the expert advice based on it. The main facts being that locking down hard and locking down early, with proper financial support, saves infections, deaths, long term illness, the NHS; results in shorter lockdowns so less impact on the businesses, schools, education, jobs, life chances, cost of bailout schemes.
You have to be pretty thick/blinkered/ a **** not to see what needed doing
Put it this way, most of the care home residents ‘saved’ last year are now dead anyway of old age-related illnesses.
It's useful when people throw in one of these little fact-bombs. Makes it easier for the casual reader to label the rest of their input as complete bullshit.
I don't think some people advising the government ever quite gave up on the idea of herd immunity without vaccination. Much credence was given to anybody who said higher numbers than announced had already been infected and non-vaccinated herd immunity wasn't far off. When in fact it was quickly obvious that the virus would mutate and even a managed slow burn through the community would overload the NHS for years rather than months. I got some flak on here the first time I reported Institut Pasteur talking abouut variants and used the word "strains", though a suggestion the virus would probably mutate to something more infectious was better received.
There was the idea after the intial wave that it wouldn't be as bad again because some people aleady had antibodies when experience with the 1918 flu suggested the following waves would be worse.
you’re failing the empathy test again
The same could be said for you. You don't appear to care about the people whose lives have been destroyed by the lockdown, only in reducing the number of immediate dead.
I will remind you all, that at the peak (which was contained by lockdown) more than half of all beds in the NHS were occupied by covid patients. When that reaches 75%, 90%, what then. Conventional healthcare is linear (cancer, strokes, accidents), but infectious disease healthcare is exponential. Whilst the message may sound like “prevent all deaths”, in fact the reasons for control were to maintain civil society in some capacity with functioning healthcare. See India.
It is the least bad option. Not a good one.
he same could be said for you. You don’t appear to care about the people whose lives have been destroyed by the lockdown
But these people have the opportunity to recover... Missing a year from school isn't great but in the vast majority of cases people will go on to have happy & fulfilled lives. & you only have to see how the economy is forecast to bounce back to appreciate that people will survive a temporary economic setback. Not many people bounce back from death.
It was always going to be a compromise, Gribs. With some countries erring on caution and others towards letting people look after themselves. France has gone for the middle ground with schools losing less than two months so fat but the arts and entertainment being shut down. Sweden was even lighter and Germany a tad more rigorous.
The "destroyed lives" comment is a bit OTT and many examples in the press concern financial matters. I take more interest in the mental and physical health issues and would argue that the mental issues associated with long Covid more than equal the mental issues due to lockdowns.
More could and should have been done for business in some countries, others have done a better job of pausing activity without destroying it. On a personal level I'd rather have to dig myself out of a financial mess in good health than try to keep working with long Covid and go under financially in a few years time and have poor health.
Well, the refusal to accept the lessons of Lockdown 1 and the expert advice based on it. The main facts being that locking down hard and locking down early, with proper financial support, saves infections, deaths, long term illness, the NHS; results in shorter lockdowns so less impact on the businesses, schools, education, jobs, life chances, cost of bailout schemes.
You have to be pretty thick/blinkered/ a **** not to see what needed doing
you would think... but no two countries locked down equally. can anyone say that we endured extra X weeks of lockdown with Y extra deaths and Z cost to economy because for example we were allowed to "exercise locally with 1 other person" while other countires put a distance limit to it?
The logic of the lockdowns was not so much about reducing covid to ‘livable’ levels but on the basis that all lives must be saved.
Once more for those that weren't concentrating earlier. We locked down to allow the NHS to continue to function without being over-run with people needing oxygen and ventilators. Have a look at the tragedy unfolding in India because they have a very large infected population and not enough places to treat them, nor oxygen and ventilators.
It was not about all lives save nor was at any time. At one point eugenics was in play and you're coming across as a blinkered half-wit.
See India.
I think that has to be the answer to anyone questioning the use of lockdowns. Don't forget we had hospitals running short of oxygen, supplies - and patients - being shipped around the country and that was with lockdown in place to reduce the spread. Obviously nothing like as bad as India are facing, but that's what unfettered spread, especially in dense urban areas with multi generational households would have resulted in.
can anyone say that we endured extra X weeks of lockdown with Y extra deaths and Z cost to economy because for example we were allowed to “exercise locally with 1 other person” while other countires put a distance limit to it
You not got any friends sending you pics of them enjoying sporting events, concerts, and a relatively normal work and social life from Australia and New Zealand then?
Go hard, go early. Was demonstrated to work over there, the experts over here were confirming it when they first suggested the second lockdown. But we didn't.
Australia and New Zealand are both thinly populated islands with far fewer reliance on cross border traffic than in Europe. They have warm dry weather and we know the virus prefers cold, damp conditions. Lockdowns in Europe got levels of new cases very low in some places but it was soon realised that elimination wasn't going to happen unless the whole continent locked down simultaneously and people ate only local produce which was never going to happen.
Once more for those that weren’t concentrating earlier. We locked down to allow the NHS to continue to function without being over-run with people needing oxygen and ventilators. Have a look at the tragedy unfolding in India because they have a very large infected population and not enough places to treat them, nor oxygen and ventilators.
We only did national lockdowns when London was potentially in that position. Case numbers up north were low during the first lockdown and hospital capacity wasn't even close to being a problem. We could have chosen lower restrictions and run hospitals closer to capacity, with the obvious risk of getting it wrong and having a lot more people die who would have survived with treatment.
Sorry, I'm not buying the "yeah but" defence with regards to the UK.
It would have been much harder, it wouldn't have eliminated the virus in the UK completely. But we never made more than a token effort, at a time when Australia and New Zealand were showing it could work, when South Korea and Taiwan - densely populated countries reliant on trade remember - were showing what proper track and trace could do without lockdowns.
We didn't look, we didn't learn, we just blundered on and wrecked lives and businesses.
Go hard, go early. Was demonstrated to work over there, the experts over here were confirming it when they first suggested the second lockdown.
For it to work though you then have to shut down borders. No point shutting down hard and fast if you then open back up again.
The UK got rates down pretty well in the first lockdown but then had people sodding off on holiday and mixing away.
You not got any friends sending you pics of them enjoying sporting events, concerts, and a relatively normal work and social life from Australia and New Zealand then?
Yes, roughly half my uni friends doing medical degrees managed to emigrate to paradise not long after graduation. So I've seen both the medical and social benefits of Aus and NZ via facebook.
Copying their original approach for our second lockdown isn't quite considering the same starting point though.
For it to work though you then have to shut down borders. No point shutting down hard and fast if you then open back up again.
The UK got rates down pretty well in the first lockdown but then had people sodding off on holiday and mixing away.
Absolutely. Still, lesson learned for this year, eh?
India does not seem to be getting much help from around the world, I think so far only UK, Singapore & New Zealand (Redcross) have helped. All the promises from World Leaders and nothing do they understand every second people are losing their lives in India due to lack of Oxygen. What the hell is the world doing they are not asking for vaccines.
France has sent 8 oxygen producing units and oxygen to provide for 10 000 patients a day when up and running. Germany is sending oxygen equipment too.
France & Germany have shipped nothing yet France plan to ship using Air & Sea which is joke, why cant they use the airforce. Also the oxygen producing units provided can uninterruptedly supply a 250-bed hospital, fulfil the needs of 15 critically ill COVID-19 patients in an ICU (or 30 patients in the ICU of a conventional hospital) or 150 patients on oxygen therapy in a conventional hospital facility. That's not 10000 patients a day the liquid medical oxygen will cover 10000 patients a day but is going by Sea so no rush.
can you fly liquid oxygen? seems unlikely.
Jambo of course you can As emergency medical supplies its called shipping Dangerous Goods, Singapore has sent 2 plane loads.
Ireland is sending 700 oxygen concentrators to India and they were expected to arrive today.
I'm surprised that Boris doesn't use this to deflect the sleaze scandal.
Watch this space, I feel a new initiative coming: "8pm doorstep clapping for NHS worker's families".. yes he is that crass and racist
Given the weight of liquid oxygen and its bottles, I would have thought the priority would be to get the kit out there to increase production of their own. With the best will in the world, sending oxygen cannisters given the scale of the problem in India is real drop in the ocean stuff.
with the obvious risk of getting it wrong and having a lot more people die who would have survived with treatment.
When it starts to go wrong, I am afraid it is too late. You can't argue with compounding. That's also the problem with nuclear reactor controls. You run conservative because you don't want to run away. We almost lost control. India has. The arguments regarding the first lockdown and timing are moot due to absence of information. Arguments regarding the second (and third) are not. The advice was clear and the decision was political. The resultant decline since January is self-evident and precdented by errrrr the first one. THIS time, there will be some tangible benefits of immunity (from vaccination).
What sacrifices have you made to save people out of interest? Has your business now failed for example? Or are you one of many given a year-long holiday on furlough money?
That’s also the problem with nuclear reactor controls.
which is why normal reactors rely on negative coefficients of reactivity to slow the reaction e.g. water moderated thermal spectrum reactor (most of them worldwide outside the UK) - temperature goes up, water becomes less dense, less water to slow the neutrons down so they can cause another fission, reaction rate drops.
But a very good point about control systems of all sorts 🙂
Please watch this video about what's happening in India. I have a small team in Pune. We have multiple people off with COVID, people off because close family members have died. Those that are still working have been working from home for a year from their flats. Lockdown was hard in Pune with each apartment area allowed 2 hours to do food shopping a day. Restrictions were lifted earlier this year but they're back in a harder lockdown than we've had in the UK. They are my friends, they are good people, the have had a much harder time than people in the UK.
It was not about all lives save nor was at any time. At one point eugenics was in play and you’re coming across as a blinkered half-wit.
No need to call me a half-wit but I understand your point. I think one issue is a failure from many parties to formally articulate - technically or procedurally - what price is worth paying to reduce deaths to some specified rate or absolute number.
Many talk about inequalities in terms of covid outcome but the cost of lockdown is not bourne equality either. In fact, it's very much a case of the young paying to save the old. How will that favour be repaid?
i_scoff_cake it’s very much a case of the young paying to save the old. How will that favour be repaid?
What is up with you disgusting attitude, so your saying we should not of protected our elderly thank god the government does not agree with you.
I think one issue is a failure from many parties to formally articulate – technically or procedurally
(This)**lots
I have tried to be transparent and explain the technical aspects as clearly as I can. I suspect that the mortality message ("save lives") is simpler to understand then the wider picture, but it is not really the key message. India will highlight the real message; failure to act has consequences for all - including additional morbidity in the young (still being discovered). We too have colleagues in India in the same situation.
Repayment will be via taxation, I am in no doubt.
I know many people have suffered in the UK, physically, emotionally, financially but seriously, India is demonstrating what not acting really means. And you can bet its their most vulnerable who are suffering most.
I'll agree the transparency and explanation have been shocking all along though.
India is demonstrating what not acting really means.
I'm not trying to sound callous but what are the cold hard numbers? TV makes for good drama but it's not a good basis for policy or decisions.
Numbers in India 300k detected cases per day (some estimates i saw were that real cases are 3-5 x that). Even going on reported that could mean 3000 deaths per day based on our levels of mortality (bearing in mind that their healthcare system is in serious trouble it will probably be double that at least in reported deaths).
I saw a report that in one city ghat (no idea how many there actually are in the city) they had 110 cremations in a day from suspected covid cases, where the whole city reported 10 official deaths.
These are all swags, but i reckon we could be seeing 50k deaths a day in a month. If those are the reported numbers we will never know. Will only find that out in years to come on census data
I’m not trying to sound callous
Really??? How do you think that is working out for you given your recent posting history?
Many talk about inequalities in terms of covid outcome but the cost of lockdown is not bourne equality either. In fact, it’s very much a case of the young paying to save the old
Up to a point, Lord Copper.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56862888
I’m not trying to sound callous but what are the cold hard numbers? TV makes for good drama but it’s not a good basis for policy or decisions.
As I understand it, reported deaths per head of population so far are lower than we had, due to the size of the Indian population. (Which shows how badly we did)
However, that is reported deaths, and their infection rates - which will impact death rates in a couple of weeks - are going through the roof. These pictures from India are the start of the crisis
Reported deaths per million are much lower than France and Germany are experiencing at the moment. A lot of people live in India, equivalent deaths to ours would be in the millions, which sadly may come to pass but hopefully not.
It’s about healthcare capacity as well.
I think one issue is a failure from many parties to formally articulate – technically or procedurally – what price is worth paying to reduce deaths to some specified rate or absolute number.
Would you care to articulate your opinion?
My concern about India is that while they currently have a lower level of deaths per million, the rate of infection growth at the moment wouldn't take a long time for the numbers to be horrifyingly massive. I really hope it doesn't get to that but i have a nasty feeling that it could and with an overrun healthcare system the outcome is going to be heartbreaking.
Two bits of good news…
At home : further Pfizer doses planned for this winter for booster shots.
Abroad : USA looking to get their AZ stock over to India.
For those who want to read it, the publication on transmission is here. Figure 2 is the moneyplot. Note that the x-axis is reversed. Very pleasing result for those in close contact in households.
Repayment will be via taxation, I am in no doubt.
Definitely. It'll paid for by those who gained little benefit from the lockdowns. Those who did benefit won't pay a thing.
Evidence please
just looked at the numbers for india, ouch.
and not their furlough payments vs predicted tax rises numbers.
Definitely. It’ll paid for by those who gained little benefit from the lockdowns. Those who did benefit won’t pay a thing.
Such is life. I, for one, have no problem with this.
Actually they’ll pay too through the taxes from their employment that was preserved through lockdown. Had they no work to return to things would have been still worse.
Through work I'm hearing some horrifying stories from India - really upsetting, and reminiscent of the accounts I has hearing from Doctors/Nurses in Northern Italy - and from accounts in Tukey/Egypt (I can't remember where) when a hospital ran out of oxygen a few months ago.
There are two covid death-rates: the one where the health care system is coping, and the one where it isn't. The UK have experienced the first of these - with about 130,000 dead at this point, and having a peak of about 1,250 deaths a day. The second one looks like what would happen if people in the UK who needed hospitalisation/ventilation/oxygen, didn't get it.
Thank god, this has been avoided in the UK - but most countries were sailing pretty close to their absolute maximum healthcare capacity. India's healthcare capacity is exceptionally low per capita about 1 bed per 1,900 people, compared to the UK's 1 per 400ish - meaning that the threshold for succumbing to the second, higher death rate, is much lower, and the "area under the curve" much greater.
The situation in India is going to get very much worse, very quickly. Can't believe that there are people bleating-on about not being able to go on holiday, and having their kid out of school for a few weeks.
Also: Lockdowns are not the reason for the socioeconomic impact of covid in the UK. The fact that lockdowns were necessary were. The question to ask is: "why were lockdowns necessary?" and "why were lockdowns of that length/severity necessary?".
Would you have accepted closed borders/mandatory quarantine - if it would mean that you didn't have to lockdown? I would.... In fact we have over here. I lost about 2k (gbp) on a cancelled Fiji holiday, but thats a small price to pay for not being in/out of quarantine, schools being shut etc.
It’ll paid for by those who gained little benefit from the lockdowns. Those who did benefit won’t pay a thing.
Plenty of my teenage sons friends have benefitted from furlough this last year. As have their parents who still have a roof over their heads. Among our social circle only a couple of "the young" have lost a grandparent to Covid, and I don't know any who would have sacrificed a relative in order to avoid a lockdown. And among our middle class circle, plenty of retirees will help pay some of it back if the government has the balls to raise taxes for those who can afford it.
I see and hear a lot of thoughts and attitudes projected on to "the young" by critics of the lockdowns on here that I don't actually hear from "the young" I speak to. Maybe "the young" are a bit more resilient than we give them credit for.
I'm fast becoming a batfink fanboi though, always well argued barely controlled rage.
Reports seem to indicate the actual death rates in India could be 10xhigher than official reports.
Healthcare access is intrinsically linked to money in India. Having spent lots of time there over the years it makes me shudder to think what is going on in those cities.
TiRed wrote:
For those who want to read it, the publication on transmission is here. Figure 2 is the moneyplot. Note that the x-axis is reversed. Very pleasing result for those in close contact in households.
Nice dataset! Nice results too, I mean, not entirely surprising but it's great to have it out there in a very open and digestible form.
I found it (pleasingly) surprising. If the vaccines not only give you a large degree of protection from illness, not only give you a large degree of protection from infection, but also protect those around you from infection if you do get infected… well, the message that you should be vaccinated to protect others not just yourself becomes that bit stronger. And with the trials for the Pfizer vaccine with school age teens going almost unbelievably well, we have the tools to be far more protected as a population going into next winter than I dared hope for. Really welcome news.