This Omicron variant needing a lockdown was obvious as soon as it appeared. They should have done a two week lockdown mid December, let folk have a more relaxed Christmas then maybe done another two weeks in January.
Obvious to some - however there was absolutely no chance of the government/Boris gaining enough support at the time to impose one. Even now they still don't have the support now it's obvious that Omicron is a numbers game before the NHS is filled again. For some reason the UK population is obsessed by Christmas, rather than preventing deaths of many who didn't have to die or contract long-term illnesses.
The very people who keep spouting that 99% of people will be fine, have absolutely no idea how large our population is and how comparatively small our number of hospital beds are.
<span style="text-decoration: underline;">Total</span> number of beds in UK 141k
1% of population of UK is over 662k
The argument of restricting care based on life choices is a very immoral and slippery slope. This argument rears it’s head when there is a polarisation between two groups- HIV positive patients in the 80s being a classic example ‘they’ve made their own bed’ etc.
But ultimately every health condition is self-inflicted to some degree. Obesity, breaking a bone whilst mountain biking, smoking, drinking, not wearing seatbelts.
More restrictions seem inevitable, and I personally feel the restrictions need to be different for the vaccinated and non-vaccinated but the practicalities of applying this are immense and also morally questionable.
According to binners 100 Tory who voted against Johnson’s Covid restrictions are “swivel-eyed loons”, although conveniently he fails to answer my question whether all the LibDem MPs who voted with them are also “swivel-eyed loons”
The Lib Dem’s voted against one very specific proposal. The Covid passports one. I don’t agree with them but I get why they did. I suppose the clue is in their name.
The swivel-eyes loons on the Tory backbenches voted against all of it, for very, very different reasons, and have made it clear that they will continue to do so, thus tying Johnson’s hands
I’ll tell you what comrade…. You’ve travelled a long way in the last few years, politically, haven’t you?
From the one time Croydon Communist, via Boris Cheerleader to now the defender of the Tory Far Right
You should write a book. Working title: Meeting in the Middle?
Btw binners your profanity laden earlier rant makes you sound a tad like a, well, a swivel-eyed loon, if you don’t mind me saying.
It makes me angry and frustrated that in the midst of a national cridis the likes of which I’ve never seen in my lifetime, we have policy effectively being dictated by a bunch of Ayn Rand worshipping flat-earthers who are either as thick as mince, or going along with people who are out of sheer political opportunism. It’s no coincidence that they’re mainly ERG fruit loops. They’re more like a weird religious cult than a political grouping.
These are dangerous people who are a threat to us all in many ways, and I think their ultra-hardline views on many things aren’t representative of many, though it looks like they count you amongst their number, comrade
From the one time Croydon Communist, via Boris Cheerleader to now the defender of the Tory Far Right
Yeah I defend them so well binners, with comments like this :
ernielynch Free Member
And whilst for simplicity I might refer to the hard right of the Tory Party as pandemic/climate change deniers they are not deranged headbangers who deny the science. It’s just that they couldn’t give a toss of the consequences….profit, money, wealth, is all that matters to them.
The problem binners is that you expect everyone to be a ranting extremist who only sees things as black or white.
I agree with you completely with your latter assertion about money being these peoples main motive but a lot of them really are flat-earthers
It makes me angry and frustrated that in the midst of a national cridis the likes of which I’ve never seen in my lifetime, we have policy effectively being dictated by a bunch of Ayn Rand worshipping flat-earthers who are either as thick as mince, or going along with people who are out of sheer political opportunism. It’s no coincidence that they’re mainly ERG fruit loops. They’re more like a weird religious cult than a political grouping.
A Perfect Storm
More restrictions seem inevitable, and I personally feel the restrictions need to be different for the vaccinated and non-vaccinated but the practicalities of applying this are immense and also morally questionable.
I don't think there is any moral question, it seems to work fine in many other countries round the world. The only practical difficulty is a lack of Police resource to support retail and hospitality staff who will be the ones on the frontline, sadly.
Thinking about this a bit more- the parallels with tobacco smoking are very obvious.
Smoking tobacco is legal but smokers are forced to accept restrictions on where they can smoke because of the risk to others through passive smoking.
I’d be interested (but not quite sure where to look) in how some of Binners’ ‘swivel eyed loons’ voted when the smoking legislation came into effect
don’t think there is any moral question, it seems to work fine in many other countries round the world. The only practical difficulty is a lack of Police resource to support retail and hospitality staff who will be the ones on the frontline, sadly.
And noting it’s much easier to tell when someone’s smoking than when someone’s not jabbed!
But ultimately every health condition is self-inflicted to some degree. Obesity, breaking a bone whilst mountain biking, smoking, drinking, not wearing seatbelts.
Absolute bollocks.
You honestly think all cancers are the result of lifestyle choices?
What about the guy who has a heart attack despite having lived a healthy life from day one? Not all heart attacks are in fat people/ smokers
Or the girl who gets run over while walking to school through no fault of her own
There are literally hundreds or reasons why people require hospital treatment that are completely unavoidable
Can Ernie and Binners get a room somewhere please and work things out with a bottle of chianti and a backrub?
Absolute bollocks.
You honestly think all cancers are the result of lifestyle choices?
What about the guy who has a heart attack despite having lived a healthy life from day one? Not all heart attacks are in fat people/ smokers
Perhaps you missed the part where I said to some degree?
Many cancers and other medical conditions are more likely to occur depending on certain lifestyle choices- diet, exercise, profession, where the patient lives. But obviously not always. Lung cancer is far more likely in smokers but some non-smokers also get lung cancer, as staff and many members of this forum know all too well following the tragic loss of Jen. Poverty is also a hugely significanct contributor to the chances of someone being seriously ill but I’d never suggest anyone chose to be poor.
I was pointing out that restricting healthcare based on lifestyle decisions is wrong
However, at a societal level, we have to find a way to convince/ compel/make them accept the vaccine for the greater good.
This goes back to that thing about critical thinking and the ability to impartially assess "facts" presented to you.
Perhaps you missed the part where I said to some degree?
No I read it fine. You said that EVERY health condition was self inflicted to some degree. Which I pointed out is nonsense, and you even concured by citing the tragic case of Jen from here
But forget cancer for a moment, there are many many other reasons people end up hospital. Some are entirely self inflicted some are partially self inflicted, and some are just down to bad luck
No I read it fine. You said that EVERY health condition was self inflicted to some degree.
You’re right I did- apologies. I meant to say many health conditions but not all.
I think we’re saying the same thing tho- people who need treatment should receive it regardless of how they arrived at that point, including a decision to not have the Covid jab
Jen’s comments about being stigmatised for having lung cancer have always stayed with me- she mentioned she felt judged as many people assumed she was a smoker (she wasn’t) and therefore it was ‘self inflicted’.
What Daz is saying, and I whole-heartedly agree with is why the * should the rest of have to continue to make sacrifices so that these selfish, shit-thick *s can carry on with their ‘right’ to be selfish, shit-thick ****s?
A good summary I think. I don't often agree with binners but on this I'm in exactly the same place. The key issue is hospital capacity and the demands placed upon it by those who haven't been vaccinated. The stats are clear in that the vast majority of people in hospital are unvaccinated. If we have to accept restrictions and lockdowns because hospitals are filling up, then it's a simple case of weighing the impact of those restrictions against the rights of individuals to refuse to be vaccinated. The conclusion is so obvious it's barely worth debating.
I know a few people who haven't had the vaccine and they have their reasons which whilst I don't agree I can respect. The question I ask of them though is why should my rights to do the things I want in normal every day life be secondary to their rights to refuse a vaccine? They don't have an answer to that.
There is a doctor on Five Live right now saying how her patience with these idiots is now exhausted and she is now feeling actively hostile towards the anti-vax mob. The reasons why don't even need explaining.
They have made a choice which means they are now filling up hospital wards completely unnecessarily, with all the knock on effects of that on hospital staff, non-covid treatments and the rest of wider society.
Her summary is bang on: its a combination of selfishness and ignorance which is making the situation for everybody infinitely worse.
And that selfishness and ignorance is exactly what I see on the Tory backbenches
Can we start a conspiracy theory that getting the booster makes you a better rider? I was flying this morning.
GET YOUR BOOSTER
As for the hold outs who aren’t vaccinated at all, for reasons other than medical history, I have no idea how to reach them this late on the day. We should have used green cards ever since “freedom day” as both carrot and stick… that we didn’t was an unforced error. And, as Ernie pointed out, that’s not just down to the loonie CRG/ERG mob. Voting against it, even as part of a far too late “plan B”, has lowered my respect for quite a few opposition MPs.
ive lost my patience with fat people.
i dont really care that the lard asses have tried to invent fat shaming as a way of legitimising their dire lifestyle choices.
selfish, ignorant, didums. lets have a max BMI of 25 alongside your vax passport.
:eyeroll:
Can we stop with comparing the size of people with vaccination refuseniks… it’s crass and infantile and was exhausted in 2020.
Can we start a conspiracy theory that getting the booster makes you a better rider? I was flying this morning.
I'm probably in the "denier" camp for that one 😉
I totally understand the anger here - and in the NHS - against anti vaxxers. I'm personally very uncomfortable if the alternative is to leave them on a camp bed in a marquee in a hospital car park to either die there or recover with a residual long term illness. Which is the only alternative if we are freeing up NHS resource to treat those who are jabbed or with other illnesses.
And in the current political climate, first they came for the anti-vaxxers, and I said nothing, then they came for the smokers, then they came for the alcoholics, then they came for the careless mountain bikers, then they came for the careless DIYers.....
If the last 25 years should have taught us anything, it's that restricting rights for those who don't "deserve" them usually ends up ****ing over the rest of us. Usually the poorest first.
Getting my booster tomorrow 👍
Medical care should be based on clinical need. Those suggesting otherwise don’t have my support in the slightest, nor, I hope, the support of many people working in the NHS.
That can be completely separated from the issue of targeting “restrictions” in non-essential public settings at people who won’t get vaccinated or tested. If we need restrictions, to reduce/slow spread, to ensure hospital can treat everyone who comes to need it urgently… the options are to target them at everyone equally, or have schemes in place to reduce restrictions on the vaccinated (or people prepared to take tests). If that’s the choice, I know which I want. The pubs open but showing your status is much more preferable to either closed pubs or pubs being avoided to reduce spread when ever we get a new wave.
A good summary I think. I don’t often agree with binners but on this I’m in exactly the same place
It was a very selective summary, he completely ignored your comment, which I was referring to :
"The only other option is to let it rip which is clearly where Boris and the nutters are."
It is clear that Johnson wants restrictions, he isn't going for the 'let rip' option. Which is precisely why he is facing mounting opposition from his back benchers and why the Labour Party supported him in a parliamentary vote a few days ago.
It is clear that Johnson wants restrictions? Do we think that’s what he told the other UK leaders at the Cobra meeting? Who knows what he wants…? To “let the bodies pile high” or “follow the science”… as is often the case, he’s trying to call heads and tails, while waiting for the coin to stop spinning…
Medical care should be based on clinical need.
If you have two people lying on the floor of A+E hacking their guts up with covid, one is fully vaccinated (and is one of the unlucky few), the other has no vaccine. They otherwise appear medically identical.
Who do you decide to treat first?
A reminder of why I’m no where near that line of work… I simply couldn’t make that call… but I would expect the medical professionals to decide based on need and benefit.
It is clear that Johnson wants restrictions, he isn’t going for the ‘let rip’ option.
I don't know what evidence you've got for that? As always, it's never 'clear' what he wants. Mixed messaging has been the thing all along.
He's had to be dragged kicking and screaming to any form of restrictions right from the off, with the result of it always being too little, too late. Looks like we're in for the same again this time around. And it's common knowledge now that in March 2020, herd immunity ie: no restrictions at all, was the plan, in direct contrast to medical evidence from other countries who were ahead of us.
Anyway: anyone seen or heard from our glorious leader of late?
He's not been at COBRA meetings. He's been sending out his usual human shields to do the press...
Check your fridges, folks...
A reminder of why I’m no where near that line of work… I simply couldn’t make that call… but I would expect the medical professionals to decide based on need and benefit.
remove any emotion or stance on anti-vaxxers so its not a judgement call
But...
is the vaccinated person in less need because their immune system has a head start?
or are they in more need because they had that head start and are still in A+E?
He should still be on paternity leave I would think. Maybe he's deciding which is better: changing dirty nappies full of shit or looking after his newborn.
for reference with my booster jab saturday
i had to go away from my usual place to get jabbed (as nowhere local doing it)
i had an appointment at 12.55pm - the room was full.....around 20-30 people in the pharmacy waiting to be jabbed
i am 39 years old. i was the youngest person in there being jabbed at that point
two blokes opposite me easily well into the 60's and mostly 50 year old people or there abouts for the rest, bar a couple with a baby who were a touch older than me and having the booster
my point being....why on earth are these morons either a) only going for the booster now when its been available for some time for that age groups that were in there or even more frightening b) they are only just starting there 1st jab!!!
i was honestly amazed at the age of people in there, ****ing moronic ****s
Perhaps they have had Covid, that messes up the timings for people.
Can we stop with comparing the size of people with vaccination refuseniks
of course, someone whose informed or ill-informed lifestyle choices should still have the right to the same treatment as anyone else.
If the last 25 years should have taught us anything, it’s that restricting rights for those who don’t “deserve” them usually ends up **** over the rest of us. Usually the poorest first.
So incentivise people instead of punishing them for not having a vaccine. If they paid everyone who had the vaccine £100 we'd have 99.99% take up. It would be a small price to pay compared to the economic cost of lockdowns.
kelvin
Full Member
Perhaps they have had Covid, that messes up the timings for people.
the whole room??? jeez i think your being a bit too optimistic with folk there
A lot of people have had Covid this autumn. You can’t get your booster straight after having been infected. And many had it last winter when the rollout was hitting that age group for first jabs. Very easy for people in that age group to have only had since the six/five month rules were dropped to book and get jabbed.
dazh
Full Member
If the last 25 years should have taught us anything, it’s that restricting rights for those who don’t “deserve” them usually ends up **** over the rest of us. Usually the poorest first.So incentivise people instead of punishing them for not having a vaccine. If they paid everyone who had the vaccine £100 we’d have 99.99% take up. It would be a small price to pay compared to the economic cost of lockdowns.
we had this conversation at work today - i bet the uptake would be tenfold if it was offered a cash bonus for doing it. Sad, but probably true for a lot of people.
recent conversations with various GP/Doctors is the same story - its mostly unvaccinated in hospital taking up beds- and given londons only got a 3rd of its population vaccinated its hardly a surprise the hospitals there are not in a good place
So incentivise people instead of punishing them for not having a vaccine. If they paid everyone who had the vaccine £100 we’d have 99.99% take up. It would be a small price to pay compared to the economic cost of lockdowns.
But they might spend it on pie and chips and packets of Haribo and Monster Munch. In which case we'd apparently be back to square one
kelvin
Full Member
A lot of people have had Covid this autumn/winter.
still to optimistic - i dont buy it, maybe a few yes, but not the whole room, and the same sort of age bracket outside too queining
now if they have suddenly just started to get on board with it then great, but its almost a bit too little too late with it really in helping the current situation
only got a 3rd of its population vaccinated
Other way around. About a 3rd of the population in London unvaccinated.
i dont buy it
Why?
kelvin
Full Member
only got a 3rd of its population vaccinatedOther way around. About a 3rd of the population in London unvaccinated.
yep sorry wrong way round, but thats still roughly 3 million people, which is a pretty scary number for the hospitals to potentially contend with albeit even if its a small percentage of them that actually go in
****wits
a) only going for the booster now when its been available for some time
Yes if you could get booked in possibly. As soon as I was notified I could get a booster I went online to book. This was 3 weeks ago. My appt - the earliest date available is 29th December. If I could have had it sooner I would have. It's not always the individual's fault.
yep sorry wrong way round, but thats still roughly 3 million people, which is a pretty scary number for the hospitals to potentially contend with albeit even if its a small percentage of them that actually go in
I think this is the main thing the selfish anti-vax dimwits fail to grasp. Just how small a percentage of them need to be admitted to hospital before the whole system starts to collapse
fazzini
Full Member
a) only going for the booster now when its been available for some timeYes if you could get booked in possibly. As soon as I was notified I could get a booster I went online to book. This was 3 weeks ago. My appt – the earliest date available is 29th December. If I could have had it sooner I would have. It’s not always the individual’s fault.
it should have been mostly my age bracket in there or maybe 40-50 year old with a few older ones in perhaps who have not been able to due to having covid like you say, this was a room full with much older people and the queue outside was the same, now i have no idea if that was the case all day long or not but thats what i saw with my eyes, and thats the opinion i formed, it didnt add up
i expect a few were exactly like you say doing it at first opportunity after delay from having covid, but not for the whole rooms worth of people in there.
fazzini
Full Member
a) only going for the booster now when its been available for some timeYes if you could get booked in possibly. As soon as I was notified I could get a booster I went online to book. This was 3 weeks ago. My appt – the earliest date available is 29th December. If I could have had it sooner I would have. It’s not always the individual’s fault.
i guess it depends where you live, it wont have been an issue where i live i got mine within a week as did my parents
anyways, it was just my point of view what i saw first hand, im not going into arguing about it, its pointless, it just seemed to me that most folk in that room should have been done wayyy before me at 39
anyways thanks TiRed for your contributions, has helped understand everything a little easier
i'm thankful to the scientists and volunteers who have helped throughout this you all deserve high praise
