Heading into autumn - what next?

[102 fan]

Report on Channel 4 from a London hospital that 90% of patients are not fully vaccinated.

People aren’t going to accept further restrictions for these idiots.

A little context would be desirable. How many were diagnosed upon entry? How many caught it whilst inside? And finally, and more crucially, how many are we actually talking about?

Calling the unvaccinated idiots does say more about yourself than the unvaccinated.

 

[bramling]

Even a 2 week firebreak in October will finish off a lot of businesses if they are forced to close yet again.

Goodness knows why they’re even thinking about a firebreak, given how useless it was in Wales.

If one was going to happen it would need to be proper solid “everyone indoors except absolute key workers” to even begin to have an effect. Perhaps this is what should be being proposed, along with no support measures like furlough. Then see how many people support it.

(Note I’m in no way advocating this, but it seems that if we keep hitting the sweet-spot where for much of the population restrictions equal extra bank holidays, too many people are going to keep supporting it as a viable policy tool).

 

[nedchester]

Do you really thing labeling people as "idiots" is appropriate?

Yes I do.

Their choice of course.

Link to report:

Covid: The unvaccinated patients in intensive care

Covid booster jabs could start being handed out later this month, according to the Health Secretary Sajid Javid, who says he's now just waiting for advice on who should be eligible.

www.channel4.com

 

[Darandio]

The divide and rule plan seems to be working well then.

 

[nedchester]

A little context would be desirable. How many were diagnosed upon entry? How many caught it whilst inside? And finally, and more crucially, how many are we actually talking about?

Calling the unvaccinated idiots does say more about yourself than the unvaccinated.

Go on then what does it say about me?

The overwhelming evidence is that the vaccines are very effective at stopping severe infection and death. That’s the science.

If you deny that because you read some mumbo jumbo on the Internet then you’re an idiot.

My point is that I would not tolerate another lockdown or restrictions because those who choose not to be vaccinated are clogging up ICU.

 

[james60059]

I wonder if we will see a return of the "essential travel only" mantra that was prevalent during the last lockdowns.

 

[Ianno87]

My point is that I would not tolerate another lockdown or restrictions because those who choose not to be vaccinated are clogging up ICU.

There is a risk that the Government point to deaths and hospital admissions (which are now predominantly unvaccinated) and uses that to justify winter restrictions to “protect the NHS”.

If more people chose to be vaccinated, then that argument would weaken considerably.

I still don’t know what these “long term effects” of the COVID jab are. Perhaps somebody could enlighten me with some science that this has any basis whatsoever?

 

[Darandio]

I still don’t know what these “long term effects” of the COVID jab are. Perhaps somebody could enlighten me with some science that this has any basis whatsoever?

Surely the clue is in the name 'long term'? How would anyone know if there are unintended long term effects until we've entered the long term?

 

[plugwash]

The same is true of the virus itself of course.

 

[DelayRepay]

A little context would be desirable. How many were diagnosed upon entry? How many caught it whilst inside? And finally, and more crucially, how many are we actually talking about?

Link to report:

Covid: The unvaccinated patients in intensive care

Covid booster jabs could start being handed out later this month, according to the Health Secretary Sajid Javid, who says he's now just waiting for advice on who should be eligible.

www.channel4.com

So the report says 'Across North East London, between July and September, 203 patients with Covid 19 were admitted to ICU, 90% were not fully vaccinated'.

 

[Cdd89]

The overwhelming evidence is that the vaccines are very effective at stopping severe infection and death. That’s the science.

If you deny that because you read some mumbo jumbo on the Internet then you’re an idiot.

While I agree with the sentiment, and vaccines are highly effective, a vaccinated 50 year old has the same risk profile as an unvaccinated 30 year old.

Assuming we wouldn’t call the vaccinated 50 year old an idiot, I’d argue that it would be equally illogical to call the unvaccinated 30 year old an idiot.

(Like you) I’d like to see 30 year olds choose to get vaccinated to reduce the burden on healthcare and thus reduce the ability to demand lockdowns as much as possible, but calling them idiots is probably not the right way to go about it when the choice is (individually) rational.

 

[102 fan]

Go on then what does it say about me?

The overwhelming evidence is that the vaccines are very effective at stopping severe infection and death. That’s the science.

If you deny that because you read some mumbo jumbo on the Internet then you’re an idiot.

My point is that I would not tolerate another lockdown or restrictions because those who choose not to be vaccinated are clogging up ICU.

Calling people idiots when you don't know why they're not vaccinated. It's just blindly assuming.

 

[yorkie]

Regarding long term effects of vaccines, this is highly unlikely. Have there ever been any cases of this? Any long term effects are likely to manifest themselves in the short term. People have been being vaccinated with Sars-CoV-2 vaccines in trials for a very long time now.

The virus is becoming endemic; this is unavoidable. The question is whether people decide to give their immune system a headstart or not, for exposure is inevitable.

 

[bramling]

Go on then what does it say about me?

The overwhelming evidence is that the vaccines are very effective at stopping severe infection and death. That’s the science.

If you deny that because you read some mumbo jumbo on the Internet then you’re an idiot.

My point is that I would not tolerate another lockdown or restrictions because those who choose not to be vaccinated are clogging up ICU.

That argument doesn’t really stack up. If you’re saying that you wouldn’t tolerate a lockdown because of ICU being filled up with unvaccinated people, does that mean you *would* tolerate one if ICUs were filling up with vaccinated people? Either way, the ICUs would be filled up. You could certainly curse the unvaccinated for that situation, but should it justify whether you accept a lockdown or not?

There is a risk that the Government point to deaths and hospital admissions (which are now predominantly unvaccinated) and uses that to justify winter restrictions to “protect the NHS”.

If more people chose to be vaccinated, then that argument would weaken considerably.

I still don’t know what these “long term effects” of the COVID jab are. Perhaps somebody could enlighten me with some science that this has any basis whatsoever?

I’m not so sure it’s about long-term “effects”, but surely none of us can deny that there exists the possibility for an unintended consequence to present itself some way down the line, especially with the way Covid has generally behaved in a way which has tended to surprise the scientific fraternity.

But it doesn’t have to be a long-term thing, we’ve already seen the Oxford vaccine barred to younger people due to concerns. The same young people who are “idiots” for being hesitant, or lambasted because they “can’t be bothered to get vaccinated”.

A colleague at work summed it up. She’s pretty balanced in her outlook on things, and didn’t want to be vaccinated early on - “I don’t want Boris sticking some substance in me, this time last year he was boasting about marching into hospitals and shaking hands with Covid patients, so if he thinks I’m going to take the vaccine on his say-so then he has another think coming”. The colleague concerned has now taken the vaccine, but only after a period of “wait & see”. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Regarding long term effects of vaccines, this is highly unlikely. Have there ever been any cases of this? Any long term effects are likely to manifest themselves in the short term. People have been being vaccinated with Sars-CoV-2 vaccines in trials for a very long time now.

The virus is becoming endemic; this is unavoidable. The question is whether people decide to give their immune system a headstart or not, for exposure is inevitable.

I think the way Covid has now become completely endemic will have tipped the balance a bit for some for sure. It wasn’t an unreasonable prospect to keep being careful and hope for herd immunity to cause a natural tail-off, but it now seems this simply isn’t going to happen.

 

[yorkie]

I think most people realise that herd immunity does not apply to Coronaviruses, with which we live in a state of endemic equilibrium with infections acting as boosters every few years. We're now at over 80% of over 16s fully vaccinated and nearly 89% of over 16s with at least one dose. Denmark is going to be an interesting case study to follow.

 

[nedchester]

Regarding long term effects of vaccines, this is highly unlikely. Have there ever been any cases of this? Any long term effects are likely to manifest themselves in the short term. People have been being vaccinated with Sars-CoV-2 vaccines in trials for a very long time now.

The virus is becoming endemic; this is unavoidable. The question is whether people decide to give their immune system a headstart or not, for exposure is inevitable.

Exactly.

As for tolerating a lockdown if the vaccines were ineffective then yes I think people would be more likely to tolerate further restrictions if the vaccines didn’t work but that doesn’t appear to be the case.

Being restricted because people clogging hospitals up have foolishly ignored good scientific advice to get vaccinated would be a very hard sell. And yes it would lead to a two tier system.

I think most people realise that herd immunity does not apply to Coronaviruses, with which we live in a state of endemic equilibrium with infections acting as boosters every few years. We're now at over 80% of over 16s fully vaccinated and nearly 89% of over 16s with at least one dose. Denmark is going to be an interesting case study to follow.

Again agreed

 

[35B]

That argument doesn’t really stack up. If you’re saying that you wouldn’t tolerate a lockdown because of ICU being filled up with unvaccinated people, does that mean you *would* tolerate one if ICUs were filling up with vaccinated people? Either way, the ICUs would be filled up. You could certainly curse the unvaccinated for that situation, but should it justify whether you accept a lockdown or not?



I’m not so sure it’s about long-term “effects”, but surely none of us can deny that there exists the possibility for an unintended consequence to present itself some way down the line, especially with the way Covid has generally behaved in a way which has tended to surprise the scientific fraternity.

But it doesn’t have to be a long-term thing, we’ve already seen the Oxford vaccine barred to younger people due to concerns. The same young people who are “idiots” for being hesitant, or lambasted because they “can’t be bothered to get vaccinated”.

A colleague at work summed it up. She’s pretty balanced in her outlook on things, and didn’t want to be vaccinated early on - “I don’t want Boris sticking some substance in me, this time last year he was boasting about marching into hospitals and shaking hands with Covid patients, so if he thinks I’m going to take the vaccine on his say-so then he has another think coming”. The colleague concerned has now taken the vaccine, but only after a period of “wait & see”. Seems pretty reasonable to me.



I think the way Covid has now become completely endemic will have tipped the balance a bit for some for sure. It wasn’t an unreasonable prospect to keep being careful and hope for herd immunity to cause a natural tail-off, but it now seems this simply isn’t going to happen.

The point this hesitancy misses is that vaccines work quickly, and deliver their side effects quickly.

 

[Cdd89]

I’m not so sure it’s about long-term “effects”, but surely none of us can deny that there exists the possibility for an unintended consequence to present itself some way down the line, especially with the way Covid has generally behaved in a way which has tended to surprise the scientific fraternity.

I (personally) find the “long term effects” argument easiest to counter (more so than concerns about immunity durability or immediate effects); which is that the potential negative long term effects of the vaccine (if any) have to be compared against the potential negative long term effects of Covid-19 (if any), remembering that we only have about six months’ more data on Covid, and everyone will eventually be exposed to Covid.

This very point has convinced quite a few of my friends/colleagues who were on the fence about vaccines and mentioned long term concerns (and solicited the question; I don’t go around enquiring or proselytising!).

 

[bramling]

I (personally) find the “long term effects” argument easiest to counter (more so than concerns about immunity durability or immediate effects); which is that the long term effects of the vaccine (if any) have to be compared against the long term effects of Covid-19 (if any), remembering that we only have about six months’ more data on Covid, and everyone will eventually be exposed to Covid.

This very point has convinced quite a few of my friends/colleagues who were on the fence about vaccines and mentioned long term concerns (and solicited the question; I don’t go around enquiring or proselytising!).

The long-term effects of Covid are still pretty non-understood, which probably doesn’t help.

But against a background of numerous unknowns, I really wouldn’t blame anyone for being hesitant, and certainly wouldn’t label them an idiot, especially younger people for whom the chances of a bad outcome are low whichever way one looks at it.

We are, in any case, not talking about massive NHS Covid occupancy at the moment. The 90% figure being tossed around doesn’t on its own mean much - it could mean 9 out of 10 people which could be nothing, or 900 out of 1,000 people which would clearly represent a greater strain on the health service.

Meanwhile it seems mask wars are back on the agenda - front page of tomorrow’s Metro features a headline covering commuters bickering over masks. I really wish we could move on from masks.

 

[yorkie]

Meanwhile it seems mask wars are back on the agenda - front page of tomorrow’s Metro features a headline covering commuters bickering over masks. I really wish we could move on from masks.

We cannot move on from masks until public transport operators & other companies stop 'recommending' them or telling people to 'please consider others' , which only makes me want to push back against the nonsense even more.

Masks are the new culture war but is best debated elsewhere and it's been done to death.

 

[bramling]

We cannot move on from masks until public transport operators & other companies stop 'recommending' them or telling people to 'please consider others' , which only makes me want to push back against the nonsense even more.

Masks are the new culture war but is best debated elsewhere and it's been done to death.

The trouble is that many of these government policies seem almost deliberately designed to promote bickering. Whilst we’re all arguing about whether it’s “discourteous” not to wear a mask on a train, or whether someone holding off over being vaccinated is an idiot, we are letting the politicians (of all colours) off the hook.

I presume all those people moaning about unvaccinated people taking up NHS capacity don’t consume alcohol or smoke, and that they confine themselves to their homes as much as possible just in case something happens outside which means they end up being an NHS burden. If not then there’s double standards at play.

One thing’s for certain, and that’s that we’re going to hear a lot more about all this as autumn plays out, especially as it seems likely cases will go up at least for a while.

 

[yorkie]

The trouble is that many of these government policies seem almost deliberately designed to promote bickering...

This is very true. I am not going to be shirking from disagreeing with people; enough is enough

It really is quite simple: the vaccines work really well at protecting people against severe disease. We cannot stop the virus spreading. We just need to vaccinate as many people as possible (by convincing them, not forcing them) and get back to normal. Anything else really is a distraction.

 

[bramling]

This is very true. I am not going to be shirking from disagreeing with people; enough is enough

It really is quite simple: the vaccines work really well at protecting people against severe disease. We cannot stop the virus spreading. We just need to vaccinate as many people as possible (by convincing them, not forcing them) and get back to normal. Anything else really is a distraction.

Yes we need to get back to normal, and we need to hold our collective nerve to allow us to get there. Just about the only thing Boris has actually managed to express well has been the “if not now, then when?” question. It’s just a shame he then goes and screws this up with all the rubbish about respect and the like.

I really don’t get why a significant amount of people seem to be willing on the return of restrictions as soon as October. And there are such people, just as there are still people who want restrictions “because I don’t want to catch Covid”. It’s a lovely aim in theory, but it’s completely impractical at this point. I find it extremely selfish that such people seem to expect the whole world to be put on hold essentially indefinitely to facilitate this.

 

[adc82140]

Even a 2 week firebreak in October will finish off a lot of businesses if they are forced to close yet again.

There won't be a firebreak. It was just the odd fantasy of a Sage member who presented his idea to the Independent as the opinion of the government and all advisors. The Independent were either daft enough to fall for it, or deliberately did so to sell more of their unshredded bog paper.

Any further lockdown would completely undermine the vaccine programme. The messaging has always been to vaccinate our way out of lockdowns.

I do love the way though that it's been branded a "firebreak" this year as opposed to a "circuit breaker" that was the phrase of choice last time round.

 

[yorksrob]

The trouble is that many of these government policies seem almost deliberately designed to promote bickering. Whilst we’re all arguing about whether it’s “discourteous” not to wear a mask on a train, or whether someone holding off over being vaccinated is an idiot, we are letting the politicians (of all colours) off the hook.

I presume all those people moaning about unvaccinated people taking up NHS capacity don’t consume alcohol or smoke, and that they confine themselves to their homes as much as possible just in case something happens outside which means they end up being an NHS burden. If not then there’s double standards at play.

One thing’s for certain, and that’s that we’re going to hear a lot more about all this as autumn plays out, especially as it seems likely cases will go up at least for a while.

The issue isn't about unvaccinated people using up hospital capacity per se, is about the possibility of the powers that be forcing a lockdown over them and whether the rest of us will adhere to it.

I've not seen any proposals to lock down over alcohol consumption as yet, so the issue for those of us who like a drink doesn't arise.

 

[eastdyke]

We just need to vaccinate as many people as possible (by convincing them, not forcing them) and get back to normal. Anything else really is a distraction.

In other places, this time US:
Does this count as 'forcing'?
BBC are reporting [sorry don't have a more reliable source]:

US President Joe Biden has announced sweeping new Covid-19 measures that require workers at large companies to be vaccinated or face weekly testing.
The measures also include a vaccine mandate for millions of federal government workers and come as cases in the country are surging.
...
The time for sweet-talking, for cajoling Americans to take the Covid-19 vaccine is over.
The time for government mandates has arrived.

Covid: Biden orders employees of big businesses to be vaccinated or face testing

The US president is using his executive power to require that big companies vaccinate employees.

www.bbc.co.uk

1) UK next?
2) To answer my own question, I suppose whether or not this is 'forcing' will depend upon how much any unvaccinated person would be 'forced' to shell out on weekly tests [affordability].

 

[MikeWM]

Looks like Biden (or rather, whoever it is that is telling him what to say/do) is trying to start a new civil war by setting himself up as a King. Americans usually don't like that sort of thing much.

Imagine the reaction if Trump had tried to abuse executive power this way? I can't see how this is legal or constitutional.

 

[DustyBin]

Looks like Biden (or rather, whoever it is that is telling him what to say/do) is trying to start a new civil war by setting himself up as a King. Americans usually don't like that sort of thing much.

Imagine the reaction if Trump had tried to abuse executive power this way? I can't see how this is legal or constitutional.

I’ve just had this very conversation with somebody funnily enough. I’m an outsider looking in when it comes to the United States, but it appears to be a dangerously divided country.

I read an article recently which referred to the US as the world’s most powerful rogue state. I found it rather anti-American and a little hyperbolic in places, but there was some truth in it. The situation internally does look increasingly unstable.

 

[35B]

Looks like Biden (or rather, whoever it is that is telling him what to say/do) is trying to start a new civil war by setting himself up as a King. Americans usually don't like that sort of thing much.

Imagine the reaction if Trump had tried to abuse executive power this way? I can't see how this is legal or constitutional.

You mean unlike the wall, or the ban on Muslims entering the country? Biden is a lot less monarchical in style than his predecessor.

I think you may be letting your views of Biden, and of this policy, interfere with your view of what the American constitution actually says and does, and what the case law has settled. The federal government has wide ranging powers, both where people and companies work for it, and over inter-state trade where it's national remit allows it to impose policy across the states. The BBC story on this mentions a similar decision in LA about schools requiring vaccinations - you'll notice that this is legally totally separate from Biden's announcement, as education is provided at a local level and therefore not subject to federal authority.

My view on the legality of this would be the same if Trump had been in the White House, and had issued executive orders requiring that the same people not be vaccinated. The difference is that I'm slightly surprised by Biden's announcement, think it medically right but am not convinced that it's wise, but would regard the hypothetical Trump order as tantamount to mass murder.

 

[bramling]

The issue isn't about unvaccinated people using up hospital capacity per se, is about the possibility of the powers that be forcing a lockdown over them and whether the rest of us will adhere to it.

I've not seen any proposals to lock down over alcohol consumption as yet, so the issue for those of us who like a drink doesn't arise.

Of course, we were never really told why lockdown was called, so it's difficult to discuss measurables when we don't know what they were/are (albeit allegedly Boris has recently declared an "acceptable deaths" yardstick, which if true was a rather foolish thing to do because it's pretty much inevitable someone will find a measure which meets it, and then it becomes hard to resist lockdown calls).

But it we're reading between the lines and assuming the primary justification for lockdown is NHS capacity being exceeded, then I don't see why unvaccinated people should be the only thing under the spotlight.

I'm absolutely not advocating it as I'm not arguing for a lockdown based on NHS capacity (or any other reason at this point), but I find it hypocritical for people to be moaning about one group of people supposedly breaking the NHS, and therefore supposedly causing us all to go into lockdown, but not about other groups who have taken up NHS capacity not just in 2021, but over many years. One could extend this to say that anyone who hasn't controlled their weight, and is therefore more at risk of a bad Covid outcome, is "an idiot". None of this is a road we should be going down, instead we should be asking the politicians why the NHS has been found to be inadequate, and what they plan to do about it.

This government has absolutely relished in scapegoating different segments of the population at various times. Once upon a time it was all the fault of people not cancelling their Italian ski-trips (even though the government never told people to do so), then it was all the fault of people in Manchester (only after Burnham upset Boris), then it was people who don't wear a mask, now it's the unvaccinated. Who next?