• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Our total reliance on a vaccine and putting life on hold until it's rolled out

Status
Not open for further replies.

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
UK population = 50M. Covid death rate somewhere between 0.5% and 1%. I recall all the theories about natural immunity, protection by having had a cold and so on after the first lockdown, but the second wave has demonstrated clearly that they were wrong.

So the "way of life" that our ancestors fought for doesn't include protecting the old and vulnerable? I seem to recall my father explaining to me just why (despite coming from a family of Quakers) he had volunteered as soon as WWII broke out in 1939.

Actually, London, which was by far the area worst hit during lockdown 1, has had a noticably better second wave, so I suspect that there is an element of truth in those theories about natural immunity. The North East, by contrast was barely touched by the first wave in comparison, and is getting hammered now.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Dent

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2015
Messages
1,106
Yet money solves everything in terms of this. I rather have my health

So you're saying that getting money from the government wouldn't solve everything, but being able to sue the company would?

Where did you get "of course that'll be labelled as its my fault for taking it" from?
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
UK population = 50M. Covid death rate somewhere between 0.5% and 1%. I recall all the theories about natural immunity, protection by having had a cold and so on after the first lockdown, but the second wave has demonstrated clearly that they were wrong.

So the "way of life" that our ancestors fought for doesn't include protecting the old and vulnerable? I seem to recall my father explaining to me just why (despite coming from a family of Quakers) he had volunteered as soon as WWII broke out in 1939.
Apart from the fact that it's not 0.5 and 1, it's 0.2%. Using your numbers would put us at 100,000, which we're starting to get very close too anyway!
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Not gonna lie but that also feels rather like a strawman to me. Or at the very least a callous disregard for fellow humans and their friends and families. Perhaps we are closer to Soylent Green than I originally thought?
It was a little bluntly put to be fair, however this kind of decision making goes on every single day in the NHS. The good news is many of those people most at risk can now be treated and very shortly protected.

UK population = 50M. Covid death rate somewhere between 0.5% and 1%. I recall all the theories about natural immunity, protection by having had a cold and so on after the first lockdown, but the second wave has demonstrated clearly that they were wrong.

So the "way of life" that our ancestors fought for doesn't include protecting the old and vulnerable? I seem to recall my father explaining to me just why (despite coming from a family of Quakers) he had volunteered as soon as WWII broke out in 1939.
You mean the Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) is between 05.-1.0%? And even this is probably an over-estimate, with some sources putting it at around 0.2-0.3%.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
UK population = 50M.
It's higher than that
Covid death rate somewhere between 0.5% and 1%.
It's lower than that, but also stats of death rates for an overall population are almost meaningless; the death rate for young people is about as close to zero as you can get, while for older people it is many thousands of times higher. The average age of a death with Covid is over 80.

I recall all the theories about natural immunity, protection by having had a cold and so on after the first lockdown, but the second wave has demonstrated clearly that they were wrong.
Not at all. But I am not sure what you are really saying. What is the theory exactly that you are debunking and what is your claim?

If your claim is that this virus is so new that we have no pre-existing cross-immunity to it, that is an absurd suggestion that goes against all the evidence.

So the "way of life" that our ancestors fought for doesn't include protecting the old and vulnerable?
But to what extent can we do that? Ruining millions of livelihoods and harming the physical and mental wellbeling of millions is not an acceptable tradeoff.

The aim of life should not be to keep elderly people alive indefinitely at the cost of wellbeing of younger people. The 'system' kept my grandmothers alive for longer than was humane; animals would not be treated in this way.

I think the best response to this would be for you to see the interview with Maureen of Barnsley, which has been mentioned several times on this forum.

Have you seen it? If not, I refer you to post #115.

I seem to recall my father explaining to me just why (despite coming from a family of Quakers) he had volunteered as soon as WWII broke out in 1939.
WWII was about protecting our freedoms, not implementing authoritarianism!

I do not think you are aware of the true facts and aware of what is actually going on, otherwise I do not think you would be making the arguments that you are making. How much of this thread have you read? How much research have you done? It seems to me that you are posting views here based on very little reading and research; if you look at the evidence, I suspect you may change your mind...
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,539
Location
Redcar
It's one thing to protect the old and vulnerable, it's another thing altogether to protect them at the expense of the young and healthy

Oh I agree and I do question the "burden sharing" for lack of better term between the young and the old. But good grief they're still people and still have families and friends who will grieve when they die. We can surely be a touch more compassionate than just "meh, they'd have been dead soon anyway"!

It was a little bluntly put to be fair, however this kind of decision making goes on every single day in the NHS. The good news is many of those people most at risk can now be treated and very shortly protected.

I don't doubt that it does and as above I do think that the way we've divided up who will be protected at any cost and who will actually pay that cost is unfair. But again, we can surely offer more for our fellows than "they'd be dead soon anyway"?
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I don't doubt that it does and as above I do think that the way we've divided up who will be protected at any cost and who will actually pay that cost is unfair. But again, we can surely offer more for our fellows than "they'd be dead soon anyway"?
For some hopefully a combination of improvement treatment & a vaccine will give them more hope, although for those with terminal conditions it might not be a whole lot more. But nonetheless, when we get to the point at which we can significantly reduce the impact of covid on hospitals, then our attention must refocus and let the NHS get on with what it does best.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,633
Oh I agree and I do question the "burden sharing" for lack of better term between the young and the old. But good grief they're still people and still have families and friends who will grieve when they die. We can surely be a touch more compassionate than just "meh, they'd have been dead soon anyway"!

The problem is that that compassion is likely to be purchased at the cost of more suffering by other segments of the population.

That is just the cold hard logic of epidemics.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
The same as happens with most other vaccines, the liability shifts to the government, nothing new here.

Indeed so - but why? At best this is a case of 'privatizing profit and socialising risk', which is pretty hard to justify, whatever political persuasion you happen to hold.

Also, £120,000 isn't exactly a vast amount of money if you have to live for maybe 70 or 80 years with a permanent serious disability. A court would be likely to award significantly more than that in such circumstances, though of course in this case that path is blocked.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
The problem is that that compassion is likely to be purchased at the cost of more suffering by other segments of the population.
I can understand what you and others are saying, but the choice of language perhaps needs to be changed.

It is a difficult one to get the right language; perhaps it is best to simply quote Maureen from Barnsley?

I felt she came across very well in her interview, and having had the virus and being 83 herself, her views on how young people have been mistreated cannot be so easily dismissed by those who purport to have the views of people like her in mind.
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,538
Location
UK
Oh I agree and I do question the "burden sharing" for lack of better term between the young and the old. But good grief they're still people and still have families and friends who will grieve when they die. We can surely be a touch more compassionate than just "meh, they'd have been dead soon anyway"!



I don't doubt that it does and as above I do think that the way we've divided up who will be protected at any cost and who will actually pay that cost is unfair. But again, we can surely offer more for our fellows than "they'd be dead soon anyway"?
You seem keen to avoid the discussion and engage in emotive arguments using misrepresentative language that could be considered as a strawman argument.

What are the reasons that public health measures should not be subject to the same scrutiny as NHS treatments?
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,539
Location
Redcar
You seem keen to avoid the discussion and engage in emotive arguments using misrepresentative language that could be considered as a strawman argument.

What are the reasons that public health measures should not be subject to the same scrutiny as NHS treatments?

Sorry, you're going to have to try me again on that?
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
I can understand what you and others are saying, but the choice of language perhaps needs to be changed.

It is a difficult one to get the right language; perhaps it is best to simply quote Maureen from Barnsley?

I felt she came across very well in her interview, and having had the virus and being 83 herself, her views on how young people have been mistreated cannot be so easily dismissed by those who purport to have the views of people like her in mind.

I think Sir Charles Walker - who has been consistently excellent on this for some months now, and was the MP who was objecting to the old lady being manhandled while arrested by the Police in Parliament Square the other week - summed it up well in the debate in the Commons on Tuesday.

Here's his full speech. It is only 4 paragraphs and fully worth reading.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...3E44-807A-4596-AD7C-946314AC3E2A/PublicHealth
In these debates, we talk about elderly people as if they are not in the room. We talk over their heads. We patronise them. We say to them, “This is being done in your name to keep you safe and, really, your view is of little interest to us.” I have been contacted by many grandparents and parents who say, “Charles, not in my name. I do not want to see my children’s future destroyed or my grandchildren’s business destroyed. I do not want to see my son and daughter worrying about losing their home and their livelihood. I do not want to see my grandchildren arrested on the streets of London for daring to raise their voice in protest at the removal of their liberties.” Old people—the people we patronise—have a view, and we should listen to it. Of course, it is not a universal view, but it is a view that is held by many.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster asked on Saturday, “How could we protect every old person?” The answer is obvious to everyone in this place: we could not protect every old person, but we could provide them with the information to make informed choices about their own safety because, funnily enough, you do not get old by being that stupid. There is a degree of wisdom in older people, and I hope to achieve that wisdom one day myself.

There is a serious point here: no Government can abolish death. It is impossible. Every year, 615,000 people die in this country, and not every death is a tragedy. It is so distressing when I hear leaders of political parties, leaders of communities and leaders in this place say that every death was a tragedy. A tragedy is when a child dies. A tragedy is when some young woman or young man dies, or when someone is cut down in their middle years. When we say it is a tragedy that someone at 80 or 90 has met their mortality, we diminish that life so well lived. We diminish the love. We diminish the way that that person was cherished and valued. Please can we change the narrative when we talk about death? Not all deaths are equal—there is the same outcome, but to compare the death of someone of 90 with the death of someone of 19 is not right.

Of course, there has been tragedy attached to the death of elderly people, and that tragedy is that in their final days and months, they have been denied the touch of the people they love. We have kept families apart for the good of an old person who is desperate to see their child and desperate to be cared for by their daughter in their final weeks and months. My plea to this place is: please can we involve older people in this discussion? They love their children and grandchildren and want to see them prosper. They want to see them have the same chances and opportunities that they had in their life.
 

Dent

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2015
Messages
1,106
But good grief they're still people and still have families and friends who will grieve when they die. We can surely be a touch more compassionate
Are those losing their livelihoods, suffering mental health damage, not getting the treatment they need for other conditions, being driven to suicide etc. not also people with families and friends? Why should compassion only be applied to one group, and compassion for that one group be used as an excuse for a complete lack of compassion towards anyone else?
 
Last edited:

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,433
Location
Yorkshire
I think Sir Charles Walker - who has been consistently excellent on this for some months now, and was the MP who was objecting to the old lady being manhandled while arrested by the Police in Parliament Square the other week - summed it up well in the debate in the Commons on Tuesday.

Here's his full speech. It is only 4 paragraphs and fully worth reading.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commo...3E44-807A-4596-AD7C-946314AC3E2A/PublicHealth
I agree; he states his case very well indeed.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
However I'll ask again, what are your concerns about the vaccine which is making you so concerned about having it in the first place?

The timescale for development has been shortened, so there is a risk that potential side effects have not been idenfitied.

I am not in any group at particlar risk, nor in the age bracket where it will be offered, so it's not likely to be an issue in the short term. In the longer term, I really don't see any point in having it even if offered. Statistically, flu is just as much a risk to people below 50, but they don't offer flu vaccinations to everyone and I don't see why this should be any different.

I also generally avoid the medical profession unless I really have to, so I'm not going to be signing up for a vaccine whcih I don't need.
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,609
It's one thing to protect the old and vulnerable, it's another thing altogether to protect them at the expense of the young and healthy
But that is exactly what the wars did. It wasn't the old and vunerable being sent to Flanders, it was the young and healthy... and in many cases no they didn't get a choice in the matter.
 

notlob.divad

Established Member
Joined
19 Jan 2016
Messages
1,609
Actually, London, which was by far the area worst hit during lockdown 1, has had a noticably better second wave, so I suspect that there is an element of truth in those theories about natural immunity. The North East, by contrast was barely touched by the first wave in comparison, and is getting hammered now.
London also has a much higher proportion of professional jobs that are able to be done from home. Meaning a bigger reduction in the ability of the virus to spread through behavioural actions rather than immunity.

Secondly you need to take into account the "I know someone who has died/been seriously ill" from this behavioural aspect, so maybe mental immunity rather than immune system immunity. ie If you know people who have suffered and/or died, you will probably take the advice more seriously. If you live in London you are more likely to have been in contact with someone who was impacted in the first wave, than if you were in the North East where as you say there were much lower infection and death rates.

Finally, as many pointed out, the levels of virus were comparatively higher in the North of England at the point the first national lockdown was lifted. Therefore there is no surprise that it rebounds there quicker and faster than it did down in London.
 

packermac

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2019
Messages
543
Location
Swanage
It's one thing to protect the old and vulnerable, it's another thing altogether to protect them at the expense of the young and healthy
I think you need to specify your definitions of "young" and "old" please.
I am 69 next month and class myself as old despite being retired and still running a small business from home, but I would like to know the ranges of whom you feel are "important" and those that no longer "have any value"
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,539
Location
Redcar
Why should compassion only be applied to one group, and compassion for that one group be used as an excuse for a complete lack of compassion towards anyone else?

I'm not sure where I suggested that only one group should receive compassion?

If the lockdown was an NHS treatment, NICE would almost certainly not approve it.
Not cost effective enough

Ah gotcha. Well I think it would be hard to argue against that at this point (and I'd not be arguing it as I would tend to agree!). Personally I still think we should have persisted with the previous softer version of tiering for longer rather than just throwing the towel in. I feel like there might have been some balance point to be achieved there between the various competing requirements. But we are now where we are as we try and continue to find a way for Bozza to have his Churchillian moment.
 

DB

Guest
Joined
18 Nov 2009
Messages
5,036
London also has a much higher proportion of professional jobs that are able to be done from home. Meaning a bigger reduction in the ability of the virus to spread through behavioural actions rather than immunity.

London also has a far higher density of people travelling in, so even with a larger reduction that other cities the numbers still going in are unlikely to have been below those of other UK cities.
 

jtuk

Member
Joined
4 Jun 2018
Messages
423
London also has a far higher density of people travelling in, so even with a larger reduction that other cities the numbers still going in are unlikely to have been below those of other UK cities.

London also has quite a large number of areas of people living in fairly high density accommodation, which doesn't help
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,640
Indeed so - but why? At best this is a case of 'privatizing profit and socialising risk', which is pretty hard to justify, whatever political persuasion you happen to hold.

Also, £120,000 isn't exactly a vast amount of money if you have to live for maybe 70 or 80 years with a permanent serious disability. A court would be likely to award significantly more than that in such circumstances, though of course in this case that path is blocked.
Because it's the government who are asking everyone to take the vaccine. £120k looks better than what has been available in the past, e.g. this bit of legislation in the past that offers £10k for being disabled as a result of a vaccine - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1979/17/introduction
An Act to provide for payments to be made out of public funds in cases where severe disablement occurs as a result of vaccination against certain diseases or of contact with a person who has been vaccinated against any of those diseases; to make provision in connection with similar payments made before the passing of this Act; and for purposes connected therewith.
 

kez19

Established Member
Joined
15 May 2020
Messages
2,038
Location
Dundee
So you're saying that getting money from the government wouldn't solve everything, but being able to sue the company would?

Where did you get "of course that'll be labelled as its my fault for taking it" from?

Of course money wouldn't solve anything regardless of any side effects or anything that happened in later life, but I guess money resolves anything and everything?, if there is a problem lets throw money away at it to hope it goes away.

Or to put it in short - I care more about my health than I do money had anything went wrong (I would take a guess thats what every human being would do but then again some are after money more than looking after their own health)

What you had quoted was my own opinion on it... if I have to take the vaccine and if I was to suffer from anything that went wrong to me it would be my fault not anyone elses fault, if a vaccine is made mandatory than by choice.
 
Last edited:

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
I think you misread Boris. He wants to be a national hero like Churchill and here is nothing he would like better than to be the one to announce the "fantastic" news that he has waved a magic wand and restrictions can be lifted. It's just that for once in his life he is up against reality. The virus is not susceptible to bullsh*t. Once you lift the restrictions the mathematical progression of the epidemic takes over. I think he probably realises that the peak in deaths in the first wave will be laid at his door once the history books are written and he doesn't want to do it again.

I doubt it, in the long-term. Do people blame Lloyd George or Woodrow Wilson for the deaths due to the Spanish flu? Of course not.

In my opinion, the history books will look at this as a period of totally irrational hysteria. The criticism of our politicians will be that they had the hubris to imagine they could restructure society entirely in order to try to stop a respiratory virus.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Oh I agree and I do question the "burden sharing" for lack of better term between the young and the old. But good grief they're still people and still have families and friends who will grieve when they die. We can surely be a touch more compassionate than just "meh, they'd have been dead soon anyway"!

Sometimes dispassionate analysis is what is required. Certainly as a young person with only 2 grandparents left (one of whom hasn't been enjoying life for a while now) and who doesn't know many other older people, and generally feels rather aggrieved by the seeming constant slew of government actions seemingly done only to woo pensioners, I wouldn't have many qualms about following a more relaxed approach to virus 'control'

But that is exactly what the wars did. It wasn't the old and vunerable being sent to Flanders, it was the young and healthy... and in many cases no they didn't get a choice in the matter.

Apart from the fact that it wasn't the old and vulnerable that they were fighting for, but everyone, including the millions of people born afterwards. Not that two wrongs make a right either, justifying responses to Covid by comparison to war doesn't sit right with me

I think you need to specify your definitions of "young" and "old" please.
I am 69 next month and class myself as old despite being retired and still running a small business from home, but I would like to know the ranges of whom you feel are "important" and those that no longer "have any value"

There's inevitably no real cut off as things tend to exist on a spectrum, but my personal definition of young would be under around 60 and old would be over 80. It's not that the elderly are less important or 'valuable', but my gut feeling is that the 'cost' to protect them exceeds the 'value' that they have

That said, I'm all too aware that it's very easy for me in my position (as noted earlier in the post - young and bitter) to sit and complain about the costs that I'll be asked to bear with no personal benefit. I'm glad I'm not the person having to make the decisions, as none of them are easy or particularly palatable
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top