Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Jabbing the Unjabbable (or, for the less polite, Pricking the Pricks) – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited January 11 in General
imageJabbing the Unjabbable (or, for the less polite, Pricking the Pricks) – politicalbetting.com

I saw a friend recently who is an enthusiast of myriad butt-clenching conspiracy theories. 

Read the full story here

«134567

Comments

  • ClippPClippP Posts: 548
    First
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845
    Second dose....
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    edited January 11
    Interesting take on how to reach these types somehow, thanks Stocky.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,043
    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 8,690

    Second dose....

    So you don't live in Wales then.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845
    edited January 11
    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 81,377
    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 23,895
    The government needs to be thinking very hard about vaccination certificates. Other countries are going to ask for them and whatever ideological bullshit that Boris has against them will then have to be cast aside because we won't be able to go to Australia, New Zealand or Canada in a few months.
  • BluestBlueBluestBlue Posts: 2,966
    It's clear we need to find ways to achieve a Damascene conversion for the anti-vaxxers:

    'And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there shined round about him a light from heaven: And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks...'

    Acts 9:4-5
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845
    edited January 11
    deleted
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,009
    Great post @Stocky.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 6,670
    At the risk of ludicrous overcomplacency - I just don't think vaccination refusal is going to be a big problem in the UK.

    I am probably completely wrong but my prediction is that so many people are so scared and COVID is in the news so much that basically everyone is going to get jabbed - uptake will not be a big problem overall.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 783
    Interesting post, thank you @Stocky

    I would suggest that a certificate is not needed - simply let passport control at airports/ports access an electronic list of those vaccinated, which can be uploaded from primary care data. However, given I work with health data and am aware of such interesting events as people having multiple deaths or giving birth aged 93, I accept that may not be foolproof.

    A sufficiently successful vaccination programme will also make certification unnecessary - the goal should be to reach herd immunity (indeed, beyond the minimum level) through mass vaccination and eradicate Covid in any meaningful sense in this country (sporadic cases may pop up, but Covid will have nowhere to go). Once that is done, airlines will no more want to see proof of a Covid vaccination than of a smallpox vaccination. There will of course be a period of time when many are vaccinated but Covid is still a threat, so in the short term some proof may be useful.

    Also, I feel your pain re your friend. My father in law, whom I like very much and go to (well, used to when that was possible) the pub with on a fairly regular basis is doubtful the moon landings ever took place. He says this mostly to rile another friend who never fails to bite, but also seems to believe it himself. I, too, after once setting out why I believe him to be wrong, no longer engage on this.
  • Official vaccination certificates have been mooted before. They might well be needed, at least for some purposes like travel, but surely we run into the identity card problem, if they need a national database of individuals and their vaccination status?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 38,775
    On excess deaths. ONS report that:

    In Week 51, the number of deaths registered was 12.7% above the five-year average (1,463 deaths higher).

    In Week 52, the number of deaths registered was 44.8% above the five-year average (3,566 deaths higher)*


    *Note caveat on week 52: but this increase should be treated with caution; the five-year average was particularly low in Week 52 as the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, all contained two bank holidays, whereas Week 52 of 2020 only contained one bank holiday so would likely have more deaths registered.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 5,155
    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    Talk us through the physical realities of compulsorily vaccinating an unwilling vaccinee.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 8,335
    rkrkrk said:

    At the risk of ludicrous overcomplacency - I just don't think vaccination refusal is going to be a big problem in the UK.

    I am probably completely wrong but my prediction is that so many people are so scared and COVID is in the news so much that basically everyone is going to get jabbed - uptake will not be a big problem overall.

    I agree. The number of people who will refuse to take it will be tiny, as opposed to a larger group who like to talk about refusing to take it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 10,115
    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    The problem with that is the risk to others.

    A hypothetical 20 year old may feel fine risking it.

    But the elderly chap working as a cleaner in the 20 years hotel in Bora Bora may not have had the jab or may be one of those who isn't immunised by the vaccination.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 8,690
    MaxPB said:

    The government needs to be thinking very hard about vaccination certificates. Other countries are going to ask for them and whatever ideological bullshit that Boris has against them will then have to be cast aside because we won't be able to go to Australia, New Zealand or Canada in a few months.

    How do we manage that without triggering another vanity by-election in Haltemprice and Howden?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 12,989
    It was amusing watching Bozo having to defend his "essential work trip" to Bristol during an interview earlier.

    Perhaps his next essential visit will be to the GSK facility in Barnard Caste?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 23,895

    MaxPB said:

    The government needs to be thinking very hard about vaccination certificates. Other countries are going to ask for them and whatever ideological bullshit that Boris has against them will then have to be cast aside because we won't be able to go to Australia, New Zealand or Canada in a few months.

    How do we manage that without triggering another vanity by-election in Haltemprice and Howden?
    80 seat majority, fuck him.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 13,182
    Well done for creating a thread that is not about Trump.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 10,115
    Selebian said:

    Interesting post, thank you @Stocky

    I would suggest that a certificate is not needed - simply let passport control at airports/ports access an electronic list of those vaccinated, which can be uploaded from primary care data. However, given I work with health data and am aware of such interesting events as people having multiple deaths or giving birth aged 93, I accept that may not be foolproof.

    A sufficiently successful vaccination programme will also make certification unnecessary - the goal should be to reach herd immunity (indeed, beyond the minimum level) through mass vaccination and eradicate Covid in any meaningful sense in this country (sporadic cases may pop up, but Covid will have nowhere to go). Once that is done, airlines will no more want to see proof of a Covid vaccination than of a smallpox vaccination. There will of course be a period of time when many are vaccinated but Covid is still a threat, so in the short term some proof may be useful.

    Also, I feel your pain re your friend. My father in law, whom I like very much and go to (well, used to when that was possible) the pub with on a fairly regular basis is doubtful the moon landings ever took place. He says this mostly to rile another friend who never fails to bite, but also seems to believe it himself. I, too, after once setting out why I believe him to be wrong, no longer engage on this.

    I have found, in the past, that using the arguments of denialism too deny the existence of something obvious to be quite useful.

    So I deny the existence of Australia.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 38,775
    Biden to get 2nd jab today.

    Hurrah!
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 13,182
    Regarding certificates, would a stamp (or whatever the modern slightly less forgeable alternative is) in the passport not be appropriate? It means not taking extra paperwork when travelling.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845
    Who will mourn for them if the last reservoir of Covid deaths is amongst these anti-vaxxers?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732

    Biden to get 2nd jab today.

    Hurrah!

    Its going to be a right waste when they shoot him.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    Talk us through the physical realities of compulsorily vaccinating an unwilling vaccinee.
    I'm just surprised it wasn't all the over 50s and the Scots.
  • anothernickanothernick Posts: 3,362

    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.

    If I want to drive a car on the road I have to prove that both the car and I are safe, fit to drive and not an undue threat to my fellow road users. If I want to go to a nightclub I may have to show that I am not an undue threat to my fellow clubbers by presenting evidence of vaccination. This is not apartheid, it is merely common sense.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 3,403

    Who will mourn for them if the last reservoir of Covid deaths is amongst these anti-vaxxers?

    The Darwin Awards people as they will have too many candidates to choose from that year.
  • Boris knows something about being on the receiving end of unwanted pricks
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 12,989
    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    Life imprisonment or firing squad for those who refuse?
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 657
    DavidL said:

    Biden to get 2nd jab today.

    Hurrah!

    Its going to be a right waste when they shoot him.
    They'd have to shoot Harris first, surely, otherwise it might be counterproductive.

    Seriously, though, that must be a worry.

  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 8,690
    DavidL said:

    Biden to get 2nd jab today.

    Hurrah!

    Its going to be a right waste when they shoot him.
    Well that hasn't exactly cheered me up on this drab and dreary day.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 12,393

    Mortimer said:

    Mrs RP has just made a good point. It isn't just a question of how much fresh fruit and vegetables is available, its how fresh it is. We've noticed we're having to throw out quite a bit of citrus fruits which has gone soft / nasty.

    Mr RP, honest question - how come the supermarkets around my way seem to no problem with any fresh fruit/veg supplies at all?
    Because of the rampant inefficiencies in most of the big supermarket supply chains. All the major retailers stock far too many products ("SKUs") from too many suppliers. Which means they need a lot of supply depots for different regions or national depots for slow-moving products. Co-ordinating all that is difficult and its a common occurrence for any given retailer to have both significant availability shortages of any given SKU in a load of stores AND oversupply of that SKU in other depots / stores preventing the computer system ordering to fill the gaps.

    That there is a growing national stock squeeze on fresh is not up for debate. Stores or indeed whole areas still largely ok for stock is not proof that there is no national problem, its just how supply chains (don't) work.
    FPT:

    Thanks for the explainer.

    The first point is so annoying. I used to be a retail consultant and it was basically a given that you could always suggest reducing cost (but not really range) by reducing skus. And yet it seems to fall on deaf ears.

    I've never understood why it is deemed useful to be able to buy 6 different brands of the same type of pasta, all in 3 sizes, but no e.g. juniper berries (except as part of a gin garnish bag) at my local big super....
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 4,146

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.


    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 47,349
    Good idea.

    Let people choose, but choices have consequences.

    Only issue is how to get around the fact some people have genuine reasons they can't get the vaccine for whatever reason and should still be able to travel. If there's a legit answer to that then go ahead.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 12,393

    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.

    Pretty sure it will be deemed illegal to favour customers in such a way.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732

    DavidL said:

    Biden to get 2nd jab today.

    Hurrah!

    Its going to be a right waste when they shoot him.
    Well that hasn't exactly cheered me up on this drab and dreary day.
    Apologies. A poor attempt at humour.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 8,690
    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    Why over 50? Universal mandatory vaccinations. Any refusal and we send the tanks in!
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 3,882
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    Talk us through the physical realities of compulsorily vaccinating an unwilling vaccinee.
    Dart gun
  • eekeek Posts: 10,100
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mrs RP has just made a good point. It isn't just a question of how much fresh fruit and vegetables is available, its how fresh it is. We've noticed we're having to throw out quite a bit of citrus fruits which has gone soft / nasty.

    Mr RP, honest question - how come the supermarkets around my way seem to no problem with any fresh fruit/veg supplies at all?
    Because of the rampant inefficiencies in most of the big supermarket supply chains. All the major retailers stock far too many products ("SKUs") from too many suppliers. Which means they need a lot of supply depots for different regions or national depots for slow-moving products. Co-ordinating all that is difficult and its a common occurrence for any given retailer to have both significant availability shortages of any given SKU in a load of stores AND oversupply of that SKU in other depots / stores preventing the computer system ordering to fill the gaps.

    That there is a growing national stock squeeze on fresh is not up for debate. Stores or indeed whole areas still largely ok for stock is not proof that there is no national problem, its just how supply chains (don't) work.
    FPT:

    Thanks for the explainer.

    The first point is so annoying. I used to be a retail consultant and it was basically a given that you could always suggest reducing cost (but not really range) by reducing skus. And yet it seems to fall on deaf ears.

    I've never understood why it is deemed useful to be able to buy 6 different brands of the same type of pasta, all in 3 sizes, but no e.g. juniper berries (except as part of a gin garnish bag) at my local big super....
    I always thought it was about special offers - i.e. by having multiple skus you can always have an item on offer so the Supermarket can discount the 1.5l bottle of Pepsi while charging full price for the 2l bottle (so setting the from price come the next promotion period). And then come the next promotion period do the reverse,
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845
    Mortimer said:

    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.

    Pretty sure it will be deemed illegal to favour customers in such a way.
    How can you prevent people using risk to public health as a criteria for entry?
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 783

    Good idea.

    Let people choose, but choices have consequences.

    Only issue is how to get around the fact some people have genuine reasons they can't get the vaccine for whatever reason and should still be able to travel. If there's a legit answer to that then go ahead.

    That, at least, is fairly simple. GPs (or whoever performs this role) should also be able to issue a certificate/add to a record the fact that vaccination is not appropriate (should in fact be a certificate/field that vaccination has either been given or deemed not suitable, not specifying which, to avoid discrimination).
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 8,690
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Biden to get 2nd jab today.

    Hurrah!

    Its going to be a right waste when they shoot him.
    Well that hasn't exactly cheered me up on this drab and dreary day.
    Apologies. A poor attempt at humour.
    No need to apologise. It could be quite prophetic, which is why it hasn't cheered me up.
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 3,882

    Selebian said:

    Interesting post, thank you @Stocky

    I would suggest that a certificate is not needed - simply let passport control at airports/ports access an electronic list of those vaccinated, which can be uploaded from primary care data. However, given I work with health data and am aware of such interesting events as people having multiple deaths or giving birth aged 93, I accept that may not be foolproof.

    A sufficiently successful vaccination programme will also make certification unnecessary - the goal should be to reach herd immunity (indeed, beyond the minimum level) through mass vaccination and eradicate Covid in any meaningful sense in this country (sporadic cases may pop up, but Covid will have nowhere to go). Once that is done, airlines will no more want to see proof of a Covid vaccination than of a smallpox vaccination. There will of course be a period of time when many are vaccinated but Covid is still a threat, so in the short term some proof may be useful.

    Also, I feel your pain re your friend. My father in law, whom I like very much and go to (well, used to when that was possible) the pub with on a fairly regular basis is doubtful the moon landings ever took place. He says this mostly to rile another friend who never fails to bite, but also seems to believe it himself. I, too, after once setting out why I believe him to be wrong, no longer engage on this.

    I have found, in the past, that using the arguments of denialism too deny the existence of something obvious to be quite useful.

    So I deny the existence of Australia.
    Rosencrantz: I don't believe in it anyway.
    Guildenstern: What?
    Rosencrantz: England.
    Guildenstern: Just a conspiracy of cartographers, then?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,009
    edited January 11

    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.

    If I want to drive a car on the road I have to prove that both the car and I are safe, fit to drive and not an undue threat to my fellow road users. If I want to go to a nightclub I may have to show that I am not an undue threat to my fellow clubbers by presenting evidence of vaccination. This is not apartheid, it is merely common sense.
    Let us not forget that no trial (as far as I'm aware - @MaxPB?) has examined whether the vaccines prevent onwards transmission.

    So you might be an undue threat to your fellow clubbers whether or not you have had the vaccine. If you haven't had the jab then the only danger is to yourself.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 36,845

    Biden to get 2nd jab today.

    Hurrah!

    Glad you didn't say "shot"...
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 783

    Selebian said:

    Interesting post, thank you @Stocky

    I would suggest that a certificate is not needed - simply let passport control at airports/ports access an electronic list of those vaccinated, which can be uploaded from primary care data. However, given I work with health data and am aware of such interesting events as people having multiple deaths or giving birth aged 93, I accept that may not be foolproof.

    A sufficiently successful vaccination programme will also make certification unnecessary - the goal should be to reach herd immunity (indeed, beyond the minimum level) through mass vaccination and eradicate Covid in any meaningful sense in this country (sporadic cases may pop up, but Covid will have nowhere to go). Once that is done, airlines will no more want to see proof of a Covid vaccination than of a smallpox vaccination. There will of course be a period of time when many are vaccinated but Covid is still a threat, so in the short term some proof may be useful.

    Also, I feel your pain re your friend. My father in law, whom I like very much and go to (well, used to when that was possible) the pub with on a fairly regular basis is doubtful the moon landings ever took place. He says this mostly to rile another friend who never fails to bite, but also seems to believe it himself. I, too, after once setting out why I believe him to be wrong, no longer engage on this.

    I have found, in the past, that using the arguments of denialism too deny the existence of something obvious to be quite useful.

    So I deny the existence of Australia.
    That's a good idea. Next time it comes up I'll say that I don't believe the moon exists and see where that takes us :smile:
  • FishingFishing Posts: 1,478
    edited January 11
    This site has a fairly good diversity of mainstream opinion, but unfortunately for discussing this issue we are underrepresented with outright loonies and people who do not understand basic science and are completely unashamed at not understanding it.

    I think I read somewhere that non-whites are much more likely to refuse vaccines than white people, just as they are more likely to believe conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't swear to that. Odd, as they are many times more likely to die from this virus.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 12,393

    Mortimer said:

    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.

    Pretty sure it will be deemed illegal to favour customers in such a way.
    How can you prevent people using risk to public health as a criteria for entry?
    Because it will fundamentally restrict liberties?

    I don't understand why anyone medically able to have it won't want it, but thats just me.
  • eekeek Posts: 10,100
    Can I point out how unclear that document is. From the focus groups alone

    all residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
    • all those 80 years of age and over and frontline health and social care workers
    • all those 75 years of age and over
    • all those 70 years of age and over and clinically extremely vulnerable
    individuals

    You could split that into 7 groups and be so much clearer

    1a) all residents in a care home for older adults
    1b) carers who work in residental care homes for older adults
    2a) all those 80 years of age and over
    2b) frontline health and social care workers
    3) all those 75 years of age and over
    4a)all those 70 years of age and over
    4b) clinically extremely vulnerable individuals
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 788
    edited January 11
    rkrkrk said:

    At the risk of ludicrous overcomplacency - I just don't think vaccination refusal is going to be a big problem in the UK.

    I am probably completely wrong but my prediction is that so many people are so scared and COVID is in the news so much that basically everyone is going to get jabbed - uptake will not be a big problem overall.

    There will be a few nutters out there who don't want it, but I see it as this.

    Anyone who refuses, fine. I mean, what's the worst that can happen?
    They get Covid - they die.
    They get Covid but recover. Okay. Might change their minds, especially if its a bad dose.

    Whilst they have Covid, they can't spread it around because all the others around them are sensible and have been vaccinated.

    Personally, I say make it voluntary. I'm sure it'll sort itself out in due course.
  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 3,403
    Mortimer said:

    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.

    Pretty sure it will be deemed illegal to favour customers in such a way.
    Not sure on what legal grounds you say that. "Unvaccinated" is not a protected characteristic under the Equality Act or otherwise and I can't see Parliament legislating to make it so. You could try and argue that anti-vaxx is a deeply held philosophical belief and shoehorn it it into "religion or philosophical belief" that way but it's not convincing and there would be a legitimate health ground for wht would be, at worse, indirect discrimination.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 10,115
    OllyT said:

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.


    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
    It seems that a great deal of complaints about what is happening consist of

    - Group x is selfish and should be made to pay for COVID problems.
    - I need to do y and z - because it is the core of my soul.

    As far as I can tell there is selfishness in every single demographic you can conceive of. And also selflessness.

    For every 80 year old whining that not getting the second jab will mean that she has to cancel afternoon tea (again), there are those who have holed up, in the style of Charlton Heston hiding from the zombies, only venturing out to grab their deliveries.

    For every 20 year demanding a rave where they can rub themselves against 10,000 unwashed bodies, there are those like the bike messenger, who delivered to me this morning. Gloves, eye shielding, elaborate mask and all the social distancing you cold want.
  • Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mrs RP has just made a good point. It isn't just a question of how much fresh fruit and vegetables is available, its how fresh it is. We've noticed we're having to throw out quite a bit of citrus fruits which has gone soft / nasty.

    Mr RP, honest question - how come the supermarkets around my way seem to no problem with any fresh fruit/veg supplies at all?
    Because of the rampant inefficiencies in most of the big supermarket supply chains. All the major retailers stock far too many products ("SKUs") from too many suppliers. Which means they need a lot of supply depots for different regions or national depots for slow-moving products. Co-ordinating all that is difficult and its a common occurrence for any given retailer to have both significant availability shortages of any given SKU in a load of stores AND oversupply of that SKU in other depots / stores preventing the computer system ordering to fill the gaps.

    That there is a growing national stock squeeze on fresh is not up for debate. Stores or indeed whole areas still largely ok for stock is not proof that there is no national problem, its just how supply chains (don't) work.
    FPT:

    Thanks for the explainer.

    The first point is so annoying. I used to be a retail consultant and it was basically a given that you could always suggest reducing cost (but not really range) by reducing skus. And yet it seems to fall on deaf ears.

    I've never understood why it is deemed useful to be able to buy 6 different brands of the same type of pasta, all in 3 sizes, but no e.g. juniper berries (except as part of a gin garnish bag) at my local big super....
    This is why Aldi & Lidl have been able to take large chunks out of the mainstream retailers. When you have a much smaller number of products to move around you can do so with more accuracy and less cost. Whilst both have extended their cap on SKU numbers in recent years it is still a fraction of the big boys.

    This means that - in my experience both as a consumer and as a professional food wrangler - their availability on regular products is excellent. As opposed to the likes of Asda who can almost always guarantee the product I specifically went in for is out of stock. Or the likes of Sainsburys whose availability target for chilled is an absurd 89% - they can have 11 products out of 100 off sale with a gap and consider that to be acceptable.

    What else does a more efficient business model do for you? Saves cost. Which is why Aldi are happy making 15-20% less profit per line than say a Tesco. Just a pity that Aldi are thieving gits if you are a brand owner and Lidl a bunch of pirates.
  • YBarddCwscYBarddCwsc Posts: 5,043
    OllyT said:

    OllyT said:



    You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder about people who are comfortably off, particularly if they are old. There have always been disparities in wealth and I expect there always will be.

    You have an interesting mental picture of me :) I'd like to hear more.

    I am not anti-old -- I am pro-fairness.

    I think the young have been treated badly -- and lied to -- by our politicians for well over a quarter of a century.

    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and tI accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.

    Young people have a perfect right to dance and drink and screw, because there's nothing else to do.

    Dost thou think because thou art virtuous there shall be no more cakes and ale?
  • Fysics_TeacherFysics_Teacher Posts: 3,882
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.

    Pretty sure it will be deemed illegal to favour customers in such a way.
    How can you prevent people using risk to public health as a criteria for entry?
    Because it will fundamentally restrict liberties?

    I don't understand why anyone medically able to have it won't want it, but thats just me.
    Preventing people with poor-eyesight driving also restricts their liberties, but it needs doing.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 28,312

    Boris knows something about being on the receiving end of unwanted pricks

    I think you have that the wrong way round.
    Unless there are further revelations to come from Edwina...
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    Talk us through the physical realities of compulsorily vaccinating an unwilling vaccinee.
    Dart gun
    I was thinking more like a Hunger Games scenario.
  • DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Biden to get 2nd jab today.

    Hurrah!

    Its going to be a right waste when they shoot him.
    Well that hasn't exactly cheered me up on this drab and dreary day.
    Apologies. A poor attempt at humour.
    Why? You have a point! Reagan hadn't made it 3 months before they shot him. Going off the state of America you have to ask if Biden will make it to 3 weeks.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 34,793
    Israel's seven day moving average number of cases has just started to move down - albeit only marginally.

    Remembering (1) this is the seven day moving average number, (2) it takes around 10 days for your body to produce neutralising antibodies post vaccination, and (3) that there is a natural lag between infection and a positive test, it would seem that we're effectively seeing the numbers from when Israel was about 10% vaccinated.

    Hopefully therefore, the combination of the UK reaching that level in the next 2 weeks (assuming the pace increases with the roll out of the AZN vaccine) and the effects of Tier 4, should mean that numbers start coming down quite quickly towards the end of the month.

    Fingers crossed.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 12,393

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.

    Pretty sure it will be deemed illegal to favour customers in such a way.
    How can you prevent people using risk to public health as a criteria for entry?
    Because it will fundamentally restrict liberties?

    I don't understand why anyone medically able to have it won't want it, but thats just me.
    Preventing people with poor-eyesight driving also restricts their liberties, but it needs doing.
    It is tested as part of gaining a license, however.

    Practicalities aside (forgeries would crop up in minutes, rendering them entirely worthless), it won't be happening because you don't need a license to go to the cinema, eat our etc
  • StockyStocky Posts: 4,665

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.

    Pragmatism. I think it likely that some countries will only allow us to visit if we can evidence that we have been vaccinated. We will need evidence in a format that is acceptable to that country.

    The risk is that if travel certificates were issued then this could be extended by future governments to other areas such as the ones you mention, which I would not be in favour of.

    As a liberal, I`m not in favour of infringements of civil liberties as a general rule but needs must.

    I`ve changed my mind on a few things as this disaster has unfolded. I`m in favour of mask-wearing where previously I was skeptical. Also, I`m more tolerant of lockdown measures now that vaccines have been developed and are in sight in the very short term. But I want to see the escape route and an acceptance that there will still be risk in the system.

    I still think that we will have to learn to live with this new threat at some level.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 34,793

    On excess deaths. ONS report that:

    In Week 51, the number of deaths registered was 12.7% above the five-year average (1,463 deaths higher).

    In Week 52, the number of deaths registered was 44.8% above the five-year average (3,566 deaths higher)*


    *Note caveat on week 52: but this increase should be treated with caution; the five-year average was particularly low in Week 52 as the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, all contained two bank holidays, whereas Week 52 of 2020 only contained one bank holiday so would likely have more deaths registered.

    If you believe the government is lying to you, then you also believe the excess deaths number is made up.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 22,548

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    Talk us through the physical realities of compulsorily vaccinating an unwilling vaccinee.
    Dart gun
    Oo. Can I volunteer for that. I am not a bad shot so a bit of sniping would suit me just fine. :)
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 10,115
    eek said:

    Can I point out how unclear that document is. From the focus groups alone

    all residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
    • all those 80 years of age and over and frontline health and social care workers
    • all those 75 years of age and over
    • all those 70 years of age and over and clinically extremely vulnerable
    individuals

    You could split that into 7 groups and be so much clearer

    1a) all residents in a care home for older adults
    1b) carers who work in residental care homes for older adults
    2a) all those 80 years of age and over
    2b) frontline health and social care workers
    3) all those 75 years of age and over
    4a)all those 70 years of age and over
    4b) clinically extremely vulnerable individuals
    Table 2 - page 26, is pretty much that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 81,377
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    Talk us through the physical realities of compulsorily vaccinating an unwilling vaccinee.
    £1000 fines automatically applied for refusal to be vaccinated if in a high at risk group, will also help fund the NHS bills if you then go on to get Covid having refused a vaccine and need hospital treatment
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 60,514
    DougSeal said:
    Innovative approach. Can we be moved to Israel?
  • Meanwhile, on everyone's favourite topic, Ciaran the Van Driver reports his lack of success in finding customs agents in the UK to manage his needs. Not only are the (nowhere near enough) UK agents able to be very picky who they deal with thanks to demand massively outsripping their capacity to supply, they also won't help with the customs agent you need in the country you are going to.

    So from having to do no paperwork before you now need impossible to do paperwork at both ends. It is no wonder that so little freight traffic is crossing the border, or that the industry is demanding the government negotiate something that is actually workable.

  • DougSealDougSeal Posts: 3,403
    Fishing said:

    This site has a fairly good diversity of mainstream opinion, but unfortunately for discussing this issue we are underrepresented with outright loonies and people who do not understand basic science and are completely unashamed at not understanding it.

    I think I read somewhere that non-whites are much more likely to refuse vaccines than white people, just as they are more likely to believe conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't swear to that. Odd, as they are many times more likely to die from this virus.

    There is a strong undercurrent of distrust amongst the African-American population towards "mainstream" medicine because of events like the Tuskegee Syphilis Study and the use of Henrietta Lacks' cell lines even until today without her or her family's consent. Such distrust may seem unreasonable to us but it's real and it has to be overcome.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 34,793
    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    Talk us through the physical realities of compulsorily vaccinating an unwilling vaccinee.
    The Gates Foundation has already designed a dart gun that can vaccinate an unwilling "subject" at 40 feet.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,009
    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    Talk us through the physical realities of compulsorily vaccinating an unwilling vaccinee.
    £1000 fines automatically applied for refusal to be vaccinated if in a high at risk group, will also help fund the NHS bills if you then go on to get Covid having refused a vaccine and need hospital treatment
    And then a ban on smoking and dangerous sports.

    Sounds like a plan.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 5,155
    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.

    Pretty sure it will be deemed illegal to favour customers in such a way.
    How can you prevent people using risk to public health as a criteria for entry?
    Because it will fundamentally restrict liberties?

    I don't understand why anyone medically able to have it won't want it, but thats just me.
    Preventing people with poor-eyesight driving also restricts their liberties, but it needs doing.
    It is tested as part of gaining a license, however.

    Practicalities aside (forgeries would crop up in minutes, rendering them entirely worthless), it won't be happening because you don't need a license to go to the cinema, eat our etc
    Except you do now.

    There is a perfectly good existing analogy: trying to buy alcohol when you look around the 18 year old mark. The system works just fine.
  • StockyStocky Posts: 4,665

    Good idea.

    Let people choose, but choices have consequences.

    Only issue is how to get around the fact some people have genuine reasons they can't get the vaccine for whatever reason and should still be able to travel. If there's a legit answer to that then go ahead.

    Could a traveller to an African country which insists on yellow fever vaccination claim exception to their law?

    Life isn`t fair, plus some of the genuine reasons for not being jabbed are not really that genuine.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 22,548

    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.

    Self inflicted so I would have little sympathy. Again when people scream about liberties they forget that rights and responsibilities are two sides of the same coin in a mature society. So yes, if you want to reject the vaccine that is your choice. But society then has a choice to say you cannot return to a normal life where you risk infecting others.

    Bear in mind as it stands we already know there are those for whom it has been recommended to avoid the vaccine - pregnant and breast feeding mums, those with the risk of severe allergic reaction etc. Those people need protecting and the best way to do that is for everyone around them to be jabbed. It is a matter of personal responsibility for your fellow man and woman.
  • FossFoss Posts: 198
    DougSeal said:
    If it moves much further west Newcastle will be at war with Scotland.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 34,732
    rcs1000 said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    Talk us through the physical realities of compulsorily vaccinating an unwilling vaccinee.
    The Gates Foundation has already designed a dart gun that can vaccinate an unwilling "subject" at 40 feet.
    Blimey, the size of nanites these days.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 12,393
    IshmaelZ said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.

    Pretty sure it will be deemed illegal to favour customers in such a way.
    How can you prevent people using risk to public health as a criteria for entry?
    Because it will fundamentally restrict liberties?

    I don't understand why anyone medically able to have it won't want it, but thats just me.
    Preventing people with poor-eyesight driving also restricts their liberties, but it needs doing.
    It is tested as part of gaining a license, however.

    Practicalities aside (forgeries would crop up in minutes, rendering them entirely worthless), it won't be happening because you don't need a license to go to the cinema, eat our etc
    Except you do now.

    There is a perfectly good existing analogy: trying to buy alcohol when you look around the 18 year old mark. The system works just fine.
    Fancy a sporting bet? I'll pay £25 to site funds if a vaccination certificate is required by law to go to the cinema or eat at a restaurant, you'll pay £25 to site funds if no such law is passed? Happy to have someone adjudicate if you like.
  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 788
    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Interesting post, thank you @Stocky

    I would suggest that a certificate is not needed - simply let passport control at airports/ports access an electronic list of those vaccinated, which can be uploaded from primary care data. However, given I work with health data and am aware of such interesting events as people having multiple deaths or giving birth aged 93, I accept that may not be foolproof.

    A sufficiently successful vaccination programme will also make certification unnecessary - the goal should be to reach herd immunity (indeed, beyond the minimum level) through mass vaccination and eradicate Covid in any meaningful sense in this country (sporadic cases may pop up, but Covid will have nowhere to go). Once that is done, airlines will no more want to see proof of a Covid vaccination than of a smallpox vaccination. There will of course be a period of time when many are vaccinated but Covid is still a threat, so in the short term some proof may be useful.

    Also, I feel your pain re your friend. My father in law, whom I like very much and go to (well, used to when that was possible) the pub with on a fairly regular basis is doubtful the moon landings ever took place. He says this mostly to rile another friend who never fails to bite, but also seems to believe it himself. I, too, after once setting out why I believe him to be wrong, no longer engage on this.

    I have found, in the past, that using the arguments of denialism too deny the existence of something obvious to be quite useful.

    So I deny the existence of Australia.
    That's a good idea. Next time it comes up I'll say that I don't believe the moon exists and see where that takes us :smile:
    No. You need to deny something you can't obviously see. The moon will be seen that evening.

    Deny Australia. Hell, deny the USA. Something you can't see.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 81,377
    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    Talk us through the physical realities of compulsorily vaccinating an unwilling vaccinee.
    £1000 fines automatically applied for refusal to be vaccinated if in a high at risk group, will also help fund the NHS bills if you then go on to get Covid having refused a vaccine and need hospital treatment
    And then a ban on smoking and dangerous sports.

    Sounds like a plan.
    The level of hospitalisations from the effects of smoking and dangerous sports are nowhere near the number of hospitalisations from the over 50s with Covid at present
  • FossFoss Posts: 198
    The delivery plan has regional vaccination breakdowns for England from Thursday. Hopefully it'll be count offered AND count taken up rather than just count taken up.
  • eekeek Posts: 10,100

    eek said:

    Can I point out how unclear that document is. From the focus groups alone

    all residents in a care home for older adults and their carers
    • all those 80 years of age and over and frontline health and social care workers
    • all those 75 years of age and over
    • all those 70 years of age and over and clinically extremely vulnerable
    individuals

    You could split that into 7 groups and be so much clearer

    1a) all residents in a care home for older adults
    1b) carers who work in residental care homes for older adults
    2a) all those 80 years of age and over
    2b) frontline health and social care workers
    3) all those 75 years of age and over
    4a)all those 70 years of age and over
    4b) clinically extremely vulnerable individuals
    Table 2 - page 26, is pretty much that.
    Yep - I discovered that afterwards but it really could be clearer in the Executive summary.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 26,009
    HYUFD said:

    TOPPING said:

    HYUFD said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    HYUFD said:

    Certainly I agree vaccination should be compulsory for all over 50s or those with medical conditions who are most at need.

    Others can take their chances

    Talk us through the physical realities of compulsorily vaccinating an unwilling vaccinee.
    £1000 fines automatically applied for refusal to be vaccinated if in a high at risk group, will also help fund the NHS bills if you then go on to get Covid having refused a vaccine and need hospital treatment
    And then a ban on smoking and dangerous sports.

    Sounds like a plan.
    The level of hospitalisations from the effects of smoking and dangerous sports are nowhere near the number of hospitalisations from the over 50s with Covid at present
    No of course not. But this needs to be made clear. Protect the NHS is the reason.

    Because we don't know if the vaccination prevents onwards transmission. And much of the debate (get it not to kill your granny, etc) is structured around the assumption that it does.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 783

    Selebian said:

    Selebian said:

    Interesting post, thank you @Stocky

    I would suggest that a certificate is not needed - simply let passport control at airports/ports access an electronic list of those vaccinated, which can be uploaded from primary care data. However, given I work with health data and am aware of such interesting events as people having multiple deaths or giving birth aged 93, I accept that may not be foolproof.

    A sufficiently successful vaccination programme will also make certification unnecessary - the goal should be to reach herd immunity (indeed, beyond the minimum level) through mass vaccination and eradicate Covid in any meaningful sense in this country (sporadic cases may pop up, but Covid will have nowhere to go). Once that is done, airlines will no more want to see proof of a Covid vaccination than of a smallpox vaccination. There will of course be a period of time when many are vaccinated but Covid is still a threat, so in the short term some proof may be useful.

    Also, I feel your pain re your friend. My father in law, whom I like very much and go to (well, used to when that was possible) the pub with on a fairly regular basis is doubtful the moon landings ever took place. He says this mostly to rile another friend who never fails to bite, but also seems to believe it himself. I, too, after once setting out why I believe him to be wrong, no longer engage on this.

    I have found, in the past, that using the arguments of denialism too deny the existence of something obvious to be quite useful.

    So I deny the existence of Australia.
    That's a good idea. Next time it comes up I'll say that I don't believe the moon exists and see where that takes us :smile:
    No. You need to deny something you can't obviously see. The moon will be seen that evening.

    Deny Australia. Hell, deny the USA. Something you can't see.
    Moon you say? No, I can't see it. Over there? No. Are you getting confused with a streetlight? Maybe some dust in your eye? Had few too many drinks?
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 5,155
    Mortimer said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.

    Pretty sure it will be deemed illegal to favour customers in such a way.
    How can you prevent people using risk to public health as a criteria for entry?
    Because it will fundamentally restrict liberties?

    I don't understand why anyone medically able to have it won't want it, but thats just me.
    Preventing people with poor-eyesight driving also restricts their liberties, but it needs doing.
    It is tested as part of gaining a license, however.

    Practicalities aside (forgeries would crop up in minutes, rendering them entirely worthless), it won't be happening because you don't need a license to go to the cinema, eat our etc
    Except you do now.

    There is a perfectly good existing analogy: trying to buy alcohol when you look around the 18 year old mark. The system works just fine.
    Fancy a sporting bet? I'll pay £25 to site funds if a vaccination certificate is required by law to go to the cinema or eat at a restaurant, you'll pay £25 to site funds if no such law is passed? Happy to have someone adjudicate if you like.
    I didn't think this was about the likelihood of anything, just about possibilities. If it happens at all it is much more likely to be the cinema requiring a certificate off its own bat, than under legal compulsion.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 3,730
    OllyT said:

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.


    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
    It isn;t about the right to party.

    Its about the right to a decent, uninterrupted education.
    The right to mind broadening travel.
    The right to play team sport.
    The right to access mind broadening culture like film and theatre.
    The right to exchange ideas with other young people.
    The right to work.
    The right to protest in groups.
    The right not to be overburdened by crushing debt and deficit.
    The right to good mental health.

    Young people have been stripped of all of these fundamental rights. The main aim has been to protect a cohort of people who have already lived a far longer and far better life than any generation in history. Ever. Some of these people do not even want this protection.



  • TheValiantTheValiant Posts: 788
    rcs1000 said:

    On excess deaths. ONS report that:

    In Week 51, the number of deaths registered was 12.7% above the five-year average (1,463 deaths higher).

    In Week 52, the number of deaths registered was 44.8% above the five-year average (3,566 deaths higher)*


    *Note caveat on week 52: but this increase should be treated with caution; the five-year average was particularly low in Week 52 as the years 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, all contained two bank holidays, whereas Week 52 of 2020 only contained one bank holiday so would likely have more deaths registered.

    If you believe the government is lying to you, then you also believe the excess deaths number is made up.
    I love the flat earth community. Bunch of insane idiots with the occassional, "I know I'm lying, but this has turned into a source of income for me." (Nathan Oakley if you want to look him up).
    There whole argument is the Earth looks flat, therefore is flat. They rarely attempt any real scientific experiments to see otherwise, and on the very rare occassion they do, these always prove the globe. They then answer with, "Well, the results are being influenced by something else then (that we can't see, and can't test for), as the Earth can't be a sphere." ie, they've reached a conclusion before starting the experiment.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 34,793

    Well done for creating a thread that is not about Trump.

    Why do you think the header is not about Trump?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 22,548
    Serious question. If we think we have issues with 85% saying in polls they will take the vaccine, how the hell do you deal with this in France where more than 50% say they will refuse?
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,944
    It may be a self-fixing problem.

    It's well established that the best cure for vaccine hesitancy is personally knowing someone (or even just knowing of someone - ie knowing them at one or two removes) who has been badly affected by a vaccine-preventable illness. Not infallible, but it changes a lot of minds (or makes them up if they've just been hesitant). Arguably, antivaxxing is a product of the astonishing success of vaccines over the decades in making such issues so much rarer.

    Either the voluntary uptake will be sufficient to achieve herd immunity (in which case, not a problem), or it won't. If it doesn't, the overwhelming concentration of severe cases will be amongst vaccine refusers (although efficacy is not perfect, it is extremely high in preventing serious cases).

    Those who are more resistant will tend to know more of those severe cases, exposing them to that "knowing someone" issue. A significant amount of them will have their minds changed by it.

    There may also be a nationalism incentive as well - the UK has high levels of vaccine uptake in comparison to many others (such as France, just next door). When the UK's deaths and hospitalisations come way down and restrictions are progressively lifted, while more anitvax-dominated countries remain in the mire, that will provide another push. It's unpleasant to consider the state of those other countries, but possibly the same effect will work for them as well. Competitiveness with national pride working for a positive cause.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 22,548

    OllyT said:

    You seemed to have somewhat changed your mind, Stocky -- recalling an earlier conversation.

    No vaccine certificate -- no travel, no theatre, no gigs, no restaurant meals, no schools for your children. Perfectly fair.

    The upside is no skiing.


    One inevitably develops a mental picture of other posters, and I accept this could well be way off the mark.

    I drew my conclusions because of the general tone of your comments. For example, the comment I responded to said, re young people:-

    "So, they not going to listen to Hancock blathering on about "Save Grandpa".
    After all, what did Gramps ever do for them? He is a greedy, selfish man who denied the benefits he received to younger people."

    That speaks to me of an angry and bitter individual. The issue has never been simply one of saving old people. If that had been the case it would have made far more sense to completely lock down the over 70s and let everyone else carry on as normal.

    If some young people can't see beyond the ends of their noses and think their right to party trumps everything else then so be it but then it's no good whining about the consequences in years to come.
    It isn;t about the right to party.

    Its about the right to a decent, uninterrupted education.
    The right to mind broadening travel.
    The right to play team sport.
    The right to access mind broadening culture like film and theatre.
    The right to exchange ideas with other young people.
    The right to work.
    The right to protest in groups.
    The right not to be overburdened by crushing debt and deficit.
    The right to good mental health.

    Young people have been stripped of all of these fundamental rights. The main aim has been to protect a cohort of people who have already lived a far longer and far better life than any generation in history. Ever. Some of these people do not even want this protection.



    Oh bloody hell who rattled his cage again?
  • I don't see the problem with ID cards that can show things like Covid vaccination status. "You can't do x unless you show us y" is a problem because what? Liberty? How about my liberty in not catching Covid from some ignorant scrote?
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 34,793
    edited January 11
    IshmaelZ said:

    Mortimer said:

    IshmaelZ said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    Mortimer said:

    The wider issue will be not just air travel, but where else you will have to show a vaccination certificate before access is allowed. Cinemas? Nightclubs? Restaurants? Work in hospitality? Access to shops? It is quite easy to envisage an economy where you are very largely excluded without such a certificate. It may not be compulsory - but there will nonetheless be health apartheid.

    Pretty sure it will be deemed illegal to favour customers in such a way.
    How can you prevent people using risk to public health as a criteria for entry?
    Because it will fundamentally restrict liberties?

    I don't understand why anyone medically able to have it won't want it, but thats just me.
    Preventing people with poor-eyesight driving also restricts their liberties, but it needs doing.
    It is tested as part of gaining a license, however.

    Practicalities aside (forgeries would crop up in minutes, rendering them entirely worthless), it won't be happening because you don't need a license to go to the cinema, eat our etc
    Except you do now.

    There is a perfectly good existing analogy: trying to buy alcohol when you look around the 18 year old mark. The system works just fine.
    Fancy a sporting bet? I'll pay £25 to site funds if a vaccination certificate is required by law to go to the cinema or eat at a restaurant, you'll pay £25 to site funds if no such law is passed? Happy to have someone adjudicate if you like.
    I didn't think this was about the likelihood of anything, just about possibilities. If it happens at all it is much more likely to be the cinema requiring a certificate off its own bat, than under legal compulsion.
    I would have thought that firms which require people to work together closely - especially once mask mandates go* - will be the first to require employees have had the vaccine. They will argue that they have a duty of care to all their employees, and that allowing the non-vaccinated to work there, they breach that.

    * Yes, the mask mandates will go. "Big Mask" is not that powerful.
Sign In or Register to comment.