Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Coronavirus (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 1002 of 1255 < 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 >

Topic Locked

Rudi Hedman Caterham 07 Dec 21 3.24pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle This is the essential point. Whether the hospitals are "full up" is always going to be a matter of opinion, and vary from place to place. The public being told that to encourage them to take all the preventative measures makes sense, but also seems sensible. What is clear is the impact the pandemic, and the steps taken to combat it, has had on the NHS. It's ability to cope with other things has been badly impacted and anything we can do, like getting vaccinated, that will help it to help us, ought to be done. By everyone, even the reluctant and the selfish. I agree on the numbers. I’m not keen on mandatory vaccinations. If certain small businesses want to ban them then that’s their prerogative. You could say provide a test at the door instead, but you could then get vaccinated people infecting people among safer unvaccinated people to make that little bit more absurd. The advantages and necessity you mention would be better made in the current waste of money government adverts on tv or radio. What the (personal and family) consequences are of hospital appointments and procedures cancelled. Edited by Rudi Hedman (07 Dec 2021 3.31pm) COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 07 Dec 21 3.24pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

This is the essential point.

Whether the hospitals are "full up" is always going to be a matter of opinion, and vary from place to place. The public being told that to encourage them to take all the preventative measures makes sense, but also seems sensible. What is clear is the impact the pandemic, and the steps taken to combat it, has had on the NHS. It's ability to cope with other things has been badly impacted and anything we can do, like getting vaccinated, that will help it to help us, ought to be done. By everyone, even the reluctant and the selfish.

I agree on the numbers. I’m not keen on mandatory vaccinations. If certain small businesses want to ban them then that’s their prerogative. You could say provide a test at the door instead, but you could then get vaccinated people infecting people among safer unvaccinated people to make that little bit more absurd.

The advantages and necessity you mention would be better made in the current waste of money government adverts on tv or radio. What the (personal and family) consequences are of hospital appointments and procedures cancelled.

Edited by Rudi Hedman (07 Dec 2021 3.31pm)

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 07 Dec 21 3.30pm
Had jab 3 Pfizer of 3 Pfizer jabs and the nhs leaflet says ‘The vaccine cannot give you covid-19 infection, and a full course will reduce your chance of becoming seriously ill. We don’t know how much it will reduce the risk of you passing on the virus. So it is important to continue to follow the current national guidance’ We’ll be having the same debate forever. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 07 Dec 21 3.30pm

Had jab 3 Pfizer of 3 Pfizer jabs and the nhs leaflet says

‘The vaccine cannot give you covid-19 infection, and a full course will reduce your chance of becoming seriously ill. We don’t know how much it will reduce the risk of you passing on the virus. So it is important to continue to follow the current national guidance’

We’ll be having the same debate forever.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Dec 21 3.30pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman I agree and am aware of this. Where’s the help when people in built up areas needed it in the past, plus they put food on the table without 100% work from home safety. But during December I did expect a bit of a change due to numbers. Maybe I just view areas that are built up as pretty grim because of the general atmosphere these days compared to the past. Or maybe the more built up an area becomes, the less people care or acknowledge anyone else. The North v South argument and boy have I noticed more people I don’t like as time goes on. Agree with everything Rudi. I think Britain was more rational and stoic in the past. The modern day is much more emotional and indeed feels much less British as a consequence. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2021 3.30pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

07 Dec 21 3.30pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

I agree and am aware of this. Where’s the help when people in built up areas needed it in the past, plus they put food on the table without 100% work from home safety. But during December I did expect a bit of a change due to numbers. Maybe I just view areas that are built up as pretty grim because of the general atmosphere these days compared to the past. Or maybe the more built up an area becomes, the less people care or acknowledge anyone else. The North v South argument and boy have I noticed more people I don’t like as time goes on.

Agree with everything Rudi.

I think Britain was more rational and stoic in the past. The modern day is much more emotional and indeed feels much less British as a consequence.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2021 3.30pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Dec 21 3.41pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Apparently what I said wasn't accurate, ok....being specific might help. Anyway your contention that people must modify their life to reduce stresses on the NHS seems upside down. The NHS is there to provide provision for how the population choose to live their life....for example no one ever banned people from smoking fags did they. Sure, proportionally unvaccinated people will take up more resources than the vaccinated.....people who have heart attacks via lifestyle choices will also take up more resources than those eating one meal a day. This knowledge should be common sense.....are you going to criticise and demand people stop drinking or eating burgers or indeed anything unhealthy? Indeed, these things are allowed by the state in the knowledge that they cause hospitalizations and death on far larger scales than covid...indeed the state takes its economic tax take from it. Are you going to criticise people using cars when they could use public transport because cars cause death and injury in higher proportion? I could go on. Once you travel down your road you run into simple realities of liberty which when reduced don't reflect a free society. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2021 2.49pm) These are excuses, not reasons, for failing to take action. They are simply unrelated "whataboutism". The NHS is NOT there just "to provide provision for how the population choose to live their life". It is also there to advise, and help, people live healthier lives, both for their own benefit and that of others by reducing the demands placed upon it. The NHS run lots of healthy living campaigns. Obesity, and sensible eating campaigns, are examples of these. Once smoking was fully understood to be the health risk it was, and that its cost outweighed its revenue, it was discouraged by heavy tax, incentivisation campaigns and social exclusions. We don't possess a tax weapon with vaccines, but the others are being used. Producing cars which are safer and introducing traffic management measures, can be compared to vaccines. People who use them, and follow the rules, are safer than those who don't. Deliberately not wearing a seat belt, or driving at high speeds in inappropriate places, just because you can, results in more deaths. Not just for those acting irresponsibly, but for everyone else. Just like the unvaccinated. As I have frequently said to you, putting your right to personal liberty above your responsibilities to society as a whole, is the act of the selfish. A free society is one which acts with the society's freedoms as a whole at its centre. What you seek isn't a society at all. It's a bunch of individuals all doing whatever they damn like. That's not society. It's anarchy. Want to live in a society? First thing! Follow the rules. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 07 Dec 21 3.41pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Apparently what I said wasn't accurate, ok....being specific might help.

Anyway your contention that people must modify their life to reduce stresses on the NHS seems upside down. The NHS is there to provide provision for how the population choose to live their life....for example no one ever banned people from smoking fags did they.

Sure, proportionally unvaccinated people will take up more resources than the vaccinated.....people who have heart attacks via lifestyle choices will also take up more resources than those eating one meal a day.

This knowledge should be common sense.....are you going to criticise and demand people stop drinking or eating burgers or indeed anything unhealthy? Indeed, these things are allowed by the state in the knowledge that they cause hospitalizations and death on far larger scales than covid...indeed the state takes its economic tax take from it.

Are you going to criticise people using cars when they could use public transport because cars cause death and injury in higher proportion?

I could go on.

Once you travel down your road you run into simple realities of liberty which when reduced don't reflect a free society.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2021 2.49pm)

These are excuses, not reasons, for failing to take action. They are simply unrelated "whataboutism".

The NHS is NOT there just "to provide provision for how the population choose to live their life". It is also there to advise, and help, people live healthier lives, both for their own benefit and that of others by reducing the demands placed upon it. The NHS run lots of healthy living campaigns. Obesity, and sensible eating campaigns, are examples of these.

Once smoking was fully understood to be the health risk it was, and that its cost outweighed its revenue, it was discouraged by heavy tax, incentivisation campaigns and social exclusions. We don't possess a tax weapon with vaccines, but the others are being used.

Producing cars which are safer and introducing traffic management measures, can be compared to vaccines. People who use them, and follow the rules, are safer than those who don't. Deliberately not wearing a seat belt, or driving at high speeds in inappropriate places, just because you can, results in more deaths. Not just for those acting irresponsibly, but for everyone else. Just like the unvaccinated.

As I have frequently said to you, putting your right to personal liberty above your responsibilities to society as a whole, is the act of the selfish. A free society is one which acts with the society's freedoms as a whole at its centre. What you seek isn't a society at all. It's a bunch of individuals all doing whatever they damn like. That's not society. It's anarchy.

Want to live in a society? First thing! Follow the rules.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay UK 07 Dec 21 3.43pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Herd immunity is developing regardless of whether people vaccinate or not, regardless of lockdowns or no lockdowns or any form of restriction or division. People will continue to die, vaccinated or not, though just at seasonally lower levels until it fades into the viral background. As time goes by treatments will improve but as we see with flu, it will continue to hasten the end of those on their last legs and with failing immune systems we can only do so much. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2021 12.48pm) This is true, though logically there will be significantly fewer deaths if people vaccinate than don't. It's an effective way of cushioning the blow, and we saw what happened prior to there being any way to do so and it wasn't particularly pretty. An appreciation of that helps, as it has likely stopped additional lockdowns. We don't need to bundle everything into one pile. Some of these actions have unquestionably been a positive for saving lives and keeping people out of hospital (vaccines) whereas of course there is perfectly reasonable arguments to saying that lockdowns (after the first) had a knock on effect for business and the NHS that does more harm than good. Mistakes have certainly been made, but when you look at the varying responses of any government in the 'global environment' we're all part of, it's been pretty disastrous no matter the approach. Brazil had a do nothing approach and it just resulted in 600,000+ deaths and an eventual widespread vaccine drive at the end of it anyway (and a recession and so on). A pandemic causes much upheaval and seriously disrupts no matter what, because it's a huge unknown hanging over society, indeed the world, and the economy. So while I was against additional lock-downs, shifting the dials this way or that, is not wholly good or bad in one direction, and may end up being a similar outcome anyway. At it's core I see people are being very frustrated with what we're facing and that it's easier to find fault in approaches rather than become angry at a virus - because what would be the point in the latter. Certainly there my have been better ways to play this, but at the same time any approach would've still been monumentally sh!t compared to day to day life prior so would inherently appear to be 'the wrong option'. Edited by BlueJay (07 Dec 2021 3.43pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 07 Dec 21 3.43pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Herd immunity is developing regardless of whether people vaccinate or not, regardless of lockdowns or no lockdowns or any form of restriction or division.

People will continue to die, vaccinated or not, though just at seasonally lower levels until it fades into the viral background. As time goes by treatments will improve but as we see with flu, it will continue to hasten the end of those on their last legs and with failing immune systems we can only do so much.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2021 12.48pm)

This is true, though logically there will be significantly fewer deaths if people vaccinate than don't. It's an effective way of cushioning the blow, and we saw what happened prior to there being any way to do so and it wasn't particularly pretty. An appreciation of that helps, as it has likely stopped additional lockdowns. We don't need to bundle everything into one pile. Some of these actions have unquestionably been a positive for saving lives and keeping people out of hospital (vaccines) whereas of course there is perfectly reasonable arguments to saying that lockdowns (after the first) had a knock on effect for business and the NHS that does more harm than good.

Mistakes have certainly been made, but when you look at the varying responses of any government in the 'global environment' we're all part of, it's been pretty disastrous no matter the approach. Brazil had a do nothing approach and it just resulted in 600,000+ deaths and an eventual widespread vaccine drive at the end of it anyway (and a recession and so on). A pandemic causes much upheaval and seriously disrupts no matter what, because it's a huge unknown hanging over society, indeed the world, and the economy. So while I was against additional lock-downs, shifting the dials this way or that, is not wholly good or bad in one direction, and may end up being a similar outcome anyway.

At it's core I see people are being very frustrated with what we're facing and that it's easier to find fault in approaches rather than become angry at a virus - because what would be the point in the latter. Certainly there my have been better ways to play this, but at the same time any approach would've still been monumentally sh!t compared to day to day life prior so would inherently appear to be 'the wrong option'.

Edited by BlueJay (07 Dec 2021 3.43pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 07 Dec 21 3.54pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman I agree on the numbers. I’m not keen on mandatory vaccinations. If certain small businesses want to ban them then that’s their prerogative. You could say provide a test at the door instead, but you could then get vaccinated people infecting people among safer unvaccinated people to make that little bit more absurd. The advantages and necessity you mention would be better made in the current waste of money government adverts on tv or radio. What the (personal and family) consequences are of hospital appointments and procedures cancelled. Edited by Rudi Hedman (07 Dec 2021 3.31pm) I am not keen on mandatory vaccination either, primarily because it isn't practical and would stoke resentment and sympathy. What is needed for those who refuse is for them to feel ashamed and isolated. Not to feel they are victims. So exclusion is my preferred route. Vaccine passports required for entry to anywhere where other people will be found. Whether money is "wasted" in advertising will always be contentious, but I don't think stopping them, and releasing those funds, will result in increased appointments and procedures. It's the staff and ward availability, not money, which is short and which has to be brought back to a more manageable level. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 07 Dec 21 3.54pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Edited by Rudi Hedman (07 Dec 2021 3.31pm)

I am not keen on mandatory vaccination either, primarily because it isn't practical and would stoke resentment and sympathy. What is needed for those who refuse is for them to feel ashamed and isolated. Not to feel they are victims. So exclusion is my preferred route. Vaccine passports required for entry to anywhere where other people will be found.

Whether money is "wasted" in advertising will always be contentious, but I don't think stopping them, and releasing those funds, will result in increased appointments and procedures. It's the staff and ward availability, not money, which is short and which has to be brought back to a more manageable level.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay UK 07 Dec 21 3.55pm
Originally posted by cryrst Not sure where but I heard that 130 years ago a covid strain eventually morphed into what we now see as the common cold. Maybe this omicron is more mild to humans but more deadly to its competitors in the virus world. Time will tell and South Africa will be the live test the world is watching as only 25% have a vaccine. Their numbers on death and hospitalizations will be the mark. Yes, that really is the ideal and how some pandemics have ended before. A mild version that can spread easily and out-compete worse strains is an ideal scenario for us and the virus. I don't think we can look at delta numbers (50,000+ daily - more likely 100,000+) and imagine that we have any significant control over the spread of any strain. As such all we can do is boost our immunity to begin with (vaccinations etc) and then largely get on as normal and let it run its course. Even the travel restrictions, once say a few thousands people have Omicron seem to be entirely pointless. Unless a country decides to just close their border (forever?) they are never going to keep out new variants.
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 07 Dec 21 3.55pm

Originally posted by cryrst

Not sure where but I heard that 130 years ago a covid strain eventually morphed into what we now see as the common cold. Maybe this omicron is more mild to humans but more deadly to its competitors in the virus world. Time will tell and South Africa will be the live test the world is watching as only 25% have a vaccine. Their numbers on death and hospitalizations will be the mark.

Yes, that really is the ideal and how some pandemics have ended before. A mild version that can spread easily and out-compete worse strains is an ideal scenario for us and the virus.

I don't think we can look at delta numbers (50,000+ daily - more likely 100,000+) and imagine that we have any significant control over the spread of any strain. As such all we can do is boost our immunity to begin with (vaccinations etc) and then largely get on as normal and let it run its course.

Even the travel restrictions, once say a few thousands people have Omicron seem to be entirely pointless. Unless a country decides to just close their border (forever?) they are never going to keep out new variants.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Dec 21 4.01pm
Originally posted by BlueJay This is true, though logically there will be significantly fewer deaths if people vaccinate than don't. It's an effective way of cushioning the blow, and we saw what happened prior to there being any way to do so and it wasn't particularly pretty. An appreciation of that helps, as it has likely stopped additional lockdowns. We don't need to bundle everything into one pile. Some of these actions have unquestionably been a positive for saving lives and keeping people out of hospital (vaccines) whereas of course there is perfectly reasonable arguments to saying that lockdowns (after the first) had a knock on effect for business and the NHS that does more harm than good. Mistakes have certainly been made, but when you look at the varying responses of any government in the 'global environment' we're all part of, it's been pretty disastrous no matter the approach. Brazil had a do nothing approach and it just resulted in 600,000+ deaths and an eventual widespread vaccine drive at the end of it anyway (and a recession and so on). A pandemic causes much upheaval and seriously disrupts no matter what, because it's a huge unknown hanging over society, indeed the world, and the economy. So while I was against additional lock-downs, shifting the dials this way or that, is not wholly good or bad in one direction, and may end up being a similar outcome anyway. At it's core I see people are being very frustrated with what we're facing and that it's easier to find fault in approaches rather than become angry at a virus - because what would be the point in the latter. Certainly there my have been better ways to play this, but at the same time any approach would've still been monumentally sh!t compared to day to day life prior so would inherently appear to be 'the wrong option'. Edited by BlueJay (07 Dec 2021 3.43pm) In terms of decisions that result in higher or fewer deaths I urge you to watch that video I linked to a day or so ago. It's pretty certain that the true extent of decisions are not being advertised. In terms of personal decisions on taking the vaccines I can only say that criticism is opinion and as such is valid. Still, personal choice is also valid as individual situations differ. In terms of Brazil and countries that took no action at all....I agree with you that 'no action' was not ideal....however with some of these countries their economic situation would have made this debate moot. Remembering back I know that individuals like Rudi and myself always argued for sensible health and hygiene provisions and restrictions on contact with the elderly....though at some point mental health has to be factored in. My attitude towards lockdowns changed a little once I saw the statistics from Sweden and videos on it from contributors on Youtube like 'freethinker'. It's true that countries which did lockdown suffered more than those that didn't....however, in reality the fear generated from campaigns had the affect of reducing economic activity considerably anyway. So the differences weren't as wide as I had previously expected. So while I'm against lockdowns I'm more against fear mongering towards the young and healthy...and for protections for the elderly and vulnerable....but not to a hyperbolic extent that robs them of the very point of living anyway....risk can't be eliminated entirely, there has to be balance and personal choice. When you refer to the mass hysteria that most governments decided on I'm personally more critical than you. When I see people paid extremely well making firm decisions that I view as clearly flawed....Personally I just don't think it's a reflection of meritocracy to let that go. People need to be paid the big bucks for a reason....otherwise pay them in relation to their actual effectiveness. Personally I blame the media for a hell of a lot...as the tail wags the dog...and forgive me for getting a little spicy but those that fund them are not those that will be blamed for nothing. Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2021 4.55pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

07 Dec 21 4.01pm

Originally posted by BlueJay

Edited by BlueJay (07 Dec 2021 3.43pm)

In terms of decisions that result in higher or fewer deaths I urge you to watch that video I linked to a day or so ago. It's pretty certain that the true extent of decisions are not being advertised.

In terms of personal decisions on taking the vaccines I can only say that criticism is opinion and as such is valid. Still, personal choice is also valid as individual situations differ.

In terms of Brazil and countries that took no action at all....I agree with you that 'no action' was not ideal....however with some of these countries their economic situation would have made this debate moot.

Remembering back I know that individuals like Rudi and myself always argued for sensible health and hygiene provisions and restrictions on contact with the elderly....though at some point mental health has to be factored in.

My attitude towards lockdowns changed a little once I saw the statistics from Sweden and videos on it from contributors on Youtube like 'freethinker'. It's true that countries which did lockdown suffered more than those that didn't....however, in reality the fear generated from campaigns had the affect of reducing economic activity considerably anyway. So the differences weren't as wide as I had previously expected.

So while I'm against lockdowns I'm more against fear mongering towards the young and healthy...and for protections for the elderly and vulnerable....but not to a hyperbolic extent that robs them of the very point of living anyway....risk can't be eliminated entirely, there has to be balance and personal choice.

When you refer to the mass hysteria that most governments decided on I'm personally more critical than you. When I see people paid extremely well making firm decisions that I view as clearly flawed....Personally I just don't think it's a reflection of meritocracy to let that go.

People need to be paid the big bucks for a reason....otherwise pay them in relation to their actual effectiveness.

Personally I blame the media for a hell of a lot...as the tail wags the dog...and forgive me for getting a little spicy but those that fund them are not those that will be blamed for nothing.

Edited by Stirlingsays (07 Dec 2021 4.55pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Dec 21 4.29pm
Originally posted by BlueJay Yes, that really is the ideal and how some pandemics have ended before. A mild version that can spread easily and out-compete worse strains is an ideal scenario for us and the virus. I don't think we can look at delta numbers (50,000+ daily - more likely 100,000+) and imagine that we have any significant control over the spread of any strain. As such all we can do is boost our immunity to begin with (vaccinations etc) and then largely get on as normal and let it run its course. Even the travel restrictions, once say a few thousands people have Omicron seem to be entirely pointless. Unless a country decides to just close their border (forever?) they are never going to keep out new variants. Compare that common sense with the knee jerkings of the supposedly 'great and good' who are paid god knows how much. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

07 Dec 21 4.29pm

Originally posted by BlueJay

Yes, that really is the ideal and how some pandemics have ended before. A mild version that can spread easily and out-compete worse strains is an ideal scenario for us and the virus.

Compare that common sense with the knee jerkings of the supposedly 'great and good' who are paid god knows how much.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 07 Dec 21 5.11pm
If we have a proper lockdown (because the NHS there will be a lot of flack thrown the way of the unvaccinated. I’ll see on whether I agree on that view depending on if, when and by how much. It’s more the people on either side still screaming this or that before they know on omicron that’s more annoying right now. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 07 Dec 21 5.11pm

If we have a proper lockdown (because the NHS

there will be a lot of flack thrown the way of the unvaccinated. I’ll see on whether I agree on that view depending on if, when and by how much. It’s more the people on either side still screaming this or that before they know on omicron that’s more annoying right now.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 07 Dec 21 5.15pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman If we have a proper lockdown (because the NHS there will be a lot of flack thrown the way of the unvaccinated. I’ll see on whether I agree on that view depending on if, when and by how much. It’s more the people on either side still screaming this or that before they know on omicron that’s more annoying right now. You would support a 'proper lockdown' if the SA variant was found to be as bad as the Kent one for example? How would that produce a different result? This seems different to the Rudi I remember, have your views changed? 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

07 Dec 21 5.15pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

If we have a proper lockdown (because the NHS

You would support a 'proper lockdown' if the SA variant was found to be as bad as the Kent one for example? How would that produce a different result?

This seems different to the Rudi I remember, have your views changed?

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman Caterham 07 Dec 21 7.30pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays You would support a 'proper lockdown' if the SA variant was found to be as bad as the Kent one for example? How would that produce a different result? This seems different to the Rudi I remember, have your views changed? Lockdowns should be avoidable as much as possible, and we’d probably see closing down of anything enjoyable rather than lockdown. But if hospitalisations and deaths did explode again the government would be left with little option I expect. Or some people may again not get treatment or crucial consultation meetings. Taking a stand against vaccinations is fine. But if this goes on and on because people refusing to get vaccinated causes this to continue then eventually there’s a tipping point. What about the businesses going under? What will small business owners think? If this continues until people decide it’s time the vax is safe, do we have another year of restrictions and maybe part or all of the next year? Does this go on and on? I can’t see I’d point the finger at the unvaccinated but I would probably think what do they expect? If the vax is the only way to end the restrictions causing all sorts of problems for others then what do they expect if this goes on for years? There are various scenarios with omicron and nobody knows, yet I keep reading the usual big names claiming they know. I doubt they’ll know once we get to the 3 weeks after Johnson’s last speech on omicron. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 07 Dec 21 7.30pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You would support a 'proper lockdown' if the SA variant was found to be as bad as the Kent one for example? How would that produce a different result?

This seems different to the Rudi I remember, have your views changed?

Lockdowns should be avoidable as much as possible, and we’d probably see closing down of anything enjoyable rather than lockdown. But if hospitalisations and deaths did explode again the government would be left with little option I expect. Or some people may again not get treatment or crucial consultation meetings.

Taking a stand against vaccinations is fine. But if this goes on and on because people refusing to get vaccinated causes this to continue then eventually there’s a tipping point. What about the businesses going under? What will small business owners think? If this continues until people decide it’s time the vax is safe, do we have another year of restrictions and maybe part or all of the next year? Does this go on and on?

I can’t see I’d point the finger at the unvaccinated but I would probably think what do they expect? If the vax is the only way to end the restrictions causing all sorts of problems for others then what do they expect if this goes on for years?

There are various scenarios with omicron and nobody knows, yet I keep reading the usual big names claiming they know. I doubt they’ll know once we get to the 3 weeks after Johnson’s last speech on omicron.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Topic Locked

Page 1002 of 1255 < 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Coronavirus (LOCKED)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors