Covid vaccine

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Covid vaccine

Page 24 of 106 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >

BlueJay UK 25 Jan 21 9.44pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Sure, so would you have banned sex? Would you have run a campaign though the press aimed at guilting those who had sex? There should be a line over which the state should fear to tread...It's been said many times, this isn't the black death and in my view the response to it has been far more damaging. No society in history has ever locked up its young and healthy. Covid-19 is very different in terms of how fast it spreads and also it's perfectly possible to have sex in such a way that makes it all but impossible to pass it on so there would be no sense in banning it. The impact of covid on society is very different in that it can have serious consequences within months. Whatever you think of Covid clearly lockdown or no lockdown there are very real and sudden consequences that eclipse the norm and are to an extent inescapable. Largely ecomonic if you lock down, health if you don't. Though for what it's worth the press did run a campaign guilting people who had unsafe sex (and arguably sex in general) during the AIDS crisis. Originally posted by Stirlingsays The WHO estimate that roughly 1.35 million people die annually from traffic accidents. And even disregarding the annual figure, there have been far more deaths from driving than will ever be the case from this aliment yet the deaths from driving continue decade by decade as accepted risk....and will continue forward as accepted risk. So while I support the creation of vaccines in reducing death amongst the vulnerable the reality of this illness was that regardless of our reactions with lockdown or vaccines. It would have eventually faded into the general background of coronaviruses and killed that much less.....all that's probably happened is that process was delayed more further. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Jan 2021 8.28pm) I was basing my comment on this country over the past 12 months. Clearly this virus is going to kill millions and in fact has already killed almost double your road deaths number (2.13m) even though these new strains haven't really got a foothold in most countries yet. I very much doubt we'll get to the end of this year without approaching the 5 million mark worldwide and plenty of countries last in line for the vaccine. Also take into account that the only reason these numbers aren't much higher is due to efforts to keep them low (which is turn damage the economy). It's a catch-22 and either strategy makes sense depending on your perspective (or a mixture). Any idea though that if we just let covid rip through without doing a thing it would've killed less is fascicle. Quote I would agree that irresponsible behavior by an individual is bad....we both accept that. The question is at what level should the state be controlling your behaviour. Should the state stop selling alcohol because it results in death and illness? Should the state ban people swimming in the ocean because a certain number will drown or get swept away. I suppose it comes down the old 'nanny state' question. And the unfortunate reality of this pandemic is that the western populations are both compliant, trusting and docile when it comes to their liberties and personally I regard that as very much of a negative. There is a decent case for banning alcohol if we weigh it up against other banned substances, some of which it eclipses in terms of harm. However, the genie is out of the bottle so to speak, and also banning it would drive it underground and that comes with its own consequences and quality control perils. So really everything is a compromise. By your logic are you saying that we should legalise all or most drugs? If not, why not. And also if offered the vaccine will you have it? Healthwise it would likely be a good call, but you do keep saying that it's for the vulnerable and that the consequences of people not taking it is really neither here nor there because that's their personal liberty, so would you? Edited by BlueJay (25 Jan 2021 9.46pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 25 Jan 21 9.44pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays
Sure, so would you have banned sex? Would you have run a campaign though the press aimed at guilting those who had sex?

There should be a line over which the state should fear to tread...It's been said many times, this isn't the black death and in my view the response to it has been far more damaging.

No society in history has ever locked up its young and healthy.

Covid-19 is very different in terms of how fast it spreads and also it's perfectly possible to have sex in such a way that makes it all but impossible to pass it on so there would be no sense in banning it. The impact of covid on society is very different in that it can have serious consequences within months. Whatever you think of Covid clearly lockdown or no lockdown there are very real and sudden consequences that eclipse the norm and are to an extent inescapable. Largely ecomonic if you lock down, health if you don't.

Though for what it's worth the press did run a campaign guilting people who had unsafe sex (and arguably sex in general) during the AIDS crisis.

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

The WHO estimate that roughly 1.35 million people die annually from traffic accidents. And even disregarding the annual figure, there have been far more deaths from driving than will ever be the case from this aliment yet the deaths from driving continue decade by decade as accepted risk....and will continue forward as accepted risk.

So while I support the creation of vaccines in reducing death amongst the vulnerable the reality of this illness was that regardless of our reactions with lockdown or vaccines. It would have eventually faded into the general background of coronaviruses and killed that much less.....all that's probably happened is that process was delayed more further.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Jan 2021 8.28pm)

I was basing my comment on this country over the past 12 months. Clearly this virus is going to kill millions and in fact has already killed almost double your road deaths number (2.13m) even though these new strains haven't really got a foothold in most countries yet. I very much doubt we'll get to the end of this year without approaching the 5 million mark worldwide and plenty of countries last in line for the vaccine.

Also take into account that the only reason these numbers aren't much higher is due to efforts to keep them low (which is turn damage the economy). It's a catch-22 and either strategy makes sense depending on your perspective (or a mixture). Any idea though that if we just let covid rip through without doing a thing it would've killed less is fascicle.

Quote
I would agree that irresponsible behavior by an individual is bad....we both accept that. The question is at what level should the state be controlling your behaviour.

Should the state stop selling alcohol because it results in death and illness? Should the state ban people swimming in the ocean because a certain number will drown or get swept away.

I suppose it comes down the old 'nanny state' question. And the unfortunate reality of this pandemic is that the western populations are both compliant, trusting and docile when it comes to their liberties and personally I regard that as very much of a negative.

There is a decent case for banning alcohol if we weigh it up against other banned substances, some of which it eclipses in terms of harm. However, the genie is out of the bottle so to speak, and also banning it would drive it underground and that comes with its own consequences and quality control perils. So really everything is a compromise.

By your logic are you saying that we should legalise all or most drugs? If not, why not.

And also if offered the vaccine will you have it? Healthwise it would likely be a good call, but you do keep saying that it's for the vulnerable and that the consequences of people not taking it is really neither here nor there because that's their personal liberty, so would you?

Edited by BlueJay (25 Jan 2021 9.46pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 25 Jan 21 10.00pm
Originally posted by Mapletree Yes No No No Eh? Are you actually saying none of your staff travelled abroad between March and December? Mmmm My question regarding my wife was is Public Safety more important than open borders?
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 25 Jan 21 10.00pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

Yes
No
No
No
Eh?

Are you actually saying none of your staff travelled abroad between March and December? Mmmm
My question regarding my wife was is Public Safety more important than open borders?

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 25 Jan 21 10.11pm
Originally posted by Mapletree Reasonable? The lock-down will end when the NHS isn't overwhelmed. You tell me when that will be. It will come sooner if the people that need vaccinations are not put off having them. I can talk from experience, Care Assistants should be vaccinated. Absolutely no ifs or buts. Yet people still say 'oh but if they are young they don't need to and it's their right not to and in any case they can pass it on after vaccination and there's been no research about the vaccine's effects on the ability of people to swim whilst playing the bassoon and and and.' We just had a major outbreak that was unnecessary. I hope this isn't affecting the loved one of anyone on this site. We shall keep our Homes in lockdown until it is sufficiently safe not to. No argument about all front line workers. They should all be at the head of the queue. By reasonable I mean how long can lockdown continue before it becomes economically and societally unviable; according to the Guardian unemployment has increased by 114% since this began.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

25 Jan 21 10.11pm

Originally posted by Mapletree

Reasonable?

The lock-down will end when the NHS isn't overwhelmed. You tell me when that will be.

It will come sooner if the people that need vaccinations are not put off having them. I can talk from experience, Care Assistants should be vaccinated. Absolutely no ifs or buts. Yet people still say 'oh but if they are young they don't need to and it's their right not to and in any case they can pass it on after vaccination and there's been no research about the vaccine's effects on the ability of people to swim whilst playing the bassoon and and and.'

We just had a major outbreak that was unnecessary. I hope this isn't affecting the loved one of anyone on this site. We shall keep our Homes in lockdown until it is sufficiently safe not to.

No argument about all front line workers. They should all be at the head of the queue.
By reasonable I mean how long can lockdown continue before it becomes economically and societally unviable; according to the Guardian unemployment has increased by 114% since this began.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 25 Jan 21 10.14pm
Originally posted by BlueJay There is a decent case for banning alcohol if we weigh it up against other banned substances, some of which it eclipses in terms of harm. However, the genie is out of the bottle so to speak, and also banning it would drive it underground and that comes with its own consequences and quality control perils. So really everything is a compromise. By your logic are you saying that we should legalise all or most drugs? If not, why not. And also if offered the vaccine will you have it? Healthwise it would likely be a good call, but you do keep saying that it's for the vulnerable and that the consequences of people not taking it is really neither here nor there because that's their personal liberty, so would you? Edited by BlueJay (25 Jan 2021 9.46pm) Condoms break all the time as many a pregnancy can attest to.....also guilt away and encourage responsible behaviour, however that is a year's distance from criminalising people amid a virtual Police state. Also your answer on traffic deaths appears to ignore that these traffic death figures are roughly every year and add up over decades and yet are accepted. Depending upon the time span you wish to look at driving will be a far more deadly activity.....yet everyone gets in a car. This virus may kill millions worldwide...though a significant number of those deaths are with it, not of it and a percent would have happened independent of it.....none of this is highlighted when this is discussed. To answer you questions: The drugs question is one that I find difficult. I have supported a zero tolerance position on drugs but as I've grown older I've moved more to a libertarian position regarding it. However, I have difficulty with the idea that the government would benefit from selling drugs, which will always involve suffering. However, the benefits could outweigh the negatives....but it goes against my instincts. I don't think there is a 'good' position here. However, fighting human nature also goes against my instincts.....so you have asked a question I really have issues with. If I were the one tasked with designing policy on it I'd certainly being spending a lot of time researching every option. Will I take the vaccine? I'm diabetic and over fifty so I'd be on the at lower risk category. However, I won't take this vaccine until it's been around for around two years. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Jan 2021 10.17pm) '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

25 Jan 21 10.14pm

Originally posted by BlueJay

By your logic are you saying that we should legalise all or most drugs? If not, why not.

Edited by BlueJay (25 Jan 2021 9.46pm)

Condoms break all the time as many a pregnancy can attest to.....also guilt away and encourage responsible behaviour, however that is a year's distance from criminalising people amid a virtual Police state.

Also your answer on traffic deaths appears to ignore that these traffic death figures are roughly every year and add up over decades and yet are accepted. Depending upon the time span you wish to look at driving will be a far more deadly activity.....yet everyone gets in a car.

This virus may kill millions worldwide...though a significant number of those deaths are with it, not of it and a percent would have happened independent of it.....none of this is highlighted when this is discussed.

To answer you questions:

The drugs question is one that I find difficult.

I have supported a zero tolerance position on drugs but as I've grown older I've moved more to a libertarian position regarding it. However, I have difficulty with the idea that the government would benefit from selling drugs, which will always involve suffering.

However, the benefits could outweigh the negatives....but it goes against my instincts.

I don't think there is a 'good' position here.

However, fighting human nature also goes against my instincts.....so you have asked a question I really have issues with. If I were the one tasked with designing policy on it I'd certainly being spending a lot of time researching every option.

Will I take the vaccine? I'm diabetic and over fifty so I'd be on the at lower risk category. However, I won't take this vaccine until it's been around for around two years.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Jan 2021 10.17pm)

'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

Mapletree Croydon 25 Jan 21 10.26pm
Originally posted by Spiderman Are you actually saying none of your staff travelled abroad between March and December? Mmmm My question regarding my wife was is Public Safety more important than open borders? Yes Now tell me how much of each and I’ll make The Judgement of Solomon.
Alert a moderator to this post

Mapletree

Croydon 25 Jan 21 10.26pm

Originally posted by Spiderman

Are you actually saying none of your staff travelled abroad between March and December? Mmmm
My question regarding my wife was is Public Safety more important than open borders?

Yes

Now tell me how much of each and I’ll make The Judgement of Solomon.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 25 Jan 21 10.44pm
Originally posted by DanH Quite staggering how you still don’t think you’re wrong on this. Never known one person to be quite so demonstrably wrong on so many things yet utterly convinced he’s right. Toby Young syndrome. Those here who have read these opinions over the months and years won't be staggered, as it's all so disappointingly predictable. Of course, the economic impact is severe, as is the threat to children's education, and mental health. No-one at all under-estimates how damaging these things are and how much effort needs to be put in to minimise their effect. However, when you are faced with bad choices you must choose the least harmful. As the same decision seems to have been made, with only a few exceptions, all around the world as to what that choice ought to be, our friend is out on a limb again, sticking out far to the right of the tree of knowledge. The only others on that limb are the usual motley crew. Thank goodness they aren't making policy. I have my appointment to get the vaccine this coming Friday. Unsurprisingly I will gratefully accept it. The end may not yet be nigh but there is the glow of a new dawn becoming visible. We just need to keep our nerve and our faith. It's tough for many but it's far, far tougher for those at the sharp end in the NHS. We all need to grit our teeth, make the effort and do our bit. All of us. Including those who don't agree with the approach who, just for once, need to swallow their pride and do what the rest of us want them to do. 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 25 Jan 21 10.44pm

Originally posted by DanH

Quite staggering how you still don’t think you’re wrong on this. Never known one person to be quite so demonstrably wrong on so many things yet utterly convinced he’s right.

Toby Young syndrome.

Those here who have read these opinions over the months and years won't be staggered, as it's all so disappointingly predictable.

Of course, the economic impact is severe, as is the threat to children's education, and mental health. No-one at all under-estimates how damaging these things are and how much effort needs to be put in to minimise their effect. However, when you are faced with bad choices you must choose the least harmful.

As the same decision seems to have been made, with only a few exceptions, all around the world as to what that choice ought to be, our friend is out on a limb again, sticking out far to the right of the tree of knowledge. The only others on that limb are the usual motley crew. Thank goodness they aren't making policy.

I have my appointment to get the vaccine this coming Friday. Unsurprisingly I will gratefully accept it.

The end may not yet be nigh but there is the glow of a new dawn becoming visible. We just need to keep our nerve and our faith. It's tough for many but it's far, far tougher for those at the sharp end in the NHS. We all need to grit our teeth, make the effort and do our bit.

All of us. Including those who don't agree with the approach who, just for once, need to swallow their pride and do what the rest of us want them to do.

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 25 Jan 21 10.57pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays This virus may kill millions worldwide...though a significant number of those deaths are with it, not of it and a percent would have happened independent of it.....none of this is highlighted when this is discussed. That may well be the case they are they old, but it doesn't imply that they were all on deaths door. Life expectancy based on a persons actual age at the time (rather than one skewed towards early deaths) give people a good bit longer than most might imagine. Especially those outside of homes. This virus can be a number of people who aren't necessarily already crawling into a casket. Just old. Maybe it's a given that many do place a value on life based on the demographic at play (old age) but at the same time in a fire, who do you rescue? A baby, a children certainly, but a Grand Mother would be pretty high on the list, due to, not in spite of their frailties. So I can see why we would be doing all that we can to keep people safe (even if that inevitably gets partially botched up too). We don't only owe younger people, or working age people our efforts. The vaccine at least is their 'best case' anyway so we should not underestimate its importance and what this means to people. I'm not saying that we should take this approach or that to lockdowns. Just fleshing out this particular aspect. Quote To answer you questions: The drugs question is one that I find difficult. I have supported a zero tolerance position on drugs but as I've grown older I've moved more to a libertarian position regarding it. However, I have difficulty with the idea that the government would benefit from selling drugs, which will always involve suffering. However, the benefits could outweigh the negatives....but it goes against my instincts. I don't think there is a 'good' position here. However, fighting human nature also goes against my instincts.....so you have asked a question I really have issues with. If I were the one tasked with designing policy on it I'd certainly being spending a lot of time researching every option. Yes, it is a tricky area but it seemed relevant to bring up as it touches on the same issues of personal autonomy vs state interference. I think these nuances exist in drawing a conclusion about anything really, including the issues at hand. Quote Will I take the vaccine? I'm diabetic and over fifty so I'd be on the at lower risk category. However, I won't take this vaccine until it's been around for around two years. Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Jan 2021 10.17pm) Hmm, interesting choice. On one hand I can see why you'd put it off if you didn't feel particularly at risk, though it might pay to be careful in letting your attitude towards it colour your perception of it. There is the untested vaccine aspect, I can appreciate that. Though personally I'm not sure that concern will amount to anything. The downside is that if you wait two years then you must be pretty likely to catch it before then, at which time if it doesn't impact you much why ever bothering having it in future, and if it tanks your health completely, you'd have turned down something that would've have prevented that. Decisions, decisions!
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 25 Jan 21 10.57pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

That may well be the case they are they old, but it doesn't imply that they were all on deaths door. Life expectancy based on a persons actual age at the time (rather than one skewed towards early deaths) give people a good bit longer than most might imagine. Especially those outside of homes. This virus can be a number of people who aren't necessarily already crawling into a casket. Just old.

Maybe it's a given that many do place a value on life based on the demographic at play (old age) but at the same time in a fire, who do you rescue? A baby, a children certainly, but a Grand Mother would be pretty high on the list, due to, not in spite of their frailties. So I can see why we would be doing all that we can to keep people safe (even if that inevitably gets partially botched up too). We don't only owe younger people, or working age people our efforts. The vaccine at least is their 'best case' anyway so we should not underestimate its importance and what this means to people. I'm not saying that we should take this approach or that to lockdowns. Just fleshing out this particular aspect.

Quote

To answer you questions:

The drugs question is one that I find difficult.

However, the benefits could outweigh the negatives....but it goes against my instincts.

I don't think there is a 'good' position here.

Yes, it is a tricky area but it seemed relevant to bring up as it touches on the same issues of personal autonomy vs state interference. I think these nuances exist in drawing a conclusion about anything really, including the issues at hand.

Quote

Will I take the vaccine? I'm diabetic and over fifty so I'd be on the at lower risk category. However, I won't take this vaccine until it's been around for around two years.

Edited by Stirlingsays (25 Jan 2021 10.17pm)

Hmm, interesting choice. On one hand I can see why you'd put it off if you didn't feel particularly at risk, though it might pay to be careful in letting your attitude towards it colour your perception of it.

There is the untested vaccine aspect, I can appreciate that. Though personally I'm not sure that concern will amount to anything. The downside is that if you wait two years then you must be pretty likely to catch it before then, at which time if it doesn't impact you much why ever bothering having it in future, and if it tanks your health completely, you'd have turned down something that would've have prevented that. Decisions, decisions!

Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay UK 26 Jan 21 12.13am
"Preliminary data from Israel: of 128,000 people who were vaccinated with their second dose (Pfizer) over 1 week ago, only 0.01% (20 people) have since tested positive, all with mild symptoms." edit: 50k in the country were infected during the seven day period, which is around 700 expected cases per 128k. Edited by BlueJay (26 Jan 2021 12.18am)
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 26 Jan 21 12.13am

"Preliminary data from Israel: of 128,000 people who were vaccinated with their second dose (Pfizer) over 1 week ago, only 0.01% (20 people) have since tested positive, all with mild symptoms."

edit: 50k in the country were infected during the seven day period, which is around 700 expected cases per 128k.

Edited by BlueJay (26 Jan 2021 12.18am)

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 26 Jan 21 7.05am
Originally posted by Mapletree Reasonable? The lock-down will end when the NHS isn't overwhelmed. You tell me when that will be. It will come sooner if the people that need vaccinations are not put off having them. I can talk from experience, Care Assistants should be vaccinated. Absolutely no ifs or buts. Yet people still say 'oh but if they are young they don't need to and it's their right not to and in any case they can pass it on after vaccination and there's been no research about the vaccine's effects on the ability of people to swim whilst playing the bassoon and and and.' We just had a major outbreak that was unnecessary. I hope this isn't affecting the loved one of anyone on this site. We shall keep our Homes in lockdown until it is sufficiently safe not to. I agree Care Assistants should be vaccinated, no doubt. What I don’t understand is why Border Force and I think the Police have not been offered vaccinations, as a priority. As I previously stated wife deals with clandestines every day, many of whom are Covid positive, but no jabs are being offered
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 26 Jan 21 7.05am

Originally posted by Mapletree

Reasonable?

The lock-down will end when the NHS isn't overwhelmed. You tell me when that will be.

We just had a major outbreak that was unnecessary. I hope this isn't affecting the loved one of anyone on this site. We shall keep our Homes in lockdown until it is sufficiently safe not to.

I agree Care Assistants should be vaccinated, no doubt. What I don’t understand is why Border Force and I think the Police have not been offered vaccinations, as a priority. As I previously stated wife deals with clandestines every day, many of whom are Covid positive, but no jabs are being offered

Alert a moderator to this post

becky over the moon 26 Jan 21 7.12am
Originally posted by BlueJay "Preliminary data from Israel: of 128,000 people who were vaccinated with their second dose (Pfizer) over 1 week ago, only 0.01% (20 people) have since tested positive, all with mild symptoms." edit: 50k in the country were infected during the seven day period, which is around 700 expected cases per 128k. Edited by BlueJay (26 Jan 2021 12.18am) Since the Pfizer vaccine second dose doesn't become effective until 7-10 days AFTER it's given, then presumably that 0.01% would have been those still developing antibodies, which would give mild symptoms, therefore cannot be a true indication of effectiveness, as the time lag is too short by the given standards. Edited by becky (26 Jan 2021 7.12am) A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers
Alert a moderator to this post \| Board Moderator

becky

over the moon 26 Jan 21 7.12am

Originally posted by BlueJay

"Preliminary data from Israel: of 128,000 people who were vaccinated with their second dose (Pfizer) over 1 week ago, only 0.01% (20 people) have since tested positive, all with mild symptoms."

edit: 50k in the country were infected during the seven day period, which is around 700 expected cases per 128k.

Edited by BlueJay (26 Jan 2021 12.18am)

Since the Pfizer vaccine second dose doesn't become effective until 7-10 days AFTER it's given, then presumably that 0.01% would have been those still developing antibodies, which would give mild symptoms, therefore cannot be a true indication of effectiveness, as the time lag is too short by the given standards.

Edited by becky (26 Jan 2021 7.12am)

A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers

Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator

Spiderman Horsham 26 Jan 21 7.15am
Originally posted by BlueJay He certainly didn't do that. I was surprised with what he was telling me, but actually think he was operating by the letter at the time (unless I'm mistaken): [Link] "And they may well be making a beeline for Dubai, where temperatures hover around 30C all through the Christmas period. Last Thursday, the British government announced that the city (and the rest of the United Arab Emirates) would be added to the country’s list of quarantine-free travel destinations. As of Saturday November 14, passengers arriving into the UK from Dubai will no longer need to self-isolate for 14 days – making the prospect of that holiday abroad much more enticing indeed." "Dubai is the notable exception: currently, there is no mandatory self-isolation period on arrival. All travellers have to do is fill out this ‘health declaration’ form, provide valid health insurance, and bring a negative test result from within four days of arrival." No very minimal restrictions right up until basically the beginning of this year even though there are plenty of covid cases there too. Edited by BlueJay (25 Jan 2021 7.53pm) Apparently on 12/1 Dubai arrivals have to self-isolate, seems to be changing all the time. Maybe your dentist got back before then. Still think it was irresponsible for a medical professional to travel abroad at the present time
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 26 Jan 21 7.15am

Originally posted by BlueJay

He certainly didn't do that. I was surprised with what he was telling me, but actually think he was operating by the letter at the time (unless I'm mistaken): [Link]

"And they may well be making a beeline for Dubai, where temperatures hover around 30C all through the Christmas period. Last Thursday, the British government announced that the city (and the rest of the United Arab Emirates) would be added to the country’s list of quarantine-free travel destinations. As of Saturday November 14, passengers arriving into the UK from Dubai will no longer need to self-isolate for 14 days – making the prospect of that holiday abroad much more enticing indeed."

"Dubai is the notable exception: currently, there is no mandatory self-isolation period on arrival. All travellers have to do is fill out this ‘health declaration’ form, provide valid health insurance, and bring a negative test result from within four days of arrival."

No very minimal restrictions right up until basically the beginning of this year even though there are plenty of covid cases there too.

Edited by BlueJay (25 Jan 2021 7.53pm)

Apparently on 12/1 Dubai arrivals have to self-isolate, seems to be changing all the time. Maybe your dentist got back before then. Still think it was irresponsible for a medical professional to travel abroad at the present time

Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11 Beckenham 26 Jan 21 8.17am
According to reports the EU is now trying to get their hands on our supplies of the Pfizer vaccine whilst turning down the Astra Zeneca one. I shocked I never realised the EU was one big bully. One more point
Alert a moderator to this post

Badger11

Beckenham 26 Jan 21 8.17am

According to reports the EU is now trying to get their hands on our supplies of the Pfizer vaccine whilst turning down the Astra Zeneca one.

I shocked I never realised the EU was one big bully.

One more point

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 24 of 106 < 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Covid vaccine

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors