You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
November 23 2024 7.52am

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 42 of 289 < 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 >

  

Teddy Eagle Flag 10 Mar 23 10.05pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Theirs is a much wider spread, more rural, population than ours. We were pretty relaxed down here too and never felt isolated. As soon as the strict restrictions were relaxed, and small groups could meet, we started playing bowls again, maintaining hygiene and social distancing. Our pub opened for take away food, and served a pint or two whilst it was prepared. It was different in the big cities.

I don't think too many actually got fined did they! More a way to encourage compliance than anything else.

According to Google...

Of the 124,626 fines issued in England and Wales, some 51,353 remain unpaid · However total of 70,495 penalties were paid, bringing in £8.2m.

Not sure the rural aspect is that relevant. New Zealand has a lower population density than Sweden and their lockdown was very strict.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
eaglesdare Flag 10 Mar 23 10.14pm Send a Private Message to eaglesdare Add eaglesdare as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

There is an old piece of advice that you would do well to heed. Which is, if you are in a hole it's best to stop digging.

What you provided is a summary from the John Hopkins University of Medicine. Which is a completely trustworthy source of unbiased information. Unfortunately you decided to pick just one statistic from it, ignore the rest, and then build a mountain of conclusions upon it.

I won't repeat why that approach is bs. Just read my previous posts.

There is certainly a great deal of information available now, but it's still growing. It wasn't though to begin with. The vaccines have been proved as safe as was expected they would be, but most importantly far safer than not having them.

So you made a misinformed decision, not an informed one. Nothing new there. From all you write here it seems most of your decisions are based on misinformation.

That you continue to say that your decision affected no-one else, when I have patiently explained how it did, and does, just goes to prove, beyond a shred of doubt, how blindly selfish you are.

Throw that shovel away!

Just one statistic? Shall we go through all the rest of the statistics? It ranges from 94/5 percent to 99 percent for recovery from covid.

Fortunately for me my informed decision to remain unvaccinated seems to be the correct choice. There is countless people comming down with side effects. Some have even died from the vaccine. This is common knowledge.

I have explained that my informed decision does not affect anyone else and is backed up by the science. It's clear as day! The vaccine doesn't stop transmissions or from catching covid. What little protection the vaccine gives only lasts up to a month.

Extremely selfish of you to expect someone who has done a risk assessment and decided themselves the risks of not getting the vaccine far outweigh that of getting it.

I would never tell you not to get it nor anyone else. You made your decision good for you. But don't continue to be a selfish and expect someone to risk serious side effects to "protect" you when clearly the science says it won't.

Anyways I have provided you with 2 prices of proof. With the recovery rate of people catching covid and the serious side effects. Proof that does not fit your narrative.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 10 Mar 23 11.14pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by eaglesdare

Just one statistic? Shall we go through all the rest of the statistics? It ranges from 94/5 percent to 99 percent for recovery from covid.

Fortunately for me my informed decision to remain unvaccinated seems to be the correct choice. There is countless people comming down with side effects. Some have even died from the vaccine. This is common knowledge.

I have explained that my informed decision does not affect anyone else and is backed up by the science. It's clear as day! The vaccine doesn't stop transmissions or from catching covid. What little protection the vaccine gives only lasts up to a month.

Extremely selfish of you to expect someone who has done a risk assessment and decided themselves the risks of not getting the vaccine far outweigh that of getting it.

I would never tell you not to get it nor anyone else. You made your decision good for you. But don't continue to be a selfish and expect someone to risk serious side effects to "protect" you when clearly the science says it won't.

Anyways I have provided you with 2 prices of proof. With the recovery rate of people catching covid and the serious side effects. Proof that does not fit your narrative.

I think an almost 1% death rate from those infected is pretty appalling, whilst 5.5% is a disaster. You make light of that as much as you wish. Selfish people tend to do that. People who care about others don't.

There aren't countless people coming down with vaccine side effects! That's just bs conspiracy theory. Where are they? I haven't seen or heard of one. There will be an isolated reaction, some serious, but there is with every medicine or procedure. Just as there is with everything in life. I was almost killed by a Venetian blind which fell out of a 10th floor window, cut a lump off my briefcase and the toecap off my shoe. Doesn't mean Venetian blinds are dangerous and not to be trusted, does it. I still use them.

The vaccines stop transmission temporarily, which is useful, but they stop severe disease for a long time and that's what's really important. It's also what you deliberately ignore.

Severe disease is what puts people in hospital. The vaccinated are less likely to require hospitalisation. The unvaccinated more likely. QED. The unvaccinated are selfish. Go ask the staff at your local hospital what they think about the unvaccinated. That's where the clarity is, day and night!

No-one says you cannot decide for yourself. You can. What I would like to see are consequences for those who, for selfish reasons alone, decide not to contribute to the national effort to overcome the pandemic. I want the vaccinated prioritised for NHS treatment. If you have deliberately contributed to making yourself sicker than you need to have been, then you go to the back of the queue, or go private, unless it's an emergency.

All you have provided is obvious bs. Stop digging!

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 10 Mar 23 11.24pm Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

According to Google...

Of the 124,626 fines issued in England and Wales, some 51,353 remain unpaid · However total of 70,495 penalties were paid, bringing in £8.2m.

Not sure the rural aspect is that relevant. New Zealand has a lower population density than Sweden and their lockdown was very strict.

That's much more than I realised. Do you know where, and who issued them? It didn't happen here.

I think it's generally accepted NZ went very hard, very early and the people there hated it. I think they were trying to keep the country Covid free, but as soon as it found its way in it was always going to spread somehow.

It worked though. Their mortality rate from infections was 0.1% whilst the UK and Sweden were both 0.9%

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Teddy Eagle Flag 10 Mar 23 11.48pm Send a Private Message to Teddy Eagle Add Teddy Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That's much more than I realised. Do you know where, and who issued them? It didn't happen here.

I think it's generally accepted NZ went very hard, very early and the people there hated it. I think they were trying to keep the country Covid free, but as soon as it found its way in it was always going to spread somehow.

It worked though. Their mortality rate from infections was 0.1% whilst the UK and Sweden were both 0.9%


Scroll down for data on locations.

[Link]

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Dubai Eagle Flag 11 Mar 23 7.03am Send a Private Message to Dubai Eagle Add Dubai Eagle as a friend

I have worked for a couple of Swedish companies & absolutely, overall their attitude towards playing by the rules is really quite commendable -

On the population numbers differences(a quick Google 2021- nothing to intense or even well researched)
UK has apparently a population of over 67, million (circa 727 per sq mile) & Sweden 10.4 million (circa 64 per sq mile)

I know when I have been lucky enough to visit there other than in Stockholm city centre the feeling of space & almost rural style living is really relaxing - (even more so up in Finland) -

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Theirs is a much wider spread, more rural, population than ours. We were pretty relaxed down here too and never felt isolated. As soon as the strict restrictions were relaxed, and small groups could meet, we started playing bowls again, maintaining hygiene and social distancing. Our pub opened for take away food, and served a pint or two whilst it was prepared. It was different in the big cities.

I don't think too many actually got fined did they! More a way to encourage compliance than anything else.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
eaglesdare Flag 11 Mar 23 8.29am Send a Private Message to eaglesdare Add eaglesdare as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I think an almost 1% death rate from those infected is pretty appalling, whilst 5.5% is a disaster. You make light of that as much as you wish. Selfish people tend to do that. People who care about others don't.

There aren't countless people coming down with vaccine side effects! That's just bs conspiracy theory. Where are they? I haven't seen or heard of one. There will be an isolated reaction, some serious, but there is with every medicine or procedure. Just as there is with everything in life. I was almost killed by a Venetian blind which fell out of a 10th floor window, cut a lump off my briefcase and the toecap off my shoe. Doesn't mean Venetian blinds are dangerous and not to be trusted, does it. I still use them.

The vaccines stop transmission temporarily, which is useful, but they stop severe disease for a long time and that's what's really important. It's also what you deliberately ignore.

Severe disease is what puts people in hospital. The vaccinated are less likely to require hospitalisation. The unvaccinated more likely. QED. The unvaccinated are selfish. Go ask the staff at your local hospital what they think about the unvaccinated. That's where the clarity is, day and night!

No-one says you cannot decide for yourself. You can. What I would like to see are consequences for those who, for selfish reasons alone, decide not to contribute to the national effort to overcome the pandemic. I want the vaccinated prioritised for NHS treatment. If you have deliberately contributed to making yourself sicker than you need to have been, then you go to the back of the queue, or go private, unless it's an emergency.

All you have provided is obvious bs. Stop digging!


Yet more B's and selfishness from you. I want smokers, overweight, drinkers druggies, people with unhealthy lifestyles at the back of the que for the NHS too.

All I see in your responses is pure discrimination against someone who made an informed decision about his own health. Which at the moment seems to be the correct decision and fully vindicated.

I have provided you facts and proof. Yet you continue to dismiss to fit your own agenda. Even with a 95 percent survival rate that is very good. Like you said yourself pretty much can't go around life without risk ;-) so I will take my 95-99 percent survival rate over a vaccine with multiple side effects that could be dangerous for me. As per the official NHS website. Is the NHS website also BS in your book or are to too set in your ways to admit you are wrong?

Extremely selfish of you to expect others to risk their lives and their help just for your own outdated unscientific views.

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
becky Flag over the moon 11 Mar 23 9.11am Send a Private Message to becky Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add becky as a friend

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle


No-one says you cannot decide for yourself. You can. What I would like to see are consequences for those who, for selfish reasons alone, decide not to contribute to the national effort to overcome the pandemic. I want the vaccinated prioritised for NHS treatment. If you have deliberately contributed to making yourself sicker than you need to have been, then you go to the back of the queue, or go private, unless it's an emergency.

All you have provided is obvious bs. Stop digging!

So I should have been left to die of breast cancer at the bottom of some list because I was unvaccinated? Even though I have never had Covid?

 


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

Alert Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Bobby216 Flag 11 Mar 23 9.16am Send a Private Message to Bobby216 Add Bobby216 as a friend

Again proportionality is what is needed. I had no problem with my 76 year old mother being vaccinated. On the balance of risk, based on her age and health issues, it made sense. However for younger people taking the vaccine at that time when there was little or no risk to them from the virus was unnecessary. On balance the vaccine posed more of a risk to younger people's health than the virus. The same can be said for lockdown restrictions. Shield the vulnerable if they wanted to be shielded, but let everyone else get on with their lives should have been the policy. You will admit won't you that the astra zenica vaccine was initially administered to younger people in the first few months of the vaccine roll out and then pulled due to unforeseen side effects. I like the fact you can appreciate the risk of living. Life is a risk as you discovered with the blind. Did you apply that same methodology when weighing up the risk of walking outside your front door during the pandemic? As a formal medical underwriter I happen to know that once you reach the age of 40 there is a 1 in 1000 chance you won't reach your 41st birthday. These odds get progressively shorter the older you get. To the point that 1 in 4, 65 year olds won't reach the age of 80. The average life expectancy is 81. The average age of a person dying with covid is 82. This is life.

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I think an almost 1% death rate from those infected is pretty appalling, whilst 5.5% is a disaster. You make light of that as much as you wish. Selfish people tend to do that. People who care about others don't.

There aren't countless people coming down with vaccine side effects! That's just bs conspiracy theory. Where are they? I haven't seen or heard of one. There will be an isolated reaction, some serious, but there is with every medicine or procedure. Just as there is with everything in life. I was almost killed by a Venetian blind which fell out of a 10th floor window, cut a lump off my briefcase and the toecap off my shoe. Doesn't mean Venetian blinds are dangerous and not to be trusted, does it. I still use them.

The vaccines stop transmission temporarily, which is useful, but they stop severe disease for a long time and that's what's really important. It's also what you deliberately ignore.

Severe disease is what puts people in hospital. The vaccinated are less likely to require hospitalisation. The unvaccinated more likely. QED. The unvaccinated are selfish. Go ask the staff at your local hospital what they think about the unvaccinated. That's where the clarity is, day and night!

No-one says you cannot decide for yourself. You can. What I would like to see are consequences for those who, for selfish reasons alone, decide not to contribute to the national effort to overcome the pandemic. I want the vaccinated prioritised for NHS treatment. If you have deliberately contributed to making yourself sicker than you need to have been, then you go to the back of the queue, or go private, unless it's an emergency.

All you have provided is obvious bs. Stop digging!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 11 Mar 23 11.03am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by becky

So I should have been left to die of breast cancer at the bottom of some list because I was unvaccinated? Even though I have never had Covid?

Emergencies excepted, was what I said, and meant. I am talking of non-emergency, elective procedures, of giving priority on appointment times and locations, etc etc.

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 11 Mar 23 11.17am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by eaglesdare


Yet more B's and selfishness from you. I want smokers, overweight, drinkers druggies, people with unhealthy lifestyles at the back of the que for the NHS too.

All I see in your responses is pure discrimination against someone who made an informed decision about his own health. Which at the moment seems to be the correct decision and fully vindicated.

I have provided you facts and proof. Yet you continue to dismiss to fit your own agenda. Even with a 95 percent survival rate that is very good. Like you said yourself pretty much can't go around life without risk ;-) so I will take my 95-99 percent survival rate over a vaccine with multiple side effects that could be dangerous for me. As per the official NHS website. Is the NHS website also BS in your book or are to too set in your ways to admit you are wrong?

Extremely selfish of you to expect others to risk their lives and their help just for your own outdated unscientific views.

More whataboutery from you. We can discuss the merits of putting smokers, overweight, drinkers druggies, people with unhealthy lifestyles at the back of the queue too, at another time. This is about the unvaccinated.

For the umpteenth time you weren't "informed"! You were misinformed. You have proved them time and time again by repeating your misplaced arguments and ignoring inconvenient facts that demonstrate their illogicality.

If you think a 95% survival rate, given the level of infection, to be good, then I pity you. It's a total disaster. Nothing on the NHS website will say anything different about the vaccine's side effects being dangerous except in an insignificant number of cases, which for daily life can be ignored.

I most certainly don't expect others to take risks on my behalf. I just expect others to join me, and others, in a vaccination programme that has been proven as safe as it is possible to be.

You deserve as much ridicule as climate change deniers. You are probably one of them too. People with your type of attitude often are, thinking they know better than the experts.

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
Wisbech Eagle Flag Truro Cornwall 11 Mar 23 11.29am Send a Private Message to Wisbech Eagle Add Wisbech Eagle as a friend

Originally posted by Bobby216

Again proportionality is what is needed. I had no problem with my 76 year old mother being vaccinated. On the balance of risk, based on her age and health issues, it made sense. However for younger people taking the vaccine at that time when there was little or no risk to them from the virus was unnecessary. On balance the vaccine posed more of a risk to younger people's health than the virus. The same can be said for lockdown restrictions. Shield the vulnerable if they wanted to be shielded, but let everyone else get on with their lives should have been the policy. You will admit won't you that the astra zenica vaccine was initially administered to younger people in the first few months of the vaccine roll out and then pulled due to unforeseen side effects. I like the fact you can appreciate the risk of living. Life is a risk as you discovered with the blind. Did you apply that same methodology when weighing up the risk of walking outside your front door during the pandemic? As a formal medical underwriter I happen to know that once you reach the age of 40 there is a 1 in 1000 chance you won't reach your 41st birthday. These odds get progressively shorter the older you get. To the point that 1 in 4, 65 year olds won't reach the age of 80. The average life expectancy is 81. The average age of a person dying with covid is 82. This is life.


You make better points, in a restrained and well-thought-out way, than some others here!

Given what we know now about the risk to the young, and the short term protection from the vaccination, it may well have been the case that a decision taken today would be different. I am not sure though, because any protection is still better than no protection and the withdrawal of the Astra Zenica was done using an abundance of caution, in the knowledge that alternatives were available. It also depends, to some degree, on how young is younger. Personally I would still administer them to everyone. All my grandchildren have had them, as has one of my great-grandchildren.

I began my working life as a trainee Actuary so understand mortality statistics. Which is somewhat regrettable as I am 79 this year!

 


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 Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

  

Page 42 of 289 < 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy