Covid-19 Virus

As I said, Covid has no benefit to anybody and thus all your analogies are worthless.

 

My employer held a company wide Q &A on return to the office. They seemed surprised that people pointed out they closed the office last September when hospitalisations and deaths were on the rise from the summer low, but we’re now proposing demanding attendance with hospitalisations and deaths on the rise to a point higher than March 2021 when we were in a national lockdown. An indication that infection rates were also rising despite 63% of the population vaccinated.

They also seemed surprised that it was pointed out that as the business had operated virtually remotely for 18 months. Insisting on a return, with hundreds of people commuting into central London, was potentially a failure of their duty of care to employees. Working remotely and only attending group based working when there was a business need, clearly reduces the risk of infection, and has not compromised productivity (and on evidence to date) has not impacted profitability.

On average (data to 2018) 12,000 people a year die of Influenza. Our business pays employees to get a flu jab each year, and the NHS has an annual vaccination campaign to combat the disease and reduce pressure on hospitals caused by severe infections. Currently Covid 19 deaths are three times that, and hospitality is 8x that for flu.

in 2018 32,000 died of Ischaemic heart diseases. As of today the annualised death rate (based on an average 100 daily deaths) is higher at approx 37,000. So I guess it is reasonable for Covid 19 to still be seen as a public health critical emergency, and people and business should do all they can to mitigate its impact on themselves, their families, employees and customers.

While I guess most of the reluctance to go back to five day 9 to 5 is down to people preferring to WFH rather than genuine fear of catching the virus and suffering long term negative impacts or even death to themselves or close associates. I don’t see yet a reason to do anything other than act extremely cautiously.

 

The reason is not ‘I did, so you have to’. That’s a false proposition.

The reason is to prevent serious illness in others and the potential for future social disruption.

It doesn’t need a massive altruist to see the benefits of that.

Where do you get your information/arguments about Covid? I’m sensing you’ve been at the ‘high information’ sources again. I say this because it’s an anti-vaxx staple that ‘natural’ immunity is somehow better than that from a vaccine.

 

Sounds very much like my employer as well. Fkin idiots.

 

It is deeply flawed because the safety of the vaccine is backed up by clinical studies, her perception that she’ll be ok if she gets it is based on nothing remotely scientific, just a hunch or even worse wishful thinking. I’ve got a feeling I’ll win the lottery tonight, but we’ll see.

 

This is a very poor show from your employer, but I'm not surprised and I'm sure their stance is replicated across the country. It amounts to a failure of leadership and management and I suspects results from elements of the hierarchy feeling they cannot manage their staff if the are not 'present' in front of their eyes. They probably will also try and hide behind the false comparison that some workers have to attend the workplace (e.g. cleaners) but that is an absolute requirement of their job, which it is not for the average office worker given the technology now available.

 

I know my old CEO was making people go into the office even during the harshest lockdowns. They spent £10m on a lease and £3m on the fitout of their new office in 2019, complete with Gym, Bar and a Barbers, so he’s desperate to get his pound of flesh irrespective of any other implications.

 

I think that’s true. A lot of staff like/need the chance to learn from others and value the chance to shoot the breeze and socialise after work with colleagues. It helps things gel.

However, it’s all about the speed at which it’s done. At the moment demanding staff to get on packed transport into work every day with the autumn approaching is going to stress test the vaccine and (with reports immunity fades after six months) the ongoing response. Much better to have less packed transport for those who can’t WFH.

We have run into problems every time we have put economic needs above virus control and ending up hurting the economy.

At my organisation we have decided on a trial period of two days max working in the office, with lots of outs for anyone at any higher risk. It’ll be sensitive to changes as WFH worked ok and there’s no need just for the sake of it. Hopefully it’s a happy medium, but it should be caution first and going forward WFH at least half the time is here to stay.

 

Yes similar with us. I've told everyone that I'm WFH from now on but will come to the office every 2nd Tuesday (so was in office yesterday...arrived 20 mins late as was so out of practice of what "pre-leaving tasks" are involved for a day in the office, tasks you can usually just spread over a day when WFH).

 

If I was on twitter.

 

Back where we started, so I'll just say again that I disagree with you for the reasons I have stated.

 

I said that it seems that is the reason. When you have one side doing something and insisting everyone else does it, that is a very fair conclusion. It is fair for you to disagree, but that is my opinion.

As for the rest, I am not sure whose posts you are reading that you are confusing with mine. I am a pretty useless anti vaxxer given that I have recommended it, defended it, double vaxxed myself and driven people to have their jab done.

All I am saying is that people should have the right to make up their own mind, and that any younger person deciding that the risk is low enough is not acting without logic.

I think that anti self determination is worse and more dangerous to us than anti vaxxers in a country where the vast majority of people have been vaccinated (almost 100% of the most vulnerable), and many others have already had it.

If people are so confident the vaccination works, why don't they want to trust it? I am confident in it and I trust it to do the job it says it does.

 

Contracting covid will certainly build up some immunity to reinfection, so you are very obviously mistaken in your thinking there. More people, numbering in the hundreds of millions, will survive covid, some not even realising they have had it, and come out with greater resistance to the disease than will die from it. You can describe that as no benefit, but it would be an argument with zero credibility. If we had no vaccine, as was speculated originally, herd immunity would be the only way to deal with it, making catching it and surviving it the most beneficial outcome in the pandemic.

The fact that you appear willing to overlook that screwed in certainty as non-existent shows exactly how subjectively you are considering the situation being discussed.

I have given credit to the opinions of those who disagree with me. It is a shame that credit cannot even be given to the most clear and obvious facts when they are inconvenient.

 

But, from what you are saying, you will be buying a ticket. A self defeating argument if ever there was one, I am afraid.

 

You’ve not mentioned your previous claim that getting immunity ‘naturally’ is better.

You also claimed that not having immunity built naturally leaves us dependent on ‘Big Pharma’ and claimed the risks to the young are ‘insignificant’, which is untrue when the long term effects of an infection are taken into account. The Government’s own report on Long Covid suggested 1.2% of young people post Covid were experiencing symptoms limiting daily living. That’s way higher than any vaccine impacts and at scale, 10s of thousands badly impacted.

While you may have had the vaccine you are circulating ideas that anti-vaxxers rely on.

And what’s the rule of thumb when deciding it isn’t going to be you? We’ve now seen many tragic stories of middle aged anti-vaxxers getting badly ill and dying. They thought natural immunity was better, that they were fit, that they knew their risk. When does youth end and the young at heart need 100% coverage?

 

I think you know full well that wasn’t the point I was making.

 

I think you've been given credit for defending someone's right to choose. I certainly agree with you. But you can't expect to be given credit for your belief that, just because someone 'decides' (your word) to act in a certain way, means that they are acting with perfect logic and understanding.

I also struggle to give you, a medical professional, credit for recommending someone over 70 gets the jab, but not under 70 - and that is without the fact that you've had the jabs yourself. I can't get my head around that at all when it would be against the advice of almost all your fellow professionals.

As you know, there are many things I agree with you on, and mostly I find your arguments well made. But on this subject, I think you are talking utter twaddle, with respect.

 

As Hooter likes analogies the best one I can think of is insurance. I don’t need Life, critical illness, house, car, or travel insurance because I don’t think I’m going to die, get ill, get burgled, flooded, or suffer a fire, have a car crash or have an accident on holiday, have my luggage lost, get caught in an ash cloud or another pandemic. Most of those things are completely out of my control, my only basis for thinking they won’t happen to me is blind optimism.

The difference with Covid is the vaccine is totally free, I think most people would have insurance cover if it was free, surely it would be illogical not to have it if it cost nothing and was scientifically proven to have no downsides?

 

Yes, but what if there was a 0.0001% chance an employee of said insurance company would go completely off their rocker and decide randomly to murder you? You might think, ‘I’m 18, don’t have much stuff to lose. Think I’ll pass on that risk of sharing my data’.

 

Good point, is there a way I can get my vaccine reversed?

 

Only if you have good vaccine insurance.

 

All done and dusted by 20h26 (including 15 min post jab observation) AND HE GOT A CHUPACHUP FROM THE DOCTOR. He's woken this morning with sore arm - his classmate was jabbed at around the same time and she's reporting no side-effects.

 

Not the point you were making, but the example you used of an equivalence.

Otherwise why say it?

 

No problem. To be fair, I think what most people are saying here in response to me is completely subjective to the fact that they are choosing to take it, but others are not, and they feel bitter about it. No offence.

The fact that the arguments against me have sought to dismiss facts, such as natural resistence from having had covid and the low risk for healthy younger people, and describe me in terms that my very words prove completely fake, as a sceptic and anti vaxxer, pretty much shows where the more reasoned argument is coming from (I am speaking in general about all contributors) - I have accepted and embraced every factual argument put to me. This is something you have been on the wrong end of enough times to know the significance of when such arguments are made.

 

Fair argument.

But insurance is basically gambling.

The money I have saved over the years by not paying for the excess reducer when hiring cars, because of my confidence in being a safe and careful driver, more than pays for the money I would have to pay out for an accident.

So I make a decision based on my circumstances and the risk, based on national and personal statistics.

Logical and profitable.

 

First para is nonsense. It’s not ‘bitterness’ that leads people to make pro vaccine arguments. I’m not ‘bitter’ that somehow I had it and someone else didn’t. I would always have had it and am glad, grateful for it.

Mostly it’s about unnecessary tragedy. Affecting those refusing to have it and their families etc. You encourage the foolish arguments they make with airy daftness about ‘liberty’ and ‘choice’.

You have not answered the questions put to you about your preference for natural immunity (no one denies there is such a thing), your nonsense about ‘Big Pharma’. As usual you incline to the lunatic side, most disingenuously because you make these arguments from the safety of having been vaccinated.

Encourage everyone to take it up. That’s the only rational way. Get herd immunity and those few who can’t take it or have serious needlephobias will benefit from the collective decision.

 

Clearly I am not saying that pro vaccine is a bitter argument. I have no bitterness and I make pro-vaccine arguments. Where have you seen me saying people shouldn't take it? It would be appreciated if you would read my posts first before making such an erroneous comment.

It is, however, a show of bitterness when people who have chosen themselves to take the virus insist that others do the same as them, even though there is a low risk alternative. In my opinion.

I would be making a similar argument against anyone saying that people shouldn't take the vaccine. My argument is purely about self determination. Yours is about others falling into line with you.

Big pharma? Are you accusing me of being a socialist? I thought you were the socialist?

No one denies natural immunity. Again, you are not reading people's posts. I was told, categorically, by A19tgg, in a post that YOU liked, that there is no benefit to catching covid: You can't get natural immunity without catching it. I would say that makes you doubly contradictory. So don't tell me no one denies it, when that, by vitue of your like for a post that did nothing except deny it, is an opinion you have yourself expressed.

I'll encourage everyone to take it, just like I have. Why you believe I wouldn't I have no idea.

On the politics section, I believe I was promoting safe use of the vaccine and commending the government on its speedy roll out whilst you were still talking about the dreadful risks the tories were taking.

 

Oh for a politics section.....

 

It's your insistence that there is and I quote, a low risk alternative. This is simply not true in the widest sense and you shouldn't be suggesting that.

People can refuse the vaccine. Roughly speaking, if they are in their forties or above, they risk hospitalisation and death. If they are younger they risk long covid. Both risk harming others, even vaccinated people who didn't have a good immune response or if it has waned. They risk the economy and put stress on the health service.

People need to understand that, not enjoy your blithe encouragement to take ill-thought out risks.

 

What is the risk to a healthy forty year old becoming seriously ill from covid?

What is the risk of an unvaccinated person passing on covid if they strictly isolate because they have symptoms, compared to a person with the vaccine who is carrying covid but does not know it because they have no symptoms?

It is not as simple as you make out I am afraid. And like it or not, there is very little risk to a healthy forty something from covid.

Anyone who wants the vaccine should get it. Everyone should consider whether they wish to take it. No one should be forced to take it.

A healthy person in their forties has sound reasons for considering themselves at low risk. Anyone telling them they are not is ignoring factual information. Less than one percent for hospitalisation, and virtually no chance of death, is, whatever way you look at it, low risk.

To say it is not a low risk alternative, even if it is a high relative risk, is redundant. The statistics bare it out.

 

November will not be good , covid wise, from what I have been told .

 

I agree .
I just know someone who knows someone who went to school with someone etc
Anywho
November will be bad