Lockdown for the unvaccinated - or a full lockdown for everybody?

[PrincessNutNuts]

Which would you choose?

What other point do they have other than to satisfy a rather sadistic urge to punish those who won’t comply?

In a nutshell.

You’ve summed up the real psychological driver behind 99% of the clamours for restrictions on the unvaccinated. However it may be dressed up in a cloak of false virtue.

Chosen not to do something which gives them freedoms.

People have to be given freedoms now?

“What other point do they have other than to satisfy a rather sadistic urge to punish those who won’t comply?”

^this

@UsedUpUsername

Chosen not to do something which gives them freedoms. Just as people who choose not to get a driving license cannot drive

Coercion is not choice.

It’s not like these silly mandates have worked anywhere else they’ve been implemented (see: Ireland).

What other point do they have other than to satisfy a rather sadistic urge to punish those who won’t comply?

Well, no, lockdowns and other suppression measures clearly reduce infection rates & transmission @UsedUpUsername & @bumbleymummy, hence why they were implemented in various forms globally.

I don't understand these claims that governments are introducing them purely to be sadists instead of an infection control measure (particularly in the UK where Johnson would do anything to pretend the pandemic isn't happening and get people out spending)

But as I posted upthread, if a lockdown is necessary it needs to be for the entire population. Many many issues with trying to enforce for those who aren't vaccinated, including that the vaccines aren't good enough at reducing infection to justify it IMO.

Tell you what. Let’s lockdown all the fat people. After all, they are the ones who have chosen to be fat, risk their health and put a strain on the NHS.
They have the option of loosing weight and have had plenty of notice to do so these past 20 months.
Seems about as fair to me as punishing people who can’t or won’t be vaccinated.

[quote SpringKit]@PrincessNutNuts
I feel like I’m not up to date on things, but are they saying now that unvaccinated are more likely to spread than vaccinated?
I think that info needs to be made clear as I think many people believe that vaccinated spread as much as unvaccinated.
I think people’s immediate reaction is to blame the government for this situation - or when they see it’s happening elsewhere across Europe - then its ‘governments’ which doesn’t make sense - that would imply that there is some sort of world conspiracy going on which infuriates me.
I think whatever we do in the UK will be more lax than many other countries because a Tory government will put a greater emphasis on preserving the economy.
For me personally, I’d be ok with a lockdown. I can’t afford holidays, restaurants, going out etc. My happiest times are my children, partner cuddled up on the sofa, and I enjoyed homeschooling. And my wider family have adapted to this situation so we’d be back to zoom calls. I realise I’m fortunate here.

So I’d do whatever is needed, but I tend towards more left wing thinking - so whatever strategy would save most lives over the economy. I currently don’t know what Labour are saying, but I’d probably lean towards that![/quote]
The science (sic) has always said that. Along with the fact that the vaccinated are less likely to have anything to pass on in the first place.
It is true that if an unvaccinated person sits with you in a room, and a vaccinated person does, both (if they have Covid, though the latter are less likely to) can pass it onto you. And the likelihood of transmission from either is not that different (something like 10% iirc)
What the cherry pickers like to quote, is only the final bit. Skipping happily over the fact that the vaccinated person is far less likely to have been infected in the first place.
People like to compartmentalise. Whenever it's brought up on a thread you're almost accused of Whataboutery if you add the unlikelihood of the vaccinated person having it in the first place.

@UsedUpUsername

Chosen not to do something which gives them freedoms. Just as people who choose not to get a driving license cannot drive

Coercion is not choice.

It’s not like these silly mandates have worked anywhere else they’ve been implemented (see: Ireland).

What other point do they have other than to satisfy a rather sadistic urge to punish those who won’t comply?

It is nothing to do with a "sadistic urge to punish", unvaccinated people are both more likely to spread the virus should they be infected and more likely to require hospitalisation if infected which is a cost to the taxpayer.

Further restrictions should not be placed on the majority who are doing the right thing and who are least likely to spread the virus when they can be targeted at the most likely spreaders.

@ollyollyoxenfree

“It’s not like these silly mandates have worked anywhere else they’ve been implemented (see: Ireland)”

Mandates - not lockdowns/restrictions.

And what you seem to keep selectively forgetting is that the protection against infection wanes. So while a vaccinated person may be less likely to contract the virus 2 months after their second jab, they are much more likely to contact it 5/6 months after it.

and more likely to require hospitalisation if infected

This is dependent on their age/health.

Overweight/obese people are more likely to need hospitalisation if they’re infected. Should we put restrictions on them?

@bumbleymummy

“What other point do they have other than to satisfy a rather sadistic urge to punish those who won’t comply?”

^this

Do you really think this? Do you not think that a vaccinated person is less likely to end up in hospital than an unvaccinated person? Why do you think in Ireland that over half of the people in ICU with covid were unvaccinated(at the start of November anyway I haven't seen recent stats) when only 7% of adults are unvaccinted? A hospital yesterday announced it is now using their icu surge capacity and ventilating people outside of ICU. Do you not think that the chances of this happening could be greatly reduced if those 7% of people weren't taking up such a disproportionate amount of beds?

@Totallydefeated

What other point do they have other than to satisfy a rather sadistic urge to punish those who won’t comply?

In a nutshell.

You’ve summed up the real psychological driver behind 99% of the clamours for restrictions on the unvaccinated. However it may be dressed up in a cloak of false virtue.

One person's liberty ends where it impacts the health and liberty of others.

I do not like smoking, but if they wish to give themselves cancer in the privacy of their own home/garden then I also do not think that the state should interfere in that. Where their smoking impacts others, in enclosed public spaces I agree it should be banned as that impacts the health of others. Their liberty should only be impinged at the point where it impacts others.

I have no problem with people drinking and I have no problem with people driving, but combined together they represent a public health hazard, hence they are not allowed. Their liberty to drink or drive is not impinged, only when the two combine which represents a risk to others should it be restricted.

Some people have made a choice not to have the Covid vaccine(s), that in the privacy of their own home has no impact, in the wider public space that presents a greater risk to other members of the public, the point at which their choices impact public health are the point at which their liberties should become impinged.

@bumbleymummy

and more likely to require hospitalisation if infected

This is dependent on their age/health.

Overweight/obese people are more likely to need hospitalisation if they’re infected. Should we put restrictions on them?

Yet unvaccinated people are taking up a disproportionate amount of beds. Why do you think this is happening? 7% of people taking up over 50% of beds do you not see a connection? Something they all have in common maybe? Why won't people like you acknowledge this instead of constantly deflecting?

Do you not think that a vaccinated person is less likely to end up in hospital than an unvaccinated person?

It depends on their age/BMI/health. A vaccinated >60 year old is still more likely to end up in hospital than an unvaccinated healthy person in their 20s. It’s not really a black and white issue.

We do know that over 80% of people in critical care units in the U.K. are overweight or obese though. What should we do about that? Restrictions on people with a BMI over 25? The police could wander around with tape measures and scales to check compliance. Sounds a bit unreasonable doesn’t it?

[quote bumbleymummy]@ollyollyoxenfree

“It’s not like these silly mandates have worked anywhere else they’ve been implemented (see: Ireland)”

Mandates - not lockdowns/restrictions.

And what you seem to keep selectively forgetting is that the protection against infection wanes. So while a vaccinated person may be less likely to contract the virus 2 months after their second jab, they are much more likely to contact it 5/6 months after it.[/quote]
No, they are not much more likely to contract Covid 5-6 months after vaccination. They are still considerably less likely to catch it 5-6 months after their second dose than an unvaccinated person, they are just more likely to catch it than they were in the window immediately after vaccination.

They also appear to be (as we do not have a long enough period and no challenge trials) less likely to require hospitalisation regardless of duration after vaccination.

We do know that over 80% of people in critical care units in the U.K. are overweight or obese though

I didn’t know that. That’s skewed markedly

“ Some people have made a choice not to have the Covid vaccine(s), that in the privacy of their own home has no impact, in the wider public space that presents a greater risk to other members of the public, the point at which their choices impact public health are the point at which their liberties should become impinged.”

Excerpt many unvaccinated people have had the virus and are immune. They aren’t a risk to anyone. You can’t assume that just because someone is unvaccinated that they are putting people at risk. Nor can you assume that just because someone is vaccinated they aren’t infected.

I wonder what proportion of those unvaccinated people in hospitals are overweight/obese. Perhaps we need more awareness that overweight/obese people are at higher risk? That may increase the uptake of the vaccine in those groups and reduce hospitalisations.

Neither.

Well, no, lockdowns and other suppression measures clearly reduce infection rates

No, there’s very little evidence that lockdowns work.

hence why they were implemented in various forms globally

WHO basically threw out their infectious disease playbook that was, in fact, evidence based and used knowledge built up over decades of working in this field. We still don’t know why that happened.

I don't understand these claims that governments are introducing them purely to be sadists instead of an infection control measure

They are completely unnecessary now that vulnerable people can get a vaccine that will prevent death. You cannot ‘control’ an infectious disease that is as widespread as COVID. It’s as silly as trying to control the common cold fgs

I loathe the term 'lockdown'. We weren't at any time 'locked down'. Various restrictions weren’t great but nor were thousands of people dying.

I'm all for social restrictions on those who won't get vaccinated. (Disclaimer - not those who can't due to genuine medical problems, which will be a tiny minority).

If you can get vaccinated and won't well tough shit tbh.

@bumbleymummy

Do you not think that a vaccinated person is less likely to end up in hospital than an unvaccinated person?

It depends on their age/BMI/health. A vaccinated >60 year old is still more likely to end up in hospital than an unvaccinated healthy person in their 20s. It’s not really a black and white issue.

We do know that over 80% of people in critical care units in the U.K. are overweight or obese though. What should we do about that? Restrictions on people with a BMI over 25? The police could wander around with tape measures and scales to check compliance. Sounds a bit unreasonable doesn’t it?

It is just mad that you will not admit that there is a link. 7% taking up over 50% of beds but it is nothing to do with vaccination and to do with their health instead. Sure it is.

@MatildaIThink

“ Estimated BNT162b2 effectiveness against any SARS-CoV-2 infection was negligible in the first 2 weeks after the first dose. It increased to 36.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 33.2 to 40.2) in the third week after the first dose and reached its peak at 77.5% (95% CI, 76.4 to 78.6) in the first month after the second dose. Effectiveness declined gradually thereafter, with the decline accelerating after the fourth month to reach approximately 20% in months 5 through 7 after the second dose.”

www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114114

@Mynameismargot the vaccine reduces people’s risk of serious illness - most markedly in the most vulnerable groups - eg elderly, underlying health conditions and overweight/obese. Why can’t you accept that some groups are more at risk than others? You are making out that all unvaccinated people are at the same risk of being hospitalised simply because they are unvaccinated. That is not the case at all - the highest rate of hospitalisation is still in older/elderly patients even though this group had the highest vaccine uptake.

We should leave vaccination a choice but encourage adults to get vaccinated. We should not vaccinate children. Stop mass community testing. Test carers, care home visitors and nhs staff mandatory twice weekly lat flow regardless of vaccine status.
We should spend the billions and billions we will put into test and trace and vaccine passports instead on improving health and social care and improving public health reducing obesity, improving diets, providing more affordable healthy activities. We should stop reporting Covid death numbers as if is the only cause of preventable death in this country. We should never lock down again, the effects of the lock down have been devastating far worse than the virus.

Do you not think that a vaccinated person is less likely to end up in hospital than an unvaccinated person?

An obese male in his 50s? Absolutely.

But lockdowns and vaccine mandates target everyone indiscriminately.

Who cares if a young man in his 20s is unvaxxed?

Why not focus efforts on getting the vaccine hesitant in their 40s and 50s vaxxed? Or get them tested for antibodies and strongly advise a vaxx if theu don’t have it?

The push for blanket mandates/restrictions just makes people really suspicious and creates unnecessary friction.

@Hotcoffee10 Good post. Although I do agree with offering the vaccine to vulnerable children. It should never be mandatory though (or required to enter cinemas/restaurants etc if people want to quibble over what mandatory means)