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

[PrincessNutNuts]

Which would you choose?

That confirms what I thought to be the case

So effectively nothing much seems to have changed

Non essential businesses you need the 2g pass which allows also a negative test or proof of recovery.

They were already using them.

The big change is the February mandatory vaccine involving fines

Non essential businesses you need the 2g pass which allows also a negative test or proof of recovery

No, that's a 3G pass (the 3g's are vaccine, recovery, or test), 2G removes the test as an option, so it's only vaccine or recovery, so it's specifically encouraging people to expose themselves to a positive case so they can get access as a recovered person if they have chosen not to have a vaccine.

sirfredfredgeorge Thanks for the clarification

So it's still less restrictive than what we have in Canada then as neither a test or proof of recovery is allowed here.

Unvaccinated only. I might persuade them to go and get it.

@SLH2003

Unvaccinated only. I might persuade them to go and get it.

Sorry to break it to you but NOTHING will persuade some of us

@sirfredfredgeorge

Non essential businesses you need the 2g pass which allows also a negative test or proof of recovery

No, that's a 3G pass (the 3g's are vaccine, recovery, or test), 2G removes the test as an option, so it's only vaccine or recovery, so it's specifically encouraging people to expose themselves to a positive case so they can get access as a recovered person if they have chosen not to have a vaccine.

This is ridiculous. It would make more sense to exclude the vaccinated option and require everyone to be tested for entry. They’re basically just exempting people from testing because they’ve had a vaccine even though the vaccine doesn’t guarantee that someone isn’t infected.

Remember the reason to not have unvaccinated there is because they are more likely to be infected, not because it's more likely that they would spread it. The "test everyone" doesn't achieve this as it does nothing to change the susceptible population who would attend.

The punishing the unvaccinated is simply a side effect.

The actual highest risk is the "recovered" as this is purely defined by time since infection and the biggest risk a new variant and that would most likely happen in someone who has maintained infection beyond the time period.

@Whyevencare

Correct, like nothing persuaded my good friend, despite my best efforts.

He died on Sunday after fighting Covid for 4 weeks and leaves behind a young son , step daughter and wife.

[quote SLH2003]@Whyevencare

Correct, like nothing persuaded my good friend, despite my best efforts.

He died on Sunday after fighting Covid for 4 weeks and leaves behind a young son , step daughter and wife.[/quote]
Sorry to hear that but it doesn't mean every unvaccinated person will die if they get covid.

No but many will who otherwise wouldnt've .

Keep on peddling the informed choice bullshit and just hope it doesnt kill you.

SLH2003

You don't believe in freedom of choice?

It’s funny to hear some arguing “say what you want” and (more importantly) accepting freedom of individual choice is actually to make a big step forward in the debate.

So hear, hear!

@ktel1

SLH2003

You don't believe in freedom of choice?

Not when that choice is being influenced by total fuckwits pushing thier bullshit made up nonsense.

‘Bullshit’ like papers published in medical journals showing low IFR in young/healthy people, durable immunity after infection and low reinfection rates?

A lockdown for the people that have not had the vaccine would make no sense. Can they still go to work? If so, someone who has not had the vaccine can go to their bar job in a pub, face hundreds of customers each day... but once they have finished work, they can't go back there as a customer.

@bumbleymummy

‘Bullshit’ like papers published in medical journals showing low IFR in young/healthy people, durable immunity after infection and low reinfection rates?

Not sure that durable immunity after infection is much good when you're dead.

Ummm… if you’re alive it is. (Which well over 99% of people are after infection - many recent studies have found the IFR < 1%)

But you have to have had the infection to have antibodies, and if that's relied on as a strategy, lots of people will need hospitalisation while they wait to acquire antibodies... so we aren't any further forward in terms of saving life and reducing the strain on the NHS. 🤔

@Barbie222

But you have to have had the infection to have antibodies, and if that's relied on as a strategy, lots of people will need hospitalisation while they wait to acquire antibodies... so we aren't any further forward in terms of saving life and reducing the strain on the NHS. 🤔

You don't have to be infected by Covid 19 to have immunity. Some people have pre existing immunity (better than the vaccine) probably from other corona viruses.

It’s great that this is finally a legitimate discussion to be having.

This is what following the science is really like.

@Barbie222

But you have to have had the infection to have antibodies, and if that's relied on as a strategy, lots of people will need hospitalisation while they wait to acquire antibodies... so we aren't any further forward in terms of saving life and reducing the strain on the NHS. 🤔

We’re not relying on it as a strategy though. We have vaccines to reduce the risk of serious illness in the vulnerable who are most likely to be hospitalised. That puts us quite far ahead irt reducing the strain on the nhs.