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

[PrincessNutNuts]

Which would you choose?

@Geamhradh

Neither. For me, the countries that have the balance right while we're still not at the end of the pandemic are the ones with sensible mitigations together with Covid passes for those who are vaccinated/negative tested/have a recovery certificate.

This

We should have kept mandatory masks and SD

Well yeah. Partly why if there was to be another lockdown then it should be everyone. No point in half measures as you say yourself. The vaccinated transmit and catch covid, albeit at lower levels 🤷🏻‍♀️.

Not a lockdown but if anyone is refusing the vaccine and isn't medically exempt I don't see why they should enjoy the same freedoms as the vaccinated when they are putting us all at an increased risk.

I don't think anyone should be forced to have the vaccine FWIW but being able to attend public events etc isn't a right.

Sorry, that was to ‘userstringofrandomnumbers’

To be fair there is a level of lockdown for unvaccinated adults coming in, they can’t attend certain events or travel certain places without negative tests and they can’t do certain jobs, so they are being resticted to a certain amount to prevent them causing harm to others, (unvaccinated are factually twenty times more likely to spread Covid)

Neither. It's a disease we live with now, not an excuse to remove basic civil liberties

For the unvaccinated. They'd take it so well, don't you think? 🍿

And please people don't say let's go for low level restrictions as in mask wearing etc, they do nothing and then they say oh well this doesn't work so let's try another approach! You either want people to have the vaccines to lower hospitalizations and death or you don't! Bringing any restrictions back in now basically says the vaccines don't work! I know many people on the fence with their even first vaccines, many more are saying they won't have a booster due to threats of restrictions! You start threatening people they will dig their heels in! Where I am our care homes are about to close! Our hospital is losing staff to the point of breaking! Threatening doesn't work! Working with people and a level of understanding and support might!

@Patapouf

Not a lockdown but if anyone is refusing the vaccine and isn't medically exempt I don't see why they should enjoy the same freedoms as the vaccinated when they are putting us all at an increased risk.

I don't think anyone should be forced to have the vaccine FWIW but being able to attend public events etc isn't a right.

You don’t see why all human beings should ‘Enjoy the same freedoms’? Wow, we’ve slipped a long way.

Vaccinated people are also able to contract and transmit the virus. The vaccine reduces the risk of serious illness for the individual but recent studies have shown that protection against infection/transmission wanes within a few months.

[quote Flyonawalk]@Geamhradh It is precisely because previous generations suffered so appallingly that we should defend the freedoms they won.

It wasn’t just working from home etc. It was a period of accepting government bypassing democracy to tell us to stay at home. Imposed segregation from family and friends, with no room to make personal decisions. Limited reasons why we were allowed to leave our homes. And now ‘no jab no job’ for workers we applauded only last year.

It is ironic how much blind faith people put in their leaders. If a partner imposed everything I mentioned above we would hopefully recognise an abusive relationship.[/quote]
If you think that mitigations and restrictions put in place to help control a global pandemic are the main problems with U.K. democracy, I think you might have fallen for the big shiny government decoy.

The government have been very busy trying using the media and various bits of legislation to try and dismantle democracy and none of that has had to do with Covid. If they hadn’t been so blatant about putting Patterson’s name in the bill last week, they’d probably have got away with destroying the independent parliamentary standards committee,

In an ideal world, mitigations to prevent need for a lockdown. If not, then I suppose I’m ok with people who choose not to get vaccinated being restricted from some community activities provided they can meet their basic needs. Rights come with responsibilities, decisions/choices come with consequences. That’s kind of the way communities and societies work.

Compulsory masks on transport and in shops. Social distancing.
However its unrealistic and untenable to lockdown unvaccinated people when those vaccinated can both catch and transmit covid (although hopefully have milder symptoms).

To be fair there is a level of lockdown for unvaccinated adults coming in, they can’t attend certain events or travel certain places without negative tests and they can’t do certain jobs, so they are being resticted to a certain amount to prevent them causing harm to others, (unvaccinated are factually twenty times more likely to spread Covid)

GOOD! 20 times more likely - FFS.

unvaccinated are factually twenty times more likely to spread Covid

What’s the source for this statistic? It seems quite out of date now we have data about vaccine effectiveness against infection and transmission waning.

Neither.Who is saying these are the options and we need to choose?

unvaccinated are factually twenty times more likely to spread Covid)

Link to study? I’m interested to see how long the people had been vaccinated for. Recent studies are showing waning protection against infection/transmission within months.

GOOD! 20 times more likely - FFS.

You’re just accepting that number without question?

Neither. There is no need for it.

It would be madness to have one for the unvaccinated. The more militant of them would cause chaos if it could even be enforced.

If you can still transmit covid if fully vaccinated what benefit would only putting those un vaccinated into lock down actually do? Absolutely nothing as their fully vaccinated family members who are allowed out and about will still catch and spread the illness.
Think there's some miss understanding of the vaccination and what it means to be vaccinated versus un vaccinated it appears.

Neither.

I would absolutely disagree with a lockdown for the unvaccinated only. That would be awful. The fall out from that would be catastrophic.

Lockdown for all, or none.

@PurpleDaisies

GOOD! 20 times more likely - FFS.

You’re just accepting that number without question?

Yeah, I’m not a scientist involved in Covid, so yeah, I look at the credentials of the source, and if it’s official and peer reviewed I accept, I don’t demand to conduct my own tests, as I’m not qualified that way.,

@PurpleDaisies

unvaccinated are factually twenty times more likely to spread Covid

What’s the source for this statistic? It seems quite out of date now we have data about vaccine effectiveness against infection and transmission waning.

There is no data on this, the main argument is that vaccinated people are more likely to be asymptomatic and apparently less likely to transmit it, that completely destroys the whole mask wearing, social distancing, isolation for those not showing any symtoms though?!!!

Neither.

The requirement for lockdowns is over. The vulnerable are vaccinated. Covid is becoming endemic.

It time to stop worrying, live with covid as we live with flu & get on with our lives

@zzzozzz Sadly there are always clinically vulnerable people. Over two million cancer patients in the U.K. every year, for a start. We have never previously restricted everyone else so they can’t pass on a virus.

I am interested to know why you think covid was different from flu, colds, chickenpox, pneumonia for millions of vulnerable people. How do we justify having let the vulnerable take their chances during every year before 2020?

Including children under 12?