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

[PrincessNutNuts]

Which would you choose?

How come the Covid cultists get away with the war comparisons without having Godwins law shreiked at them
Says it all

Strange question but those that can get vaxxed and don't are the ones who should be restricted, they are incredibly selfish and the reason for pressure on the health service, mutations, most transmissions. They want the benefits of everyone else being vaccinated without doing it themselves

@MercyBooth

Well *@PrincessNutNuts* If you want to build resentment towards the NHS yet another lockdown would be the way to go.

Shall I put you down for a suite of NPIs instead then?

Ventilation? HEPA filters? working from home? Masks? Isolating contacts? An effective test and trace system? Social distancing? Shielding?

@Sugarandtime
You would need to have a pretty sick and twisted mind to want discrimination by having a lockdown just for those who have not had the injections.

I don't think a lockdown is necessary, but why would it be sick and twisted to apply to the unvaccinated? People usually need the relevant vaccinations to travel (malaria, yellow fever, etc.) and won't be allowed entry, or forced to quarantine, if they are at risk.

[quote bumbleymummy]@Practicebeingpatient so you want to punish people who have made a different decision to you? And, fwiw, the vaccine is much better at protecting the individual who had it from serious illness than it is at preventing infection and transmission to others. Do it’s great that you decided to have the vaccine to protect yourself but other people have decided differently and yes, they deserve the same freedoms as you - because they’re people.[/quote]
I don't want to punish anyone. There is a massive gap between being pissed off and wanting to punish people.

I can find studies that say unvaccinated people are 4 - 20 times more likely to transmit covid, but people who don't do statistics won't get it.

I’m pretty sure they don’t want the benefits of everyone having had the injections as the injections are only to protect yourself.
I think you could do with looking at the government’s technical briefing reports, pretty interesting looking at the figures but feel you may not want to see them.

@Sugarandtime

Neither You would need to have a pretty sick and twisted mind to want discrimination by having a lockdown just for those who have not had the injections.

We've already had a couple of long lockdowns for about 4 million people who were judged to be extremely clinically vulnerable to the coronavirus. We called it "shielding".

[quote Kosmin]@Sugarandtime
You would need to have a pretty sick and twisted mind to want discrimination by having a lockdown just for those who have not had the injections.

I don't think a lockdown is necessary, but why would it be sick and twisted to apply to the unvaccinated? People usually need the relevant vaccinations to travel (malaria, yellow fever, etc.) and won't be allowed entry, or forced to quarantine, if they are at risk.[/quote]
You don't need to show proof of malaria or yellow fever vaccination to go into a shop, or leave your house. It is just to enter the country that needs it, and then you are free to go anywhere.

@MercyBooth

How come the Covid cultists get away with the war comparisons without having Godwins law shreiked at them Says it all

You can consider me shrieked at if you like.

Shielding was guidance, not law.

Kosmin

I really don’t think you can compare people having actual vaccinations to go on a holiday to taking away people basic freedoms in their everyday life.

If the injections completely stopped people catching and passing on the virus then that’s one thing but as they don’t and the government’s technical reports show this what positive reason would there be to take away some peoples basic human rights?

@Blinky21

Strange question but those that can get vaxxed and don't are the ones who should be restricted, they are incredibly selfish and the reason for pressure on the health service, mutations, most transmissions. They want the benefits of everyone else being vaccinated without doing it themselves

False. I don’t think I’ve met a single unvaccinated person who wants other people to be vaccinated so they can reap the benefits. The benefits of the vaccine are mainly to the person having it. The majority of unvaccinated people are in the younger age groups too and so at lower risk of hospitalisation anyway. Many are also immune already after being infected - remember, they were the last groups to even become eligible for the vaccine.

Age is still the biggest risk factor for hospitalisation. BTW, ~84% of people in critical care units with covid have a BMI over 25 making them overweight/obese. Out of curiosity, would you consider putting restrictions on overweight/obese people because their ‘selfish’ behaviour is ‘the reason for pressure on the health service’?

www.icnarc.org/DataServices/Attachments/Download/c834684d-ea43-ec11-9138-00505601089b

@XenoBitch

Shielding was guidance, not law.

Whereas a lockdown of the un-vaccinated would be law, and backed up with big fines I would imagine.

Obviously, the former.

@CherryPieface mainly not vaccinated due to my very low risk lifestyle. I didn’t get it early on because, working for myself, I had lots of work on and there never seemed to be a good time to have the jab when feeling a bit shit with an achey arm for a few days felt like a useful thing to do!

As time went on, and I saw people who’d been vaccinated still getting it, read about it needing boosters every few months for each new variant and then heard of two local women my age dying of a brain haemorrhage shortly after having it, I was hesitant to say the least. My mum had a brain haemorrhage and I live in fear of it happening to me too. And yes, I know it can happen from Covid, but as I say, I do a good job of avoiding that, so putting myself in the way of the vaccine just doesn’t appeal.

I take regular LFTs - have been to the theatre etc so have to show proof of vaccine or a negative LFT result for that - and have had several PCRs all negative, so part of me thinks maybe I already had it asymptomatically last year.

I also have a friend who works for government and has said she’s not having it and neither are her kids, having seen some of the info through her job, which has also made me think twice. Her son recently got it and despite living in the same house and hanging out with him she didn’t get it. Maybe some people are just immune?

I’m not saying I’ll never have it, but at the moment it’s just not something I have chosen to do. I’m sure if it ends up restricting my future plans I’ll have to do it, but it will be 100% a positive choice I make, not something I want to get railroaded into.

How is a 'lockdown for the unvaccinated' different to vaccine passports? Maybe it tweaks what your passport should be used for?

I don't think the Austrian selective lockdown is much different to what Victoria (Australia) has in place already.

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

Then surely you know that "twenty times more confirmed cases" isn't the same as "twenty times more likely to spread covid." Right?

One which i wont be complying with. Take that back to the next iSage meeting.

I think there should be sensible mitigations in place but am against the idea of lockdowns.

I went into the office for the first time in months last week for a meeting. One of the other people there had a spouse who tested positive a couple of days earlier, they tested negative. As a double vaccinated person they were able to travel cross country on a train with no mask on, attend several days of face to face meetings with no mask, a conference with thousands of people with no mask and stay in a couple of hotels. Unsurprisingly they tested positive over the weekend, now everyone at the work meetings, sitting near them in the train and all the people they were in meetings with at work have been in close contact.

Masks indoors and social distancing would have been easy and sensible ways to reduce risk of transmission.

@HalfShrunkMoreToGo

I think there should be sensible mitigations in place but am against the idea of lockdowns.

I went into the office for the first time in months last week for a meeting. One of the other people there had a spouse who tested positive a couple of days earlier, they tested negative. As a double vaccinated person they were able to travel cross country on a train with no mask on, attend several days of face to face meetings with no mask, a conference with thousands of people with no mask and stay in a couple of hotels. Unsurprisingly they tested positive over the weekend, now everyone at the work meetings, sitting near them in the train and all the people they were in meetings with at work have been in close contact.

Masks indoors and social distancing would have been easy and sensible ways to reduce risk of transmission.

Exactly!

Once it's confirmed the vaccine is leaky (which it really is) all you can do is mitigate risk.

"You don't need to show proof of malaria or yellow fever vaccination to go into a shop, or leave your house. It is just to enter the country that needs it, and then you are free to go anywhere."

But covid is a risk in every country (it's a pandemic!). We can't deport people who aren't vaccinated, so placing restrictions on them is the only option.

"I really don’t think you can compare people having actual vaccinations to go on a holiday to taking away people basic freedoms in their everyday life."

It's got nothing to do with holiday. The restrictions have nothing to do with the reason for travel.

"If the injections completely stopped people catching and passing on the virus then that’s one thing but as they don’t and the government’s technical reports show this what positive reason would there be to take away some peoples basic human rights?"

You could make this sort of argument about all sorts of things. Some people would like to drive over the speed limit. "I can understand if no accidents ever happened under the speed limit, but as that isn't the case, why can't I drive faster?" Or drink-driving? Or why can't I own guns? People get murdered using other weapons, so why are there restrictions on guns?

We live in a representative democracy. If you don't like the decisions taken by our elected representatives, vote for different ones next election.

Out of curiosity, would you consider putting restrictions on overweight/obese people because their ‘selfish’ behaviour is ‘the reason for pressure on the health service’?

That would be interesting wouldn’t it. As an unvaccinated person I’ve been called selfish and been told to ‘just get the fucking vaccine, it’s easy’....as a person of healthy weight I’ll be able to say ‘just stop eating too much, it’s easy’ and ‘just fucking get off your arse and exercise,’.

The benefits to the NHS would be huge. But we’re not allowed to say that as it’s body shaming. We can’t dare offend fat people. Of course it’s fine to be shame and offend someone for having concerns over the vaccine for whatever reason. 🙄

What is h tv d point of this thread accept to cause more division.