UK Covid death toll

[backsidebaggie]

Have you read the summary from the Doctors on the front line I posted from the Metro? It goes some way to dispelling nonsense that they don’t care if people haven’t had the vaccine and that it doesn’t effect younger non vaccinated people. I don’t care what mental gymnastics those who refuse to have the jab take. It’s an irresponsible position with no basis in science or logic. I’ve given up with the niceties. How much more education and understanding do they need to see having the vaccine helps not only them but others?

Yes I have read it.

Now, have you read the official figures on vaccinated and unvaccinated in ICU? I dare you. Go on. Check them. See if they match that doctor's personal experience of "virtually all" are unvaccinated. But you don't want to see the official figures, you prefer anecdotal evidence from one doctor in an ICU. The fact is there are many vaccinated in ICU. Check it. Look up the official figures. Now, the statistics DO indicate that the vaccine definitely reduces the chances of being in ICU. I would agree that far. I am not anti vax, I am not anti covid vax. I can just see from the official figures, the science, that there is a low risk to a young person getting covid. Not "no risk", but a low risk. And I can see from the official statistics that the vaccine does definitely reduce the chances of a serious illness. But when a young person has such a low risk from covid anyway, and you're reducing a tiny chance to an even tinier chance, that's what many young people are weighing up. Surely you're bright enough to understand that? But that's not even my point. My point is that bodily autonomy, and your immature post regarding that, is a way bigger picture than the one you presented from on doctor's experience in an ICU.

No one said it "doesn't affect younger people". That's a total lie, a silly exaggeration by yourself as usual. NO ONE has said that. But the official figures show that its only a very small percentage of younger people who get in a bad way. That's a fact. Look up the figures if you can be bothered to actually look at the evidence. The scientific evidence. Look it up. I'm not saying that means they should not take the vaccine, as it clearly does have a benefit as I have described above, but that's up to each individual.

You say you don't care what "mental gymnastics" people use. Well guess what, they don't care what you think. You say its irresponsible. I don't agree, its none of my business what anyone does with their body.

There is a basis in science and logic not to have it for young people. You may not agree, I may not agree, but the fact is the numbers of young people who die or end up in serious condition is very small. Those who have already had covid and have natural immunity have even less chance of ending up in big trouble. There IS science and logic indicating that its reasonable for young people not to have it. The JVCI didn't even recommend 12-15 year olds having it (it was a close call). Do you think they did not use "science and logic"? That's the JCVI. Scientists. You are as usual completing ignoring nuance and the fact it isn't black and white. Well the JCVI wouldn't agree with you for a 15 year old, so do you think they are thick and getting their information off youtube?

You never did do niceties to give them up. You've become fully enveloped into the divide that has been created, as you are showing by your "all or nothing" posts, calling people idiots and stupid and presuming they have made a decision based on youtube. You DH, are unfortunately showing a complete lack of critical thought and nuance.

So, how much more education do YOU need to understand that this is not black and white, young people are at a small risk from covid (I did not say "no risk"), and it is a reasonable decision for THEM to make regarding their own bodies (whether you or I agree or not), and even the JCVI could not recommend it for a 15 year old on a cost benefit analysis, which is in itself scientific and logical evidence that this is not black and white. How much more education do you need to understand there is also a wider implication relating to bodily autonomy in addition to this one vaccine? The more you say about this, the more you show a complete lack of critical thought regarding different situations, different statistics for different age groups, and then as usual, you decide everyone who doesn't agree with you is an idiot, and you start calling them thick.

The funny thing is there are a small proportion who do indeed see something on youtube and make their decision from there. A small proportion. They fail to look at any other evidence, and they take a stance that is based on one or two anecdotes. You are literally, exactly like them, but on the other side of the debate, yet you don't see it. Its the same with brexit. You label and stereotype and call people flag shaggers and idiots and infer they are racists. You generalise. You do exactly what you say you dislike about them. You are so similar to the bigots you hate, but on the other side of the coin. I'm a remainer, but I'm not divisive or immature enough to think 17M people are flag shaggers and racists and thick etc. But you revel in the division. Its embarrasing. You're riddled with anger and hate and division.

I digress. Seriously, grow up and debate like an adult, and stop the divisiveness. You're simply showing post after post how immature you are and that you're unable to consider wider implications, a number of factors, and then you resort to calling people thick. You're making a fool of yourself.

I have debated with you politely on numerous occasions and put forward erudite arguments on this subjects. You seem completely oblivious to your own bias where you skew the arguments towards the rights of those who refuse the vaccines. You will defend them to the hilt whilst dismissing the rights of those who are put at greater risk by their lack of thought for others who are more vulnerable than them. Any measure to keep others safe other than hoping someone takes a lateral flow test and tells the truth about the result is dismissed with a growing sense of conspiracy. Take a look at the debates we have had and see who starts the personal jibes because you don't like someone else who has an equal and opposite opinion to yours. You are no more nuanced in your argument than I am. The only difference is one of us knows they aren't and the other thinks they are putting up a balanced well thought out argument.

You are the one who calls people thick for having a different opinion, same as you do with brexit.

I am not skewing the arguments. I am telling you to look at the scientific evidence and statistics. I am the one confirming the JCVI looked at scientific evidence and do not agree with your position for a 15 year old. Yet you won't address that point, as usual. I am the one talking about the scientific evidence of percentage chances of a young healthy person getting in big trouble with covid. You're ignoring that. I'm not the one telling people what they should do with their bodies. You are. I'm not the one judging anyone's decision to have the vax or not. Both can be very good decisions depending on a number of factors (which I have described many times), and in most cases I agree getting the vax is the best decision. But I'm not judging anyone. You are.

You put the rights of others above the right to bodily autonomy. I believe its the other way around. We can go round in circles with that all day. But only one of us has called people thick for favouring one side, and made the massive generalisation that they're all making a decision based on one thing (youtube vids). Its not me making the immature generalisations. Its you.

If you're seriously saying I start personal jibes more than you, well, I'm very very happy for other posters to read all this and make their mind up! You're riddled with hate and division.

I'm happy to debate my reasonings, and I do with Baggy1. We disagree on plenty, but we respond to each other with details and specifics. You ignore detail, nuance, and wider implications. And you're riddled with divisiveness. You thrive on it.

I'm very happy to leave it there, and keep debating details and specifics with Baggy1 and others. And anyone reading can make their mind up - not whether they agree with me or not on the covid situation - but whether they think some (not all) of your posts are divisive and lacking in detail and nuance. You revel in division, you love generalising and stereotyping negatively, and you often call people thick who don't agree with you. People may agree or disagree with points I make, but I darn well steer clear of these kind of traits as much as possible. So carry on as you wish, and people can make their own mind up.

Exactly you won't budge from your position that vulnerable people's rights are not of the same importance as those who refuse to have the vaccine. You will now probably argue you didn't say this but the vulnerable and those unable to have the vaccine also have a body and their autonomy to keep it as safe as possible has not been possible since arguably lockdowns stopped, unless you consider that they should stay indoors for the next one, two, three, years perhaps longer is acceptable. I will always argue that provision for their safety and the ability to lead as normal a life as possible is every bit as important to them and their families as for those who decide not to have the vaccine. One group in this discussion has a choice the other has had their choices taken away from them. You have chosen to champion the cause of those who have a choice and made them out to be victims of a draconian system. 

Those unable to have the vaccine or are still vulnerable despite having it have to compromise to uphold the rights of others who put put them at risk. Every day someone who is at high risk from the virus has to compromise to keep themselves safe. They might want to go to the shops, eat out at a restaurant, go to the cinema, attend a sporting event, get an education but they can't or they put themselves at serious risk and why? Because there are people out there who don't care, don't think of others and will not take the slightest precautions (one of which is getting vaccinated) to help others lead as full and active life as they should be able to.  

If you accept our rights are more than just arbitrary human construct then, you must accept that people have responsibilities to wider society. No functioning society can have one without the other and to bastardise the quote, the way to judge society is to see how it treats the most vulnerable and weakest. If that is true then the UK currently has pretty much abandoned them in terms of Covid safety to the whims of the individuals rights. For those who don't and who won't get a vaccine for the protection of themselves and others I defend my opinion that it's a stupid and selfish decision. You don't like that opinion fine, but my arguments on this subject have been nuanced as this reply in my opinion demonstrates as have numerous others to you. You caricature my replies on this subject by selecting a couple of lines I have used recently. My lack of nuance in those replies is my exasperation at others making decisions that not only may effect them badly but have the potential harm others. 

Last thing... 

I have never argued that having the vaccine eliminates someone from catching or spreading the disease. I have argued it does offer more protection to them and importantly other.s who come into contact with them.  If it was just them and their risk to themselves then that is up to them but it still has the potential to put unnecessary strain on the NHS.

I have never said or did not recognised that there wouldn't be implications for those who refuse the vaccine and work(ed) in the care sector. or those they no longer care for.  I can see it will create a problem or more accurately make a short fall in staff worse. Sadly though, I cannot say to myself that it's ok for someone continuing to work on the frontline in the Care or Medical sectors who refuses the jab whilst working with vulnerable patients. 

Covid Passports would make those who are still vulnerable to the disease and their families feel more comfortable going to places they have been pretty much barred from for two years unless they put themselves at considerable risk of severe illness or worse. I don't particularly like the idea and their are clearly some flaws in so much as you can still be spreading the disease but unless they tighten up on lateral flow test abuse as seen at Wembley for example in the Euro's it may be a compromise that those who show a responsibility to society as a whole and the vulnerable are afforded entrance to things others have CHOSEN not to. With the caveat that those for medical reasons are exempt.

And then I could just say you believe the rights of the vulnerable are more important than everyone else’s! And you’re selfish to expect people to have something they may not want. And round and round we go. And you won’t budge from your position either. And I don’t believe that wider society is more important than the individuals choice when it comes to medical treatment. You do. I don’t believe society can be completely judged on how it protects the vulnerable and that responsibilities to wider society stretches as far as you believe. It has to be balanced, and for a vaccine that doesn’t stop transmission, I don’t believe it makes the vulnerable significantly safer enough, when testing does a pretty good job. Some cases will sneak through, but they do with vaccinated people anyway. Science has not found that covid passports make any difference to spread of covid. And Scotland has rightly IMO just added a negative test to their covid passports as an option.

I have not seen you comment on how far you’d go when it comes to those who don’t want it. Prison? Fines? Banned from leaving the house? Create outcasts from society? Only allowed to buy food? Walk round with an unvaccinated badge on? How far would you go, given the vax passes so far have shown no evidence of even having a reduction in spread? You have a stance but don’t comment on the implications and fall out of that stance, or how far you’d take it, and how you’d then deal with the problems it creates in relation to economics, segregation in society, shortages in staff in some jobs, and the wider implications of the state deciding or coercing on a medical treatment. How much power do you want the state to have over your medical decisions? There’s a massive issue here. That’s why I say you don’t see or take into account the bigger picture.

Lots of things put a strain on the nhs. Being overweight does. Smoking and drinking do. How much do you want the state to control our behaviours to protect the nhs? Again you’re not seeing the bigger picture. Obviously smoking and drinking aren’t transmitted to others, but as I’ve explained above banning unvaccinated people from places has no evidence of limiting transmission anyway!

As buckster has pointed out, do you think kids should be banned from places if they don’t want it? Covid jab for no school? No cinema or restaurant visits? I think you’re going to be shocked at the low uptake amongst 5-11 year olds when it happens. What would you do then if half the kids don’t have it? Ban from school? All this theoretically makes it more risky for the vulnerable. So how far would you go? You don’t provide answers to the questions of dealing with implications, you just take the stance that it’ll help the vulnerable feel safer, despite the fact that there is no evidence that the covid passes even do that! Many of the countries who have them have seen enormous rises is cases and hospitalisations anyway! And Scotland did not find any evidence of any benefit. You’re talking like covid passes make a significant difference. There’s no evidence of it, let alone the other problems they cause. There’s no evidence that care staff being unvaccinated but having tests instead causes increased problems in care homes. Again, you’re deciding as it doesn’t sit right with you.

You’re deciding on principles rather than evidence. And you’re not offering solutions to the wider implications of your stance.