UPTHEPORT wrote: December 21st, 2021, 1:12 pm The two bob bits mate and vomiting

UPTHEPORT wrote: December 21st, 2021, 1:03 pm What I have noticed of late in work is D&V is back during the first and second wave it disappeared all together

Because people where washing hands

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: December 21st, 2021, 1:05 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 21st, 2021, 11:11 am In every human activity there is always an element of risk. We are all, in my view, entitled to evaluate that risk for ourselves and act accordingly. It therefore follows if I am prepared to take the risk to my health of drinking a bottle of whiskey every day I should be allowed to do so. However I then have to give up my 'right' to drive a car.
However even sober when driving a car I might make a mistake and kill someone. Which is why this topic keeps going around in circles. The points being made are all valid but meaningless. You see I have no doubt that in the time prior to Covid people were infected with flu at football matches and subsequently died.
There are actually two questions which therefore need to be answered.
The first of which I have repeatedly asked and only Bangitinthenet has answered. How many people are you prepared to see die before you are prepared to give up some of your freedoms? Bangitinthenet gives a figure of 20,000. If you agree with that figure and accept that the annual death toll because of Covid in the UK seem to be about 100,000 then clearly with deaths running five fold above the 20,000 figure, restrictions are in order.
The second question not yet posed by Omicron but perhaps valid as further variants occur, is should a society 'shut down' when the threat is known but the severity of the threat is not? Let's face it governments are going to look pretty silly if society is shut down because a lot of people have a touch of the sniffles. Then again not as silly as if they don't shutbdown and bodies really are piled high in the streets.
There may not be any right answers but at least we should try to ask the right questions?

Agree that there are 2 questions that need answering/resolving.
With regards to the acceptable annual fatality rate for covid I would be in agreement with bangitinthenet's circa 20,000 if it meant the number of 'flu fatalities are suppressed to the very low levels they are currently. In relation to the restrictions required if the figures are many times higher, believe the subsidiary question that will require answering is. Should those restrictions be targeted more severely at the unvaccinated? Another question I expect polititions will avoid answering.

As for your 2nd question I'm very much in favour of a 'shutdown' if the threat is known but the severity is not, as the potential benefits outweigh any embarrassment of looking silly if those 'shutdown' measures prove to have been unnecessary or too severe.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 21st, 2021, 11:11 am In every human activity there is always an element of risk. We are all, in my view, entitled to evaluate that risk for ourselves and act accordingly. It therefore follows if I am prepared to take the risk to my health of drinking a bottle of whiskey every day I should be allowed to do so. However I then have to give up my 'right' to drive a car.
However even sober when driving a car I might make a mistake and kill someone. Which is why this topic keeps going around in circles. The points being made are all valid but meaningless. You see I have no doubt that in the time prior to Covid people were infected with flu at football matches and subsequently died.
There are actually two questions which therefore need to be answered.
The first of which I have repeatedly asked and only Bangitinthenet has answered. How many people are you prepared to see die before you are prepared to give up some of your freedoms? Bangitinthenet gives a figure of 20,000. If you agree with that figure and accept that the annual death toll because of Covid in the UK seem to be about 100,000 then clearly with deaths running five fold above the 20,000 figure, restrictions are in order.
The second question not yet posed by Omicron but perhaps valid as further variants occur, is should a society 'shut down' when the threat is known but the severity of the threat is not? Let's face it governments are going to look pretty silly if society is shut down because a lot of people have a touch of the sniffles. Then again not as silly as if they don't shutbdown and bodies really are piled high in the streets.
There may not be any right answers but at least we should try to ask the right questions?

pembsexile wrote: December 21st, 2021, 3:33 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 21st, 2021, 11:11 am In every human activity there is always an element of risk. We are all, in my view, entitled to evaluate that risk for ourselves and act accordingly. It therefore follows if I am prepared to take the risk to my health of drinking a bottle of whiskey every day I should be allowed to do so. However I then have to give up my 'right' to drive a car.
However even sober when driving a car I might make a mistake and kill someone. Which is why this topic keeps going around in circles. The points being made are all valid but meaningless. You see I have no doubt that in the time prior to Covid people were infected with flu at football matches and subsequently died.
There are actually two questions which therefore need to be answered.
The first of which I have repeatedly asked and only Bangitinthenet has answered. How many people are you prepared to see die before you are prepared to give up some of your freedoms? Bangitinthenet gives a figure of 20,000. If you agree with that figure and accept that the annual death toll because of Covid in the UK seem to be about 100,000 then clearly with deaths running five fold above the 20,000 figure, restrictions are in order.
The second question not yet posed by Omicron but perhaps valid as further variants occur, is should a society 'shut down' when the threat is known but the severity of the threat is not? Let's face it governments are going to look pretty silly if society is shut down because a lot of people have a touch of the sniffles. Then again not as silly as if they don't shutbdown and bodies really are piled high in the streets.
There may not be any right answers but at least we should try to ask the right questions?

Brendan, you are asking a question that no one can really give a proper answer for. Any politician that quoted a number of ‘acceptable’ Covid deaths would probably be hounded out of office. It is not a question that can be answered in the present. It only becomes an issue afterwards. Politicians are probably talking about it in private but obviously not publicly.

We come back to the old chestnut of WW2. In that War the UK had 450,000 deaths. This was over a six year (nearly) period. No one at the time complained about civil liberties being eroded. There may have been the odd protest but nothing major and certainly nothing that the Government couldn’t handle.

There are three ways that the government currently uses to inform the public of the UK Covid deaths. If you take the approximation of the three methods of calculation, the UK Covid death rate is currently at 150,000 over a 21 month period, maybe more. If Covid carries on for the next four years, will we have the same number of deaths in the UK that we had in WW2? What will be the fallout of that?

Politicians work in the here and now. The numbers game is for the media and discussion afterwards. I wonder which politician will fall on his/her sword and quote an ‘acceptable’ death number. None, I reckon. I wouldn’t hold your breath waiting for an answer to your question.

Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 21st, 2021, 3:04 pm

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: December 21st, 2021, 1:05 pm

Stan A. Einstein wrote: December 21st, 2021, 11:11 am In every human activity there is always an element of risk. We are all, in my view, entitled to evaluate that risk for ourselves and act accordingly. It therefore follows if I am prepared to take the risk to my health of drinking a bottle of whiskey every day I should be allowed to do so. However I then have to give up my 'right' to drive a car.
However even sober when driving a car I might make a mistake and kill someone. Which is why this topic keeps going around in circles. The points being made are all valid but meaningless. You see I have no doubt that in the time prior to Covid people were infected with flu at football matches and subsequently died.
There are actually two questions which therefore need to be answered.
The first of which I have repeatedly asked and only Bangitinthenet has answered. How many people are you prepared to see die before you are prepared to give up some of your freedoms? Bangitinthenet gives a figure of 20,000. If you agree with that figure and accept that the annual death toll because of Covid in the UK seem to be about 100,000 then clearly with deaths running five fold above the 20,000 figure, restrictions are in order.
The second question not yet posed by Omicron but perhaps valid as further variants occur, is should a society 'shut down' when the threat is known but the severity of the threat is not? Let's face it governments are going to look pretty silly if society is shut down because a lot of people have a touch of the sniffles. Then again not as silly as if they don't shutbdown and bodies really are piled high in the streets.
There may not be any right answers but at least we should try to ask the right questions?

Agree that there are 2 questions that need answering/resolving.
With regards to the acceptable annual fatality rate for covid I would be in agreement with bangitinthenet's circa 20,000 if it meant the number of 'flu fatalities are suppressed to the very low levels they are currently. In relation to the restrictions required if the figures are many times higher, believe the subsidiary question that will require answering is. Should those restrictions be targeted more severely at the unvaccinated? Another question I expect polititions will avoid answering.

As for your 2nd question I'm very much in favour of a 'shutdown' if the threat is known but the severity is not, as the potential benefits outweigh any embarrassment of looking silly if those 'shutdown' measures prove to have been unnecessary or too severe.

Only a personal view. Those that choose to remain unvaccinated are entitled so to do. However on the same principle as we prevent people who have drink taken from driving, likewise the unvaccinated should be prevented from attending public social events whilst the pandemic has hold.

This is a curtailment of liberty but in my view, for the duration of this emergency, proportionate.

Fu Ming wrote: December 21st, 2021, 4:18 pm I really don't understand this anti-mask wearing mentality, unless you genuinely have breathing difficulties.
It is not a particularly onerous thing to do for 20mins in a shop or bus.
I don't see people complaining when working or visiting an industrial site when asked to wear toeteckters, goggles, high viz jackets etc, so what is so difficult about wearing a mask?
Treat all those non mask wearers (unless genuinely exempt) the same as someone who doesn't wear PPE on site, ie kick them off site, or refuse them entry into the shop.
After being refused admission they will soon get the message.
[/quote

In agreement with you on this. I understand there are those that don't believe the masks have any/ or very little benefits. I look at it the other way and say I'm certain wearing one cannot make the situation worse, therefore anyone with a social conscience should do so. As for the self-proclaimed exempt, aka bullshitters, I'm not aware of anyone who actually has an exemption certified by a medical professional.I will of course defer to anyone who has.

DeePeeNCAFC wrote: December 21st, 2021, 3:36 pm There is a school of thought that those who are unvaccinated should be locked down and not allowed into matches, pubs etc while those of us who have received our jabs should be allowed to carry on as usual.

I agreed with this view until recently when a couple of events changed my mind. Firstly, I caught Covid after 2 jabs (I’ve had the booster since), then my mate (who has had 3 jabs) caught Covid and passed it onto his family. None of us suffered anything more than really mild symptoms whereas perhaps those not vaccinated might have been worse.

My point here is - the actual benefits of a lockdown are diminishing because so few people would actually listen to the government advice and adhere to it (not surprising given the behaviour of certain government officials over the last year or so). And if those of us who are fully vaccinated can catch and spread the disease, the key risk is to the vulnerable with underlying health issues and to the unvaccinated.

To stifle this virus properly would take a really strict 2 week lockdown, enforced by the police & army, where people only stay in their family bubbles, all shops are shut, no one leaves their home except for limited outdoor exercise. But even then, key workers would still need to go into work, folk would need groceries etc so we’ll never achieve this.

OLDCROMWELLIAN wrote: December 21st, 2021, 5:19 pm I can empathise with most of what you said but would stress 1 crucial point.
The main aim of targeting restrictions on the unvaccinated would be to incentivise them to get the jab. Reading reports from France in particular, also Italy and the USA it has increased their numbers of vaccinated markedly, especially in relation to mandate the jab to certain jobs. As apparently up to 90% of those in hospital requiring the most intensive treatment are unvaccinated or not double vaccinated believe it is governments obligation to do everything possible to reduce those figures; thus preventing the possibility of running out of bedspace for anyone requiring intensive treatment.

County-at-the-races wrote: December 21st, 2021, 5:36 pm If you can't prove you've joined in with the vast majority of the population, then you can royally f-off with being allowed anywhere near where crowds gather and that includes public transport, shops, events etc. Then perhaps they might get the message that the greater good of the majority is more important than the rights of the minority