Politics Coronavirus

[Scouse]

O/H has tested +ve. Explains the last couple of nights hot sweats. Other than that, just a bit weary.

So we're isolating. I've got a hot tub coming tomorrow. Have told the guy and he can drop it off and not see us.

I'll tap my barrel of beer this afternoon. 72 lovely pints to go with all the other alcohol I've got. Frozen Daiquiri's to start.

Annoying thing is, come April, if you have covid the advice will be "carry on, you don't need to self isolate". But we'll be good until then.

I've some friends coming over for NYE. Am going to let them know in a moment. If they say "we're still up for coming over" I'm going to feel a bit conflicted on whether to let 'em

 

[scoop]

Wife is dealing with this at the moment. Good friend is acting all butt hurt because we won't do their joint New Year's/Birthday bash. Thing is she's chosen not to get jabbed and we've got 2 nippers so it's absolutely not going to change but apparently it's all our fault.

From what I've seen so far it tends to land this way. Not a case you have you view, it's okay not to come. More so that your opinion of this differs to mine and therefore you're the problem.

I'm of the opinion that if you've got your booster you pretty much don't have to care any more. It's the unvaccinated we're trying to keep out of hospital after all.

My family would argue against that Scouse. Even though we're all jabbed x3, they are still really protective of my mum and limit when they see her. As an example, they won't see her on new years eve as my brother in law (jabbed) will be back at work and "may bring it back." They know tests aren't 100% and won't rely on them.

To be fair she is 79 and has COPD so she's the last person we need to catch it. Doesn't help that they know older people who've been jabbed and still caught it and suffered a bit. Just sometimes I wonder if they are swinging too far to one side without being rational about it. Or perhaps I'm just naive.

Makes me wonder where the end of all this is. If there's always going to be a form of covid does that mean they'll limit contact forever.

 

[Scouse]

My family would argue against that Scouse. Even though we're all jabbed x3, they are still really protective of my mum and limit when they see her. As an example, they won't see her on new years eve as my brother in law (jabbed) will be back at work and "may bring it back." They know tests aren't 100% and won't rely on them.

To be fair she is 79 and has COPD so she's the last person we need to catch it. Doesn't help that they know older people who've been jabbed and still caught it and suffered a bit. Just sometimes I wonder if they are swinging too far to one side without being rational about it. Or perhaps I'm just naive.

Makes me wonder where the end of all this is. If there's always going to be a form of covid does that mean they'll limit contact forever.

Hate to say it scoop - there isn't an end to all this.

Once you had the jab, got fully vaccinated, that's the best we can do.

I reckon by April the ask to self-isolate once you have covid will be recinded. We need to carry on with our lives and being vaccinated against covid was the end game of that. If people refuse to be vaccinated then the response to that is "your choice, your risk". For the vaccinated - you will carry on like covid was the common cold.

It's unfortunate for your mum that she's got COPD but just to be clear - every single person on the planet will have had covid within the next two or three years. No exceptions (apart from some mad ascetics who can manage and afford to live completely reclusive lives).

It's why I am ambivalent whether my friends choose to join us for New Years. They won't - because they're good like that - but if they'd have said fuck it, we're coming anyway then I couldn't hold it against them - because come April we won't even bother testing for covid any more. It's just another disease we're going to have to live with.

 

[Scouse]

BTW - April's my prediction. "After easter" really.

I suspect we'll (luckily) see that the Tories spawned it - and that the NHS isn't going to be overwhelmed by Omicron - and if that's the case then there is no longer any reasonable excuse for continued interruption of people's lives.

 

[scoop]

Hate to say it scoop - there isn't an end to all this.

It's unfortunate for your mum that she's got COPD but just to be clear - every single person on the planet will have had covid within the next two or three years. No exceptions (apart from some mad ascetics who can manage and afford to live completely reclusive lives).

Well i hope she / most people will get the version that you don't even know you have it.

No exceptions (apart from some mad ascetics who can manage and afford to live completely reclusive lives).

A bit like that aviation bloke Howard Hughes.

 

[Bodhi]

In fairness we were careful before Xmas day, testing properly, monitoring symptoms etc to make sure none of us infected my 79 year old mother.

She's repaid us by giving us all a cold instead....

 

[Raven]

Paxlovid: UK medicines regulator approves second Covid antiviral pill

Paxlovid can cut the risk of hospitalisation in vulnerable adults by 89%, a clinical trial suggests.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Scouse]

Paxlovid: UK medicines regulator approves second Covid antiviral pill

Paxlovid can cut the risk of hospitalisation in vulnerable adults by 89%, a clinical trial suggests.

www.bbc.co.uk

This is really interesting.

In clinical trials it reduced the risk of hospitalisation or death by 89% in vulnerable adults.

On top of the vaccines? 90%+ effective +89% effective? Wowzers. We've got a proper treatment regime going on.

So, from a rich country's perspective - if you're vaccinated (and if you're not a provable utter thundercunt (i.e. not vaccinated)) then between vaccinations and antiviral treatments you're effectively as immune from covid-AIDS as gay men are after 40 years of multibillion-dollar research (apart from the fact we can actually kill covid, and it's not something we have to live with (other than, er, we have to live with it, but don't care)).

It's a nothing disease in rich countries. My mum went out with my brother in law and cousin last night. She's barely able to understand the very basics of life any more. I was terrified for her before the vaccines were a thing. Now? Well both my brother in law and cousin are positive today.

My mum rang up today in terror and I've told her to go around to my sister's and lick everybody's face.

Covid, for the vaccinated, in rich countries with health services, is now a joke.

 

[Raven]

I will say again. Stupid fucking women.

Covid: Cinema & Co flouted ban to show conspiracy film

Cinema & Co was ordered to close after breaking Covid rules, but showed a film by David Icke's son.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Raven]

Covid: French uproar as Macron vows to 'piss off' unvaccinated

The president vows to make life difficult for the unjabbed, but opponents condemn his language.

www.bbc.co.uk

Macron, going for it!

 

[Scouse]

He can't piss off the anti-vaxxers without pissing off every single vaccinated person too. And that's what I (and a lot of the French I talk to daily) object to.

I'm happy to live with anti-vaxxers - they're taking all the risks anyway. So why should I have to do anything simply because they exist?

 

[Bodhi]

According to The Spectator, he used the phrase " When my freedom threatens that of others, I become irresponsible. An irresponsible person is no longer a citizen."

No....longer...a...citizen.....ever so slightly chilling if you ask me.

 

[Raven]

With France having such a right-wing "problem" he really isn't doing anyone any favours.

 

[Aoami]

I bet Matt Le Tissier is fuming

 

[Scouse]

According to The Spectator, he used the phrase " When my freedom threatens that of others, I become irresponsible. An irresponsible person is no longer a citizen."

No....longer...a...citizen.....ever so slightly chilling if you ask me.

The thing is - post-vaccination their freedom no longer threatens that of others.

So yes - anti-vaxxers are massive massive twats, and deserve to be called so because of their utter batshittery - but with a 90%+ vaccination rate in France (which is very much to be admired) - the only people taking a risk are the arsehole anti-vaxxers.

The only threat to freedom now is the French government. As it always is - the biggest danger to any public is the government.

 

[Syri]

I'm happy to live with anti-vaxxers - they're taking all the risks anyway. So why should I have to do anything simply because they exist?

The thing is - post-vaccination their freedom no longer threatens that of others.

So yes - anti-vaxxers are massive massive twats, and deserve to be called so because of their utter batshittery - but with a 90%+ vaccination rate in France (which is very much to be admired) - the only people taking a risk are the arsehole anti-vaxxers.

The only threat to freedom now is the French government. As it always is - the biggest danger to any public is the government.

I'm afraid I have to point out that they aren't the only ones taking a risk, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the vaccines in use are not 100% effective, even with 3 doses. You can still catch it, and while the chances are it will be less severe, it can still be severe in some cases, especially with other underlying health risks (which the vaccinated person might not be aware of even) so while the vaccines greatly reduce the risk, they don't eliminate it altogether. The more unvaccinated people there are, the more easily it can still spread, thus the more chance there is of a vaccinated person still catching it.
Secondly, because the large number of unvaccinated people still allows it to spread more easily, it also allows more mutations to form. The more chance there is of mutations forming, especially if high case numbers increase the chances of vaccinated people getting infected, the more chance there is of a strain forming that is more resistant to the vaccines.
So yes, it's a huge risk that anti-vaxxers are taking, but just because you're not one of them doesn't mean they can't have any effect on you or those around you. You are a lot safer than you would be with no vaccinations, but there are still risks even so, so the "no longer threatens others" and "they're taking all the risks" parts aren't exactly true. They're less of a threat, and taking the greater risk, but there is still a risk to the vaccinated as long as there are so many who choose not to get protected.
As for government orders, who's more dangerous etc, I'm not going to go into that at the moment. Governments in general just give me a headache (especially ours) so I'd rather save that thought for another day.

 

[Tom]

rofl. Anti-vax twat. Get to fuck.

Novak Djokovic: Australia cancels top tennis player's visa

The tennis player is in a government detention hotel and a decision on deportation will come on Monday.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Bodhi]

I'm afraid I have to point out that they aren't the only ones taking a risk, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the vaccines in use are not 100% effective, even with 3 doses. You can still catch it, and while the chances are it will be less severe, it can still be severe in some cases, especially with other underlying health risks (which the vaccinated person might not be aware of even) so while the vaccines greatly reduce the risk, they don't eliminate it altogether. The more unvaccinated people there are, the more easily it can still spread, thus the more chance there is of a vaccinated person still catching it.
Secondly, because the large number of unvaccinated people still allows it to spread more easily, it also allows more mutations to form. The more chance there is of mutations forming, especially if high case numbers increase the chances of vaccinated people getting infected, the more chance there is of a strain forming that is more resistant to the vaccines.
So yes, it's a huge risk that anti-vaxxers are taking, but just because you're not one of them doesn't mean they can't have any effect on you or those around you. You are a lot safer than you would be with no vaccinations, but there are still risks even so, so the "no longer threatens others" and "they're taking all the risks" parts aren't exactly true. They're less of a threat, and taking the greater risk, but there is still a risk to the vaccinated as long as there are so many who choose not to get protected.
As for government orders, who's more dangerous etc, I'm not going to go into that at the moment. Governments in general just give me a headache (especially ours) so I'd rather save that thought for another day.

Few problems with this theory:

- Most of the scary variants have occured in immunocompromised patients in hospital with long term infections. That's certainly how Kent started and more than likely how Omicron emerged (from a patient with AIDS)
- Whilst the vaccines are looking pretty good at preventing serious symptoms and keeping people out of hospital, they're proving pretty useless at stopping transmission or infection - witness all the highly vaccinated nation's having surges in cases currently.
- If someone hasn't had the vaccine but has recovered from Covid, they are just as well - if not better - protected than someone who's only had the vaccine

The only way the unvaccinated are a threat is to hospitals if they are vulnerable - i.e if they're old, fat, ill, immunocompromised etc - but not to the wider population. If someone is vulnerable and hasn't had the shot Indo think they're being a bit silly and it's not a choice I would make, however being pro-choice and pro informed consent, I respect it, even if I disagree with it.

Personally I find the current scapegoating of the unvaccinated morally abhorrent and clearly the latest Divide and Rule strategy the powers that be have in mind for us, which I'd rather not get involved in. I'm good friends with a couple of unvaccinated people, and I wouldn't dream of falling out with them for medical reasons, as that would be silly.

 

[Bodhi]

rofl. Anti-vax twat. Get to fuck.

Novak Djokovic: Australia cancels top tennis player's visa

The tennis player is in a government detention hotel and a decision on deportation will come on Monday.

www.bbc.co.uk

Hope he gets into the tournament and wins it tbh.

 

[Aoami]

Hope he gets into the tournament and wins it tbh.

Why? The guy is renowned fucking bellend on so many levels.

 

[Scouse]

I'm afraid I have to point out that they aren't the only ones taking a risk, for a couple of reasons. Firstly, the vaccines in use are not 100% effective, even with 3 doses. You can still catch it, and while the chances are it will be less severe, it can still be severe in some cases, especially with other underlying health risks (which the vaccinated person might not be aware of even) so while the vaccines greatly reduce the risk, they don't eliminate it altogether. The more unvaccinated people there are, the more easily it can still spread, thus the more chance there is of a vaccinated person still catching it.

Not unreasonable but:

1) It's not going away. Ever. So vulnerable people will be at risk for the rest of their lives. Forever. There's nothing we can do about that - and it doesn't justify further lockdowns. There are more than just vulnerable people in the world and locking down 99% of the population so 1% of people, who've already had the vaccine if they have any sense, may delay the time that they're going to get it - but not stop it.

We can't eliminate the risk altogether, agreed. But if you're vaccinated, and you catch it, that's as safe as you can ever be. - and if you've not had it by now, tough titties.

If you've had the vaccine, you're pretty much "immune to death" - unless you've got a pile of co-morbidities. But whilst not great, there's nothing we can do about that now. Now that's just a case of it being the cards that life has dealt them.

It may sound callous and uncaring - but nothing is further from the truth. We've spent the best part of two years in lockdowns or restrictions to protect these people whilst we've been getting the vaccines sorted. They're now sorted - so that's the end of it.

Secondly, because the large number of unvaccinated people still allows it to spread more easily, it also allows more mutations to form. The more chance there is of mutations forming, especially if high case numbers increase the chances of vaccinated people getting infected, the more chance there is of a strain forming that is more resistant to the vaccines.

Vaccines don't stop people getting it. If we want to stop mutations we need to be looking at vaccinating the whole planet, not restricting the freedoms of people in countries where vaccine rollouts are effectively finished.

So yes, it's a huge risk that anti-vaxxers are taking

No. It's a small risk. Bigger to themselves, practically zero to anyone who's been vaccinated.

just because you're not one of them doesn't mean they can't have any effect on you or those around you. You are a lot safer than you would be with no vaccinations, but there are still risks even so, so the "no longer threatens others" and "they're taking all the risks" parts aren't exactly true.

It's effectively true. The only vaccinated people dying of covid are ones with serious underlying health problems.

52,000-odd people died between Jan>June last year
600 of them were fully vaccinated - and of those 600 all of them had serious co-morbidities.

Covid is over m8. Stop worrying about it.

 

[Scouse]

more than likely how Omicron emerged (from a patient with AIDS)

"more than likely" is massively overstating this Bodhi old bean.

It's currently a reasonably theory that they're interested in but going from "this makes sense" to "more than likely" is a bit much.

 

[Bodhi]

"more than likely" is massively overstating this Bodhi old bean.

It's currently a reasonably theory that they're interested in but going from "this makes sense" to "more than likely" is a bit much.

Well not really, as

a) it emerged in a country where HIV/AIDS is rampant
b) it appears to have picked up a genetic sequence that is also found in HIV - Omicron variant may have picked up a piece of common-cold virus

We know that variants tend to emerge in people with SARS 2 infections who are struggling to clear it, meaning the virus continually mutates to "have another go". There was one patient in the US iirc who was hosting 8 variants at one time.

Other possibility is of course that it came from a lab, but I think the HIV patient link is the most likely.

 

[Bodhi]

Why? The guy is renowned fucking bellend on so many levels.

No doubt he is, sadly in this current situation the Australian Government are looking like even bigger bellends. Djokovic isn't the only player there on a medical exemption (I've seen up to 15 quoted on social meeja), yet he seems to be the only one detained at the border.

 

[Scouse]

a) it emerged in a country where HIV/AIDS is rampant

Maybe

b) it appears to have picked up a genetic sequence that is also found in HIV - Omicron variant may have picked up a piece of common-cold virus

Again, maybe. But it's also found in the common cold and in the human genome anyway.

You need to stop reading so much conspiracy shit and, importantly, ignoring the bits that you don't like.

More research is needed to confirm the origins of Omicron's mutations and their effects on function and transmissibility. There are competing hypotheses that the latest variant might have spent some time evolving in an animal host.

...

 

[caLLous]

No doubt he is, sadly in this current situation the Australian Government are looking like even bigger bellends. Djokovic isn't the only player there on a medical exemption (I've seen up to 15 quoted on social meeja), yet he seems to be the only one detained at the border.

If he's there on a medical exemption then there won't be a problem.

 

[Bodhi]

Maybe

Again, maybe. But it's also found in the common cold and in the human genome anyway.

You need to stop reading so much conspiracy shit and, importantly, ignoring the bits that you don't like.



...

Conspiracy shit? Going to need a bit more info on that one chap, as o don't recall Reuters branching out into conspiracies.

 

[Raven]

If he's there on a medical exemption then there won't be a problem.

A few places are saying it's just good old-fashioned head swivelry, but who knows.

 

[Raven]

a) it emerged in a country where HIV/AIDS is rampant

eh? It was first identified in SA, there is no proof one way or another whether it developed or first emerged there.

 

[Aoami]

No doubt he is, sadly in this current situation the Australian Government are looking like even bigger bellends. Djokovic isn't the only player there on a medical exemption (I've seen up to 15 quoted on social meeja), yet he seems to be the only one detained at the border.

Wasn't he detained because the visa application wasn't done properly? Not really sure what the problem is here. Its just big news because it's Djokovic not some little slug player.