Re-evaluating our relationship with COVID

Chappy79

Banned
Great OP, the same as you, I just can't get my head around it all tbh.

If the old and the vulnerable have been vaccinated then why the call for these silly vaccine passports and such and why no release of lockdown?

Yes we get that no vaccine is 100% but that's beside the point, it was never about that.

The government's mantra has always been about protect the NHS and save lives which the vaccine will clearly do.

Why the need to shun those who refuse a vaccine, as long as the NHS doesn't get overrun then what is the problem?

As for new variants this and that, I recall in March last year a virologist was on BBC Radio 2 addressing the nation.

He stated that this virus has extremely low mutation potential, what changed here then?

Fast forward around a year and we have a new strain coming out every month.

I suppose this virologist on the BBC was clearly incompetent then?

The cases and deaths have dropped that much, why we haven't opened up shop is beyond me.

Project Fear has browbeaten us in to submission it seems.
 

Judge Mental

Well-known Member
Great OP, the same as you, I just can't get my head around it all tbh.

If the old and the vulnerable have been vaccinated then why the call for these silly vaccine passports and such and why no release of lockdown?

Yes we get that no vaccine is 100% but that's beside the point, it was never about that.

The government's mantra has always been about protect the NHS and save lives which the vaccine will clearly do.

Why the need to shun those who refuse a vaccine, as long as the NHS doesn't get overrun then what is the problem?

As for new variants this and that, I recall in March last year a virologist was on BBC Radio 2 addressing the nation.

He stated that this virus has extremely low mutation potential, what changed here then?

Fast forward around a year and we have a new strain coming out every month.

I suppose this virologist on the BBC was clearly incompetent then?

The cases and deaths have dropped that much, why we haven't opened up shop is beyond me.

Project Fear has browbeaten us in to submission it seems.
There is clearly concern about a further wave before the rest of the population is fully vaccinated so it’s premature to call for an end to all restrictions especially as we know that vaccination only reduces but does not eradicate transmission.

Scientists know considerably more about the potential for variants a year into the pandemic than they did at the beginning. That’s the whole point of scientific discovery, it develops over time.

The shops will open on Monday. I think for the first time in the pandemic the government has got the unlocking process right, with enough time to track the case numbers after each major change before going further. Patience in this case is indeed a virtue.
 

Xenomorph

Well-known Member
As for new variants this and that, I recall in March last year a virologist was on BBC Radio 2 addressing the nation.

He stated that this virus has extremely low mutation potential, what changed here then?

Fast forward around a year and we have a new strain coming out every month.

I suppose this virologist on the BBC was clearly incompetent then?

No I don't think so. We now know a lot more about the virus, and clearly its mutation capability is a lot better than we thought back then.
 

Chappy79

Banned
There is clearly concern about a further wave before the rest of the population is fully vaccinated so it’s premature to call for an end to all restrictions especially as we know that vaccination only reduces but does not eradicate transmission.

Scientists know considerably more about the potential for variants a year into the pandemic than they did at the beginning. That’s the whole point of scientific discovery, it develops over time.

The shops will open on Monday. I think for the first time in the pandemic the government has got the unlocking process right, with enough time to track the case numbers after each major change before going further. Patience in this case is indeed a virtue.
Again, what does that matter?

If the vaccine prevents the old and vulnerable from getting seriously ill then why the concern, the vast, vast majority of people you will only get mild symptoms.

It's about protecting the NHS, the vaccine has clearly done it's job so can't get my head around this panic?

Regarding the virologist on the BBC, I should imagine he will have understood the viruses molecular structure to have addressed millions of people live on air.
 

Xenomorph

Well-known Member
we struggle to understand why people have become so fearful of the disease if they are in a low risk group

Simply because whatever age you are, it's unpredictable how your body will react to this virus. I'm being very careful because I don't want to end up with long lasting and really severe symptoms which would drastically affect my life. One of my hobbies is playing a musical instrument. If I got a severe lung condition like pulmonary fibrosis, I wouldn't be able to do that any more. Or any kind of physical exercise for that matter.
 

Chappy79

Banned
No I don't think so. We now know a lot more about the virus, and clearly its mutation capability is a lot better than we thought back then.
As above, how can a virus go from being barely mutatable to being highly mutatable in less than a year.

If anybody doubts my claim then it should be easy to find the source, it was in March last year, on the Ken Bruce or Jeremy Vine show.

I very much doubt that virologists didn't understand the viruses molecular structure back then, he wouldn't have addressed the nation with confidence if that was the case IMO.
 

Judge Mental

Well-known Member
Again, what does that matter?

If the vaccine prevents the old and vulnerable from getting seriously ill then why the concern, the vast, vast majority of people you will only get mild symptoms.

It's about protecting the NHS, the vaccine has clearly done it's job so can't get my head around this panic?

Regarding the virologist on the BBC, I should imagine he will have understood the viruses molecular structure to have addressed millions of people live on air.
There are still thousands of people in hospital and only a small proportion of the population fully immunised. The government has a responsibility to protect its citizens. I’m no fan of this government and I can’t wait for the restrictions to end but I think caution is justified.
 

Chappy79

Banned
Simply because whatever age you are, it's unpredictable how your body will react to this virus. I'm being very careful because I don't want to end up with long lasting and really severe symptoms which would drastically affect my life. One of my hobbies is playing a musical instrument. If I got a severe lung condition like pulmonary fibrosis, I wouldn't be able to do that any more. Or any kind of physical exercise for that matter.
But we can, just look at the figures of those in lower age groups and in healthy people.
 

Judge Mental

Well-known Member
As above, how can a virus go from being barely mutatable to being highly mutatable in less than a year.

If anybody doubts my claim then it should be easy to find the source, it was in March last year, on the Ken Bruce or Jeremy Vine show.

I very much doubt that virologists didn't understand the viruses molecular structure back then, he wouldn't have addressed the nation with confidence if that was the case IMO.
People once believed the earth was flat. We know better now.
 

Xenomorph

Well-known Member
But we can, just look at the figures of those in lower age groups and in healthy people.

I don't care about the stats. My approach is that I don't want to do everything I can to minimise the risk of me or my family contracting this virus.
 

Chappy79

Banned
I don't care about the stats. My approach is that I don't want to do everything I can to minimise the risk of me or my family contracting this virus.
You don't care about stats, so what do you care for?

Did you not care for the stats of deaths and hospital admissions when the virus was at it's peak?
 

Xenomorph

Well-known Member
You don't care about stats, so what do you care for?

Did you not care for the stats of deaths and hospital admissions when the virus was at it's peak?

I've stated my position, and it's clear you have a very different view on the situation.
I don't wish to say any more on the matter. Take care.
 

Judge Mental

Well-known Member
I'm not having that one I'm sorry, let's not try and pretend a virologist in 2020 was that much misinformed.

Small genetic changes perhaps but not enough to render antibodies and vaccines useless, do you have any evidence to say otherwise?
Not misinformed. Not yet knowledgeable enough about this particular virus. It had only been identified a matter of weeks earlier.
 

Chappy79

Banned
Not misinformed. Not yet knowledgeable enough about this particular virus. It had only been identified a matter of weeks earlier.
But it's part of a well know family of viruses, it's not as though it fell out of the sky.

Again for him to address the nation he will have understood it's basic principles IMO.

When he claimed that it has low mutation properties, maybe he was talking in a significant change which is still the case today.

There's no evidence to suggest that these variants are immune to vaccines or antibodies.

The media is doing what the media does best in trying to scare people silly.
 

Judge Mental

Well-known Member
But it's part of a well know family of viruses, it's not as though it fell out of the sky.

Again for him to address the nation he will have understood it's basic principles IMO.

When he claimed that it has low mutation properties, maybe he was talking in a significant change which is still the case today.

There's no evidence to suggest that these variants are immune to vaccines or antibodies.

The media is doing what the media does best in trying to scare people silly.
The media is trying to attract readers/viewers using sensationalist headlines. Twas ever thus. However there’s plenty of opportunity to gear directly from the government and their advisors through the press briefings and the data is available for everybody to see.

There is a widespread perception that we came out of lockdown too quickly last time and that we’ve paid for it with loss of life and disease. Understandable to be cautious in the face of impatience.
 

Chappy79

Banned
The media is trying to attract readers/viewers using sensationalist headlines. Twas ever thus. However there’s plenty of opportunity to gear directly from the government and their advisors through the press briefings and the data is available for everybody to see.

There is a widespread perception that we came out of lockdown too quickly last time and that we’ve paid for it with loss of life and disease. Understandable to be cautious in the face of impatience.
Government advice is clearly fallible.

Wasn't it Van-Tam who claimed there's no evidence to suggest masks work against viruses, flipped 180 on that one.
 

Judge Mental

Well-known Member
Government advice is clearly fallible.

Wasn't it Van-Tam who claimed there's no evidence to suggest masks work against viruses, flipped 180 on that one.
The evidence is still quite thin, to be fair. These people are just human beings sharing the latest scientific thinking. It ebbs and flows, sometimes changing significantly as it develops. The advice is a snapshot in time, that’s all. You seem to expect perfect hindsight. That’s unrealistic in my view.
 

Sloppy Bob

Distinguished Member
The efficacy of me wearing a mask in a single room with loads of people in it who aren't wearing one is poor.

The higher the percentage of people in the room wearing them, the higher the efficacy.
 

Chappy79

Banned
The evidence is still quite thin, to be fair. These people are just human beings sharing the latest scientific thinking. It ebbs and flows, sometimes changing significantly as it develops. The advice is a snapshot in time, that’s all. You seem to expect perfect hindsight. That’s unrealistic in my view.
Seeing as though Asian countries have been using face masks for donkeys years as protective measures I would at least expect one of the worlds leading epidemiologists could have given us accurate advice on this.

Forgive me if I'm skeptical of any advice given by these experts.
 

Chappy79

Banned
The efficacy of me wearing a mask in a single room with loads of people in it who aren't wearing one is poor.

The higher the percentage of people in the room wearing them, the higher the efficacy.

These experts don't exactly fill one confidence do they.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: LG C1 OLED + JBL Synthesis SDR-35 First Thoughts, plus TV Show & Disc Reviews & more
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

What's new on UK streaming services for June 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Austrian Audio launches Hi-X65 headphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Roku expands streaming content with Roku Originals
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
What's new on Netflix UK for June 2021
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
AVForums Podcast: 12th May 2021
  • By Phil Hinton
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom