Please help me understand the view your trying to get across to here
Some people are very pro vaxx, and genuinely believe it is doing good.
(Their right, and I am in no way saying it is right or wrong)
Some people are very anti Vaxx and genuinely believe it is doing harm
(again their right, and again I am not saying this is right or wrong either)
Some, no matter which side of the fence they sit are happy to debate this.
Some also, are convinced that their argument (for or against) is right and the other opinion is wrong or irrelevant.
Hopefully advocates in both camps can put their arguments forward without spiralling into a slanging match.
(Yes, I know I have been guilty in the past of going a bit too far on this subject, but hopefully my reformed self is now a bit more acceptable to this discussion)
3 Likes
Ah time to mute this post for a week or 2 
see you all in this post in a few weeks 
2 Likes
Totally agree - it is an individuals right whether to have it or not. But saying that âI donât know anyone who got illâ isnât really a good reason to not have it. If you are scared of it because a relative got sick then that is different.
5 Likes
FWIW not everyone can get vaccinated due to several reasons like medical reasons. So as long as most people get vaccinated, it is very unlikely they get infected. Even if they do, the amount of viral transmitted from a vaccinated person is lower so the effects should not be as severe. So vaccination is NOT pointless as it can still help.
3 Likes
Sorry 
I bite 
when blatant discrimination is being advocated for
Iâm back again to highlight that this Topic and this Community isnât a place to compare a horrific point in history with the administration of a response towards a pandemic.
Differing views are allowed and discourse encouraged but we have Community guidelines available to all and failure to adhere to them means you canât take part in the discussion.
9 Likes
Apologies if this was misconstrued. It isnât pointless in reducing serious illness for which I wholeheartedly agree vulnerable people should get vaccinated. But a lot of people got this on the pretense that itâs stops transmission and protects others, which is doesnât do a great job of unfortunately.
It doesnât entirely prevent transmission but it greatly reduces it.
3 Likes
Seems like the most dangerous thing to do is get the vaccine if youâre a friend.
2 Likes
I do have a valid question regarding the so called âvaccine passportsâ
It has been admitted by those in the know that even when vaccinated you can still transmit or contract covid (I think we all agree there)
Yet they are removing the option of taking a test instead of vaccination for access to venues that require the âvaccine passportâ
So, in theory, you could have a venue full of vaccinated people who may have covid, yet someone who has tested negative is barred from entry.
Surely, it would be better to offer both options.
Hopefully, someone can explain the logic.
1 Like
You canât explain it. I saw a clip earlier today from the Scottish parliament. Someone questioned Nicola sturgeon on this exact point. He basically said if it was scientific, everyone must present a negative lateral flow test to enter the venues that require it. She replied along the lines of âwe wonât be doing that as one of the main reasons for this is to drive up vaccination ratesâ.
Iâll try and find the clipâŚ
Edit: here you go https://twitter.com/bbcscotlandnews/status/1460633070843928578?s=21
1 Like
So the nasty unvaxxed canât go to the gig because the vaxxed might infect them and kill them off because they not vaxxed
My apologies, just trying to inject a little humour (pun intended)
1 Like
I really wish Whitty and co would settle this once and for all in a press conference, coupled with it being headlines.
People say this phrase, but no one actually knows as to what extent this is true, or even the context of what this figure would mean. (For example, if it was a 50% reduction, what are the real world implications of that figure)
I suspect this hasnât been done because it could potentially undermine the vaccination roll out, or, they donât know.
Promising numbers.
While any death is sad, when put into the perspective of daily UK deaths from any cause, I would say that they would be acceptable, as long as people acknowledge that death is eventually inevitable.
They really ought to have the data for just double vaccinated at the moment. And the personal risk that it will reduce, or not reduce.
After all Wales and Scotland have vaccine passports, and from what I could gather from a few news snippets, the Welsh government didnât produce any evidence stating whether it would be effective or not (for extending it to cinemas and theatres). It still got passed though 
1 Like
I by no means underestimate how difficult this must be to measure by the way.
But it is a hugely important data point if your determining the safest way for businesses to operate.
1 Like
Based on these data, the researchers estimate that fully vaccinated people in this testing round had between around 50% to 60% reduced risk of infection, including asymptomatic infection, compared to unvaccinated people.
In addition, double vaccinated people were less likely than unvaccinated people to test positive after coming into contact with someone who had COVID-19 (3.84% vs 7.23%)
3 Likes
This is where you need a real world implication of the figure.
Iâll do some maths here, to show why in my head it doesnât make sense. More than happy to be corrected
You have a 300 seater aircraft. 80% (roughly in line with jabbed people in the U.K.) or 240 people are fully vaccinated, 20% or 60 people unvaccinated.
If the unvaccinated have a â100%â (60 people) chance of infection compared to a 50% chance in vaccinated (120 people, 240/2). Then the risk in that setting is predominantly amongst the vaccinated right?
In my thinking the threshold at a 50% reduction in risk must be at 60% vaccination.
In a setting where there are 100 people, 40 unvaccinated would pose more of a risk than the 30/60 vaccinated.
Think I might be going down a rabbit hole now though.