NWR new zero tolerance covid thread

Fortunately, obesity, idleness and alcoholism aren't directly contagious.
Neither is being unvaccinated though

I suppose on reflection being unvaccinated - perhaps we should say being proudly unvaccinated is sort of as contagious as obesity and idleness. Although I have to say the anti-vaxers I am sadly aware of are all outliers within their family groups. Much heartache being caused by my sister's husband who refused to take it for a long time because he "didn't like people telling him what to do". My sister has MS and a much weakened immune system - what can one do in such situations short of force a full on family fissure?
 
Last edited:
Has anyone made any significant, positive, changes to to their lifestyle as a result of what we have learnt about covid over the last two years?
I shifted from largely gym based exercise to doing a lot of running, as it was the only way to exercise rather than a deliberate Covid related thing. I wasn't noticeably overweight before but have dropped about 8kg as a result, and enjoy the running enormously, which isn't something I ever expected to say about myself. Hasn't stopped me from getting Covid, though.
 
So Dom, I think your arguments runs as follows? Please shout if I am misunderstanding.

"People who won't get the vaccine are predominantly putting their own health at risk, not the health of others, because vaccines don't prevent transmission. The unvaccinated are much more likely to suffer serious consequences from Covid if they do catch it. Restricting the freedom of these people will reduce the chances of them catching Covid and becoming a burden on the NHS; but if that's OK, why don't we also restrict the freedom of other groups, such as forcing the obese to diet, the lazy to exercise and so forth. If the latter is not OK in a free society, then why is the former?"

My response would be that in a free society we do indeed allow people to make bad decisions. Trends in problems like obesity, lack of exercise and cosumption of alcohol are widely studied, and it is possible for countries to adjust their healthcare systems accordingly over time to allow for changes in these risk factors. I would agree that while as a nation we should try to improve in these areas, explicit compulsion is not reasonable and proportionate in the context of a free society, because as a society we CAN plan for these problems. However with Covid, it's new and it is FAST. If Covid only caused health consequences in people who catch it five years or longer down the road, then there would be a reasonable argument that we can't force people to take vaccines, or limit their freedoms if they choose not to. We can only encourage them to do so, and we need to plan for the health service requirements to deal with the unvaccinated many years into the future. But that's not the case. We simply do not have the time to ramp up healthcare to deal with the consequences of people refusing to be vaccinated. Therefore restrciting their freedoms - NOT as a punishment, but as a necessary action to reduce the probability of a completely overwhelmed healthcare system - is at least arguably the right thing to do. One of the consequences of living in a society is that sometimes you have to do what is good for society as a whole, not what the individual wants to do.

You might disagree with the premise that the heathcare system is at risk of becoming overwhelmed. I honestly don't know whether this is a very high probability or not. But if the informed view of science is that it is, then I would be in favour of restricting some freedoms for the unvaccinated. Again, NOT as a punishment, but as an effective and necessary public health measure, and one that woud be abandoned as soon as it is safe to do so.
Post of the year, both in content and eloquence. Well done!
 
An anti-vaxxer and Ivermectin peddler friend of my sister managed to persuade her family not get vaccinated. Her son has recently been hospitalized and has been seriously ill with Covid including a dangerous heart inflammation. I doubt it has changed her opinion unfortunately.
It’s interesting how much money is being made in the interests of this nonsense. I joined a Facebook group dedicated to “Sovereign Citizens” and 80% of the content comes from people selling stuff to these poor dupes. I will stop posting now as I will find myself in contravention of most of this site’s rules.
 
I didn't either, but as from yesterday you can book online if (i) your second jab was over two months ago, (ii) the date of the third jab will be three months or longer after the second, (iii) you're 40 or over.

I think they're about to drop condition (iii) - as from Monday iirc.

I could have got an appointment next day (i.e. today) but didn't want to risk side-effects ruining tomorrow!

You can also go to any number of walk-in centres; I got mine two weeks ago at a walk-in place, and they only wanted to know whether 1 was over 40 and that my 2nd dose was more than 6 months ago (but in practice I gathered there was some flex in application the 6mth requirement).
 
Location
London
You can also go to any number of walk-in centres; I got mine two weeks ago at a walk-in place, and they only wanted to know whether 1 was over 40 and that my 2nd dose was more than 6 months ago (but in practice I gathered there was some flex in application the 6mth requirement).
Right. Some walk-in centres are doing under 40s so long as at least three months since their previous jab, too.
 
Here are some statistics from the ONS. Between Jan 2 and July 2 this year there were 38,964 deaths from Covid among the unvaccinated. There were 458 deaths among those who had two two doses and who died 21 or more days after their second dose was administered. In reality, all this sympathy for the anti-vaxxers seems to callously ignore that it kills people in large numbers. Talk about missing the point. That's a very high price to pay for the right to ignore science and statistics, and to embrace half-baked notions of freedom, superstition and/or conspiracy theories in their stead. Enough said.
 
Interesting I don’t know that I know any anti vaxxers
Except on guy who sometimes play in a tennis four and has now been disinvited. The organiser works for phizler as they had a chat or two.
Another tennis player hasn’t been seen since a “no vax no play” at a friends private court rule, so I assume.
 
An anti-vaxxer and Ivermectin peddler friend of my sister managed to persuade her family not to get vaccinated. Her son has recently been hospitalized and has been seriously ill with Covid including a dangerous heart inflammation. I doubt it has changed her opinion unfortunately.
It's difficult to admit one's own fault, one will find way to convince themselves that they didn't make wrong decision, things go wrong because XYZ..... It's even more difficult when the outcome is this serious. (let's not go for politics here) The first psychological phase is denial, that's quite common. The next phase, if I remember right, is anger, either angry towards whoever tell them the truth, or angry about why they were misled.
 
Interesting I don’t know that I know any anti vaxxers
Except on guy who sometimes play in a tennis four and has now been disinvited. The organiser works for phizler as they had a chat or two.
Another tennis player hasn’t been seen since a “no vax no play” at a friends private court rule, so I assume.
I also play tennis Russ and it's interesting to find that some people (and not those you might imagine) are anti-vaxxers. There are not many at our club, but there are a few. They have not been ostracised, but others are disappointed in their decision.
 
In that respect obesity, idleness and alcoholism are far greater problems than Covid.
On an aspect slightly different from Bryan's:

Did we not already have some restrictions on people's "freedom" for alcoholism etc?
One major example is age limit for tobacco and alcohol. Obviously teenagers' "right" to enjoy a cigarette or getting drunk is limited, which was not the case 100 years ago. That was a new idea, while now people (well, adults) don't even think twice about that. One might argue that people under 18 have no full right to make decision, some might disagree with that, but let's put this one aside first. For adults, we are still taxed more if you smoke or drink. Now they will tax sugar drink more. As adults, we are also not allowed to smoke in bars or restaurants anymore, which was not the case only 20 years ago. There is time limit and license control in alcohol beverage selling, especially in this country. People also think that's fine.

To push the scope even bigger, why do we need driving license? Why do we limit people's right to drive their own automobile, when we don't do that for their own bicycles? Why we need eye test for driving license? Why you can't have a pint and go drive your car even when you have a license? Not to mention in war time, even the freedom of controlling one's own property can be limited.

I think the reason that we don't limit alcohol or sugar as much, is simply that there is no clear cut on its negative effect so it's not easy to enforce. Many people have some sugar, many of us have wine every week, and the health impact is very little if any. Only when you abuse it there's an issue. There are many other substances that most people don't often take are heavily restricted by law, I am not even talking about limitation, I am talking about prison sentences.

There are always limitations on "people's freedom" in a society, the question is how the rules are decided and if they are reasonably well-balanced. In a democratic country they are discussed and debated, and decided via elected governing bodies. Of course you have the right to express opinions on where you think the balance should be, that's the whole point of public discussion, but I assume you are not suggesting that we shouldn't have any restriction, because we already have many, and we will continue to have many.

I personally think limiting unvaccinated people's "freedom" (to go to a pub?), is a reasonably balanced short term (not forever) method. At some point maybe compulsory vaccination would fall within balance, too, depends on the situation.

Transmission is a totally different argument, and the vaccines aren’t particularly good at preventing transmission.

They are not particularly good, but they do make a difference, as I am sure you are aware of.
 
I also play tennis Russ and it's interesting to find that some people (and not those you might imagine) are anti-vaxxers. There are not many at our club, but there are a few. They have not been ostracised, but others are disappointed in their decision.
Our club issued an encouragement to be vaccinated in a news letter and the person suspected hasn’t been heard from since.
There’s no exclusion or checking. Just a statement of the committee support for the vaccination.
There may be many others who just haven’t said.
 
So Dom, I think your arguments runs as follows? Please shout if I am misunderstanding.

"People who won't get the vaccine are predominantly putting their own health at risk, not the health of others, because vaccines don't prevent transmission. The unvaccinated are much more likely to suffer serious consequences from Covid if they do catch it. Restricting the freedom of these people will reduce the chances of them catching Covid and becoming a burden on the NHS; but if that's OK, why don't we also restrict the freedom of other groups, such as forcing the obese to diet, the lazy to exercise and so forth. If the latter is not OK in a free society, then why is the former?"

My response would be that in a free society we do indeed allow people to make bad decisions. Trends in problems like obesity, lack of exercise and cosumption of alcohol are widely studied, and it is possible for countries to adjust their healthcare systems accordingly over time to allow for changes in these risk factors. I would agree that while as a nation we should try to improve in these areas, explicit compulsion is not reasonable and proportionate in the context of a free society, because as a society we CAN plan for these problems. However with Covid, it's new and it is FAST. If Covid only caused health consequences in people who catch it five years or longer down the road, then there would be a reasonable argument that we can't force people to take vaccines, or limit their freedoms if they choose not to. We can only encourage them to do so, and we need to plan for the health service requirements to deal with the unvaccinated many years into the future. But that's not the case. We simply do not have the time to ramp up healthcare to deal with the consequences of people refusing to be vaccinated. Therefore restrciting their freedoms - NOT as a punishment, but as a necessary action to reduce the probability of a completely overwhelmed healthcare system - is at least arguably the right thing to do. One of the consequences of living in a society is that sometimes you have to do what is good for society as a whole, not what the individual wants to do.

You might disagree with the premise that the heathcare system is at risk of becoming overwhelmed. I honestly don't know whether this is a very high probability or not. But if the informed view of science is that it is, then I would be in favour of restricting some freedoms for the unvaccinated. Again, NOT as a punishment, but as an effective and necessary public health measure, and one that woud be abandoned as soon as it is safe to do so.

Bryan I was saying I was against “compulsory vaccination” rather than the restriction on freedoms for those who choose not to be vaccinated.

I could actually agree with that if it was proven that vaccination prevents transmission, or even if it had a large effect on it, but it appears not to. And vaccine passports have not worked in the places where they have been introduced - there is no evidence to support the use of them so on that basis I would probably be against them too.
 
Bryan I was saying I was against “compulsory vaccination” rather than the restriction on freedoms for those who choose not to be vaccinated.

I could actually agree with that if it was proven that vaccination prevents transmission, or even if it had a large effect on it, but it appears not to. And vaccine passports have not worked in the places where they have been introduced - there is no evidence to support the use of them so on that basis I would probably be against them too.
But why focus only on transmission as a metric? You seem to have overlooked the statistics I quoted above in relation to deaths.
 
You can also go to any number of walk-in centres; I got mine two weeks ago at a walk-in place, and they only wanted to know whether 1 was over 40 and that my 2nd dose was more than 6 months ago (but in practice I gathered there was some flex in application the 6mth requirement).

And I'm very glad I did, as our children's nanny has today tested positive (she was double jabbed, but had not yet had a booster). Fingers firmly crossed.
 
And vaccine passports have not worked in the places where they have been introduced - there is no evidence to support the use of them so on that basis I would probably be against them too.
Vaccine passports are only necessary because some people refuse to be vaccinated. If they got the vaccinations the need for the passports would evaporate instantly. It is being unvaccinated that 'doesn't work'.
 
his is, of course, absolutely the purpose of vaccine passports, and all other measures that make life difficult for the unvaccinated. We should think up a few more. Unvaccinated people have to drink Yellowtail and Tsing Tao? Serial offenders must drink them mixed together?
How about having to order a case of natural wine from Laithwaites?
 
But why focus only on transmission as a metric? You seem to have overlooked the statistics I quoted above in relation to deaths.

Because why else are you worried about the unvaccinated?

If you're concerned that they will overwhelm hospitals then mandatory diets, mandatory exercise or other mandatory lifestyle changes would have a bigger impact on the NHS than mandatory vaccination, especially given the number of unvaccinated is quite small. Also bear in mind the number of hospitalisations has been dropping for some time and is not out of kilter with respiratory virus hospitalisations for this time of year.

Perhaps we should make life difficult for those who are overweight? Refuse to serve them any dish over a certain number of calories? Only allow them water in restaurants and no alcohol or fizzy drinks?

If you're concerned about getting it yourself then you're just as likely to get it from somebody who has been vaccinated as you are from somebody who hasn't. The vaccines protect you, but somebody who isn't vaccinated is no more dangerous to you than somebody who is.

And if you're worried on their behalf about them dying, well frankly that's their choice and their risk.
 
I heard that after French government annoucing covid pass rule, vaccine booking website crashed due to too many people rushing in. You might know better since you are there!
As it did this week when boosters became available after 5 months for all, and they became necessary for the passport after 15 Jan (with some leeway - possibly).
It didn’t stay broken for long but it took a bit of effort for us to find boosters - partly because the major vaccination centres have closed and it’s pushed out to pharmacies and doctors. Most boosters are Moderna here which I understand is easier to administer.
 
As it did this week when boosters became available after 5 months for all, and they became necessary for the passport after 15 Jan (with some leeway - possibly).
It didn’t stay broken for long but it took a bit of effort for us to find boosters - partly because the major vaccination centres have closed and it’s pushed out to pharmacies and doctors. Most boosters are Moderna here which I understand is easier to administer.
I'd have liked Moderna but they had a 2fer on Pfizer.
 
Top