SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

massi83 said:
They have 150 people on ICU, highest in April was 560 (lowest was 12 in September). They close bars at 10pm, advocate WFH and not visiting care homes. Also some other stricter local restrictions. Their strategy doesn't differ from other countries. Tegnell understood in around June that he had misscalculated (as I repeatedly said in this thread) by around 3-4-fold and has since repeatedly said that herd immunity is not a sensible goal.

On the other hand they don't recommend mask usage, and their testing is fine but tracing and quarantine systems are a joke. So they do 5-10 times worse than Finland, even with much higher immunity from spring. Their situation is still better than most of the Europe, but worse than any other Nordic country.
Click to expand...

Interesting. Thanks. Looks like they’re still early on in this wave. Be interesting to see if they can keep their hospitals well below capacity without any stricter measures. If so, you’d have to wonder if their approach might have worked to some extent? It’s improved the quality of life of the Swedish citizen over the course of 2020 compared to countries entering their second very rigorous lockdown.

It certainly looks like it’s easier to keep under control in the Nordics than it is in mainland Europe. Presumably mainly down to less population density?
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
Interesting. Thanks. Looks like they’re still early on in this wave. Be interesting to see if they can keep their hospitals well below capacity without any stricter measures. If so, you’d have to wonder if their approach might have worked to some extent? It’s improved the quality of life of the Swedish citizen compared to countries entering their second very rigorous lockdown.

It certainly looks like it’s easier to keep under control in the Nordics than it is in mainland Europe. Presumably mainly down to less population density?
Click to expand...
Well Finland has been more open than Sweden since June, so our quality of life is better AND we have less infections.

Denmark is rather densily populated so I don’t think you can trivialise it to just that. And it is not like Helsinki is a small town. But obviously it helps.

I think it isn't so much of a case that we are so great (Taiwan, NZ, Vietnam, S Korea are far better), but rest of Europe has managed the second wave terrible all around. And our average performance looks great compared to that.

We are one of the least corrupt and most honest countries in the world. So we follow restrictions and quarantine rules better than most European societies. We have understood that test and trace only works when the numbers are low. Helsinki is quite close to having too many infections, can go either way, has been stable for 4 weeks now. Other regions should be able to deal with local outbreaks.

But sure low population density has an important part, as does our less social way of living. But to say those are only reasons is disingenuous.

And for the record, I think Norway has been the best Nordic country. And there are dozens of things Finland could/should do better.
 
massi83 said:
Well Finland has been more open than Sweden since June, so our quality of life is better AND we have less infections.

Denmark is rather densily populated so I don’t think you can trivialise it to just that. And it is not like Helsinki is a small town. But obviously it helps.

I think it isn't so much of a case that we are so great (Taiwan, NZ, Vietnam, S Korea are far better), but rest of Europe has managed the second wave terrible all around. And our average performance looks great compared to that.

We are one of the least corrupt and most honest countries in the world. So we follow restrictions and quarantine rules better than most European societies. We have understood that test and trace only works when the numbers are low. Helsinki is quite close to having too many infections, can go either way, has been stable for 4 weeks now. Other regions should be able to deal with local outbreaks.

But sure low population density has an important part, as does our less social way of living. But to say those are only reasons is disingenuous.

And for the record, I think Norway has been the best Nordic country. And there are dozens of things Finland could/should do better.
Click to expand...

If you’ve been more open than Sweden since June (which, in turn, has been more open than Britain, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Ireland etc) how come the Nordics are so much less affected by this second wave? Is it all about individual compliance? Even if the rules they’re complying with are less strict?
 
tombombadil said:
Well there are many options and not all require violence. One example that has been shown in the past with other vaccines, is requiring vaccination in order for children to attend schools. Another example would be, making people pay for mandatory testing if they want to travel to other countries in their country's travel bubble. Or outright banning them from travel even. Another example would be banning people from attending football matches if they are not vaccinated. Another option would be making them pay for their own healthcare should they get infected. These are the vanilla examples. There are more options, like what Pexbo has mentioned. Fines. Or charging these people for breaking the law.


Exactly. Definitely options on the table. Not everything has to be violent.
Click to expand...
Actually had a similar conversation with a solicitor that we know. I was saying they could incentivise taking the vaccines, such as letting people go to sports matches. She said that in Ireland because of the constitution you wouldn’t be able to do that as you can’t infringe on their freedom to go to a match etc. I’m not sure about that, I would have thought that a public health directive would trump everything
 
Pogue Mahone said:
If you’ve been more open than Sweden since June (which, in turn, has been more open than Britain, Italy, Belgium, Spain, Ireland etc) how come the Nordics are so much less affected by this second wave? Is it all about individual compliance? Even if the rules they’re complying with are less strict?
Click to expand...
That would be the short answer, yes. And a pretty well functioning (not perfectly) test/trace/quarantine-system. We have had multiple local outbreaks in University towns, but they have all been dealt with-in couple of weeks. And the messaging from authorities has been consistent in that, we want to keep the numbers low enough for testing and tracing to work, whereas in many places in Europe governments have only started to act when hospitals are getting fuller and we know by now, that sooner you act, the less restrictions you need. Compare that to the Czech Republic who were celebrating the end of covid in May/June.

Also we have good capabilities for WFH and social security networks.
 
massi83 said:
That would be the short answer, yes. And a pretty well functioning (not perfectly) test/trace/quarantine-system. We have had multiple local outbreaks in University towns, but they have all been dealt with-in couple of weeks. And the messaging from authorities has been consistent in that, we want to keep the numbers low enough for testing and tracing to work, whereas in many places in Europe governments have only started to act when hospitals are getting fuller and we know by now, that sooner you act, the less restrictions you need. Compare that to the Czech Republic who were celebrating the end of covid in May/June.

Also we have good capabilities for WFH and social security networks.
Click to expand...

That’s what has me confused though. I’m thinking from an Irish perspective where we acted quickly and have flattened this second wave before it got out of hand. So this isn’t about a government being slow to act. But the wave got well underway despite us never fully opening up. The majority of our bars have been shut since March and we’ve had all sorts of restrictions to comply with throughout summer.

If you’ve been more open than Sweden (and hence, Ireland) all summer how have you controlled outbreaks so successfully without lockdowns? Have you seen data on compliance with restrictions of movement while waiting for test etc? Or number of contacts per case? Are they consistently very low? Are you just a very compliant society? Or is something else going on?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That’s what has me confused though. I’m thinking from an Irish perspective where we acted quickly and have flattened this second wave before it got out of hand. So this isn’t about a government being slow to act. But the wave got well underway despite us never fully opening up. The majority of our bars have been shut since March and we’ve had all sorts of restrictions to comply with throughout summer.

If you’ve been more open than Sweden (and hence, Ireland) all summer how have you controlled outbreaks so successfully without lockdowns? Have you seen data on compliance with restrictions of movement while waiting for test etc? Or number of contacts per case? Are they consistently very low? Are you just a very compliant society? Or is something else going on?
Click to expand...
Hard to say. Probably a combination of all the things I have mentioned and what you have thought and some other things neither of us have any clue. I haven't heard any stories of people not adhering to the quarantines for example. I don't have any data on those things unfortunately. They do mention those sometimes in press conferences but not in a way that can be compared against other countries. We are consistently in the top 5 least corrupt countries in the world (among Den, Sin, Nz, Nor, Swe) and do take great pride in our honesty.
 
massi83 said:
Hard to say. Probably a combination of all the things I have mentioned and what you have thought and some other things neither of us have any clue. I haven't heard any stories of people not adhering to the quarantines for example. I don't have any data on those things unfortunately. They do mention those sometimes in press conferences but not in a way that can be compared against other countries. We are consistently in the top 5 least corrupt countries in the world (among Den, Sin, Nz, Nor, Swe) and do take great pride in our honesty.
Click to expand...

That’s interesting. I don’t have any data either but it’s fair to say that, culturally, we would take more pride in working out how to evade government interventions than we would in complying with them. Which might be similar in a lot of the badly hit countries.

I was just reading a story in the paper today about the pubs in Dublin airports (the only pubs in Ireland currently allowed to open) being unusually busy because people were buying €10 flights, settling in for a day of drinking then heading home without ever going near an aeroplane.
 
golden_blunder said:
Actually had a similar conversation with a solicitor that we know. I was saying they could incentivise taking the vaccines, such as letting people go to sports matches. She said that in Ireland because of the constitution you wouldn’t be able to do that as you can’t infringe on their freedom to go to a match etc. I’m not sure about that, I would have thought that a public health directive would trump everything
Click to expand...
Well, I guess that's going to make things trickier. I wonder if they have public health provisions in place that might override that? Or would an act of parliament legislation be needed?
 
Brwned said:
Yes I agree we need to listen to their advice. I don't think their consensus advice is that we should make vaccination mandatory. Not yet anyway, in part because some of them don't share your ethical and political views and in part because they're still waiting on two critical pieces of evidence - how much does it break chains of transmission and, partly as a result, how many people do we absolutely need to vaccinate.

In any case, my point was less about the proposed strategy, and more about the sentiment informing it.



I think it would be great if everyone got vaccinated. I expect most people who are offered it cheaply and easily will take it. I don't think we need force to achieve that. Presumably we have different views on the current state of society but inevitably neither of us are right about that, it's just a loosely informed perception.

There are unintended consequences of almost every major policy and in this case yes we want people to take the vaccine to kill the virus, but we also want them to take many of the other voluntary but recommended vaccines further down the line too. How we deal with this vaccine will clearly have an impact on the anti-vaxxer movement, and the public health officials have repeatedly acknowledged the precariousness of the current situation.

If the policy is informed by the notion that we don't care about stupid citizens' delusional notions about freedom then the people you are actively dismissing will read into that much more broadly than this vaccine. There are a lot of those people. I'd suggest a different kind of public health messaging would be as effective and have fewer consequences. The public health officials you suggest we should listen to seem to take a similar position.

Masks are a different issue. Many of them do advocate for it being mandatory and I'd suggest that because the risk of potential opposing reactions and longer term effects is much smaller.
Click to expand...
Well, we will know for sure once the phase 3/4 results are out whether the vaccines are viable or not. We can only hope for the best. *fingers crossed*

As for messaging, there is nothing we can do about that. No matter what we do, there will always be anti science and other nonsense going around. This will be a fact of life we have to live with, as long as we allow lying as a profitable industry. The gov just has to be strong and firm on their messaging and plan their education and implementation strategies carefully.
 
I am finding it hard to gauge what I should be doing in my current situation.

My wife got back a positive test on Wednesday, I then went in and got a test and got a negative (both blood tests). I am self employed, so we immediately went into quarantine and I have tried to stay in one separate bedroom and living space.

I am going to get myself tested again in a few days time to see where I am at. If that’s a positive, I will just have to see out my quarantine period. My question is if I continue to test negative.

How long before my wife isn’t seen as potentially infectious again and I can be round her? And, if I continue to test negative, how long do I have to wait to responsibly return to work?

I know symptoms can take up to 14 days in some cases, and I want to be as responsible as possible. So I guess i would see out the 14 days before returning regardless?

My wife is well and was shocked to get the positive test. She has had no real symptoms apart from remembering she may have felt a bit sore last Sunday.
 
finneh said:
Absolutely this. I'm stunned that anyone would want to live in a country where you're forcibly restrained/sedated whilst someone on the government payroll shoves a needle in your arm. That's before even thinking about how unfair it would be to expect medical professionals to carry this out against people's will.

Alongside the desire amongst certain groups for the use of far greater government force in restricting movement, far greater surveillance of the populace, the celebrating of coercive police practices and the desire to enforce draconian measures that cost other people their lives and livelihood; it makes me very worried about how future governments will harness the power of fear (similar to what happened after 9/11).

It's even more mind boggling as the very same people who want authoritarianism thrust upon them are often massively loathing and distrusting of the current government, despite wanting them to hold sweeping new powers. You'll hear someone talk of the horrors brought upon the poorest in society in one breath and then want that same government to have carte blanche to forcibly inject those same vulnerable people in another. It seems absurd to me.

As a previous poster mentioned in terms of a vaccine a tax incentive would be a far greater and less terrifying thought.
Click to expand...

Agree entirely with the above, but the highlighted sentence in particular.

I've frequented Reddit during the pandemic as it's a decent source of articles etc. A week or two ago someone posted an article about a legal lecture given by Lord Sumption QC (one of the finest legal minds alive), the upshot of which was that he highlighted grave concern over a Government limiting fundamental freedoms without seeking authority from Parliament. The vast majority of comments were from people calling him a "gammon" and completely missing the point. He has some opinions on how the virus should be handled which I don't agree with, but his point (this being a lecture on law, to lawyers) was obvious - that the whole point of having the checks and balances we have in our system is to prevent tyranny.

Under a threat of an admittedly nasty virus (although one which the vast majority of us would survive) millions have willingly given that up and have no issue whatsoever with the executive making decisions without the legislature approving it. You are correct that those people actively criticise the Government (perhaps correctly) at every turn.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
How does the idea that the government would sedate and forcibly inject people with vaccines even exist? What level of paranoia do you need to think of that as an even vaguely likely outcome?
Click to expand...

Once a vaccine is being produced in enough numbers it doesn't really need to be forced. Those that choose to be vaccinated can be safe, those that don't can take the risk.
 
finneh said:
Absolutely this. I'm stunned that anyone would want to live in a country where you're forcibly restrained/sedated whilst someone on the government payroll shoves a needle in your arm. That's before even thinking about how unfair it would be to expect medical professionals to carry this out against people's will.

Alongside the desire amongst certain groups for the use of far greater government force in restricting movement, far greater surveillance of the populace, the celebrating of coercive police practices and the desire to enforce draconian measures that cost other people their lives and livelihood; it makes me very worried about how future governments will harness the power of fear (similar to what happened after 9/11).

It's even more mind boggling as the very same people who want authoritarianism thrust upon them are often massively loathing and distrusting of the current government, despite wanting them to hold sweeping new powers. You'll hear someone talk of the horrors brought upon the poorest in society in one breath and then want that same government to have carte blanche to forcibly inject those same vulnerable people in another. It seems absurd to me.

As a previous poster mentioned in terms of a vaccine a tax incentive would be a far greater and less terrifying thought.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
Maluco said:
My wife got back a positive test on Wednesday, I then went in and got a test and got a negative (both blood tests). I am self employed, so we immediately went into quarantine and I have tried to stay in one separate bedroom and living space.
Click to expand...
Blood tests? They're standard for antibody testing (which tell you if you've already had the virus) but not for active infection testing. Do you know what the test was?
 
11101 said:
Once a vaccine is being produced in enough numbers it doesn't really need to be forced. Those that choose to be vaccinated can be safe, those that don't can take the risk.
Click to expand...
I agree with you if the vaccine simply protects the infected person.

If it turns out that it also protects other people (by stopping a vaccinated person passing it on) then societal pressure/encouragement seems reasonable.

Testing/quarantine regulations could be eased on vaccinated people travelling for example. A quick test pre-flight and you're ready to go if you're vaccinated Vs test on departure + test post-arrival + quarantine if you're not. Similarly you could ask for it for people visiting care homes - where unfortunately it's likely that even the best vaccines won't be safe/efficient for all residents, so they'll try to stop it coming in.

But for now that's all academic, it may be another year before we know what the first crop of vaccines actually do or understand their safety profiles. By which time the debate may changed again with genuinely cheap/easyfunctional fast testing etc available as an alternative as well as a lot more confidence/experience from the vaccine data.
 
jojojo said:
Blood tests? They're standard for antibody testing (which tell you if you've already had the virus) but not for active infection testing. Do you know what the test was?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don’t have the name for the test. It is a blood test offered at pharmacies here. It takes about 20 minutes and shows both a line for active virus and a line for antibody presence.

They say it has a 98% hit rate, but who really knows. There is so much we don’t know about the virus, nevermind the way it is tested.

My wife was shown that she tested positive for active virus and told to quarantine for 15 days.

There is a lot of misinformation here, but we have to try and go on what we are being told and try to avoid putting others at risk.
 
Last edited:
RedRover said:
Agree entirely with the above, but the highlighted sentence in particular.

I've frequented Reddit during the pandemic as it's a decent source of articles etc. A week or two ago someone posted an article about a legal lecture given by Lord Sumption QC (one of the finest legal minds alive), the upshot of which was that he highlighted grave concern over a Government limiting fundamental freedoms without seeking authority from Parliament. The vast majority of comments were from people calling him a "gammon" and completely missing the point. He has some opinions on how the virus should be handled which I don't agree with, but his point (this being a lecture on law, to lawyers) was obvious - that the whole point of having the checks and balances we have in our system is to prevent tyranny.

Under a threat of an admittedly nasty virus (although one which the vast majority of us would survive) millions have willingly given that up and have no issue whatsoever with the executive making decisions without the legislature approving it. You are correct that those people actively criticise the Government (perhaps correctly) at every turn.
Click to expand...

I've read a few articles by him that in my view have been spot on. Especially regarding the use of the PHA to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. He's not bad for a quote either "When societies lose their liberty, it is not usually because some despot has crushed it under his boot. It is because people voluntarily surrendered their liberty out of fear of some external threat.”

We're already seeing very concerning signs that this government believes they're above scrutiny in my opinion (even excluding the aforementioned). The cronyism that we've seen in terms of the awarding of PPE and shipping contracts for example. The internal markets bill is another obvious one. The championing of police usage of disproportionate and coercive powers. The increase in custody time limits meaning innocent people are spending 8 months incarcerated without trial. Even the fact that the emergency act went through "on the nod" without any proper debate should be cause for real concern.
 
Matt Hancock appearing on GMB tomorrow after a government boycott of over 200 days.

In other news this is great.

 
I guess it’s what is being used here to test more quickly. The swabs are taking a long time to be processed.

I think it shows two types of anybody response. One of longer term (starting at 3 weeks out) and one is short term (from about 10-13 days ago)

So I would guess from that, that my wife is probably over the worst and it was a relatively harmless contact. We still don’t know how to proceed though. We may have to get swab tests and just wait out the considerable waiting time.
 
Maluco said:
I guess it’s what is being used here to test more quickly. The swabs are taking a long time to be processed.

I think it shows two types of anybody response. One of longer term (starting at 3 weeks out) and one is short term (from about 10-13 days ago)

So I would guess from that, that my wife is probably over the worst and it was a relatively harmless contact. We still don’t know how to proceed though. We may have to get swab tests and just wait out the considerable waiting time.
Click to expand...
That sounds like it’s antibodies, I’ve had one done here and that’s what it sounds like, think you’d need a swab test as you say to know if you have an active infection
 
Snowjoe said:
That sounds like it’s antibodies, I’ve had one done here and that’s what it sounds like, think you’d need a swab test as you say to know if you have an active infection
Click to expand...

They only give out swabs here after a doctor seeks permission and there are no symptoms in the family at present.

Difficult to know what to do. I guess it’s just to follow quarantine and confirm that symptoms don’t show up.

Antibody test clearly being used here to suggest an active virus. (The shorter term presence result)
 
finneh said:
I've read a few articles by him that in my view have been spot on. Especially regarding the use of the PHA to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. He's not bad for a quote either "When societies lose their liberty, it is not usually because some despot has crushed it under his boot. It is because people voluntarily surrendered their liberty out of fear of some external threat.”

We're already seeing very concerning signs that this government believes they're above scrutiny in my opinion (even excluding the aforementioned). The cronyism that we've seen in terms of the awarding of PPE and shipping contracts for example. The internal markets bill is another obvious one. The championing of police usage of disproportionate and coercive powers. The increase in custody time limits meaning innocent people are spending 8 months incarcerated without trial. Even the fact that the emergency act went through "on the nod" without any proper debate should be cause for real concern.
Click to expand...

Yes , he's a very clever man. As well as sitting in the Supreme Court he's a historian and that gives insight into the point he makes in the quote above.

I'm a lawyer so I have studied and understand the idea of separation of powers probably more than the average person might but he's making very valid points. To dismiss those points without considering them shows nothing more than ignorance.

It's almost as if some in the UK think the idea of separation of powers isn't needed here because we're clearly above all that, and presumably only required in other parts of the world where dictatorships and human rights abuses run rampant. My view, we elect MP's to Parliament for just this type of thing. When action needs to be taken (and this instance, it clearly was) the Executive should set out it's case, present it's evidence and let Parliament decide.

All of those things are very concerning. Small changes all add up to bigger things down the line.
 
finneh said:
Absolutely this. I'm stunned that anyone would want to live in a country where you're forcibly restrained/sedated whilst someone on the government payroll shoves a needle in your arm. That's before even thinking about how unfair it would be to expect medical professionals to carry this out against people's will.

Alongside the desire amongst certain groups for the use of far greater government force in restricting movement, far greater surveillance of the populace, the celebrating of coercive police practices and the desire to enforce draconian measures that cost other people their lives and livelihood; it makes me very worried about how future governments will harness the power of fear (similar to what happened after 9/11).

It's even more mind boggling as the very same people who want authoritarianism thrust upon them are often massively loathing and distrusting of the current government, despite wanting them to hold sweeping new powers. You'll hear someone talk of the horrors brought upon the poorest in society in one breath and then want that same government to have carte blanche to forcibly inject those same vulnerable people in another. It seems absurd to me.

As a previous poster mentioned in terms of a vaccine a tax incentive would be a far greater and less terrifying thought.
Click to expand...

When has anybody ever suggested forcibly sticking a needle in people? Not so much a straw man as a straw giant.

If any country does ever make it compulsory, which is unlikely in democracies, it will be in the way we make wearing seatbelts compulsory. More likely is it will just be strongly encouraged.
 
Last edited:
11101 said:
Once a vaccine is being produced in enough numbers it doesn't really need to be forced. Those that choose to be vaccinated can be safe, those that don't can take the risk.
Click to expand...

That isn't at all true. Choosing not to vaccinate affects the whole of society because without reaching HIT not only those who choose not to vaccinate are at riskbut you endanger those who often can't be protected directly by a vaccine e.g. immune compromised,very young, aged people

Not vaccinating yourself in general is a deeply selfish act.
 
Wibble said:
When has anybody ever suggested forcibly sticking a needle in people? Not so much a straw man as a straw giant.

If any country does ever make it compulsory, which is unlikely in democracies, it will be in the way we make wearing seatbelts compulsory. More likely is it will just be strongly encouraged.
Click to expand...

If someone says something is mandatory that generally means it's compulsory.

If something is compulsory the law would either have to enforce it by force or presumably would have to punish people on a progressively severe scale to coerce them into it.

If you continually refuse to have a vaccine what would be the progression of punishments? I'm genuinely interested as I can imagine an educational course to start with, maybe then a fine, progressing to maybe community service... Then what? Prison?

Strongly encouraging something is of course completely different to making it mandatory.
 
finneh said:
I've read a few articles by him that in my view have been spot on. Especially regarding the use of the PHA to avoid parliamentary scrutiny. He's not bad for a quote either "When societies lose their liberty, it is not usually because some despot has crushed it under his boot. It is because people voluntarily surrendered their liberty out of fear of some external threat.”

We're already seeing very concerning signs that this government believes they're above scrutiny in my opinion (even excluding the aforementioned). The cronyism that we've seen in terms of the awarding of PPE and shipping contracts for example. The internal markets bill is another obvious one. The championing of police usage of disproportionate and coercive powers. The increase in custody time limits meaning innocent people are spending 8 months incarcerated without trial. Even the fact that the emergency act went through "on the nod" without any proper debate should be cause for real concern.
Click to expand...

Who did you vote for?
 
Tibs said:
On that note - has there been much data around people who have been infected in first wave, recovered, but then had it again in the second wave?
Click to expand...
Very few confirmed cases reported of this happening so far. Still early days though. I would imagine Boris would be immune if exposed a second time- had a serious case the first time and likely has immunity. Trump on the other hand possibly could get it again as it is possible the monoclonal antibodies he received tackled the virus before he had a chance to mount an effective immune response. That’s me speculating anyway.
 
finneh said:
2010 - didn't vote
2015 - didn't vote
2017 - Conservative
2019 - an independent who said he'd give his salary to charity
Click to expand...

Then park your musings at the door. Your inventing nonsensical premises and getting people to expand on them.

Nobody is supporting FORCED vaccination. You’re inventing straw men and turning them into bogeymen.

You voted for people that treat humans like subjects. I see why you think this may manifest, but you voted for them. So stand back and stand by I guess.
 
Andy_Cole said:
Someone as important as him could sure just get tested everyday (get results in hours and isolate until the results every morning). Weird he’d need to isolate for 2 weeks.
Click to expand...

Probably happy enough being locked up in Carrie’s sex boudoir for a couple of weeks.
 
Wibble said:
When has anybody ever suggested forcibly sticking a needle in people? Not so much a straw man as a straw giant.

If any country does ever make it compulsory, which is unlikely in democracies, it will be in the way we make wearing seatbelts compulsory. More likely is it will just be strongly encouraged.
Click to expand...

I saw the other day that Ticketmaster have stated that proof of having the vaccine or proof of a negative test result 72 hours before a concert/show will be required to purchase tickets/attend the event.

I think the same will be true of air travel and attending sporting events going forward too.

Nobody will forcibly stick a needle in your arm, but it will be compulsorily to get back to some semblance of normality for most people.

The antivaccine crazies are out in force on Facebook. They seem to be converting a lot of people at the moment :(
 
Garethw said:
The antivaccine crazies are out in force on Facebook. They seem to be converting a lot of people at the moment :(
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry too much about the crazies.
The national flu vaccination programme runs usually from September to November in the UK. In 2018/19 1.4 million flu jabs were given. 2019/2020 it was 1.71 million. It took just under 2 months into this year's flu programme to beat that 1.7 million number which was easily passed by October end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.