If Any Future Lockdowns- Should Be The Unvaccinated

NYboro said:
It is well-known that if you are vaccinated you are much less likely to die. Until I retired, I was getting weekly briefings from the hospital system where I worked - in New York where vaccination is mandatory for everyone who works in healthcare.
Click to expand...
Not what I said though NY and it's not how triage is used. If someone is going to die regardless of what you do, you make them comfortable and let them die whilst you use resources on someone you can save.

Vaccinated are less likely to die, that's true as far as it goes. Once they need a ventilator I suspect the vaccine has failed for them and they may be as likely to die as an unvaccinated person who needs a ventilator. At that point, if you have limited ventilators you triage.
 

Attachments

  • 4FDB8402-C1DE-4053-908A-594F60A1E432.jpeg
    4FDB8402-C1DE-4053-908A-594F60A1E432.jpeg
    88.1 KB · Views: 9
It is irresponsible reporting you are right. The balance is shifting continually towards vaccinated people more and more. I don't think this is solely down to more and more people getting vaccinated. I think it is also down to protection wearing off at a quicker rate than we are giving boosters. Lemme look for the graph on this and post it.
 
Laughing said:
It is irresponsible reporting you are right. The balance is shifting continually towards vaccinated people more and more. I don't think this is solely down to more and more people getting vaccinated. I think it is also down to protection wearing off at a quicker rate than we are giving boosters. Lemme look for the graph on this and post it.
Click to expand...
Like this one?
 

Attachments

  • 74801463-ACA6-40EB-8E78-C5FB9E9AAE29.jpeg
    74801463-ACA6-40EB-8E78-C5FB9E9AAE29.jpeg
    58.8 KB · Views: 8
Laughing said:
Got it. You might feel that way. We currently use a system that saves the most lives, with the resources you have, triage.

It's the best system there is when you have sub optimal care facilities.
Click to expand...
No, the best system is for everyone to get vaccinated, and get a booster as soon as they're eligible.

Limit the risk, in the easiest, most cost effective, least additional risk way, before adding secondary risk reduction measures.

It's better for the unvaccinated, if some of the other unvaccinated get vaccinated, and then the vaccinated win too (or lose less). The unvaccinated are their own worst enemy.

Currently vaccinated people are being effectively punished for something they've done their bit to try and prevent (which works).
 
Andy_W said:
No, the best system is for everyone to get vaccinated, and get a booster as soon as they're eligible.

Limit the risk, in the easiest, most cost effective, least additional risk way, before adding secondary risk reduction measures.

It's better for the unvaccinated, if some of the other unvaccinated get vaccinated, and then the vaccinated win too (or lose less).

Currently vaccinated people are being effectively punished for something they've done their bit to try and prevent (which works).
Click to expand...
I wouldn't argue against that. Its not really the theme of the thread.

We can hope everyone gets vaccinated! It's not going to happen so we have to deal with the reality.
 
Laughing said:
I wouldn't argue against that. Its not really the theme of the thread.

We can hope everyone gets vaccinated! It's not going to happen so we have to deal with the reality.
Click to expand...
But reality could be effectively ask people to get vaccinated, and if they don't do that then restrict them to only essential situations (family, school, work etc) and not allow access to high risk situations which are not as essential, pubs, restaurants, footy matches etc.

Businesses wouldn't take much of a hit, if any, more people would go out if they knew it was safer, the pubs are still comparatively quiet, so something is stopping them.

I don't think we're at that stage yet, mind, as I think we're nearing HIT due to our previous **** ups. But if it got much worse, then I think that's how it should be, for the good of the NHS.
 
Andy_W said:
But reality could be effectively ask people to get vaccinated, and if they don't do that then restrict them to only essential situations (family, school, work etc) and not allow access to high risk situations which are not as essential, pubs, restaurants, footy matches etc.

Businesses wouldn't take much of a hit, if any, more people would go out if they knew it was safer, the pubs are still comparatively quiet, so something is stopping them.

I don't think we're at that stage yet, mind, as I think we're nearing HIT due to our previous **** ups. But if it got much worse, then I think that's how it should be, for the good of the NHS.
Click to expand...
You know what I think of that Andy.
 
Laughing said:
You know what I think of that Andy.
Click to expand...
Do the crime, do the time, or if you're good then you can have your reward, or something like that.

It's extremely petty and shouldn't have to be like that, but if grown adults act worse than kids, then I've no problem treating them like that, if it gives healthcare the best chance, which it would.

It could be either lock them down, or lock everyone down, and I'm sure if that was the choice then I know what most peoples choice would be.

By lockdown I don't mean "lockdown", I mean some light restrictions, which will pummel pubs and restaurants, which nobody wants.
 
Andy_W said:
No, the best system is for everyone to get vaccinated, and get a booster as soon as they're eligible.

Limit the risk, in the easiest, most cost effective, least additional risk way, before adding secondary risk reduction measures.

It's better for the unvaccinated, if some of the other unvaccinated get vaccinated, and then the vaccinated win too (or lose less). The unvaccinated are their own worst enemy.

Currently vaccinated people are being effectively punished for something they've done their bit to try and prevent (which works).
Click to expand...
Next set of boosters after this one in the back end of spring? 2 a year? Plus a flu jab for those who want it.

Some Tory minster somewhere will be rubbing his greasy hands together.
 
Randy said:
Next set of boosters after this one in the back end of spring? 2 a year? Plus a flu jab for those who want it.

Some Tory minster somewhere will be rubbing his greasy hands together.
Click to expand...
Each booster should provide higher and longer protection, assuming no mutations.

Most of the oldies had their second what, 6 months ago? So if they need another it will likely be well after summer, if at all, but it'll be well and truly endemic by then.

It could get combined with a flu jab mind, they're probably looking at that.
 
Andy_W said:
Each booster should provide higher and longer protection, assuming no mutations.

Most of the oldies had their second what, 6 months ago? So if they need another it will likely be well after summer, if at all, but it'll be well and truly endemic by then.

It could get combined with a flu jab mind, they're probably looking at that.
Click to expand...
Can a few antivxers please answer a question for me- do you get your kids the usual vaccines?
 
Large gatherings, ie football matches, gigs etc
Unless it's for health reasons get your vaccine its not difficult is it.

Vaccination will help prevent further restrictions as infections are rising.

3 doses reduces infection by 93% if the selfish lot who don't get vaccinated don't what restrictions get your acts together and get jabbed. 💪
delgrapos said:
With respect, who do you mean by "others", borgelite?
Click to expand...
Large gatherings, ie football matches, gigs etc
Unless it's for health reasons get your vaccine is not difficult is it.

Vaccination will help prevent further restrictions as infections are rising.

3 doses reduces infection by 93% if the selfish lot who don't get vaccinated don't what restrictions get your acts together and get jabbed. 💪
delgrapos said:
With respect, who do you mean by "others", borgelite?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top