Coronavirus (COVID-19 Outbreak) (69 Viewers)

May 25, 2019
458
Look, if these vaccines don't do crap to stop you from being a carrier of SARS-Cov-2 and spreading it to everyone you come in contact with, you bet your sweet pehookies that it will have to be used all across the world.
If you can protect yourself, your family and friends from getting long haul COVID or worse, isn't that a very good thing? We cannot be responsible for everyone's actions. If others choose not to be vaccinated if/when it is proven to be safe but people that get the vaccine can still be asymptomatic carriers, they are potentially playing Russian Roulette. That is their choice. If taking the vaccine means that if I get the virus that my body will kick the shit out of it vs. the opposite happening, I'm taking it and IMO it is doing what I need it to do to be able to return to a somewhat normal life.
 

Buy on AliExpress.com

s4tch

Senior Member
Mar 23, 2015
28,458
Apparently Hungary is going to test it first. Just avoid anything with 'Sputnik' written on it.

It's an international arms race for vaccines, isn't it? Russia doing Russian things.
yup, we will have to choose between the different vaccines. besides the russian, european and murican stuff, we'll have the chinese one too :nico:
 

swag

L'autista
Administrator
Sep 23, 2003
83,483
So, what's your take on this and what'll be needed in order to get back to normal?

I'd happily take the vaccine if it means you can't really get sick. I also think if we all take the vaccin no-one really gets sick so being a carrier wouldn't such a big deal
Oh, if you believe in its safety (and you generally should, because they test for that first way way before they test efficacy), there is no reason not to get it if you can. But you getting a shot doesn't suddenly return the world to "normal", as if that was ever a thing.

If you can protect yourself, your family and friends from getting long haul COVID or worse, isn't that a very good thing? We cannot be responsible for everyone's actions. If others choose not to be vaccinated if/when it is proven to be safe but people that get the vaccine can still be asymptomatic carriers, they are potentially playing Russian Roulette. That is their choice. If taking the vaccine means that if I get the virus that my body will kick the shit out of it vs. the opposite happening, I'm taking it and IMO it is doing what I need it to do to be able to return to a somewhat normal life.
That's absolutely a good thing. But you'd be a moron if you thought that we could have "vaccination passports", for example. That somehow since you've had the vaccine, you could go back to shaking hands, singing loudly in church choirs, restaurants could open to 100% capacity, and music events can return in bars. It doesn't. Because if anybody near any of those scenarios is not vaccinated, or they end up in that 5% where it isn't working for them, you still are contributing to community spread. And the more people who show symptoms with community spread, the more your ICU beds will fill up.

The good news is that it should reduce those incidents, definitely. But human behavior is a weird thing. Volvo drivers are notorious for taking aggressive risks because they have faith in the safety of their vehicles, ultimately making roads less safe - not more. (See: Risk Homeostasis Theory.) Thus it could be quite likely that vaccinated people could participate in extremely risky behavior, creating havoc for everyone around them who either lacks immunity or isn't vaccinated.

Which makes me think of the dangers of driving in D.C. in the snow, where you have a mix of transplants in the North who know how to drive in the snow combined with transplants from the South who think they can emulate them... causing massive car wrecks.

Your assumptions about vaccine distribution here are also pretty unrealistic... it's a mass scale and not everyone will be able to get it at the same time. Not everyone will react with the same efficacy (think: all the obese people in America where flu shot efficacy is often poor). Not everyone will be able to take it even if they have access (allergies, immune system compromises, anti-vaxx nutjobs, etc.). And there will be people hopping on airplanes and flying to nations who are wholly unprepared for carriers with zero social distancing instincts.

there’s some real fun stuff in that county. Bryce, Grand Staircase-Escalante, capital reef, and Panguitch.
Love those areas, btw. :)

It's a region of the country that I would like to visit one day for sure.
You must.

So even the Russian vaccine that was heavily criticized probably has around 95% effectiveness

:snoop:
Because if you die of Polonium-210, you won't have died of COVID? ;)
 
May 25, 2019
458
That's absolutely a good thing. But you'd be a moron if you thought that we could have "vaccination passports", for example. That somehow since you've had the vaccine, you could go back to shaking hands, singing loudly in church choirs, restaurants could open to 100% capacity, and music events can return in bars. It doesn't. Because if anybody near any of those scenarios is not vaccinated, or they end up in that 5% where it isn't working for them, you still are contributing to community spread. And the more people who show symptoms with community spread, the more your ICU beds will fill up.

The good news is that it should reduce those incidents, definitely. But human behavior is a weird thing. Volvo drivers are notorious for taking aggressive risks because they have faith in the safety of their vehicles, ultimately making roads less safe - not more. (See: Risk Homeostasis Theory.) Thus it could be quite likely that vaccinated people could participate in extremely risky behavior, creating havoc for everyone around them who either lacks immunity or isn't vaccinated.

Which makes me think of the dangers of driving in D.C. in the snow, where you have a mix of transplants in the North who know how to drive in the snow combined with transplants from the South who think they can emulate them... causing massive car wrecks.

Your assumptions about vaccine distribution here are also pretty unrealistic... it's a mass scale and not everyone will be able to get it at the same time. Not everyone will react with the same efficacy (think: all the obese people in America where flu shot efficacy is often poor). Not everyone will be able to take it even if they have access (allergies, immune system compromises, anti-vaxx nutjobs, etc.). And there will be people hopping on airplanes and flying to nations who are wholly unprepared for carriers with zero social distancing instincts.
All valid points, I for one would not just throw caution to the wind if I got the vaccine. As you say the vaccine won't be widely distributed within a few months so life won't just go back to normal with the snap of your fingers. I am considered overweight so if there is less than 95% efficacy because of that then that is a bit sobering.
 

JuveJay

Senior Signor
Moderator
Mar 6, 2007
72,461
So the government has put my local region (Coventry & Warwickshire) into the harshest tier 3 when the national lockdown ends on December 2nd. This despite the local daily numbers dropping quite rapidly and the city itself being comfortably within tier 2 guidelines. This is because they lump this area in with Solihull, Birmingham, Black Country and the greater West Midlands Local Authority, who have higher numbers. Makes no sense at all. Those areas are 25 miles away and separated by green belt land. Warks was tier 1 before the lockdown but is now tier 3....how is that even possible?

One of the biggest gripes about this is that pubs in tier 3 areas are not open (for groups of up to 6 people) over the festive period. There's no way that pubs would be as busy as they typically would because the majority of people are still very wary or fearful of the virus, but there would likely have still been many going for the traditional Christmas drink and bit of food in those small groups. You also can't mix households outside of the 5 days where restrictions are lifted (23-27th December). So what are people going to do on NYE? It's obvious what will happen.

I think doing things like this will have a worse affect than the government realise. If you are in a high risk area then that is absolutely correct, if not then people feel slighted, and all that will happen is that people will meet up in greater numbers in households, all over Christmas and not just the 5 days where restrictions are lifted, and come January those areas will have big spikes again and more problems.
 

Gian

COME HOME MOGGI
Apr 12, 2009
17,485
Canada post-Thanksgiving is probably the best example we can get after the holiday season in Europe where in most countries the infection rate remains quite high. Pretty sure we'll see a 3rd wave somewhere in January. People wanting to celebrate this year's holiday as if any other are beyond stupid. This year won't be normal, just like 1944 Christmas during WW 2 wasn't normal.
 

Siamak

╭∩╮( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)╭∩╮
Aug 13, 2013
15,024
someone sent it to me and said that those bodies are dead because of corona and selling all kidney and heart to black market organ donor.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 53)