Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?

[Angelo]

Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?

Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.

But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.

Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.

But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.

Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.

They certainly have failed.

Lockdown 3.0 with record numbers.

It might slow down our COVID death toll but you are thinking of this matter through a COVID tunnel vision. Lockdowns might stop the spread of COVID to a certain degree but bring huge negative consequences to vulnerable groupings nevermind the widespread, long term devastating impacts they have.

Not a single confirmed case of flu this year yet Covid is rampant? Is nobody skeptical of this or at least a little bit curious?

[Angelo]

Can any of the sane posters here imagine what would have happened if we had carried on as normal from last March without restrictions/lockdowns???

Can any sane poster here point out to this idiot where someone has advocated for ZERO restrictions like before March 2019??

No, didn't think so.

This is the type of crap you have to deal with from idiots on here and it rules out any kind of informed and progressive discussion on this.

I would imagine the same idiot would have got the year right

No difference.

It shows the level of misleading and disingenuous debate people like Rossfan engage in.

Nobody, I repeat nobody, I have seen on this thread has ever advocated no restrictions yet Rossfan has now created a strawman argument because he is unable to debate with people on the real issue here.

Why are the pro lockdown crew so willing to dismiss how prolonged lockdown restrictions have serious repercussions on society.

I am looking for a reasonable debate here where people can stand back and look at the pros and cons of both sides and see which cours of action is best but consistently you have what we have just seen from the likes of Rossfan.

Illogical, dismissive, dogmatic strawman arguments.

f**k everyone else because it doesn't bother him.

The first lockdown was entirely correct thing to do but governments all across Europe fucked it up royally and failed to address the fundamental issues and are now using lockdown to diminish their responsibility.

[JoG2]

so no alternative

Doesn't work like that Padraig. Accounts either created by themselves for some kind of weird amusement or by the board-keepers to generate conversation. It's the repetition, oh the repetition!  It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition!

[Angelo]

so no alternative

Doesn't work like that Padraig. Accounts either created by themselves for some kind of weird amusement or by the board-keepers to generate conversation. It's the repetition, oh the repetition!  It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition!

The alternative has been discussed at length here but the slow learners seem to have an awful hard time understanding.

[Milltown Row2]

Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?

Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.

But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.

Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.

But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.

Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.

They certainly have failed.

Lockdown 3.0 with record numbers.

It might slow down our COVID death toll but you are thinking of this matter through a COVID tunnel vision. Lockdowns might stop the spread of COVID to a certain degree but bring huge negative consequences to vulnerable groupings nevermind the widespread, long term devastating impacts they have.

Not a single confirmed case of flu this year yet Covid is rampant? Is nobody skeptical of this or at least a little bit curious?

Not one case of flu?

Anyways catching the flu is based on close contacts, they have been dramatically reduced due to washing hands sanitizing and wearing masks..

So I wouldn't look at that as a bad thing, we should do that every year and it might bring that flu problem down.

[JoG2]

so no alternative

Doesn't work like that Padraig. Accounts either created by themselves for some kind of weird amusement or by the board-keepers to generate conversation. It's the repetition, oh the repetition!  It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition!

The alternative has been discussed at length here but the slow learners seem to have an awful hard time understanding.

Blah blah blah .. Sooner you're off furlough and back to normality the better for everyone 

[PadraicHenryPearse]

so no alternative

Already offered. Do you have problems reading?

you directly replied to a person asking for alternatives. you provided none in your reply.. i dont give a f**k what you did or didnt say previously...

you seem happy to repeat that you already provided a reply previously over and over again but not the actual alternatives... why is that i wonder?

[Angelo]

Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?

Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.

But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.

Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.

But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.

Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.

They certainly have failed.

Lockdown 3.0 with record numbers.

It might slow down our COVID death toll but you are thinking of this matter through a COVID tunnel vision. Lockdowns might stop the spread of COVID to a certain degree but bring huge negative consequences to vulnerable groupings nevermind the widespread, long term devastating impacts they have.

Not a single confirmed case of flu this year yet Covid is rampant? Is nobody skeptical of this or at least a little bit curious?

Not one case of flu?

Anyways catching the flu is based on close contacts, they have been dramatically reduced due to washing hands sanitizing and wearing masks..

So I wouldn't look at that as a bad thing, we should do that every year and it might bring that flu problem down.

Apparently not.

Catching Covid is also based on close contacts.

Amazing how there was barely an eye lid batted when 50k excess deaths in the 17/18 flu season occurred. It was accepted without a quibble.

[Angelo]

so no alternative

Already offered. Do you have problems reading?

you directly replied to a person asking for alternatives. you provided none in your reply.. i dont give a f**k what you did or didnt say previously...

you seem happy to repeat that you already provided a reply previously over and over again but not the actual alternatives... why is that i wonder?

I'm sick and f**king tired of having to repeat myself to lazy f**king idiots.

But there you f**king go.

We are not going to know the full impact of this until it's all over.

That may be a year or two down the line.

My concern focuses on whether lockdown and particularly rolling lockdowns where you are dipping in and out of (telling businesses to shut and open and shut and open are going to cause serious long term damage to the economy and employment - high unemployment has seriously negative societal and wellbeing factors).

There's a lot of people very entrenched with their head in the sand. Cases are through the roof at the minute, deaths are rising but we do know the main demograph it's impacting, we do know the median age of death is above the median life expectancy, we do know the 90%+ proportion that already have existing underlying healthcare problems, we do know that deaths due to Covid are overstated. There's no doubt on any of the previous factors, they are widely accepted by every department that handles this. So is it a case that the measures we take are to save people months of their lives - already probably crippled with underlying health issues?

And how do we then balance that out with the serious consequences of lockdown on the economy, people's employment prospects, the ability of people to provide for our families, the mental health of people, those who are vulnerable, in abusive relationships, addiction problems, people with disabilities and need constant care and support services, the education and social development of children, the impact it has on people who are alone and isolated.

I'd be extremely worried about the covid tunnel vision governments around the world are obsessed with.

We seem to have thrown all our eggs into this vaccine basket, we know nothing about it yet.

As opposed to what other basket?

Living with the virus. Reasonable restrictive measures which we had in the summer months until such time as the virus has ran its course.

What I'd like to see in the next few months is among all the panic and hysteria at present - what the excess deaths are like in comparison to a sever winter flu season that we have accepted without a bone of contention every single year.

Have we lost the run of ourselves over a 10% rise in deaths, 90% who already had serious underlying health conditions?

We have to be realistic and practical about this. There is a point when the cure causes more destruction and chaos than the problem and there's a lot of people too entrenched to even countenance this.

[Franko]

so no alternative

Already offered. Do you have problems reading?

you directly replied to a person asking for alternatives. you provided none in your reply.. i dont give a f**k what you did or didnt say previously...

you seem happy to repeat that you already provided a reply previously over and over again but not the actual alternatives... why is that i wonder?

I'm sick and f**king tired of having to repeat myself to lazy f**king idiots.

But there you f**king go.

We are not going to know the full impact of this until it's all over.

That may be a year or two down the line.

My concern focuses on whether lockdown and particularly rolling lockdowns where you are dipping in and out of (telling businesses to shut and open and shut and open are going to cause serious long term damage to the economy and employment - high unemployment has seriously negative societal and wellbeing factors).

There's a lot of people very entrenched with their head in the sand. Cases are through the roof at the minute, deaths are rising but we do know the main demograph it's impacting, we do know the median age of death is above the median life expectancy, we do know the 90%+ proportion that already have existing underlying healthcare problems, we do know that deaths due to Covid are overstated. There's no doubt on any of the previous factors, they are widely accepted by every department that handles this. So is it a case that the measures we take are to save people months of their lives - already probably crippled with underlying health issues?

And how do we then balance that out with the serious consequences of lockdown on the economy, people's employment prospects, the ability of people to provide for our families, the mental health of people, those who are vulnerable, in abusive relationships, addiction problems, people with disabilities and need constant care and support services, the education and social development of children, the impact it has on people who are alone and isolated.

I'd be extremely worried about the covid tunnel vision governments around the world are obsessed with.

We seem to have thrown all our eggs into this vaccine basket, we know nothing about it yet.

As opposed to what other basket?

Living with the virus. Reasonable restrictive measures which we had in the summer months until such time as the virus has ran its course.

What I'd like to see in the next few months is among all the panic and hysteria at present - what the excess deaths are like in comparison to a sever winter flu season that we have accepted without a bone of contention every single year.

Have we lost the run of ourselves over a 10% rise in deaths, 90% who already had serious underlying health conditions?

We have to be realistic and practical about this. There is a point when the cure causes more destruction and chaos than the problem and there's a lot of people too entrenched to even countenance this.

Could you explain what you mean by this bit?

How exactly does this virus "run its course"?

[trueblue1234]

Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?

Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.

But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.

Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.

But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.

Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.

They certainly have failed.

Lockdown 3.0 with record numbers.

It might slow down our COVID death toll but you are thinking of this matter through a COVID tunnel vision. Lockdowns might stop the spread of COVID to a certain degree but bring huge negative consequences to vulnerable groupings nevermind the widespread, long term devastating impacts they have.

Not a single confirmed case of flu this year yet Covid is rampant? Is nobody skeptical of this or at least a little bit curious?

I'm glad that you agree that lock downs slow the death rate and save lives. That's a start.
The rest is about how the NHS is dealing with other ailments, mental health, cancer etc. That's a genuine concern but not linked to lock downs.
So at least we can agree that lock downs are actually successful and your concern is more around what the NHS isn't doing with other services.

[Franko]

Can any of the sane posters here imagine what would have happened if we had carried on as normal from last March without restrictions/lockdowns???

Can any sane poster here point out to this idiot where someone has advocated for ZERO restrictions like before March 2019??

No, didn't think so.

This is the type of crap you have to deal with from idiots on here and it rules out any kind of informed and progressive discussion on this.

I would imagine the same idiot would have got the year right

No difference.

It shows the level of misleading and disingenuous debate people like Rossfan engage in.

Nobody, I repeat nobody, I have seen on this thread has ever advocated no restrictions yet Rossfan has now created a strawman argument because he is unable to debate with people on the real issue here.

Why are the pro lockdown crew so willing to dismiss how prolonged lockdown restrictions have serious repercussions on society.

I am looking for a reasonable debate here where people can stand back and look at the pros and cons of both sides and see which cours of action is best but consistently you have what we have just seen from the likes of Rossfan.

Illogical, dismissive, dogmatic strawman arguments.

f**k everyone else because it doesn't bother him.

The first lockdown was entirely correct thing to do but governments all across Europe fucked it up royally and failed to address the fundamental issues and are now using lockdown to diminish their responsibility.

How do you work this out?

Surely, if the first one was necessary, this one is even more necessary?

Please do not give me some speel about what the government should have done in the summer.

We all know this.  They fcuked it completely.

But we are where we are now.

So, given that you seem to believe that *this* lockdown is not necessary, what are your proposals for dealing with the current situation?

Preferably ones that don't involve Doc Brown and a Delorean.

[trueblue1234]

Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?

Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.

But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.

Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.

But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.

Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.

They certainly have failed.

Lockdown 3.0 with record numbers.

It might slow down our COVID death toll but you are thinking of this matter through a COVID tunnel vision. Lockdowns might stop the spread of COVID to a certain degree but bring huge negative consequences to vulnerable groupings nevermind the widespread, long term devastating impacts they have.

Not a single confirmed case of flu this year yet Covid is rampant? Is nobody skeptical of this or at least a little bit curious?

Not one case of flu?

Anyways catching the flu is based on close contacts, they have been dramatically reduced due to washing hands sanitizing and wearing masks..

So I wouldn't look at that as a bad thing, we should do that every year and it might bring that flu problem down.

Apparently not.

Catching Covid is also based on close contacts.

Amazing how there was barely an eye lid batted when 50k excess deaths in the 17/18 flu season occurred. It was accepted without a quibble.

Ahem

<sup>As for the claim that the flu killed 64,000 people in the UK (where the post's author says they are based) in 2018, this is incorrect.

The only reference we've found to a UK figure like that in connection with the 2018 flu outbreak, is that in January 2018 around 64,000 people died in England and Wales, at the time the highest monthly total since 2006.

But this figure was for England and Wales and covered deaths from all causes, not just flu.

Public Health England estimated that over the 2017/18 flu season, there were around 22,000 deaths associated with flu in England. This was one of the highest flu death tolls in recent years, but is still significantly lower than the current death toll from Covid.

It's possible that the post might be mistaking the number of deaths in the UK for a figure from another country. In the USA, the CDC estimates that 61,000 people may have died in the 2017/18 flu season, which again was the highest number in recent years. The CDC estimates so far that there have been 211,000 deaths involving Covid-19 in the USA.</sup>

https://fullfact.org/online/october-2020-flu-covid-pandemic/

[Angelo]

Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?

Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.

But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.

Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.

But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.

Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.

*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.

They certainly have failed.

Lockdown 3.0 with record numbers.

It might slow down our COVID death toll but you are thinking of this matter through a COVID tunnel vision. Lockdowns might stop the spread of COVID to a certain degree but bring huge negative consequences to vulnerable groupings nevermind the widespread, long term devastating impacts they have.

Not a single confirmed case of flu this year yet Covid is rampant? Is nobody skeptical of this or at least a little bit curious?

Not one case of flu?

Anyways catching the flu is based on close contacts, they have been dramatically reduced due to washing hands sanitizing and wearing masks..

So I wouldn't look at that as a bad thing, we should do that every year and it might bring that flu problem down.

Apparently not.

Catching Covid is also based on close contacts.

Amazing how there was barely an eye lid batted when 50k excess deaths in the 17/18 flu season occurred. It was accepted without a quibble.

Ahem

<sup>As for the claim that the flu killed 64,000 people in the UK (where the post's author says they are based) in 2018, this is incorrect.

The only reference we've found to a UK figure like that in connection with the 2018 flu outbreak, is that in January 2018 around 64,000 people died in England and Wales, at the time the highest monthly total since 2006.

But this figure was for England and Wales and covered deaths from all causes, not just flu.

Public Health England estimated that over the 2017/18 flu season, there were around 22,000 deaths associated with flu in England. This was one of the highest flu death tolls in recent years, but is still significantly lower than the current death toll from Covid.

It's possible that the post might be mistaking the number of deaths in the UK for a figure from another country. In the USA, the CDC estimates that 61,000 people may have died in the 2017/18 flu season, which again was the highest number in recent years. The CDC estimates so far that there have been 211,000 deaths involving Covid-19 in the USA.</sup>

https://fullfact.org/online/october-2020-flu-covid-pandemic/

I'm talking about the level of excess deaths during a very harsh Winter Flu season. I never said they were all attributable to flu, just how you can't say that every person who dies now and tests positive for Covid, died from it. We know for a fact Covid deaths are overstated, this is something confirmed by the bodies who record these deaths.

[trueblue1234]

Of Covid reported deaths in NI over 91 % were as a direct result of covid. (It's actually up to 95% now I believe)

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/deaths-caused-by-covid-19-in-northern-ireland-reach-755-39539154.html

But I'm not sure what your point is? There's 80,000 excess deaths in 2020 in the UK.  The majority of these due to covid (75K). (If you want to take 91% of that figure then that's still a hell of a lot) in comparison to 25K odd for flu and flu like deaths in 2018. And that's with the lock downs that weren't in place in 2018. So I'm sure you can imagine the carnage if there wasn't a lock downs.

I'm really lost on what your point is here?