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

[Franko]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.

They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.

We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.

Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.

They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.

If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.

But you don't seem to consider that at all.

Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?

Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.

As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.

Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.

Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.

For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.

Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.

I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.

So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?

Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.

Right, so if you were looking at your kettle and the plug blew up and the house caught fire, that's fine as long as it boils for you?

No. But what you are trying to do is blame lockdowns for the reduced level of care to these vulnerable groups. That's not the case. It's issues with the NHS that are causing them.

The issues with regards to people's mental health due to lock downs in an obvious negative. But completely outweighed by the risk to people from Covid.

The mental health issue also needs weighed up against the obvious mental health implications associated with the death of family members.

Which could be fairly widespread if we go down a route where, for instance, we let the virus "run its course"

As a great medical mind once suggested

(Then ran away)

[Angelo]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.

They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.

We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.

Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.

They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.

If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.

But you don't seem to consider that at all.

Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?

Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.

As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.

Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.

Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.

For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.

Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.

I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.

So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?

Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.

Right, so if you were looking at your kettle and the plug blew up and the house caught fire, that's fine as long as it boils for you?

No. But what you are trying to do is blame lockdowns for the reduced level of care to these vulnerable groups. That's not the case. It's issues with the NHS that are causing them.

The issues with regards to people's mental health due to lock downs in an obvious negative. But completely outweighed by the risk to people from Covid.

It's lockdown and the excessive restrictions where domestic abuse victims are holed up with their abusers. People with mental health problems are deprived of their routines, social contacts and supports, children are robbed of their ability to interact with other children and learn in a proper environment.

You seem hellbent on dismissing the very, very real consequences of lockdown on society. To what end I ask?

[Milltown Row2]

Jesus this thread is hard work..

[armaghniac]

Jesus this thread is hard work..

Probably the pricks posting in it.

[Taylor]

Jesus this thread is hard work..

Probably the pricks posting in it.

Its tough going.

Anyway - has anyone seen anywhere when the vaccine will have the majority of the vulnerable/elderly covered here?

[trueblue1234]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.

They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.

We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.

Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.

They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.

If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.

But you don't seem to consider that at all.

Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?

Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.

As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.

Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.

Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.

For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.

Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.

I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.

So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?

Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.

Right, so if you were looking at your kettle and the plug blew up and the house caught fire, that's fine as long as it boils for you?

No. But what you are trying to do is blame lockdowns for the reduced level of care to these vulnerable groups. That's not the case. It's issues with the NHS that are causing them.

The issues with regards to people's mental health due to lock downs in an obvious negative. But completely outweighed by the risk to people from Covid.

It's lockdown and the excessive restrictions where domestic abuse victims are holed up with their abusers. People with mental health problems are deprived of their routines, social contacts and supports, children are robbed of their ability to interact with other children and learn in a proper environment.

You seem hellbent on dismissing the very, very real consequences of lockdown on society. To what end I ask?

Let me assure you I'm not playing anything down. Unfortunately we're not in a perfect world. Abuse will increase and agencies are trying to tackle that with increased advertising, call lines, increased public focus to notice the signs. Same for mental health, they will try and do as much as they can in the current circumstances. These are the negative side effects of the lock down. But the reduced death toll due to lock downs out-weights that. And that's before we mention the fact the without the lockdown the NHS would be under even more pressure and unlikely to be able to function, causing more deaths, more mental health problems, more children having to isolate etc.

Unfortunately lock downs are an essential.

[Milltown Row2]

Jesus this thread is hard work..

Probably the pricks posting in it.

Its tough going.

Anyway - has anyone seen anywhere when the vaccine will have the majority of the vulnerable/elderly covered here?

Watched the news last night and it doesn't look good, for a small state like here you'd have expected a quick roll out of vaccines, August before the main baulk of vulnerable/elderly! Production issues of the vials needed to use for the vaccine is one such issue!

Lets order 200 million vaccines.. oh wait, has anyone ordered 200 million vials needed to store these things?

[Angelo]

It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.

How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?

Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.

They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.

We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.

Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.

They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.

If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.

But you don't seem to consider that at all.

Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?

Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.

As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.

Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.

Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.

For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.

Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.

I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.

So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?

Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.

Right, so if you were looking at your kettle and the plug blew up and the house caught fire, that's fine as long as it boils for you?

No. But what you are trying to do is blame lockdowns for the reduced level of care to these vulnerable groups. That's not the case. It's issues with the NHS that are causing them.

The issues with regards to people's mental health due to lock downs in an obvious negative. But completely outweighed by the risk to people from Covid.

It's lockdown and the excessive restrictions where domestic abuse victims are holed up with their abusers. People with mental health problems are deprived of their routines, social contacts and supports, children are robbed of their ability to interact with other children and learn in a proper environment.

You seem hellbent on dismissing the very, very real consequences of lockdown on society. To what end I ask?

Let me assure you I'm not playing anything down. Unfortunately we're not in a perfect world. Abuse will increase and agencies are trying to tackle that with increased advertising, call lines, increased public focus to notice the signs. Same for mental health, they will try and do as much as they can in the current circumstances. These are the negative side effects of the lock down. But the reduced death toll due to lock downs out-weights that. And that's before we mention the fact the without the lockdown the NHS would be under even more pressure and unlikely to be able to function, causing more deaths, more mental health problems, more children having to isolate etc.

Unfortunately lock downs are an essential.

Death toll of who though?

People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).

Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?

[Angelo]

Jesus this thread is hard work..

Probably the pricks posting in it.

Its tough going.

Anyway - has anyone seen anywhere when the vaccine will have the majority of the vulnerable/elderly covered here?

Watched the news last night and it doesn't look good, for a small state like here you'd have expected a quick roll out of vaccines, August before the main baulk of vulnerable/elderly! Production issues of the vials needed to use for the vaccine is one such issue!

Lets order 200 million vaccines.. oh wait, has anyone ordered 200 million vials needed to store these things?

That's an excuse bandied about to allow for government failure

Israel have already 11%+ of their population with the 1st shot and we are only 6 days into 2021.

Supply won't be the issue.

[Taylor]

Jesus this thread is hard work..

Probably the pricks posting in it.

Its tough going.

Anyway - has anyone seen anywhere when the vaccine will have the majority of the vulnerable/elderly covered here?

Watched the news last night and it doesn't look good, for a small state like here you'd have expected a quick roll out of vaccines, August before the main baulk of vulnerable/elderly! Production issues of the vials needed to use for the vaccine is one such issue!

Lets order 200 million vaccines.. oh wait, has anyone ordered 200 million vials needed to store these things?

August before those groups are vaccinated???

Such a shitshow.

That would mean over a year before everyone else gets it?

[Angelo]

[trueblue1234]

Death toll of who though?

People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).

Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?

What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?

[Angelo]

Death toll of who though?

People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).

Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?

What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?

We get on with things with reasonable restrictions like we had in the summer.

[trueblue1234]

Death toll of who though?

People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).

Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?

What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?

We get on with things with reasonable restrictions like we had in the summer.

You do know what caused the additional lock downs? It was because the reasonable restrictions weren't working and numbers were starting to increase. If we had managed to maintain the numbers over the summer then I don't think there would have been any need to use any additional lockdowns. But the reality was, the numbers weren't maintained, therefore lockdown was essential. It's just a pity the 2nd lockdown was half arsed.

Did you have any joy on the numbers with regards to suicides and domestic abuse?

[Franko]

Death toll of who though?

People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).

Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?

What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?

That's it in a nutshell.

It's a shit sandwich, but there don't seem to be any other approaches.

At least any that stand up even the slightest bit of scrutiny.

The know-alls and bluffers amongst us would tell you different, but, as illustrated clearly on this thread, they are left flapping when asked for a credible alternative.

All the countries that have managed to get this under control have used societal lockdowns to do so.

Even the buccaneering Swedish were forced to fall in line eventually when things got out of hand.