Johnson Is So Useless

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

At the risk of repeating myself again, the machinery and systems are in place.

How many vaccinations do you think are administered yearly, for all illnesses/immunisations/drugs.

The vaccine will become part of visits to see your doctor, and eventually will be seamless.

At the risk of repeating myself yet again:

No! And I'm having to repeat myself yet again.
The vaccine does not provide protection against infection. It merely reduces the symptoms and dangers of other complications.
You can still catch the virus after having the vaccine. It's reasonable to assume you can still transmit the virus. It serves to reduce the pressure on the NHS and to reduce the mortality rates.
Because it does not eradicate the virus, it provides the circumstances for the virus to mutate.
Those vaccinated will still need to act as though they are infected!
Indeed, it is highly probable that those vaccinated will be lulled into a false sense of security and increase their social activity, leading to flare ups of the virus.

The existing systems will have to be multiplied by a factor of 4 or 5 to conduct a similar program to that existing for the flu vaccine.
The flu vaccine does provide varying degrees of protection against the flu, and serves to reduce its presence in society. The Covid vaccine may not, but it is too early to tell.
If the circumstances are there for the virus to mutate, you can bet your life it will. Then we could be faced with an even more virulent, vaccine-resistant and deadly strain, that would require a whole new vaccine to be designed and produced, if one were available.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I am not the one who cries "abusive!" at any post, no matter how politely and unemotionally it is worded - that happens to counter one of yours.
Please don't judge me by your own frailties.


Of course you didn't.






I am sitting in warm sunshine, drinking a cup of tea. I neither need nor take medication for "chilling", or anything else for that matter.

Clearly you are intent on reducing the thread to a personal and abusive argument, yet again.
Please continue without me.

 

[Trazor]

Colds have a 100% survival rate.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

If they were from a different nationality or culture, do you think it shouldn’t be mentioned? And shouldn't that nationality or culture be clamped down on? .

Only if it was a cultural trait to ignore rules and laws.
Do you think it is?
If the answer is no, then their culture or nationality is irrelevant.

 

[Trazor]

If the circumstances are there for the virus to mutate, you can bet your life it will. Then we could be faced with an even more virulent, vaccine-resistant and deadly strain

Wild assumptions, not like you Dazzler.............

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Wild assumptions, not like you Dazzler.............

Three detected incidences so far.

If the circumstances are there for the virus to mutate, you can bet your life it will. Then we could be faced with an even more virulent, vaccine-resistant and deadly strain, that would require a whole new vaccine to be designed and produced, if one were available.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

Do you know what .4% of 66,000,000 is?

I think you may need to reconsider that question. Are you saying that the entire population will be diagnosed with Covid? The .4 of fatalities is the statistical chance for those suffering Covid dying from it. Your question seems to assume that the entire population of The UK is or will be diagnosed with Covid. In other words .4 of Covid sufferers will die, not .4 of the entire population.

What makes the question even more nonsensical is that those who die with Covid don't really start featuring in the death stats until the 60+ age group, so the numbers dying under 60 are miniscule. It would therefore be a mathematical impossibility for .4% of the entire population to die of Covid.

 

[JohnD]

I think you may need to reconsider that question.

We're currently running at more than a thousand deaths a day.

Is that figure acceptable to you?

 

[Brigadier]

I think you may need to reconsider that question. Are you saying that the entire population will be diagnosed with Covid? The .4 of fatalities is the statistical chance for those suffering Covid dying from it. Your question seems to assume that the entire population of The UK is or will be diagnosed with Covid. In other words .4 of Covid sufferers will die, not .4 of the entire population.

What makes the question even more nonsensical is that those who die with Covid don't really start featuring in the death stats until the 60+ age group, so the numbers dying under 60 are miniscule. It would therefore be a mathematical impossibility for .4% of the entire population to die of Covid.

Death rates are obviously a function of those who die of (with?) Covid, against some other parameter (population, tested positive, and so on).
If anyone cares to recall March - April 2020, there was great consternation that the UK government had (almost by design) "seeded" care homes with Covid.
It is therefore possible that our high death rate is, in part, due to sacrificing (for want of a better word) the most vulnerable at the start of the pandemic.

 

[Brigadier]

We're currently running at more than a thousand deaths a day.

Is that figure acceptable to you?

A mortician was on R5L the other day.
She told of collecting a lady who'd died, because her cancer treatment was postponed due to Covid being prioritised.

Is that one death acceptable to you?

 

[JohnD]

at the start of the pandemic.

But it is now even higher.

 

[JohnD]

Is that one death acceptable to you?

That's an interesting question.

If I had to choose between more than a thousand deaths a day, and one death in particular, which would I think was worse for the nation?

 

[Brigadier]

But it is now even higher.

Is it counted / calculated in the same manner now, as it was then, then?

 

[Brigadier]

That's an interesting question.

If I had to choose between more than a thousand deaths a day, and one death in particular, which would I think was worse for the nation?

That is not the same as asking whether "x no. of deaths is acceptable" though, is it.

 

[JohnD]

yes, I can see you want to shift away from the problem of more than a thousand deaths a day.