This is what years of Leftanistan brings you, "non-mandatory" but still forced vaccinations, globally.
Microsoft will let its employees in the US continue working from home until further notice as the COVID-19 coronavirus continues to spread through the country. The Windows giant had planned to recall staff to their offices next month. "This is the new normal. Our ability to come together will ebb and flow," Jared Spataro, corp …
Just because something is non-mandatory, that is, you're free to decide if you do it or not, does not mean that when you take your decision you won't have to deal with its consequences.
The key here is to inform yourself of the consequences. With the amount of misinformation esp. related to denialism that is circulating, many people may fail to understand fully the consequences of their actions. But that is no excuse for not assuming them.
So yes, you're not required to get a vaccine shot. But also yes, the consequences are there and you'll have to bear with them. That is not forcing you, same as nobody forcing you to smoke or drink.
Pre covid, at no point have I ever been asked what my vaccination or health status is when attending events or getting jobs, in the country I live. But suddenly COVID, and discrimination on medical status is suddenly okay?
Its never okay. Because now its the norm. And with every power or right relinquished, there is the feature creep. Why is this so hard for everyone. Rights aren't rights if they can be taken away.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." - Pitt the younger 1783
You continue to have a higher likelihood of dying from a fall than from COVID
So you're admitting that lockdowns and masks and vaccines are working?
I don't know which part of the world or which age group you are in but the following might interest you (Source: ONS via NOMISWEB)...
In 2020 in England and Wales:
For males and females under 50 years LC01: 'Accidents' accounted for more deaths than LC47: 'COVID-19'.
For males under 35 and females under 20 LC25: 'Homicide and probable homicide' (ie murder and manslaughter) accounted for more deaths than LC47.
For males 25-55 and females 30-55 LC16: 'Cirrhosis and other diseases of liver' resulted in more deaths than LC47.
For every group except females over 90, deaths from LC02: 'Cancer (malignant neoplasms)' exceeded deaths from LC47.
LC18: 'Dementia and Alzheimer disease' killed more males over 90 and females over 80 than LC47. I don't know about you, but I fear dying of Alzheimer's more than Covid-19
(The LCxx codes are 'Leading Causes' of death).
You're missing the point.
The chances of my house burning down are low, I still have smoke alarms and still support having a fire brigade.
If we hadn't have had lockdowns and we didn't have the vaccine far more people would have died from Covid and more people would have died from all the other causes as the hospitals would be full of people with Covid.
The main reason for the vaccine and lockdowns isn't to stop people dying of covid, it's to stop our hospitals being overwhelmed.
Unless you're prepared to let those who get it just die, then it's the only choice.
I accept your point that the main reason for lockdowns was to stop hospitals being overwhelmed. I disagree that the same applies to vaccines.
Vaccines are generally a good thing though I have doubts that 'flu vaccinations are particularly useful. There's no change in the annual trends in death rates among the different age groups that can be associated with the introduction of these vaccines. There is a smoothing in the summer/winter variation of death rates amongst the elderly and that could be taken as stopping hospitals being overwhelmed - but I disagree that was the reason behind them.
We have not got the long-term perspective yet for the Coronavirus vaccines - but that is rather in the nature of 'Emergency Use Authorisations'.
However, I do not accept that lockdowns have been (or, in retrospect, can be) an effective tool in slowing down the spread of the bug. The numbers published by the first proponents of lockdown as a method of controlling the spread (Wuhan city, Hubei Province, People's Republic of China governments) are just not credible. I've looked in detail at UK published numbers (cases and deaths) and found some fault with them - but they are far more credible. What I have not found is any correlation between the timing of lockdown regulations and the trajectory of increase or decrease of these numbers (allowing for credible cause-effect lags).
Google has published mobility data which shows that lockdowns are associated with a strong decline in people's travel (as expected and, presumably, intended) - but these do not correspond to trend changes in case rates or death rates.
I have seen no convincing evidence that lockdowns have worked but I have seen newspaper reports of jobs being lost - especially in developing countries which could not afford furlough schemes.
It's difficult for politicians (and eminent scientists) who have supported or implemented lockdowns to back down and admit to an over-reaction (maybe 'political suicide') but unless we want an endless repeat of lockdowns when the next SARS or MERS or SARS2 is detected our public inquiries must examine to the best of our (humanity's) abilities to what extent lockdowns worked or could have worked.
Your final point about people letting those who get it 'just die' is unreasonable. The death rate from Covid-19 (the collection of symptoms) is as strongly age-linked as all natural causes (ie not Accident, Homicide or Suicide) deaths. Yes, it moved the death rate up but not by much. Just as an example: the average death rate among 60-64 year old males in England and Wales for 2013-2019 was 0.925% (ie on average 0.925% of males aged 60-64 died each year in 2013-2019). The rate for this group in 2020 was 1.010% - a 0.085% absolute increase in risk. For males aged 40-44 the risks were 0.171% and 0.185% a 0.014% absolute increase in risk. For males aged 20-24 the risks were 0.048% and 0.044% a 0.004% absolute decrease in risk. The older you are the more likely you are to die - of anything.
You're wrong, there's been no over-reaction. Viruses are real and they kill people.
If you look at any graph of the positive tests & deaths there is a total correlation between lockdowns and the rates of infection and deaths coming down. There's a lag in the deaths as it normally takes people time to die, especially if they get treated. There's a lag in infections coming down as once it's at a certain level it will keep spreading.
The hospitals did almost fall over, almost ran out of oxygen and then many more people would have died had we not locked down.
I don't know which rock you were under when this was happening?
The Delta variant is affecting many more younger people, a quarter of the people currently in hospital in the UK with Covid are under 60
At the beginning, in the UK the deaths were underreported as there simply wasn't the testing capacity. More people died of Covid-19 than were reported, this is demonstrated the excess deaths figures. There has been some the other way round since, but look at the excess death figures for 2020/21.
I don't trust anything the Chinese government says about anything, but that's not related to what happened here in the UK If you remember the UK Government was very late to lockdown as they were very sceptical about it actually killing people, but then it did start to kill people and nearly killed our own Prime Minister.
Again, I don't know which rock you were under when this was happening?
How can lockdowns not help in stopping the spread of an airborne virus? To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of basic common sense.
Most of the population understands all of this and most of the population has had the vaccine because of this.
My wife is a doctor, she took part in the trials of the AZ vaccine in 2020, that's when it was "Experimental". It's not experimental now as billions of people have had it and aren't dropping like flies.
The FDA has approved the Pfizer vaccine, it's no longer on an emergency licence.
There are short-term side effects and risks, but these are demonstrably lower than the risks of getting Covid-19.
Which if you've not had Covid yet, you will get it at some point as it's never going away. Everyone I know who has had Covid says, it's not fun, it's the most ill they've ever been!
It's exceptionally selfish, stupid and misguided not to get the vaccine. There is no valid reason not to get it.
You're wrong, there's been no over-reaction. I disagree.
Viruses are real and they kill people. I agree. The Coronavirus (the infection) which leads some to develop Covid-19 (the disease) is nasty. Nearly 10 times worse than recent pandemic 'flus. I don't want to catch it - but I think I may have had it in January 2020.
If you look at any graph of the positive tests & deaths there is a total correlation between lockdowns and the rates of infection and deaths coming down. Citation? Did you examine the data and generate the graph yourself or rely on the BBC? As I wrote above, I did gather as much data as I could and did *not* find a correlation.
There's a lag in the deaths as it normally takes people time to die, especially if they get treated. Agreed. Yes, it takes about 25 days from infection to death for those who die of it by my reckoning. I don't have access to the age/sex distribution data for tests undertaken and positive results but I'd be surprised if positive tests were skewed as heavily towards the elderly as deaths are. I think death is a good surrogate measure for severe illness.
There's a lag in infections coming down as once it's at a certain level it will keep spreading. I'm not sure of the meaning of this so I can't agree or disagree. There seems to be consensus (which is a dangerous thing to follow blindly) that there was an Origin infection probably in Wuhan. I don't think the bug needs to reach a certain 'level' to keep spreading - spreading is just what we have evolved to do with virii.
The hospitals did almost fall over, almost ran out of oxygen Agreed. We should have more spare capacity.
and then many more people would have died had we not locked down. Non sequitur. Yes, I agree that if the hospitals had run out of capacity many more people would have died. The whole thrust of my previous comment is that more people would not have been infected whether or not we locked down.
I don't know which rock you were under when this was happening? I was not under a rock. I was gathering as much data as I could.
The Delta variant is affecting many more younger people, a quarter of the people currently in hospital in the UK with Covid are under 60 Yes, that seems to be true. I'm not sure if that's because we started the vaccination drive with the most elderly. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find data to test this.
At the beginning, in the UK the deaths were underreported as there simply wasn't the testing capacity. More people died of Covid-19 than were reported, this is demonstrated the excess deaths figures. There has been some the other way round since, but look at the excess death figures for 2020/21. Yes, I think that some early Covid-19 deaths were initially reported as general 'respiratory diseases' (ICD-10 J00-J99). To be fair WHO didn't give a code for Covid-19 (ICD-10 U70 and sub-codes) until late February and it would take a while for doctors to start using them. Also, I do look at the figures: over 2020 there were about 50,000 more deaths than would be expected according to the long-term average (2010-2019) and the population distribution. Interestingly perhaps from Spring 2018 to March 2020 there were about 47,000 fewer deaths than might be expected according to the same average. 2021 is not looking too wonderful either; there have been about 23,000 more deaths so far this year than the long-term average would suggest.
I don't trust anything the Chinese government says about anything, Me neither.
but that's not related to what happened here in the UK Then why did the 'Imperial College Covid-19 Response Team' (including Prof Ferguson) write so glowingly about the Chinese approach in their June 2020 paper (reference above)?
If you remember the UK Government was very late to lockdown as they were very sceptical about it actually killing people, but then it did start to kill people and nearly killed our own Prime Minister.I disagree. They got panicked into an over-reaction by things like 'Report 9'. Yes it did nearly kill Boris Johnson. It did kill many others.
Again, I don't know which rock you were under when this was happening? Busy collecting and collating data.
How can lockdowns not help in stopping the spread of an airborne virus? To suggest otherwise shows a complete lack of basic common sense. Please explain the mechanism by which you think lockdowns helped stop the spread of the virus. Validate your answer with reference to published data demonstrating changes when lockdowns began and ended. Take into account published research that shows people voluntarily limit their social contacts during an epidemic. Common sense is what recommended that strict bed-rest was the correct treatment for heart attack patients - it killed many.
Most of the population understands all of this Disagree.
and most of the population has had the vaccine because of this. Yes, about 70% of us in England and Wales have had two doses of anti-Coronavirus vaccine.
My wife is a doctor, she took part in the trials of the AZ vaccine in 2020, Without trials it would never have received authorisation. When I used to take part in phase 1 trials I did it for the time off work (I worked for the company doing the trials) and the compensation (bought my first motorbike with the proceeds).
that's when it was "Experimental". Certainly was.
It's not experimental now as billions of people have had it and aren't dropping like flies. Partly agree. Billions? Can you point me to the data? Billions is a pretty good experiment but it's been less than a year. I think the likelyhood of AZ or Pfizer (and other) vaccines being net harmful is very low; but if they are we've put it in a hell of a lot of people already.
The FDA has approved the Pfizer vaccine, it's no longer on an emergency licence. Good. So how many received it when it was under emergency licence? Also, but that's not related to what happened here in the UK.
There are short-term side effects and risks, Yep, I felt like shit for a few days; similar to the anti-pneumonia jab the doctors gave me a few years ago.
but these are demonstrably lower than the risks of getting Covid-19. Partly agree. You're very probably less likely to develop Covid-19 if you catch the Coronavirus if you're vaccinated - at least, I bloody well hope so. Much has been said about the risk of Thrombocytopenia, which normally kills about 63 people a year. Extrapolating from a study I read the risk of developing this condition is about the same between vaccination and catching the Coronavirus - which is to say, next to bugger-all.
Which if you've not had Covid yet, you will get it at some point as it's never going away. Agreed.
Everyone I know who has had Covid says, it's not fun, it's the most ill they've ever been! I've had 'flu a couple of times in my life which was pretty shit - shakes, fever, muscle aches, the trots. I felt very unwell in January 2020 - fever, aches then a nasty cough which seemd to go on for a couple of weeks. If that was Covid-19 I don't want it again. If it wasn't I still don't want it.
It's exceptionally selfish, stupid and misguided not to get the vaccine. There is no valid reason not to get it. Disagree. The UK Government Green Book (https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/immunisation-against-infectious-disease-the-green-book) is pretty clear about valid consent.
1) The ICD-10 codes for Covid-19 are U07.* - not U70
2) The reference to the Imperial College report is not above - it's below this section of the comments. It can be found at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2405-7_reference.pdf
3) My wife points out that I sound like I'm accusing Overflowing Stack's Dr wife of being involved in the clinical trials for AZ vaccine for gain. I'm not. I'm suggesting her motives for taking part in a clinical trial are much purer than mine were.
4) Which if you've not had Covid yet, you will get it at some point as it's never going away. Disa
Agree d. But we are all going to get the Coronavirus.
You never attended school or university? Because both of those have required proof of vaccination for decades.
Heaven forbid you try to immigrate - because then they will ask many, many, many intrusive health questions and force a physical and mental health evaluation and tests for a number of different diseases.
Because up until covid, we didn't need to ask if they were vaccinated against polio, whooping cough, mumps etc. because enough people have been vaccinated that they are not an issue.
You covidiots are the creator of the very situation you moan about. You're prolonging the virus, which prolongs the restrictions.
You are anti-freedom
<<Rights aren't rights if they can be taken away>>
Rights do not exist in vacuum. In particular, exercising your rights should not be at the expense of someone else's having to drop their expectations of their rights being exercised. In this case one's "right to not vaccinate" collides with other's "right to live healthy and not die of a highly contagious but preventible disease" and to fit the two together in the same society means compromises. For both sides.
If you are 'vaccinated" and allegedly "safe", what are you worried about?
Or don't you trust those 'vaccines"?
The lack of logic on this issue is astounding .. I expected better here.
Those shots neither prevent infection nor transmission.
Allegedly "you get less ill"... like last year, when "most people will only get a mild form of the disease"... so tell me again, what exactly ARE those shots doing except directly killing several thousand people and making huge amounts of money?
What happened to "vaccines are only for the elderly and vulnerable"?
Short term memory loss?
This game is not about Covid ... it's a power and money play.
!00 years ago we beat Spanish flu without vaccines. and it wasn't "herd immunity".
"If you are 'vaccinated" and allegedly "safe", what are you worried about?" the hospitals filling up with unvaccinated morons coughing their guts up and restrictions staying or another lockdown as consequence.
The vaccines don't work 100%, they don't stop the spread as much as they hoped. They do stop most people either needing to go to hospital or dying. So we should be able to go back to normal if everyone or close to everyone gets vaccinated.
However, 5,000,000 adults in the UK are still to have the vaccine and way more than that in the USA, that's a lot of people and if enough of them get Covid at the same time, the hospitals will fall over.
If you've not had the vaccine, then get Covid, you should be denied treatment. I hope the Government adopts this policy rather than another lockdown or closing the pubs.
I don't want my way of life changed again because of other people's stupid decisions.
Out of curiosity, why are English speaking governments so terrified of making vaccines mandatory? (With obvious exceptions where medical conditions prevent it). Why does anyone with even the remotest responsibility to other people think they are a bad idea? (Unless they are keen on boosting inheritance tax takings). The alternative is quite literally, permanent restrictions, or a game of Russian roulette for literally everyone uncovered.
Opposition to MMR was left to fester and has now spread into an entire grifting industry, T-shirts, Mugs etc making millions off spreading horsecrap.
This isn’t a politically left or right thing as some quarters absolutely insist on making it, and the Republicans in particular have blood on their hands for trying to score political points by simply ‘opposing’ things because they come from Biden.
Also, “left” is a trucking ridiculous thing to call the Democrats. By European standards the Dem party would still be regarded as Centre Right.
Consider what’s best for both yourself, and everyone else. Get vaccinated, already. The more of you that are covered, the more likely you are going to be able to properly open your borders to tourism and trade properly, thus creating jobs and income too.
It's not just English speaking governments. And, at this point, I honestly have no idea. There are several vaccines that are already mandatory in my country, so it's not like it's a new concept anyway. Just make this mandatory and be done with it. Ignore the screechers; they wouldn't have voted for you anyway.
Hmmmm. The best thing for *everyone* for the *long term* (as in hundreds, thousands of years) is no vaccination, and very little medicating of society period (yes, that means people will die). If you want targeted vaccines for the feeble among us, go right ahead, but it makes zero long-term sense to mass-vaccinate healthy people, especially the young.
Enjoy your smallpox, then. Or measles. TB perhaps?
I’d like to hear what scientific source you want to cite that it makes zero long term sense to vaccinate.
Unless you regard the overpopulation problem as a bigger threat and are happy basically turning it over to disease and random chance to resolve it.
Knowing that there's a tonne of people who will quite happily have your job should you leave because you're vaccinated should be enough of a motivator, I'd have thought
Whilst not the same industry, both United and Delta have imposed the same restriction, with the alternative being that you will still be employed, but won't be able to come into work, nor will you be paid, until you are vaccinated.
Simple choice really.
When you let people make choices where they are not capable, informed nor prepared to do so, havoc will ensue
"Excepting those with medical conditions " my wife is a doctor and she says that the really aren't any medical conditions that mean you can't have it. People at certain points in their cancer care, but they are actually offering the vaccine before starting any immune suppressing drugs. So there isn't really anyone who can't have it, you could make it 100% if there was the political will. They would be riots though, there's millions in the UK who haven't had it and lots of people reading anti-vax guff on arsebook.
I'm disgusted with many of the above comments.
'You're not competent to decide so your opinion doesn't matter' = 'You're too stupid to vote for the right things - so you don't get a vote' = 'We decide who can vote' = Totalitarianism
Of course, it's all for the good of The People.
The majority do not have the competence to decide whether a medical intervention is a good thing or not. Not even our Presidents or Prime Ministers have the necessary training - they're being told. People are scared and lashing out at everyone else - this is not rational behaviour.
Here's an idea. Why don't we make all the non-vaccinated wear a yellow symbol on their clothing - perhaps the biohazard symbol? Just so the rest of us know who we're dealing with, of course.
We routinely demand proof of competence, and restrict individual freedoms when such proof cannot be given, when individual actions are potentially harmful to others. Driving is the easiest example, though there are plenty.
Deciding whether you should be vaccinated or not falls in the same category. I don't want other people to have the freedom to harm me based on their sole and unqualified opinion, and I don't feel particularly oppressive for thinking so.
Deciding whether you should be vaccinated or not falls in the same category
All vaccines? You require everyone to accept any vaccination when a doctor recommends it? Or maybe just for the diseases you're scared of today?
It's worse than I thought. I don't think even China goes that far; maybe North Korea.
Welcome to the People's Democratic United States of America.
"I don't want other people to have the freedom to harm me based on their sole and unqualified opinion"
I think you need to do more research on what these vaccines are capable of. Preventing the spread of the disease is not one of them. I've had the jab, but I've reacted perfectly rationally and fully expect to benefit from it if I get exposed to the disease.
"Why don't we make all the non-vaccinated wear a yellow symbol on their clothing - perhaps the biohazard symbol? Just so the rest of us know who we're dealing with, of course." yup, sounds good to me. Also helpful for the ambulance crews when they turn up, they can just leave them free to cough up their guts because that's what they "choose" to do and drive on to somebody else who's not a numpty.
"“Given the uncertainty of COVID-19, we’ve decided against attempting to forecast a new date for a full reopening of our US work sites in favor of opening US work sites as soon as we’re able to do so safely based on public health guidance.”"
Now, if Johnson had had that attitude, we wouldn't be in half as much shit as we are. "Freedom day" ? "No more lockdowns?" FFS.
Bojo is fond of Hyperbole - perhaps it comes from studying Classics.
His phrase I'd rather be dead in a ditch... did, understandably, disappoint quite a few people who
thoughthoped he meant it literally.
However, you seem to believe that lockdowns have worked? Perhaps you're convinced by the wonders of the Wuhan lockdown extolled in this paper? In China, strict movement restrictions and other measures (including case isolation and quarantine) began to be introduced from 23 January 2020, which achieved a downward trend in the number of confirmed new cases during February and resulted in zero new confirmed indigenous cases in Wuhan by 19 March 2020.. It was so successful that from May 2020 China has only had 4 deaths from Covid-19... Source: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/china/. Nah. I don't believe that either - but maybe Prof Ferguson has had enough practice to believe as many as six impossible things before breakfast.
Remember, research has shown that those not complying with social distancing - the anti-maskers, anti-vaxxers, etc. are less intelligent.
They "bleet" about others being sheep whilst slavishly following their anti-science cult-group-think response.
Now that really is interesting. Thank you. Just as I read the first couple of paragraphs I noted many repeats of the term compliance. So I used the browser page search and found the word occurs 107 times. I will read the paper in detail and add it to my collection of interesting stuff.
At this point I should probably confess that I did not fully comply with the UK lockdown rules. We were told we could go out for an hour a day for personal exercise (no mixing of different households). However, I and my dog normally have 2 hours walking across the local water meadows - which we continued to do throughout the lockdowns. Perhaps I should have limited us to an hour just to comply - or perhaps out of solidarity with the poor sods who don't have access to the countryside?
This paper https://www.pnas.org/content/104/18/7588 from 2007 and this paper https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.0814 from 2015 show that in the face of a deadly epidemic people do spontaneously modify their social contact behaviour. The 2007 paper was co-written by Neil Ferguson, later of 'Report 9' fame.
In Report 9 we find In the (unlikely) absence of any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour, we would expect...
Original AC here. I didn't downvote you.
The article is more about those who act in ways that make the rules ineffective.
It's not about people religiously following the rules to the letter. Your personal example wouldn't be an example of the type of people they're talking about.
Perhaps "comply" was too loaded word to use?
You are wrong.
Here's a snippet. Read the full article here: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/05/freedom-liberty-hierarchy.html
"It’s certainly not the case that the federal Constitution protects everything you feel like doing, whenever you feel like doing it."
"The words freedom and liberty have been invoked breathlessly in recent weeks to bolster the case for “reopening.” Protesters of state public safety measures readily locate in the Bill of Rights the varied and assorted freedom to not be masked, the freedom to have your toenails soaked and buffed, the freedom to open-carry weapons into the state capitol, the freedom to take your children to the polar bear cage, the freedom to worship even if it imperils public safety, and above all, the freedom to shoot the people who attempt to stop you from exercising such unenumerated but essential rights. Beyond a profound misunderstanding of the relationship between broad state police powers and federal constitutional rights in the midst of a deadly pandemic, this definition of freedom is perplexing, chiefly because it seems to assume not simply that other people should die for your individual liberties, but also that you have an affirmative right to harm, threaten, and even kill anyone who stands in the way of your exercising of the freedoms you demand."
So I can choose snuff out a little person inside me (except perhaps in Texas) but I can't keep the govt from jabbing me? With a jab that doesn't prevent the spread of the couf? If I decline the jab, the only person hurt is me.
One way to prevent the govt from jabbing me: get a job with the US Postal Service! The Postal Workers Union have got their members an exemption. How? By threatening to stop giving funding to Democratic campaigns.