No not a conspiracy theorist. I've said earlier that I think the reason for that stance is that they need to keep that control until all the vulnerable are protected. If they told people it stops them spreading it they'd be out and about and if they are you've got no chance of stopping anyone else from copying them. For once I think it's with good intentions not just for the sake of it. I've also never once said that I believe the vaccine programme is a smokescreen
Because if they tell the vulnerable that they are not just immune but can't spread it then they would rightly be saying hang on why am I confined to my home if you know I can't catch or spread it? So logically you have to let them out and get on with life. If you let the vulnerable (who are no longer vulnerable) out and about then what chance have you got if keeping the 20 odd year olds in and under control when the people they've been sacrificing everything to protect are now allowed out? In order to keep the remaining vulnerable safe you have to keep the immune people under control or the whole thing falls down.
With which bit? Potentially Elderly person is vulnerable Elderly person has vaccine and becomes immune and is told that they can't pass on the virus. Elderly person says hang on if I'm immune why can't I visit my immune friends? We are not achieving anything by being locked up. Government has to let elderly person go out as they have no reason to keep them locked up. Fit healthy young person says Fu ck this. I've stated in all year to protect elderly person who's now allowed out? I'm going out too. Asthmatic diabetic person catches it off rule ignoring young person and dies. Alternatively Elderly person is vulnerable Elderly person has vaccine and becomes immune but is told they don't know if they can still pass it on. Elderly person understands why they need to stay at home like everyone else. The 'we don't know if it stops you spreading it' line stops the chain of events
The whole point of people accepting vaccinations though is to try to get back to normal life asap So why do the govt want to control us to stay locked down for the sake of it?
So let's say that it does prevent you from catching and passing the virus on to other people. do you think an elderly person who has had the vaccine should be allowed to get on with life and not social distance or anything anymore?
And how do you think a 25 year old who lives alone, has lost their job, missed their birthday and and has had an absolutely miserable year in order to protect not themself but the elderly folk will react to finding out that said elderly folk are allowed to have parties while she still has to stay in her home until September?
But they can't yet can they? Because not all the vulnerable are vaccinated. That's what my point was. They need to keep the vaccinated under the same restrictions as everyone else but you can't do that if the vaccinated person believes they cannot pass on the virus. You can't keep them locked up just for the sake of it so instead of telling them they can't pass it on you tell them you don't know if they can
What will happen to people who are too frightened to have this untested vaccine? Is their life put on hold forever? At what stage will their life return to normal? Will they stop being furloughed because they refuse? Asking for a friend
All the vulnerable won't be vaccinated and had the 3 week bedding in period (no idea what to call it) till march. Some vulnerable people had their 3 week period before the end of December. That's 2 months extra.
1610 more deaths announced today. Things will return to normal but patience is needed. Hospitals are still overrun and the vaccine takes about a month to become effective, so hopefully things will be returning to normal in spring. It isn't just elderly people in hospital.