Plan -C

Still it's clear the vaccine hasn't stopped the spread of infections in any meaningful way.

 

Ok mate you win, we're all doomed.

 

Isn't it the case that if you're vaccinated and catch it you're likely to be infectious for a shorter period of time?

 

I wouldn't just dismiss people who aren't having it as can't be arsed. Regardless, Vaccine passports are Purley a attempt to coerce people into having the vaccine. Are we going to ban smokers and fat people from places too? To convince them to get healthy and take the strain off the NHS?

 

Lots of theories have been put forward little concensus on anything. On the one hand we have a high vaccine rate on the other we see modelling suggesting doubling every 2.5- 3 days.

 

My point was vaccines clearly aren't stopping the spread so vaccine passports will do nothing to help.

 

That was the theory but I don't think the evidence supports that actually achieving anything.

This is from a report in the Lancet.

"COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and also accelerates viral clearance in the context of the delta variant. However, this study unfortunately also highlights that the vaccine effect on reducing transmission is minimal in the context of delta variant circulation. These findings have immediate public health implications."

Seems to suggest that technically it does reduce your transmission but in reality doesn't make any difference.

 

Does the vaccine stop transmission ? If the answer is no then what's the reason they can't immerse themselves in crowds?

BTW I'm double jabbed and boosted.

 

I think the strategy is one of risk reduction. There’s some evidence that vaccination does reduce spread but there’s very strong evidence that it drastically reduces an individual’s risk of becoming very ill and needing hospitalisation. So I think the idea behind COVID passports is that, if you end up with a super spreader event (something that’s much more likely in a crowd), then far fewer people will end up in hospital when compared to a similar event with a largely unvaccinated group of people.

 

Dunno. I’m sure they will have done but I haven’t seen it. I’d imagine testing’s a tricky one to assess given it’s self administered so you’d have to try and account for all the people who didn’t take one and just got their mate to screenshot theirs, those who didn’t do it properly etc. It’s probably easier to assess real-world vaccine performance? Dunno though, just guessing.

 

Yeah I think they’re both imperfect solutions, which is probably why we’re using both (and which doesn’t add up to a perfect solution). I suppose people can make their own risk assessment about whether to be there or. If you’re jabbed you know you’re much less likely to get seriously ill, if you’re testing you know you’re much less likely to be a transmitter. Plus you can do both?

To be honest deciding on any measures (or no measures at all) is like looking at a menu of jobbie sandwiches and deciding which one you’d prefer to eat (apologies if I’ve spoiled anyone’s lunch).

 

Every other country I have traveled to this year has required a negative test to enter, it isn’t difficult.

 

You can be sure though, that as usual the more bread you have, the less sh 1t you eat!

 

How far down the alphabet do we have to go before we get a plan that involves a properly funded healthcare system and a competent government?

 

Gone too far for that to happen again, have you seen Idiocracy?

 

Are we on Plan D yet?