Has anyone noticed Covid spikes after gatherings

[Shamal]

I cannot quite work out whether you are just looking for an argument or whether you are somewhat dense.  At the moment, based on the evidence, I am tending towards the latter.

Come back when you can string together a reasonable argument without making unsupported assumptions.  I won't be holding my breath while I wait.

 

Ahh there it is.

I was wondering when the personal attacks would materialise. 

You don't dissapoint do you lol

?

Regards 

 

[colinjallen]

Ahh there it is.

I was wondering when the personal attacks would materialise. 

You don't dissapoint do you lol

?

Regards 

No personal attacks; just my belief and my viewpoint, based on your posts, especially the one that assumes that I hate a culture .

 

[Shamal]

No personal attacks; just my belief and my viewpoint, based on your posts, especially the one that assumes that I hate a culture .

Personal attacks fella. Be a man and admit it ?

Regards 

 

[colinjallen]

Personal attacks fella. Be a man and admit it ?

Regards 

Are you really that overly sensitive that you perceive someone else's view of you as a personal attack?  You do seem very insecure.

 

[Shamal]

@colinjallen.

What A Nice Kind Erudite peRson. ?

Regards 

 

[Cannonfodder]

On 26/12/2021 at 03:10, AirSniper said:

Scoff all you like. At some point in the future, the funnies you make will backfire on you.

Try this 

So they should be. Care workers are generally looking after the more vulnerable members of society and by refusing to be vaccinated are placing those in their care at greater risk. Nightclubs etc also have a duty of care towards their staff

 

[colinjallen]

So your source is a YouTube video? ??? Try again I need a good laugh

Says the one complaining about "personal attacks" 

So they should be. Care workers are generally looking after the more vulnerable members of society and by refusing to be vaccinated are placing those in their care at greater risk. Nightclubs etc also have a duty of care towards their staff

To be fair, 60 Minutes is a well respected current affairs programme in Australia.  However, it can be somewhat sensationalist.

 

[colinjallen]

@colinjallen.

What A Nice Kind Erudite peRson. ?

Regards 

Come back and have the discussion when you have grown up.

 

[Shamal]

Come back and have the discussion when you have grown up.

Get a life and take the broomstick out of ya arse. Mr Stiff. 

 

[colinjallen]

Get a life and take the broomstick out of ya arse. Mr Stiff. 

Yawn...keep going.  

 

[Adolf Hamster]

i'm all for a bit of good ol' fashioned internet debating, but it's much less fun when instead of using proper arguments to counter each other's points we just end up slinging mud.

i get this is an issue we feel strongly about, i have some pretty damn strong opinions of my own and can see the temptation (hence mostly abstaining from the detail arguments), but i'd like to think this place has a decent enough caliber of user that we can be a bit more adult about this.

 

[Rogerborg]

So they should be. Care workers are generally looking after the more vulnerable members of society and by refusing to be vaccinated are placing those in their care at greater risk.

Maybe.  Or maybe by being vaccinated they're raising their likelihood of becoming asymptomatic spreaders, as per the multiple fully-vaccinated cruise ship outbreaks (ibid).  See whooping cough for an example of asymptomatic spread despite near universal vaccination (and for the avoidance of any doubt, this is not an anti-vaccine position, it's actually an argument for even earlier vaccination).

I'm really struggling to find any data for reduction in infections or transmission.  Remember, all of the current vaccines only claim to reduce death and severe illness in the recipient.  None of them made any claim, or even attempted to collect evidence, regarding reduction of infection or transmission.  As far as I can tell, we just assumed that, and it's become asserted as a tenet of faith.

The policy for care home staff is one PCR test a week, lateral flows every two days or on a change of location.  This is current advice, 23rd December 2021, with what should now be fully vaccinated staff.

This is a tacit acknowledgement that vaccination is not sufficient, as supported by the cruise ship examples.  So why is it necessary?

I know, precautionary principle, you can't be too careful, every little helps.  Absent any evidence though, it seems more like ritual than science. 

Nightclubs etc also have a duty of care towards their staff

And there's the other curious thing: patrons are required to be vaccinated, but staff aren't.

Why have opposite policies for care homes and nightclubs?  The few-to-many relationship applies in either case.  It gives me a pain in all the logic diodes down my left side.

I'm minded of an anecdote that I saw on social media (100% guaranteed factually true, and anecdote is the singular of data, right?) about a technician working the club and theatre circuit claiming that staff physically recoil from him when he presents a recent negative test result rather than evidence of prior vaccination.

I'll leave parsing the rationality of that as an exercise for the reader.

 

[colinjallen]

Maybe.  Or maybe by being vaccinated they're raising their likelihood of becoming asymptomatic spreaders, as per the multiple fully-vaccinated cruise ship outbreaks (ibid).  See whooping cough for an example of asymptomatic spread despite near universal vaccination (and for the avoidance of any doubt, this is not an anti-vaccine position, it's actually an argument for even earlier vaccination).

I'm really struggling to find any data for reduction in infections or transmission.  Remember, all of the current vaccines only claim to reduce death and severe illness in the recipient.  None of them made any claim, or even attempted to collect evidence, regarding reduction of infection or transmission.  As far as I can tell, we just assumed that, and it's become asserted as a tenet of faith.

The policy for care home staff is one PCR test a week, lateral flows every two days or on a change of location.  This is current advice, 23rd December 2021, with what should now be fully vaccinated staff.

This is a tacit acknowledgement that vaccination is not sufficient, as supported by the cruise ship examples.  So why is it necessary?

I know, precautionary principle, you can't be too careful, every little helps.  Absent any evidence though, it seems more like ritual than science. 

And there's the other curious thing: patrons are required to be vaccinated, but staff aren't.

Why have opposite policies for care homes and nightclubs?  The few-to-many relationship applies in either case.  It gives me a pain in all the logic diodes down my left side.

I'm minded of an anecdote that I saw on social media (100% guaranteed factually true, and anecdote is the singular of data, right?) about a technician working the club and theatre circuit claiming that staff physically recoil from him when he presents a recent negative test result rather than evidence of prior vaccination.

I'll leave parsing the rationality of that as an exercise for the reader.

Given that data (rather than assumptions, politically inspired talking points or moonbat conspiracy theories, none of which I am suggesting that you are using) strongly indicate that those who have received the vaccinations are far less likely to end up in hospital or dead, vaccination is far more than just a ritual.

However, many people do seem to believe that vaccination will prevent them catching the virus or passing it on.  Given that the official messaging has suggested, although not actually stated, that vaccination does indeed prevent spread, despite none of the manufacturers making that claim, it is not surprising that many believe that.

Do we really expect logical and coherent policies from politicians?

 

[Cannonfodder]

Going to a pub or nightclub to get pissed is a choice, whereas living in care usually isn't. 

 

[colinjallen]

Going to a pub or nightclub to get pissed is a choice, whereas living in care usually isn't. 

Would you care to expand on that and how that difference between choice and necessity should impact on policy?

 

[Rogerborg]

Going to a pub or nightclub to get pissed is a choice, whereas living in care usually isn't. 

True. But what's the relevance to the policies?

If the infection control argument holds for care home staff (reduce few-to-many transmission), why apply the opposite policy to nightclubs?

There's a argument that vaccine passports were introduced more to nudge/coerce younger people into getting vaccinated, not primarily for infection control.  But if that's the case, why did Queen Nicola just shut down the nightclub industry for three weeks, thereby removing that incentive, and fairly inevitably shifting socialising to house parties or ad hoc raves without any "Papers, please" gatekeeping.

To be clear, I'm not expecting answers here, just scratching my head while trying to find consistency in the apparently arbitrary reasoning.  It's rather hard to Trust The Experts when there appears to be scant evidence or explanation behind such contradictory actions (or knee jerk reactions).

 

[colinjallen]

True. But what's the relevance to the policies?

If the infection control argument holds for care home staff (reduce few-to-many transmission), why apply the opposite policy to nightclubs?

There's a argument that vaccine passports were introduced more to nudge/coerce younger people into getting vaccinated, not primarily for infection control.  But if that's the case, why did Queen Nicola just shut down the nightclub industry for three weeks, thereby removing that incentive, and fairly inevitably shifting socialising to house parties or ad hoc raves without any "Papers, please" gatekeeping.

To be clear, I'm not expecting answers here, just scratching my head while trying to find consistency in the apparently arbitrary reasoning.  It's rather hard to Trust The Experts when there appears to be scant evidence or explanation behind such contradictory actions (or knee jerk reactions).

Simple answer: politicians who are trying to balance public safety, minimising the damage to the economy, keeping various pressure groups happy, maintaining or improving their chances of getting re-elected and trying not to get deposed by their own party.

I am sure there are more complicated answers.

 

[Tactical Pith Helmet]

Simple answer: politicians who are trying to balance [what is perceived as] public safety, minimising the damage to the [finance sector of the] economy, keeping various [insider] pressure groups happy, maintaining or improving their chances of getting re-elected [by maintaining the fiction that tax and spend actually happens, and that this is being managed responsibly]and trying not to get deposed by their own party.

I am sure there are more complicated answers.

I think that Guy Debord got there before you.  

 

[colinjallen]

I think that Guy Debord got there before you.  

I am not quite convinced that it can be viewed entirely through a situationalist lens, possibly because I have never been convinced by the concept of "the spectacle".

 

[Tactical Pith Helmet]

I think that we have moved a way beyond the situationism of the 1960's into a plainly consistent denial of the quantitative, as announced by those who announce the quantitative itself, to an audience plainly experiencing the contrary. 

We are simply a further 50 or so years into the construction of fictions and the accumulated unspoken inconsistencies that that state engenders, aided by new technologies.

You may disagree, but I would be interested in your response to my edits to your interesting post.