Double Jabbers Only | Page 2 | Vital Football

Double Jabbers Only

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
#21
I thought it was only 20k attendances up.

As Nobby says it gives everyone who wants it ample time to be double jabbed so it all seems fair to me.

People will argue it limits their freedoms but:
a) there is no proven logic to not getting jabbed
B) I would rather go to places where I know those there care about themselves, me and wider population
Spot on. Free to not get jabbed but prevented from endangering others.
 

Baghdad_Rob

Vital 1st Team Regular
#22
It’s a ploy to get the resistant jabbed
When Macron announced similar in France, two million immediately booked up for vaccines.
That's because in France if you can't prove you are double jabbed, even when you have been, then you could face jail or a sizable fine.

1627225813877.png
 

Jerryattrick

Vital 1st Team Regular
#23
Spot on. Free to not get jabbed but prevented from endangering others.
Are they not just endangering others that are not jabbed.
Are we saying that the double jab of the vaccine is not effective?

Just seems another government initiative (freedom day) made knowing that they will not keep to it. Similar to the brexit agreement.
 

LockdownLife

Vital Squad Member
#24
Are they not just endangering others that are not jabbed.
Are we saying that the double jab of the vaccine is not effective?
No one has ever said they are 100% effective. But they do reduce transmission significantly (plus improve hospitalisation/deaths)

Therefore those who are there unvaccinated increase the chance of a vaccinated person catching it. That vaccinated person can still become seriously ill or die (even if at a reduced rate).

If everyone is vaccinated then that risk reduces.
 

Jerryattrick

Vital 1st Team Regular
#25
No one has ever said they are 100% effective. But they do reduce transmission significantly (plus improve hospitalisation/deaths)

Therefore those who are there unvaccinated increase the chance of a vaccinated person catching it. That vaccinated person can still become seriously ill or die (even if at a reduced rate).

If everyone is vaccinated then that risk reduces.
Reduced by what percentage?

If it can still be spread by those with a double jab then a test would be more effective.

Their arguments dont bear close scrutiny, thats my point.

No international travel at all without these requirements is easily understandable (to anyone no matter what their opinion). Except when they keep changing the isolation rules most days lol.
 

shotshy

Vital Football Hero
#26
No one has ever said they are 100% effective. But they do reduce transmission significantly (plus improve hospitalisation/deaths)

Therefore those who are there unvaccinated increase the chance of a vaccinated person catching it. That vaccinated person can still become seriously ill or die (even if at a reduced rate).

If everyone is vaccinated then that risk reduces.
Stop being sensible 😂
 

ThreeSixes

Vital 1st Team Regular
#27
Reduced by what percentage?

If it can still be spread by those with a double jab then a test would be more effective.

Their arguments dont bear close scrutiny, thats my point.

.
I don't know. If unvaccinated people can catch it and pass it (without any symptoms) to someone that is double jabbed, then it presumably follows that someone that is double jabbed can also pass it to someone that is double jabbed?
 

GillsBluenose

Vital 1st Team Regular
#28
Even younger people who are very unlikely to die from Covid, or even get hospitalised by it, can still suffer the effects of Long Covid.

Interesting to hear Iain Dale on LBC saying that he had been a competitive swimmer who could not put on weight in his teens, but then contracted a virus in Russia during a school trip. From then on, he started piling on the pounds and lost the lung power required to carry on swimming.

Any serious virus comes with such complications.

Of course, governments should not stick needles in citizen's arms against their will. They can, however, restrict their way of life, through intermediaries like Football Clubs, in an attempt to persuade.
 

Jerryattrick

Vital 1st Team Regular
#29
Even younger people who are very unlikely to die from Covid, or even get hospitalised by it, can still suffer the effects of Long Covid.

Interesting to hear Iain Dale on LBC saying that he had been a competitive swimmer who could not put on weight in his teens, but then contracted a virus in Russia during a school trip. From then on, he started piling on the pounds and lost the lung power required to carry on swimming.

Any serious virus comes with such complications.

Of course, governments should not stick needles in citizen's arms against their will. They can, however, restrict their way of life, through intermediaries like Football Clubs, in an attempt to persuade.

Which is coercion so why not just admit it. At least that would be honest and a decision made to stand.

The reason it is not voluntary could be that in the event of problems coming to light later the populace will not be able to sue the government or Pharma companies.

Where is the formal evidence for that possibility and impact of long covid. Medical outcomes are judged over a few years post authorisation for use.
 

Baghdad_Rob

Vital 1st Team Regular
#30
Therefore those who are there unvaccinated increase the chance of a vaccinated person catching it. That vaccinated person can still become seriously ill or die (even if at a reduced rate).
Who is the most dangerous person:

a) Mr A who is double jabbed but catches the virus but shows little or no symptioms and is unaware they are contagious.
a) Mr B who wasn't vaccinated and catches the virus and due to having Covid-like symptoms immediately self isolates and warns people they are in contact with?
 

LockdownLife

Vital Squad Member
#31
Reduced by what percentage?

If it can still be spread by those with a double jab then a test would be more effective.

Their arguments dont bear close scrutiny, thats my point.

No international travel at all without these requirements is easily understandable (to anyone no matter what their opinion). Except when they keep changing the isolation rules most days lol.
I don't know. If unvaccinated people can catch it and pass it (without any symptoms) to someone that is double jabbed, then it presumably follows that someone that is double jabbed can also pass it to someone that is double jabbed?
A brief Google gives data of a 40-60% reduction in transmission if the person doing the transmitting has had a single dose. I assume that may increase after a 2nd.

That is a massive reduction for breaking chains of transmission and reduction in new variants.

I think halving the chance of catching it from the person next to me is worth the rule. We are learning to live with the virus, it will never be eradicated.

You talk like you think it should get to zero?
 

Jerryattrick

Vital 1st Team Regular
#32
I personally dont buy into the discriminatory side of this argument.
We are all equal in that we all make the choice based on what we have been input and our risk tolerance etc irrelevant of race, creed, social or financial standing etc.
 

LockdownLife

Vital Squad Member
#33
Who is the most dangerous person:

a) Mr A who is double jabbed but catches the virus but shows little or no symptioms and is unaware they are contagious.
a) Mr B who wasn't vaccinated and catches the virus and due to having Covid-like symptoms immediately self isolates and warns people they are in contact with?
Both sides can have symptoms or not, but in both scenarios it's better if they're vaccinated. You've picked the best of a bad version of events and the worst of a good version.

What about the versions of Mr B without symptoms who are now spreading it at double the rate?

Likewise, what about Mr A's who gets minor symptoms and therefore isolates whilst reducing the chance of needing treatment from the NHS.
 

Jerryattrick

Vital 1st Team Regular
#34
A brief Google gives data of a 40-60% reduction in transmission if the person doing the transmitting has had a single dose. I assume that may increase after a 2nd.

That is a massive reduction for breaking chains of transmission and reduction in new variants.

I think halving the chance of catching it from the person next to me is worth the rule. We are learning to live with the virus, it will never be eradicated.

You talk like you think it should get to zero?
You can get anything from googling lol.
The point is to whether this is in effect worth doing from a public health risk perspective or is it just the government trying to look as if they are doing something which so far has been their direction on everything including current bills they are pushing through.
 

Baghdad_Rob

Vital 1st Team Regular
#35
A brief Google gives data of a 40-60% reduction in transmission if the person doing the transmitting has had a single dose. I assume that may increase after a 2nd.

That is a massive reduction for breaking chains of transmission and reduction in new variants.
And which of the dozen or so vaccines does that number relate to?

One of the other things often boasted about is the fact if you do catch it then the illness will be overwelmingly mild or asymptomatic. If someone has the virus but is not showing symptoms or is sufficiantly mild that the person blames a hangover then the number of transmissions being reported is probably underreported. Hence, the 40%-60% reduction is probably less. but we have no way of telling.
 

LockdownLife

Vital Squad Member
#36
You can get anything from googling lol.
The point is to whether this is in effect worth doing from a public health risk perspective or is it just the government trying to look as if they are doing something which so far has been their direction any everything including current bills they are pushing through.
Alright pledge v2, one of the bits of data was from Public Health England who I am more than happy to trust.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-can-cut-household-transmission-by-up-to-half

So are you saying stopping people with double the chance of transmitting the virus potentially going near thousands of others isn't worth doing?

You keep saying you need proof, but where is your proof there is no effect?
 

LockdownLife

Vital Squad Member
#37
And which of the dozen or so vaccines does that number relate to?

One of the other things often boasted about is the fact if you do catch it then the illness will be overwelmingly mild or asymptomatic. If someone has the virus but is not showing symptoms or is sufficiantly mild that the person blames a hangover then the number of transmissions being reported is probably underreported. Hence, the 40%-60% reduction is probably less. but we have no way of telling.
Didn't realise we use dozens of vaccines in this country? The study was for Pfizer and AZ which makes up the vast, vast majority of those administered here.

Like with Jerry, where is any proof that what you're saying is true? Sure as hell seems like there is more evidence to support the policy than your view.
 

Jerryattrick

Vital 1st Team Regular
#39
Alright pledge v2, one of the bits of data was from Public Health England who I am more than happy to trust.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...-can-cut-household-transmission-by-up-to-half

So are you saying stopping people with double the chance of transmitting the virus potentially going near thousands of others isn't worth doing?

You keep saying you need proof, but where is your proof there is no effect?
Of course there will be some transmission but we do not know exactly what and we do know from the official tests that the impact was different from those stats.
I do know that I will be going into a stadium now without restriction and therefore at a higher risk than I would be at the end of September with restriction.

Pledge2 lol - i had my jabs and take the lowest risks in this pandemic but it has not stopped me querying some of the governments bizzare decisions and logic.
 

RotherhitheGill

Vital Squad Member
#40
Forget all the talk about what's good or bad, just by waring a mask it indicates that you have care/compassion for other's (the mask probably has little effect on protecting you but does help you stopping transmitting infection to others) by not wearing one, you just look self-centered. Read into that what you want.

Getting yourself jabbed looks like the best form of self-protection we have. If you don't want it, don't have it (good luck to you), but if us "jabbed" don't want you near us, well just stay away from the places most of us jabbed(the majority) congregate.
 
Last edited: