Football and Covid | Page 7 | Vital Football

Football and Covid

Wlatic said:
As always its follow the money. Insurance companies and big pharma working together never goes well! In the USA right now I pay one price myself or a price of around double if I let my insurance company handle it, you'd think the insurance company would get a bulk discount.

I'd be more happy to have a Covid passport, if it goes to the full draconian extent of the passport including any infectious disease (TB, Aids etc.), reason being its then an actual process vs over reaction to a virus which in one form or another has been around since before man existed.

The extension would then be people who are a danger to others, so any convictions would go into your passport and companies can be very selective about who goes in. Then of course you have a way for every company to check your credit score (which is actually a really good indicator) and before you know it we are in a "children of men" / "V for vendetta" type world which is split hugely between the haves and have nots.
Click to expand...

The prospect of a Chinese social credit system is truly terrifying.
 
Proud Latic said:
I'm certainly no expert in virology, but I imagine that it's spread from people with a sufficiently high enough viral load, meaning that they will have some symptoms (but not severe ones). I've known people that claim to have had COVID that have some mild symptoms, so I imagine that they've spread it to others in continuing with their business and not isolating.

As Chris Whitty said last year, the vast majority of people are not at risk from this virus. It is very infectious but doesn't pose a risk to the young and healthy - it appears that the elderly, the obese, and those with severe co-morbidities are most at risk. It is important to protect the elderly and the vulnerable, but lockdowns are not the way to do this in my view.
Click to expand...

So ....... not asymptomatic, but not far off.
 
Proud Latic said:
I think there's a difference between having no symptoms and having some symptoms. Nobody who is healthy should be punished.
Click to expand...
But as you yourself stated, some my carry on about their business even when they feel a little under the weather.

Shouldn't they be punished ......... they chose not to isolate, and instead, helped spread the infection.
 
moonay said:
But as you yourself stated, some my carry on about their business even when they feel a little under the weather.

Shouldn't they be punished ......... they chose not to isolate, and instead, helped spread the infection.
Click to expand...

How would you propose that they are dealt with?
 
moonay said:
I've not a clue ...... it was you suggesting that the "healthy" ones shouldn't be punished.

I think we should all be vaxxed unless there's a medical reason not to be.
Click to expand...

It would essentially be impossible to prove who has and who hasn't spread the virus. It is for this reason that punishing anybody would be wrong.

As for whether or not somebody should be vaccinated, I think they should make this decision for themselves, by analysing the data carefully and weighing up the pros and cons.
 
Proud Latic said:
It would essentially be impossible to prove who has and who hasn't spread the virus. It is for this reason that punishing anybody would be wrong.

As for whether or not somebody should be vaccinated, I think they should make this decision for themselves, by analysing the data carefully and weighing up the pros and cons.
Click to expand...

To clarify, I don't "actually" mean that people should be actually punished .......... just that if things understandably require proof of vaccination, then I'm fine with the "virtual punishment" that offers those who can't show that proof ........ or a verifiable reason why not.
 
moonay said:
To clarify, I don't "actually" mean that people should be actually punished .......... just that if things understandably require proof of vaccination, then I'm fine with the "virtual punishment" that offers those who can't show that proof ........ or a verifiable reason why not.
Click to expand...

I can't agree with you on this.
 
The vaccination is to protect yourself from the symptoms of the disease covid 19 if your body cannot handle the sarscov2 virus

It does nothing for anyone else, at home, work or the DW. Nor does it claim to. Its only for YOUR wellbeing and it should be YOUR informed choice.

The unvaccinated should carry no greater threat than the vaccinated in terms on catching and transmitting the virus. The virus can still be caught and transmitted by vaxed and unvaxed.
 
Last edited:
Proud Latic said:
I'm certainly no expert in virology, but I imagine that it's spread from people with a sufficiently high enough viral load, meaning that they will have some symptoms (but not severe ones). I've known people that claim to have had COVID that have some mild symptoms, so I imagine that they've spread it to others in continuing with their business and not isolating.

As Chris Whitty said last year, the vast majority of people are not at risk from this virus. It is very infectious but doesn't pose a risk to the young and healthy - it appears that the elderly, the obese, and those with severe co-morbidities are most at risk. It is important to protect the elderly and the vulnerable, but lockdowns are not the way to do this in my view.
Click to expand...

Especially as we live in a world in which everything can be done online, there really is no reason for someone who is worried about the virus to leave their house, nor should someone who is worried about it be subjecting themselves to possibly getting ill. That's the freedom of choice and everything we ever do is a calculated risk (whether people understand that or not!).

The vaccine for most people is a seat belt on a Aeroplane, makes them feel safe, but if the worst happens provides no protection at all.
 
Proud Latic said:
I can't agree with you on this.
Click to expand...

That's fair enough .....we all have our own opinions, ........ but I can't think of another way of stopping the continuing spreading of the infection ........ especially if (as you say) a continued lockdown isn't an option (and I agree, neither should it be).
 
Kenny Morris said:
Not really, as we were in lockdown in the flu season and you don't really hear normally anyway unless its someone you knew.
Perhaps if you knew someone who had suffered from Covid or died as a result then you wouldn't be quite so flippant
Click to expand...
Thought you worked for NHS?
You would know that there has been a drop off in flu, cold and gastro type infections due to hand washing, reduced touching and masks

EDIT sorry this was aimed at TnC
 
moonay said:
That's fair enough .....we all have our own opinions, ........ but I can't think of another way of stopping the continuing spreading of the infection ........ especially if (as you say) a continued lockdown isn't an option (and I agree, neither should it be).
Click to expand...
The vaccine doesn't claim to stop the spread though.
 
Proud Latic said:
You are effectively calling for people to be excluded from society because they don't want to inject an experimental vaccine into their body. Do you believe in bodily autonomy?
Click to expand...

That's exactly what I expect to happen. If people refuse (without medical reason) to do something that costs nothing in order to minimise risk to other members of society (not to mention themselves), then they don't deserve the luxuries like live events. Like I said, if you want rights, you have to accept the responsibilities that go with them.

I already addressed choice, or bodily autonomy as you put it. It's everyone's choice not to be vaccinated, which I already said, but with that choice come consequences borne of responsibility to thegeneral wellbeing of the wider community.

Everyone has a right, in every situation, to be made a safe as it's humanly possible to make them. That really is a right. As such, if a minority of individuals make a decision to reduce the safety of others, those individuals must forego their right to be amongst people whose safety they are selfishly disregarding. Can't have it all ways.

If you're struggling with the idea of 'me rights' being incompatible with wider public wellbeing, think of the USA... it's their right to bear arms, as defined by their constitution, but they still can't take weapons into sports stadia and gigs etc. because that right is not compatible with wider public safety: others' have an overriding right to be protected from individuals whose presence reduces their safety.
 
moonay said:
That's fair enough .....we all have our own opinions, ........ but I can't think of another way of stopping the continuing spreading of the infection ........ especially if (as you say) a continued lockdown isn't an option (and I agree, neither should it be).
Click to expand...

Thanks for being respectful, which is a rarity these days. My hope is that society doesn't become divided and I sincerely hope that an 'us vs them' mentality doesn't develop, which could lead to disaster and even bloodshed.
 
The_Pon said:
That's exactly what I expect to happen. If people refuse (without medical reason) to do something that costs nothing in order to minimise risk to other members of society (not to mention themselves), then they don't deserve the luxuries like live events. Like I said, if you want rights, you have to accept the responsibilities that go with them.

I already addressed choice, or bodily autonomy as you put it. It's everyone's choice not to be vaccinated, which I already said, but with that choice come consequences borne of responsibility to thegeneral wellbeing of the wider community.

Everyone has a right, in every situation, to be made a safe as it's humanly possible to make them. That really is a right. As such, if a minority of individuals make a decision to reduce the safety of others, those individuals must forego their right to be amongst people whose safety they are selfishly disregarding. Can't have it all ways.

If you're struggling with the idea of 'me rights' being incompatible with wider public wellbeing, think of the USA... it's their right to bear arms, as defined by their constitution, but they still can't take weapons into sports stadia and gigs etc. because that right is not compatible with wider public safety: others' have an overriding right to be protected from individuals whose presence reduces their safety.
Click to expand...

You expect people to take a vaccine that they don't want or need? If they are not clinically vulnerable, there is no reason for them to take the vaccine. If they want to take the vaccine, this is a personal choice, but they should not be coerced into doing so. The vaccine doesn't prevent one getting the virus and it doesn't prevent transmission, which makes vaccine passports redundant. If you've taken the vaccine and it works, then you're protected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.