Maybe our politicians are smarter than we give them credit for.
Does anyone think this virus is going away? Does anyone think we can have lockdowns forever? To me it's pretty obvious the answer to both questions is NO.
So at some point we have to abandon lockdowns and the restrictions that go along with them. Now? Nope. If we dropped those restrictions now the health impacts would be horrific. Not enough people vaccinated.
As evidenced by comments in this thread, there is a strong resistance from many to be vaccinated, or to reject AstraZeneca due to its miniscule risk. But we have a shortage of Pfizer and the age recommendation has been set to 60, very much a kneejerk reaction. In UK it is 30.
So, maybe those setting the rules are running a balance between stopping the spread (thus causing complacency in the community), or allowing the numbers to grow a little (thus causing concern .... "I had better get vaccinated"). If they get the balance right the vaccination rate will grow, and save lives in the long term. If they lockdown too hard, the community will delay getting their vaccines, and lockdowns will continue for longer.
So, what would you do? Close things down to eliminate the current spread, with the downside being continued resistance to vaccination, and just delaying the inevitable. Or allow it to spread, resulting in panic in the community, but more people vaccinated. What balance would you choose?
Just my thoughts on it.
so, what King Boris of the UK has done is OK, let them run free with no restrictions, cases have sky-rocketed, NDS is being overwhelmed, vulnerable people are too scared to come of their homes - this is how a modern society should work - nice
Maybe our politicians are smarter than we give them credit for.
Does anyone think this virus is going away? Does anyone think we can have lockdowns forever? To me it's pretty obvious the answer to both questions is NO.
So at some point we have to abandon lockdowns and the restrictions that go along with them. Now? Nope. If we dropped those restrictions now the health impacts would be horrific. Not enough people vaccinated.
As evidenced by comments in this thread, there is a strong resistance from many to be vaccinated, or to reject AstraZeneca due to its miniscule risk. But we have a shortage of Pfizer and the age recommendation has been set to 60, very much a kneejerk reaction. In UK it is 30.
So, maybe those setting the rules are running a balance between stopping the spread (thus causing complacency in the community), or allowing the numbers to grow a little (thus causing concern .... "I had better get vaccinated"). If they get the balance right the vaccination rate will grow, and save lives in the long term. If they lockdown too hard, the community will delay getting their vaccines, and lockdowns will continue for longer.
So, what would you do? Close things down to eliminate the current spread, with the downside being continued resistance to vaccination, and just delaying the inevitable. Or allow it to spread, resulting in panic in the community, but more people vaccinated. What balance would you choose?
Just my thoughts on it.
so, what King Boris of the UK has done is OK, let them run free with no restrictions, cases have sky-rocketed, NDS is being overwhelmed, vulnerable people are too scared to come of their homes - this is how a modern society should work - nice
The Netherlands opened up everything before Britain. A week later they apologised for making such a huge blunder. Cases and deaths shot up after a day. Singapore also tried it...now they are in more trouble than a robbers dog. Britain will also be overwhelmed.
The ONLY way out is with vaccination to as many people as possible as soon as possible. Morrisson stuffed up our vacc program....however the recent demonstrations have shown that the lunatic fringe couldnt care less anyway.
Maybe our politicians are smarter than we give them credit for.
Does anyone think this virus is going away? Does anyone think we can have lockdowns forever? To me it's pretty obvious the answer to both questions is NO.
So at some point we have to abandon lockdowns and the restrictions that go along with them. Now? Nope. If we dropped those restrictions now the health impacts would be horrific. Not enough people vaccinated.
As evidenced by comments in this thread, there is a strong resistance from many to be vaccinated, or to reject AstraZeneca due to its miniscule risk. But we have a shortage of Pfizer and the age recommendation has been set to 60, very much a kneejerk reaction. In UK it is 30.
So, maybe those setting the rules are running a balance between stopping the spread (thus causing complacency in the community), or allowing the numbers to grow a little (thus causing concern .... "I had better get vaccinated"). If they get the balance right the vaccination rate will grow, and save lives in the long term. If they lockdown too hard, the community will delay getting their vaccines, and lockdowns will continue for longer.
So, what would you do? Close things down to eliminate the current spread, with the downside being continued resistance to vaccination, and just delaying the inevitable. Or allow it to spread, resulting in panic in the community, but more people vaccinated. What balance would you choose?
Just my thoughts on it.
so, what King Boris of the UK has done is OK, let them run free with no restrictions, cases have sky-rocketed, NDS is being overwhelmed, vulnerable people are too scared to come of their homes - this is how a modern society should work - nice
Maybe our politicians are smarter than we give them credit for.
Does anyone think this virus is going away? Does anyone think we can have lockdowns forever? To me it's pretty obvious the answer to both questions is NO.
So at some point we have to abandon lockdowns and the restrictions that go along with them. Now? Nope. If we dropped those restrictions now the health impacts would be horrific. Not enough people vaccinated.
As evidenced by comments in this thread, there is a strong resistance from many to be vaccinated, or to reject AstraZeneca due to its miniscule risk. But we have a shortage of Pfizer and the age recommendation has been set to 60, very much a kneejerk reaction. In UK it is 30.
So, maybe those setting the rules are running a balance between stopping the spread (thus causing complacency in the community), or allowing the numbers to grow a little (thus causing concern .... "I had better get vaccinated"). If they get the balance right the vaccination rate will grow, and save lives in the long term. If they lockdown too hard, the community will delay getting their vaccines, and lockdowns will continue for longer.
So, what would you do? Close things down to eliminate the current spread, with the downside being continued resistance to vaccination, and just delaying the inevitable. Or allow it to spread, resulting in panic in the community, but more people vaccinated. What balance would you choose?
Just my thoughts on it.
so, what King Boris of the UK has done is OK, let them run free with no restrictions, cases have sky-rocketed, NDS is being overwhelmed, vulnerable people are too scared to come of their homes - this is how a modern society should work - nice
Plain Truth, it would be plainer for others to see if you posted a current graph rather than one 9 months old and before any vaccines. The position at present is very different. Despite the rise in cases, the chance of death from COVID in the UK at present is less than one in a million of population.And the number of cases is falling again despite removal of most restrictions. There are still various recommendations for protection.
-- Edited by Are We Lost on Wednesday 28th of July 2021 06:35:21 PM
Maybe our politicians are smarter than we give them credit for.
Does anyone think this virus is going away? Does anyone think we can have lockdowns forever? To me it's pretty obvious the answer to both questions is NO.
So at some point we have to abandon lockdowns and the restrictions that go along with them. Now? Nope. If we dropped those restrictions now the health impacts would be horrific. Not enough people vaccinated.
As evidenced by comments in this thread, there is a strong resistance from many to be vaccinated, or to reject AstraZeneca due to its miniscule risk. But we have a shortage of Pfizer and the age recommendation has been set to 60, very much a kneejerk reaction. In UK it is 30.
So, maybe those setting the rules are running a balance between stopping the spread (thus causing complacency in the community), or allowing the numbers to grow a little (thus causing concern .... "I had better get vaccinated"). If they get the balance right the vaccination rate will grow, and save lives in the long term. If they lockdown too hard, the community will delay getting their vaccines, and lockdowns will continue for longer.
So, what would you do? Close things down to eliminate the current spread, with the downside being continued resistance to vaccination, and just delaying the inevitable. Or allow it to spread, resulting in panic in the community, but more people vaccinated. What balance would you choose?
Just my thoughts on it.
so, what King Boris of the UK has done is OK, let them run free with no restrictions, cases have sky-rocketed, NDS is being overwhelmed, vulnerable people are too scared to come of their homes - this is how a modern society should work - nice
and COVID related deaths have hit a new high - not sure how the maths of that works out, but anyway
Since you seem to think that you can do better,perhaps you should run for Parliament? As I have said previously,unless you can offer a viable alternative,criticism of another's efforts is an exercise in stupidity.Cheers
,unless you can offer a viable alternative, criticism of another's efforts is an exercise in stupidity.Cheers
Not stupid if you are a Shock Jock on Sky News, for example. Thats how they make their money. It is so easy to say negative things then sit back and wait for the ratings to go up. It, criticism rather than critique, does not require much thought and pulls the strings of those who need to react.
__________________
Iza
Semi-permanent state of being Recreationally Outraged as a defence against boredom during lockdown.
,unless you can offer a viable alternative, criticism of another's efforts is an exercise in stupidity.Cheers
Not stupid if you are a Shock Jock on Sky News, for example. Thats how they make their money. It is so easy to say negative things then sit back and wait for the ratings to go up. It, criticism rather than critique, does not require much thought and pulls the strings of those who need to react.
Perhaps that shows the lack of intelligence of their average listener? Cheers
-- Edited by yobarr on Thursday 29th of July 2021 07:19:24 PM
Since you seem to think that you can do better,perhaps you should run for Parliament? As I have said previously,unless you can offer a viable alternative,criticism of another's efforts is an exercise in stupidity.Cheers
I don't need to show anything, Victoria mucked it right up last year, you would think NSW would look at that and look at what Victoria (& S.A. & W.A. & Tasmania & N.T.) have done and learn from it - oh, they will just play Russian roulette with people lives, suppose it is not the decision makers balls in the vice, just the voters. The lock-down that ended Tuesday was the 2nd time we have fought off the DELTA, did NSW learn from that NO NO NO NO NO
Perhaps that shows the lack of intelligence of their average listener? Cheers
-- Edited by yobarr on Thursday 29th of July 2021 07:19:24 PM
I have held that belief for many a year. Another quick check for credibility is when the speaker tries to support their contention by referring to a story reported by any Murdock media outlet.
__________________
Iza
Semi-permanent state of being Recreationally Outraged as a defence against boredom during lockdown.
Perhaps that shows the lack of intelligence of their average listener? Cheers
-- Edited by yobarr on Thursday 29th of July 2021 07:19:24 PM
I have held that belief for many a year. Another quick check for credibility is when the speaker tries to support their contention by referring to a story reported by any Murdock media outlet.
LoL. Just keep in mind. If you are of average intelligence 50% of the population is dumber than you. ;)
In 2020, there were 396 victims of homicide and related offences recorded by the police. This was a decrease of 19 victims from 2019.
In 2020, most homicide and related offences:
occurred at a residential location (61% or 241 victims)
involved the use of a weapon (59% or 232 victims), most commonly a knife (116 victims)
For victims of homicide and related offences:
around two-thirds (67%) were male (264 victims)
two-fifths (40%) were aged between 35 to 54 years at the date of report (160 victims)
more than a third (37%) were family and domestic violence (FDV) related incidents (145 victims)
Heard a good one today. Started with the comment that Delta is more infectious than Chickenpox. Kid overhearing asks Whats Chickenpox? Adult replies that the kid has nothing to worry about as you have been vaccinated and Herd Immunity against Chickenpox has been established in the community. Thats how Australians learnt to live with Chickenpox.
Just one more example of how the community learnt to live with infectious diseases, like Polio, Measles, Smallpox, and the rest.
__________________
Iza
Semi-permanent state of being Recreationally Outraged as a defence against boredom during lockdown.
Heard a good one today. Started with the comment that Delta is more infectious than Chickenpox. Kid overhearing asks Whats Chickenpox? Adult replies that the kid has nothing to worry about as you have been vaccinated and Herd Immunity against Chickenpox has been established in the community. Thats how Australians learnt to live with Chickenpox.
Just one more example of how the community learnt to live with infectious diseases, like Polio, Measles, Smallpox, and the rest.
Yep..all thanks to vaccinations...but the anti vaxes wont have any of that!!!