British Expats

British Expats (https://britishexpats.com/forum/)
-   The Maple Leaf (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/)
-   -   Coronavirus (https://britishexpats.com/forum/maple-leaf-98/coronavirus-930602/)

BristolUK Jan 21st 2022 12:56 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by printer (Post 13089299)
It's interesting that back in June UK daily deaths were in single figures on a 7 day average yet now they are hovering around 280 yet restrictions (In England anyway) are being stripped away and Bojo is running with the idea it can be managed and they can live with it. Of course even 280 a day is a world away from last January where there was almost 2000 deaths a day at one point.So what is an "acceptable death rate"? We know that prior to COVID a bad flu season could kill many but it was something we just accepted, there was never any push to mandate flu jabs or force people to wear masks even though those steps may have reduced hospital cases and deaths.

I think we 'accepted' it because it really wasn't many.

When I was first in Canada I was struck by queues for flu jabs as it was never really a thing in the UK. So I did a bit of research for the two countries and prevalence of flu and its effects in Canada was completely out proportion to the UK.
Here's something that I found from my posting history on it.
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/british...0bd78e0570.png

I think that 600 a year flu deaths is so out of whack with covid deaths of 280 daily or 2000 daily that the only reason for comparing flu and covid is to show how different they are.

BristolUK Jan 21st 2022 1:01 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
Interestingly England is alone in the UK in lifting the mask mandates.

dbd33 Jan 21st 2022 2:08 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 13089382)
Interestingly England is alone in the UK in lifting the mask mandates.


The Welsh FM was entertainingly scathing about the reasons for that. He doesn't seem to hold the PM in high regard.

Danny B Jan 21st 2022 4:23 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 13089382)
Interestingly England is alone in the UK in lifting the mask mandates.

Ireland has just scrapped almost all of the covid restrictions except wearing a mask :unsure:

https://news.sky.com/story/covid-rep...tions-12521991

bats Jan 21st 2022 9:10 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
Well I have the Dreaded Lurgy, allegedly. The covid triage nurse said that 90% of cold, fluey symptoms are COVID so I'm isolating for 5 days. I started with a stonking headache on Wednesday, then sore throat, hot and cold etc, I felt pretty yuck on Wednesday night and yesterday. I think today is Friday and I'll be fine by tomorrow. Fully vaxed and boosted thank goodness.

printer Jan 21st 2022 9:53 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Mordko (Post 13089374)
Lockdowns happen when hospitals are about to run out of capacity, particularly of ICU beds. That is the primary reason rather than the death rate. Regular flu season is something that healthcare planned for and comparisons to “flu seasons prior to Covid” are misguided.

For the other variants, patients admitted with Covid had much higher mortality, ICU usage and duration of stay, compared to flu. And flu admissions as well as other types of admissions still happened.

Right now in Ontario ICU usage is about 1300 for non-Covid patients and 600 for Covid. Spare capacity is about 500. The Covid number is still growing but slowly and stabilizing. Which is why restrictions can be eased although the trends will have to be monitored.

The above are facts. My guess: would have been no need for this latest lockdown if all eligible people were vaccinated. Over 200 ICU beds are taken by Covid patients not fully vaccinated, but also the spread would have been slower.

UK restrictions are based on the capacity of British hospitals and vaccination status of the British public. Politicians’ hands are forced in this respect. Alberta was a good illustration and so was Britain in spring 2020. Politicians have no choice whether they want to lock down or not.

There is a very interesting and thought provoking documentary on the BBC about UK hospitals that i think has now had three series and the last one was covering some shocking stuff in hospitals due to influx of COVID patients and the extreme measures required to treat them. However it is also interesting to note that from the first series prior to COVID hospital over capacity is a given EVERY flu season and one such bad season was reflected in the program with patients waiting for hours in Emergency, ambulances stacked up outside and operations being cancelled, some at very last minute due to no critical care beds which are needed after surgery. There were qualified surgeons unable to operate and whole theatres empty because there was nowhere to put the patient after surgery. All this was pre COVID, nobody had heard about the virus at this point in time. The NHS were in crisis in certain areas yet there was never any discussions about any stringent preventative measures. It was a stark reminder that the NHS is running at close to capacity most of the time

dbd33 Jan 21st 2022 9:57 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by bats (Post 13089499)
Well I have the Dreaded Lurgy, allegedly. The covid triage nurse said that 90% of cold, fluey symptoms are COVID so I'm isolating for 5 days. I started with a stonking headache on Wednesday, then sore throat, hot and cold etc, I felt pretty yuck on Wednesday night and yesterday. I think today is Friday and I'll be fine by tomorrow. Fully vaxed and boosted thank goodness.


My boss has the covid. She looks like she's at death's door. She keeps just losing track and is working agonizingly slowly. She had a big presentation today which I was very glad not to watch, usually she's great at that but I doubt she'd have coped well with heckling today. I'm dreading my turn at sickness.

Heard the one about chap who would do anything for love but he won't get vaxxed?

JamesM Jan 21st 2022 10:42 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 13089513)
My boss has the covid. She looks like she's at death's door. She keeps just losing track and is working agonizingly slowly. She had a big presentation today which I was very glad not to watch, usually she's great at that but I doubt she'd have coped well with heckling today. I'm dreading my turn at sickness.

Heard the one about chap who would do anything for love but he won't get vaxxed?

https://scontent-lcy1-1.xx.fbcdn.net...xg&oe=61EFFC64

Danny B Jan 21st 2022 10:50 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 13089520)

I once met Meatloaf when I was working as a car salesman in the UK.He came in looking for a small coupe for his wife’s forthcoming birthday. He found one he liked and we completed a test drive together. The car was listed at £28,000 plus tax. He was deep in thought looking around the car but unfortunately for me he decided not to buy it. I was in my 20s, had a young family and working a commission only job so a couple of days later I rang him to see if anything could be done. He was keen on the car but didn’t like the £28,000 plus tax price tag. I assured him that this was a great price for the car, however he said that it wasn’t so much the price of the car, it was more the tax. He said, ‘I’d do anything for love, but I won’t do VAT’

bats Jan 22nd 2022 2:44 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 13089513)
My boss has the covid. She looks like she's at death's door. She keeps just losing track and is working agonizingly slowly. She had a big presentation today which I was very glad not to watch, usually she's great at that but I doubt she'd have coped well with heckling today. I'm dreading my turn at sickness.

Heard the one about chap who would do anything for love but he won't get vaxxed?

Did she drop loads of stuff? There was a definite clumsy as hell element that's been missed off the symptoms lists. I've been rigorous about avoiding this plague as husband has a dicky ticker and i have ropey lungs plus a dicky ticker so was expecting a shitstorm. It's been fine.

dbd33 Jan 22nd 2022 11:23 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by bats (Post 13089541)
Did she drop loads of stuff?


Glass of water, messily.

Souvy Jan 22nd 2022 3:45 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
My sister in law is, or was, a hospital nurse in Montreal. She was on a Covid ward and naturally got it. Full-on and she still has no sense of taste, two year on.

Recently, she and her bloke went to Florida. On the way back, she was randomly pulled for a test at the airport. It was a quick swab round just inside of the nostril. Utterly useless as a test, in her opinion (which is based on lots of experience). If that's how tests are being done, they will almost certainly come back negative.

Mordko Jan 22nd 2022 4:17 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
The plural of anecdote is not data. Rapid antigen tests correctly detect cases of Covid 80% of the time. This accounts for variability in how the tests are taken. If taken within 3 days of symptom onset the accuracy is higher, at 96%. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2783550



bats Jan 22nd 2022 8:58 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Mordko (Post 13089628)
The plural of anecdote is not data. Rapid antigen tests correctly detect cases of Covid 80% of the time. This accounts for variability in how the tests are taken. If taken within 3 days of symptom onset the accuracy is higher, at 96%. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...rticle/2783550

you sure about that?
That article is old., has authors with competitive interests, doesn't take into account testing on vaccinated people as it's pre vaccine, is for self administered tests, blah, blah.

Mordko Jan 22nd 2022 9:28 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by bats (Post 13089667)
you sure about that?
That article is old., has authors with competitive interests, doesn't take into account testing on vaccinated people as it's pre vaccine, is for self administered tests, blah, blah.

August 2021? Pre-vaccine? Are you sure about that and the rest of blah blah?

Jingsamichty Jan 22nd 2022 11:23 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
I appreciate that people like Bristol have earned pensions that will give them a predictable and even generous income in their later years. I must admit I always wondered about the perennial moans of teachers... "We can't live on salary X, but we cant wait to live on pension of half X".

bats Jan 23rd 2022 2:13 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Mordko (Post 13089669)
August 2021? Pre-vaccine? Are you sure about that and the rest of blah blah?

Data collected over a 6 month period. Accepted for Publication: July 26, 2021 .
First vaccines were what? February 2021? Papers don't get written quickly - data analysis, charts, edits, review so it's likely the data was collected overlapping with vaccinations. There's no mention of this nor the actual dates of data collection.

Mordko Jan 23rd 2022 2:58 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
Cool. Its also irrelevant.

dbd33 Jan 23rd 2022 4:05 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Mordko (Post 13089791)
Cool. Its also irrelevant.

Do you mean that this old paper is irrelevant to the situation now? I tend to agree.

Shard Jan 24th 2022 10:12 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by JamesM (Post 13089520)

Brilliant :rofl:

Shard Jan 24th 2022 11:38 am

Re: Coronavirus
 
Fortunately, I'm not one of the 3.7 million "clinically vulnerable" Brits (at least to my knowledge) but it does seem like the Government's hell-bent policy of "normality" will put a number of them unnecessarily at risk. It would be good to see more discussion of this in the media . How many lives we're willing to extinguish for the convenience of not wearing masks or distancing etc. Seems to be a taboo subject. If the number is low (100's) it's a simple trade off if it's high (10,000's) it bears further public debate.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nd-axes-plan-b

Almost Canadian Jan 24th 2022 1:14 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 13089966)
Fortunately, I'm not one of the 3.7 million "clinically vulnerable" Brits (at least to my knowledge) but it does seem like the Government's hell-bent policy of "normality" will put a number of them unnecessarily at risk. It would be good to see more discussion of this in the media . How many lives we're willing to extinguish for the convenience of not wearing masks or distancing etc. Seems to be a taboo subject. If the number is low (100's) it's a simple trade off if it's high (10,000's) it bears further public debate.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...nd-axes-plan-b

Is there any reason why those at risk can't take steps to avoid the risk? Work from home, don't go out, have groceries delivered, continue to wear masks if they wish to?

BristolUK Jan 24th 2022 1:30 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13089997)
Is there any reason why those at risk can't take steps to avoid the risk? Work from home, don't go out, have groceries delivered, continue to wear masks if they wish to?

In a multi-person household - probably the majority of households in the country - there may be someone at risk.
(I seem to recall that taking into account age and at risk for health reasons, this could be as high as half the households in the country)

How do they avoid the risk where someone in the same house is in situations - school, college, Uni, workplace, clubs where there may be little risk to themselves but there would be a risk to others in the same household?

Shard Jan 24th 2022 3:15 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13089997)
Is there any reason why those at risk can't take steps to avoid the risk? Work from home, don't go out, have groceries delivered, continue to wear masks if they wish to?

That's the kind of question and debate that's needed. Where does the risk lie, what level of protections and caution is necessary. There is very little insight and disclosure into the analysis the goverment does on this. Plenty of statistical data and forecasts of the epidemic itself, not much marrying that back to the economic consequences and the fatality outcomes.

The precautions you suggest (WFH, isolation, groceries, masks) have an impact at population level, and a (much) lesser impact at individuals level. A proper debate would clarify whether this is sufficient or not.

Mordko Jan 24th 2022 3:34 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Mordko (Post 13089791)
Cool. Its also irrelevant.

To clarify, it's irrelevant because the paper deals with measuring test accuracy and the test is for Covid-19 as opposed to vaccination status. It's first time I am being told that a 5-months old paper is too old, but guess there is the first time for everything. And while peer reviewed and published papers can be challenged by people who understand the subject, this isn't the right forum. Briefly, it's a better source of information on test accuracy than "someone I know told me an anecdote".

Nand Jan 24th 2022 4:03 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
It is still true that the majority of deaths are in the elderly, I believe the average age of death from Covid is 82.3 years of age.

There is definately a big risk to elderly people living in multi generational households as soon as the relief from masks, passes and social distancing are put inplace.

I no longer understand the agenda or the goals from the government's point of view, they are not telling.

There will be more natural immunity coming and more deaths in elderly people with the upcoming changes, is my guess.

Shard Jan 24th 2022 4:08 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Mordko (Post 13090042)
To clarify, it's irrelevant because the paper deals with measuring test accuracy and the test is for Covid-19 as opposed to vaccination status. It's first time I am being told that a 5-months old paper is too old, but guess there is the first time for everything. And while peer reviewed and published papers can be challenged by people who understand the subject, this isn't the right forum. Briefly, it's a better source of information on test accuracy than "someone I know told me an anecdote".

The convenient rule of thumb I heard on the rapid tests is take notice of a postive (i.e. infection) but don't pay too much attention to a negative. False negatives being far more prevalent that false positives.

BristolUK Jan 24th 2022 4:50 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Nand (Post 13090050)
It is still true that the majority of deaths are in the elderly, I believe the average age of death from Covid is 82.3 years of age.

There is definately a big risk to elderly people living in multi generational households as soon as the relief from masks, passes and social distancing are put inplace.

Who knows what to believe with increasing numbers of younger people suffering? Just looking at something from the mayo clinic recently.

In the U.S., about 81% of deaths from the disease have been in people age 65 and older.
I suppose it's possible that's not many at 65 and loads of 90 years olds, but it could still be a significant number especially if you're one of them. :(
For 'mixed-risk' households, here's something from a couple of previous posts of mine.

For a previous post I did some googling and found that in North America 25% of Seniors share a household with non seniors and something like one in five households include someone with a disability. Of course not all disabilities mean 'at risk' but then there's a bunch of medical conditions that do mean 'at risk' but don't count as a disability.

I wasn't able to find figures for households with Seniors in the UK but there are lots of references to many seniors living alone. So perhaps there are fewer elderly people sharing than the USA's 25%.
There's no reason for wide variations in the other at risk groups. Over 5m people currently being treated for Asthma in the UK. 4m with Diabetes. Over 1m with COPD. High blood pressure affects 1 in 4 adults. 1 in 5 have disabilities.

If they are all the same people and/or they all live alone then there aren't that many mixed risk households. A more reasonable view would be that some have this condition while others have that one and that they do not all live alone. Add them all up and you get a not insignificant number living with "no risk" types..

Anecdotally everyone of my friends and family I remain in touch with in the UK is also in a mixed risk household. Of course most friends and family are at the upper age range so you'd expect me to know older people, but they still have young healthier people with them.

When you add in the non seniors who have as yet undiagnosed conditions (they call them silent killers for a reason) that would put them at risk you might have at least half households containing someone at risk.
Which ever way you look at it there are a lot of households with at risk folk sharing with much less risk.

Almost Canadian Jan 24th 2022 5:04 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 13090000)
In a multi-person household - probably the majority of households in the country - there may be someone at risk.
(I seem to recall that taking into account age and at risk for health reasons, this could be as high as half the households in the country)

How do they avoid the risk where someone in the same house is in situations - school, college, Uni, workplace, clubs where there may be little risk to themselves but there would be a risk to others in the same household?

That shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of most households. The at risk person remains isolated from the others in the household or, where that is unavoidable, takes the appropriate measures (not spending too long in the vicinity of others, sanitizing the crap out of everything they come into contact with). You know, the things the authorities have been suggesting everyone does for the past couple of years.

You may recall the ridicule I faced on here when I asked the question as to whether everyone intended to wear masks when at home when masks were first being discussed. I couldn't understand why, if transmission was to be avoided at all costs, members of the same household should not continue to wear them when at home. I know that, if I was so vulnerable that catching it could kill me, I would take all necessary steps to avoid catching it, even if that made my life uncomfortable/inconvenient.

If the evidence is to be believed, this isn't going away and the vulnerable are going to remain vulnerable for the remainder of their lives, unless a more effective vaccine can be discovered.

My daughters have not been at uni since September 2020. I believe that most of society would much prefer that the vulnerable isolate, rather than the whole of society having to, as many eminent epidemiologists have been suggesting all along.

Almost Canadian Jan 24th 2022 5:48 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Nand (Post 13090050)
It is still true that the majority of deaths are in the elderly, I believe the average age of death from Covid is 82.3 years of age.

There is definately a big risk to elderly people living in multi generational households as soon as the relief from masks, passes and social distancing are put inplace.

I no longer understand the agenda or the goals from the government's point of view, they are not telling.

There will be more natural immunity coming and more deaths in elderly people with the upcoming changes, is my guess.

This would suggest that the people in charge are going to have to start changing their positions regarding the unvaxxed and I understand that you have to survive catching it:


Mordko Jan 24th 2022 10:08 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 
^ that’s the nurse who promoted Ivermectin and other nonsense for particularly gullible. Gets his clicks though so all is good.

BristolUK Jan 24th 2022 10:32 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13090064)
That shouldn't be beyond the capabilities of most households. The at risk person remains isolated from the others in the household or, where that is unavoidable, takes the appropriate measures (not spending too long in the vicinity of others, sanitizing the crap out of everything they come into contact with). You know, the things the authorities have been suggesting everyone does for the past couple of years. If the evidence is to be believed, this isn't going away and the vulnerable are going to remain vulnerable for the remainder of their lives, unless a more effective vaccine can be discovered.

Yes, all fair enough. But it only goes so far as well as placing all the responsibility on the vulnerable.

I believe that most of society would much prefer that the vulnerable isolate, rather than the whole of society having to...
Or instead of it being one or the other, we start talking about compromises.
Just as an example England is scaling everything back including doing away with requirements to wear masks. Would it be such a hardship to continue with mask wearing on public transport and certain work situations for example. Mask wearing at the cinema no longer needed and it appears no capacity limit. Perhaps either require masks or limit capacity in some way.

Pubs. Do they have to open all day, every day? There must be hundreds of ways that they and other businesses could operate - reduced opening hours, every other day, reduced capacity and so on.

Much like how cities restrict traffic on bad air quality days by limiting who can drive there on those days.

printer Jan 24th 2022 11:38 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by BristolUK (Post 13090116)
Yes, all fair enough. But it only goes so far as well as placing all the responsibility on the vulnerable.

Or instead of it being one or the other, we start talking about compromises.
Just as an example England is scaling everything back including doing away with requirements to wear masks. Would it be such a hardship to continue with mask wearing on public transport and certain work situations for example. Mask wearing at the cinema no longer needed and it appears no capacity limit. Perhaps either require masks or limit capacity in some way.

Pubs. Do they have to open all day, every day? There must be hundreds of ways that they and other businesses could operate - reduced opening hours, every other day, reduced capacity and so on.

Much like how cities restrict traffic on bad air quality days by limiting who can drive there on those days.

I think that there should be some sensible approach on masks for example i see no issue with requiring masks in medical settings or whilst attending close up personal services and in care home settings to some degree but it seems plain nonsense to be required to wear one to walk from restaurant door to table or when ordering a take out coffee and sandwich whilst stood behind a large plexi screen. Similarly walking around a large half empty mall is certainly a less risky situation to sitting in a doctors waiting room shoulder to shoulder. Also if the vulnerable or those who are concerned are given good advice on protecting themselves it would certainly help. Maybe some better more direct advertising campaign for those that are at risk advising them of what they can do to protect themselves and of course this may help those of us that aren't "at risk" but are sometimes in contact with those that are. Way back the UK introduced the "shielding" advice for all elderly and those at risk basically telling them to see no one and go nowhere, this was clearly not sustainable in the long term. Giving those people sensible advice on the best mask to wear, the places to avoid, the things that are relatively safe.

BristolUK Jan 25th 2022 12:18 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by printer (Post 13090122)
I think that there should be some sensible approach on masks for example i see no issue with requiring masks in medical settings or whilst attending close up personal services and in care home settings to some degree but it seems plain nonsense to be required to wear one to walk from restaurant door to table or when ordering a take out coffee and sandwich whilst stood behind a large plexi screen. ...

I'm in broad agreement although I would say that in a restaurant, keeping your mask on until food or drink (whatever comes first) arrives at least keeps it in mind. A very clear when you must wear and when you needn't would concentrate the mind not just while dining. Allow removal for the walk to the table and you can bet you'll have people removing them when they're all backed up "waiting to be seated" in that crowded area by the door.

As for the take-out coffee, your fellow customers are the same side of the screen as you are.

old.sparkles Jan 25th 2022 12:58 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13090074)
This would suggest that the people in charge are going to have to start changing their positions regarding the unvaxxed and I understand that you have to survive catching it:
<snip video>

I didn't get very far with this video. I know a lot of people like the guy - but he's just another Joe Bloggs - not a scientist, not a medical doctor, but an ex nurse and teacher so knows how to present / say things people will listen to (and that is how he earns his money these days having retired from nursing/teaching).

I get that you get some natural immunity - but only for a specific strain, and as that mutates then you have no immunity for the new strain.

There are numerous reports of people having COVID twice - and at least one report of a patient who passed having two strains simultaneously.

Shard Jan 25th 2022 5:30 am

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Almost Canadian (Post 13090074)
This would suggest that the people in charge are going to have to start changing their positions regarding the unvaxxed and I understand that you have to survive catching it:

Excellent natural immunity confirmed - YouTube

And therein lies the rub !

BristolUK Jan 25th 2022 11:39 am

Re: Coronavirus
 
The hidden life of a GP: angry patients, anti-vaxxers, extreme goodwill and exhaustion

A long read but lots of useful info that you might not otherwise think about.

Almost Canadian Jan 25th 2022 12:52 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Mordko (Post 13090114)
^ that’s the nurse who promoted Ivermectin and other nonsense for particularly gullible. Gets his clicks though so all is good.

He quoting from the CDC's own research. Criticise him all you wish, but do try to do so credibly.

Almost Canadian Jan 25th 2022 12:55 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by old.sparkles (Post 13090127)
I didn't get very far with this video. I know a lot of people like the guy - but he's just another Joe Bloggs - not a scientist, not a medical doctor, but an ex nurse and teacher so knows how to present / say things people will listen to (and that is how he earns his money these days having retired from nursing/teaching).

I get that you get some natural immunity - but only for a specific strain, and as that mutates then you have no immunity for the new strain.

There are numerous reports of people having COVID twice - and at least one report of a patient who passed having two strains simultaneously.

He is presenting it. The experts at the CDC were responsible for the research.

Almost Canadian Jan 25th 2022 12:57 pm

Re: Coronavirus
 

Originally Posted by Shard (Post 13090135)
And therein lies the rub !

I fully understand that. But, as can be seen, there is now lots of evidence that the unvaxxed that have had it and survived, are just as well protected as the vaxxed. That being the case, the them v us (unvaxxed v vaxxed) debate is going to have to become far more nuanced.


All times are GMT. The time now is 2:54 pm.

Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.