|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by OrangeMango
(Post 13095097)
It's just that one is almost always asked for a QR code to prove the vaccination status.
|
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13094937)
Does the document say how long ago he had it and recovered? Since the science says that immunity (natural or vax) wears off, hence subsequent doses of the vaccine, it would be useful to know how soon his might wear off and does he propose to get subsequent bouts of Covid? ;)
The alternative to what? What can't you do apart from go to the gym? It's tragic that companies have gone under, people lost jobs etc. But all that was at the worst of times wasn't it? When very many more people would have died of covid and many more of treatable conditions that couldn't be treated had covid overwhelmed the hospitals. Just about every jurisdiction seems to be talking about lifting the last of the restrictions - in the UK including not bothering with masks and when that happened here the government soon realised it was a mistake and that was pre-Omicron! If everything is basically open, why does there have to be an alternative? Christ there was a time we could only go to the pub at lunchtimes and evenings and then have last orders at 10.20, or the shops were closed on Sundays and bank holidays. It's not as if we never had to accept that not everything was available 24/7. How? How do you propose to protect me and my MIL from the one most likely to get Covid and bring it into the home? It's just meaningless words. If what you mean is losing a few old and unwell people is a small price to pay for life going on for everyone else, then say so. I can relate to Mr Spock's "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few." I just don't think we're 'there' yet. When I say protect the vunerable, there are steps people can take to do this... for example rapid tests, they should be made more easily available, so they can be used to test yourself before coming into close contact with the vunerable, if you have been out in the open world. A friend of mine does this with his elderly mom. We have to live along side this, we just can't carry on like this. In essence what you seem to be saying is that we should carry on with these restrictions indefinitely? That is just not a sustainable plan... maybe for some who lock themselves away and don't go any where, but for the majority of people the last 2 years have not been a normal way of life. The majority have done what's been asked of them, now is the time to move forward and try and find some sort of post covid normalcy again. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13095084)
No it doesn't. As you are likely aware, those that have been infected have protection that lasts longer than those that have only been vaccinated, so your point is somewhat moot.
That was not the case the last time we discussed it. The last study that a lot of people seized on confirmed there was a level of protection from getting it and recovering, but not for those that didn't recover or got long covid. Has there been something since? Remember your words as bolded. Perhaps you meant natural immunity after recovering and being vaccinated. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Paul_Shepherd
(Post 13095107)
My earlier post stated not being able to do a lot more than not go to the gym,
Things have changed so when you ask "what is the alternative?" that means now, rather than than then. So what is it you are unable to now? At present its any social event that is off the table...being social is huge part if who I am and many other people out there It's my understanding that from tomorrow Ontario is
When I say protect the vunerable, there are steps people can take to do this... for example rapid tests What do we do, tell her she has to move out? In essence what you seem to be saying is that we should carry on with these restrictions indefinitely? For Ontario there's another big step in a couple of weeks. I'm happy for measures to be eased, just not too much too soon, like the UK. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13095111)
Source please.
That was not the case the last time we discussed it. The last study that a lot of people seized on confirmed there was a level of protection from getting it and recovering, but not for those that didn't recover or got long covid. Has there been something since? Remember your words as bolded. Perhaps you meant natural immunity after recovering and being vaccinated. No. The data from the CDC ranks protection as follows: 1) Those with the vaccine that had been infected; 2) Those without the vaccine that had been infected; and 3) Those with the vaccine that had not been infected. There was very little difference between 1 and 2 and a little more difference between those and 3. However, the main reason why boosters have become required is because of the waning effect of the vaccines. Natural immunity wanes too, but not as quickly as the immunity provided by the vaccine. Of course, one has to survive being unvaccinated and infected but amounts of deaths when compared to the amount of infections shows that, in essence, it is the old and the infirm that succomb as can be seen from the current deaths by those that have been vaccinated. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by OrangeMango
(Post 13095017)
No, I haven't. But I could also use the same tone and say, have you forgotten that health and the NHS is devolved in the UK?
The restrictions in England ( no knowledge of the other UK countries) were stricter than those in Ontario. At one stage people were only allowed out if the house for an hour a day, no travelling, must use the nearest supermarket. Considering how much you've talked against the travel quarantine I'm surprised to hear you praising this set up ​​ |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by bats
(Post 13095137)
Not sure what you mean by this?
The restrictions in England ( no knowledge of the other UK countries) were stricter than those in Ontario. At one stage people were only allowed out if the house for an hour a day, no travelling, must use the nearest supermarket. Considering how much you've talked against the travel quarantine I'm surprised to hear you praising this set up ​​ I think Canada is going too far to still require tests for vaccinated Canadians. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13095111)
Perhaps you meant natural immunity after recovering and being vaccinated.
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13095129)
No. The data from the CDC ranks protection as follows:
1) Those with the vaccine that had been infected; 2) Those without the vaccine that had been infected; and 3) Those with the vaccine that had not been infected. You're probably referring to this which I found more easily on ABC than CDC Both vaccination and a prior infection provided protection against another infection and hospitalization due to COVID-19 during the United States' delta wave, according to a study released Wednesday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. So your doctor who "has had, and recovered from, the virus and, as a result of that, believes that there is no benefit to him having the vaccine" is wrong according to the information you are referencing. Are you going to tell him that the CDC says there is a benefit to him adding the protection of the vaccine? ;) ...the main reason why boosters have become required is because of the waning effect of the vaccines. Natural immunity wanes too, but not as quickly as the immunity provided by the vaccine. The analysis found that before delta became the predominant variant in June, vaccination offered better protection against breakthrough infections than prior infection offered against reinfection. But after delta became dominant, this trend shifted, with prior infection offering slightly better protection. However, this also coincides with a time when many Americans were several months out from their shots, and before boosters were authorized. Also Notably, the study was conducted prior to the emergence of the omicron variant, and before the widespread availability of booster shots, thus, researchers warned that results cannot be directly applied to the nation's current surge. In addition, the analysis did not include data pertaining to the severity of initial infections, and hospitalization data was only pulled from California. And finally... When asked repeatedly on Wednesday during a press briefing whether the data were showing that when delta was prominent, having had an infection provided greater protection against a subsequent infection than from being vaccinated, a CDC representative insisted that vaccination is still the safest way to protect oneself. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13095180)
So you did mean being being vaccinated and recovered from infection then.
You're probably referring to this which I found more easily on ABC than CDC Note that it says a prior infection, so that makes it followed by vaccination.
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13095180)
So your doctor who "has had, and recovered from, the virus and, as a result of that, believes that there is no benefit to him having the vaccine" is wrong according to the information you are referencing. Are you going to tell him that the CDC says there is a benefit to him adding the protection of the vaccine? ;)
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13095180)
From the same link about CDC findings.
That appears to be saying that after Delta, prior infection became slightly better than vaccination but it makes the point that prior infections would have included those more recent whereas prior vaccinations would have been less recent and therefore subject to waning over a longer perod. That's not the same as one wearing off more quickly than the other it's saying that more time had elapsed since last jabs than last infections. Also So maybe not as definitive as you suggested. And finally... |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13095115)
How does that prevent my stepdaughter coming home from work daily with the virus? If she's been exposed and infected it could be days before anything shows up on a test and it's too late by then.
What do we do, tell her she has to move out? |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13095312)
None of that changes my view and I suspect that, as more and more data emerges, the narrative that "the only way to protect yourself is to get vaccinated" will change too, particularly if the science is actually put front and centre.
When the CDC describes it as "vaccination is still the safest way to protect oneself" (their actual statement) and you misrepresent it as "the only way to protect yourself is to get vaccinated" (your version of the narrative) hopefully this tells others to take what you say with a pinch of salt or at least double check your claims. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13095339)
I'm not surprised your view doesn't change.
When the CDC describes it as "vaccination is still the safest way to protect oneself" (their actual statement) and you misrepresent it as "the only way to protect yourself is to get vaccinated" (your version of the narrative) hopefully this tells others to take what you say with a pinch of salt or at least double check your claims. I doubt that anyone that has listened to politicians in Canada since the time that vaccines became available would seriously argue that Canadian society has been told, repeatedly, what I stated above. Once again, you are using your usual tactics of putting words into my mouth. You will, likely, turn to your other tactic of accusing me of "wriggling" next. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13095344)
I have never stated that the CDC said anything. I merely pointed to the CDC's data.
I doubt that anyone that has listened to politicians in Canada since the time that vaccines became available would seriously argue that Canadian society has been told, repeatedly, what I stated above. Once again, you are using your usual tactics of putting words into my mouth. You will, likely, turn to your other tactic of accusing me of "wriggling" next. You mean the words you actually used in your posts. In the order I quoted them. With links to where you used them. Dear me. Those words are there for all to see. |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by BristolUK
(Post 13095115)
Yes, but past tense, no?
Things have changed so when you ask "what is the alternative?" that means now, rather than than then. So what is it you are unable to now? Is it? You can't go to a restaurant or bar? It's my understanding that from tomorrow Ontario is
How does that prevent my stepdaughter coming home from work daily with the virus? If she's been exposed and infected it could be days before anything shows up on a test and it's too late by then. What do we do, tell her she has to move out? I don't know why you keep saying this. There are barely any restrictions left and those left are shortly to be removed. For Ontario there's another big step in a couple of weeks. I'm happy for measures to be eased, just not too much too soon, like the UK. Yes.....past tense... up until what is about to change today and in the next couple of weeks, with lifting of some of these restrictions. Its been a long time to have these latest ones imposed upon us.... well feels like it, I haveb't been to local pub in months, I tried twice to get in, 50% capacity couldn't get in I understand your situation with your step daughter that is a tricky one, but in the same token you must see that we cant be locked down for ever, things are easing now at last, hopefully this is the light at the end of the tunnel we have all been waiting form and not just another false hope, if there is another variant, I hope its even weaker and even less threatening than omicron, so that we don't have impose restrictions again. If the pattern of previous pandemics are anythng to go by, it will be. They sau that there are still variants of the Spanish flu around today, I think that will be same with Covid, its never going to go away, it will just be at a threat level we can live along side without locking down anymore. Heres hoping!! |
Re: Coronavirus
Originally Posted by Almost Canadian
(Post 13094678)
Is it known how many people in the UK have yet to catch the virus? In light of the recent numbers of cases, combined with the numbers in the last 2 years, it can't be that many.
|
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 3:56 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.