Covid 19 Part XXXII-215,743 ROI (4,137 deaths)111,166 NI (2,036 deaths)(22/02)Read OP

Stateofyou

Stateofyou wrote: »

It looks like an autocorrect error for one, but for two the rest of the post is a perfectly logical opinion. I'd worry about your own mental state where you take a grammatical error on an Internet forum and project your own armchair psychology on others. Which says more about you than them.

...and of course, your own armchair psychology where you are projecting your mental state on Owen. This kind of pop psychology just goes around in circles.

thelad95

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I agree with your scare mongering point and that some of the headlines associated with commentary on new variants is overblown, however you don't wait for the insurance assessor when the house is on fire

There is very specific ethical standards which stop scientific journals publishing the results of studies until they have reached a certain standard of proof.

Tabloid publications seem to be able to publish whatever they want and spread it to a global audience all in the name of obtaining "clicks".

Renjit

thelad95 wrote: »

Some media outlets need to be held accountable for publishing scare-mongering misinformation.

"Health experts" who are these health experts? Have these "findings" been peer-reviewed, double blind tested, published in a scientific journal? Or are they just speculating on a potential result of on-going research?

Out of everything, a UK tabloid :pac:

Eod100

https://twitter.com/paulcolgan/status/1355140225182408713

ninebeanrows

Crucial

After day 28, no one who got vaccinated needed hospitalization or died regardless of whether they were exposed to “regular COVID or these particularly nasty variants,” Mammen said. When the vaccinated did become infected, they had a milder illness.

is_that_so

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

Crucial

That would screw the everyone in the company must be vaccinated proposal.

seamus

Derek Zoolander wrote: »

people should still have the right to determine if they take a vaccines or not. thats always been the case and should remain the case.

I agree completely. Nevertheless that doesn't mean one should remain unrestricted if they don't get it.

And while I support their right to refuse, we can't pretend that those that do so are otherwise intelligent individuals who have a few legitimate concerns. They're either genuinely ignorant and just don't know enough about it, or they're morons.

Just because Peter on Facebook who's anti-vax is an old good mate of yours, doesn't mean he's not also an idiot.

Stheno

Sleety_Rain wrote: »

Crucial

Which vaccine is this?

Turtwig

Stheno wrote: »

Which vaccine is this?

J & J

ninebeanrows

Stheno wrote: »

Which vaccine is this?

Johnson and Johnson

polesheep

seamus wrote: »

I can appreciate why it seems like that.

But I have very little tolerance for anti-vaxxers at this stage.
I can appreciate people who may not feel sufficiently informed, but a blanket refusal to get a vaccine can only mean they're unwilling to seek out information, or unwilling to listen to information that contradicts their decision.

And in my experience, these people are disruptive low-performers in the workplace. They engage in patterns of willing ignorance and delusional self-confidence.

There are many younger people who feel no threat from Covid and therefore don't have sufficient motivation to sign up for what could be an annual vaccination. There is also a growing number of others who have already been exposed to the virus and are of the opinion that they are now as immune as a vaccine would render them. I know people in both categories and they are far from 'disruptive low-performers'.

Eod100

Does anyone have a link of where you can find the latest confirmed vaccines distributed?

polesheep

seamus wrote: »

I agree completely. Nevertheless that doesn't mean one should remain unrestricted if they don't get it.

And while I support their right to refuse, we can't pretend that those that do so are otherwise intelligent individuals who have a few legitimate concerns. They're either genuinely ignorant and just don't know enough about it, or they're morons.

Just because Peter on Facebook who's anti-vax is an old good mate of yours, doesn't mean he's not also an idiot.

You really are digging a trench and painting a picture of the enemy. I'm reminded of the Nazi caricatures of Jews in the 30s.

is_that_so

Eod100 wrote: »

Does anyone have a link of where you can find the latest confirmed vaccines?

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Eod100

is_that_so wrote: »

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations

Thanks. Found that one, was looking for the i think HSE one with the breakdown of whos got 2nd dose say.

is_that_so

Eod100 wrote: »

Thanks. Found that one, was looking for the i think HSE one with the breakdown of whos got 2nd dose say.

Not what you asked! It's on the hub - 13,800 up to 27/01

https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/

Eod100

is_that_so wrote: »

Not what you asked! It's on the hub - 13,800 up to 27/01

https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/

Thanks.

CrabRevolution

nocoverart wrote: »

These variants are like heroin for the scaremongering posters who clearly want this to drag. The same kind of posters that said vaccines wouldn’t be possible 6 months ago.

I think it's the other way round. To me it seems to be mostly anti-restriction "it's only a mild respiratory illness" types who are bigging up the dangers posed by variants.

They've spent months calling for governments to just admit defeat and immediately end all restrictions. They felt this was the only way out of this and would be their vindication. The vaccines are potentially providing another way out of the pandemic so are eroding the basis of the anti-restriction argument.

I'd also imagine there's an anti-authority thing going on too.
Authorities go for restrictions=They oppose restrictions.
Authorities go for vaccines=They oppose vaccines.

10000maniacs

This was law in most countries when the smallpox virus was a thing in the 1920's and 30's.
The same reasoning should be applied to Covid-19.
"You have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease, even if you disagree. You have no right not to be vaccinated. And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm."

BorneTobyWilde

The Johnny & Johnny Vaccine is looking good. Will the EU **** this up too.

polesheep

10000maniacs wrote: »

This was law in most countries when the smallpox virus was a thing in the 1920's and 30's.
The same reasoning should be applied to Covid-19.
"You have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease, even if you disagree. You have no right not to be vaccinated. And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm."

I rarely ask, but, source?

is_that_so

10000maniacs wrote: »

This was law in most countries when the smallpox virus was a thing in the 1920's and 30's.
The same reasoning should be applied to Covid-19.
"You have no constitutional right to endanger the public and spread the disease, even if you disagree. You have no right not to be vaccinated. And if you refuse to be vaccinated, the state has the power to literally take you to a doctor’s office and plunge a needle into your arm."

Smallpox had an R0 of 3.5-6, a mortality rate of up to 30%, higher in kids and could lead to blindness. COVID is nothing like this. We need 70% to get vaccinated.

mohawk

seamus wrote: »

The dregs then who refuse to vaccinate out of a personal objection will be easy to manage out because they will no doubt be disruptive or underperforming in another area.

Dregs is quite harsh. There are people out their who genuinely can’t get a vaccine for medical reasons. They should not be under any obligation to disclose this information to any employer to prevent themselves being managed out of their jobs.

Secondly there are people who have had adverse affects to previous vaccines. Such as those that now have narcolepsy after the Swine Flu. Personally I wouldn’t judge if a person in that situation decided not to take any more vaccines.

Now maybe dregs is appropriate for those who spend too much time on Facebook and keep sprouting the BS that vaccines cause Autism. They won’t take this vaccine.

Hector Savage

10000maniacs wrote: »

Here go with the flu is nearly as bad crap.:rolleyes:
Covid-19 is at least 10 times more deadly, and can cause much more serious issues even if you survive.

I never said it was as bad, so we should have at least 10% of the restrictions we do in normal flu season so ?

majcos

Side effects are catalogued for every medication/vaccine. Doing that is not something new that is being done for Covid vaccines.

Side effects such as fatigue are very subjective. About 40% of people report fatigue on a regular basis without being vaccinated. Of the groups of people vaccinated so far, fatigue would be extremely common with or without the vaccine. Headaches are also an extremely common symptom long before Covid vaccines arrived. Muscle pain from injection is a minor inconvenience. Even a fever for a day or two is a relatively minor issue.

I would be disappointed if minor side effects, even if uncomfortable, would deter people from getting vaccine. It should not just be about what you consider the risk of Covid is to yourself but what the risk is to society. A genuine risk of anaphylaxis is a reason not to take it but it is up to the rest of us to get vaccinated to protect that small group of people.

Data is not definite on transmission but hopeful that it will have an impact. Even if vaccine simply reduces severity of disease, that is not just beneficial to the individual but to others too as less severe disease in one person frees up resources for someone else. If vaccine stops person A from being hospitalised, person B can be admitted for their cancer surgery and so on.

josip

seamus wrote: »

I think they need to get ahead of this. My wife mentioned this too, a healthcare worker in the Mater that she spoke to, had reported feeling a bit fuzzy for two days after getting the second dose.

I explained this was perfectly normal and was in fact an indication that her immunity was active.

As more and more second doses are applied, we'll see more reports of "feeling sick" after the second dose. They should be making it clear - not just with a leaflet - that this is to be expected and is a good sign.

Not it's not. That's Bill Gates testing the 5G signal strength.

Qwertyminger

mohawk wrote: »

Dregs is quite harsh. There are people out their who genuinely can’t get a vaccine for medical reasons. They should not be under any obligation to disclose this information to any employer to prevent themselves being managed out of their jobs.

Secondly there are people who have had adverse affects to previous vaccines. Such as those that now have narcolepsy after the Swine Flu. Personally I wouldn’t judge if a person in that situation decided not to take any more vaccines.

Now maybe dregs is appropriate for those who spend too much time on Facebook and keep sprouting the BS that vaccines cause Autism. They won’t take this vaccine.

I understand where you're coming from broadly but medical privacy goes out the window in this for high risk people.

I had to state that I'm high risk constantly throughout this to deal with people in my job and when I needed work done in my house who may not have worn a mask otherwise.

People who refuse vaccination for medical reasons are at risk of covid and are a risk of spreading it so it stands to reason that they will have to disclose this in some way, for their own safety if nothing else.

mohawk

Qwertyminger wrote: »

I understand where you're coming from broadly but medical privacy goes out the window in this for high risk people.

I had to state that I'm high risk constantly throughout this to deal with people in my job and when I needed work done in my house who may not have worn a mask otherwise.

People who refuse vaccination for medical reasons are at risk of covid and are a risk of spreading it so it stands to reason that they will have to disclose this in some way, for their own safety if nothing else.

I get where you coming from, but it should be your choice whether or not you disclose your private medical information to anyone. You made the choice to disclose this information but does that mean we should force others to the same.

Once we get to stage where we have enough people vaccinated then there is no reason to treat the vaccinated any different from the non vaccinated. Are we going to test everyone we vaccinate to make sure they all have Covid antibodies?? No we won’t.

If an 85 year old with a history of heart disease declines the vaccine should we force them to take it because they are high risk or refuse them admission to a nursing home.

At end of day people want their lives back and majority will get vaccinated in order to facilitate that happening.

cjyid

https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1355171598538579970?s=20

PmMeUrDogs

cjyid wrote: »

https://twitter.com/COVID19DataIE/status/1355171598538579970?s=20

Good positivity rate