The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Wooo, lets dig our trenches boys(!)

Here's another grenade over the top, nevermind the people who don't believe masks do ANYTHING (must be why surgeons wear them eh ), what about the now growing number of people who think they're invulnerable because they've had two jabs (next one due soon and on and on) and think they don't need to take any precautions. While some of them are from the I'm-alright-jack camp, most are from the I-think-I-can't-spread-the-virus-as-i'm-jabbed camp. Not only can you still pass on the virus after being jabbed, becoming lax BECUASE you've had the jab makes it even more likely.

The government purposefully aren't repeating this fact ad nauseam because they know it would make a lot of people not bother with the vaccine.

Its difficult to get decent facts and figures on what percentage of the new hospitalisations with Covid are but i've seen figures of anywhere from 25-45%. If you are in an especially vulnerable category I can completely see why the benefits of having the jab outweigh the risks of having it, but its not so clear cut for those who aren't, you are only risking your own health, having the jab does not stop you getting the virus or spreading it.

No vaccine is 100% effective. The whole thing is a numbers game. What are the risks, with and without the vaccine, of me being hospitalised, being in icu, getting long Covid, having side effects from the vaccine, dying. Even amongst the vulnerable this is a difficult and personal balance.

You only have statistics for populations to work off. None are specifically for you and no one can give you those personal answers.

Vaccine protection against hospitalisation seems good.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/vacc ... ta-variant

Blackstuff wrote:Wooo, lets dig our trenches boys(!)

Here's another grenade over the top, nevermind the people who don't believe masks do ANYTHING (must be why surgeons wear them eh ), what about the now growing number of people who think they're invulnerable because they've had two jabs (next one due soon and on and on) and think they don't need to take any precautions. While some of them are from the I'm-alright-jack camp, most are from the I-think-I-can't-spread-the-virus-as-i'm-jabbed camp. Not only can you still pass on the virus after being jabbed, becoming lax BECUASE you've had the jab makes it even more likely.

The government purposefully aren't repeating this fact ad nauseam because they know it would make a lot of people not bother with the vaccine.

Its difficult to get decent facts and figures on what percentage of the new hospitalisations with Covid are but i've seen figures of anywhere from 25-45%. If you are in an especially vulnerable category I can completely see why the benefits of having the jab outweigh the risks of having it, but its not so clear cut for those who aren't, you are only risking your own health, having the jab does not stop you getting the virus or spreading it.

Comically, among those people you speak of is every director at my company. You could see, as soon as they had all had their vaccine it was a case of "right everyone back to working in the office, we're all ok now"....

The thing you have missed with your comments though, is that while you are correct, having the vaccines is not a guarantee you cannot pass it on, what it does do is limit the amount of time you are contagious for. Quite drastically in fact. Recent estimates believe it drops average infectious time from 8 days to 36 hours. Which will dramatically affect the rate the virus is transmitted and the quicker we get deep into the realms of viral reduction and (for all intents and purposed) eradication.

There are enough vaccine reluctant people as it is without officialdom suggesting the vaccine won't stop you getting Covid and wear a mask even if you a double vaxxed. Then those reluctant to be vaccinated will say why should they be bothered to get the jab if it doesn't protect them and they still have to wear a mask.

Pippin89 wrote: Comically, among those people you speak of is every director at my company. You could see, as soon as they had all had their vaccine it was a case of "right everyone back to working in the office, we're all ok now"....

The thing you have missed with your comments though, is that while you are correct, having the vaccines is not a guarantee you cannot pass it on, what it does do is limit the amount of time you are contagious for. Quite drastically in fact. Recent estimates believe it drops average infectious time from 8 days to 36 hours. Which will dramatically affect the rate the virus is transmitted and the quicker we get deep into the realms of viral reduction and (for all intents and purposed) eradication.

Yep, i've seen that with a lot of businesses friends and family work for, pretty shocking. My employer is taking a much more cautious approach thankfully but considering 75% of the workforce has been successfully working from home without much issue for the last year or so (and the majority of the rest work outdoors), there's no reason to rush back into an office.

Do you have any links to the information on contagious period reduction, finding decent info on stuff like this is difficult to say the least.

channel12 wrote:There are enough vaccine reluctant people as it is without officialdom suggesting the vaccine won't stop you getting Covid and wear a mask even if you a double vaxxed. Then those reluctant to be vaccinated will say why should they be bothered to get the jab if it doesn't protect them and they still have to wear a mask.

Yes that was my point. They don't want to discourage people further, but in doing so they've now created a substantial group of people who think they can't get or spread the virus due to having jabs. There is then a subsect of that group who now think because they have had the jabs they no longer have to bother with the CV19 protocols because they aren't doing any harm by not doing so.

Blackstuff wrote: Do you have any links to the information on contagious period reduction, finding decent info on stuff like this is difficult to say the least.

No I'm afraid not. My sister (an ICU nurse) sent me a photo of the medical journal where it was published. I don't know where she got it from. The journal basically said that in their trial (around 400 or so people in each of 3 groups) they checked the viral load of people who a) had no vaccine, b) had the vaccine within 12 days, or c) had the vaccine 12-28 days ago. Both b and c groups were 1 vaccine only.

They found no difference in viral load between groups a and b. But group c showed an average of 4 times lower viral load for the same exposure. Obviously a smaller viral load your body can fight more quickly hence the shorter infectious period. It went on to theorise that the infectious period would be similarly 4 times less for this group of people and further reduced 12 days after the second vaccine. Hence the 36 hour period they stated.

Thank you Pippin, that's really interesting and not something that's hinted at in any of the woolly reports I've been able to find online about up to date vaccine information.

I went to a wedding yesterday. There were about 100 people present for the ceremony and reception. Not a single person among the guests wore a mask or did any social distancing at any time. It was a normal event as pre-covid. The venue bar and waiting staff, however, wore masks all day.
Regards
Peter.

Clever staff.

Lewis Hamilton has just announced that he is suffering from Long Covid.