Children aged 12 to 15 will now be offered the Covid jab in the UK.

First topic message reminder :

Boris Johnson, Prof Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance, the Chief Scientific Adviser, will give a press conference on today in which the Prime Minister is expected to announce he has accepted his chief medical officers' advice and the rollout for 12- to 15-year-olds will begin as soon as next week.
One pfizer dose will be given.

Parental consent will be needed, but children can override the parents decision if they are deemed competent.



https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/newslondon/12-year-olds-able-to-defy-parents-and-get-covid-jab-if-e2-80-98competent-e2-80-99-to-make-decision/ar-AAOq1X1?ocid=uxbndlbing

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:Hmmmmmm.....I stand unconvinced of anything much about the vaccine to be honest.

It’s why I cannot be arsed to talk about it, read about it or have it, for the moment.

Why, if it puts children at risk, can you not take on the responsibility of learning about it?  Surely, you care, do you not?

Well seeing as I wouldn’t give it to my daughter, (my son is twenty, had covid, and makes his own decisions), I don’t need to read about it.

I don’t even give her or myself, the flu jab. My son doesn’t have it either.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why, if it puts children at risk, can you not take on the responsibility of learning about it?  Surely, you care, do you not?

Well seeing as I wouldn’t give it to my daughter, (my son is twenty, had covid, and makes his own decisions), I don’t need to read about it.

I don’t even give her or myself, the flu jab. My son doesn’t have it either.

Yes, but with flu you go to bed. With Covid, you go to the hospital and die.

What's your opinion on spread?

Original Quill wrote:

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Why, if it puts children at risk, can you not take on the responsibility of learning about it?  Surely, you care, do you not?

Well seeing as I wouldn’t give it to my daughter, (my son is twenty, had covid, and makes his own decisions), I don’t need to read about it.

I don’t even give her or myself, the flu jab. My son doesn’t have it either.

Yes, but with flu you go to bed.  With Covid, you go to the hospital and die.

What's your opinion on spread?

The vast majority don’t die??? Don’t you read statistics? I thought you guys lived for that shit.

eddie wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Yes, but with flu you go to bed.  With Covid, you go to the hospital and die.

What's your opinion on spread?

The vast majority don’t die???  Don’t you read statistics? I thought you guys lived for that shit.

You're going to bet lives on probabilities? Sure...take your kids to Vegas, but make sure you get a good rate of exchange.

Seriously, people don't realize they are betting on the odds when they catch the flu and don't go to the hospital. But after 700,000 deaths (in this country) with Covid, as precedent, it seems crude and uncaring to say: I'm betting my child won't die.

The flu and covid do NOT, in the main, kill healthy people. I’m really not sure why you think differently. As I said, don’t you read the statistics?

And why are you hounding me about my child being vaccinated when you said the vaccine isn’t necessarily safe for under 12’s in an earlier post?

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Children have miniscule risk of getting seriously ill or dying from covid but there are risks from having the vaccine.

But now, as the Delta variant has surged, it's affecting many unvaccinated people — including children under 12 who are too young to be vaccinated.

Since the pandemic began, children have represented 15 - 25 percent of total cases, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/nearly-1-in-4-covid-19-cases-are-in-children-what-that-means-as-the-school-years-starts

But the under 20 age group have a less than miniscule chance of getting seriously ill or dying from the actual virus, whilst developing a huge natural immunity against it once having had it...


This is well known.


Although the vaccines have a potential risk factor that is higher than actually getting the virus for this age group... And the potential long term negative effects of these vaccines is still not known.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

But now, as the Delta variant has surged, it's affecting many unvaccinated people — including children under 12 who are too young to be vaccinated.

Since the pandemic began, children have represented 15 - 25 percent of total cases, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/nearly-1-in-4-covid-19-cases-are-in-children-what-that-means-as-the-school-years-starts

But the under 20 age group have a less than miniscule chance of getting seriously ill or dying from the actual virus, whilst developing a huge natural immunity against it once having had it...

This is well known.

Although the vaccines have a potential risk factor that is higher than actually getting the virus for this age group... And the potential long term negative effects of these vaccines is still not known.

As variants develop, and become more virulent and infectious, they reach younger and younger ages. Already it has become a threat to children.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/08/11/pandemic-has-become-more-dangerous-children-heres-how-help-keep-them-safe/

What you are doing by allowing the pandemic to rage, is giving the microbe habitat space for it to experiment and mutate. Who knows what smallpox would have become, if we had taken your attitude and let it rage out of control.

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:This would be a difficult one for me if I was in the position to decide whether a young child of mine was to be vaccinated.

My grandson was offered and took the AZ vaccine very early on (he works for the NHS) it was only later the AZ was not recommended for young people, he had no ill effects, but it was worrying at the time.

There is scant research on the effects this new vaccine will have on young children.
It is known however that though young children can spread the virus,  the chance of them being ill with it is miniscule.

So far, from the info known, I think I would hold back, but I would give my child weekly tests rather than the vaccination.

If the booster jabs are rolled out quickly, and HAD the covid passports been mandatory not only for certain employments but for admittance to social events, I think that would be a safer bet at controlling the virus.

If you consider the vaccine safe enough for you, why not your child? That makes little sense, Syl.

Covid doesn't affect children the same way as it affects adults.
Children can spread it, so the obvious answer is to vaccinate the adults to stop the spread.

The more adults who get vaccinated the sooner the virus will be controlled.

People keep thinking of this virus as a one-on-one with yourself: catch-it-take-and-take-an-aspirin-n-go-to-bed. The vulnerable might die, but oh well...

They forget about spread. They forget about mutation. They have no idea of the beast - as distinct from the microbe - that the species presents.

Original Quill wrote:People keep thinking of this virus as a one-on-one with yourself: catch-it-take-and-take-an-aspirin-n-go-to-bed.  The vulnerable might die, but oh well...

They forget about spread.  They forget about mutation.  They have no idea of the beast - as distinct from the microbe - that the species presents.

Mutation is the big worry. The Delta variant is the strongest one so far, but the vaccination is controlling it .....obviously the more people who take the vaccine the quicker it will be controlled.

But...the biggest worry, that no expert can foresee, is if a mutation comes along which is resistant to rhe vaccine.
Then....we are back to square one.

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:People keep thinking of this virus as a one-on-one with yourself: catch-it-take-and-take-an-aspirin-n-go-to-bed.  The vulnerable might die, but oh well...

They forget about spread.  They forget about mutation.  They have no idea of the beast - as distinct from the microbe - that the species presents.

Mutation is the big worry. The Delta variant is the strongest one so far, but the vaccination is controlling it .....obviously the more people who take the vaccine the quicker it will be controlled.

But...the biggest worry, that no expert can foresee, is if a mutation comes along which is resistant to rhe vaccine.
Then....we are back to square one.

Which is why we need to shut it down altogether.

Delaying the spread is just increasing the chances of mutation.

Tommy Monk wrote:Delaying the spread is just increasing the chances of mutation.

Not if we eliminate the species. That path has worked for smallpox. By elimination of the species, there is no organism to mutate. It's closed...fini...

I'm curious. Why are you such a fan of this killer?  There are several ways in which we could defeat this virus, from the long, drawn-out process of waiting out the advance to herd immunity, to the short route of development of vaccination.

Your love for natural immunity, over scientific immunity, is totally unjustified.  You are suggesting that we stand out in the rain, when clearly we could build shelter.  Through vaccination we could clearly narrow the habitat of the virus by minimizing the bodies it can infect.  Reducing the available bodies, or habitat of the virus, we slow down opportunities for it to spread.  We eliminate the many iterations of mutation altogether - we skip them entirely, and go directly to herd immunity.  What is wrong with that?

Most appalling is your cavalier attitude toward the death that this virus creates.  You seem to be saying: Oh...old people don't matter...weak and sick people, well we're just clearing the species of excess trash.  Sorta, cleaning up.  I don't know...what must you be thinking?  Certainly, it isn't necessary to kill off the old and weak.  We have scientific means to protect them.  But you are against deploying those means, and I don't know why!?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:People keep thinking of this virus as a one-on-one with yourself: catch-it-take-and-take-an-aspirin-n-go-to-bed.  The vulnerable might die, but oh well...

They forget about spread.  They forget about mutation.  They have no idea of the beast - as distinct from the microbe - that the species presents.

Mutation is the big worry. The Delta variant is the strongest one so far, but the vaccination is controlling it .....obviously the more people who take the vaccine the quicker it will be controlled.

But...the biggest worry, that no expert can foresee, is if a mutation comes along which is resistant to rhe vaccine.
Then....we are back to square one.

Which is why we all have to continue to observe hygiene measures in public places, be considerate and sensible about mingling, going on holiday  etc.

Original Quill wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:Delaying the spread is just increasing the chances of mutation.

Not if we eliminate the species. That path has worked for smallpox. By elimination of the species, there is no organism to mutate. It's closed...fini...

I'm curious. Why are you such a fan of this killer?  There are several ways in which we could defeat this virus, from the long, drawn-out process of waiting out the advance to herd immunity, to the short route of development of vaccination.

Your love for natural immunity, over scientific immunity, is totally unjustified.  You are suggesting that we stand out in the rain, when clearly we could build shelter.  Through vaccination we could clearly narrow the habitat of the virus by minimizing the bodies it can infect.  Reducing the available bodies, or habitat of the virus, we slow down opportunities for it to spread.  We eliminate the many iterations of mutation altogether - we skip them entirely, and go directly to herd immunity.  What is wrong with that?

Most appalling is your cavalier attitude toward the death that this virus creates.  You seem to be saying: Oh...old people don't matter...weak and sick people, well we're just clearing the species of excess trash.  Sorta, cleaning up.  I don't know...what must you be thinking?  Certainly, it isn't necessary to kill off the old and weak.  We have scientific means to protect them.  But you are against deploying those means, and I don't know why!?

Why do you always have to twist everything into a straw man argumt?


I've always said shield/vaccinate the old and vulnerable groups and let everyone else carry on as normal... This way everyone else would have had the virus by now and it would have gone away.


It's better for every 1 person to infect 100 people and go through population that way, rather than 100 people getting it one at a time from one at a time... Because that would dramatically increase mutation chances.


But that is exactly what policy has done... Trying to limit spread so it goes one by one and increases mutation chances.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Not if we eliminate the species.  That path has worked for smallpox.  By elimination of the species, there is no organism to mutate.  It's closed...fini...

I'm curious.  Why are you such a fan of this killer?  There are several ways in which we could defeat this virus, from the long, drawn-out process of waiting out the advance to herd immunity, to the short route of development of vaccination.

Your love for natural immunity, over scientific immunity, is totally unjustified.  You are suggesting that we stand out in the rain, when clearly we could build shelter.  Through vaccination we could clearly narrow the habitat of the virus by minimizing the bodies it can infect.  Reducing the available bodies, or habitat of the virus, we slow down opportunities for it to spread.  We eliminate the many iterations of mutation altogether - we skip them entirely, and go directly to herd immunity.  What is wrong with that?

Most appalling is your cavalier attitude toward the death that this virus creates.  You seem to be saying: Oh...old people don't matter...weak and sick people, well we're just clearing the species of excess trash.  Sorta, cleaning up.  I don't know...what must you be thinking?  Certainly, it isn't necessary to kill off the old and weak.  We have scientific means to protect them.  But you are against deploying those means, and I don't know why!?

Why do you always have to twist everything into a straw man argumt?

What is strawman about that? I'm genuinely asking questions.

Tommy Monk wrote:I've always said shield/vaccinate the old and vulnerable groups and let everyone else carry on as normal... This way everyone else would have had the virus by now and it would have gone away.

But why expose anyone to the risk? I don't see any sense in that.

Tommy Monk wrote:It's better for every 1 person to infect 100 people and go through population that way, rather than 100 people getting it one at a time from one at a time... Because that would dramatically increase mutation chances.

Ridiculous. Just vaccinate the population, and no one has to go through anything. The bug can't mutate if it is extinct.

Tommy Monk wrote:But that is exactly what policy has done... Trying to limit spread so it goes one by one and increases mutation chances.

The primary weapon is vaccination, leading to the bug's extinction. PPE and social distancing to limit the spread is only a temporary measure to inhibit the bug until every human is vaccinated.

Why are you advocating measures to help the bug? You should be advocating vaccination for every human being, and meanwhile utilizing PPE and social distancing, if you are in favor of the human species. There's something weird about your continual advocation in favor of the bug.

Tommy's mantra is shield the old and vulnerable and let everyone else catch it and let their own immune system do the work rather than a vaccine.
In theory, that won't work till many thousands more needless deaths are caused....and even then, if a stronger varient comes along you would be back to square one.

The vaccination in the UK alone is estimated to have saved 112 thousand deaths in the short time it has been distributed.
People are still dying daily, UK figures are 178 in the last 24 hours.... it's definitely not over yet.


https://news.yahoo.com/covid-vaccines-saved-112-000-105123171.html

So it's better to let the virus spread round slowly and have more chance of increasingly more mutations, many of which could be much worse, while relying on a slow vaccine roll out that could quickly be negated by one of these potential new more dangerous mutations, and which is not even giving complete protection against getting the current strains and getting seriously ill and dying from them, plus doesn't prevent vaccinated people from also being contagious to others either!!!???


Plus giving these vaccines to people who have already had the actual virus and suffered no real ill effects worse than a cold/flu, and now already have natural immunity, but could suffer serious complications including death from the vaccines?


The fact is, the longer it goes around, and the strategy that has happened so far, THAT SYL AND QUILL AND MANY OTHERS SUPPORT, is actually counterproductive and is going to end up creating the worst scenario that you claim to want to avoid, because this will result in the more it becomes embedded in the populations of the countries around the world in so many variations that it becomes impossible not only to eradicate, but also to create new vaccines that will offer any high level of protection against all variations of it.


And if you can't see what I'm saying then you have not thought this through with an open enough mind and are not looking at the bigger picture...

Just answer this Tommy.
Do you accept the findings that the vaccination has so far saved an estimated 112 thousand lives in the UK.
If you do, how can you think letting people catch the virus rather than being vaccinated against it is preferable?

If you dont accept the findings of people who have been front line studying the virus and the vaccination programme from the start, what possible reason do you think they have for deliberately lying to the public?

"Vaccines have saved 112,000 lives and averted 24 million cases of COVID in the United Kingdom, England's Deputy Chief Medical Officer Jonathan Van-Tam said on Tuesday.

"Our latest estimates are that since we began deploying these vaccines, they've probably averted in the region of 24 million cases of COVID in the UK and 112,000 deaths - so incredibly successful to date and remains so," Van-Tam said.

"We're not past the pandemic - we're in an active phase still. We know this winter could quite possibly be bumpy at times."

Firstly... That is speculation based on inaccurate figures.


Secondly... That assertion is talking (almost exclusively) about people in the high risk groups, being predominantly the older age group and otherwise clinically vulnerable groups... Of whom I have always said should have been shielding from the beginning and vaccinated once vaccine became available too... And which is what happened among those groups of people anyway!!!


My argument is about how it would have been best to let everyone else carry on as much as normal as possible during the whole time and let the early strain go through the rest of us quickly and without any real high level of casualties and for subsequent natural immunity amongst the vast majority to have quickly been the outcome...


Not to do what has actually happened, which I detailed in my previous post.

Tommy Monk wrote:



Firstly... That is speculation based on inaccurate figures.


Secondly... That assertion is talking about people in the high risk groups, being predominantly the older age group and otherwise clinically vulnerable groups... Of whom I have always said should have been shielding from the beginning and vaccinated once vaccine became available too... And which is what happened among those groups of people anyway!!!


My argument is about how it would have been best to let everyone else carry on as much as normal as possible during the whole time and let the early strain go through the rest of us quickly and without any real high level of casualties and for subsequent natural immunity amongst the vast majority to have quickly been the outcome...


Not to do what has happened which I said in my previous post.

When people were carrying on as normal....they were dying...and still are.

You cant shield half the population and let the others act as if there is no pandemic, it's impossible.
Yes the vulnerable were dying first, numbers of deaths in residential care homes was a good example, yet dont you believe that the people who care for them have the right to refuse the vaccination?

How can you protect the old and vulnerable if you are unvaccinated and far more likely to be infected and pass on the virus?

The early strain of corona morphed into different strains, for eg the Kent strain, was discovered 3 months before the vaccination programme started, the delta variant 4 months after the vaccination programme started....and immunity, whether natural or through vaccination doesn't last indefinately.

You are still not listening to the facts, or thinking with an open mind about the bigger picture...


You seem to be stuck in a mental cycle of hyperbolic hysterical waffle based on the tsunami of media sensational misrepresentations that have been washed towards you over the last 18 months...


Leaving you effectively 'brainwashed' in a confused covid state of delusion!!!


But you seem to be too far gone in your deluded state to actually be able to see the wood from the trees!


Facts and figures are lost on you now, and any sense of rationale and logical thinking is but a distant memory to you...


You seem to think that it is better to force these vaccinations on millions of people who have already had the virus (and with no ill effects and who now have natural immunity), and who may actually be killed or face serious side effects from this unnecessary vaccine, just so YOU can feel a little bit safer when you pop down the shops once every couple of weeks etc...


And the irony is, that you have this attitude that IT IS EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS SELFISH!!!


Usually it is the adults and older generation (in particular) who are there, prepared to be standing up in the firing line in front of the younger generation, to take the hit so as to protect the younger lot... But it seems that many of this current older generation are more in favour of forcing the younger lot to have potentially deadly injections given to them, that have more risk of serious harm/death to them than the thing the vaccine is designed to protect them from... Just so this older lot can feel a bit more safe themselves...


And they call others 'selfish' for daring to question this rationale...!!!???

Tommy, if I'm cold, I put on a coat.

If I'm hot, I put on loose, light clothes.

If I'm hungry, I buy something to eat.

If I need a ride, I hail a cab.

If a virus is going around, I get vaccinated.

We're humans, and that is our pattern.  We are inventive...if you need something, and there is something to fix it, go and get it.  What is the value in toughing it out?  Do you say, if you're cold, sit there and shiver; if it's wet, stand naked in the rain...do not seek shelter?  

Yet, if a virus is going around you say, catch it and suffer.  You risk your own misery.  You risk harm to your body.  You risk spread to the community.  Sure, your immuno-system has ways to combat it, but our science has improved on that.  We don't need to wait until we catch it and suffer.  And, the community sure has hell doesn't need the accompanying spread.

Science has got in covered.  It can help you avoid getting sick.  It can help us avoid spreading it around.  And, in preventing spread, science can put the bug to death, fini, and thereby prevent any ersatz mutation and future threats.

There is just no value to your way.

I don't need a vaccine. I've already had the virus. Just like most people have by now.

Tommy Monk wrote:I don't need a vaccine. I've already had the virus. Just like most people have by now.

It's not about you, tommy. No, most people are still vulnerable...as evidenced by the continued contracting of the virus, and the dying. The vaccine is their best protection.

No .. only the older and vulnerable people need the vaccine.

Tommy Monk wrote:No .. only the older and vulnerable people need the vaccine.

Nonsense.  Quit dicking around.  We all need the vaccine...when the bug is extinct, we'll argue the point over drinks.  

Tommy Monk wrote:


No .. only the older and vulnerable people need the vaccine.

You haven't listened to any medical experts opinions from the start. You either make up your own figures or you quote misleading ones.
So convinced are you that you are right, sadly you cant see straight. You are like a robot stuck on bore.

People a lot cleverer than you have learnt as they have gone along, this virus has been a learning experience even for medics and scientists, no one has pretended they knew  exactly how this virus progresses....well, no one but you.

Quill... It won't be extinct now because it has been allowed to slowly spread around and become embedded in society and allowed the time to mutate into a variety of strains.


However, if only the old and vulnerable groups had shielded and it was allowed to go through everyone else quickly, then it would probably have gone away ages ago...


The vaccine is not better protection in people than natural immunity that is gained by actually having had the virus.


And Syl... You only listen to the doom and gloom mongers and hysterical hyperbole from the media... You cannot see the facts.


Quite early on in this pandemic, there were plenty of experts who advocated what I'm saying, but only the media spun waffle prevailed.


Please try to understand what I've said in my last few posts.

Tommy Monk wrote:


You are still not listening to the facts, or thinking with an open mind about the bigger picture...


You seem to be stuck in a mental cycle of hyperbolic hysterical waffle based on the tsunami of media sensational misrepresentations that have been washed towards you over the last 18 months...


Leaving you effectively 'brainwashed' in a confused covid state of delusion!!!


But you seem to be too far gone in your deluded state to actually be able to see the wood from the trees!


Facts and figures are lost on you now, and any sense of rationale and logical thinking is but a distant memory to you...


You seem to think that it is better to force these vaccinations on millions of people who have already had the virus (and with no ill effects and who now have natural immunity), and who may actually be killed or face serious side effects from this unnecessary vaccine, just so YOU can feel a little bit safer when you pop down the shops once every couple of weeks etc...


And the irony is, that you have this attitude that IT IS EVERYONE ELSE WHO IS SELFISH!!!


Usually it is the adults and older generation (in particular) who are there, prepared to be standing up in the firing line in front of the younger generation, to take the hit so as to protect the younger lot... But it seems that many of this current older generation are more in favour of forcing the younger lot to have potentially deadly injections given to them, that have more risk of serious harm/death to them than the thing the vaccine is designed to protect them from... Just so this older lot can feel a bit more safe themselves...


And they call others 'selfish' for daring to question this rationale...!!!???

I'm double jabbed and when the booster is ready for me I will be having that.
Because of it I go out and about as I always have.
What's more, because I have been vaccinated, other countries will welcome me....Cyprus in particular.
Soon no pcr tests will be needed for the vaccinated on exit or entry to most popular holiday destinations.

I've been out and about pretty much as normal throughout... And I worked in a top hospital for 4 months last year during the first wave, with covid patients being wheeled about...


And I can go on holiday if I like, to numerous locations...

I added a bit to an earlier post for you Syl, don't know if you've read it or not...

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... It won't be extinct now because it has been allowed to slowly spread around and become embedded in society and allowed the time to mutate into a variety of strains.


However, if only the old and vulnerable groups had shielded and it was allowed to go through everyone else quickly, then it would probably have gone away ages ago...


The vaccine is not better protection in people than natural immunity that is gained by actually having had the virus.


And Syl... You only listen to the doom and gloom mongers and hysterical hyperbole from the media... You cannot see the facts.


Quite early on in this pandemic, there were plenty of experts who advocated what I'm saying, but only the media spun waffle prevailed.


Please try to understand what I've said in my last few posts.

I dont listen to the doom and gloom mongers or the press.
I listen to the experts, be they scientists or medics, then I make my own mind up from what I hear.

You didn't answer my question a couple of days ago.
Why do you think the WHO and almost every other country on the planet, is trying to get the vaccination for all adult people as soon as possible?

What possible explanation would governments of advanced countries have in spreading and exaggerating false information?

Tommy Monk wrote:Quill... It won't be extinct now because it has been allowed to slowly spread around and become embedded in society and allowed the time to mutate into a variety of strains.

However, if only the old and vulnerable groups had shielded and it was allowed to go through everyone else quickly, then it would probably have gone away ages ago...

Why bother?

Tommy Monk wrote:The vaccine is not better protection in people than natural immunity that is gained by actually having had the virus.

It is better.  With it, we don't have to bother with the virus.

Tommy Monk wrote:And Syl... You only listen to the doom and gloom mongers and hysterical hyperbole from the media... You cannot see the facts.

Quite early on in this pandemic, there were plenty of experts who advocated what I'm saying, but only the media spun waffle prevailed.

Please try to understand what I've said in my last few posts.

What you've said is, go through a lot of needless bother, helping the virus get a foothold!  Why do anything to help the virus?

Tommy Monk wrote:


I don't need a vaccine. I've already had the virus. Just like most people have by now.

There you go again, using your own opininion as if it;s a fact.

There are over 68 million people in the UK....7.5 cases of Covid have been officially confirmed.

Data is collected from multiple sources that update at different times and may not always align. Some locations may not provide complete information.

United Kingdom cases
Updated 18 Sep at 18:54 local
Confirmed
7,400,739
+29,438
Deaths
135,147
+164


https://www.bing.com/search?q=how+many+people+have+had+covid+in+the+uk&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=how+many+people+have+had+covid+in+the+uk&sc=1-40&sk=&cvid=2380C8136B0C4E76B5215DB8745D371D

Those figures aren't an accurate account of actual cases.


As I have explained a number of times.


I will explain again.


The virus has been going round in UK since as early as October/November 2019.


There was NO testing at the beginning and then only limited small scale testing for the few months after... Only reaching 100,000 tests a day around early summer (around June 2020 I think), and then a few months more until there was capacity to do larger scale testing of around a million a day.


So the number of confirmed actual cases by testing was totally inaccurate up until this time anyway... But on top of this, the govt have widely stated after this time that the number of confirmed tested cases after mass testing started happening is really only a fraction of actual cases in the wider population that have gone untested...


They say the real number is 5 times the daily tested case numbers after this time of mass testing.


I showed you a web site that lists all the daily figures for actual confirmed tested cases, which shows all data from the start...


For the last 3 months alone there has been around 30,000 tested cases a day... When you add this IP for the 3 months it comes to 2.7 million for last 3 months alone... Now multiply that by 5 to get closer to the govt stated real number of cases in wider population and that will be 13.5 million likely actual cases in just the last 3 months alone...


It's also a similar figure for the last 3 months of 2020...


So if there has been likely 27.4 million actual cases in just these 6 months... Then you can start to comprehend the likely total over the whole 2 years is going to be somewhere in the region of double this number!!!


I don't know why you find this so hard to understand and believe!!!???





Also... Why don't you listen to these eminent medical experts and scientists...?


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Barrington_Declaration


https://gbdeclaration.org/


https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89204

Why bother? Get vaccinated, and you don't have to worry.

Totally ignoring everything I've said...

Tommy Monk wrote:Totally ignoring everything I've said...

As is appropriate.

Easier for you to ignore the facts... The cognitive dissonance is too much for you otherwise...

Chris Rock contracts Covid: "Trust me, you don't want this - Get vaccinated!

Tommy Monk wrote:Easier for you to ignore the facts... The cognitive dissonance is too much for you otherwise...

The only fact that is important: 640,000-deaths in US from Covid.

Original Quill wrote:Chris Rock contracts Covid: "Trust me, you don't want this - Get vaccinated!

"...Rock’s coronavirus diagnosis comes after the former "Saturday Night Live" cast member revealed months ago on "The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon" that he was fully vaccinated..."

Tommy Monk wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Chris Rock contracts Covid: "Trust me, you don't want this - Get vaccinated!

"...Rock’s coronavirus diagnosis comes after the former "Saturday Night Live" cast member revealed months ago on "The Tonight Show with Jimmy Fallon" that he was fully vaccinated..."

I don't think any of the experts have said once vaccinated you are totally immune. Just as they have said if you have had the virus once you can catch it again.
Some people who have been double jabbed, some people who have had covid have gone on the catch the virus again.
The overwhelming evidence shows however you are LESS likely to catch it, you are LESS likely to be seriously ill, and you are a lot less likely to die once vaccinated.

Pfizer has announced this morning confirmation that their vaccination, in 10 μg (micrograms), administered 21 days apart, is successful in preventing the Covid-19 virus in children ages 5 - 11.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/09/20/1038832951/pfizer-and-biontech-vaccine-trials-for-kids-show-the-shots-are-safe-and-effectiv

In this country, it awaits only review and emergency authorization by the FDA.

I have always been very pro vaccine, judged on the evidence shown for the benefits of having it as opposed to the arguments against.
However....I am still not sure I would want a child of mine aged 5 to 11 vaccinated.

Kids have a miniscule chance of becoming seriously ill.
Far better to vaccinate the adults, so though the kids can infect others, the more adults vaccinated the sooner the virus is contained properly.

Syl wrote:I have always been very pro vaccine, judged on the evidence shown for the benefits of having it as opposed to the arguments against.
However....I am still not sure I would want a child of mine aged 5 to 11 vaccinated.

Kids have a miniscule chance of becoming seriously ill.
Far better to vaccinate the adults, so though the kids can infect others, the more adults vaccinated the sooner the virus is contained properly.  

Are you talking about breakthrough infections?  I don't think that the vaccination is the cause.  It's my understanding that breakthrough infections arise despite the vaccination, not because of it.

The 5 - 11 age bracket constitutes a portal by which Covid could still leak into the community.  Unvaccinated, they yet live in families, and their communities, and they could be the source of spread.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:I have always been very pro vaccine, judged on the evidence shown for the benefits of having it as opposed to the arguments against.
However....I am still not sure I would want a child of mine aged 5 to 11 vaccinated.

Kids have a miniscule chance of becoming seriously ill.
Far better to vaccinate the adults, so though the kids can infect others, the more adults vaccinated the sooner the virus is contained properly.  

Are you talking about breakthrough infections?  I don't think that the vaccination is the cause.  It's my understanding that breakthrough infections arise despite the vaccination, not because of it.

The 5 - 11 age bracket constitutes a portal by which Covid could still leak into the community.  Unvaccinated, they yet live in families, and their communities, and they could be the source of spread.

All the strains of covid so far dont seem to affect children badly, that's one reason not to vaccinate them, if everyone over the age of 18 was vaccinated, there would be no reason to vaccinate children imo.
The main reason is there has not been as much research done as yet re how the vaccination affects young children.

Syl wrote:All the strains of covid so far dont seem to affect children badly, that's one reason not to vaccinate them, if everyone over the age of 18 was vaccinated, there would be no reason to vaccinate children imo.

The main reason is there has not been as much research done as yet re how the vaccination affects young children.

But...we are one mutation away from a change that will affect children. As long as we admit of the possibility of mutability, I would not rely on the immutability of the virus in that direction. I'm for wiping out all hosts for the virus by mass vaccination. The vaccinations that we have are our best means of doing that.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:All the strains of covid so far dont seem to affect children badly, that's one reason not to vaccinate them, if everyone over the age of 18 was vaccinated, there would be no reason to vaccinate children imo.

The main reason is there has not been as much research done as yet re how the vaccination affects young children.

But...we are one mutation away from a change that will affect children.  As long as we admit of the possibility of mutability, I would not rely on the immutability of the virus in that direction.  I'm for wiping out all hosts for the virus by mass vaccination.  The vaccinations that we have are our best means of doing that.

That mutation may never come, and if every adult who was eligible for the vaccine took it the chances of a deadlier strain of Covid emerging would be much lessened.

The deadline for care workers to have their first jab has now passed. Over 2000 workers now face the sack in Greater Manchester alone because they have refused.
I honestly cant undersatns why people who work in the caring profession can be so callous.