• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Coronavirus - how is it/has it affected you?

GB72 said:
Honestly, yes. One of the purposes of lockdown, which has kept us at home on and off for a year, has been to protect the more at risk people who have, quite rightly, been the first to get the vaccine. If the response was then 'I'm alright Jack, I had my vaccine so I am off to the Costas, thanks for protecting me now I am off to have some fun whilst you are stuck indoors' I would be seriously hacked off. In my mind, if vaccination is a requirement then nobody travels abroad on holiday until everyone has been offered the jab.

You suddenly give extra freedoms to those who lockdown was meant to protect and compliance with lockdown will end.
Click to expand...

Just to point out what may be seen to be pedantic, but the most at risk are not necessarily the oldest. Risk is a combination of personal susceptibility and exposure. Older people have an increased susceptibility, for sure, but not necessarily the greatest exposure. A middle aged ambulance driver has lower personal susceptibility but might higher exposure. And we also know than men have a higher susepcptibility than women, approx 5 years of risk, and BAME more than white, of a similar magnitude. A proper risk-based approach would put men and BAME into one risk category higher, and male BAME two. Equally, clinically extremely vulnerable is not a homogeneous category either, with a fair range of risk across those in that category. The JCVI prioritisation was really about administrative simplicity with a veneer of risk-based.
 
Ethan said:
Just to point out what may be seen to be pedantic, but the most at risk are not necessarily the oldest. Risk is a combination of personal susceptibility and exposure. Older people have an increased susceptibility, for sure, but not necessarily the greatest exposure. A middle aged ambulance driver has lower personal susceptibility but might higher exposure. And we also know than men have a higher susepcptibility than women, approx 5 years of risk, and BAME more than white, of a similar magnitude. A proper risk-based approach would put men and BAME into one risk category higher, and male BAME two. Equally, clinically extremely vulnerable is not a homogeneous category either, with a fair range of risk across those in that category. The JCVI prioritisation was really about administrative simplicity with a veneer of risk-based.
Click to expand...

Agree with that and I am actually supportive of the idea of those with greatest exposure being higher up the vaccine list. I think the basic though is that you are just asking for trouble if you grant additional freedoms to those who have been vaccinated months before many will get the chance.
 
Doon frae Troon said:
Every day......inc weekends ?
Problem is there are many many other essential workers from refuse collectors to tax collectors who will feel equally entitled.
Click to expand...

Im not trying to be enititled. Im saying that you cant let the vaccinated travel and leave the unvaccinated stranded in the UK.

I check work related systems daily, I'm senior management, so yes, even weekends. Maybe not 9-5 but the point stands.

You cant lock down those of us who have done all we can to keep the country running longer than those who have been vaccinated due to their age. Its simply unfair.

All im asking for is - dont open the borders for the few, it must be for the many.
 
SocketRocket said:
I agree with that. However, there are a number of younger people who have been saying we should isolate the old and vunrable and let the rest get on with life, why would they not accept the same when the boot is on the other foot.
Click to expand...

Because that did not happen. If the older members of the population had been isolated then there is a strong case to grant further freedoms on vaccination. As it happened, we all went through lockdown and so we all continue with the restrictions until everyone has been offered the jab.
 
Bdill93 said:
Im not trying to be enititled. Im saying that you cant let the vaccinated travel and leave the unvaccinated stranded in the UK.

I check work related systems daily, I'm senior management, so yes, even weekends. Maybe not 9-5 but the point stands.

You cant lock down those of us who have done all we can to keep the country running longer than those who have been vaccinated due to their age. Its simply unfair.

All im asking for is - dont open the borders for the few, it must be for the many.
Click to expand...
I agree in principle with what you say, but if Spain/Portugal/A.N. Other Country states you must be vaccinated to visit, then I can’t imagine our Government having any say in the matter.
 
SocketRocket said:
I agree with that. However, there are a number of younger people who have been saying we should isolate the old and vunrable and let the rest get on with life, why would they not accept the same when the boot is on the other foot.
Click to expand...

Because that’s not happened - the vunerable wouldn’t accept that if it happened just as others wouldn’t accept it relaxations happened for those with the vaccines
 
GB72 said:
That is interesting. Do we know enough about how the vaccine impacts on individuals spreading covid to make such a call and allow those that have been vaccinated an exemption from self isolating if in contact with someone who has it.
Click to expand...

The scientific community has long believed that vaccination will reduce transmission, although the official line has been that there is no direct evidence that it does. It stops virus replicating, it will be difficult to imagine a scenario where the recipient was protected but still just as transmissible as if they never had the vacc.

The bigger problem is the societal one. Govt (not just in the UK) has been very concerned to avoid created a privileged subpopulation because the rest of us may react badly to people going to the pub, football and holiday. But there comes a tipping point where that will have to happen in some way, and the vaccination cards mentioned by some Govt person the other day are one step, and the CDC step another. Note that the CDC regs only cover people for 3 months after the second vacc, which may be a stepping stone and is very conservative in terms of likely response, and it currently only covers US approved vaccs, so no AZ (yet).
 
GB72 said:
Because that did not happen. If the older members of the population had been isolated then there is a strong case to grant further freedoms on vaccination. As it happened, we all went through lockdown and so we all continue with the restrictions until everyone has been offered the jab.
Click to expand...
Liverpoolphil said:
Because that’s not happened - the vunerable wouldn’t accept that if it happened just as others wouldn’t accept it relaxations happened for those with the vaccines
Click to expand...
It wasn't a serious proposition, rather a tongue in cheek comment for those who were suggesting it.
 
SocketRocket said:
I agree with that. However, there are a number of younger people who have been saying we should isolate the old and vunrable and let the rest get on with life, why would they not accept the same when the boot is on the other foot.
Click to expand...
Maybe because they are a little short sighted or self orientated ... I think we have enough evidence to say no one is immune and Sweden have actually confirmed that herd immunity doesn’t happen ... we all need to isolate and take the opportunity of spreading out of the equation.
I travelled back before Christmas due to work, and isolated properly for 2 weeks had a COVID test post Christmas.. all was fine, it was a little inconvenient but I would rather that minor inconvenience than lying in a bed struggling to breath and the possibility of losing my life or passing it to someone who could lose their life.
The more selfish phaffing we have the longer we all will have this in our lives... so I am totally up for isolating everyone irresp of jab or not on re-entry to the U.K. and there should be no people who don’t have to do it because they wear Lycra or have fat wallets and treat cocaine like digestive ..
 
Ethan said:
I agree that is why they are dong it, but unfortunately that is a rather one-dimensional objective, the highest transmitters fill hospitals with multiple people.
Click to expand...
The big question that needs to be answered, probably very frequently, is does the vaccine stop you transmitting the virus ? If the answer is no, then the jab for travel is pointless discussion ... I personally don’t want you seeking new opportunities to catch some new variant.

Sorry for the selfish attitude, but can we just get this done and dusted and stop thinking it won’t happen to me ?
 
harpo_72 said:
The big question that needs to be answered, probably very frequently, is does the vaccine stop you transmitting the virus ? If the answer is no, then the jab for travel is pointless discussion ... I personally don’t want you seeking new opportunities to catch some new variant.

Sorry for the selfish attitude, but can we just get this done and dusted and stop thinking it won’t happen to me ?
Click to expand...

Who exactly thinks it won't happen to them? Not me.

The vaccine almost certainly does reduce transmission. Whether it eliminates it is not known. It is quite hard to study the specific transmission patters, because you need to be able to demonstrate that someone got it from another particular person.

New variants are going to emerge often while there is still endemic virus. There is always going to be a degree of catchup by vaccine makers.
 
Ethan said:
Who exactly thinks it won't happen to them? Not me.

The vaccine almost certainly does reduce transmission. Whether it eliminates it is not known. It is quite hard to study the specific transmission patters, because you need to be able to demonstrate that someone got it from another particular person.

New variants are going to emerge often while there is still endemic virus. There is always going to be a degree of catchup by vaccine makers.
Click to expand...
Sorry was general statement of people think it won’t be me ..
 
Swinglowandslow said:
C,mon, how much time understanding? and explanation is needed?
That is procrastination.
Their refusals, because of the resulting increased instances of spread of the disease, are
akin to refusing to follow the lockdown rules. The result is the same. Unnecessary spread of a deadly disease.
So why don't you condemn it , as I believe you would condemn refusal to obey lockdown rules.?
How long did it take you to understand what is involved.
The anti vaxxers know the score. They are making conscious decisions.
Click to expand...

As at the moment it is concern amongst a very elderly ethnic group who may or may not have a good understanding of the English language I for one don’t put them in the anti vaxxer group if, when it comes to younger members of the ethnic groups acting the same way when it’s their turn I would reconsider my views on the matter.

Whilst we live in a country where freedom of choice is a way of life it’s not for you, or me, to condemn anyone until we have the full facts on why this might be happening.
 
SwingsitlikeHogan said:
The vaccination part may not be difficult - but the 'governance' and 'due diligence' training that has to be taken and 'passed' before an individual can give a vaccination is quite burdensome...and might put some off. Hopefully not to the detriment of delivering first jag to plan as second jag recipients come in - but we shouldn't assume that the process to be followed for onboarding someone to given vaccinations is quick and easy; it's a bit of a pain.
Click to expand...

Hundreds of those who volunteered at the beginning of lock down one have already been trained up for vaccinating people and are now doing it and many of us are doing the stewarding. The governance and due diligence had already been carried out back last year.
 
pauldj42 said:
Maybe Hancock doesn’t understand why Grant Shapps only stated yesterday it was “too soon to book a domestic holiday”

But hey, easier to deflect on to headline writers than question a colleague.
Click to expand...

No deflection, Hancock booked it months ago not yesterday its just that some idiots want to use it as a headline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top