Policing in retail

[JohnfromUK]

2 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

The comments section below the article is more interesting.

I find it interesting that you are more interested in the comments by "all and sundry" - than a serious article by a well respected and highly experienced journalist!

 

[39TDS]

10 minutes ago, Westward said:

I fully realise that but it does make a big difference to the number of people dying and/or bed blocking.

If you are over 60 yes, it doesn't explain why teenagers are being coerced into getting jabbed.

Younger people don't generally end up in hospital so why jab them if they are unlikely to become bed blockers as you suggest but can still catch and spread the virus. It makes no sense, in fact a great deal of it makes no sense if you are prepared to question it rather than just blindly comply.

[39TDS]

14 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I find it interesting that you are more interested in the comments by "all and sundry" - than a serious article by a well respected and highly experienced journalist!

 

What medical qualifications does this journalist have that the all and sundry in the comments section don't?

The points made in the comments section are just as valid as anything he said. 

[JohnfromUK]

Just now, 39TDS said:

What medical qualifications does this journalist have that the all and sundry in the comments section don't?

The points made in the comments section are just as valid as anything he said. 

I expect he has no medical qualifications ......... but as a well respected and very experienced journalist he will have researched his facts and also have access to experts - its what journalists do - if they write rubbish their career doesn't progress.  Andrew Neil was (as editor of The Sunday Times for 11 years) and is one of the most respected journalists - and he achieved that status by getting facts right.

Those in the comments section are just a mix of 'social media warriors' who hide behind 'aliases' (as we do here.

I am always inclined to give Andrew Neil a read/listen because he is a serious and thoughtful researcher who generally gets his facts right.  I may not always agree with his interpretations and opinions, but his facts are right.

IF you believe that the comments are more accurate and factual than the article itself - fair enough.  I do not.

[39TDS]

Quote

It's time to punish Britain's five million vaccine refuseniks: They put us all at risk of more restrictions, says ANDREW NEIL. So why shouldn't we curb some of their freedoms?

I guess I just strongly disagree with the above. What sort of policy is that to adopt, punish people for making their own decisions on being vaccinated?

He states a few facts in his article and I wasn't questioning their accuracy but the conclusion he comes to is alarming to me. The only real risk from unvaccinated people is that they "may" (not will) become ill if they catch covid. The risk is to themselves not you me or anybody else.

[Mice!]

55 minutes ago, Westward said:

I fully realise all of that but just how many people do you think have an NHS style fit test?

Probably very few, but it's like gloves, you have to try different makes to get a pair that fit right, I occasionally have to wear a mask with my safety glasses in work and find the disposable masks are fine for me if they are bent into shape right.

[JohnfromUK]

1 minute ago, 39TDS said:

The only real risk from unvaccinated people is that they "may" (not will) become ill if they catch covid. The risk is to themselves not you me or anybody else.

This is where we will have to "agree to disagree" (which I'm always happy to do amicably!). 

IF the un-vaccinated get Covid (they are more likely to) and some will (as will some vaccinated), then they are more likely to get seriously ill.  That then becomes a burden on the health service etc. - which does put you, me , and everyone else at risk should we need A&E etc.

I do see it rather as the 'seat belt' argument.  We made seat belt wearing compulsory (which by the way I don't feel strongly about either way, but do wear my belt) because it reduces the risk of death/serious injury to those in accidents.  No one else - just those in the accidents.  The argument was to 'protect the NHS and the accident victims'.  I believe there are 'penalties' in the form of reduced insurance payouts for those not wearing seatbelts in an accident - and there are certainly penalties if you are caught not wearing one.

I see the vaccine as a bit similar to the seat belt; it reduces risk of serious illness if you get Covid.  The bonus is it also reduces the risk of getting ill with Covid at all.  Both seem a no brainer to me.

[39TDS]

Well I will amicably say that I agree mostly with what you say but most definitely not with it being a no brainer.

It should be a risk based decision and the risk of a healthy 25 year old getting seriously ill with covid is minimal and definitely not high enough to justify compulsory vaccination. When you get further down to the teenagers it appears to be a ludicrous decision to inject all of them against something that isn't going to harm them anyway and nor is there much risk of them being bed blockers. It would make more sense to ban skateboards, skiing and horseriding.

 

[Vince Green]

1 hour ago, 39TDS said:

If you are over 60 yes, it doesn't explain why teenagers are being coerced into getting jabbed.

Younger people don't generally end up in hospital so why jab them if they are unlikely to become bed blockers as you suggest but can still catch and spread the virus. It makes no sense, in fact a great deal of it makes no sense if you are prepared to question it rather than just blindly comply.

Its about spreading it not dying from it

Younger people generally have the highest average number of contacts with other people per day. Known as their "churn" rate. Also they are more likely to be asymptomatic.   

[Bigbob]

My work was to have a leaving party for me next week cancelled due to Covid , im glad ive been away 6 months and its great i have no wish to ever go back . Checking the emails today and the principal says anybody that can work from home will , managers must look at every bodies roles and all meeting are cancelled , there looking at sending all the students home for another extended xmas break . 

We can argue about wearing mask getting jabbed up or not but this new variant has the country running scared and i dont think we can afford another look down this covid is here to stay . Im just glad im retired and can pick when and where i go out too .

We used to get a lot of grief from students who would party 7 nights a week the guys at work say its starting to sink in too then they can catch it and a few have even caught it twice and a fit youngster cant go up a set of stairs now  then Long covid is even worse  

[39TDS]

2 hours ago, Vince Green said:

Its about spreading it not dying from it

Younger people generally have the highest average number of contacts with other people per day. Known as their "churn" rate. Also they are more likely to be asymptomatic.   

The vaccine does not stop you catching and/or spreading covid so how can it be about spreading?

You say yourself they are more likely to be asymptomatic, so if they are not even going to get ill why insist they are vaccinated?

I am not against the vaccine, it has done a marvellous job in keeping the vulnerable from serious illness the daily statistics show this. What I am against is the heavy coercion for everyone to be vaccinated no matter what their age or what the risk is. 

I read a recent report that concluded the vaccine made it 3 times less likely to catching Covid. The figure were actually in close contact the difference of 0.4% catching it if they were vaccinated  and 1.2% if they were unvaccinated. Yes it is three times more likely but it is also 98.8% unlikely even if unvaccinated. They are the figures of people catching it, not the ones who go on to be seriously affected by it. 

[JohnfromUK]

50 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

The figure were actually in close contact the difference of 0.4% catching it if they were vaccinated  and 1.2% if they were unvaccinated.

I don't doubt that you have read that - but here is another; one works party, all vaccinated, and yet 50% (60 out of 120 people) of those present catch Covid. 

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/world-news/omicron-super-spreader-party-norway-22368868

There are so many different stories around it is hard to know where the truth lies.

[39TDS]

35 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I don't doubt that you have read that - but here is another; one works party, all vaccinated, and yet 50% (60 out of 120 people) of those present catch Covid. 

https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/world-news/omicron-super-spreader-party-norway-22368868

There are so many different stories around it is hard to know where the truth lies.

Well my figures were from an Imperial College London led report who I choose to take more notice of than Walesonline, just as you choose to hold Andrew Neil in higher regard than the all and sundry in the comments section.

If the Wales online report is true does it not prove that vaccinations do not stop you catching Covid and does that not lead on to questioning compulsory vaccinations?

 

Yes there are so many stories being put about that make it difficult to find the truth.

[JohnfromUK]

6 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

Well my figures were from an Imperial College London led report who I choose to take more notice of than Walesonline, just as you choose to hold Andrew Neil in higher regard than the all and sundry in the comments section.

Touché:  In fact the same report is from many places - including Reuters, but I agree that

7 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

there are so many stories being put about that make it difficult to find the truth.

 

7 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

does it not prove that vaccinations do not stop you catching Covid

I agree - vaccines don't stop you catching - just make it less likely - about 1/3 as likely from your 0.4% versus 1.3% above.

10 minutes ago, 39TDS said:

does that not lead on to questioning compulsory vaccinations

I don't think compulsory vaccines will happen here - and I'm not in favour of blanket compulsion; but I would support measures to maximise the vaccine uptake where practical - and I do support (the present rules for) compulsory vaccines for some workers who work with the very vulnerable such as health and care sector workers.

[39TDS]

7 minutes ago, JohnfromUK said:

I don't think compulsory vaccines will happen here - and I'm not in favour of blanket compulsion; but I would support measures to maximise the vaccine uptake where practical - and I do support (the present rules for) compulsory vaccines for some workers who work with the very vulnerable such as health and care sector workers.

We are back to amicably disagreeing again then. Compulsory vaccines are already here, they will become much more widespread before long. Care workers now, NHS workers when they are more prepared to cope with the loss of staff (this is already in place and the loss of staff is why it hasn't been done this side of winter) as a result and then where? Teachers? Pupils? Shop workers?

Is this so the likes of Andrew Neil can go to France and feel safe in a restaurant? I suspect the staff and the care workers would love to have that chance.

[Scully]

Sat in the beaters trailer today. A cold wet but sunny morning. At least sixteen people all squashed in together, some wearing masks, some snoods, one pulled up jumper but the majority just not bothering. 
I wasn’t aware of any steam from breathing from those wearing masks ( although I have blown out a candle while wearing one ) but the steamy breath from those wearing masks was very apparent, yet it is quite acceptable to wear these instead of a mask. 
So I’ll ask again, if it is ok to wear a snood, then why is so much emphasis given to wearing masks? If masks are so good at minimising the risk, why is it acceptable to wear something which clearly isn’t? 
I have had both vaccines and the booster, but that was my choice. Compulsory vaccination would be not exactly the start ( we’re way past the start ) of a long slippery road, in my opinion. 

[Mice!]

2 minutes ago, Scully said:

Sat in the beaters trailer today. A cold wet but sunny morning. At least sixteen people all squashed in together, some wearing masks, some snoods, one pulled up jumper but the majority just not bothering. 
I wasn’t aware of any steam from breathing from those wearing masks ( although I have blown out a candle while wearing one ) but the steamy breath from those wearing masks was very apparent, yet it is quite acceptable to wear these instead of a mask. 
So I’ll ask again, if it is ok to wear a snood, then why is so much emphasis given to wearing masks? If masks are so good at minimising the risk, why is it acceptable to wear something which clearly isn’t? 
I have had both vaccines and the booster, but that was my choice. Compulsory vaccination would be not exactly the start ( we’re way past the start ) of a long slippery road, in my opinion. 

Go on read it again,  I'm guessing you mean that the snoods and jumpers were steamy.

I've never understood why they said these face coverings were OK, probably thought they were better than nothing. 

But going off the small group I work with I'm not surprised that the lads who won't wear masks unless it's compulsory in work are also the lads who won't have the vaccine, because they don't think covid will affect them, they've seen others get it of a similar age, been offside for a few days and that's it so it just doesn't bother them.

[Newbie to this]

37 minutes ago, Mice! said:

Go on read it again,  I'm guessing you mean that the snoods and jumpers were steamy.

I've never understood why they said these face coverings were OK, probably thought they were better than nothing. 

But going off the small group I work with I'm not surprised that the lads who won't wear masks unless it's compulsory in work are also the lads who won't have the vaccine, because they don't think covid will affect them, they've seen others get it of a similar age, been offside for a few days and that's it so it just doesn't bother them.

I won't wear a mask unless it is compulsory, I'm double jabbed and have my booster booked.

Maybe I'm the exception to your analysis of those who don't wear masks unless it's compulsory

[Mice!]

19 minutes ago, Newbie to this said:

I won't wear a mask unless it is compulsory, I'm double jabbed and have my booster booked.

Maybe I'm the exception to your analysis of those who don't wear masks unless it's compulsory

Well the lads at work are mostly under 30, and therefore highly unlikely to get ill from covid, I'm guessing your over 40 so the vaccine makes sense?

As to not wearing a mask why not? I've only worn mine recently when food shopping,  twenty minutes or so, I don't use public transport. 

But being out recently without social distancing and masks, a most enjoyable weekend followed by Covid, our guess is that someone's kid was asymptomatic that was at the parties.

[Scully]

Just now, Mice! said:

 

But being out recently without social distancing and masks, a most enjoyable weekend followed by Covid, our guess is that someone's kid was asymptomatic that was at the parties.

You could have worn a mask and kept socially distanced if you’d wanted to though. Or you could have simply stayed away.
This is what I mean by freedom of choice; just because the government says you don’t need to wear a mask etc etc, that doesn’t mean you can’t wear one if you so wish. 

[Mice!]

8 minutes ago, Scully said:

You could have worn a mask and kept socially distanced if you’d wanted to though. Or you could have simply stayed away.
This is what I mean by freedom of choice; just because the government says you don’t need to wear a mask etc etc, that doesn’t mean you can’t wear one if you so wish. 

Last year there weren't any parties for obvious reason,  given our kids are all in the same class and no one has gone off with covid in a long while I very much doubt anyone thought it was likely,  it could easily have been a parent had picked it up before hand, but no one was wearing a mask, or the bar staff, I couldn't imagine anyone going to a kids party wearing a mask unless they were vulnerable,  everyone was there because they wanted to be by choice,  different from going doing your food shop or using public transport. 

[ordnance]

Quote

 

I won't wear a mask unless it is compulsory, I'm double jabbed and have my booster booked.

Maybe I'm the exception to your analysis of those who don't wear masks unless it's compulsory

 

Wearing a mask is about protecting others as well as yourself, but i do understand not everyone has consideration for others but only themselves. 

Edited December 10, 2021 by ordnance

[Newbie to this]

7 hours ago, ordnance said:

Wearing a mask is about protecting others as well as yourself, but i do understand not everyone has consideration for others but only themselves. 

[Scully]

11 hours ago, Mice! said:

Last year there weren't any parties for obvious reason,  given our kids are all in the same class and no one has gone off with covid in a long while I very much doubt anyone thought it was likely,  it could easily have been a parent had picked it up before hand, but no one was wearing a mask, or the bar staff, I couldn't imagine anyone going to a kids party wearing a mask unless they were vulnerable,  everyone was there because they wanted to be by choice,  different from going doing your food shop or using public transport. 

That’s all I meant really, that we have to take responsibility for the choices we make.
We’re still going through a pandemic. No one has to wear a mask in the beaters trailer or the pub, but some do despite being treble jabbed. 

9 hours ago, ordnance said:

Wearing a mask is about protecting others as well as yourself, but i do understand not everyone has consideration for others but only themselves. 

That’s a ridiculous comment! If you want to wear a mask then do, it’s your choice, but you can’t expect others to do so. Do you expect small children for example to go about in a mask simply because you think it’s inconsiderate not to do so?
There are people out there who will be wearing them for the rest of their lives for a variety of reasons, that doesn’t mean the rest of us have to. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by Scully

[ordnance]

Quote

That’s a ridiculous comment! If you want to wear a mask then do, it’s your choice, but you can’t expect others to do so. Do you expect small children for example to go about in a mask simply because you think it’s inconsiderate not to do so?

No i expect children to act like children and i expect adults to act like adults follow the law public health advice and have consecration for others, i do release i am asking a bit much. The same ones not following the rules / advice causing rising infections will be the first shouting when restrictions are tightened because of their actions.  

1 hour ago, Newbie to this said:

Just the response i expected. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by ordnance