Vaccine Passport - Plan B

[Red-Robbo]

Just now, big p said:

How's it working in France captain quote? 

 Maybe you should ask yourself how high French infections (which are marginally below the UK) would be without this measure?

Lower death rates and hospitalisation rates in France suggest that pushing people to get vaccinated is achieving goals the French authorities want to meet. 

[BrizzleRed]

22 minutes ago, Riaz said:

The fact we are facing restrictions now, should be enough to tell you, it aint working. If vaccines worked, there would be no need for any restrictions. 90% of adults have been double jabbed ffs!

But have you considered where we could have been without the restrictions?  

There were serious predictions of 400,000 to 500,000 deaths if nothing was done.  The vaccines will have helped, as have the restrictions to an extent.  

It’s a right pain in the arse and we’re all getting sick of it, but the restrictions are minor compared with last Christmas, so there have been massive improvements over the last year.

[underhanded]

"No, I have better surface level understanding of virology and epidemiology!

"NO, I have a better surface level understanding of virology and epidemiology!"

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by underhanded
typo

[big p]

5 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 Maybe you should ask yourself how high French infections (which are marginally below the UK) would be without this measure?

Lower death rates and hospitalisation rates in France suggest that pushing people to get vaccinated is achieving goals the French authorities want to meet. 

How would you know? Answer-You don't!

How many people have sadly lost their business, lives, relationships due to restrictions? Don't these lives matter then? Clearly not in your eyes. Sad!

Edited December 9, 2021 by big p

[Red-Robbo]

Just now, big p said:

How would you know? Answer-You don't!

How many people have sadly lost their business, lives, relationships? Don't these lives matter then? Clearly not in your eyes. Sad!

 

How would I know that French infection, hospitalisation and death rates are lower than the UK? The stats are there for you to see.

Can you explain why showing a pass to go to a restaurant will lose someone their relationship - or life???

They are more likely to lose both if they catch Covid. Which this measure is aimed at making less likely.

Just a reminder, a minimum 5,250,000 people have lost their lives from this virus.

No business is going to go bust or no one is going to die because we have to download a simple app and potentially show it at a football match. What a ridiculous tantrum over something so uncomplicated. 

[ashton_fan]

1 hour ago, CheddarReds said:

Do you mind me asking where your registered with your GP? 

In Wales it only seems to give a 48 hour covid pass. Could be why?

Hi, how do you get a hard copy? I've tried to find one online but can only find a digital QR code. Thanks in advance. 

Use this link for covid pass letter:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/covid-pass/get-your-covid-pass-letter/

[Harry]

21 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

No misinformation in my post. I suggest you read this and follow the links:

https://theconversation.com/no-vaccinated-people-are-not-just-as-infectious-as-unvaccinated-people-if-they-get-covid-171302

There is a reason they've imposed these passes They aren't just for fun and no one is making money out of them. (They've already done that! Whether the system is used or not is irrelevant to the developers).  The scientific consensus is that restricting unvaccinated and/or untested people from large events will slow the spread. I'm happy to accept expert opinion, rather than that of non-experts. 

The link you provided is an opinion piece by a couple of researchers who specifically quote and link some of the studies which I referred to in my post, where those studies found that viral loads are similar but there might be some evidence that vaccinated might reduce a bit faster. 
So your link actually agrees with what I stated, and specifically links the studies I referred to, and yet you state the old favourite of “you’re no expert”. 
The fact these 2 researchers, who, yes are very qualified persons, then put their own opinion to the studies is just that - their opinion. The facts of the studies remain. And thats what I said. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Harry

[big p]

7 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

How would I know that French infection, hospitalisation and death rates are lower than the UK? The stats are there for you to see.

Can you explain why showing a pass to go to a restaurant will lose someone their relationship - or life???

They are more likely to lose both if they catch Covid. Which this measure is aimed at making less likely.

Just a reminder, a minimum 5,250,000 people have lost their lives from this virus.

No business is going to go bust or no one is going to die because we have to download a simple app and potentially show it at a football match. What a ridiculous tantrum over something so uncomplicated. 

For a start wait and see how many people will buy a half season ticket, pretty sure it will be down,  But you will put this down to "performing badly on the pitch"

If there's not a push back then this will spread to pubs and restaurants which will result in job losses. Why because they will have to pay staff to enforce this. And lots won't bother going out.

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by big p

[Red-Robbo]

5 minutes ago, Harry said:

The link you provided is an opinion piece by a couple of researchers who specifically quote and link some of the studies which I referred to in my post, where those studies found that viral loads are similar but there might be some evidence that vaccinated might reduce a bit faster. 
So your link actually agrees with what I stated, and specifically links the studies I referred to, and yet you state the old favourite of “you’re no expert”. 
The fact these 2 researchers, who, yes are very qualified persons, then put their own opinion to the studies is just that - their opinion. The facts of the studies remain. And thats what I said. 

 

If you read it, that story acknowledges that viral loads can be similar during infection, but in vaccinated people the high viral load phase WILL BE SHORTER. Therefore, on average, vaccinated people will have lower viral loads than unvaccinated ones. This is the entire reason d'etre of these restrictions. Why else do you think they are being brought in?  As part of some sinister New World Order conspiracy?

It isn't an opinion piece and it contains more links than to "two researchers". It's the most recent research on the subject.

 

[Red-Robbo]

7 minutes ago, big p said:

For a start wait and see how many people will buy a half season ticket, pretty sure it will be down,  But you will put this down to "performing badly on the pitch"

If there's not a push back then this will spread to pubs and restaurants which will result in job losses. Why because they will have to pay staff to enforce this. And lots won't bother going out.

 

 

We actually aren't performing that badly ATM. 

I'll be going to watch the Huddersfield game and will assess then the effect on the crowd. I'm guessing it'll be minimal. Most of the fanbase who attend matches are in the age range where vaccine take-up is very high.  Christmas shopping is likely to have a much bigger issue.

The idea that we'll now see passes for pubs and restaurants is hypothetical, but if we did, for anyone who it keeps away it might encourage more elderly and worried customers to return.

In my local, a number of old boys are no longer regulars as they are worried about catching the virus in a venue where there are zero restrictions. If restrictions were to be brought in, they might return. 

Just to be clear. I haven't been agitating for Covid Passes in the UK and think they'll be a pain in the arse.

But I don't think they are such a big deal I would ever consider not watching City over them. 

[big p]

2 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

We actually aren't performing that badly ATM. 

I'll be going to watch the Huddersfield game and will assess then the effect on the crowd. I'm guessing it'll be minimal. Most of the fanbase who attend matches are in the age range where vaccine take-up is very high.  Christmas shopping is likely to have a much bigger issue.

The idea that we'll now see passes for pubs and restaurants is hypothetical, but if we did, for anyone who it keeps away it might encourage more elderly and worried customers to return.

In my local, a number of old boys are no longer regulars as they are worried about catching the virus in a venue where there are zero restrictions. If restrictions were to be brought in, they might return. 

Just to be clear. I haven't been agitating for Covid Passes in the UK and think they'll be a pain in the arse.

But I don't think they are such a big deal I would ever consider not watching City over them. 

If people are worried then I would they suggest they limit the time spent in crowded areas. For the rest of us, let us live our lives restriction free. Its pretty simple really, isn't it?

 

Alot of people are very happy that the government controls every aspect of their lives, that's fair enough.

But I'm not and I won't.  Thankfully there are lots of people who are already and starting to think this way.

[Red-Robbo]

Just now, big p said:

If people are worried then I would they suggest they limit the time spent in crowded areas. For the rest of us, let us live our lives restriction free. Its pretty simple really, isn't it?

 

Lots ARE. Which is why making those crowded areas safer might encourage them out.

Why should elderly fans and those with underlying health conditions (one-third of the population) confine themselves to their homes, just so some can carry on catching and spreading the virus willy nilly? 

Downloading a phone app is just such a minor inconvenience to get worked up about. Even if you think it's pointless, it's so minuscule an effort.

And anyway, the government doesn't control every aspect of my life. I've got Mrs Robbo for that!  

[Harry]

33 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

If you read it, that story acknowledges that viral loads can be similar during infection, but in vaccinated people the high viral load phase WILL BE SHORTER. Therefore, on average, vaccinated people will have lower viral loads than unvaccinated ones. This is the entire reason d'etre of these restrictions. Why else do you think they are being brought in?  As part of some sinister New World Order conspiracy?

It isn't an opinion piece and it contains more links than to "two researchers". It's the most recent research on the subject.

 

It contains the results of the studies which are the same ones which I posted about, to which I initially stated the findings that the same viral loads occur but they might reduce quicker in a vaxxed person. It then goes on to interpret those studies differently. 
You literally posted a link which agreed with what I said, which contained links to the studies to which I referred, and are attempting to use it to call me a mad eejit. 
Oh dear Robbo. For someone who comes across as so intelligent, you do often lack any real sense. 

[LoyalRed]

10 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Lots ARE. Which is why making those crowded areas safer might encourage them out.

Why should elderly fans and those with underlying health conditions (one-third of the population) confine themselves to their homes, just so some can carry on catching and spreading the virus willy nilly? 

Downloading a phone app is just such a minor inconvenience to get worked up about. Even if you think it's pointless, it's so minuscule an effort.

And anyway, the government doesn't control every aspect of my life. I've got Mrs Robbo for that!  

Aren't under 17's exempt from needing to show the covid pass?  How is making life difficult again for over 18's going to help and encourage the elderly back when the highest covid rates right now are in the under 18's?

We are going to have to live with this for a very long time.  We have already done lots to protect the elderly (I have personally been working from home for the past 2 years).  There does need to be a point when we find a new normal but I can't really see a sudden rush by the elderly to come back to Ashton Gate just because there is a covid passport in place.  The threat of them catching it still exists unfortunately.

[CyderInACan]

It's definitely time to move this one to the d1c khea ds Politics subforum. Same old nonsense. 

Edited December 9, 2021 by CyderInACan

[CiderJar]

1 hour ago, TonyTonyTony said:

Do you understand the word prudence?

Only in the context of Siouxsie And The Banshees

The sun is up, the sky is blue
It's beautiful and so are you
Dear Prudence won't you come out and play

 

[Bristol Rob]

2 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

It's definitely time to move this one to the ********* Politics subforum. Same old nonsense. 

Yeah. Sadly Reg I agree with you.

I had hoped this noise would go on the politics forum, and this thread would be around the actual FOOTBALL element of the restrictions.

[bbew]

1 hour ago, BrizzleRed said:

But have you considered where we could have been without the restrictions?  

There were serious predictions of 400,000 to 500,000 deaths if nothing was done.  The vaccines will have helped, as have the restrictions to an extent.  

It’s a right pain in the arse and we’re all getting sick of it, but the restrictions are minor compared with last Christmas, so there have been massive improvements over the last year.

The consequences of having or not having restrictions could be debated forever.  All most people who questioned them wanted however was a cost benefit analysis. 

We now know an estimated 740,000 possible cancer cases have been missed.  Many of these because since lockdown there have been 36 million fewer doctors consultations.  So may have been scared to get checked out as they didn't want to risk catching covid or being a burden on the NHS. 

 

Again, the 400,000 to 500,000 deaths prediction and the basis of this could be debated forever.  We should also never forget the initial panic back in March 2020 and very few would question the initial lockdown when so much was uncertain.

You do have to bear in mind however this prediction was made by the same person who predicted:

2001 - 150,000 deaths from foot and mouth - actual <200

2002 - 50,000 deaths from BSE - actual 177

2005 - 150,000,000 deaths from bird flu - actual 282

2009 - 65,000 deaths from swine flu - actual 457

 

 

[Red-Robbo]

26 minutes ago, Harry said:

It contains the results of the studies which are the same ones which I posted about, to which I initially stated the findings that the same viral loads occur but they might reduce quicker in a vaxxed person. It then goes on to interpret those studies differently. 
You literally posted a link which agreed with what I said, which contained links to the studies to which I referred, and are attempting to use it to call me a mad eejit. 
Oh dear Robbo. For someone who comes across as so intelligent, you do often lack any real sense. 

 

Jeez mate. These are recent studies, conducted by virologists, peer-reviewed, that find that on average the unvaccinated will be more likely to infect others than the vaccinated.  That is because the vaccine neutralises virons within the body.

If you want more evidence on this look at the study conducted by Oxford University this autumn which examined the contact tracing details of 650,000 Britons who reported infections. again, that study reported unvaccinated persons on average infecting more people than vaccinated ones.

You are, statistically, 18 times more likely to require hospitalisation if you are under 50 and catch Covid while unvaccinated, than your vaccinated peers.  What does that statistic tell you about length of time Covid virons stay in the body of unvaccinated people?

 

 

[Red-Robbo]

31 minutes ago, LoyalRed said:

Aren't under 17's exempt from needing to show the covid pass?  How is making life difficult again for over 18's going to help and encourage the elderly back when the highest covid rates right now are in the under 18's?

We are going to have to live with this for a very long time.  We have already done lots to protect the elderly (I have personally been working from home for the past 2 years).  There does need to be a point when we find a new normal but I can't really see a sudden rush by the elderly to come back to Ashton Gate just because there is a covid passport in place.  The threat of them catching it still exists unfortunately.

 

Well yeah, but your statement would only make sense if no over-18s were catching the virus. Clearly they are. The mean age of those testing positive is 32. 

It's about reducing risk, not trying to eliminate it entirely. To do that, you'd have to stop football - which nobody wants.

The comments you are referring to, are my response to a poster who seems to think Covid passes will lead to some catastrophic fall in crowd sizes at AG.  Has this happened in Scotland or Wales?  Not sure it has, but happy to accept genuine evidence. 

[Red-Robbo]

38 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

It's definitely time to move this one to the d1c khea ds Politics subforum. Same old nonsense. 

 

Yep, I agree.

I'm happy to restrict to the politics forum posting evidence as to why scientists think this measure will help.

Ultimately, whatever we think, we've gotta lump it. Fulminating on a fans' football forum ain't going to change government policy.

Which brings me to how it is administered in practical terms.  It seems to me having stewards ask a random selection of fans to show their pass before they enter is easier than having to inspect everyone's phone/read printouts. 

I believe this is what they do at Scottish matches. Anyone care to confirm?

[IAmNick]

12 minutes ago, bbew said:

The consequences of having or not having restrictions could be debated forever.  All most people who questioned them wanted however was a cost benefit analysis. 

We now know an estimated 740,000 possible cancer cases have been missed.  Many of these because since lockdown there have been 36 million fewer doctors consultations.  So may have been scared to get checked out as they didn't want to risk catching covid or being a burden on the NHS. 

 

Again, the 400,000 to 500,000 deaths prediction and the basis of this could be debated forever.  We should also never forget the initial panic back in March 2020 and very few would question the initial lockdown when so much was uncertain.

You do have to bear in mind however this prediction was made by the same person who predicted:

2001 - 150,000 deaths from foot and mouth - actual <200

2002 - 50,000 deaths from BSE - actual 177

2005 - 150,000,000 deaths from bird flu - actual 282

2009 - 65,000 deaths from swine flu - actual 457

 

 

Lets be honest, the vast majority who questioned restrictions wouldn't and didn't accept ANY analysis which agreed with the restrictions. They didn't want a "cost benefit analysis", however you'd even do that. They wanted something to tell them we didn't need them - because they'd made up their mind on day 1 already.

There was and is a wealth explaining how and if the various restrictions work, they just didn't accept it - and still don't. Look on this very thread, you have people saying the jab is ineffective even while every single metric shows the exact opposite.

Additionally the fact that people still seem to think if we didn't have restrictions everyone with a missed a appointment would have got one is bizarre to me.

You do understand our heathcare system was basically at breaking point even WITH the incredible restrictions we faced? During the lockdown this time last year we had almost 2, 000 patients per DAY admitted, and 20k in hospital. Can you imagine it with no restrictions at all?

[BrizzleRed]

24 minutes ago, bbew said:

The consequences of having or not having restrictions could be debated forever.  All most people who questioned them wanted however was a cost benefit analysis. 

We now know an estimated 740,000 possible cancer cases have been missed.  Many of these because since lockdown there have been 36 million fewer doctors consultations.  So may have been scared to get checked out as they didn't want to risk catching covid or being a burden on the NHS. 

 

Again, the 400,000 to 500,000 deaths prediction and the basis of this could be debated forever.  We should also never forget the initial panic back in March 2020 and very few would question the initial lockdown when so much was uncertain.

You do have to bear in mind however this prediction was made by the same person who predicted:

2001 - 150,000 deaths from foot and mouth - actual <200

2002 - 50,000 deaths from BSE - actual 177

2005 - 150,000,000 deaths from bird flu - actual 282

2009 - 65,000 deaths from swine flu - actual 457

 

 

There have been a wide range of predictions of death rates due to covid that’s for sure.  Looking at death rates per number of infections in the first peak compared to the number now would indicate that without restrictions and vaccinations, you could double or even triple the death toll we now have.

Absolutely agree that people with other illnesses have suffered, but how would that have been improved if the NHS had totally collapsed under the strain of trying to deal with covid, without the containment measures that have been put in place?

[phantom]

56 minutes ago, CyderInACan said:

It's definitely time to move this one to the d1c khea ds Politics subforum. Same old nonsense. 

 

53 minutes ago, Bristol Rob said:

Yeah. Sadly Reg I agree with you.

I had hoped this noise would go on the politics forum, and this thread would be around the actual FOOTBALL element of the restrictions.

I was clearly too impulsive in moving this thread originally but like many before it is predictable how these threads drift into other discussions......

[Steve Watts]

2 hours ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Yet with Covid vaccines people are still becoming very ill and in some cases dying and there is no specific strain protection ascribed to any of them despite there being just five strains in nearly two years: alpha, beta, gamma, delta and then bizarrely omicron rather than epsilon.

There has been an Epsilon variant.  And an Eta, Iota, Kappa, Lambda, Mu and Zeta. The reason they're not well known is because they are all classed as VBM's (Variants being monitored), save Lambda and Mu, which are or have been VOI's (Variants of interest) or VUI's (Varients under investigation).  Delta and Omicron are VOC's (variants of concern), hence the increase in measures to combat them.  It's really not bizarre and is very easy to find out the answers,

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

If you read it, that story acknowledges that viral loads can be similar during infection, but in vaccinated people the high viral load phase WILL BE SHORTER. Therefore, on average, vaccinated people will have lower viral loads than unvaccinated ones. This is the entire reason d'etre of these restrictions. Why else do you think they are being brought in?  As part of some sinister New World Order conspiracy?

It isn't an opinion piece and it contains more links than to "two researchers". It's the most recent research on the subject.

 

These people are batshit crazy, aren't they?  Them and their great reset!  *shudder*

1 hour ago, big p said:

If people are worried then I would they suggest they limit the time spent in crowded areas. For the rest of us, let us live our lives restriction free. Its pretty simple really, isn't it?

 

Alot of people are very happy that the government controls every aspect of their lives, that's fair enough.

But I'm not and I won't.  Thankfully there are lots of people who are already and starting to think this way.

Whilst the number is growing, it is thankfully still a tiny minority overall.  Thankfully the gross majority are doing the right and sensible thing.

39 minutes ago, bbew said:

The consequences of having or not having restrictions could be debated forever.  All most people who questioned them wanted however was a cost benefit analysis. 

We now know an estimated 740,000 possible cancer cases have been missed.  Many of these because since lockdown there have been 36 million fewer doctors consultations.  So may have been scared to get checked out as they didn't want to risk catching covid or being a burden on the NHS. 

 

No we don't.  The report is somewhere between 250,000 and 740,000 since March 2020.  Yes, the number is still staggering even at the lower end of the scale, but still important to note that these are not 250,000 actual cancer cases, but 250,000 plus cases where people didn't or weren't able to see a doctor for consultation. Again, it is very high, but it should be seen as a lesson to be learned moving forward.  The tragedy would be in those sorts of figures being repeated over the next 18 months because it would show that we've not done enough to address the problem after acknowledging that there is one.

Edited December 9, 2021 by Steve Watts

[LoyalRed]

@IAmNick I hope you are going to keep the goal updates coming 

[IAmNick]

11 minutes ago, LoyalRed said:

@IAmNick I hope you are going to keep the goal updates coming 

I'll be at the home games as I have a season ticket, so away only I'm afraid - until we get kicked out completely!

[MarcusX]

6 hours ago, LoyalRed said:

996 beds in southmead hospital and there are 50 beds occupied with covid patients right now, 60% of which are unvaccinated.  Hospitals are not overwhelmed with covid despite what is being said.  

That's one hospital. 

[Harry]

2 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

 

Lots ARE. Which is why making those crowded areas safer might encourage them out.

Why should elderly fans and those with underlying health conditions (one-third of the population) confine themselves to their homes, just so some can carry on catching and spreading the virus willy nilly? 

Downloading a phone app is just such a minor inconvenience to get worked up about. Even if you think it's pointless, it's so minuscule an effort.

And anyway, the government doesn't control every aspect of my life. I've got Mrs Robbo for that!  

Let’s run some pretty generous stats. 
Current ONS says 1 in 60 people infected. That’s as a whole. 
If we assume that the vaccine reduces your chance of infection by 50% (seems to be the average of most articles I’ve read), then for vaxxed that ought to be 1 in 120. 
 

Let’s take a 15,000 crowd. 
If it’s ‘open’ population, the stats would suggest that maybe 160 people in the crowd are positive. 
If all 15k are vaxxed, let’s say that this suggests maybe around 125 people in the crowd are positive. 
So that’s a difference of around 35 people in a vaxxed crowd vs an ‘open’ crowd. 
 

With 22,500 home seats available, the chances of one of those 35 people being sat next to you is 0.15%. 
 

So a vax passport might reduce your chances of sitting next to someone with covid by around 0.15%. 

This doesn’t even factor in that outdoor transmission is 90% less likely. 
Nor does it factor in that your own vax protection should reduce your chances of catching it by 65%. 
Nor does it factor in that, even if you are over 80 years old, you still have a 90% chance of survival. 
 

So, for an 80 year old, a 0.15% more chance of catching it, less the 90% outdoor factor, less your own vax protection, with the survival factor, means that there is 0.008% more chance of you catching and dying of covid at an ‘open’ AG than there is at a ‘fully vaxxed’ AG. 
 

And these are very generous figures using the same modelling as Neil Ferguson. 
 

*note. 
Fully expecting to be completely ridiculed for these ‘fag packet’ figures and that’s the reason I posted it

Edited December 9, 2021 by Harry

[LoyalRed]

18 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

That's one hospital. 

Well I can't find the same chart for England but this is Scotland,