FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Professor Van Tam
Professor Van Tam
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Yes it is considered safe and they are doing that in states in the US that only vaccinated people can meet together indoors but here the restrictions don't allow for it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I really like JVT 
So do I. He seems like a good guy.
And he explains things in a straightforward way. "
He has a rather lovely way about him. I would trust him implicitly, no matter what he said x |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Hey I got a viscous attack but not brave enough to post on here "
Its best if you don't as its against site rules to post messages. I'm sorry that happened and the best thing to do is report and block. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago
upton wirral |
"The Prof says if 2 people meet who have both had 2 jabs he is confident that is safe.
Once 14 days have elapsed after their second jabs.
Please discuss.... I am available after June 3rd xxx"
Had my second jab today nurse said 3 weeks |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We're progressively reducing the level of risk for people, which is great, towards nationally us having a low enough overall level of risk that's deemed safe enough to remove the final major restrictions.
There's no zero risk potential to meet and it should be no surprise that any new mutation could exist that is picked up and makes us ill, having avoided the immunity that we've gained from a vaccine.
We will each assess the risk level that's right for us, compared with the perceived risk level out there, once we can legally meet.
It's really positive that he's made this announcement. If it helps to build confidence in people to get treatment or prepare for the pending relaxations, it's great. Though everyone should go at their own pace and take the approach that is right for them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"We're progressively reducing the level of risk for people, which is great, towards nationally us having a low enough overall level of risk that's deemed safe enough to remove the final major restrictions.
There's no zero risk potential to meet and it should be no surprise that any new mutation could exist that is picked up and makes us ill, having avoided the immunity that we've gained from a vaccine.
We will each assess the risk level that's right for us, compared with the perceived risk level out there, once we can legally meet.
It's really positive that he's made this announcement. If it helps to build confidence in people to get treatment or prepare for the pending relaxations, it's great. Though everyone should go at their own pace and take the approach that is right for them. "
 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
What was the purpose of delivering that message when it's not allowed? And at the current rate of vaxes 500k a day is going to be another 100 days before we've all had 2 jabs.... Are they trying to confuse people? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Safe for who, the vaccine is not 100%. How do you know that after 2 jabs that you are safe to meet, I get that people are desperate to get back to normality, but you also have to take responsibility for your actions, just because he said it doesn't give the green light to do it. People are still catching it and that's with having vaccines, luckily they are having less complications which is what the vaccine is designed to do |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What was the purpose of delivering that message when it's not allowed? And at the current rate of vaxes 500k a day is going to be another 100 days before we've all had 2 jabs.... Are they trying to confuse people? "
God knows.
I suspect there's two things going on here. One, please don't meet yet we're not out of the woods. Two, younger people - this is why you want the vaccine yourself, because this is how we get out of this mess. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What was the purpose of delivering that message when it's not allowed? And at the current rate of vaxes 500k a day is going to be another 100 days before we've all had 2 jabs.... Are they trying to confuse people?
God knows.
I suspect there's two things going on here. One, please don't meet yet we're not out of the woods. Two, younger people - this is why you want the vaccine yourself, because this is how we get out of this mess."
It's the 2nd time he's given contrary / conflicting and very public suggestions to current guidelines. We are a very very long way from all adults being double pricked yet. Good progress but let's not drop the ball just yet. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What was the purpose of delivering that message when it's not allowed? And at the current rate of vaxes 500k a day is going to be another 100 days before we've all had 2 jabs.... Are they trying to confuse people?
God knows.
I suspect there's two things going on here. One, please don't meet yet we're not out of the woods. Two, younger people - this is why you want the vaccine yourself, because this is how we get out of this mess.
It's the 2nd time he's given contrary / conflicting and very public suggestions to current guidelines. We are a very very long way from all adults being double pricked yet. Good progress but let's not drop the ball just yet. "
Don't worry, I'm certainly not.
But the science, I suppose is - vax plus three weeks is as safe as we're personally likely to be.
And as always there are conflicting policy considerations |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
But the science, I suppose is - vax plus three weeks is as safe as we're personally likely to be.
So why will we need a booster ?"
We don't know yet.
Immunity in SARS 1 cornovirus has been found in people 17 years after they were infected. So far covid19 immunity is still found in people infected at the start of the pandemic here 1 year ago.
Imagine though if immunity started to wane or reduced after say 12 months and the goverment hadn't organised a booster programme for every citizen the ramifications of such a choice could prove tragic.
This booster plan safeguards us either way.
KJ |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
But the science, I suppose is - vax plus three weeks is as safe as we're personally likely to be.
So why will we need a booster ?"
Sorry, I should have been clearer. As safe as we're likely to be from the original Covid-19. The variants pose additional challenges and make us less safe again (but with the original vaccine we're safer from the variants, most likely). |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What was the purpose of delivering that message when it's not allowed? And at the current rate of vaxes 500k a day is going to be another 100 days before we've all had 2 jabs.... Are they trying to confuse people?
God knows.
I suspect there's two things going on here. One, please don't meet yet we're not out of the woods. Two, younger people - this is why you want the vaccine yourself, because this is how we get out of this mess.
It's the 2nd time he's given contrary / conflicting and very public suggestions to current guidelines. We are a very very long way from all adults being double pricked yet. Good progress but let's not drop the ball just yet.
Don't worry, I'm certainly not.
But the science, I suppose is - vax plus three weeks is as safe as we're personally likely to be.
And as always there are conflicting policy considerations "
I'm not worried either as I'm not likely to be getting up close and personal any time soon. But just observing that if we had simple and consistent sensible guidelines, unambiguously communicated, theres a better chance of people sticking with them and supporting them. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What was the purpose of delivering that message when it's not allowed? "
Probably to give everyone a bit of confidence so when the rules do change everyone feels comfortable.
To use a JVT style analogy..... Car manufacturers still advertise top speeds in excess of the speed limit, why bother when we're only allowed to do 70mph max? To give people comfort in knowing they can do so comfortably and with reduced risks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What was the purpose of delivering that message when it's not allowed? And at the current rate of vaxes 500k a day is going to be another 100 days before we've all had 2 jabs.... Are they trying to confuse people?
God knows.
I suspect there's two things going on here. One, please don't meet yet we're not out of the woods. Two, younger people - this is why you want the vaccine yourself, because this is how we get out of this mess.
It's the 2nd time he's given contrary / conflicting and very public suggestions to current guidelines. We are a very very long way from all adults being double pricked yet. Good progress but let's not drop the ball just yet.
Don't worry, I'm certainly not.
But the science, I suppose is - vax plus three weeks is as safe as we're personally likely to be.
And as always there are conflicting policy considerations
I'm not worried either as I'm not likely to be getting up close and personal any time soon. But just observing that if we had simple and consistent sensible guidelines, unambiguously communicated, theres a better chance of people sticking with them and supporting them. "
I don't think there's anything unambiguous about this situation.
It's sort of, do you want truth or a convenient lie, or somewhere in between? There's no right or wrong answer here, and I'm not saying "lie" in an insulting way. I'd rather have the truth or something closer to it. I think it sounds like you want something that fits a certain purpose before it's accurate. (Again not insulting - I can see the point. "Crusts make your hair grow curly" is an easier message than "don't waste food" for kids, etc) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"What was the purpose of delivering that message when it's not allowed? And at the current rate of vaxes 500k a day is going to be another 100 days before we've all had 2 jabs.... Are they trying to confuse people?
God knows.
I suspect there's two things going on here. One, please don't meet yet we're not out of the woods. Two, younger people - this is why you want the vaccine yourself, because this is how we get out of this mess.
It's the 2nd time he's given contrary / conflicting and very public suggestions to current guidelines. We are a very very long way from all adults being double pricked yet. Good progress but let's not drop the ball just yet.
Don't worry, I'm certainly not.
But the science, I suppose is - vax plus three weeks is as safe as we're personally likely to be.
And as always there are conflicting policy considerations
I'm not worried either as I'm not likely to be getting up close and personal any time soon. But just observing that if we had simple and consistent sensible guidelines, unambiguously communicated, theres a better chance of people sticking with them and supporting them.
I don't think there's anything unambiguous about this situation.
It's sort of, do you want truth or a convenient lie, or somewhere in between? There's no right or wrong answer here, and I'm not saying "lie" in an insulting way. I'd rather have the truth or something closer to it. I think it sounds like you want something that fits a certain purpose before it's accurate. (Again not insulting - I can see the point. "Crusts make your hair grow curly" is an easier message than "don't waste food" for kids, etc)"
I'm taking this on face value of the op. I've not seen jvt or any of his utterances. What I'm however saying is it leaves the door open for abuse. So if a govt twonk states you're safe meeting if you've been double jabbed. Then as sure as eggs are eggs you'll have folks thinking... I've had one and that's good enough. This as a time when guidelines state early enough that we can't. And the implication is that we can't because it's a risk to spreading infection. If he had waited a few weeks it could have been lined up with the govt messages and relaxing of restrictions. It's also not specifically about this one message but the last 15 months of messages. I hear radio adverts every 20 minutes now telling me to be cautious and avoid spreading it, mask up etc... We could have done with that 15 months ago. Accepting hindsight etc. I just wonder what he was hoping to achieve with the content and the timing.
I mean soon enough we are going to have people rammed in flying tubes and not all of them will have been double jabbed. Or in indoor events in their thousands and they won't all have been double jabbed either. (given we have prioritised the groups as the east mobile first and the most mobile last it's going to be many months before they are done.) listen its all good progress and the unlocking down seems to be going well. Like I said I think the comms strategy has been clumsy, sloppy, unprofessional and poorly executed throughout that's pretty much all I'm saying. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
The thing lots of people dont appreciate is the conflict between the science and the politics.
The government can't say once you have had your jabs you can be free because everyone under 40 will have to stay at home way longer even though they are least at risk. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The thing lots of people dont appreciate is the conflict between the science and the politics.
The government can't say once you have had your jabs you can be free because everyone under 40 will have to stay at home way longer even though they are least at risk."
The govt aren't saying that. Nor is jvt is he? I don't think it's that complicated. I just think the more "they" say the more will be misunderstood. Keep it really simple. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The thing lots of people dont appreciate is the conflict between the science and the politics.
The government can't say once you have had your jabs you can be free because everyone under 40 will have to stay at home way longer even though they are least at risk.
The govt aren't saying that. Nor is jvt is he? I don't think it's that complicated. I just think the more "they" say the more will be misunderstood. Keep it really simple. "
No that's why I said they can't, even though it would be very popular for over 50s |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"What was the purpose of delivering that message when it's not allowed?
Probably to give everyone a bit of confidence so when the rules do change everyone feels comfortable.
To use a JVT style analogy..... Car manufacturers still advertise top speeds in excess of the speed limit, why bother when we're only allowed to do 70mph max? To give people comfort in knowing they can do so comfortably and with reduced risks."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abioMan
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"The Prof says if 2 people meet who have both had 2 jabs he is confident that is safe.
Once 14 days have elapsed after their second jabs.
Please discuss.... I am available after June 3rd xxx"
Well you said discuss….
You are cherrypicking the quote… that was the first half of what he said, the other part was that he still asked people to stick with the roadmap timetable as to not put in danger the gains that we have all made!
For the sake of a couple of weeks I think you are being incredibly selfish…. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
