FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > You can all go back to the states again
You can all go back to the states again
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
I'm double vaccinated, I'm not keen on the USA but unfortunately due to family commitments I have to go there occasionally, I just hope that with more people going it will bring the airfares down a bit |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Starting from November…. Only if you have been double vaccinated…. 
And watch those whine from the “other” side…. They never liked America anyway!!!!!!  "
I'll just show up at the southern border, wander on through and not have to show a passport, vaccine status, criminal record, means of support or if the kids i have with me actually belong to me... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And watch those whine from the “other” side….
.
The only thing I 'whine' about is people (deliberately?) trying to cause division and discrimination with purposely inflammatory posts.
"
How does a post on a forum about a law cause discrimination? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Yep, only a month too late for my brothers wedding... Who would have thought when the booked it two years ago, America would be shut, not just restrictions in place, but a straight no... thus preventing his best man, groomsmen, brother, friends and nearly him from entering the US... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Yep, only a month too late for my brothers wedding... Who would have thought when the booked it two years ago, America would be shut, not just restrictions in place, but a straight no... thus preventing his best man, groomsmen, brother, friends and nearly him from entering the US..."
I'm sorry. This pandemic has been challenging. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And watch those whine from the “other” side….
.
The only thing I 'whine' about is people (deliberately?) trying to cause division and discrimination with purposely inflammatory posts.
How does a post on a forum about a law cause discrimination?"
.
It doesn't. The law can only be as it is.
The wording of the post however does. But the author is free to word as they see fit. As I am to call them out for it. And you to request clarification.
The reason for my reply is I'm getting a bit concerned that there is an attempt - amongst certain people - to create 'two teams' for want of a better description. Of course this is driven by laws that are, by their very nature discriminatory, and again this is a complex situation as they are trying to do their best in a difficult situation. But we can still work through this together looking toward an eventual solution that enables everybody to live as they wish.
Now I'm sure the author wishes that too. But intentional or not his wording comes across as "here we go again... listen to that 'other lot' complain, listen to 'em whinge...".
He could if he wanted have worded it "Double jabbed only at the moment but I hope everyone will soon be able to travel in the very near future" But for reasons best known to him he chose not to. And the wording he chose sows seeds of discrimination. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
And watch those whine from the “other” side….
.
The only thing I 'whine' about is people (deliberately?) trying to cause division and discrimination with purposely inflammatory posts.
How does a post on a forum about a law cause discrimination?
.
It doesn't. The law can only be as it is.
The wording of the post however does. But the author is free to word as they see fit. As I am to call them out for it. And you to request clarification.
The reason for my reply is I'm getting a bit concerned that there is an attempt - amongst certain people - to create 'two teams' for want of a better description. Of course this is driven by laws that are, by their very nature discriminatory, and again this is a complex situation as they are trying to do their best in a difficult situation. But we can still work through this together looking toward an eventual solution that enables everybody to live as they wish.
Now I'm sure the author wishes that too. But intentional or not his wording comes across as "here we go again... listen to that 'other lot' complain, listen to 'em whinge...".
He could if he wanted have worded it "Double jabbed only at the moment but I hope everyone will soon be able to travel in the very near future" But for reasons best known to him he chose not to. And the wording he chose sows seeds of discrimination. "
That is a fair point very well made Canadaguy
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And watch those whine from the “other” side….
.
The only thing I 'whine' about is people (deliberately?) trying to cause division and discrimination with purposely inflammatory posts.
How does a post on a forum about a law cause discrimination?
.
It doesn't. The law can only be as it is.
The wording of the post however does. But the author is free to word as they see fit. As I am to call them out for it. And you to request clarification.
The reason for my reply is I'm getting a bit concerned that there is an attempt - amongst certain people - to create 'two teams' for want of a better description. Of course this is driven by laws that are, by their very nature discriminatory, and again this is a complex situation as they are trying to do their best in a difficult situation. But we can still work through this together looking toward an eventual solution that enables everybody to live as they wish.
Now I'm sure the author wishes that too. But intentional or not his wording comes across as "here we go again... listen to that 'other lot' complain, listen to 'em whinge...".
He could if he wanted have worded it "Double jabbed only at the moment but I hope everyone will soon be able to travel in the very near future" But for reasons best known to him he chose not to. And the wording he chose sows seeds of discrimination. "
I'm not sure "consequences of own actions" is discrimination, I'm afraid. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And watch those whine from the “other” side….
.
The only thing I 'whine' about is people (deliberately?) trying to cause division and discrimination with purposely inflammatory posts.
How does a post on a forum about a law cause discrimination?
.
It doesn't. The law can only be as it is.
The wording of the post however does. But the author is free to word as they see fit. As I am to call them out for it. And you to request clarification.
The reason for my reply is I'm getting a bit concerned that there is an attempt - amongst certain people - to create 'two teams' for want of a better description. Of course this is driven by laws that are, by their very nature discriminatory, and again this is a complex situation as they are trying to do their best in a difficult situation. But we can still work through this together looking toward an eventual solution that enables everybody to live as they wish.
Now I'm sure the author wishes that too. But intentional or not his wording comes across as "here we go again... listen to that 'other lot' complain, listen to 'em whinge...".
He could if he wanted have worded it "Double jabbed only at the moment but I hope everyone will soon be able to travel in the very near future" But for reasons best known to him he chose not to. And the wording he chose sows seeds of discrimination.
I'm not sure "consequences of own actions" is discrimination, I'm afraid. "
. Thank you. You've just proved my point perfectly. Your statement suggests that people can only get to the USA from November 'by their own actions'. In other words it lies solely with them and by 'choosing wrongly' that make their own bed and have to lie in it so to speak.
Wrong!
Some people have had 2 x jabs so they can go to the USA from November
Some people, like me, have had 2 x jabs but due to an adverse reaction to the 2nd jab won't likely be in a physically fit state to travel
Some people, yes, by their own volition choose not to be vaccinated. So they can't go.
Some people cannot be vaccinated. It isn't medically safe for them. So they can't go either.
So we've got 4 groups of people. But only one can go. And only one can't go cos of their own actions.
So its not so simple. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
And watch those whine from the “other” side….
.
The only thing I 'whine' about is people (deliberately?) trying to cause division and discrimination with purposely inflammatory posts.
How does a post on a forum about a law cause discrimination?
.
It doesn't. The law can only be as it is.
The wording of the post however does. But the author is free to word as they see fit. As I am to call them out for it. And you to request clarification.
The reason for my reply is I'm getting a bit concerned that there is an attempt - amongst certain people - to create 'two teams' for want of a better description. Of course this is driven by laws that are, by their very nature discriminatory, and again this is a complex situation as they are trying to do their best in a difficult situation. But we can still work through this together looking toward an eventual solution that enables everybody to live as they wish.
Now I'm sure the author wishes that too. But intentional or not his wording comes across as "here we go again... listen to that 'other lot' complain, listen to 'em whinge...".
He could if he wanted have worded it "Double jabbed only at the moment but I hope everyone will soon be able to travel in the very near future" But for reasons best known to him he chose not to. And the wording he chose sows seeds of discrimination.
I'm not sure "consequences of own actions" is discrimination, I'm afraid.
. Thank you. You've just proved my point perfectly. Your statement suggests that people can only get to the USA from November 'by their own actions'. In other words it lies solely with them and by 'choosing wrongly' that make their own bed and have to lie in it so to speak.
Wrong!
Some people have had 2 x jabs so they can go to the USA from November
Some people, like me, have had 2 x jabs but due to an adverse reaction to the 2nd jab won't likely be in a physically fit state to travel
Some people, yes, by their own volition choose not to be vaccinated. So they can't go.
Some people cannot be vaccinated. It isn't medically safe for them. So they can't go either.
So we've got 4 groups of people. But only one can go. And only one can't go cos of their own actions.
So its not so simple."
Ok  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *jfrenchMan
over a year ago
Stockport |
"
And watch those whine from the “other” side….
.
The only thing I 'whine' about is people (deliberately?) trying to cause division and discrimination with purposely inflammatory posts.
How does a post on a forum about a law cause discrimination?
.
It doesn't. The law can only be as it is.
The wording of the post however does. But the author is free to word as they see fit. As I am to call them out for it. And you to request clarification.
The reason for my reply is I'm getting a bit concerned that there is an attempt - amongst certain people - to create 'two teams' for want of a better description. Of course this is driven by laws that are, by their very nature discriminatory, and again this is a complex situation as they are trying to do their best in a difficult situation. But we can still work through this together looking toward an eventual solution that enables everybody to live as they wish.
Now I'm sure the author wishes that too. But intentional or not his wording comes across as "here we go again... listen to that 'other lot' complain, listen to 'em whinge...".
He could if he wanted have worded it "Double jabbed only at the moment but I hope everyone will soon be able to travel in the very near future" But for reasons best known to him he chose not to. And the wording he chose sows seeds of discrimination.
I'm not sure "consequences of own actions" is discrimination, I'm afraid.
. Thank you. You've just proved my point perfectly. Your statement suggests that people can only get to the USA from November 'by their own actions'. In other words it lies solely with them and by 'choosing wrongly' that make their own bed and have to lie in it so to speak.
Wrong!
Some people have had 2 x jabs so they can go to the USA from November
Some people, like me, have had 2 x jabs but due to an adverse reaction to the 2nd jab won't likely be in a physically fit state to travel
Some people, yes, by their own volition choose not to be vaccinated. So they can't go.
Some people cannot be vaccinated. It isn't medically safe for them. So they can't go either.
So we've got 4 groups of people. But only one can go. And only one can't go cos of their own actions.
So its not so simple."
Fully agree |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *weedeldumbCouple (MM)
over a year ago
Leeds & Harrogate |
"
And watch those whine from the “other” side….
.
The only thing I 'whine' about is people (deliberately?) trying to cause division and discrimination with purposely inflammatory posts.
How does a post on a forum about a law cause discrimination?
.
It doesn't. The law can only be as it is.
The wording of the post however does. But the author is free to word as they see fit. As I am to call them out for it. And you to request clarification.
The reason for my reply is I'm getting a bit concerned that there is an attempt - amongst certain people - to create 'two teams' for want of a better description. Of course this is driven by laws that are, by their very nature discriminatory, and again this is a complex situation as they are trying to do their best in a difficult situation. But we can still work through this together looking toward an eventual solution that enables everybody to live as they wish.
Now I'm sure the author wishes that too. But intentional or not his wording comes across as "here we go again... listen to that 'other lot' complain, listen to 'em whinge...".
He could if he wanted have worded it "Double jabbed only at the moment but I hope everyone will soon be able to travel in the very near future" But for reasons best known to him he chose not to. And the wording he chose sows seeds of discrimination.
I'm not sure "consequences of own actions" is discrimination, I'm afraid.
. Thank you. You've just proved my point perfectly. Your statement suggests that people can only get to the USA from November 'by their own actions'. In other words it lies solely with them and by 'choosing wrongly' that make their own bed and have to lie in it so to speak.
Wrong!
Some people have had 2 x jabs so they can go to the USA from November
Some people, like me, have had 2 x jabs but due to an adverse reaction to the 2nd jab won't likely be in a physically fit state to travel
Some people, yes, by their own volition choose not to be vaccinated. So they can't go.
Some people cannot be vaccinated. It isn't medically safe for them. So they can't go either.
So we've got 4 groups of people. But only one can go. And only one can't go cos of their own actions.
So its not so simple."
You've got a good point there mate. You've hit the nail on the head.
Hope you recover quickly so you can travel if you wish. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
i had to live there for work, and traveled to most parts, so know it well, it wasnt for me, what alot of people dont realise is that despite speaking the same, or similar language, it is a very different culture, if you want to go there fill your boots, but not for me unless i have to, dont hate it, thats a strong word, but choose not to go there, and would only return if being payed like before, never understood the fixation the uk seems to have on the usa tbh, politicaly and culturaly.
i remember a friend driving me down the main road into daytona and proudly pointing out the oldest building in florida, i looked at the sign with the age on and said to him, my house at home is older than that, he didnt believe me, kind of said it all to me, a great country that has a way to go before it has sorted its self out in many ways |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The issue that the author, rather snidely it has to be remarked, does mention is rules split people into 2 groups. One that can go and one that can't.
And he hints that for the ones who can't travel... well its their own silly fault for not 'playing ball'.
And what concerns me most is that both the politicians and the media are 'happy' to allow this narrative to play out.
The actual reality is there are 5 groups:-
1) People with 2 x jabs who can travel to USA
2) People with 2 x jabs who are medically unfit, due to adverse vaccine reactions, to travel to USA
3) People with 1 x jab who cannot now have second jab due to adverse reaction to the 1st
4) People who choose not to have any jabs
5) People who cannot medically have any jabs
And of those 5 groups only ONE can travel to the USA. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"The issue that the author, rather snidely it has to be remarked, does mention is rules split people into 2 groups. One that can go and one that can't.
And he hints that for the ones who can't travel... well its their own silly fault for not 'playing ball'.
And what concerns me most is that both the politicians and the media are 'happy' to allow this narrative to play out.
The actual reality is there are 5 groups:-
1) People with 2 x jabs who can travel to USA
2) People with 2 x jabs who are medically unfit, due to adverse vaccine reactions, to travel to USA
3) People with 1 x jab who cannot now have second jab due to adverse reaction to the 1st
4) People who choose not to have any jabs
5) People who cannot medically have any jabs
And of those 5 groups only ONE can travel to the USA."
but that is the choice of the usa, you have no god given right to travel there, and if you dont fit thier critera, whatever that maybe, then tough, its thier country, they can refuse who ever they like, dont have a problem with that |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The issue that the author, rather snidely it has to be remarked, does mention is rules split people into 2 groups. One that can go and one that can't.
And he hints that for the ones who can't travel... well its their own silly fault for not 'playing ball'.
And what concerns me most is that both the politicians and the media are 'happy' to allow this narrative to play out.
The actual reality is there are 5 groups:-
1) People with 2 x jabs who can travel to USA
2) People with 2 x jabs who are medically unfit, due to adverse vaccine reactions, to travel to USA
3) People with 1 x jab who cannot now have second jab due to adverse reaction to the 1st
4) People who choose not to have any jabs
5) People who cannot medically have any jabs
And of those 5 groups only ONE can travel to the USA.
but that is the choice of the usa, you have no god given right to travel there, and if you dont fit thier critera, whatever that maybe, then tough, its thier country, they can refuse who ever they like, dont have a problem with that"
Absolutely it is. I'm not saying that the decision is wrong even. But the rhetoric from Joe Biden is "you MUST get vaccinated". Just that. As in black and white. Yes or no. And that it is up to every single person to simply choose. But, as seen in my comment, the actual reality is there are 5 groups. And of those 5 groups only 2 are able to make the choice. The other 3 do not have a choice.
So yes it might be that 4 of the groups can't travel. And they have to accept that. But do not blame them all for being in one of those 4 groups as only 1 of the groups in in that group by their own choice. I would expect a US President to acknowledge this at least. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"The issue that the author, rather snidely it has to be remarked, does mention is rules split people into 2 groups. One that can go and one that can't.
And he hints that for the ones who can't travel... well its their own silly fault for not 'playing ball'.
And what concerns me most is that both the politicians and the media are 'happy' to allow this narrative to play out.
The actual reality is there are 5 groups:-
1) People with 2 x jabs who can travel to USA
2) People with 2 x jabs who are medically unfit, due to adverse vaccine reactions, to travel to USA
3) People with 1 x jab who cannot now have second jab due to adverse reaction to the 1st
4) People who choose not to have any jabs
5) People who cannot medically have any jabs
And of those 5 groups only ONE can travel to the USA."
Actually…. 2,3 and 5 would actually all come under “medical exemptions” …. So if you can prove your medically exempt… then you get to go….
Category 1 can go… category 4 can’t!!!
There…. Simple!!!
P.s if you are going to cry “discrimination” then at least know the rules….
So it basically comes back to the adage of “decisions have consequences”
I would suggest there are too many in “group 4” that want the right to make the decision, but don’t like others having the right to lay out the consequence of said decision |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Starting from November…. Only if you have been double vaccinated….
And watch those whine from the “other” side…. They never liked America anyway!!!!!! "
Already allowed back into Canada which is the important thing!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Correct in saying a negative test is also required?
If you are only getting on the plane if you are negative, why restrict the travel to only the double vaccinated? "
I would assume it’s to do with incubation periods and the potential severity that you could have the virus if unvaccinated putting pressure on the us healthcare system as whilst you had it the uk are not going to allow you back ect
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"The issue that the author, rather snidely it has to be remarked, does mention is rules split people into 2 groups. One that can go and one that can't.
And he hints that for the ones who can't travel... well its their own silly fault for not 'playing ball'.
And what concerns me most is that both the politicians and the media are 'happy' to allow this narrative to play out.
The actual reality is there are 5 groups:-
1) People with 2 x jabs who can travel to USA
2) People with 2 x jabs who are medically unfit, due to adverse vaccine reactions, to travel to USA
3) People with 1 x jab who cannot now have second jab due to adverse reaction to the 1st
4) People who choose not to have any jabs
5) People who cannot medically have any jabs
And of those 5 groups only ONE can travel to the USA.
Actually…. 2,3 and 5 would actually all come under “medical exemptions” …. So if you can prove your medically exempt… then you get to go….
Category 1 can go… category 4 can’t!!!
There…. Simple!!!
P.s if you are going to cry “discrimination” then at least know the rules….
So it basically comes back to the adage of “decisions have consequences”
I would suggest there are too many in “group 4” that want the right to make the decision, but don’t like others having the right to lay out the consequence of said decision "
So... Actions have consequences. Huh. How about that. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I've been double jabbed and probably can't go to the States in November 
My vaccine isn't even recognised by the UK government yet, let alone internationally.
I never imagined that being on a clinical trial might cost me more than time and health risk.
Ah well. You win some you lose some. No travel for me. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
After listening to the likes of Kevin Samuels, the manosphere, Oshay Duke Jackson and the rest, add to that trigger happy cops...I'll NOT be making a return visit to the USA and I'm vaccinated against covid...not bullets! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Correct in saying a negative test is also required?
If you are only getting on the plane if you are negative, why restrict the travel to only the double vaccinated?
I would assume it’s to do with incubation periods and the potential severity that you could have the virus if unvaccinated putting pressure on the us healthcare system as whilst you had it the uk are not going to allow you back ect
"
A negative test is required to get back in to the UK after travelling from the US?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starting from November…. Only if you have been double vaccinated….
And watch those whine from the “other” side…. They never liked America anyway!!!!!! "
.
Seen as the CDC have said the vaccine doesn't stop you spreading the delta variant and that research shows that the replication rate of the virus in vaccinated and unvaccinated is the same and that you have to test negative on a PCR either way I've simply no idea what this policy is about other than to create division or entice vaccination. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Correct in saying a negative test is also required?
If you are only getting on the plane if you are negative, why restrict the travel to only the double vaccinated? "
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starting from November…. Only if you have been double vaccinated….
And watch those whine from the “other” side…. They never liked America anyway!!!!!! .
Seen as the CDC have said the vaccine doesn't stop you spreading the delta variant and that research shows that the replication rate of the virus in vaccinated and unvaccinated is the same and that you have to test negative on a PCR either way I've simply no idea what this policy is about other than to create division or entice vaccination."
I think that research has been shown to be incorrect - the situation continues to evolve.
Regardless, the US is showing their sunlit uplands of sovereignty, and can do what it likes. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Correct in saying a negative test is also required?
If you are only getting on the plane if you are negative, why restrict the travel to only the double vaccinated? "
You know the benefits of the vaccines?  . Their health systems are overburdened in many areas, especially where there are large proportions of unvaccinated people. Think again, just why they are being selective and don't want more people without them being vaccinated. It's not too hard. They may also be taking a duty of care, not wanting you to struggle finding hospital treatment, if another person who's not vaccinated, travels to the largely Republican states, where they have been foolish to listen to and buy in to the bilge that some antivax campaigners have shat out. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Correct in saying a negative test is also required?
If you are only getting on the plane if you are negative, why restrict the travel to only the double vaccinated?
You know the benefits of the vaccines? . Their health systems are overburdened in many areas, especially where there are large proportions of unvaccinated people. Think again, just why they are being selective and don't want more people without them being vaccinated. It's not too hard. They may also be taking a duty of care, not wanting you to struggle finding hospital treatment, if another person who's not vaccinated, travels to the largely Republican states, where they have been foolish to listen to and buy in to the bilge that some antivax campaigners have shat out. "
Idaho is democratic has one of highest vaccination rates, has one of the highest infection rates and is overburdened in hospitals. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starting from November…. Only if you have been double vaccinated….
And watch those whine from the “other” side…. They never liked America anyway!!!!!! .
Seen as the CDC have said the vaccine doesn't stop you spreading the delta variant and that research shows that the replication rate of the virus in vaccinated and unvaccinated is the same and that you have to test negative on a PCR either way I've simply no idea what this policy is about other than to create division or entice vaccination.
I think that research has been shown to be incorrect - the situation continues to evolve.
Regardless, the US is showing their sunlit uplands of sovereignty, and can do what it likes. "
.
You mean replication rate of the delta is no different in vaccinated to unvaccinated?.
It's still on the CDC website!. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Correct in saying a negative test is also required?
If you are only getting on the plane if you are negative, why restrict the travel to only the double vaccinated?
You know the benefits of the vaccines? . Their health systems are overburdened in many areas, especially where there are large proportions of unvaccinated people. Think again, just why they are being selective and don't want more people without them being vaccinated. It's not too hard. They may also be taking a duty of care, not wanting you to struggle finding hospital treatment, if another person who's not vaccinated, travels to the largely Republican states, where they have been foolish to listen to and buy in to the bilge that some antivax campaigners have shat out.
Idaho is democratic has one of highest vaccination rates, has one of the highest infection rates and is overburdened in hospitals."
Bedsides all that if that was your real concern you'd just limit the age coming into 35.
Double vaccinated older people are still more likely to be hospitalised than unvaccinated younger people. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Correct in saying a negative test is also required?
If you are only getting on the plane if you are negative, why restrict the travel to only the double vaccinated?
You know the benefits of the vaccines? . Their health systems are overburdened in many areas, especially where there are large proportions of unvaccinated people. Think again, just why they are being selective and don't want more people without them being vaccinated. It's not too hard. They may also be taking a duty of care, not wanting you to struggle finding hospital treatment, if another person who's not vaccinated, travels to the largely Republican states, where they have been foolish to listen to and buy in to the bilge that some antivax campaigners have shat out.
Idaho is democratic has one of highest vaccination rates, has one of the highest infection rates and is overburdened in hospitals."
I just looked at Our World in Data.
Percentage vaccinated.
Assuming my US geography is correct, because there are some regions there that are not US states, I counted 48 more vaccinated states than Idaho. (Yes, I excluded the District of Columbia, among other places)
Forgive me if my maths or geography is wrong, but I would have thought 48th out of 50 is one of the least vaccinated... |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Starting from November…. Only if you have been double vaccinated….
And watch those whine from the “other” side…. They never liked America anyway!!!!!! .
Seen as the CDC have said the vaccine doesn't stop you spreading the delta variant and that research shows that the replication rate of the virus in vaccinated and unvaccinated is the same and that you have to test negative on a PCR either way I've simply no idea what this policy is about other than to create division or entice vaccination.
I think that research has been shown to be incorrect - the situation continues to evolve.
Regardless, the US is showing their sunlit uplands of sovereignty, and can do what it likes. .
You mean replication rate of the delta is no different in vaccinated to unvaccinated?.
It's still on the CDC website!."
And governments are always up to the minute and can always be trusted, I'm sure  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *m3232Man
over a year ago
maidenhead |
Most annoying is no actual date. I am due to go 29th October so I know I can’t go but I can change to 3rd November. Try and get hot of BA what a shower of shit. Online says call answer phone says do it online then cuts you off. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Correct in saying a negative test is also required?
If you are only getting on the plane if you are negative, why restrict the travel to only the double vaccinated?
You know the benefits of the vaccines? . Their health systems are overburdened in many areas, especially where there are large proportions of unvaccinated people. Think again, just why they are being selective and don't want more people without them being vaccinated. It's not too hard. They may also be taking a duty of care, not wanting you to struggle finding hospital treatment, if another person who's not vaccinated, travels to the largely Republican states, where they have been foolish to listen to and buy in to the bilge that some antivax campaigners have shat out.
Idaho is democratic has one of highest vaccination rates, has one of the highest infection rates and is overburdened in hospitals.
I just looked at Our World in Data.
Percentage vaccinated.
Assuming my US geography is correct, because there are some regions there that are not US states, I counted 48 more vaccinated states than Idaho. (Yes, I excluded the District of Columbia, among other places)
Forgive me if my maths or geography is wrong, but I would have thought 48th out of 50 is one of the least vaccinated..."
My mistake I meant Oregon next door, I remember watching a podcast on this a couple of weeks ago.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Correct in saying a negative test is also required?
If you are only getting on the plane if you are negative, why restrict the travel to only the double vaccinated?
You know the benefits of the vaccines? . Their health systems are overburdened in many areas, especially where there are large proportions of unvaccinated people. Think again, just why they are being selective and don't want more people without them being vaccinated. It's not too hard. They may also be taking a duty of care, not wanting you to struggle finding hospital treatment, if another person who's not vaccinated, travels to the largely Republican states, where they have been foolish to listen to and buy in to the bilge that some antivax campaigners have shat out.
Idaho is democratic has one of highest vaccination rates, has one of the highest infection rates and is overburdened in hospitals.
I just looked at Our World in Data.
Percentage vaccinated.
Assuming my US geography is correct, because there are some regions there that are not US states, I counted 48 more vaccinated states than Idaho. (Yes, I excluded the District of Columbia, among other places)
Forgive me if my maths or geography is wrong, but I would have thought 48th out of 50 is one of the least vaccinated...
My mistake I meant Oregon next door, I remember watching a podcast on this a couple of weeks ago.
"
Ok, that's 12th. Apparently a bit under 70% vaccinated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in."
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Correct in saying a negative test is also required?
If you are only getting on the plane if you are negative, why restrict the travel to only the double vaccinated?
You know the benefits of the vaccines? . Their health systems are overburdened in many areas, especially where there are large proportions of unvaccinated people. Think again, just why they are being selective and don't want more people without them being vaccinated. It's not too hard. They may also be taking a duty of care, not wanting you to struggle finding hospital treatment, if another person who's not vaccinated, travels to the largely Republican states, where they have been foolish to listen to and buy in to the bilge that some antivax campaigners have shat out.
Idaho is democratic has one of highest vaccination rates, has one of the highest infection rates and is overburdened in hospitals."
Makes you think then about how bad it would have been if there wasn't such high vaccination levels. They would have every single bed occupied, stretchers with patients filling up the car parks, and god alone knows where they would be putting all the dead bodies. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ty31Man
over a year ago
NW London |
"Correct in saying a negative test is also required?
If you are only getting on the plane if you are negative, why restrict the travel to only the double vaccinated? "
It seems like the narrative has changed, originally it was stop the spread (testing) now it seems to be more about staying out of hospital and not overburdening the health care system.
Same point can be made about the vaccine passports. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?"
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?."
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)"
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million."
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million.
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care?"
When or if your making presumptions.
Theres about 12 million under 18s in the UK, according to ons there hospitalisation rate is about 50 per million meaning you'll get roughly 600 going thru the hospital system IF everyone of them catch it, which they won't.
I think your making a drama out of something that doesn't require it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million.
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care?
When or if your making presumptions.
Theres about 12 million under 18s in the UK, according to ons there hospitalisation rate is about 50 per million meaning you'll get roughly 600 going thru the hospital system IF everyone of them catch it, which they won't.
I think your making a drama out of something that doesn't require it."
I think you're minimising the risks to the unvaccinated and the vulnerable who don't mount an immune response.
I support the United States in its sunlit uplands of sovereignty to protect its public health.
In measures that currently exclude me |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Correct in saying a negative test is also required?
If you are only getting on the plane if you are negative, why restrict the travel to only the double vaccinated?
I would assume it’s to do with incubation periods and the potential severity that you could have the virus if unvaccinated putting pressure on the us healthcare system as whilst you had it the uk are not going to allow you back ect
A negative test is required to get back in to the UK after travelling from the US?
"
A negative test is required to get you on a plane for any international travel at the moment….. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"Correct in saying a negative test is also required?
If you are only getting on the plane if you are negative, why restrict the travel to only the double vaccinated?
You know the benefits of the vaccines? . Their health systems are overburdened in many areas, especially where there are large proportions of unvaccinated people. Think again, just why they are being selective and don't want more people without them being vaccinated. It's not too hard. They may also be taking a duty of care, not wanting you to struggle finding hospital treatment, if another person who's not vaccinated, travels to the largely Republican states, where they have been foolish to listen to and buy in to the bilge that some antivax campaigners have shat out.
Idaho is democratic has one of highest vaccination rates, has one of the highest infection rates and is overburdened in hospitals."
Idaho certainly is not democratic… it’s about as ruby red republican as it gets!!!! |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million.
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care?
When or if your making presumptions.
Theres about 12 million under 18s in the UK, according to ons there hospitalisation rate is about 50 per million meaning you'll get roughly 600 going thru the hospital system IF everyone of them catch it, which they won't.
I think your making a drama out of something that doesn't require it.
I think you're minimising the risks to the unvaccinated and the vulnerable who don't mount an immune response.
I support the United States in its sunlit uplands of sovereignty to protect its public health.
In measures that currently exclude me "
.
I'm not doing anything of the sort I'm telling you ons data on hospitalisation rates for unvaccinated under 18s and it's 50 per million and I cannot see how that would incur an overburdening of pediatrics on any health care system.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million.
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care?
When or if your making presumptions.
Theres about 12 million under 18s in the UK, according to ons there hospitalisation rate is about 50 per million meaning you'll get roughly 600 going thru the hospital system IF everyone of them catch it, which they won't.
I think your making a drama out of something that doesn't require it.
I think you're minimising the risks to the unvaccinated and the vulnerable who don't mount an immune response.
I support the United States in its sunlit uplands of sovereignty to protect its public health.
In measures that currently exclude me .
I'm not doing anything of the sort I'm telling you ons data on hospitalisation rates for unvaccinated under 18s and it's 50 per million and I cannot see how that would incur an overburdening of pediatrics on any health care system.
"
Ok. You don't believe it. Totes isn't happening then. Cool |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million.
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care?
When or if your making presumptions.
Theres about 12 million under 18s in the UK, according to ons there hospitalisation rate is about 50 per million meaning you'll get roughly 600 going thru the hospital system IF everyone of them catch it, which they won't.
I think your making a drama out of something that doesn't require it.
I think you're minimising the risks to the unvaccinated and the vulnerable who don't mount an immune response.
I support the United States in its sunlit uplands of sovereignty to protect its public health.
In measures that currently exclude me .
I'm not doing anything of the sort I'm telling you ons data on hospitalisation rates for unvaccinated under 18s and it's 50 per million and I cannot see how that would incur an overburdening of pediatrics on any health care system.
Ok. You don't believe it. Totes isn't happening then. Cool "
.
I believe ons figures, if you don't that's your problem to work on!. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million.
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care?
When or if your making presumptions.
Theres about 12 million under 18s in the UK, according to ons there hospitalisation rate is about 50 per million meaning you'll get roughly 600 going thru the hospital system IF everyone of them catch it, which they won't.
I think your making a drama out of something that doesn't require it.
I think you're minimising the risks to the unvaccinated and the vulnerable who don't mount an immune response.
I support the United States in its sunlit uplands of sovereignty to protect its public health.
In measures that currently exclude me .
I'm not doing anything of the sort I'm telling you ons data on hospitalisation rates for unvaccinated under 18s and it's 50 per million and I cannot see how that would incur an overburdening of pediatrics on any health care system.
Ok. You don't believe it. Totes isn't happening then. Cool .
I believe ons figures, if you don't that's your problem to work on!."
I believe ONS figures.
How do they relate to the number of paediatric beds, length of stay? Other conditions that also need care? Covid is not the only disease or injury in existence, as we keep being reminded.
I also believe the US doctors who say that their paediatric hospitals are being overwhelmed.
How does the US protect itself - the topic of this thread - during a global public health crisis?
Obviously not by worrying about its paediatric hospitals, because you don't believe that US capacity can be exceeded by UK numbers, with no frame of reference to number of beds or occupancy. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million.
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care?
When or if your making presumptions.
Theres about 12 million under 18s in the UK, according to ons there hospitalisation rate is about 50 per million meaning you'll get roughly 600 going thru the hospital system IF everyone of them catch it, which they won't.
I think your making a drama out of something that doesn't require it.
I think you're minimising the risks to the unvaccinated and the vulnerable who don't mount an immune response.
I support the United States in its sunlit uplands of sovereignty to protect its public health.
In measures that currently exclude me .
I'm not doing anything of the sort I'm telling you ons data on hospitalisation rates for unvaccinated under 18s and it's 50 per million and I cannot see how that would incur an overburdening of pediatrics on any health care system.
Ok. You don't believe it. Totes isn't happening then. Cool .
I believe ons figures, if you don't that's your problem to work on!.
I believe ONS figures.
How do they relate to the number of paediatric beds, length of stay? Other conditions that also need care? Covid is not the only disease or injury in existence, as we keep being reminded.
I also believe the US doctors who say that their paediatric hospitals are being overwhelmed.
How does the US protect itself - the topic of this thread - during a global public health crisis?
Obviously not by worrying about its paediatric hospitals, because you don't believe that US capacity can be exceeded by UK numbers, with no frame of reference to number of beds or occupancy. "
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals/agerange.
Theres the ons data on hospital admissions.
Under 18s roughly 50 per million and there's roughly 12 million of them.
If you think there going to clog up a hospital your bonkers. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million.
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care?
When or if your making presumptions.
Theres about 12 million under 18s in the UK, according to ons there hospitalisation rate is about 50 per million meaning you'll get roughly 600 going thru the hospital system IF everyone of them catch it, which they won't.
I think your making a drama out of something that doesn't require it.
I think you're minimising the risks to the unvaccinated and the vulnerable who don't mount an immune response.
I support the United States in its sunlit uplands of sovereignty to protect its public health.
In measures that currently exclude me .
I'm not doing anything of the sort I'm telling you ons data on hospitalisation rates for unvaccinated under 18s and it's 50 per million and I cannot see how that would incur an overburdening of pediatrics on any health care system.
Ok. You don't believe it. Totes isn't happening then. Cool .
I believe ons figures, if you don't that's your problem to work on!.
I believe ONS figures.
How do they relate to the number of paediatric beds, length of stay? Other conditions that also need care? Covid is not the only disease or injury in existence, as we keep being reminded.
I also believe the US doctors who say that their paediatric hospitals are being overwhelmed.
How does the US protect itself - the topic of this thread - during a global public health crisis?
Obviously not by worrying about its paediatric hospitals, because you don't believe that US capacity can be exceeded by UK numbers, with no frame of reference to number of beds or occupancy.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals/agerange.
Theres the ons data on hospital admissions.
Under 18s roughly 50 per million and there's roughly 12 million of them.
If you think there going to clog up a hospital your bonkers. "
* Paediatric hospital admissions in the UK are X
* Paediatric hospital capacity in the UK is unknown
* Other paediatric hospital demand in the UK is unknown
* Paediatric hospitals in the US have been overrun by Covid
* You don't believe that paediatric hospitals can be overrun by Covid
* Therefore the US policies on US public health are illogical.
Is that your argument? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million.
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care?
When or if your making presumptions.
Theres about 12 million under 18s in the UK, according to ons there hospitalisation rate is about 50 per million meaning you'll get roughly 600 going thru the hospital system IF everyone of them catch it, which they won't.
I think your making a drama out of something that doesn't require it.
I think you're minimising the risks to the unvaccinated and the vulnerable who don't mount an immune response.
I support the United States in its sunlit uplands of sovereignty to protect its public health.
In measures that currently exclude me .
I'm not doing anything of the sort I'm telling you ons data on hospitalisation rates for unvaccinated under 18s and it's 50 per million and I cannot see how that would incur an overburdening of pediatrics on any health care system.
Ok. You don't believe it. Totes isn't happening then. Cool .
I believe ons figures, if you don't that's your problem to work on!.
I believe ONS figures.
How do they relate to the number of paediatric beds, length of stay? Other conditions that also need care? Covid is not the only disease or injury in existence, as we keep being reminded.
I also believe the US doctors who say that their paediatric hospitals are being overwhelmed.
How does the US protect itself - the topic of this thread - during a global public health crisis?
Obviously not by worrying about its paediatric hospitals, because you don't believe that US capacity can be exceeded by UK numbers, with no frame of reference to number of beds or occupancy.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals/agerange.
Theres the ons data on hospital admissions.
Under 18s roughly 50 per million and there's roughly 12 million of them.
If you think there going to clog up a hospital your bonkers.
* Paediatric hospital admissions in the UK are X
* Paediatric hospital capacity in the UK is unknown
* Other paediatric hospital demand in the UK is unknown
* Paediatric hospitals in the US have been overrun by Covid
* You don't believe that paediatric hospitals can be overrun by Covid
* Therefore the US policies on US public health are illogical.
Is that your argument?"
.
No, we know what the pediatric capacity is, we roughly know what other pediatric care will be, we know how many cases there are in hospitals, we know lots of these things your presuming we don't know.
We know for certain there not being overrun in the UK!.
The rest of your conclusion is mumbo jumbo aimed at discrediting the argument by attempting to show I'm in some way a covid denier and frankly it's painful.
Ill leave everybody else reading this to draw there own conclusions based on the ons data that hospitalisation rates in the UK for under 18s are roughly 50 per million and whether they think that will cause large scale disruption!!!!. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million.
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care?
When or if your making presumptions.
Theres about 12 million under 18s in the UK, according to ons there hospitalisation rate is about 50 per million meaning you'll get roughly 600 going thru the hospital system IF everyone of them catch it, which they won't.
I think your making a drama out of something that doesn't require it.
I think you're minimising the risks to the unvaccinated and the vulnerable who don't mount an immune response.
I support the United States in its sunlit uplands of sovereignty to protect its public health.
In measures that currently exclude me .
I'm not doing anything of the sort I'm telling you ons data on hospitalisation rates for unvaccinated under 18s and it's 50 per million and I cannot see how that would incur an overburdening of pediatrics on any health care system.
Ok. You don't believe it. Totes isn't happening then. Cool .
I believe ons figures, if you don't that's your problem to work on!.
I believe ONS figures.
How do they relate to the number of paediatric beds, length of stay? Other conditions that also need care? Covid is not the only disease or injury in existence, as we keep being reminded.
I also believe the US doctors who say that their paediatric hospitals are being overwhelmed.
How does the US protect itself - the topic of this thread - during a global public health crisis?
Obviously not by worrying about its paediatric hospitals, because you don't believe that US capacity can be exceeded by UK numbers, with no frame of reference to number of beds or occupancy.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals/agerange.
Theres the ons data on hospital admissions.
Under 18s roughly 50 per million and there's roughly 12 million of them.
If you think there going to clog up a hospital your bonkers.
* Paediatric hospital admissions in the UK are X
* Paediatric hospital capacity in the UK is unknown
* Other paediatric hospital demand in the UK is unknown
* Paediatric hospitals in the US have been overrun by Covid
* You don't believe that paediatric hospitals can be overrun by Covid
* Therefore the US policies on US public health are illogical.
Is that your argument?.
No, we know what the pediatric capacity is, we roughly know what other pediatric care will be, we know how many cases there are in hospitals, we know lots of these things your presuming we don't know.
We know for certain there not being overrun in the UK!.
The rest of your conclusion is mumbo jumbo aimed at discrediting the argument by attempting to show I'm in some way a covid denier and frankly it's painful.
Ill leave everybody else reading this to draw there own conclusions based on the ons data that hospitalisation rates in the UK for under 18s are roughly 50 per million and whether they think that will cause large scale disruption!!!!."
So what does UK hospitalisation have to do with US public health policy? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *abio OP Man
over a year ago
Newcastle and Gateshead |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?."
I love the way you talked about Idaho and Texas but when you got shown up it’s a uk issue.. hmm…
So let’s talk Idaho and Texas… since you mentioned them
Texas ICU situation was is so bad that the iCU bed take up is 105%…. If that sounds odd, basically it means there are so many covid patients in icu’s they had to create more space ….
In Idaho… it’s even worse, the ICU bed situation was was so bad last week they declared a medical emergency, that if you basically needed a ICU they were being airlifted to… Oregon… you know, that democratic state….
If anything that is the reason why you need to be double jabbed… so you don’t become a burden on their health system if you get seriously ill |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million.
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care?
When or if your making presumptions.
Theres about 12 million under 18s in the UK, according to ons there hospitalisation rate is about 50 per million meaning you'll get roughly 600 going thru the hospital system IF everyone of them catch it, which they won't.
I think your making a drama out of something that doesn't require it.
I think you're minimising the risks to the unvaccinated and the vulnerable who don't mount an immune response.
I support the United States in its sunlit uplands of sovereignty to protect its public health.
In measures that currently exclude me .
I'm not doing anything of the sort I'm telling you ons data on hospitalisation rates for unvaccinated under 18s and it's 50 per million and I cannot see how that would incur an overburdening of pediatrics on any health care system.
Ok. You don't believe it. Totes isn't happening then. Cool .
I believe ons figures, if you don't that's your problem to work on!.
I believe ONS figures.
How do they relate to the number of paediatric beds, length of stay? Other conditions that also need care? Covid is not the only disease or injury in existence, as we keep being reminded.
I also believe the US doctors who say that their paediatric hospitals are being overwhelmed.
How does the US protect itself - the topic of this thread - during a global public health crisis?
Obviously not by worrying about its paediatric hospitals, because you don't believe that US capacity can be exceeded by UK numbers, with no frame of reference to number of beds or occupancy.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals/agerange.
Theres the ons data on hospital admissions.
Under 18s roughly 50 per million and there's roughly 12 million of them.
If you think there going to clog up a hospital your bonkers.
* Paediatric hospital admissions in the UK are X
* Paediatric hospital capacity in the UK is unknown
* Other paediatric hospital demand in the UK is unknown
* Paediatric hospitals in the US have been overrun by Covid
* You don't believe that paediatric hospitals can be overrun by Covid
* Therefore the US policies on US public health are illogical.
Is that your argument?.
No, we know what the pediatric capacity is, we roughly know what other pediatric care will be, we know how many cases there are in hospitals, we know lots of these things your presuming we don't know.
We know for certain there not being overrun in the UK!.
The rest of your conclusion is mumbo jumbo aimed at discrediting the argument by attempting to show I'm in some way a covid denier and frankly it's painful.
Ill leave everybody else reading this to draw there own conclusions based on the ons data that hospitalisation rates in the UK for under 18s are roughly 50 per million and whether they think that will cause large scale disruption!!!!.
So what does UK hospitalisation have to do with US public health policy?"
Because of risk!.
If the US wants to lower it's risk to it's health service then unvaccinated under 35 year olds still have less risk then double vaccinated over 75 year olds and unvaccinated under 18s have less risk than double vaccinated 50 year olds.
Because vaccines aren't perfect and covid age risk factors are there in the data.
If your policy is just double vaccinated and you get a shed load of oaps all double vaccinated, you gain more risk to your health service from them which was why I said the policy made no sense. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million.
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care?
When or if your making presumptions.
Theres about 12 million under 18s in the UK, according to ons there hospitalisation rate is about 50 per million meaning you'll get roughly 600 going thru the hospital system IF everyone of them catch it, which they won't.
I think your making a drama out of something that doesn't require it.
I think you're minimising the risks to the unvaccinated and the vulnerable who don't mount an immune response.
I support the United States in its sunlit uplands of sovereignty to protect its public health.
In measures that currently exclude me .
I'm not doing anything of the sort I'm telling you ons data on hospitalisation rates for unvaccinated under 18s and it's 50 per million and I cannot see how that would incur an overburdening of pediatrics on any health care system.
Ok. You don't believe it. Totes isn't happening then. Cool .
I believe ons figures, if you don't that's your problem to work on!.
I believe ONS figures.
How do they relate to the number of paediatric beds, length of stay? Other conditions that also need care? Covid is not the only disease or injury in existence, as we keep being reminded.
I also believe the US doctors who say that their paediatric hospitals are being overwhelmed.
How does the US protect itself - the topic of this thread - during a global public health crisis?
Obviously not by worrying about its paediatric hospitals, because you don't believe that US capacity can be exceeded by UK numbers, with no frame of reference to number of beds or occupancy.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals/agerange.
Theres the ons data on hospital admissions.
Under 18s roughly 50 per million and there's roughly 12 million of them.
If you think there going to clog up a hospital your bonkers.
* Paediatric hospital admissions in the UK are X
* Paediatric hospital capacity in the UK is unknown
* Other paediatric hospital demand in the UK is unknown
* Paediatric hospitals in the US have been overrun by Covid
* You don't believe that paediatric hospitals can be overrun by Covid
* Therefore the US policies on US public health are illogical.
Is that your argument?.
No, we know what the pediatric capacity is, we roughly know what other pediatric care will be, we know how many cases there are in hospitals, we know lots of these things your presuming we don't know.
We know for certain there not being overrun in the UK!.
The rest of your conclusion is mumbo jumbo aimed at discrediting the argument by attempting to show I'm in some way a covid denier and frankly it's painful.
Ill leave everybody else reading this to draw there own conclusions based on the ons data that hospitalisation rates in the UK for under 18s are roughly 50 per million and whether they think that will cause large scale disruption!!!!.
So what does UK hospitalisation have to do with US public health policy?
Because of risk!.
If the US wants to lower it's risk to it's health service then unvaccinated under 35 year olds still have less risk then double vaccinated over 75 year olds and unvaccinated under 18s have less risk than double vaccinated 50 year olds.
Because vaccines aren't perfect and covid age risk factors are there in the data.
If your policy is just double vaccinated and you get a shed load of oaps all double vaccinated, you gain more risk to your health service from them which was why I said the policy made no sense."
So. Let's throw immunology and vaccine science in the bin. Everything we know about reduction of transmission and role of travel in spreading variants. All the data on the struggling US hospital systems.
English paediatric hospitals are fine, so the US shouldn't restrict travel |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"I still maintain if your just worried about filling up your hospital capacity with travelers then your best policy would have been a cut off age of nobody over 65 allowed in.
The overwhelmed PICUs in southern US states are chock full of pensioners.
That's what it stands for, yes? Pensioner intensive care unit?
Theres variables at play when your quoting your figures from citizens of say Texas.
This conversation is about people coming in from the UK.
According to ons data there's 11 people in the 0-35 age range per 100k hospitalised with covid in the UK and 102 in the 35 and above age range.
You tell me which one is more likely to clog up already burdened health care systems in the US?.
Anyone who's unvaccinated
In adults, 11x more likely to end up in hospital (per figures shared here by people who wanted to prove vaccines were bad). Government data shows vaccination slashes individual risk by 30 years. Various studies show slowing of transmission even with a single dose, even within households (there was a Pfizer single dose study).
But paediatric hospitals are generally much lower capacity than adult hospitals. Things children are admitted for tend to be more fatal without treatment than adults, on the whole.
Oh, and kids in the UK aren't getting two doses. Maybe the US should ban British children. (But then that might be discrimination, because children can't help what their government rations out)
The hospitalisation rate for unvaccinated 1-21 in the UK is currently less than 50 per million.
Deaths is about 5 per million.
Ok. What's the hospital capacity per million?
What happens when other diseases also happen alongside Covid?
What happens when Covid patients are much longer term stayers in intensive care?
When or if your making presumptions.
Theres about 12 million under 18s in the UK, according to ons there hospitalisation rate is about 50 per million meaning you'll get roughly 600 going thru the hospital system IF everyone of them catch it, which they won't.
I think your making a drama out of something that doesn't require it.
I think you're minimising the risks to the unvaccinated and the vulnerable who don't mount an immune response.
I support the United States in its sunlit uplands of sovereignty to protect its public health.
In measures that currently exclude me .
I'm not doing anything of the sort I'm telling you ons data on hospitalisation rates for unvaccinated under 18s and it's 50 per million and I cannot see how that would incur an overburdening of pediatrics on any health care system.
Ok. You don't believe it. Totes isn't happening then. Cool .
I believe ons figures, if you don't that's your problem to work on!.
I believe ONS figures.
How do they relate to the number of paediatric beds, length of stay? Other conditions that also need care? Covid is not the only disease or injury in existence, as we keep being reminded.
I also believe the US doctors who say that their paediatric hospitals are being overwhelmed.
How does the US protect itself - the topic of this thread - during a global public health crisis?
Obviously not by worrying about its paediatric hospitals, because you don't believe that US capacity can be exceeded by UK numbers, with no frame of reference to number of beds or occupancy.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19latestinsights/hospitals/agerange.
Theres the ons data on hospital admissions.
Under 18s roughly 50 per million and there's roughly 12 million of them.
If you think there going to clog up a hospital your bonkers.
* Paediatric hospital admissions in the UK are X
* Paediatric hospital capacity in the UK is unknown
* Other paediatric hospital demand in the UK is unknown
* Paediatric hospitals in the US have been overrun by Covid
* You don't believe that paediatric hospitals can be overrun by Covid
* Therefore the US policies on US public health are illogical.
Is that your argument?.
No, we know what the pediatric capacity is, we roughly know what other pediatric care will be, we know how many cases there are in hospitals, we know lots of these things your presuming we don't know.
We know for certain there not being overrun in the UK!.
The rest of your conclusion is mumbo jumbo aimed at discrediting the argument by attempting to show I'm in some way a covid denier and frankly it's painful.
Ill leave everybody else reading this to draw there own conclusions based on the ons data that hospitalisation rates in the UK for under 18s are roughly 50 per million and whether they think that will cause large scale disruption!!!!.
So what does UK hospitalisation have to do with US public health policy?
Because of risk!.
If the US wants to lower it's risk to it's health service then unvaccinated under 35 year olds still have less risk then double vaccinated over 75 year olds and unvaccinated under 18s have less risk than double vaccinated 50 year olds.
Because vaccines aren't perfect and covid age risk factors are there in the data.
If your policy is just double vaccinated and you get a shed load of oaps all double vaccinated, you gain more risk to your health service from them which was why I said the policy made no sense.
So. Let's throw immunology and vaccine science in the bin. Everything we know about reduction of transmission and role of travel in spreading variants. All the data on the struggling US hospital systems.
English paediatric hospitals are fine, so the US shouldn't restrict travel "
I haven't said they shouldn't restrict travel, I have simply pointed out that a double vaccinated restriction isn't as effective as an age restricted restriction on health care burden.
As for reduction in transmission well pick your study it's somewhere between 30% to 60% with probability somewhere around 40%.
That would be something if the USA didn't already have massive spread, frankly the 25,000 infections a year you might stop from visitors is a drop in the ocean to the 10 million internal infections. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
...
If your policy is just double vaccinated and you get a shed load of oaps all double vaccinated, you gain more risk to your health service from them which was why I said the policy made no sense."
The policy does not need to make sense to anybody outside the US. We weren't consulted, we have no say in it. As for the people inside the US, the vast majority of the citizens there never travel beyond their own country and would be totally unconcerned if no outsiders ever entered the states again.
The only people that the policy needs to make even the slightest bit of sense to is the policy makers. In a country where the pandemic has been made ten times worse due to having entire states full of covid deniers and anti vaxxers, the makes of international policy are quite entitled to decide that they just do not want the hassle that comes with unvaccinated people, even if that is only the tiniest miniscule extra burden.
If the government here can declare that the addition of a tiny number of people risking their lives crossing the English channel in rubber dinghies will destroy society, even though statistically it is an insignificant number, the US government is totally within its rights to put any conditions whatsover upon travel of people to their country. Outsiders are not US citizens. If the US government says that visitors should be vaccinated, then visitors should get vaccinated or not go. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
...
If your policy is just double vaccinated and you get a shed load of oaps all double vaccinated, you gain more risk to your health service from them which was why I said the policy made no sense.
The policy does not need to make sense to anybody outside the US. We weren't consulted, we have no say in it. As for the people inside the US, the vast majority of the citizens there never travel beyond their own country and would be totally unconcerned if no outsiders ever entered the states again.
The only people that the policy needs to make even the slightest bit of sense to is the policy makers. In a country where the pandemic has been made ten times worse due to having entire states full of covid deniers and anti vaxxers, the makes of international policy are quite entitled to decide that they just do not want the hassle that comes with unvaccinated people, even if that is only the tiniest miniscule extra burden.
If the government here can declare that the addition of a tiny number of people risking their lives crossing the English channel in rubber dinghies will destroy society, even though statistically it is an insignificant number, the US government is totally within its rights to put any conditions whatsover upon travel of people to their country. Outsiders are not US citizens. If the US government says that visitors should be vaccinated, then visitors should get vaccinated or not go."
I never said governments can't make whatever rules they want, what I was saying if you'd bothered to read the comments was that if the policy is to protect there over burdened health care system then it makes no sense because double vaccinated oaps are still at more risk to fall ill than unvaccinated under 35s.
As for your other comments about illegal dinghy crossings you could completely reverse your argument with the one for vaccines, one crossing/infection is a small risk but the next risk is that allows more crossings/infections and with time it becomes exponential amounts of crossings/infections.
This was basically new Zealand's policy, we make a stand at zero allowance and it's admirable but not one we think is sustainable to either problem. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I never liked America, which became a dislike after I lived there for two years.
However it has some great sights and both my wives are American so I have two sets of in-laws to catch up with.
Possibly next year. The pandemic isn't over. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"
...
If your policy is just double vaccinated and you get a shed load of oaps all double vaccinated, you gain more risk to your health service from them which was why I said the policy made no sense.
The policy does not need to make sense to anybody outside the US. We weren't consulted, we have no say in it. As for the people inside the US, the vast majority of the citizens there never travel beyond their own country and would be totally unconcerned if no outsiders ever entered the states again.
The only people that the policy needs to make even the slightest bit of sense to is the policy makers. In a country where the pandemic has been made ten times worse due to having entire states full of covid deniers and anti vaxxers, the makes of international policy are quite entitled to decide that they just do not want the hassle that comes with unvaccinated people, even if that is only the tiniest miniscule extra burden.
If the government here can declare that the addition of a tiny number of people risking their lives crossing the English channel in rubber dinghies will destroy society, even though statistically it is an insignificant number, the US government is totally within its rights to put any conditions whatsover upon travel of people to their country. Outsiders are not US citizens. If the US government says that visitors should be vaccinated, then visitors should get vaccinated or not go.
I never said governments can't make whatever rules they want, what I was saying if you'd bothered to read the comments was that if the policy is to protect there over burdened health care system then it makes no sense because double vaccinated oaps are still at more risk to fall ill than unvaccinated under 35s.
As for your other comments about illegal dinghy crossings you could completely reverse your argument with the one for vaccines, one crossing/infection is a small risk but the next risk is that allows more crossings/infections and with time it becomes exponential amounts of crossings/infections.
This was basically new Zealand's policy, we make a stand at zero allowance and it's admirable but not one we think is sustainable to either problem."
And as I said, the policy does not have to make any sense to anybody other than the policy makers. It doesn't need to be fair, it doesn't need to be balanced. If the US think for whatever reason that vaccinated visitors are preferable to unvaccinated, then that is completely their prerogative. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
