Can we cruise again?

[WotEver]

3 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

There might be an argument for making it compulsory for children to save them dying from their parents ill informed bad choices.

Absolutely. 

[Sir Nibble]

10 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

You go to the doctor, you've been called in; you have antibodies - do you get vaccinated? I wouldn't. 

 

 

I would follow medical advice. The antibodies either confer immunity on me or they don't. If they do then I wouldn't even be offered the vaccine.

Back at you. You've been called in, you don't have antibodies, do you have the vaccine?

[Higgs]

19 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

Acquiring herd immunity naturally through infection will cost lives, acquiring it through vaccination won't. 

 

This started off as a discussion for or against the blanket use of a vaccine. I'm not against a vaccine, per se, nor for its use where it is the best option. I can't see it doing any further good, if a person has already developed antibodies, unless a person's system barely made it through.

 

 

 

 

11 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

I would follow medical advice. The antibodies either confer immunity on me or they don't. If they do then I wouldn't even be offered the vaccine.

Back at you. You've been called in, you don't have antibodies, do you have the vaccine?

 

I think it is clear, I have no anti-vaccine agenda. 

 

 

[Richard10002]

4 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Well obviously people without common sense and who will exploit any loopholes will all be out and about now, if the cap fits put it on old boy. Those of us able to make our own decisions without nanny and with common sense know its safer and better for all at present to stay home. But with you record on decision making etc etc. Put it this way,  a second surge which everybody surely expects will not be caused by me. I and all the other small groups that live here have not changed our lockdown procedures whatsoever, but then to us here that's just common sense.

As ever Smelly, it's not all about you, and what you are doing, is it??

 

We can all choose to be as locked down as we like, but we are also free to behave as the new rules/guidance say/advise - whether that increases the chances of spreading the disease or not.

 

You keep talking about loopholes, which confirms that you don't understand the confusion of the message.

 

You seem to be saying that driving as far as you like for as much exercise as you like, or as much sitting on your fat backside as you like, or somewhere in between, is exploiting a loophole - Let me make it easy for you.... IT ISN'T.

 

You will no doubt carry on telling us that black is white, and I'm obviously not going to stop you.

 

Anyway.... HAPPY CRUISING

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, Sir Nibble said:

 The argument rages on from a tiny few who haven't noticed they've lost.

"tiny few" is pretty much as good as "nobody". You fail to add that a tiny few don't realise they won, months ago, and most, (apart from a tiny few), have moved on.

[Richard10002]

4 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

I had noticed that you only ever post late evening so I was bang oin the nail this morning when the first twaddle waiting me was your good self ?

You are not the most observant, are you?   

 

You call it twaddle because you know it's correct, and you have no rational response.

 

Again, let me make it easy for you - You, and I, and anyone, are free to continue to "Stay At Home".... but the guidance/advice/rules have changed, and we are now free to "Leave Our Homes For As Long As We Like", as long as we "Stay Alert", (and go home each night). We can even go Cruising if we like  

 

 

[Sir Nibble]

7 minutes ago, Higgs said:

 

This started off as a discussion for or against the blanket use of a vaccine. I'm not against a vaccine, per se, nor for its use where it is the best option. I can't see it doing any further good, if a person has already developed antibodies, unless a person's system barely made it through.

 

 

 

 

 

I think it is clear, I have no anti-vaccine agenda. 

 

 

I recently had investigation for possible prostate cancer. Negative. I have a benign enlargement. The urologist decided I would have six monthly blood tests to keep an eye on the situation. Having checked out found that the enlargement does not indicate an increased risk of cancer I decided no, I won't have six monthly blood tests. If I didn't need them before, I don't need them now. So, I understand where you are coming from in refusing what you judge to be unnecessary intervention. You run your own risk. So long as enough people take up a vaccine to achieve herd immunity then they will protect you.

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, Traveller said:

Presumably tents therefore are ok?

As long as you are camped by water, and have a fishing rod nearby?

 

I wonder if overnight cruising is not forbidden, as long as no one goes to bed and sleeps? Perhaps a fishing rod over the stern with a spinner?

 

Maybe even moor up with a fishing rod over the stern, with a little alarm bell thing to wake you up if you get a bite?

[Sir Nibble]

6 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

"tiny few" is pretty much as good as "nobody". You fail to add that a tiny few don't realise they won, months ago, and most, (apart from a tiny few), have moved on.

A tiny few stops being nobody when they raise the issue and correcting them on a matter of established fact is hardly unreasonable. The rest of your post I agree with. 

[Traveller]

8 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

You are not the most observant, are you?   

 

You call it twaddle because you know it's correct, and you have no rational response.

 

Again, let me make it easy for you - You, and I, and anyone, are free to continue to "Stay At Home".... but the guidance/advice/rules have changed, and we are now free to "Leave Our Homes For As Long As We Like", as long as we "Stay Alert", (and go home each night). We can even go Cruising if we like  

 

 

Deleted

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Traveller
Responded to wrong thread.

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

The same muppets will be wanting to extend the so called negotiating period beyond january so we have to put even more billions in to the failing eu economy when our own UK economy is also in the crap 

a "tiny few" Smelly. If you want to, you can stop worrying about it... the deals done! We've left!

 

or... Perhaps you don't want to stop worrying about it, and will still be moaning about it in a decade or so?

[Richard10002]

3 hours ago, doratheexplorer said:

None of that explains why you would refuse a vaccination?  Could you explain?

However he rationalises it, he seems to believe that he will survive anything the virus can throw at him, (he may be correct, or he may not), and he definitely doesn't care if he infects someone else when he has it.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would resist it. I had my first ever flu jab in December. It was a mere scratch that I hardly felt, and I cant see any rational reason for not having it. Same would/should apply to a Covid19 vaccine.... but there have always been people like Welshy around. They are lucky that there are plenty who will happily accept a vaccine.

[Higgs]

20 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

You run your own risk. So long as enough people take up a vaccine to achieve herd immunity then they will protect you.

 

I do not intend to take a risk. My only reluctance personally would be, if I had antibodies produced naturally, which is a vaccine's intended objective. 

 

 

 

[Richard10002]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

 

We live in a risky world and we have developed defences through exposure. The most vulnerable would be helped by being given extra precautionary medication. 

 

 

Good job you weren't making the decisions relating to smallpox, polio, etc..

 

What is this "precautionary" medication you speak of?

[ditchcrawler]

4 hours ago, mrsmelly said:

Well obviously people without common sense and who will exploit any loopholes will all be out and about now, if the cap fits put it on old boy. Those of us able to make our own decisions without nanny and with common sense know its safer and better for all at present to stay home. But with you record on decision making etc etc. Put it this way,  a second surge which everybody surely expects will not be caused by me. I and all the other small groups that live here have not changed our lockdown procedures whatsoever, but then to us here thats just common sense.

But the country has been trained no to make their own common sense decisions. At one time you wouldn't think of parking on a blind bend or brow of a hill or road junction. Today you need a double yellow line to tell you that and it there isn't one then people park there. You need No Mooring signs opposite winding holes so now if it doesn't say no mooring its OK to moor there. People today need telling exactly what they can do and cant do. You see this weekend some places will be packed, just like the weekend before the fines came in.

[Mike Todd]

59 minutes ago, Sir Nibble said:

I would follow medical advice. The antibodies either confer immunity on me or they don't. If they do then I wouldn't even be offered the vaccine.

Back at you. You've been called in, you don't have antibodies, do you have the vaccine?

It is not a binary matter. Immunity is graduated both in strength and time

[Richard10002]

2 hours ago, Higgs said:

Even if those with this immunity catch the virus again, they have already proved a resilience to it. 

There are lots of discussions regarding the fact that immunity is not certain, which would suggest that the "proof" you talk about isn't well known.

 

Who are the "they" that you talk about, and where did you get the information regarding the "proof" that you assert? (A link would be fine).

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm in the camp which believes that immunity is likely, but I have yet to see proof in peer reviewed research.

[Sir Nibble]

11 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

However he rationalises it, he seems to believe that he will survive anything the virus can throw at him, (he may be correct, or he may not), and he definitely doesn't care if he infects someone else when he has it.

 

I'm not sure why anyone would resist it. I had my first ever flu jab in December. It was a mere scratch that I hardly felt, and I cant see any rational reason for not having it. Same would/should apply to a Covid19 vaccine.... but there have always been people like Welshy around. They are lucky that there are plenty who will happily accept a vaccine.

But he won't infect someone else will he, unless they have also refused a vaccine. Herd immunity can be achieved with a 55% take-up rapidly turning into 75% as the unvaccinated are either immunised by infection or die of terminal obstinacy. Maybe he's a big strong healthy living lad like Welsh cruiser who ain't afraid of no virus like the girly weeds are.

[Higgs]

7 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

There are lots of discussions regarding the fact that immunity is not certain, which would suggest that the "proof" you talk about isn't well known.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm in the camp which believes that immunity is likely, but I have yet to see proof in peer reviewed research.

 

I've heard of re-infection, but can a vaccine give any better outcome. If a person's body had the capacity to defend itself, and was resilient, it is a better system than vaccine - for those people. What is a vaccine meant to do, but to encourage a reaction in the body to produce antibodies. 

 

 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by Higgs

[Richard10002]

1 minute ago, Higgs said:

 

I've heard of re-infection, but can a vaccine give any better outcome. If a person's body had the capacity to defend itself, and was resilient, it is a better system than vaccine - for those people. What is a vaccine meant to do, except encourage a reaction in the body to produce antibodies. 

 

 

 

and this peer reviewed proof that you talk of came from?

 

Your response suggests that you made it up, and it doesn't exist, does it?

[dogsarelandseals]

1 hour ago, The Welsh Cruiser said:

I've just had a thought: why is it apparently racist to call this disease 'Wuhan flu' or 'Chinese Flu' when the last similar pandemic is widely known as, seemingly with no racism inferred: 'Spanish flu'? 

I believe calling the Spanish flu as such was a political move at the time. It also very much upset the Spanish. Not my era of history though so I could be wrong.

 

Edit: here you go if you're interested. I'm not sure if I was right or not...

 

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/1918-flu-pandemic

Edited May 14, 2020 by dogsarelandseals

[Higgs]

6 minutes ago, Richard10002 said:

and this peer reviewed proof that you talk of came from?

 

Your response suggests that you made it up, and it doesn't exist, does it?

 

Question my logic, but you have no proof that a vaccine is superior to the body's own defences, where these defences have proved to be able. 

 

 

 

 

[BilgePump]

Glad I went out early and spent this morning doing fart all except sitting on the roof of the boat watching the ducks paddling. Is that a loophole? Not as of yesterday and I haven't been near it since the day of lockdown.  Couldn't go yesterday as had other stuff on until lunch so saved the trip until today. Even driving the route was a feelgood factor. Had a few coffees and sandwich, didn't do any cleaning or maintenance, didn't remove tarp, didn't have any water to bail out, didn't start engine, didn't tidy the planters. Hey, I need to keep something to do this weekend. Going back won't be for essential action, judgement call or anything. Going back for leisure (sanity) and although I probably won't untie there is no law or guidance breaking should I decide to go a few miles out and back to the mooring within the same day. Was good to be standing on something floating again. As they say, it is better by water.

[Athy]

4 minutes ago, dogsarelandseals said:

I believe calling the Spanish flu as such was a political move at the time. It also very much upset the Spanish. Not my era of history though so I could be wrong.

Hong Kong Flu was called just that. I have always believed that this was because it originated in Hong Kong.  Likewise German measles, which I seem to remember being vaccinated against as a boy. It is not uncommon to name things after their place of origin: Yorkshire pudding, Kiwi fruit.....

   So, was Spanish Flu not of Iberian origin?

[BilgePump]

10 minutes ago, dogsarelandseals said:

I believe calling the Spanish flu as such was a political move at the time. It also very much upset the Spanish. Not my era of history though so I could be wrong.

 

Edit: here you go if you're interested. I'm not sure if I was right or not...

 

https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-i/1918-flu-pandemic

iirc, it was because Spanish newspapers were the first to report and be cited re its emergence on the battlefields of Europe.