Jujupilote wrote:
Macron announced is being asked twice a day (in malls, trains, restaurants, cinemas, theaters etc…) for ID and vaccine certificate (by any employee, like a waiter).
How is the “twice a day” playing into this?
You have to present your certificate plus ID to enter public places? I thought that was the whole idea of the certificate.
@dublinpilot has given the countries who do this already. I suppose others will follow. And no, this is not anywhere close to what the PRC did, who locked the people into their homes with force.
Jujupilote wrote:
Did they hire and train ICU assistants ? Buy respirators ?
In Switzerland they certainly did. According to what I read, ICU capacity has been increased massively. I am not so sure if that will be needed, given that by now even with again increasing infection numbers there are quite few hospitalisations, mainly because the non – vaccined folks will be mostly younger. We still have hospitalisations and deaths, but thankfully nowhere where it was. Yet.
Jujupilote wrote:
I am sure we are heading to a new lockdown, vax or not.
In order to get any sort of immunity in the population which will make the virus die out, you need 70 to 80% vaccinated people. Because so far vaccinations have not reached this goal by a huge margin and because lots of people appear to snub it for whatever reason, yes, a lockdown may well be the consequence. So I suppose Macron’s effort right now is a last attempt to “motivate” people to finally vaccinate themselves, now that there is enough of it around and everyone who wants it can have it.
I don’t really understand what is so sensational about this. Clearly, nobody of our generation has lived through a war. If you are at war, be it with an invader or in this case a virus, then the people are expected to stand for each other, fight for each other and unify in the face of an enemy. This has not happened in the Covid situation, instead there are way too many who, in conventional war, would be seen as collaborators or traitors to the cause of ending the crisis.
Clearly, in the age of political correctness you can’t talk in these terms. But maybe those who are too selfish to take part should consider this: Then we asked our men and women to take up arms, to put their lifes in harms way and to quite possibly give the last full measure of devotion both on the battlefield and the home front. Nowadays you can’t get people to, if they choose to see it that way, take the sacrifice of two doses of a few milligrams of vaccine to help ending this corrosive crisis. That should tell us enough what would happen if we once again were faced with a military conflict.
Graham wrote:
The second is a crazy notion based on the demonstrably incorrect idea that it might be possible to prevent endemic circulation of this virus and its derivatives throughout the world for the foreseeable future.Put simply, anyone who believes that they have the right (or even the possibility) of proceeding with the rest of their lives with no risk of exposure to this virus is trying to hold back the tide.
For the first the train left the station 18 months ago. For the 2nd, yes, people who are vaccinated and who have done their duty to country and society may well expect to be able to lead a normal life again. Not without risk of exposure but as they are vaccinated with managable consequence.
But in general, the whole idea of how to make the virus no longer a problem is to get enough people vaccinated. I suppose not that many thought that there would be enough dunderheads who would snub the idea of vaccinating themselves or even outright refuse. If the vaccination rate does not surpass the critical level we still will have too many unvaccinated people who may generate another wave of hospitalisations (and deaths, for which most of them are responsible themselfs then). Hence, a couple of million people who are still where we were a year ago.
IMHO, either we get them to vaccinate themselves or new waves and new lockdowns and further restrictions are inevitable to avoid overloading the health system yet again. And that does not take into account if new mutations turn up as a consequence which bypass the current vaccines…
Personally, I feel much more relaxed about daily life than I did before I was vaccinated but I would not dream of violating measures such as wearing my masks where it is asked of me to do so and keeping to the other measures. But I certainly do not wish to go back to the stricter regimes just because some dunderheads will refuse to do their share of duty.
Jujupilote wrote:
Dublin, it will be mandatory for indoor and outdoor eating, even just you and your wife. Or your kids too, it is mandatory above age 12.
It makes zero sense.
I’m not sure if you are telling me the position in France, or asking me about the position in Ireland?
If asking, then the position here will be that anyone who wants to eat indoors will need to be fully vaccinated and have evidence of that.
Exceptions:
Child under the age of 18 accompanied by their fully vaccinated parent
Staff working in the premises
Outdoor dining will have no restrictions
I was referring to the new french regs. The irish ones seem bareable. Reading the european situation on restaurants, it seems most handle it nicely, like UK which is far more hit by the 4th wave.
Mooney, I would enlist if my country was at stake. I was one of the few who got vaccinated for the 2009 H1N1 flu. Was called crazy then.
FYI, ICU capacity has not increased in France, it decreased. Macron just wants a miracle solution, and every 6 months he realizes it doesn’t work that way, and changes his mind.
But we are not at war, we just totally mishandled a crisis. A flu which kills 0,3% (correct me if I’m wrong) of those who catch it, with an average age of 80+ is not a total war. A normal vaccine requires 3 years of testing before approval. Gene therapy has its own benefits and risks, which are unclear as of today, and were only used on specific patients with heavy genetic disorders. All the articles I can find say « Vax are great but we don’t know for sure yet ». What is scientific ? The first or the second part of the sentence ?
What will happen when a variant resists to the prizer vaccine ? Will all vaccine certificates be canceled, and back to the beginning ?
The mesures are getting out of proportions with the situation. And it is a slippery slope as Silvaire says.
You may find that in France the bark negates the need to bite.
Since the announcement on Monday there has been a large take up of the vaccine by those who couldn’t or wouldn’t take a few hours out of their daily routine before the threat.
Jujupilote wrote:
All the articles I can find say « Vax are great but we don’t know for sure yet ». What is scientific ? The first or the second part of the sentence ?
Scientifically it is very straight forward: Vax are great – we only can not be 100% sure how great! They are for sure safe and they are effective! Do we know if they protect 95%,85% or 75%? No, we don’t Does it matter? Not really!
Jujupilote wrote:
A normal vaccine requires 3 years of testing before approval.
Sorry, but this is simply not true! A normal vaccine requires about 1-1.5 years of testing before approval – some manage to do with 6 months of testing. That is depending on how different the vaccine is from already existing vaccines).
The remaining 2.5-1.5 years are paperwork, waiting for the regulator to act at all, negotiating prices, ramping up manufacturing, etc.
With the Covid vaccine, by tremendous effort of all involved parties, some luck and taking some risk this time has been significantly compressed without compromising on actual science and testing, e.g.:
- There was already pretty advanced research (by Oxford, Biontec, etc.) for a substance class that could easily be “redirected” towards Covid
- Regulators acted quickly and accepted to start evaluation at “first data in”. (Normally they wait for all data being collected and evaluated before they even have a look)
- Manufacturers took the risk to ramp up manufacturing long before the vaccine has been certified
- All (!) people in the industry from researcher to regulation officer to transport worker worked liked crazy to get it done
Manufacturers took the risk to ramp up manufacturing
In some cases (UK) the govt put up a few BN.
Since the announcement on Monday there has been a large take up of the vaccine by those who couldn’t or wouldn’t take a few hours out of their daily routine before the threat.
That’s what they need to do here 
If Asda, Lidl and a few others mandated CV19 vacc certificates, the vacc % would reach 99% pretty fast
All the Waitrose and Ocado shoppers were done back in February 
dublinpilot wrote:
Exceptions:
Child under the age of 18 accompanied by their fully vaccinated parent
Staff working in the premises
So you’re telling me that the very people (staff) that mingle constantly with every single person in the establishment dont need to be vaccinated, but those who dont, do?? Doesn’t sound particularly logical to me…
Jujupilote wrote:
A normal vaccine requires 3 years of testing before approval.
That’s not true.
Malibuflyer wrote:
A normal vaccine requires about 1-1.5 years of testing before approval
That’s not strictly true either, but your ballpark of how long the trials typically take to conduct is on the low side. Much of the time is spent not only waiting for the regulator, but also waiting for those who hold the purse strings to commit to a course of action.
You just need to submit the appropriate data package to the regulator, convincing them of the safety and efficacy of your product. How long the clinical trials necessary to gather the data happen to take is neither here nor there.
What is true is that the Covid-19 vaccinations have been tested in far more individuals before being approved than is usual for most drugs and vaccines. This in itself is no guarantee of anything, but it does give you excellent efficacy data and the best possible chance of discovering any significant safety issues.
Graham wrote:
What is true is that the Covid-19 vaccinations have been tested in far more individuals before being approved than is usual for most drugs and vaccines. This in itself is no guarantee of anything, but it does give you excellent efficacy data and the best possible chance of discovering any significant safety issues
I was told there has been much scrutiny & tests & data in case of CV19 candidats, while pressure to come up with something developped & approved & deployed quickly, the bar and the stakes were pretty high (AZ vaccine was halted by EMA due to few suspected blood clots, no vaccine ever had so much data scrutiny down to 1 in 5 million side effects, you can blame some of those “high standards” on politics & medias pressure)
Ibra wrote:
I was told there has been much scrutiny & tests & data in case of CV19 candidats, while pressure to come up with something developped & approved & deployed quickly, the bar and the stakes were pretty high (AZ vaccine was halted by EMA due to few suspected blood clots, no vaccine ever had so much data scrutiny down to 1 in 5 million side effects, you can blame some of those “high standards” on politics & medias pressure)
Exactly. Many approved drugs are never deployed on such a scale (and certainly not all at once) that’d allow you to notice side effects at the ppm level.
