No, my medical situation is personal and private. Details of my exact situation are not critical to someone being able to appreciate that not everyone is adequately protected with one vaccine dose after 19th July. Are you saying, as a forum staff member, that I’m actually required to post this information? I find that seriously inappropriate if that is the case.
It appears you did not read my post; here are some relevant extracts:
Are you able to elaborate? If you want to give a particular example, we'd need more information otherwise the example isn't constructive or useful.
If you are at heightened risk, you can choose to wear an FFP3 mask. If you do, these are effective regardless of whether or not others wear masks, so you don;'t need to worry about what other people are or aren't doing.
But why would a poster give their situation as an example but not provide enough information for the example to be useful?
No-one is "demanding" other people's personal information but it makes no sense to post something that lacks clarity and causes confusion and then refuse to provide any clarification.
I trust this clarifies.
There is a wider risk in terms of continued prevalence of Covid in the population....
The virus is endemic; it's here to stay. It's the fifth endemic human Coronavirus and we now have no alternative but to build up immunity to it, just as we did with the previous four Coronaviruses (except this time we can massively accelerate the process through the use of highly effective vaccines), all of which would have likely caused a pandemic when they were novel viruses introduced into an immunologically naive population.
causing more frequent virus mutation which reduces vaccine effectiveness
You clearly misunderstand how Coronaviruses work, and how we reach endemic equilibrium with these viruses. This misunderstanding is fuelling unfounded fears.
and therefore wider risk to ‘at risk’ groups as a whole. Some people’s vaccination will actually be non-effective, I believe the Blood Cancer Society has today made their situation very clear.
The proportion of people who are not able to build either an adaptive or innate immune response to Coronaviruses is clearly going to be very small; you are talking a very small number.
If your suggestion is that we should restrict our society for this reason, such a suggestion is completely irrational, disproportionate and unsustainable.
Given the virus clearly cannot be eliminated, it's nonsensical.
Because posting on a discussion forum in a manner that complies with forum rules should be acceptable? If you feel that my post didn’t reach up to your obviously high standard of ‘usefulness’ then moderate me.
I don't understand what you are saying but there is no moderation matters being discussed here; my views are my personal opinions, based on listening to extensive podcasts from experts, including virologists and immunologists. If you wish to disagree, that is your choice, but you can't expect not to be challenged when you give an example that lacks clarity.
I’ve refrained from posting much in this particular forum as its clearly a venue for people to air their frustrations, but that works both ways and some people (forum staff included!) should respect the fact that not everyone shares their views.
I respect that others have different views, but I am going to challenge your views. If you think someone is being disrespectful you must not reply to the post and instead report it, rather than discussed on any forum thread.
For those not aware, what is an FFP3 mask and what protection does this afford?
A mask that is actually designed to keep virus particles out (standard masks aren't); the results of a study carried out in hospitals was in the news a few days ago:
Wearing a high grade FFP3 mask can almost entirely protect health workers from Covid, research finds.
www.bbc.co.uk
Wearing a high grade mask known as an FFP3 can provide up to 100% protection.
By contrast, there is a far greater chance of staff wearing standard issue surgical masks catching the virus...
...these masks are relatively flimsy and loose-fitting and are not meant to screen out infectious aerosols - tiny virus particles that can linger in the air and are now widely accepted as a source of coronavirus infection.
The study found that staff caring for Covid patients on "red" wards faced a risk that was up to 47 times higher than those on "green" or non-Covid wards.
In the weeks following this move, the rate of infections among healthcare workers on red wards dropped spectacularly, quickly falling to the level experienced by staff on green wards where there were no Covid patients.
Basically, a standard mask doesn't offer much - if any - protection (even if worn correctly, which very few people seem to), whereas an FFP3 mask provides almost 100% protection to the wearer.
Therefore, there is no need for any controversy: those who wish to be protected by a mask can choose to wear an FFP3, and they no longer need to care what other people are or aren't wearing.
Problem solved!
