Vaccine Passports

SmallTown said:
Youre hard work aren't you. Youwere ignoring facts. That was the issue I had
Click to expand...
I realise that changing the parameters of classification of V and UV seriously changes the percentages between the two.

For me that's worrying that somebody could die (heaven forbid) after having the vaccine a day earlier and they would be classified as UV. That to me is a scandal.

kettle black, but i do wish you all the best
 
tonymcandrewshattrick said:
i'm not because they've changed the parameters.

have a good day Chappy
Click to expand...
No one has changed any parameters. Stop denigrating a vaccine that saves people's lives.

14 days after a second vaccination has always been a standard worldwide definition of a fully vaccinated person. It's how vaccines work and how this vaccine was determined to work in the trials in mid-2020 through to the autumn.

Screenshot_20210902-143048.jpg
 
bear66 said:
No one has changed any parameters. Stop denigrating a vaccine that saves people's lives.

14 days after a second vaccination has always been a standard worldwide definition of a fully vaccinated person. It's how vaccines work and how this vaccine was determined to work in the trials in mid-2020 through to the autumn.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the virus has had its parameters changed which has dictated the approach to tackle it, and what we may need coverage wise, to contain it, and it has also changed the VE against infection, hospitalisation and death, but that's not what he meant, of course.

What he meant of course, was some sort of dogshit conspiracy, which is 100% invalid.
 
bear66 said:
No one has changed any parameters. Stop denigrating a vaccine that saves people's lives.

14 days after a second vaccination has always been a standard worldwide definition of a fully vaccinated person. It's how vaccines work and how this vaccine was determined to work in the trials in mid-2020 through to the autumn.

View attachment 23834
Click to expand...
so it's gone up by 7 days to 14 days. What's your point bear or can't you read?

and i'm not continuing with an argument because we have a difference opinion on something that is clear to see. Anyway i'm off to the blood pressure thread because mine is getting higher and higher here x
 
Andy_W said:
The JVCI said that when they didn't have any supply to do the kids (and hadn't yet done everyone older than the kids), it's prioritisation, which is fine, they had time to wait for kids, as they had zero supply to do kids.
But this then gets peddled by and abused by the tories and their media, sort of as a delaying tactic, and it's one of the reasons why we're also delaying it now. It's partially so the system doesn't come under bad press, largely to help the Tories.

So what they do is "wait on more data" (which was already visible, and has been for months, hence why it's been passed, for months), but now they can't refute the data or say it's not there (and more importantly now we have more supply), they will gradually roll it out.

The amount of vaccine we have, and have been able to use has been able to be calculated since early this year, when Scotland started publishing how many doses they were given by the UK (which is proportional to what England was give, per population), and we have known how many have been used etc. The rollout, and the peaks and thoughts were known in advance, so they easily know when we've had enough for kids (had enough pfizer). We haven't had that, but are getting there now.

It's basic politics, don't shoot down your only "win", when there's no point saying you should do something if you don't have the supplies to do it.
Wait until you have the supplies, then approve, then deliver, it's the best outcome for preserving votes. The problem is this time the rest of the EU have pretty much caught us up on vaccines, and have already started doing younger folk.

Nothing to do with "big pharma", they don't fake the antibody results, and aren't pushing 3rd does for those who don't need them, the immunologists are pushing them for those who need them, a load of who are independent.

Why would they make them for free? Would you? They've spent decades building a foundation of equipment and manpower, do they just pause all that?
They all have shareholders and are linked to the markets etc. Their entire company is based on trying to keep people alive, and then taking a cut for doing it. There are loads of companies making peoples health worse, and charging higher margins for it (fast food, fatty food, junk food, booze, supermarkets etc).

The vaccine situation with the tories is what I've been saying for about 6 months. The early part of the vaccine rollout was the Tory's "win", it's why they had their best ratings, but come autumn when the EU has caught up, the "win" fades, but we have more dead people (that doesn't fade), and then brexit becomes more visible, then their popularity slides (like it is doing).
Click to expand...
Would I make it for free?

Yes I would actually. The hat you would get to wear for saving the human race from a potential mass extinction event would be enough for me. You'd want for nothing ever again. Imagine the adulation the scientist who cures cancer will get. Similar concept.
 
Even if it was a conspiracy (which it isn't), I'd love to know what the reason or then end game would be, and how a conspiracy of this size could be kept a relative secret. How all the worlds governments then agree on the conspiracy, all healthcare workers, along with the best scientific minds in the world, who are largely independent. Who would actually win in all of this?

Pretty much all governments, companies, and people in the world have had to pay a portion of the worlds people and businesses to not work, and to sit at home, burning money. It's a poorly thought out conspiracy if that's what it is.
 
Evil said:
Petrified of a virus that has a 99.97% survival rate.
Click to expand...

Why cant you have a sensible discussion about it without throwing the petrified of the virus phrase about?

Think people have a right to be worried, this is the same virus that has caused us to practically be locked up for the last 18 months, left 150k dead, completely destroyed the economy and made it almost impossible to get treatment through the NHS for years to come.

Isnt it right to proceed with caution?
 
Randy said:
Would I make it for free?

Yes I would actually. The hat you would get to wear for saving the human race from a potential mass extinction event would be enough for me. You'd want for nothing ever again. Imagine the adulation the scientist who cures cancer will get. Similar concept.
Click to expand...
No, you wouldn't, as you can't, and you haven't invested billions into research over the last 100 years. You've been whining all year against wearing masks and lockdowns or whatever, which would limit spread. Your stance has been against the public good.

But, look at it this way, would you work for free, in your restaurant? Would your owner do it for zero profit? Did he claim the furlough back? There are thousands dying of starvation, why aren't you cooking and packing food and sending it abroad (or even in the UK) at cost?

AZ are making vaccines at cost btw, and it's that vaccine that has enabled you to be at work now.
 
Let the non vaccinated and non mask wearers take their chance, they have the opportunity to protect themselves and others, if they don't the ultimate consequence is theirs (as double Jabbed people are protected).

The biggest concern is enabling more deadly and potentially vaccine resistant varients to develop and spread, not much point in discussing as like Brexit, and the Tories, views become so polarised.

Just like many things in a organised society, people have to follow the rap around rules, whether it's having a licence to drive a car, not smoking in public places, having a passport to go abroad, having an NI number to be employed, paying to go first class because you can when others can only go standard, the list goes on, if the vaccination passport becomes a requirement then feel free to exclude yourself from the entitlements it brings, you made the choice. (Exceptions for people medically unable to have a vaccine)
 
Andy_W said:
No, you wouldn't, as you can't, and you haven't invested billions into research over the last 100 years. You've been whining all year against wearing masks and lockdowns or whatever, which would limit spread. Your stance has been against the public good.

But, look at it this way, would you work for free, in your restaurant? Would your owner do it for zero profit? Did he claim the furlough back? There are thousands dying of starvation, why aren't you cooking and packing food and sending it abroad (or even in the UK) at cost?

AZ are making vaccines at cost btw, and it's that vaccine that has enabled you to be at work now.
Click to expand...
Whining?
Spoken words from a man who didn't have to survive for 12 months wondering every day when he woke up if he would have a job at the end of that day. My stance was against the public good? Wow, that's a fairly random accusation. There are many countries that followed different paths through the pandemic. For example last I heard Sweden was an apocalyptic wasteland. Wait, no it isn't.

Would I work where I am now for free? What on earth does that have to with a big pharma company making a profit off of a pandemic? Note you said AZ are doing it at cost, well why aren't the rest?
 
tonymcandrewshattrick said:
I realise that changing the parameters of classification of V and UV seriously changes the percentages between the two.

For me that's worrying that somebody could die (heaven forbid) after having the vaccine a day earlier and they would be classified as UV. That to me is a scandal.

kettle black, but i do wish you all the best
Click to expand...
You honestly think that's the scandal? The fact that someone who hasn't had the vaccine work on their system is thought to be unvaccinated? I would call that "logical" rather than "scandalous". I guess that's because I understand science and don't want to find some bizarre conspiracy out of nothing
 
SmallTown said:
You honestly think that's the scandal? The fact that someone who hasn't had the vaccine work on their system is thought to be unvaccinated? I would call that "logical" rather than "scandalous". I guess that's because I understand science and don't want to find some bizarre conspiracy out of nothing
Click to expand...
we disagree ST, no big drama.

just to remind you that this about somebody dying within 14 days of receiving the vaccine being classified as unvaccinated and therefore not connected to the injection that may or may not have played a part in the death. That's the scandal.

have a good night
 
Last edited:
The bottom line here is whether you really believe that this experimental jab that you're getting plunged in to your arm is going to protect you more than not having the jab..

I'm willing to take my chances and keep doing what I'm doing via my immune system.
My diet is very good indeed in my opinion and I have taken to intermittent fasting, eating organic food, taking a few little supplements which have been engaging my brain and making me feel more alert..

What we don't hear on the telly are the presenters getting panelists on the show to offer dietary and nutritional advice which would help a big percentage of the population to actually have a body which is armed to fight a virus..

Also there's never any panelists on the telly who are never allowed on the telly to challenge the narrative....Wonder why?

Too many people are getting their knickers in a twist on here and I think it could be an EGO thing and also the fact that some of the posters who are not willing to get jabbed...and are considerably more intelligent than me have maybe put facts up that have changed their minds to the point where they now regret their decision to take the needle 3 times this year(maybe 4)

Am I right ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top