I have no time for anti vaxers at all

Laughing said:
But there are collective nouns for other animals that are solitary, surely? Though I just looked up the collective noun for koalas and for the same reason there isn't one. Who knew.
Click to expand...
Not me. I'm learning a lot today, one day it'll come in useful (probably when I'm sat shouting answers at TV quiz shows :) )
 
atypical_boro said:
Indeed, and some people don't take paracetamol when they have a headache, for that reason. We don't get on their cases about it though.
Click to expand...
There’s a difference between a vaccine and a drug that lessens the pain from an illness or injury. Massively. Especially when it comes to a community
 
Funky_Chicken said:
On a number of things - general risk to the population as a whole relatively small. 1.5 million deaths world wide out of a population of 8 billion is minuscule especially when taken into account how deaths are being recorded. If we’d had a competent government here there would have far fewer deaths. Take a look around the world at other countries for evidence to back that up - Japan for example almost twice our population but less than 2500 deaths i think ?



🐔
Click to expand...
Calling out this comment specifically. Because of the lack of competence, do you not think it was even more important to ensure that the lockdowns, mask wearing and general isolation were followed. That would have contributed also to fewer deaths, rather than some people being contrarian and not following guidelines?
 
John Oliver did a piece on vaccines a couple of years ago. One segment was on the measles vaccine and how the virus is hugely infectious, something over 90% I seem to recall. Anyhow, there was a drop in kids being vaccinated in France that was sufficient to cause a mini epidemic and it was thought is was just two girls who'd contracted measles on holiday that triggered the outbreak.
If we want to get on the long road to normality then we need to start vaccinations as we are simply not disciplined enough in the west to control the Covid-19 pandemic through good behavioural methods.
There are always risks with vaccines, one might not prove effective so having multiple vaccines is beneficial.
What isn't beneficial is all the batshit theories about Bill Gates, nanotechnology or population control. Anyone spouting such nonsense should be banned.
 
dooderooni said:
John Oliver did a piece on vaccines a couple of years ago. One segment was on the measles vaccine and how the virus is hugely infectious, something over 90% I seem to recall. Anyhow, there was a drop in kids being vaccinated in France that was sufficient to cause a mini epidemic and it was thought is was just two girls who'd contracted measles on holiday that triggered the outbreak.
If we want to get on the long road to normality then we need to start vaccinations as we are simply not disciplined enough in the west to control the Covid-19 pandemic through good behavioural methods.
There are always risks with vaccines, one might not prove effective so having multiple vaccines is beneficial.
What isn't beneficial is all the batshit theories about Bill Gates, nanotechnology or population control. Anyone spouting such nonsense should be banned.
Click to expand...
Agree that those theories aren't helpful but banned from what?
 
atypical_boro said:
Fine, but that wasn't quite the point I was making. I said no one would refuse the vaccine if it was definitely safe. No one would refuse paracetamol if it was definitely safe either, but a small cohort of people do presumably because its not definitely safe, and imho, that's fine too.
Click to expand...

OK, I generally agree. It comes down to what level of risk we accept for ourselves. I suppose what makes the difference is, do we think taking the vaccine is safer than not taking it which, lets face it, isn't without risks either. I think those not getting the vac will have to accept that social distancing, furlough etc. won't be extended just because they don't want the vaccine, therefore their risk of at least contracting the virus will be higher than it is now.

The point about selfishness is interesting; I think it would be easy to dismiss non-vaccers as only a risk to other non-vaccers (if you've been vaccinated, the worst they can do is give it to each other, not to you, right?). I think that argument falls down because no vaccine so far has been 100% effective and because some will have medical reasons for not being able to take the vaccine. There will be some who therefore want, or take, the vaccine who will still be vulnerable.

I don't think that's going to convince any non-vaccers to get it though.
 
Sadly having the incompetent Johnson and Hancock at the head of the government celebrating this amazing find doesn’t help. I think having a proper leader who you believe in and trust goes a long way for Joe Public. If Jarcinda Arden told us it was ok we would all breathe a sigh of relief and queue up. I know it is the regulatory authorities who have cleared it but confidence is eroded because it was approved on Johnson and Hancock’s watch and we can’t trust them as far as we can throw them. You don’t force public opinion you win it, Anti vaxers are a tiny proportion of the population who most sensible people ignore. The bigger issue is those who are uncertain or not yet confident and want to wait until others have gone first and are ok after a year or two. If the majority don’t vaccinate the likelihood of a swift return to something like normality reduces significantly. It is public trust and confidence that are really important now and I’m not sure many of us would get in the trenches and put our lives in the hands of Johnson, Hancock, Gove et al. That said I will take the vaccine as soon as I am eligible - Tier 8 I think, mainly because I don’t want to contract COVID and play Russian roulette with how much it will affect me.
 
Priv said:
Same here, I’m not anti Vaccine at all, my kids have always had theirs and I’ve always had mine. I will probably have it further down the line but their is no way they can say their are no longer term side effects yet. Which is why they wanted the legal protection. Though I’m more wary for my kids than me.

The last one they sped up and rushed through and gave immunity to ended badly.

www.theguardian.com

Ministers lose fight to stop payouts over swine flu jab narcolepsy cases

Dozens of children who developed sleep disorder after getting vaccine could get compensation after high court ruling
www.theguardian.com www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...
The legal protection for adverse events is there to protect pfizer because the government asked them to speed this up.
Pfizer are still liable if there is contamination of a vaccine (manufacturing quality issue) etc
 
Frozen Horse said:
OK, I generally agree. It comes down to what level of risk we accept for ourselves. I suppose what makes the difference is, do we think taking the vaccine is safer than not taking it which, lets face it, isn't without risks either. I think those not getting the vac will have to accept that social distancing, furlough etc. won't be extended just because they don't want the vaccine, therefore their risk of at least contracting the virus will be higher than it is now.

The point about selfishness is interesting; I think it would be easy to dismiss non-vaccers as only a risk to other non-vaccers (if you've been vaccinated, the worst they can do is give it to each other, not to you, right?). I think that argument falls down because no vaccine so far has been 100% effective and because some will have medical reasons for not being able to take the vaccine. There will be some who therefore want, or take, the vaccine who will still be vulnerable.

I don't think that's going to convince any non-vaccers to get it though.
Click to expand...
Yes, fully agree. If someone chooses not to take it, it may affect their ability to travel abroad etc and they have to be comfortable with that choice. They have no say over what other countries ask for on entry, and they shouldn't expect it. They also increase their chances of contracting it IF they come into contact with someone who has it.

I think everyone has their own view as to how 'at risk' they feel from the virus (age, BMI etc) and as much as nobody wants to pass it on, if someone feels for whatever reason that the vaccine isn't safe (or safe for their children, more importantly) they are not going to take it just to stop others from catching it. That's not selfish, its just the way of the world. Africa is impoverished for a reason.

The government now have to appoint the right people (not cabinet ministers) to play a major role in reassuring anyone whose feeling a little apprehensive that this particular vaccine doesn't need years' worth of results to be deemed safe, and why, and why its different to other vaccines in that sense and how we were able to create it so quickly. Nobody is going to be swayed because a stranger on a message board called them selfish.

Proper anti-vaxers, like Novak Djokovic, who are just against vaccinations full stop (certainly not me, I've had everything else going) won't be swayed you're dead right. Are they selfish? I wouldn't like to say. I start to feel a bit vulnerable when I go round labelling other people as selfish. Its unquestionable that I and everyone on this board has done something selfish in their life. Again, its human nature.
 
Last edited:
dooderooni said:
From posting on here.
Reasonable discussion by all means, anything patently dangerous or downright crazy then ban the poster.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, I honestly haven't seen anyone go down that road about Bill Gates or 5G or whatever though. Certainly not in recent memory.

That said, not sure I'd agree that they should be banned. The way to counter 'bad free speech' is to have more 'good' free speech.
 
Last edited:
BaronSmoggie said:
Calling out this comment specifically. Because of the lack of competence, do you not think it was even more important to ensure that the lockdowns, mask wearing and general isolation were followed. That would have contributed also to fewer deaths, rather than some people being contrarian and not following guidelines?
Click to expand...
I was wearing masks routinely in the spring whenever I was shopping, got plenty of looks but i thought it was the sensible thing to do - had an argument about it on here with someone in fact who claimed it was nonsense



🐔
 
Jonny_Rondos_Disco_pants said:
The legal protection for adverse events is there to protect pfizer because the government asked them to speed this up.
Pfizer are still liable if there is contamination of a vaccine (manufacturing quality issue) etc
Click to expand...
Shh Johnny stop talking sense.

Of course they are still liable and surely people realise why we its easier to sanction a vaccine here than the in US.

Three magic letters NHS

It’s that simple.
 
Laughing said:
Buffalo the start of your post demonstrates a lack of understanding. The money borrowed is payed back by tax payers and its often handed out to friends and family. It's exactly the set of circumstances a government use to enrich themselves and their donners.
Click to expand...
Laughing, I'm aware of how govt borrow money etc for example via bonds. You're implying that some govt borrowing is a calculated act for self gain. If this were true why did the UK have a decade of cut backs etc?
At the moment it's cheap for govt to borrow and yes the tax payer pays it back but I don't agree that the agenda is self gain.
 
buffaloboro said:
Laughing, I'm aware of how govt borrow money etc for example via bonds. You're implying that some govt borrowing is a calculated act for self gain. If this were true why did the UK have a decade of cut backs etc?
At the moment it's cheap for govt to borrow and yes the tax payer pays it back but I don't agree that the agenda is self gain.
Click to expand...
Buffalo, you are entitled to your opinion, but if you don't believe Johnsons government have milked this pandemic for every penny they can, to the tune of billions, then I really can't help you see any clearer my friend.

Whilst austerity was going on the wealth gap got bigger not smaller, different tactics were used in that period because the governance of government contracts had yet to be removed.

The minute procurement was without tender Johnson and his cabinet went crazy stealing our money. The longer the public is afraid for their safety, the longer the tories can eek this out, the more they can steal.

Make no mistake, this isn't about a bit of cream from the top, the tories want the whole bottle.
 
Laughing said:
Buffalo, you are entitled to your opinion, but if you don't believe Johnsons government have milked this pandemic for every penny they can, to the tune of billions, then I really can't help you see any clearer my friend.

Whilst austerity was going on the wealth gap got bigger not smaller, different tactics were used in that period because the governance of government contracts had yet to be removed.

The minute procurement was without tender Johnson and his cabinet went crazy stealing our money. The longer the public is afraid for their safety, the longer the tories can eek this out, the more they can steal.

Make no mistake, this isn't about a bit of cream from the top, the tories want the whole bottle.
Click to expand...
So , am I right in thinking that you think the govt , in part, have chosen the covid options they are currently using, including business help etc ( hence the borrowing of£) , to help their cronies increase their wealth?
So you wouldn't have done what they broadly did ( lock down, furloughed etc?) Which goes back to chickens viewpoint.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top