If Any Future Lockdowns- Should Be The Unvaccinated

Andy_W said:
No offence taken, as I don't really value what you seem to be insinuating.

Anti-vaxers have already unfortunately been brainwashed at best, to the detriment of theirs and public health. Or, at worst, they're selfish pricks that expect to ride the benefits/ freedoms that others have given them by being vaccinated. Not to mention helping to not overwhelm healthcare, so there's a bed for the anti-vaxers if they need it. My priority is protecting healthcare, if that's at the marginal cost of the ill informed or deniers, then so be it.
Click to expand...
Here in Australia, the State governments have been pleading with the people to get vaccinated.
They have been saying for months now that borders within the country, will not be opened and freedoms will not be lifted until
they reach a certain percentage of fully vaccinated.
They've recently suggested that it will only be the fully vaccinated that will benefit from such things as travel, freedom of movement
and to be able to regain some sort of normality.

But, as per usual, thousands upon thousand are gathering in protest and pointing the finger at the governments and telling them how
cruel they are and that many are suffering because of their actions.

How ironic it is, that it is the cruel actions of these protesters and their refusal to be jabbed that is cause of the longevity of these restrictions.
We could have had these freedoms many months ago had they had seen the sense in having the jabs from the outset of the arrival of the vaccination.
 
redblood said:
Here in Australia, the State governments have been pleading with the people to get vaccinated.
They have been saying for months now that borders within the country, will not be opened and freedoms will not be lifted until
they reach a certain percentage of fully vaccinated.
They've recently suggested that it will only be the fully vaccinated that will benefit from such things as travel, freedom of movement
and to be able to regain some sort of normality.

But, as per usual, thousands upon thousand are gathering in protest and pointing the finger at the governments and telling them how
cruel they are and that many are suffering because of their actions.

How ironic it is, that it is the cruel actions of these protesters and their refusal to be jabbed that is cause of the longevity of these restrictions.
We could have had these freedoms many months ago had they had seen the sense in having the jabs from the outset of the arrival of the vaccination.
Click to expand...
Like I keep saying, they're their own worst enemy, and don't even realise it.
 
Ted_DN38416 said:
If youre going to have opinions that promote the dubious and misguided segregation of society. Close enough isnt going to cut it.
Click to expand...
I was only on about my understanding of the word bombastic - it's not like I'm an English A level student.
All I think is more people vaccinated can only be a positive thing.
 
NYboro said:
What's dubious and misguided about it? If people choose to segregate themselves, you can hardly blame the others.
Click to expand...
The very topic of discussion is dubious and misguided. Lock down one set of people that havent been vaccinated even though those who have been still get it? That is a dubious and misguided approach. Vaccines been out for what 18 months and in that time you need two jabs plus a booster because their efficacy doesnt last. Isnt that more of a cause for concern? I.e people are focussing their fears on people or supposed sections of society and no longer asking fair and reasonable questions about how to tackle the problem. You cant just keep jabbing people indefinitely but thats how some on this thread would seemingly like to live. I dont know why, maybe because they feel inferior or struggle to make their own decisions and this gives them an opportunity to feel superior
 
borgelite said:
I was only on about my understanding of the word bombastic - it's not like I'm an English A level student.
All I think is more people vaccinated can only be a positive thing.
Click to expand...
So youve demonstrated you dont understand the meaning of a word and then used its partial meaning as part of your argument? So by definition, youre totally confused and misguided. If thats the case about the meaning of a word, could it be possible you're equally or even more confused about other things?
 
Ted_DN38416 said:
The very topic of discussion is dubious and misguided. Lock down one set of people that havent been vaccinated even though those who have been still get it? That is a dubious and misguided approach. Vaccines been out for what 18 months and in that time you need two jabs plus a booster because their efficacy doesnt last. Isnt that more of a cause for concern? I.e people are focussing their fears on people or supposed sections of society and no longer asking fair and reasonable questions about how to tackle the problem. You cant just keep jabbing people indefinitely but thats how some on this thread would seemingly like to live. I dont know why, maybe because they feel inferior or struggle to make their own decisions and this gives them an opportunity to feel superior
Click to expand...
People are making their own decisions and it is scientifically proven that vaccinations give a large level of protection, so an obvious choice and decision, unfortunately we have not arrived at anything other than the periodic jabs for now.
 
Laughing said:
The simple point he is making is that locking people up when no crime has been committed is wrong. It's a simple concept and whilst I don't agree with it, it is unconstitutional in most countries and goes against our basic principles of justice.
Click to expand...
Who was locked up ? There was just simple rules to follow and some halfwits couldn't even do that
 
Andy_W said:
The world's birth rate has massively slowed in the last 50 years anyway, and is still slowing further in the developed world.

The UK is about 1.7 I think, so 1.7 kids per women and it takes two to tango. I think 2.1 maintains the current population to average life expectancy. Not sure how that stacks up with population forecasts mind, and whether they expect that low birth rate to continue.

I don't think stopping people having kids is the answer, and they will be needed to make amends for the fossil fuels already burned in the worlds quest for growth. They're also going have to look after all us old buggers, it's double crap for them!

Do you feel under control because you chose to have a vaccination? I certainly don't, I feel quite good about it, never mind reducing the risk to myself.

Do you think that future vaccinations wouldn't be a net benefit to public health? Actually that net benefit probably isn't good for climate change, but I don't think killing of the oldies is the answer either.
Click to expand...
I took the vaccine out of choice not because I was forced too.

Once we go down the slippery path of leaders deciding what happens with our bodies then what stops them implementing other medical measures?
 
the_holgate_roof said:
People are making their own decisions and it is scientifically proven that vaccinations give a large level of protection, so an obvious choice and decision, unfortunately we have not arrived at anything other than the periodic jabs for now.
Click to expand...
Mmm... ok. So a certain level of protection for a limited period of time. Sounds more like theres a limited understanding of the problem to me
 
Randy said:
I took the vaccine out of choice not because I was forced too.

Once we go down the slippery path of leaders deciding what happens with our bodies then what stops them implementing other medical measures?
Click to expand...
I don’t think anyone is forcing people, it is more to do with protecting the NHS and one way would be to restrict some social contacts to the most vulnerable ie the unvaccinated, to reduce the number getting seriously ill and in need of hospital support.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top