Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint
 Share

Recommended Posts


Does this mean we can compliment women on their appearance with this lovely jubbly weather without getting scolded?

Indeed - I was in the city centre (Glasgow) on Saturday - imagine the melt down had I commented on Saturday night about all the talent!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, RichardBuddie said:


Indeed - I was in the city centre (Glasgow) on Saturday - imagine the melt down had I commented on Saturday night about all the talent!!

Ditto with me in Edinburgh over the weekend, it was a like a Miss World competition in the outdoor bars I was sitting in. :zipit

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I heard on the radio on the way home that an astonishing 55% of under 30's in Dundee have failed to turn up for their vaccination.

Other "major cities" are around 40%. 

Have I mentioned these "people" are fcukwits? 

If I needed any vindication making a polite request to the young chap on the train on Friday, this is it. 

Edited by faraway saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, faraway saint said:

I heard on the radio on the way home that an astonishing 55% of under 30's in Dundee have failed to turn up for their vaccination.

Other "major cities" are around 40%. 

Have I mentioned these "people" are fcukwits? 

If I needed any vindication making a polite request to the young chap on the train on Friday, this is it. 

How many of that 40-55% asked for the appointment? The appointments are dished out by the NHS

A high percentage of people failing to turn up for an appointment that they requested would be a different story

The rate of people who have been double jabbed but testing positive is increasing

If you are under 30 and unvaccinated, you have a 99.7%+ rate of survival

I'm not anti-vaccine, but some people will still be weighing it up. It's a medical decision, that doesn't make them a fcukwit :) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Doakes said:

How many of that 40-55% asked for the appointment? The appointments are dished out by the NHS

A high percentage of people failing to turn up for an appointment that they requested would be a different story

The rate of people who have been double jabbed but testing positive is increasing

If you are under 30 and unvaccinated, you have a 99.7%+ rate of survival

I'm not anti-vaccine, but some people will still be weighing it up. It's a medical decision, that doesn't make them a fcukwit :) 

A brammer of an attempt at an excuse. 😆

Amazingly all other age groups have managed to attend. 

While these people who are weighing up this difficult decision that could catch it and  get very ill or worse, that's not forgetting easily spreading it to others. I'm alright Jack? 🙄

Fcukwits. 

Edited by faraway saint
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, faraway saint said:

A brammer of an attempt at an excuse. 😆

Amazingly all other age groups have managed to attend. 

While these people who are weighing up this difficult decision that could catch it and  get very ill or worse, that's not forgetting easily spreading it to others. 

Fcukwits. 

People in older age categories are more at risk - and to be blunt, have less time left on the planet (& less time for future complications to arise)

A lot of young people won't want to take the vaccine - the government know that - which is why we keep seeing small glimpses of a return to normality, before a hasty backtrack to justifying more and more restrictions and control measures

Don't get me wrong, I do think that governments will attempt to make it compulsory further down the line, but I strongly disagree with mandatory vaccinations. It's a bit like giving everyone in the world a peanut and forcing them to eat it. We know that many people will be fine with eating it, but some will react badly to it.

For under 30's, the risk doesn't match the reward based on the current figures. I question the principles of anyone who believes in medical decisions being made compulsory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Doakes said:

If you are under 30 and unvaccinated, you have a 99.7%+ rate of survival

What a fecking attitude that is, how many of those under 30 have parents and grandparents who could be put at risk by them not having the vaccine? Yes being double jabbed lessens the impact of covid on those older than 30 however it does not remove the risk especially when you add in other complications like those with COPD or asthma etc

You are getting the vaccine as much for others as for yourself just like mask wearing, it doesnt really protect you but protects others.

Unfortunately many in the UK and worldwide only think of themselves and not society 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Swiss_Saint said:

What a fecking attitude that is, how many of those under 30 have parents and grandparents who could be put at risk by them not having the vaccine? Yes being double jabbed lessens the impact of covid on those older than 30 however it does not remove the risk especially when you add in other complications like those with COPD or asthma etc

You are getting the vaccine as much for others as for yourself just like mask wearing, it doesnt really protect you but protects others.

Unfortunately many in the UK and worldwide only think of themselves and not society 

To Quote Boris

 

"If they are over 80 who cares "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Swiss_Saint said:

What a fecking attitude that is, how many of those under 30 have parents and grandparents who could be put at risk by them not having the vaccine? Yes being double jabbed lessens the impact of covid on those older than 30 however it does not remove the risk especially when you add in other complications like those with COPD or asthma etc

You are getting the vaccine as much for others as for yourself just like mask wearing, it doesnt really protect you but protects others.

Unfortunately many in the UK and worldwide only think of themselves and not society 

While the vaccine is still at the experimental stage, it's a huge risk to vaccinate an entire population. 

Flipping it round, what happens if we find out 10 years from now that fertility rates have decreased by 90%? 

While the vaccine is relatively untested - and hasn't been around for long - it's important to leave a section of the population (preferably the ones youngest and least at risk) - unvaccinated - unless of course they are in a vulnerable category.

The inventor of the MRNA technology being used, was saying exactly this on his Twitter feed the other day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People in older age categories are more at risk - and to be blunt, have less time left on the planet (& less time for future complications to arise)
A lot of young people won't want to take the vaccine - the government know that - which is why we keep seeing small glimpses of a return to normality, before a hasty backtrack to justifying more and more restrictions and control measures
Don't get me wrong, I do think that governments will attempt to make it compulsory further down the line, but I strongly disagree with mandatory vaccinations. It's a bit like giving everyone in the world a peanut and forcing them to eat it. We know that many people will be fine with eating it, but some will react badly to it.
For under 30's, the risk doesn't match the reward based on the current figures. I question the principles of anyone who believes in medical decisions being made compulsory

But it's not solely a personal medical decision, it's also a societal decision. It's not on a par with, say, refusing cancer treatment as that isn't infectious and, for a similar reason, your peanut "analogy" isn't really analogous.

As for older people, using your logic they shouldn't be caring about the environment, caring for others etc, etc as it won't affect them as they'll soon be gone.

We also don't yet understand the effects of long covid so that could be a ticking time bomb for those younger people who recover from the initial infection. Will the vaccine cause "things" later in life? Who knows? But unless you are willing to live in lockdown for 10/20/30 years, we don't have the time to find out, all we can do is deal with the here and now.

I don't think it should be compulsory but those who refuse it shouldn't expect to have the same "freedoms" as everyone else as they are a potential health risk to others, especially to those who can't get the vaccine for medical reasons.

In short, this is not really just a personal medical decision.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Doakes said:

While the vaccine is relatively untested - and hasn't been around for long - it's important to leave a section of the population (preferably the ones youngest and least at risk) - unvaccinated

Yes it's a new vaccine but it's not new process this is one of the biggest bullshits being spread by anti vaxxers (not saying you are one) they were able to roll out the vaccine more quickly as they relied on proven techniques used on other viruses. It's like the whole 5g tinfoil hat argument it's new so it must be dangerous, nope it's just applying proven technology and advancing it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Slarti said:


But it's not solely a personal medical decision, it's also a societal decision. It's not on a par with, say, refusing cancer treatment as that isn't infectious and, for a similar reason, your peanut "analogy" isn't really analogous.

As for older people, using your logic they shouldn't be caring about the environment, caring for others etc, etc as it won't affect them as they'll soon be gone.

We also don't yet understand the effects of long covid so that could be a ticking time bomb for those younger people who recover from the initial infection. Will the vaccine cause "things" later in life? Who knows? But unless you are willing to live in lockdown for 10/20/30 years, we don't have the time to find out, all we can do is deal with the here and now.

I don't think it should be compulsory but those who refuse it shouldn't expect to have the same "freedoms" as everyone else as they are a potential health risk to others, especially to those who can't get the vaccine for medical reasons.

In short, this is not really just a personal medical decision.

The real question here is whether the government has the right to forcibly stick a needle into someone's arm and inject them? 

Regarding the line in bold. How far are we prepared to go?

What happens if someone declines the injection until they are blue in the face. Should they be kept away from society? Moved into prison camps? 

Right now it's all quite cuddly and the government are trying to tempt people into taking the jab - but that approach only works for so long. Some people will outright refuse the vaccine - regardless of incentive or punishment

Moving towards some black mirror type shit

No one will ever convince me that a government should be given that power, over individual choice. As I have said - I'm not against vaccination in general, but while the MRNA technology is still at experimental stage, people should have the right to say no.

Edited by Doakes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Doakes said:

The real question here is whether the government has the right to forcibly stick a needle into someone's arm and inject them? 

Regarding the line in bold. How far are we prepared to go?

What happens if someone declines the injection until they are blue in the face. Should they be kept away from society? Moved into prison camps? 

Right now it's all quite cuddly and the government are trying to tempt people into taking the jab - but that approach only works for so long. Some people will outright refuse the vaccine - regardless of incentive or punishment

Moving towards some black mirror type shit

No one will ever convince me that a government should be given that power, over individual choice. As I have said - I'm not against vaccination in general, but while the MRNA technology is still at experimental stage, people should have the right to say no.

I don't agree with compulsory vaccinations but I do agree with restrictions to protect the progress made and other people. If people do not want the vaccine for reasons other than medical then fine, personal choice but it can't be consequence free (at least for the time being). If the restrictions include event entry, foreign travel or even working in certain industries for a period of time, so be it. 

The ugly truth as well is, some of this will be out of our own hands. If other countries decide to tell people traveling to jog on unless fully vaccinated, there isn't much we can do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The government should not be able to stick a needle in anyone's arm however the government should be allowed to restrict their activities somewhat i.e. if you travel back from an amber list country you have to isolate for 10 days unless double jabbed etc.

 

If you decide not to get a jab then you make the choice to accept those restrictions, rough with the smooth and all that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doakes said:

While the vaccine is still at the experimental stage, it's a huge risk to vaccinate an entire population. 

Flipping it round, what happens if we find out 10 years from now that fertility rates have decreased by 90%? 

While the vaccine is relatively untested - and hasn't been around for long - it's important to leave a section of the population (preferably the ones youngest and least at risk) - unvaccinated - unless of course they are in a vulnerable category.

The inventor of the MRNA technology being used, was saying exactly this on his Twitter feed the other day

:lol:

Ok, to flip it round, we don't bother vaccinating and thousands DIE, you do know that's what's been happening?

The continued, unnecessary, pressure on the NHS will continue, people will DIE, you do know that, right?

Aye, let the vaccinated have a free life, the other's, put up or shut up with restrictions as I'd rather not travel on a plane or be stuck inside with someone who's, for no real reason, taken their appointed vaccination.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question here is whether the government has the right to forcibly stick a needle into someone's arm and inject them? 
Regarding the line in bold. How far are we prepared to go?
What happens if someone declines the injection until they are blue in the face. Should they be kept away from society? Moved into prison camps? 
Right now it's all quite cuddly and the government are trying to tempt people into taking the jab - but that approach only works for so long. Some people will outright refuse the vaccine - regardless of incentive or punishment
Moving towards some black mirror type shit
No one will ever convince me that a government should be given that power, over individual choice. As I have said - I'm not against vaccination in general, but while the MRNA technology is still at experimental stage, people should have the right to say no.
Should start with pubs and clubs, live music events and anything else that the younger generation are big on. If you have to prove you are vaccinated to get get a pint there will be longer queues at vaccination centres than at the bar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

I don't agree with compulsory vaccinations but I do agree with restrictions to protect the progress made and other people. If people do not want the vaccine for reasons other than medical then fine, personal choice but it can't be consequence free (at least for the time being). If the restrictions include event entry, foreign travel or even working in certain industries for a period of time, so be it. 

The ugly truth as well is, some of this will be out of our own hands. If other countries decide to tell people traveling to jog on unless fully vaccinated, there isn't much we can do. 

 

1 hour ago, Swiss_Saint said:

The government should not be able to stick a needle in anyone's arm however the government should be allowed to restrict their activities somewhat i.e. if you travel back from an amber list country you have to isolate for 10 days unless double jabbed etc.

 

If you decide not to get a jab then you make the choice to accept those restrictions, rough with the smooth and all that

The restrictions I can understand, in order to protect the NHS. I do believe that at some point, we need to open up fully. The governments half in, half out policy really hasn't done us any favours. For me, being an island nation, we either had to go full New Zealand - or fully commit to seeking herd immunity. So many mistakes made, been quite embarrassing to watch. 

Really don't agree with creating a heavily restricted underclass of people who refuse to be vaccinated. We are going to hit a point (fairly soon, from what I can tell) where enough people are vaccinated to allow a return to something like normality. People are going to continue to get sick to some extent - a high percentage of positive cases have been double jabbed so that trend would suggest jabs 3, 4, 5. 6... won't completely remove the risk either. 

This MRNA technology is designed to allow booster jabs dependent on new strains, which people will be expected to take whenever it is mandated by the government (or more accurately, by the scientists advising them)

The appetite for booster jabs will likely fall off if people don't see the benefit. The government will be in an awkward position if there's still people kicking around in a few years time who refuse to commit to MRNA vaccines - that's why I reckon it will become compulsory further down the line, which sounds a bit too fascist for my liking. 

 

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Ok, to flip it round, we don't bother vaccinating and thousands DIE, you do know that's what's been happening?

The continued, unnecessary, pressure on the NHS will continue, people will DIE, you do know that, right?

Aye, let the vaccinated have a free life, the other's, put up or shut up with restrictions as I'd rather not travel on a plane or be stuck inside with someone who's, for no real reason, taken their appointed vaccination.

I guess it'll be down to company to decide who's money they want to accept. If you want to travel with other vaccinated travellers, certain companies will likely specialise in providing that service if there's a demand for it. That's how capitalism works, unless you desire an alternative system...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it'll be down to company to decide who's money they want to accept. If you want to travel with other vaccinated travellers, certain companies will likely specialise in providing that service if there's a demand for it. That's how capitalism works, unless you desire an alternative system...
It wouldn't be an underclass, it would be their choice. They wouldn't be getting forced to do anything, they would just be getting told there are certain things that they can't do. What if someone chooses not to take a driving test? Is it infringing on their rights to forbid them to drive? No, it's a safety issue. Every choice we make in life has consequences, big or small, and choosing not to help protect others that are more vulnerable, at no cost and with very little risk, is no different. Smelly folk in pubs get shunned and, I would imagine, their smelliest is less "dangerous" than the unvaccinated.
---
Or maybe, since the majority would be vaccinated, it would be the unvaccinated who would have to travel on specially arranged flights, and probably at a higher cost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Doakes said:

 

The restrictions I can understand, in order to protect the NHS. I do believe that at some point, we need to open up fully. The governments half in, half out policy really hasn't done us any favours. For me, being an island nation, we either had to go full New Zealand - or fully commit to seeking herd immunity. So many mistakes made, been quite embarrassing to watch. 

Really don't agree with creating a heavily restricted underclass of people who refuse to be vaccinated. We are going to hit a point (fairly soon, from what I can tell) where enough people are vaccinated to allow a return to something like normality. People are going to continue to get sick to some extent - a high percentage of positive cases have been double jabbed so that trend would suggest jabs 3, 4, 5. 6... won't completely remove the risk either. 

This MRNA technology is designed to allow booster jabs dependent on new strains, which people will be expected to take whenever it is mandated by the government (or more accurately, by the scientists advising them)

The appetite for booster jabs will likely fall off if people don't see the benefit. The government will be in an awkward position if there's still people kicking around in a few years time who refuse to commit to MRNA vaccines - that's why I reckon it will become compulsory further down the line, which sounds a bit too fascist for my liking. 

 

I guess it'll be down to company to decide who's money they want to accept. If you want to travel with other vaccinated travellers, certain companies will likely specialise in providing that service if there's a demand for it. That's how capitalism works, unless you desire an alternative system...

What is this "high percentage"?

Even if it is "high" the following should just about convince most people what the benefits are.......

  • COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 disease, especially severe illness and death.
  • COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of people spreading the virus that causes COVID-19.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Slarti said:

It wouldn't be an underclass, it would be their choice. They wouldn't be getting forced to do anything, they would just be getting told there are certain things that they can't do. What if someone chooses not to take a driving test? Is it infringing on their rights to forbid them to drive? No, it's a safety issue. Every choice we make in life has consequences, big or small, and choosing not to help protect others that are more vulnerable, at no cost and with very little risk, is no different. Smelly folk in pubs get shunned and, I would imagine, their smelliest is less "dangerous" than the unvaccinated.
---
Or maybe, since the majority would be vaccinated, it would be the unvaccinated who would have to travel on specially arranged flights, and probably at a higher cost.

Ok. Lets concede that unvaccinated individuals should be banned from travel and leisure, such as pubs, restaurants, shopping centres and entertainment venues until they are fully vaccinated.

3 years from now. We’re up to booster jab 5, there’s still positive cases and sporadic outbreaks.

Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca etc. all have a financial interest in creating more and more booster jabs. People will become weary of booster jabs and their side effects, the numbers will start to drop off. Some will still be resisting the initial vaccine. 

Do you get a certain amount of time to take the latest booster before you are also restricted from travel and leisure?

At what point do we say enough? The companies making the vaccines certainly won’t want it to end, and neither will their stakeholders who tend to be in positions of power

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Lets concede that unvaccinated individuals should be banned from travel and leisure, such as pubs, restaurants, shopping centres and entertainment venues until they are fully vaccinated.
3 years from now. We’re up to booster jab 5, there’s still positive cases and sporadic outbreaks.
Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca etc. all have a financial interest in creating more and more booster jabs. People will become weary of booster jabs and their side effects, the numbers will start to drop off. Some will still be resisting the initial vaccine. 
Do you get a certain amount of time to take the latest booster before you are also restricted from travel and leisure?
At what point do we say enough? The companies making the vaccines certainly won’t want it to end, and neither will their stakeholders who tend to be in positions of power
What I was really doing was saying that I'm almost 100% sure that most of these young people who are refusing the vaccine would be quick enough to queue for it if not getting it prevented them from doing what they like doing. In other words, I don't believe that most aren't getting it because of a personal medical choice, it's because they think they're "invincible" or rebels or some other ridiculous reason. Or maybe, as faraway put it, they're just fuckwits who only care about themselves.

I'm all for personal choice but it comes with personal responsibility and part of that responsibility is to, if possible, reduce risk to everyone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...