Coronavirus

[saintnextlifetime]

[saintnextlifetime]

2 hours ago, Doakes said:

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

Of course , that is before we get to  amount of laws forcing someone to get "vaccinated* violates .

[Doakes]

47 minutes ago, Slarti said:

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 f**kwits 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.

I’m glad you brought this up.

Would it be safe to agree that the term for this would usually be “collectivism”? Prioritising the needs of society over the self?

I get that, and I’d agree that there’s a place for it. 

However, would urge you read this book by Klaus Schwab, (Founder of the World Economic Forum)

“Stakeholder Capitalism, a global economy that works for progress, people and the planet”

It’s the theory that companies/governments should be accountable to stakeholders, rather than shareholders. So the emphasis is on “society”, rather than profit. A merging of corporation and state. Those at the top will be able to engineer society based upon their vision for the world. People have been talking about a New World Order for years, being a conspiracy theory, but it’s rapidly becoming our reality. 

Schwab makes the point that people should strive to be “global citizens”. Using vaccination as the example: if you don’t accept the latest regular booster jab, you’re not a global citizen and you’ll lose your rights and privileges. There’s a few books on it, “The Great Reset” and “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”.

IMO, it’s leading us down a path where any resistance to the acceptable global view will be hastily clamped down upon. A bit like a modern form of communism.

Some might like the concept, but it’s certainly not like our old version of normality. 

 

Edited July 21 by Doakes

[ALBIONSAINT]

2 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

Of course , that is before we get to  amount of laws forcing someone to get "vaccinated* violates .

It’s not often I agree with you but this time I do. It’s the thin edge of the wedge once you start ordering people to be vaccinated! ( just to be clear I am very much an advocate of vaccinations and have had many through out my life) however when the state takes control of individuals rights around there health you have to ask where it stops? 
enforced contraception? enforced diets for the type 2 diabetes? enforced exercise for the obese? 
 

 

[saintnextlifetime]

[jaybee]

6 hours 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

Point taken: so how about we just lock them up for around 10 years; so we can check it out and meanwhile their lack of consideration for other older folk  (who apparently  haven't got long left anyway) is less likely to cause unnecessary fatalities among old farts like me and some others who have COPD and asthma and such like ............ or is their right of self determination over not taking a jab more important than other peoples lives.  Are we really not worth consideration?  

I started this as a slightly sarcastic response without wishing to engender a huge and protracted debate on the rights and wrongs of self determination, however given that it really does impact me personally; the latter question is a genuine one.  I have heard that there may be  a time when whether or not you have had appropriate jabs will determine access to ................. work, large gatherings ie; football matches, weddings, flights, it's a huge can of worms methinks.

[ALBIONSAINT]

What about this for an idea to increase up take of the Covid vaccine in the under 30s , put it in free fillers! The demand would be huge.

[Slarti]

It’s not often I agree with you but this time I do. It’s the thin edge of the wedge once you start ordering people to be vaccinated! ( just to be clear I am very much an advocate of vaccinations and have had many through out my life) however when the state takes control of individuals rights around there health you have to ask where it stops? 
enforced contraception? enforced diets for the type 2 diabetes? enforced exercise for the obese? 
 
 

Nobody, on here at least, is advocating forced vaccination.

[Doakes]

16 minutes ago, jaybee said:

Point taken: so how about we just lock them up for around 10 years; so we can check it out and meanwhile their lack of consideration for other older folk  (who apparently  haven't got long left anyway) is less likely to cause unnecessary fatalities among old farts like me and some others who have COPD and asthma and such like ............ or is their right of self determination over not taking a jab more important than other peoples lives.  Are we really not worth consideration?  

I started this as a slightly sarcastic response without wishing to engender a huge and protracted debate on the rights and wrongs of self determination, however given that it really does impact me personally; the latter question is a genuine one.  I have heard that there may be  a time when whether or not you have had appropriate jabs will determine access to ................. work, large gatherings ie; football matches, weddings, flights, it's a huge can of worms methinks.

I don’t have a lack of consideration for older folk. I think that we should protect everyone if that is at all possible. It’s just a statistical fact that the older you are, the more likely you are to accept the vaccine. Been quite widely reported that the uptake has been very low in the youngest age categories. 
 

There is unrest coming if vaccines do become mandatory for someone to be permitted to work, so it’s probably the most important debate that exists at the moment.

[faraway saint]

7 hours ago, Slarti said:

8 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:

It’s not often I agree with you but this time I do. It’s the thin edge of the wedge once you start ordering people to be vaccinated! ( just to be clear I am very much an advocate of vaccinations and have had many through out my life) however when the state takes control of individuals rights around there health you have to ask where it stops? 
enforced contraception? enforced diets for the type 2 diabetes? enforced exercise for the obese? 
 
 

Nobody, on here at least, is advocating forced vaccination.

Indeed, it's a well used approach.

Try to take things to an unlikely extreme to attempt to prove/disprove a point, Oaky does it on a regular basis.

The most important issue here is people's health.

As for mandatory vaccinations to allow people to work, surgeons, for starters, already fall into this category with the hepatitis B jag, it's not new and, IMO, secondary to the effects of not having it.

 

 

[Doakes]

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Indeed, it's a well used approach.

Try to take things to an unlikely extreme to attempt to prove/disprove a point, Oaky does it on a regular basis.

The most important issue here is people's health.

As for mandatory vaccinations to allow people to work, surgeons, for starters, already fall into this category with the hepatitis B jag, it's not new and, IMO, secondary to the effects of not having it.

 

 

So lets concede that you are right and the vaccine MRNA technology is working as it should be. 3 years from now. Bob is scheduled in for booster jab number 5, his work has a policy of mandatory vaccination. He doesn’t really care about going to the pub and international travel is a thing of the past. He decides he’s had enough, has been feeling a lot of side effects and just doesn’t see the benefit as the previous 4 jabs still haven’t erradicated Covid, he has caught the virus twice despite being up to date with his vaccines, but the science claims that it does reduce the chance of people dying from the latest variant. Should Bob be forced into having the latest booster jab? What happens if he doesn’t? Should he lose his job? 

[faraway saint]

3 minutes ago, Doakes said:

So lets concede that you are right and the vaccine MRNA technology is working as it should be. 3 years from now. Bob is scheduled in for booster jab number 5, his work has a policy of mandatory vaccination. He doesn’t really care about going to the pub and international travel is a thing of the past. He decides he’s had enough, has been feeling a lot of side effects and just doesn’t see the benefit as the previous 4 jabs still haven’t erradicated Covid, he has caught the virus twice despite being up to date with his vaccines, but the science claims that it does reduce the chance of people dying from the latest variant. Should Bob be forced into having the latest booster jab? What happens if he doesn’t? Should he lose his job? 

Nice story.

Try to take things to an unlikely extreme to attempt to prove/disprove a point, Oaky does it on a regular basis.

[Doakes]

3 minutes ago, faraway saint said:

Nice story.

Try to take things to an unlikely extreme to attempt to prove/disprove a point, Oaky does it on a regular basis.

It’s literally how the technology works. If you imagine antivirus software on a PC, you download updates to protect your PC against the latest viruses. 

MRNA technology is designed to allow booster jabs, to protect against the latest variant. My understanding is that in layman’s terms, it gives instructions for your cells to make a spike protein, capable of fighting the latest variant 

 

So should Bob lose his job if he doesn’t accept the latest booster? Think of it as a moral dilemma… 

[FTOF]

It's quite ironic that we're discussing the younger generation refusing "untested" vaccinations, because of potential health concerns or otherwise. Seems there is a sizeable proportion of them choosing to receive injections all sorts of dodgy chemicals, including one of the most toxic substances known in nature, into their bodies.

BBC News - Non-surgical beauty treatment industry like Wild West - MPs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57895186

[faraway saint]

1 hour ago, FTOF said:

It's quite ironic that we're discussing the younger generation refusing "untested" vaccinations, because of potential health concerns or otherwise. Seems there is a sizeable proportion of them choosing to receive injections all sorts of dodgy chemicals, including one of the most toxic substances known in nature, into their bodies.

BBC News - Non-surgical beauty treatment industry like Wild West - MPs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57895186
 

Indeed, I'd wager this decision not to have the vaccination is nothing to do with the science or some vague moral stance, much more likely a "can't be arsed as I'll PROBABLY be ok anyway" reason. 

[faraway saint]

The amount of people having to isolate, unnecessarily IMO, is causing havoc in many business's.

There has to be a faster response to the changing situation, surely if people have been double vaccinated and can prove a negative test they shouldn't need to isolate?

Starting to see the now famous pictures of empty shelves in supermarkets, you know who will be glad he bought 3,000 toilet rolls last March. 

 

[Slarti]

The amount of people having to isolate, unnecessarily IMO, is causing havoc in many business's.
There has to be a faster response to the changing situation, surely if people have been double vaccinated and can prove a negative test they shouldn't need to isolate?
Starting to see the now famous pictures of empty shelves in supermarkets, you know who will be glad he bought 3,000 toilet rolls last March. 
 

He'd used them by April.

[saintnextlifetime]

13 hours ago, FTOF said:

It's quite ironic that we're discussing the younger generation refusing "untested" vaccinations, because of potential health concerns or otherwise. Seems there is a sizeable proportion of them choosing to receive injections all sorts of dodgy chemicals, including one of the most toxic substances known in nature, into their bodies.

BBC News - Non-surgical beauty treatment industry like Wild West - MPs
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-57895186
 

Saw an interesting survey done the other day that said 34% of people in the UK trust the BBC . .

 

 

 

 

 

. .of course , if we extrapolate that result , it would mean that 66% of the UK population do not trust the BBC . .

 

 

. .then again if we extrapolate that result a wee bit more , two thirds of the UK population think the national broadcaster are lying baisturts. .

 

We also learned not that long ago what the BBC condone happening to young people , on their very premises even.

[faraway saint]

10 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

Saw an interesting survey done the other day that said 34% of people in the UK trust the BBC . .

 

 

 

 

 

. .of course , if we extrapolate that result , it would mean that 66% of the UK population do not trust the BBC . .

 

 

. .then again if we extrapolate that result a wee bit more , two thirds of the UK population think the national broadcaster are lying baisturts. .

 

We also learned not that long ago what the BBC condone happening to young people , on their very premises even.

FFS, you're lower than a snakes belly. 

[FTOF]

 

24 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

Saw an interesting survey done the other day that said 34% of people in the UK trust the BBC . .

Did ye aye?

Was that before of after the unicorn flew by your window?

Edited July 22 by FTOF

[Slarti]

Saw an interesting survey done the other day that said 34% of people in the UK trust the BBC . .
 
 
 
 
 
. .of course , if we extrapolate that result , it would mean that 66% of the UK population do not trust the BBC . .
 
 
. .then again if we extrapolate that result a wee bit more , two thirds of the UK population think the national broadcaster are lying baisturts. .
 
We also learned not that long ago what the BBC condone happening to young people , on their very premises even.

From just the info you provided, it really doesn't automatically mean that 66% don't trust it though, does it? Was there a "don't know" option, for example? Or was there an option to not answer the question? It really depends on what the actual question was, the choice of answers and whether an answer was compulsory, among other things.

[RichardBuddie]

He'd used them by April.

Aye, to wipe his mouth!!

[Slarti]

Aye, to wipe his mouth!!

Or maybe he used them to clean up his graph.

[Cookie Monster]

Or maybe he used them to clean up his graph.

Or to fill in the mask holes.

[faraway saint]

10 hours ago, saintnextlifetime said:

Saw an interesting survey done the other day that said 34% of people in the UK trust the BBC . .

 

 

 

 

 

. .of course , if we extrapolate that result , it would mean that 66% of the UK population do not trust the BBC . .

 

 

. .then again if we extrapolate that result a wee bit more , two thirds of the UK population think the national broadcaster are lying baisturts. .

 

We also learned not that long ago what the BBC condone happening to young people , on their very premises even.

Were you on BBC breakfast earlier?

They interviewed an under 30 year old who, and he was 100% serious, said he wouldn't take the vaccination as it could track your movements and see your bank account. 😆😆😆

A serious contender for being sectioned I would suggest.

There was also a young female with asthma who wouldn't take the vaccination as she'd heard it could be bad for her condition. 

I despair.