FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to Virus

Covid Vaccination

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

No explanation or argument for or against the vaccine ...

Just a simple yes or no to if you would choose to have it should they offer it to you tomorrow

Go!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *litterbabeWoman
over a year ago

hiding from cock pics.

No (thank you)

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *edVelveteenCouple
over a year ago

Heaven in the Midlands

Yes.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Absolutely yes. The only solution.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No thanks to the final solution.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ophieslutTV/TS
over a year ago

Central

Subject to the right research evidence for safety and efficacy

Yes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *asmeenTV/TS
over a year ago

STOKE ON TRENT

Yes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ishygirlWoman
over a year ago

Cheshire

Not for me. Can’t help feeling Covid has been exaggerated somewhat.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Subject to the right research evidence for safety and efficacy

Yes"

Yes this

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *sianMancMan
over a year ago

Manchester

100% YES!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hrista BellendWoman
over a year ago

surrounded by twinkly lights

In this immediate time No thank you

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Tens of thousands of people dying exaggerated??

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Absolutely yes. The only solution."

Lol this guy.

Absolutely not.

Its not even a solution.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Subject to the right research evidence for safety and efficacy

Yes"

Same

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ldhillhotwifeCouple
over a year ago

Old Hill

Yes.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Out of curiosity though.

All the people saying yes if a vaccine came and goverments said that they have to mandate it so everyone has to have it.

Would you be standing side by side for the peoples rights not to have it if they choose not to?

I respect anyones personal choice if they want to have it as its their life.

I hope the people saying yes will have the same respect to those that choose not to have it and if it was ever to be mandatory that both yes and no groups would stand together as one against such a thing.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes and dont understand anti vaccines.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ucianpoundCouple
over a year ago

Cap d’Agde, France

[Removed by poster at 14/08/20 07:25:06]

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ucianpoundCouple
over a year ago

Cap d’Agde, France

Absolutely not

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *esires of HertsCouple
over a year ago

Herts and London Borders

YES

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Nope

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ob198XaMan
over a year ago

teleford

Yes. Anti vac folk have a screw loose.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ostafunMan
over a year ago

near ipswich

yes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *lik and PaulCouple
over a year ago

Flagrante

Yes from both of us

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heIcebreakersCouple
over a year ago

Cramlington


"Out of curiosity though.

All the people saying yes if a vaccine came and goverments said that they have to mandate it so everyone has to have it.

Would you be standing side by side for the peoples rights not to have it if they choose not to?

I respect anyones personal choice if they want to have it as its their life.

I hope the people saying yes will have the same respect to those that choose not to have it and if it was ever to be mandatory that both yes and no groups would stand together as one against such a thing."
What right to refuse? It has always been a principle of public health law that compulsion is the last resort, but a permissible intervention, whether that's in the form of detention to prevent infection or compulsory treatment.

A lot of people who talk about rights, without mentioning that some rights are qualified rights probably haven't read all the debates around the passage of the Water Acy in the early noughties. They probably should.

And that's before we get onto the more complex argument about whether a blind adherence to opposition to vaccines, irrespective of the evidence, is prima facie evidence of a lack of capacity to refuse.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *wisted999Man
over a year ago

North Bucks

Yes.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes yes yes. I have a flu jab every year.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes yes yes. I have a flu jab every year anyway so quite comfortable with vaccinations anyway

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes. We need 80% to have the vaccine for it to be effective. I was on the vaccine trial(non paid) but took off it due to other health issues

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *estivalMan
over a year ago

borehamwood

not straight away no.prob a year down the line i would let everyone else be test subjects first.and i should imagine if they do come up with a vaccine it will be the at risk getting it first.if your fit and healthy you would be at the bsck of the line anyway

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ljamMan
over a year ago

Edinburgh


"Out of curiosity though.

All the people saying yes if a vaccine came and goverments said that they have to mandate it so everyone has to have it.

Would you be standing side by side for the peoples rights not to have it if they choose not to?

I respect anyones personal choice if they want to have it as its their life.

I hope the people saying yes will have the same respect to those that choose not to have it and if it was ever to be mandatory that both yes and no groups would stand together as one against such a thing."

Nope. I won't have any respect for the decision of those anti-science conspiracy theorists who refuse the vaccine. Their choice not only affects themselves but society as a whole. Bluntly put, it is an extremely selfish choice. It would lead to the virus having a greater impact on others than it would if everyone accepted vaccination. That is, more deaths.

To the original question, yes to a properly researched and tested vaccine.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No....

not because i take an anti-vax position...i'm pro-safe medication. Also epstien's mate bill gates has called for indemnification (spelling not sure) for vaccine producers....meaning they can't be sued if bad side effects cause problems for recipients ....

so at the moment...NO

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London

Yep, absolutely.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *hetalkingstoveMan
over a year ago

London


"Out of curiosity though.

All the people saying yes if a vaccine came and goverments said that they have to mandate it so everyone has to have it.

Would you be standing side by side for the peoples rights not to have it if they choose not to?

I respect anyones personal choice if they want to have it as its their life.

I hope the people saying yes will have the same respect to those that choose not to have it and if it was ever to be mandatory that both yes and no groups would stand together as one against such a thing."

If people start being grabbed from their homes and restrained and vaccinated, I would be against that.

There is no chance that will happen though.

If people who refuse a vaccine without a medical reason get fined? I'd be fine with that.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No....

not because i take an anti-vax position...i'm pro-safe medication. Also epstien's mate bill gates has called for indemnification (spelling not sure) for vaccine producers....meaning they can't be sued if bad side effects cause problems for recipients ....

so at the moment...NO"

Oh dear. Then those people who who refuse the vax, should they be allowed to use a ventilator? I hope not.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Maybe.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?"

Apart from those who can't have it for medical reasons. However not everyone will need to have it to achieve herd immunity. I read somewhere it could be as low as 60%

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?"

The medically vulnerable who can't have it are put at risk by anti vaxxers.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago

Dudley


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?"

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

The medically vulnerable who can't have it are put at risk by anti vaxxers."

Well I'm healthy and fit with a healthy immune system as are millions of others and if contracting covid may not even know it or nothing worse than a cold.

So do us healthy people have to put ourselfs at risk and take a rushed through unproven vaccine unknown wether it will be safe with no side effects in a year or 2 down the line to protect people that probably been living on highly processed shit food and sugary drinks most of their lives and smoke??

I dont think so.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ersnickety PantsWoman
over a year ago

Club Meets Only

No I wouldnt

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish. "

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rsbrooksandjohnCouple
over a year ago

Swansea

Yes would have it . Can t force peolle to be vacinated but could make it very difficult . Ie no foreign travel not allowed into gov buildings. If you got it and refused vaccine then no sick pay etc. A little far fetchex or is it. I think no foreign travel would be a given as you would have to have something like a visa to prove you d been vacinated

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *assie-oCouple
over a year ago

Clacton on Sea

Hell yes!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

"

Oh you love a good generalisation don't you.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

Oh you love a good generalisation don't you."

Its true though i can gaurentee the people emptying the shelfs of everything wasnt the ones that are against all this face covering baloney. It was the ones that are shit scared of the virus because they sit and watch the news all day, the ones that are calling others selfish for not wanting to take a vaccine or wear a mask.

Yeah those was the ones scurrying around the shops stocking up, being selfish.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *edVelveteenCouple
over a year ago

Heaven in the Midlands


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

"

Aren't you just the hero then ?? We don't wear masks because we're terrified. We wear them cos they protect others, that's right! It protects other people, that's how unselfish we are! If masks or vaccines only protected that specific individual, then your choice is only your choice. But when your choice impacts on the health and safety of others, then get off your mightier than thou soapbox and consider your fellow mankind.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

Oh you love a good generalisation don't you.

Its true though i can gaurentee the people emptying the shelfs of everything wasnt the ones that are against all this face covering baloney. It was the ones that are shit scared of the virus because they sit and watch the news all day, the ones that are calling others selfish for not wanting to take a vaccine or wear a mask.

Yeah those was the ones scurrying around the shops stocking up, being selfish."
.

Unless you can prove that, which clearly you can't it's an opinion based on your bias, just like others opinions are based on their bias.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

The medically vulnerable who can't have it are put at risk by anti vaxxers."

Who said the medically vulnerable can't have the vaccine? With the flu shot it is very much targeted towards the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. They are the target group recommended to be vaccinated against Covid-19 also. If the medically vulnerable group are vaccinated and the ones who are pro-elective vaccination are vaccinated, then who are the anti vaxxers putting at risk?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

The medically vulnerable who can't have it are put at risk by anti vaxxers.

Who said the medically vulnerable can't have the vaccine? With the flu shot it is very much targeted towards the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. They are the target group recommended to be vaccinated against Covid-19 also. If the medically vulnerable group are vaccinated and the ones who are pro-elective vaccination are vaccinated, then who are the anti vaxxers putting at risk? "
other than themselves and eachother obviously.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

The medically vulnerable who can't have it are put at risk by anti vaxxers.

Who said the medically vulnerable can't have the vaccine? With the flu shot it is very much targeted towards the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. They are the target group recommended to be vaccinated against Covid-19 also. If the medically vulnerable group are vaccinated and the ones who are pro-elective vaccination are vaccinated, then who are the anti vaxxers putting at risk? "

The OP doesn't want an argument, just a yes or no.

Oh hang on

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *icecouple561Couple
Forum Mod
over a year ago

East Sussex

No, not yet.

Not because I think it's an evil plot to inject me with tiny people who will report back to Bill Gates though.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothman2000Man
over a year ago

Leicestershire


"Subject to the right research evidence for safety and efficacy

Yes"

^ This

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *elma and ShaggyCouple
over a year ago

Bedworth

No.

Because of my allergy to the flu vaccine (anaphylaxis needing paramedics) I would need to be sure that it would be safe for mr first before I would consider it. And even then, I would want to have it in an urgent care setting where I would have access to emergency care should I have a similar reaction again

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

The medically vulnerable who can't have it are put at risk by anti vaxxers.

Who said the medically vulnerable can't have the vaccine? With the flu shot it is very much targeted towards the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. They are the target group recommended to be vaccinated against Covid-19 also. If the medically vulnerable group are vaccinated and the ones who are pro-elective vaccination are vaccinated, then who are the anti vaxxers putting at risk?

The OP doesn't want an argument, just a yes or no.

Oh hang on "

Pmsl it's my post I can do what I like I had enough to be going on for my survey for Sydney university

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago

atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke

Yes.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *mmabluTV/TS
over a year ago

upton wirral

Yes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

The medically vulnerable who can't have it are put at risk by anti vaxxers.

Who said the medically vulnerable can't have the vaccine? With the flu shot it is very much targeted towards the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. They are the target group recommended to be vaccinated against Covid-19 also. If the medically vulnerable group are vaccinated and the ones who are pro-elective vaccination are vaccinated, then who are the anti vaxxers putting at risk? "

Let me restate.

There are people who will not be able to have the vaccine due to particular medical vulnerability.

I vaccinate myself in part to protect them.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

It's astonishing that "I donwanna get a needle because I don't understand medicine or regulatory processes, and I'll be fine so fuck you" has been rebranded as a brave, noble, informed choice.

Public health relies upon all of us doing our bit.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ty31Man
over a year ago

NW London

I wouldn't have it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It's astonishing that "I donwanna get a needle because I don't understand medicine or regulatory processes, and I'll be fine so fuck you" has been rebranded as a brave, noble, informed choice.

Public health relies upon all of us doing our bit."

I don't think it's been rebranded as brave or noble though, most people as above are against anti vaxxers.

Is it not shaky ground though to become part of a society where choice is taken away from people and things be forced on people? How will they enforce it? Aren't we then infringing human rights?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No. I wouldnt have it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago

Dudley


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

"

1. I'm not terrified, I'm going out and getting on with life.

2. I didn't hoard anything.

3. I wear a mask in order to protect other people, not myself.

4. I've always given a shit about other people, unlike those people who refuse to wear a mask.

5. Masks are worn to protect other people, not ourselves.

Maybe, instead of pretending you know better than everyone else you should acknowledge the fact that while the virus might not be dangerous to you, it is deadly to some people and those are the ones we need to protect.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *estivalMan
over a year ago

borehamwood


"No....

not because i take an anti-vax position...i'm pro-safe medication. Also epstien's mate bill gates has called for indemnification (spelling not sure) for vaccine producers....meaning they can't be sued if bad side effects cause problems for recipients ....

so at the moment...NO

Oh dear. Then those people who who refuse the vax, should they be allowed to use a ventilator? I hope not. "

oh going down that route eh.in that case if you dont work and pay tax you shouldnt use the nhs then

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"It's astonishing that "I donwanna get a needle because I don't understand medicine or regulatory processes, and I'll be fine so fuck you" has been rebranded as a brave, noble, informed choice.

Public health relies upon all of us doing our bit.

I don't think it's been rebranded as brave or noble though, most people as above are against anti vaxxers.

Is it not shaky ground though to become part of a society where choice is taken away from people and things be forced on people? How will they enforce it? Aren't we then infringing human rights? "

Human rights have limits in all spheres. Public health has always been one of them.

Society is about rights and responsibilities. We can't get by if we don't all look after each other.

What about other people's rights to not be exposed to deadly pathogens?

In this case, vaccination is taking a (over population level) miniscule risk to protect yourself and those around you. The safety profile involved in vaccination approval is higher than other drugs because it's for mass use.

Skipping a vaccination because you'll probably be fine and there's a one in tens of thousands or millions chance that something bad will happen isn't brave, it's foolish. And irresponsible.

The safety profile for any vaccine will be much, much better than the disease. And you'll help protect others as well as yourself.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

"

Well said .. I see alot of people claming they do or will do these thing for the wellbeing of others when the truth is we all do these things for ourselves and those close to us, how many of the people saying yes to the vaccine helped out those who did not have during the panic buying, and by this I mean people you did not know, complete strangers to whom your are claiming that you will now become a test subject for.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No....

not because i take an anti-vax position...i'm pro-safe medication. Also epstien's mate bill gates has called for indemnification (spelling not sure) for vaccine producers....meaning they can't be sued if bad side effects cause problems for recipients ....

so at the moment...NO

Oh dear. Then those people who who refuse the vax, should they be allowed to use a ventilator? I hope not.

oh going down that route eh.in that case if you dont work and pay tax you shouldnt use the nhs then"

Or if you smoke and lead very unhealthy life styles you should be back of the queue to anyone that leads a healthy life style if needing any kind of operations.

Yeah i agree best not go down that route as most people on here would be fcked.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothman2000Man
over a year ago

Leicestershire


"

Not because I think it's an evil plot to inject me with tiny people who will report back to Bill Gates though."

We got medium people as well if that helps..?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"It's astonishing that "I donwanna get a needle because I don't understand medicine or regulatory processes, and I'll be fine so fuck you" has been rebranded as a brave, noble, informed choice.

Public health relies upon all of us doing our bit.

I don't think it's been rebranded as brave or noble though, most people as above are against anti vaxxers.

Is it not shaky ground though to become part of a society where choice is taken away from people and things be forced on people? How will they enforce it? Aren't we then infringing human rights?

Human rights have limits in all spheres. Public health has always been one of them.

Society is about rights and responsibilities. We can't get by if we don't all look after each other.

What about other people's rights to not be exposed to deadly pathogens?

In this case, vaccination is taking a (over population level) miniscule risk to protect yourself and those around you. The safety profile involved in vaccination approval is higher than other drugs because it's for mass use.

Skipping a vaccination because you'll probably be fine and there's a one in tens of thousands or millions chance that something bad will happen isn't brave, it's foolish. And irresponsible.

The safety profile for any vaccine will be much, much better than the disease. And you'll help protect others as well as yourself."

But other peoples rights to not be exposed won't be infringed because they are protected by the vaccine and masks? Not arguing or being confrontational here btw I am still forming my opinion on all this.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

The medically vulnerable who can't have it are put at risk by anti vaxxers.

Who said the medically vulnerable can't have the vaccine? With the flu shot it is very much targeted towards the elderly and those with underlying health conditions. They are the target group recommended to be vaccinated against Covid-19 also. If the medically vulnerable group are vaccinated and the ones who are pro-elective vaccination are vaccinated, then who are the anti vaxxers putting at risk?

The OP doesn't want an argument, just a yes or no.

Oh hang on "

This is fab forums antivaxers vs gullible-autocratical, OP as stated a war

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Absolutely YES.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"It's astonishing that "I donwanna get a needle because I don't understand medicine or regulatory processes, and I'll be fine so fuck you" has been rebranded as a brave, noble, informed choice.

Public health relies upon all of us doing our bit.

I don't think it's been rebranded as brave or noble though, most people as above are against anti vaxxers.

Is it not shaky ground though to become part of a society where choice is taken away from people and things be forced on people? How will they enforce it? Aren't we then infringing human rights?

Human rights have limits in all spheres. Public health has always been one of them.

Society is about rights and responsibilities. We can't get by if we don't all look after each other.

What about other people's rights to not be exposed to deadly pathogens?

In this case, vaccination is taking a (over population level) miniscule risk to protect yourself and those around you. The safety profile involved in vaccination approval is higher than other drugs because it's for mass use.

Skipping a vaccination because you'll probably be fine and there's a one in tens of thousands or millions chance that something bad will happen isn't brave, it's foolish. And irresponsible.

The safety profile for any vaccine will be much, much better than the disease. And you'll help protect others as well as yourself.

But other peoples rights to not be exposed won't be infringed because they are protected by the vaccine and masks? Not arguing or being confrontational here btw I am still forming my opinion on all this. "

Vaccines are not 100% effective. No medicine ever is. We require a certain level of uptake to get herd immunity, or a level at which a disease won't spread through a community. This depends on the R0 of a pathogen (SARS-COVID-2 about 2-3, measles 15-20), and the effectiveness of a vaccine. (In the US funding is being thrown at anything over 50%).

Vaccine effectiveness depends on our immune system, which wanes with age. And some vaccines mitigate, rather than prevent.

So I get vaccinated. I'm youngish, so I get good protection if the vaccine protects me. So I have a 1 in 2 chance of being protected from disease or severe disease. But if more people are vaccinated, that protection rises.

Take someone older who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. They're vulnerable. They're more likely to die if they get sick. But (I have a specified person in mind who I know can't be vaccinated) they're a fully functional member of society, pay lots of tax, give to charities, do community work, mentor young people etc. They just can't get the jab. If lots of people get vaccinated, they're protected. If not, they're not.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothman2000Man
over a year ago

Leicestershire


"

Vaccines are not 100% effective. No medicine ever is. We require a certain level of uptake to get herd immunity, or a level at which a disease won't spread through a community. This depends on the R0 of a pathogen (SARS-COVID-2 about 2-3, measles 15-20), and the effectiveness of a vaccine. (In the US funding is being thrown at anything over 50%).

Vaccine effectiveness depends on our immune system, which wanes with age. And some vaccines mitigate, rather than prevent.

So I get vaccinated. I'm youngish, so I get good protection if the vaccine protects me. So I have a 1 in 2 chance of being protected from disease or severe disease. But if more people are vaccinated, that protection rises.

Take someone older who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons. They're vulnerable. They're more likely to die if they get sick. But (I have a specified person in mind who I know can't be vaccinated) they're a fully functional member of society, pay lots of tax, give to charities, do community work, mentor young people etc. They just can't get the jab. If lots of people get vaccinated, they're protected. If not, they're not."

And this has to be the most well considered post I've seen here in months.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Before taking a vaccination to protect only the people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons, people should be supplied with what conditions stop people from being vaccinated because I suspect that it would be a very low number of people?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I know 5 people who died of it 2 very close friends 1 was a ex fb thats fact no exaggeration.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Before taking a vaccination to protect only the people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons, people should be supplied with what conditions stop people from being vaccinated because I suspect that it would be a very low number of people? "

It's something between them and their doctor.

And you'd be protecting yourself. And those for whom vaccines haven't worked. And those who can't be vaccinated yet.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Herd immunity also means general societal benefit. Closing pools to prevent polio used to be the norm. This isn't polio, but the more people get on board with prevention including vaccination, the sooner we can take back control and not live in fear of Covid-19.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aughty_builder87Man
over a year ago

Keston

as long as it had been tested correctly yes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothman2000Man
over a year ago

Leicestershire


"Before taking a vaccination to protect only the people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons, people should be supplied with what conditions stop people from being vaccinated because I suspect that it would be a very low number of people? "

Possibly, but that low number of people would potentially rise over time as they have kids and pass on whatever medical condition to them through genes.

Europe is pretty much Polio free now due to widespread vaccination, so it can work, provided people get behind it.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *wisted999Man
over a year ago

North Bucks

Yes and no soon went out the window

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Yes and no soon went out the window "

OP's prerogative

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Before taking a vaccination to protect only the people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons, people should be supplied with what conditions stop people from being vaccinated because I suspect that it would be a very low number of people?

Possibly, but that low number of people would potentially rise over time as they have kids and pass on whatever medical condition to them through genes.

Europe is pretty much Polio free now due to widespread vaccination, so it can work, provided people get behind it.

"

There was a heart breaking case in Australia about a family in a community where vaccines were regarded as personal choice only. A baby girl died of whooping cough before she was old enough to be vaccinated.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rotic-TouchTV/TS
over a year ago

doncaster

Yes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *umpkinMan
over a year ago

near the sounds of the wimborne quarter jack!

For me with a background of cardiac problems, having a jab to reduce the chances of catching or reducing the effects is a no-brainer!

No vaccine or medication is 100% safe because you cannot cover eventualities. The will always be someone who has a problem with some medication that no-one for saw, even with the extensive research that quite rightly has to go into any meds that are introduced.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *me-and-herCouple
over a year ago

plymouth

NO.

MOST OF YOU HEAD BURIERS AND CLEAN FREAK SNOW FLAKES WILL NOT READ THIS.. ????

100s of 1000s are vacinated for flu and other stuff, so guess what ? flu exist and so does alot of other RNA viruses and people die, no cure for the common cold.

Coronaviruses are a group of related RNA viruses that cause diseases in MAMMALS and BIRDS.

Notable human diseases caused by RNA viruses include the common cold, influenza, SARS, COVID-19, Dengue Virus, hepatitis C, hepatitis E, West Nile fever, Ebola virus disease, rabies, polio and measles. THEY EXIST AND NOT GOING AWAY..

There are as yet no vaccines or antiviral drugs to prevent or treat human coronavirus infections.

THE HUMAN RACE HAS BECOME CLEAN FREAK ANTI BACTERIA THIS ANTI GERM THAT ETC ETC. WE NEED CERTAIN BACTERIA ETC IN OUR SYSTEMS TO BE HEALTHY.. BUT MOST PEOPLE HAVE BECOME OBSCESSED WITH WIPING THEM OUT ASWELL..

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes. Anti vac folk have a screw loose. "

I'm not anti vax, I'm anti stupidity.

I've had all the regular vaccinations as a child, ones which have been tested for many years.

I'm not taking a fastracked corovavirus vaccine that's been knocked out in a few months

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ighwayman04Man
over a year ago

Rhyl or warrington

Absolutely no chance

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"NO.

MOST OF YOU HEAD BURIERS AND CLEAN FREAK SNOW FLAKES WILL NOT READ THIS.. ????

100s of 1000s are vacinated for flu and other stuff, so guess what ? flu exist and so does alot of other RNA viruses and people die, no cure for the common cold.

Coronaviruses are a group of related RNA viruses that cause diseases in MAMMALS and BIRDS.

Notable human diseases caused by RNA viruses include the common cold, influenza, SARS, COVID-19, Dengue Virus, hepatitis C, hepatitis E, West Nile fever, Ebola virus disease, rabies, polio and measles. THEY EXIST AND NOT GOING AWAY..

There are as yet no vaccines or antiviral drugs to prevent or treat human coronavirus infections.

THE HUMAN RACE HAS BECOME CLEAN FREAK ANTI BACTERIA THIS ANTI GERM THAT ETC ETC. WE NEED CERTAIN BACTERIA ETC IN OUR SYSTEMS TO BE HEALTHY.. BUT MOST PEOPLE HAVE BECOME OBSCESSED WITH WIPING THEM OUT ASWELL.. "

I read it.

Citations?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"NO.

MOST OF YOU HEAD BURIERS AND CLEAN FREAK SNOW FLAKES WILL NOT READ THIS.. ????

100s of 1000s are vacinated for flu and other stuff, so guess what ? flu exist and so does alot of other RNA viruses and people die, no cure for the common cold.

Coronaviruses are a group of related RNA viruses that cause diseases in MAMMALS and BIRDS.

Notable human diseases caused by RNA viruses include the common cold, influenza, SARS, COVID-19, Dengue Virus, hepatitis C, hepatitis E, West Nile fever, Ebola virus disease, rabies, polio and measles. THEY EXIST AND NOT GOING AWAY..

There are as yet no vaccines or antiviral drugs to prevent or treat human coronavirus infections.

THE HUMAN RACE HAS BECOME CLEAN FREAK ANTI BACTERIA THIS ANTI GERM THAT ETC ETC. WE NEED CERTAIN BACTERIA ETC IN OUR SYSTEMS TO BE HEALTHY.. BUT MOST PEOPLE HAVE BECOME OBSCESSED WITH WIPING THEM OUT ASWELL.. "

You know viruses and bacteria are two different things, right?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Vaccines take years to develop and trial SAFELY in order they are proven safe for use and even then years down the line anomalies appear resulting in birth defects, cancers etc. Anybody who simply thinks it is ok to do whatever the Government and government scientists tell them need to wake up and fast. I have a relative who holds a senior position in one of the biggest hospitals in Britain and that relative has clearly stated that under no circumstances will their children or themselves for that matter be taking a vaccine that has no track record or reference point. The figures for Covid deaths in the UK are less than 0.1 % percent of the population and even less in Europe AND America. Wake up people. The facts are there for all to see. And please lol , dont respond by quoting and saying 'Well the Sun or Gaurdian newspapers said this ' etc. To take an unproven vaccine is pure lunacy and one which Carrie's a substantial risk to both yourselves and your children. Think hard.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Vaccines take years to develop and trial SAFELY in order they are proven safe for use and even then years down the line anomalies appear resulting in birth defects, cancers etc. Anybody who simply thinks it is ok to do whatever the Government and government scientists tell them need to wake up and fast. I have a relative who holds a senior position in one of the biggest hospitals in Britain and that relative has clearly stated that under no circumstances will their children or themselves for that matter be taking a vaccine that has no track record or reference point. The figures for Covid deaths in the UK are less than 0.1 % percent of the population and even less in Europe AND America. Wake up people. The facts are there for all to see. And please lol , dont respond by quoting and saying 'Well the Sun or Gaurdian newspapers said this ' etc. To take an unproven vaccine is pure lunacy and one which Carrie's a substantial risk to both yourselves and your children. Think hard."

Citations please. Data. Papers.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Well said.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Herd immunity also means general societal benefit. Closing pools to prevent polio used to be the norm. This isn't polio, but the more people get on board with prevention including vaccination, the sooner we can take back control and not live in fear of Covid-19. "

I'm confused,are you saying herd immunity is gained through the vaccine?

When Boris suggested herd immunity everyone hissed at him for an inhumane response. But herd immunity via vaccine is something people are now ok with now? even though using own bodies immune system would be healthier than having an under researched concoction injected into people though?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Herd immunity also means general societal benefit. Closing pools to prevent polio used to be the norm. This isn't polio, but the more people get on board with prevention including vaccination, the sooner we can take back control and not live in fear of Covid-19.

I'm confused,are you saying herd immunity is gained through the vaccine?

When Boris suggested herd immunity everyone hissed at him for an inhumane response. But herd immunity via vaccine is something people are now ok with now? even though using own bodies immune system would be healthier than having an under researched concoction injected into people though? "

Herd immunity via infection means everyone gets sick, and everyone gets put at risk. From death and long term effects of Covid-19 we don't know about yet.

Herd immunity via vaccination means that the chain of transmission is stopped. Like social distancing, but less lonely and better for the economy.

The risks of taking our chances with a disease are much higher than with a vaccination that has passed appropriate safety controls.

No one in support of vaccines is supporting injecting whatever concoction of God knows what because hey why not.

It's an established procedure, with established safety and effectiveness standards. Which are generally higher standards than other medications. This process is slightly altered at the moment because of the need, and this will need to be looked at.

But herd immunity by getting sick is monstrous. Herd immunity via vaccination is... medicine

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes and no soon went out the window

OP's prerogative "

She started it

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothman2000Man
over a year ago

Leicestershire


"NO.

MOST OF YOU HEAD BURIERS AND CLEAN FREAK SNOW FLAKES WILL NOT READ THIS.. ????

"

And with an introduction like that, who could blame them?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *edVelveteenCouple
over a year ago

Heaven in the Midlands


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

1. I'm not terrified, I'm going out and getting on with life.

2. I didn't hoard anything.

3. I wear a mask in order to protect other people, not myself.

4. I've always given a shit about other people, unlike those people who refuse to wear a mask.

5. Masks are worn to protect other people, not ourselves.

Maybe, instead of pretending you know better than everyone else you should acknowledge the fact that while the virus might not be dangerous to you, it is deadly to some people and those are the ones we need to protect. "

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rotic-TouchTV/TS
over a year ago

doncaster

I wonder how many of the ones who said no to a vaccine would change Thier minds if it becomes mandatory for traveling to other countries ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I wonder how many of the ones who said no to a vaccine would change Thier minds if it becomes mandatory for traveling to other countries ? "

It’s not going to become mandatory. Spain having already lost this year’s tourism income are not going to turn business away in the future.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *mmixtapeCouple
over a year ago

middle earth

Yes yes a thousand times yes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *edVelveteenCouple
over a year ago

Heaven in the Midlands


"

Herd immunity via infection means everyone gets sick, and everyone gets put at risk. From death and long term effects of Covid-19 we don't know about yet.

Herd immunity via vaccination means that the chain of transmission is stopped. Like social distancing, but less lonely and better for the economy.

The risks of taking our chances with a disease are much higher than with a vaccination that has passed appropriate safety controls.

No one in support of vaccines is supporting injecting whatever concoction of God knows what because hey why not.

It's an established procedure, with established safety and effectiveness standards. Which are generally higher standards than other medications. This process is slightly altered at the moment because of the need, and this will need to be looked at.

But herd immunity by getting sick is monstrous. Herd immunity via vaccination is... medicine "

You have the patience of a saint.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I have no problem with those who choose not to have the vaccine when and if it becomes available. It doesn’t take 100% uptake to provide herd immunity, along with the increasingly effective treatment we’ll be fine.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"I have no problem with those who choose not to have the vaccine when and if it becomes available. It doesn’t take 100% uptake to provide herd immunity, along with the increasingly effective treatment we’ll be fine."

I know people who are vulnerable. Depending on the degree of non uptake it might put them at risk.

The degree of non uptake is best left to those who can't, rather than don't want to.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"

Herd immunity via infection means everyone gets sick, and everyone gets put at risk. From death and long term effects of Covid-19 we don't know about yet.

Herd immunity via vaccination means that the chain of transmission is stopped. Like social distancing, but less lonely and better for the economy.

The risks of taking our chances with a disease are much higher than with a vaccination that has passed appropriate safety controls.

No one in support of vaccines is supporting injecting whatever concoction of God knows what because hey why not.

It's an established procedure, with established safety and effectiveness standards. Which are generally higher standards than other medications. This process is slightly altered at the moment because of the need, and this will need to be looked at.

But herd immunity by getting sick is monstrous. Herd immunity via vaccination is... medicine

You have the patience of a saint. "

This stuff really really matters to me.

I have a vulnerable relative who'd probably die of this and is possibly unable to get the vaccine (depending on specifics no one knows yet). And I volunteer with vulnerable people. (I've managed to get my mask patter down for their purposes without getting frustrated )

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I'll be making an informed choice when it arrives.

When I return to the front line, I'll be offered that and the flu jab but I have a rare health issue to consider. If I react to the flu jab, it's unlikely I'll consider covid vacc or wait another year. Having said that, it'll probably be medically healthier to react to a jab than the virus itself.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Not for me. Can’t help feeling Covid has been exaggerated somewhat. "

I totally agree

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

"

Your posts are like a car crash - you know you shouldn't look but cannot help it.

I wear a mask cos it's such a small imposition and may help others.

I wear a mask but didn't buy any hand sanitiser or extra loo roll.

I always think of others and have had annual flu jabs for the sake of others, when working.

You ARE selfish if you do not wear a mask and can.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No, not yet.

Not because I think it's an evil plot to inject me with tiny people who will report back to Bill Gates though."

That makes me think of the minions and Despicable Me .

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *exyFusionCouple
over a year ago

Near to you

If it's been tested and works, yes, definitely.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes, I fall into the high risk category so I would have the vaccine. I have the flu shot every year and don't consider this any different.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Before taking a vaccination to protect only the people who can't be vaccinated for medical reasons, people should be supplied with what conditions stop people from being vaccinated because I suspect that it would be a very low number of people?

Possibly, but that low number of people would potentially rise over time as they have kids and pass on whatever medical condition to them through genes.

"

Only if it's congenital.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Herd immunity also means general societal benefit. Closing pools to prevent polio used to be the norm. This isn't polio, but the more people get on board with prevention including vaccination, the sooner we can take back control and not live in fear of Covid-19.

I'm confused,are you saying herd immunity is gained through the vaccine?

When Boris suggested herd immunity everyone hissed at him for an inhumane response. But herd immunity via vaccine is something people are now ok with now? even though using own bodies immune system would be healthier than having an under researched concoction injected into people though? "

Vaccinations trigger an immune response - therefore it is our own immune systems.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

Your posts are like a car crash - you know you shouldn't look but cannot help it.

I wear a mask cos it's such a small imposition and may help others.

I wear a mask but didn't buy any hand sanitiser or extra loo roll.

I always think of others and have had annual flu jabs for the sake of others, when working.

You ARE selfish if you do not wear a mask and can. "

Agreed. I didn't hoard, I didn't panic, I listened to the evidence and do what I can to protect others.

Some cloth on my face might stop other people suffering and dying. It's a no brainer.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

Your posts are like a car crash - you know you shouldn't look but cannot help it.

I wear a mask cos it's such a small imposition and may help others.

I wear a mask but didn't buy any hand sanitiser or extra loo roll.

I always think of others and have had annual flu jabs for the sake of others, when working.

You ARE selfish if you do not wear a mask and can. "

Oh come on you know exactly why you are wearing a mask and its because some stranger on the tv told you too as i bet everything i own you wasnt wearing a mask in shops or transport few months ago.

And you will stop wearing that mask once the nice stranger on the tv tells you its ok to do so.

Stop lying to yourself and others because thats the only reason you are wearing a mask.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

Your posts are like a car crash - you know you shouldn't look but cannot help it.

I wear a mask cos it's such a small imposition and may help others.

I wear a mask but didn't buy any hand sanitiser or extra loo roll.

I always think of others and have had annual flu jabs for the sake of others, when working.

You ARE selfish if you do not wear a mask and can.

Agreed. I didn't hoard, I didn't panic, I listened to the evidence and do what I can to protect others.

Some cloth on my face might stop other people suffering and dying. It's a no brainer."

"I listened to the evidance " is this the evidance that the experts where saying masks do absolutely bollox all at the beginning of this whole farce?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

Your posts are like a car crash - you know you shouldn't look but cannot help it.

I wear a mask cos it's such a small imposition and may help others.

I wear a mask but didn't buy any hand sanitiser or extra loo roll.

I always think of others and have had annual flu jabs for the sake of others, when working.

You ARE selfish if you do not wear a mask and can.

Oh come on you know exactly why you are wearing a mask and its because some stranger on the tv told you too as i bet everything i own you wasnt wearing a mask in shops or transport few months ago.

And you will stop wearing that mask once the nice stranger on the tv tells you its ok to do so.

Stop lying to yourself and others because thats the only reason you are wearing a mask."

People are putting on masks (and will be taking them off) based on guidance published by people who are far better placed to advise than joe public who thinks that the best way of getting immunity to a virus is catch it and hope they don't have any bad symptoms and that they don't spread it to others.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

Your posts are like a car crash - you know you shouldn't look but cannot help it.

I wear a mask cos it's such a small imposition and may help others.

I wear a mask but didn't buy any hand sanitiser or extra loo roll.

I always think of others and have had annual flu jabs for the sake of others, when working.

You ARE selfish if you do not wear a mask and can.

Agreed. I didn't hoard, I didn't panic, I listened to the evidence and do what I can to protect others.

Some cloth on my face might stop other people suffering and dying. It's a no brainer.

"I listened to the evidance " is this the evidance that the experts where saying masks do absolutely bollox all at the beginning of this whole farce?"

No, that's listening to a bit, hearing something that supported your own opinions, then closing your ears to any further evidence that comes along during a rapidly developing situation. Life requires you to adapt to new situations, otherwise you go extinct.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

Your posts are like a car crash - you know you shouldn't look but cannot help it.

I wear a mask cos it's such a small imposition and may help others.

I wear a mask but didn't buy any hand sanitiser or extra loo roll.

I always think of others and have had annual flu jabs for the sake of others, when working.

You ARE selfish if you do not wear a mask and can.

Agreed. I didn't hoard, I didn't panic, I listened to the evidence and do what I can to protect others.

Some cloth on my face might stop other people suffering and dying. It's a no brainer.

"I listened to the evidance " is this the evidance that the experts where saying masks do absolutely bollox all at the beginning of this whole farce?"

Not it's the absolute bollocks of the evidence base and supply chain changing.

The absolute bollocks of the real world.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *edVelveteenCouple
over a year ago

Heaven in the Midlands


"

Herd immunity via infection means everyone gets sick, and everyone gets put at risk. From death and long term effects of Covid-19 we don't know about yet.

Herd immunity via vaccination means that the chain of transmission is stopped. Like social distancing, but less lonely and better for the economy.

The risks of taking our chances with a disease are much higher than with a vaccination that has passed appropriate safety controls.

No one in support of vaccines is supporting injecting whatever concoction of God knows what because hey why not.

It's an established procedure, with established safety and effectiveness standards. Which are generally higher standards than other medications. This process is slightly altered at the moment because of the need, and this will need to be looked at.

But herd immunity by getting sick is monstrous. Herd immunity via vaccination is... medicine

You have the patience of a saint.

This stuff really really matters to me.

I have a vulnerable relative who'd probably die of this and is possibly unable to get the vaccine (depending on specifics no one knows yet). And I volunteer with vulnerable people. (I've managed to get my mask patter down for their purposes without getting frustrated )"

I work in Aged Care and have worked thru this whole thing. It's eye opening to see what some have to live with, what they're willing to live with and the ones who just won't budge from their own specific stand point. Kudos to you and your calmness and clarity.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *eeleyWoman
over a year ago

Dudley


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

Your posts are like a car crash - you know you shouldn't look but cannot help it.

I wear a mask cos it's such a small imposition and may help others.

I wear a mask but didn't buy any hand sanitiser or extra loo roll.

I always think of others and have had annual flu jabs for the sake of others, when working.

You ARE selfish if you do not wear a mask and can.

Agreed. I didn't hoard, I didn't panic, I listened to the evidence and do what I can to protect others.

Some cloth on my face might stop other people suffering and dying. It's a no brainer.

"I listened to the evidance " is this the evidance that the experts where saying masks do absolutely bollox all at the beginning of this whole farce?"

That's the funny thing with research, you discover new information.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *rotic-TouchTV/TS
over a year ago

doncaster


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

Your posts are like a car crash - you know you shouldn't look but cannot help it.

I wear a mask cos it's such a small imposition and may help others.

I wear a mask but didn't buy any hand sanitiser or extra loo roll.

I always think of others and have had annual flu jabs for the sake of others, when working.

You ARE selfish if you do not wear a mask and can.

Agreed. I didn't hoard, I didn't panic, I listened to the evidence and do what I can to protect others.

Some cloth on my face might stop other people suffering and dying. It's a no brainer.

"I listened to the evidance " is this the evidance that the experts where saying masks do absolutely bollox all at the beginning of this whole farce?

That's the funny thing with research, you discover new information. "
and who would have thought it lol

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Out of curiosity though.

All the people saying yes if a vaccine came and goverments said that they have to mandate it so everyone has to have it.

Would you be standing side by side for the peoples rights not to have it if they choose not to?

I respect anyones personal choice if they want to have it as its their life.

I hope the people saying yes will have the same respect to those that choose not to have it and if it was ever to be mandatory that both yes and no groups would stand together as one against such a thing.

Nope. I won't have any respect for the decision of those anti-science conspiracy theorists who refuse the vaccine. Their choice not only affects themselves but society as a whole. Bluntly put, it is an extremely selfish choice. It would lead to the virus having a greater impact on others than it would if everyone accepted vaccination. That is, more deaths.

To the original question, yes to a properly researched and tested vaccine."

The assumption that in saying no people are some sort of selfish halfwits is unfounded. I'd not take it right now no but like you, once its properly researched and tested I would. I am neither anti science nor into conspiracy theories however, I am interested in my own health first and foremost. You actually negate your opinion by your requirement of a caveat of it being properly tested and researched, the question asked for a simple yes or no response

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

Your posts are like a car crash - you know you shouldn't look but cannot help it.

I wear a mask cos it's such a small imposition and may help others.

I wear a mask but didn't buy any hand sanitiser or extra loo roll.

I always think of others and have had annual flu jabs for the sake of others, when working.

You ARE selfish if you do not wear a mask and can.

Agreed. I didn't hoard, I didn't panic, I listened to the evidence and do what I can to protect others.

Some cloth on my face might stop other people suffering and dying. It's a no brainer.

"I listened to the evidance " is this the evidance that the experts where saying masks do absolutely bollox all at the beginning of this whole farce?

No, that's listening to a bit, hearing something that supported your own opinions, then closing your ears to any further evidence that comes along during a rapidly developing situation. Life requires you to adapt to new situations, otherwise you go extinct."

One can only hope

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *andyfloss2000Woman
over a year ago

ashford

No x

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

No, anyone with a medical condition that can't have the vaccine would be put at risk.

I would have it, not necessarily for my own sake but for the people who can't have it. We all have a responsibility to contribute to herd immunity of these illnesses, choosing not to have it without medical reasons is selfish.

Bullshit

You will have the vaccine because you are terrified and watch the news 24/7 and are in fear.

The people that dont wear masks for example are the ones that feel covid isnt anything worst than a flu and are not in fear... the mask wearers are the ones terrified and the ones that emptied the shelfs of toilet roll and hand sanitizer and baby food, you didnt give a shit about other people back then it was everyman for then selfs.

So quit with the if you dont wear a mask/take the vaccine then your selfish BS.

Your posts are like a car crash - you know you shouldn't look but cannot help it.

I wear a mask cos it's such a small imposition and may help others.

I wear a mask but didn't buy any hand sanitiser or extra loo roll.

I always think of others and have had annual flu jabs for the sake of others, when working.

You ARE selfish if you do not wear a mask and can.

Agreed. I didn't hoard, I didn't panic, I listened to the evidence and do what I can to protect others.

Some cloth on my face might stop other people suffering and dying. It's a no brainer.

"I listened to the evidance " is this the evidance that the experts where saying masks do absolutely bollox all at the beginning of this whole farce?

That's the funny thing with research, you discover new information. "

And it's there to be read rather than a third person relaying it on the TV. But sadly some people get one thing in their heads and won't be swayed by reason and evidence.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *isty24Woman
over a year ago

Leicester

No

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think I would prefer to have an antibody test first.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I think I would prefer to have an antibody test first."

If the tests are cheaper than the vacc, then I'm positive they'll happen first.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aisyDoandDaisyDontWoman
over a year ago

little old town of Reading!

No.

I don’t buy into all the conspiracy theories- I just don’t want to have something injected into me that has been rushed through. Look at the balls up over PPE. The government is throwing money at the situation trying to look like they are calm and in control. Instead they spent millions on ineffective equipment. There’s no way in hell I would trust anything that this shower of shit government to greenlights right now.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Nope

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Nope

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oonsterblue74Man
over a year ago

Tyne and Wear

Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *allySlinkyWoman
over a year ago

Leeds


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer"

How do you know it is safe and adequately tested ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aisyDoandDaisyDontWoman
over a year ago

little old town of Reading!


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer"

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Yes

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"No.

I don’t buy into all the conspiracy theories- I just don’t want to have something injected into me that has been rushed through. Look at the balls up over PPE. The government is throwing money at the situation trying to look like they are calm and in control. Instead they spent millions on ineffective equipment. There’s no way in hell I would trust anything that this shower of shit government to greenlights right now."

The govt is funding it, the scientists are creating/testing potential vaccines. If it was being done by the govt, I'd agree.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?"

This wasn't a vaccine.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aisyDoandDaisyDontWoman
over a year ago

little old town of Reading!


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

This wasn't a vaccine. "

Perhaps not, but it was a widely used and scientifically approved drug that had devastating consequences. One of the illnesses it was thought to treat was influenza. The old saying of the cure being worse than the disease springs to mind!!

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

This wasn't a vaccine.

Perhaps not, but it was a widely used and scientifically approved drug that had devastating consequences. One of the illnesses it was thought to treat was influenza. The old saying of the cure being worse than the disease springs to mind!! "
How about the vaccines for measles, smallpox, Flu, Yelloe Fever ?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *moothman2000Man
over a year ago

Leicestershire


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

This wasn't a vaccine.

Perhaps not, but it was a widely used and scientifically approved drug that had devastating consequences. One of the illnesses it was thought to treat was influenza. The old saying of the cure being worse than the disease springs to mind!! "

That was about 70 years ago!!!

Do you not think that maybe things have moved on bit since then?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?"

Sure. I've also heard of the ways in which we've learned from that so it won't happen again

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aisyDoandDaisyDontWoman
over a year ago

little old town of Reading!


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

This wasn't a vaccine.

Perhaps not, but it was a widely used and scientifically approved drug that had devastating consequences. One of the illnesses it was thought to treat was influenza. The old saying of the cure being worse than the disease springs to mind!!

That was about 70 years ago!!!

Do you not think that maybe things have moved on bit since then? "

I wholeheartedly agree, and I’m not usually an “antivaxxer. I just want to be a bit cautious about a drug that is being rushed through. The op said it was a “no brainier” - I’m saying I would like to see evidence that a vaccine was workable and had no side effects before I willingly had it injected into my body. That is all.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aisyDoandDaisyDontWoman
over a year ago

little old town of Reading!


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

Sure. I've also heard of the ways in which we've learned from that so it won't happen again "

That’s a good point

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

This wasn't a vaccine.

Perhaps not, but it was a widely used and scientifically approved drug that had devastating consequences. One of the illnesses it was thought to treat was influenza. The old saying of the cure being worse than the disease springs to mind!!

That was about 70 years ago!!!

Do you not think that maybe things have moved on bit since then?

I wholeheartedly agree, and I’m not usually an “antivaxxer. I just want to be a bit cautious about a drug that is being rushed through. The op said it was a “no brainier” - I’m saying I would like to see evidence that a vaccine was workable and had no side effects before I willingly had it injected into my body. That is all. "

That's the process they're going through at the moment, different types of trial. Some of the acceleration at the moment is regulatory, too.

The scientific method is supposed to look for problems along the way. I think that - if it's not interfered with politically - any issues will be thoroughly examined by the people qualified to do so.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aisyDoandDaisyDontWoman
over a year ago

little old town of Reading!


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

This wasn't a vaccine.

Perhaps not, but it was a widely used and scientifically approved drug that had devastating consequences. One of the illnesses it was thought to treat was influenza. The old saying of the cure being worse than the disease springs to mind!!

That was about 70 years ago!!!

Do you not think that maybe things have moved on bit since then?

I wholeheartedly agree, and I’m not usually an “antivaxxer. I just want to be a bit cautious about a drug that is being rushed through. The op said it was a “no brainier” - I’m saying I would like to see evidence that a vaccine was workable and had no side effects before I willingly had it injected into my body. That is all.

That's the process they're going through at the moment, different types of trial. Some of the acceleration at the moment is regulatory, too.

The scientific method is supposed to look for problems along the way. I think that - if it's not interfered with politically - any issues will be thoroughly examined by the people qualified to do so."

Well yes- but until there is rigorous evidence to say it’s safe - I’m a no

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

Ok. That's what they're doing. The threshold for safety for approval in most countries is very high.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by

choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

The medically vulnerable who can't have it are put at risk by anti vaxxers.

Well I'm healthy and fit with a healthy immune system as are millions of others and if contracting covid may not even know it or nothing worse than a cold.

So do us healthy people have to put ourselfs at risk and take a rushed through unproven vaccine unknown wether it will be safe with no side effects in a year or 2 down the line to protect people that probably been living on highly processed shit food and sugary drinks most of their lives and smoke??

I dont think so.

"

Good point

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aisyDoandDaisyDontWoman
over a year ago

little old town of Reading!


"Ok. That's what they're doing. The threshold for safety for approval in most countries is very high."

That’s great! So for the moment- no, until the threshold it met

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *heIcebreakersCouple
over a year ago

Cramlington


"It's astonishing that "I donwanna get a needle because I don't understand medicine or regulatory processes, and I'll be fine so fuck you" has been rebranded as a brave, noble, informed choice.

Public health relies upon all of us doing our bit.

I don't think it's been rebranded as brave or noble though, most people as above are against anti vaxxers.

Is it not shaky ground though to become part of a society where choice is taken away from people and things be forced on people? How will they enforce it? Aren't we then infringing human rights? "
I think I answered this above. The majority of human rights are qualified, and can be over-ridden for the greater good. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken both as to the intent and meaning of the ECHR and all subsequent legislation. Or more likely the kind of sad human rights tourist who mistakes a system of rights and responsibilities by which we qualify for rights as a personal licence to do as they wish, as if that is the only law.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *edVelveteenCouple
over a year ago

Heaven in the Midlands


"

Is it not shaky ground though to become part of a society where choice is taken away from people and things be forced on people? How will they enforce it? Aren't we then infringing human rights? I think I answered this above. The majority of human rights are qualified, and can be over-ridden for the greater good. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken both as to the intent and meaning of the ECHR and all subsequent legislation. Or more likely the kind of sad human rights tourist who mistakes a system of rights and responsibilities by which we qualify for rights as a personal licence to do as they wish, as if that is the only law."

Nice explanation. They should be Societal Rights not just human rights.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

This wasn't a vaccine.

Perhaps not, but it was a widely used and scientifically approved drug that had devastating consequences. One of the illnesses it was thought to treat was influenza. The old saying of the cure being worse than the disease springs to mind!! "

I only know it as an anti-emetic.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aisyDoandDaisyDontWoman
over a year ago

little old town of Reading!


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

This wasn't a vaccine.

Perhaps not, but it was a widely used and scientifically approved drug that had devastating consequences. One of the illnesses it was thought to treat was influenza. The old saying of the cure being worse than the disease springs to mind!!

I only know it as an anti-emetic. "

Well you need to do a bit more reading then.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Ok so being devils advocate ...... if you and your family are vaccinated and therefore safe from the virus ... what difference does it make to you if someone chooses not to be vaccinated?

The only ones that would be putting themselves at risk by

choice then would be the anti vaccers because everyone else would electively have it?

The medically vulnerable who can't have it are put at risk by anti vaxxers.

Well I'm healthy and fit with a healthy immune system as are millions of others and if contracting covid may not even know it or nothing worse than a cold.

So do us healthy people have to put ourselfs at risk and take a rushed through unproven vaccine unknown wether it will be safe with no side effects in a year or 2 down the line to protect people that probably been living on highly processed shit food and sugary drinks most of their lives and smoke??

I dont think so.

Good point"

Bless

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

This wasn't a vaccine.

Perhaps not, but it was a widely used and scientifically approved drug that had devastating consequences. One of the illnesses it was thought to treat was influenza. The old saying of the cure being worse than the disease springs to mind!!

I only know it as an anti-emetic.

Well you need to do a bit more reading then."

I haven't done any reading on thalidomide and since it has no relevance to me I don't intend to.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aisyDoandDaisyDontWoman
over a year ago

little old town of Reading!


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

This wasn't a vaccine.

Perhaps not, but it was a widely used and scientifically approved drug that had devastating consequences. One of the illnesses it was thought to treat was influenza. The old saying of the cure being worse than the disease springs to mind!!

I only know it as an anti-emetic.

Well you need to do a bit more reading then.

I haven't done any reading on thalidomide and since it has no relevance to me I don't intend to. "

Well why get involved in the specific conversation in the first place then?

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"

Is it not shaky ground though to become part of a society where choice is taken away from people and things be forced on people? How will they enforce it? Aren't we then infringing human rights? I think I answered this above. The majority of human rights are qualified, and can be over-ridden for the greater good. Anyone who thinks otherwise is mistaken both as to the intent and meaning of the ECHR and all subsequent legislation. Or more likely the kind of sad human rights tourist who mistakes a system of rights and responsibilities by which we qualify for rights as a personal licence to do as they wish, as if that is the only law.

Nice explanation. They should be Societal Rights not just human rights. "

Or, living in society means rights and responsibilities.

We all do better if we help each other.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *elshsunsWoman
over a year ago

Flintshire

Nope ... not at all for me or my family

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *ljamMan
over a year ago

Edinburgh


"Out of curiosity though.

All the people saying yes if a vaccine came and goverments said that they have to mandate it so everyone has to have it.

Would you be standing side by side for the peoples rights not to have it if they choose not to?

I respect anyones personal choice if they want to have it as its their life.

I hope the people saying yes will have the same respect to those that choose not to have it and if it was ever to be mandatory that both yes and no groups would stand together as one against such a thing.

Nope. I won't have any respect for the decision of those anti-science conspiracy theorists who refuse the vaccine. Their choice not only affects themselves but society as a whole. Bluntly put, it is an extremely selfish choice. It would lead to the virus having a greater impact on others than it would if everyone accepted vaccination. That is, more deaths.

To the original question, yes to a properly researched and tested vaccine.

The assumption that in saying no people are some sort of selfish halfwits is unfounded. I'd not take it right now no but like you, once its properly researched and tested I would. I am neither anti science nor into conspiracy theories however, I am interested in my own health first and foremost. You actually negate your opinion by your requirement of a caveat of it being properly tested and researched, the question asked for a simple yes or no response "

I think my qualification was reasonable, and I am inherently resistant to reductive arguments. The best I could do would be to reduce it to probably

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

This wasn't a vaccine.

Perhaps not, but it was a widely used and scientifically approved drug that had devastating consequences. One of the illnesses it was thought to treat was influenza. The old saying of the cure being worse than the disease springs to mind!!

I only know it as an anti-emetic.

Well you need to do a bit more reading then.

I haven't done any reading on thalidomide and since it has no relevance to me I don't intend to.

Well why get involved in the specific conversation in the first place then? "

You asked about the drug, I knew it was prescribed for morning sickness when my mother was pregnant with my sister, and know of people with affected limbs because of it. Knowing it wasn't a vaccine I wondered how it was relevant to the post, especially when others have stated vaccines are regulated more strictly than regular meds.

I didn't read a requirement that I needed to know everything about thalidomide before joining the conversation

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

No way

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aisyDoandDaisyDontWoman
over a year ago

little old town of Reading!


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

This wasn't a vaccine.

Perhaps not, but it was a widely used and scientifically approved drug that had devastating consequences. One of the illnesses it was thought to treat was influenza. The old saying of the cure being worse than the disease springs to mind!!

I only know it as an anti-emetic.

Well you need to do a bit more reading then.

I haven't done any reading on thalidomide and since it has no relevance to me I don't intend to.

Well why get involved in the specific conversation in the first place then?

You asked about the drug, I knew it was prescribed for morning sickness when my mother was pregnant with my sister, and know of people with affected limbs because of it. Knowing it wasn't a vaccine I wondered how it was relevant to the post, especially when others have stated vaccines are regulated more strictly than regular meds.

I didn't read a requirement that I needed to know everything about thalidomide before joining the conversation "

It’s a prime example of drugs being issued that cause more harm than good. Whether or not it was a vaccine is irrelevant- the point is that people trusted pharmaceuticals and then paid the price.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I do find it odd that a bunch of lay people feel qualified to judge whether potential vaccines for a novel pathogen will or will not be safe enough.

Immunology isn't a walk in the park.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *oggoneMan
over a year ago

Derry


"I do find it odd that a bunch of lay people feel qualified to judge whether potential vaccines for a novel pathogen will or will not be safe enough.

Immunology isn't a walk in the park."

The bigger issue is that the debate is actually happening over this. The antivaxxers didn't appear overnight.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Yes why wouldn’t you. No brainer

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

This wasn't a vaccine.

Perhaps not, but it was a widely used and scientifically approved drug that had devastating consequences. One of the illnesses it was thought to treat was influenza. The old saying of the cure being worse than the disease springs to mind!!

I only know it as an anti-emetic.

Well you need to do a bit more reading then.

I haven't done any reading on thalidomide and since it has no relevance to me I don't intend to.

Well why get involved in the specific conversation in the first place then?

You asked about the drug, I knew it was prescribed for morning sickness when my mother was pregnant with my sister, and know of people with affected limbs because of it. Knowing it wasn't a vaccine I wondered how it was relevant to the post, especially when others have stated vaccines are regulated more strictly than regular meds.

I didn't read a requirement that I needed to know everything about thalidomide before joining the conversation

It’s a prime example of drugs being issued that cause more harm than good. Whether or not it was a vaccine is irrelevant- the point is that people trusted pharmaceuticals and then paid the price.

"

I could see your point but not "how it was relevant to the post, especially when others have stated vaccines are regulated more strictly than regular meds".

And due to knowing the side effect, I didn't need to read more either.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"I do find it odd that a bunch of lay people feel qualified to judge whether potential vaccines for a novel pathogen will or will not be safe enough.

Immunology isn't a walk in the park.

The bigger issue is that the debate is actually happening over this. The antivaxxers didn't appear overnight."

Antivaxxers have existed since Jenner, but have had resurgences over time. Wakefield and McCarthy, along with the anti expert culture, have much to answer for. It costs lives.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"I do find it odd that a bunch of lay people feel qualified to judge whether potential vaccines for a novel pathogen will or will not be safe enough.

Immunology isn't a walk in the park."

With discoveries regularly occurring.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *aisyDoandDaisyDontWoman
over a year ago

little old town of Reading!


"I do find it odd that a bunch of lay people feel qualified to judge whether potential vaccines for a novel pathogen will or will not be safe enough.

Immunology isn't a walk in the park."

For me, it’s not about what will or will not work (although of course- I really hope that a working vaccine is found!) - my main concern is that there is a massive rush to push out a vaccine, and that things are so chaotic at the moment- safety measures will be skimmed over.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *dwimborneMan
over a year ago

wimborne

I'm all for a safe fully tested vaccine but that takes a minimum of 5 years.

The last time a vaccine was rushed thru was during the 2009/10 swine flu pandemic the vaccine called (I kid you not) pandemrix by GSK 6 million people had the jab in Uk & EU but it was withdrawn after Dr's saw a rise in narcolepsy. In 2015 a 12 yr old was awarded £120,000 by a court that ruled he had been left severely disabled by the vaccine, its worth noting that the govt tried to avoid paying out damages but lost their appeal and many more cases have or are going through the courts.

Under the Coronavirus act 2020 The Govt has indemnified Dr's & drug companies against liability.

The British govt has paid out

£74,130,000 under their vaccine damage fund between 1978 to April 2017 and 941 claims have been successful.

The inventor of the PCR test Kary B Mullis who won a nobel peace prize for it. Stated that it should never be used as a tool in the diagnosis of infectious diseases.

The PCR test takes a sample of your cells & Amplifies any DNA to look for viral sequences that match parts of a viral genome. The test is known not to work. It uses amplification which can lead to gross errors of discovery. Additionaly its only looking for partial viral sequences not whole genomes, so identifying a single pathogen is next to impossible even if you ignore the other issues.

So I will wait and see what happens & when & even if there is a safe vaccine offered.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)


"I do find it odd that a bunch of lay people feel qualified to judge whether potential vaccines for a novel pathogen will or will not be safe enough.

Immunology isn't a walk in the park.

With discoveries regularly occurring. "

Indeed. And vaccines have been such a phenomenal public health success, they're held to extremely high safety standards, etc.

It blows my mind that people think they're qualified to reject such a huge public health benefit for what usually amounts to a miniscule risk to themselves. And more likely than not a benefit to themselves.

Particularly with the utter lack of awareness of basic statistics, science, etc on display.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
 
 

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

And timelines are being condensed largely on the administrative side, as I understand.

Just because it hasn't been done this fast before doesn't mean it isn't possible. That's ludicrous.

 (closed, thread got too big)

Reply privately
back to top