FabSwingers.com forum: Antivaxers storm the old BBC

By *ophieslut OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Central

As you'll have seen on the news, the antivax movement tried to storm the BBC yesterday. At the headquarters that they moved out of many years ago

. Loose Women was being filmed there by ITV.

I found it slightly amusing that they were so out of touch and out of date. It perhaps typifies them as a group.

Obviously these are the core antivax lot, rather than those who have been understandably hesitant. Sadly the antivax movement is very powerful, having bombarded us with millions of social media, blog and site posts over the pandemic. It does reflect their silos that are divorced from the majority of the population. I don't know whether they wanted to join the lesbians who stormed BBC news but they would have been too late

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

So... If they intimidate the media into spreading what they believe is the truth, the virus will go away?

... I wish I was capable of such magical thinking.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ophieslut OP TV/TS
over a year ago

Central

"So... If they intimidate the media into spreading what they believe is the truth, the virus will go away?

... I wish I was capable of such magical thinking."

It's replicating what they are critical of them for - being a biased outlet, peddling lies

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ittleAcornMan
over a year ago

visiting the beach

"As you'll have seen on the news, the antivax movement tried to storm the BBC yesterday. At the headquarters that they moved out of many years ago

. Loose Women was being filmed there by ITV.

I found it slightly amusing that they were so out of touch and out of date. It perhaps typifies them as a group.

I do find this small group of people (not just there on the day at the TV Centre, but across the Interwebs), quite worrying.

It's not just anti-vax, but a whole portfolio of (mostly) right wing tropes they seem to have taken on.

Following people like Marianna Spring on Twitter as she investigates these areas, you start to see a pattern of what could become (at the extreme edges) domestic terrorism.

They are so enthralled by these theories, and so angry.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *bsinthe_boyMan
over a year ago

Luton

Demonstrates how good their research is......

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"So... If they intimidate the media into spreading what they believe is the truth, the virus will go away?

... I wish I was capable of such magical thinking."

If we all just believe harder Brexit will be a success!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *traight_no_iceMan
over a year ago

Stoke

"Demonstrates how good their research is......"

You can not blame them. They were organising this gathering since July 27. There was no much time for them to find out where the right BBC offices were. The irony is they all acted as sheep

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"As you'll have seen on the news, the antivax movement tried to storm the BBC yesterday. At the headquarters that they moved out of many years ago

. Loose Women was being filmed there by ITV.

I found it slightly amusing that they were so out of touch and out of date. It perhaps typifies them as a group.

I do find this small group of people (not just there on the day at the TV Centre, but across the Interwebs), quite worrying.

It's not just anti-vax, but a whole portfolio of (mostly) right wing tropes they seem to have taken on.

Following people like Marianna Spring on Twitter as she investigates these areas, you start to see a pattern of what could become (at the extreme edges) domestic terrorism.

They are so enthralled by these theories, and so angry."

Agreed. 5G, QAnon/Trumpism, NWO, anti vaxxers*, etc. They all fit together... I'd say nicely but in truth it's all rather horrifying.

(* The type who are so against vaccines that they'd resort to violence, not anyone who hasn't been vaccinated)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Demonstrates how good their research is......"

They’ve done their own research, the corrupt MSM might want you to think the BBC moved out of Shepherd’s Bush years ago but in a video on YouTube Mike Yeadon says different, and he invented the TARDIS.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Demonstrates how good their research is......

That proves it!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Demonstrates how good their research is......

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

"As you'll have seen on the news, the antivax movement tried to storm the BBC yesterday. At the headquarters that they moved out of many years ago

. Loose Women was being filmed there by ITV.

I found it slightly amusing that they were so out of touch and out of date. It perhaps typifies them as a group.

"
..

I missed that in the news, but it really is comedy gold.

Maybe they should watch some mainstream news to find out where to go to protest.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety. "

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

They can't be that dangerous if they cant find the right place to protest.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are."

Firstly I think it depends what the law is. If it’s changing a law that also protects women from forced abortions (which is likely to be the one theyd need to change to introduce forced vaccination) then I’d be protesting it too. P.S. not saying that’s what it’s about I’m just giving an example as to why not everyone protesting against a law change should be considered an extremist.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

"Protesters begin to shout “shame on you, shame on you” with one accusing the corporation of “not giving out the right information” and claiming “they are coming for our f****** children”."

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

To be fair, I'm sure there were idiots of others stripes in the protest, too. There seemed to be a lot of confused anger going on there.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heNaturistCoupleCouple
over a year ago

crewe

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety. "

There's overlaps in all topics, were Pro vaccination and both vaccinated and against vaccine passports.

There are hard truths to society and unfortunately if this virus had a 20% death rate we'd see the infected machine gunned one the street and funeral pyres and a large minority of society would cheer it on in the name of safety, humanity doesn't work when the shit hits the fan, self preservation becomes the key instinct.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me."

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

There's overlaps in all topics, were Pro vaccination and both vaccinated and against vaccine passports.

I totally agree

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

I didn't say protest. I said storm a media building to change a law.

Media are not creators of law.

These people are resorting to violence.

Abortion is a red herring but you do you.

I've been to plenty of protests, pretty sure I have a file with the Australian spy agency (very boring). I march and shout slogans.

But it's interesting that you conflate all protest while also trying to make sure that these people aren't conflated with anti vaxxers.

These people are dangerous extremists. I make no comments on their affiliation.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ittleAcornMan
over a year ago

visiting the beach

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

There is a huge difference between protesting, and violently trying to storm a private building.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives….. "

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

I didn't say protest. I said storm a media building to change a law.

Media are not creators of law.

These people are resorting to violence.

Abortion is a red herring but you do you.

I've been to plenty of protests, pretty sure I have a file with the Australian spy agency (very boring). I march and shout slogans.

But it's interesting that you conflate all protest while also trying to make sure that these people aren't conflated with anti vaxxers.

These people are dangerous extremists. I make no comments on their affiliation."

I haven’t conflated all protests at all.

You took one line of what I said, interpreted completely differently to how I intended it (and how it actually reads) and then contradict me using your own interpretation of what I said. Despite me pointing out what I actually said which was:

I find it highly unlikely everyone there was an antivaxer.

You then called them all extremists. Again are you sure they were ALL storming the building? All of them?

Every single attendee?

Bit of a dangerous generalisation but again each to their own.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

There is a huge difference between protesting, and violently trying to storm a private building. "

Indeed there is. There’s also a huge difference between those storming the building and those protesting.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

I didn't say protest. I said storm a media building to change a law.

Media are not creators of law.

These people are resorting to violence.

Abortion is a red herring but you do you.

I've been to plenty of protests, pretty sure I have a file with the Australian spy agency (very boring). I march and shout slogans.

But it's interesting that you conflate all protest while also trying to make sure that these people aren't conflated with anti vaxxers.

These people are dangerous extremists. I make no comments on their affiliation.

I haven’t conflated all protests at all.

I find it highly unlikely everyone there was an antivaxer.

You then called them all extremists. Again are you sure they were ALL storming the building? All of them?

Every single attendee?

Bit of a dangerous generalisation but again each to their own.

If you want to defend this group then you do you.

Personally I'd rather defend a free press. One of the cornerstones of Western democracy.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?"

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

I didn't say protest. I said storm a media building to change a law.

Media are not creators of law.

These people are resorting to violence.

Abortion is a red herring but you do you.

I've been to plenty of protests, pretty sure I have a file with the Australian spy agency (very boring). I march and shout slogans.

But it's interesting that you conflate all protest while also trying to make sure that these people aren't conflated with anti vaxxers.

These people are dangerous extremists. I make no comments on their affiliation.

I haven’t conflated all protests at all.

I find it highly unlikely everyone there was an antivaxer.

You then called them all extremists. Again are you sure they were ALL storming the building? All of them?

Every single attendee?

Bit of a dangerous generalisation but again each to their own.

If you want to defend this group then you do you.

Personally I'd rather defend a free press. One of the cornerstones of Western democracy."

Once again a complete misinterpretation of what I said. When did I say I was defending people storming a building? I didn’t.

You obviously have a problem with the things I say so jump straight into my comments and twist them in order to revalidate your own point.

You’ve read what? A few comments I’ve made in the most emotive subject of today and think you know my point of view? You don’t have the foggiest.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up. "

So someone who was vaccinated as a child whether they wanted to be or not is not an anti vaxxer, even if they feed their unvaccinated children bleach to detox them from their epigenetic vaccine damage? (Bleach - look up MMS. Epigenetic damage -a post Wakefield claim on how vaccines cause autism).

It's no difference to me. Dangerous extremists are attacking one of the cornerstones of Western democracy. Maybe attempting to - what's the word - terrorise people.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

I didn't say protest. I said storm a media building to change a law.

Media are not creators of law.

These people are resorting to violence.

Abortion is a red herring but you do you.

I've been to plenty of protests, pretty sure I have a file with the Australian spy agency (very boring). I march and shout slogans.

But it's interesting that you conflate all protest while also trying to make sure that these people aren't conflated with anti vaxxers.

These people are dangerous extremists. I make no comments on their affiliation.

I haven’t conflated all protests at all.

I find it highly unlikely everyone there was an antivaxer.

You then called them all extremists. Again are you sure they were ALL storming the building? All of them?

Every single attendee?

Bit of a dangerous generalisation but again each to their own.

If you want to defend this group then you do you.

Personally I'd rather defend a free press. One of the cornerstones of Western democracy."

Just to give you some insight:

I fully support a free press

I fully (and will protest if necessary) support free speech

I fully support the vaccination programme

I fully support the right to choose

I don’t support hypocrisy

I don’t support generalisation of a huge proportion of society

I don’t support shaming people for being scared

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up. "

No it isn't. An antivaxxer is just, at its most fundamental level, somebody who is opposed to vaccination. Look up the definition if you don't believe me.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

It's no difference to me. Dangerous extremists are attacking one of the cornerstones of Western democracy. Maybe attempting to - what's the word - terrorise people."

Nope misinterpreted yet again.

Someone who has not had a single vaccine in their lives is an antivaxer

I did not at any point state that someone who had a vaccine as a child despite not wanting I wasn’t an antivaxer. Jesus this is hard. Stop reading so many articles and just try actually reading what you’re responding to!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

It's no difference to me. Dangerous extremists are attacking one of the cornerstones of Western democracy. Maybe attempting to - what's the word - terrorise people.

Nope misinterpreted yet again.

Someone who has not had a single vaccine in their lives is an antivaxer

Hold on hold on let me just clarify to save you interpreting….

“Someone who hasn’t had a vaccine in their lives and refuses to have one because they don’t trust them at all”

There we go…

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heNaturistCoupleCouple
over a year ago

crewe

Why does everything bed to be polarised.

Can we not defend a free press and crackpots who break into buildings to protest crackpot ideas?.

Dangerous extremists?.

There hardly Isis, the old fashioned locked up for the weekend and a big fine has always dissuaded most, shall we try that or jump straight to lynchings and inquisitions.

The far left have lost their minds with this virus and the far right never had one to begin with.

It's time for the sensible people in the middle to say you lot, shut the fuck up, your embarrassing yourself.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

No it isn't. An antivaxxer is just, at its most fundamental level, somebody who is opposed to vaccination. Look up the definition if you don't believe me."

Not sure how many of those so fundamentally opposed would have ever had a vaccine so almost the same thing. But I stand slightly corrected.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

It's no difference to me. Dangerous extremists are attacking one of the cornerstones of Western democracy. Maybe attempting to - what's the word - terrorise people.

Nope misinterpreted yet again.

Someone who has not had a single vaccine in their lives is an antivaxer

Believe it or not, I am responding to your words.

I'm sorry that I know things about the antivaccine movement. But I am responding to *you* and *your* words.

Or, I was. It seems you're determined to claim that I'm spinning everything you say, and so I won't bother again.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

It's no difference to me. Dangerous extremists are attacking one of the cornerstones of Western democracy. Maybe attempting to - what's the word - terrorise people.

Nope misinterpreted yet again.

Someone who has not had a single vaccine in their lives is an antivaxer

Believe it or not, I am responding to your words.

I'm sorry that I know things about the antivaccine movement. But I am responding to *you* and *your* words.

Or, I was. It seems you're determined to claim that I'm spinning everything you say, and so I won't bother again."

Ok super.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

It's no difference to me. Dangerous extremists are attacking one of the cornerstones of Western democracy. Maybe attempting to - what's the word - terrorise people.

Nope misinterpreted yet again.

Someone who has not had a single vaccine in their lives is an antivaxer

Believe it or not, I am responding to your words.

I'm sorry that I know things about the antivaccine movement. But I am responding to *you* and *your* words.

Or, I was. It seems you're determined to claim that I'm spinning everything you say, and so I won't bother again."

Pretty hot when you’re angry

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Why does everything bed to be polarised.

Can we not defend a free press and crackpots who break into buildings to protest crackpot ideas?.

Dangerous extremists?.

There hardly Isis, the old fashioned locked up for the weekend and a big fine has always dissuaded most, shall we try that or jump straight to lynchings and inquisitions.

The far left have lost their minds with this virus and the far right never had one to begin with.

It's time for the sensible people in the middle to say you lot, shut the fuck up, your embarrassing yourself."

Oh, the reasonable middle. Self proclaimed, of course

Please explain to me why storming a media building is not dangerous or extreme. How it differs from other attempts to undermine the pillars of our society.

I didn't say Isis. They are a lot like Y'all Qaeda and that mess on January 6 though. In fact, I bet they share a lot of disinformation material.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

No it isn't. An antivaxxer is just, at its most fundamental level, somebody who is opposed to vaccination. Look up the definition if you don't believe me.

Not sure how many of those so fundamentally opposed would have ever had a vaccine so almost the same thing. But I stand slightly corrected.

You're assuming they were always antivaxxers. I'm betting many came to those views later in life after reading huge amounts of nonsense and lies on social media. People like that would absolutely have been vaccinated before. Many times.

Many antivaxxers now seem to be specifically shouting about the Covid vaccine as opposed to other vaccines too. So, on those grounds too, they'd likely have had other vaccines in their lives.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

No it isn't. An antivaxxer is just, at its most fundamental level, somebody who is opposed to vaccination. Look up the definition if you don't believe me.

Not sure how many of those so fundamentally opposed would have ever had a vaccine so almost the same thing. But I stand slightly corrected.

Many antivaxxers now seem to be specifically shouting about the Covid vaccine as opposed to other vaccines too. So, on those grounds too, they'd likely have had other vaccines in their lives."

Or they've invented a wedge and claim we're at the thin wedge of it, because if they come in hot with all their other claims, their potential converts would call them batshit insane

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

No it isn't. An antivaxxer is just, at its most fundamental level, somebody who is opposed to vaccination. Look up the definition if you don't believe me.

Not sure how many of those so fundamentally opposed would have ever had a vaccine so almost the same thing. But I stand slightly corrected.

Many antivaxxers now seem to be specifically shouting about the Covid vaccine as opposed to other vaccines too. So, on those grounds too, they'd likely have had other vaccines in their lives."

That is one very good point.

But I still find it very hard to believe that everyone there was of that exact viewpoint.

Some people are actually just concerned about the precedent that vaccine passports may be setting.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

No it isn't. An antivaxxer is just, at its most fundamental level, somebody who is opposed to vaccination. Look up the definition if you don't believe me.

Not sure how many of those so fundamentally opposed would have ever had a vaccine so almost the same thing. But I stand slightly corrected.

Many antivaxxers now seem to be specifically shouting about the Covid vaccine as opposed to other vaccines too. So, on those grounds too, they'd likely have had other vaccines in their lives.

That is one very good point.

But I still find it very hard to believe that everyone there was of that exact viewpoint.

Some people are actually just concerned about the precedent that vaccine passports may be setting.

I did say somewhere above there were likely other idiots in the protest too.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

No it isn't. An antivaxxer is just, at its most fundamental level, somebody who is opposed to vaccination. Look up the definition if you don't believe me.

Not sure how many of those so fundamentally opposed would have ever had a vaccine so almost the same thing. But I stand slightly corrected.

Many antivaxxers now seem to be specifically shouting about the Covid vaccine as opposed to other vaccines too. So, on those grounds too, they'd likely have had other vaccines in their lives.

That is one very good point.

But I still find it very hard to believe that everyone there was of that exact viewpoint.

Some people are actually just concerned about the precedent that vaccine passports may be setting.

I did say somewhere above there were likely other idiots in the protest too."

Ok you’ve totally lost me if you think people who are concerned about vaccine passports are idiots….

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

I reckon 99% would have agreed 18 months ago, but many have become totally blinded by covid and would happily segregate society based on people’s choice to exercise medical autonomy. The term anti vaxer is now thrown around absurdly to anyone who simply doesn’t agree with passports. It’s so easy to get people to slip into this lazy way of thinking without nuance.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

No it isn't. An antivaxxer is just, at its most fundamental level, somebody who is opposed to vaccination. Look up the definition if you don't believe me.

Not sure how many of those so fundamentally opposed would have ever had a vaccine so almost the same thing. But I stand slightly corrected.

Many antivaxxers now seem to be specifically shouting about the Covid vaccine as opposed to other vaccines too. So, on those grounds too, they'd likely have had other vaccines in their lives.

That is one very good point.

But I still find it very hard to believe that everyone there was of that exact viewpoint.

Some people are actually just concerned about the precedent that vaccine passports may be setting.

I did say somewhere above there were likely other idiots in the protest too.

Ok you’ve totally lost me if you think people who are concerned about vaccine passports are idiots…."

I think it's fair to call people idiots when they stormed the wrong building, chanting and ranting.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

Rather than “if you don’t do law in university we’re going to take away your first born child” that isn’t choice when you threaten to take away something that is fundamentally your right in a free society.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

Sounds a bit antivaxxy to me.

Ok so then so far we have two individuals that sounds like antivaxers. I still find it unlikely that everyone there has never had a single vaccine in their lives…..

So do I. So what?

Antivaxxers who spout utter nonsense about the Covid vaccine have often had other vaccines in their lives. You think these people would be consistent on anything?

Actually that’s the point. An antivaxer has not had a single other vaccine in their lives. That’s the definition of an antivaxer?!

You’re mixing people up.

No it isn't. An antivaxxer is just, at its most fundamental level, somebody who is opposed to vaccination. Look up the definition if you don't believe me.

Not sure how many of those so fundamentally opposed would have ever had a vaccine so almost the same thing. But I stand slightly corrected.

Many antivaxxers now seem to be specifically shouting about the Covid vaccine as opposed to other vaccines too. So, on those grounds too, they'd likely have had other vaccines in their lives.

That is one very good point.

But I still find it very hard to believe that everyone there was of that exact viewpoint.

Some people are actually just concerned about the precedent that vaccine passports may be setting.

I did say somewhere above there were likely other idiots in the protest too.

Ok you’ve totally lost me if you think people who are concerned about vaccine passports are idiots….

I think it's fair to call people idiots when they stormed the wrong building, chanting and ranting."

Ah ok. I assumed you were calling people against vaccine passports idiots. My bad

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

I think leaving the vulnerable with a choice of risking death (with or without vaccination) or permanent house arrest is unbefitting of a civilised country. Which is where we are now.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uddy laneMan
over a year ago

dudley

Looks like they follow any bullshit media post.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

Mother of god you can lose so much time on these threads. Just looked up and 40 mins have passed.

Off to do some work!

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"Mother of god you can lose so much time on these threads. Just looked up and 40 mins have passed.

Off to do some work!"

I disagree!

(Only joking. It can be a time sink lol)

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

Totally agree. The “you have a choice but there’s consequences” is such a bad argument it’s laughable. When you get mugged at knifepoint you have a choice not to hand over your wallet…. But you don’t really, let’s face it.

There should be no coercion at all. It’s vile and sets a horrendous precedent in relation to bodily autonomy, but so many can’t see it as they’ve been swept along with covid and literally think of nothing else. It’s given some peoples life a meaning, which is a shame, as they clearly have little else.

We can easily spin the consequences argument round…. The vax should be totally voluntary and tough shit to those who are scared of covid. Stay in your house, and if you go out the risk is a consequence, you have a choice…. See, easy!

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *rMrsRichCouple
over a year ago

Bournemouh

"Mother of god you can lose so much time on these threads. Just looked up and 40 mins have passed.

Off to do some work!

I disagree!

(Only joking. It can be a time sink lol)"

Omg that did make me chuckle.

Stop it you’re keeping me here

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham

They’re really showing their collective intelligence

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heNaturistCoupleCouple
over a year ago

crewe

"Why does everything bed to be polarised.

Can we not defend a free press and crackpots who break into buildings to protest crackpot ideas?.

Dangerous extremists?.

There hardly Isis, the old fashioned locked up for the weekend and a big fine has always dissuaded most, shall we try that or jump straight to lynchings and inquisitions.

The far left have lost their minds with this virus and the far right never had one to begin with.

It's time for the sensible people in the middle to say you lot, shut the fuck up, your embarrassing yourself.

Oh, the reasonable middle. Self proclaimed, of course

Please explain to me why storming a media building is not dangerous or extreme. How it differs from other attempts to undermine the pillars of our society.

I didn't say Isis. They are a lot like Y'all Qaeda and that mess on January 6 though. In fact, I bet they share a lot of disinformation material."

Because plenty of people illegally enter buildings with all sorts of intentions, Greenpeace, extinction rebellion, occupy wall Street, squatters, lots of people good extremist views, the religious, Communists, Satanists.

We don't classify them dangerous unless there dangerous like extremist Islamists who want to chop your head off or Satanists with plots sacrifice, Communists with plans of Revolution.

You don't get people out of extremist positions by bankrupting them thru lack of work or forcing them into poverty, we found this out decades ago.

Vaccine statistics will actually show that practically nobody is listening to them except oddbods on the intent, you can choose to be one of those oddbods or not, you do you as some would say.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

I think leaving the vulnerable with a choice of risking death (with or without vaccination) or permanent house arrest is unbefitting of a civilised country. Which is where we are now."

Permanent house arrest? Lol. They can go out, they have been vaccinated, and they have a choice whether to stay in. I have members of my family in that category and all just want to get on with life and don’t dream of coercing others into things.

And a civilised country has informed consent and medical autonomy.

Sone people need to get a life, they’re literally obsessed with covid. It’s given their life a meaning.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I though they were protesting against vaccine passports rather than the vaccine itself?

With such a small minority of the population being actual ‘antivaxers’ by the true definition I find it highly unlikely all of these people were against the vaccine in its entirety.

I think anyone who tries to storm a media building to try to stop a law is a dangerous extremist, no matter what flavour of dangerous extremist they are.

Secondly that wasn’t what I said in the first place. I said I found it unlikely they were ‘antivaxers’

There is a huge difference between protesting, and violently trying to storm a private building. "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government."

Yeah, like who do they think we are? First they say you can’t drive d*unk, then they make laws about wearing seltbelts and using your phone while driving, and now they want us to get a vaccine which saves lives?

I’m disgusted

When will it end

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end "

Not drink driving and wearing seatbelts don’t involve medical autonomy, nor do they prevent any freedoms. Wearing a seatbelt has no downside. Not drink driving has no downside. Giving away medical autonomy has a huge downside, but some can’t see the bigger picture here.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things "

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things "

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening."

Who said 100% safe?

Did you even read?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening."

To add…. Medical segregation is vile, and a lot of people will be embarrassed they supported it in years to come IMO. Get a grip. Get the vaccine if you’re worried. Don’t segregate and deny people freedoms because of your fear.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *ik MMan
over a year ago

Lancashire

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things "

There you go - ‘The science at the moment’ .

So by definition, should the science change you’ll have absolutely no issue with banning vaccinated people from certain things

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening."

The vaccine protects but people without it are walking vectors of disease.

Certain people can’t get it. Are you gonna infect them cuz Facebook told you the vaccine isn’t safe?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

Who said 100% safe?

Did you even read? "

You said it’s safe. Then if you agree it’s not 100%, why should people take any risk because of your fear of covid? Even a small risk? Medical autonomy allows informed consent.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

There you go - ‘The science at the moment’ .

So by definition, should the science change you’ll have absolutely no issue with banning vaccinated people from certain things"

Absolutely. I just really don’t think it will. But if it does and vaccinated people become the issue then ban us from everything until there’s a fix

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

You are aware we have medical segregation in this country right?

I guess that because it has been directly affected you in the past you just not that bothered about it.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

Who said 100% safe?

Did you even read?

You said it’s safe. Then if you agree it’s not 100%, why should people take any risk because of your fear of covid? Even a small risk? Medical autonomy allows informed consent."

All the science points to the vaccine being safer than getting covid

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heNaturistCoupleCouple
over a year ago

crewe

The RR of a vaccine is based on a certain amount of distribution in the population, not 100%, We're on target to meet that.

I really don't care what the 5% think or do, they're not effecting the efficacy of the vaccine nor my life, I think this way about rock climbers or sky divers your taking a risk not worth taking but feel free.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

Who said 100% safe?

Did you even read?

You said it’s safe. Then if you agree it’s not 100%, why should people take any risk because of your fear of covid? Even a small risk? Medical autonomy allows informed consent."

Almost all medication that is prescribed daily is considered safe however none of it is a 100% so I'm assuming you don't take any medication for anything ever.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

The vaccine protects but people without it are walking vectors of disease.

Certain people can’t get it. Are you gonna infect them cuz Facebook told you the vaccine isn’t safe? "

Walking vectors of disease lol

No, they’re not. Grow up. Your fear is laughable. The average age of death is over 80, and those vaccinated still spread it. You know, that’s life, that’s infectious disease, it happens, people die.

I’ve never been on Facebook, and I didn’t say it wasn’t safe. I said it’s not 100% safe, and bad reactions are rare. But each person can weigh that up. Can you read?

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

Who said 100% safe?

Did you even read?

You said it’s safe. Then if you agree it’s not 100%, why should people take any risk because of your fear of covid? Even a small risk? Medical autonomy allows informed consent.

Almost all medication that is prescribed daily is considered safe however none of it is a 100% so I'm assuming you don't take any medication for anything ever."

What a weird assumption! Of course I’ve taken medicine. And every medicine I’ve had has never left anyone with a choice of taking it or being excluded from society. And that includes the flu jab, and flu kills tons of older and vulnerable people. It’s called informed consent and is fundamental to civilised society.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

The vaccine protects but people without it are walking vectors of disease.

Certain people can’t get it. Are you gonna infect them cuz Facebook told you the vaccine isn’t safe?

Walking vectors of disease lol

I’ve never been on Facebook, and I didn’t say it wasn’t safe. I said it’s not 100% safe, and bad reactions are rare. But each person can weigh that up. Can you read?"

But nobody on this thread has claimed it was a 100% say so I really don't understand what your issue is.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

The vaccine protects but people without it are walking vectors of disease.

Certain people can’t get it. Are you gonna infect them cuz Facebook told you the vaccine isn’t safe?

Walking vectors of disease lol

I’ve never been on Facebook, and I didn’t say it wasn’t safe. I said it’s not 100% safe, and bad reactions are rare. But each person can weigh that up. Can you read?"

You seem angry? I’ve never said you said anything. I’m making my point.

The vaccine is safer then getting covid

Some people can’t get the vaccine for legit medical reasons

You are putting people like that at risk by being more likely to contract and spread covid

So it’s only fair you should be barred from certain places until your not a risk

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

Who said 100% safe?

Did you even read?

You said it’s safe. Then if you agree it’s not 100%, why should people take any risk because of your fear of covid? Even a small risk? Medical autonomy allows informed consent.

Almost all medication that is prescribed daily is considered safe however none of it is a 100% so I'm assuming you don't take any medication for anything ever.

But that's where you're wrong because you will not be excluded from society you will simply not be able to go to a nightclub and some of the venues from September that is completely different.

You choose not to have the vaccine, some businesses choose not to have you on their premises that is called informed consent.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

Wow this thread has moved on, it was a funny story about idiots and has moved on to another vaccine tug o war.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

The vaccine protects but people without it are walking vectors of disease.

Certain people can’t get it. Are you gonna infect them cuz Facebook told you the vaccine isn’t safe?

Walking vectors of disease lol

I’ve never been on Facebook, and I didn’t say it wasn’t safe. I said it’s not 100% safe, and bad reactions are rare. But each person can weigh that up. Can you read?

But nobody on this thread has claimed it was a 100% say so I really don't understand what your issue is. "

I was responding to the scared bloke who said it’s safe so people who don’t want it should be banned from certain things. It’s not 100% safe and that is the basis of informed consent and medical autonomy.

Putting on a seatbelt, which is the laughable comparison, is totally safe, so there’s no issue (maybe you might catch a nail in the buckle, but that’s about it!).

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

The vaccine protects but people without it are walking vectors of disease.

Certain people can’t get it. Are you gonna infect them cuz Facebook told you the vaccine isn’t safe?

Walking vectors of disease lol

I’ve never been on Facebook, and I didn’t say it wasn’t safe. I said it’s not 100% safe, and bad reactions are rare. But each person can weigh that up. Can you read?

But nobody on this thread has claimed it was a 100% say so I really don't understand what your issue is.

Putting on a seatbelt, which is the laughable comparison, is totally safe, so there’s no issue (maybe you might catch a nail in the buckle, but that’s about it!)."

Why do you feel the need to insult people and call him scared and also you said he claimed it was a 100% safe and he didn't.

It's not a bad comparison at all it's just you don't want to see it that way because it doesn't go for fit with your narrative.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

The vaccine protects but people without it are walking vectors of disease.

Certain people can’t get it. Are you gonna infect them cuz Facebook told you the vaccine isn’t safe?

Walking vectors of disease lol

I’ve never been on Facebook, and I didn’t say it wasn’t safe. I said it’s not 100% safe, and bad reactions are rare. But each person can weigh that up. Can you read?

You seem angry? I’ve never said you said anything. I’m making my point.

The vaccine is safer then getting covid

Some people can’t get the vaccine for legit medical reasons

You are putting people like that at risk by being more likely to contract and spread covid

So it’s only fair you should be barred from certain places until your not a risk "

Fair to ban people for exercising medical autonomy? Everyone is a risk with every infectious disease. That’s life. Same with flu, same with norovirus. Going out is a risk. Driving risks a crash and hurting others. Get a grip. You’ve been persuaded into thinking medical segregation is virtuous. Christ there’s no hope.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

Ffs this has nothing to do with the op.

Stay on topic...

Funny story: protestors who don't like mainstream media, storm an out of date building.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

Who said 100% safe?

Did you even read?

You said it’s safe. Then if you agree it’s not 100%, why should people take any risk because of your fear of covid? Even a small risk? Medical autonomy allows informed consent.

Almost all medication that is prescribed daily is considered safe however none of it is a 100% so I'm assuming you don't take any medication for anything ever.

But that's where you're wrong because you will not be excluded from society you will simply not be able to go to a nightclub and some of the venues from September that is completely different.

You choose not to have the vaccine, some businesses choose not to have you on their premises that is called informed consent.

It’s not the businesses choosing, you’re wrong. It’s the government threatening to bring it in.

It won’t end at nightclubs. It won’t end at covid vaccines. Informed consent is a medical term so no that’s not the same thing.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"They can't be that dangerous if they cant find the right place to protest. "

If they had walked 500 yards further up the road they would of found the BBC most important building. The one where they broadcast everything out of.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

The vaccine protects but people without it are walking vectors of disease.

Certain people can’t get it. Are you gonna infect them cuz Facebook told you the vaccine isn’t safe?

Walking vectors of disease lol

I’ve never been on Facebook, and I didn’t say it wasn’t safe. I said it’s not 100% safe, and bad reactions are rare. But each person can weigh that up. Can you read?

But nobody on this thread has claimed it was a 100% say so I really don't understand what your issue is.

Putting on a seatbelt, which is the laughable comparison, is totally safe, so there’s no issue (maybe you might catch a nail in the buckle, but that’s about it!).

Why do you feel the need to insult people and call him scared and also you said he claimed it was a 100% safe and he didn't.

It's not a bad comparison at all it's just you don't want to see it that way because it doesn't go for fit with your narrative.

I said scared because he has a fear of a virus with an average death age over 80, and is happy to segregate society on this basis like an authoritarian fascist. I didn’t insult him.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *uckandbunnyCouple
over a year ago

In your bed

"They can't be that dangerous if they cant find the right place to protest.

If they had walked 500 yards further up the road they would of found the BBC most important building. The one where they broadcast everything out of. "

Its also where they hold the alien autopsy bodies.

Shhh

Don't tell anyone

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *heekybrummiemonkeysCouple
over a year ago

Birmingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

The vaccine protects but people without it are walking vectors of disease.

Certain people can’t get it. Are you gonna infect them cuz Facebook told you the vaccine isn’t safe?

Walking vectors of disease lol

I’ve never been on Facebook, and I didn’t say it wasn’t safe. I said it’s not 100% safe, and bad reactions are rare. But each person can weigh that up. Can you read?

But nobody on this thread has claimed it was a 100% say so I really don't understand what your issue is.

Putting on a seatbelt, which is the laughable comparison, is totally safe, so there’s no issue (maybe you might catch a nail in the buckle, but that’s about it!).

Why do you feel the need to insult people and call him scared and also you said he claimed it was a 100% safe and he didn't.

It's not a bad comparison at all it's just you don't want to see it that way because it doesn't go for fit with your narrative.

I said scared because he has a fear of a virus with an average death age over 80, and is happy to segregate society on this basis like an authoritarian fascist. I didn’t insult him."

The seatbelt is a terrible comparison as you do t object a seatbelt. Christ I can’t believe I had to even say that! Lol.

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"They can't be that dangerous if they cant find the right place to protest.

If they had walked 500 yards further up the road they would of found the BBC most important building. The one where they broadcast everything out of. "

I was listening to one of the organisers of the protest yesterday being interviewed on the radio today. He said when asked why he had come to the wrong place "BBC or ITV they are both the same"

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *naswingdressWoman
over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"They can't be that dangerous if they cant find the right place to protest.

If they had walked 500 yards further up the road they would of found the BBC most important building. The one where they broadcast everything out of.

Its also where they hold the alien autopsy bodies.

Shhh

Don't tell anyone

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

By *annaBeStrongMan
over a year ago

wokingham

"I think denying people normal freedoms unless they have the covid jab is dangerous extremism, and it should be voluntary with no coercion at all.

This this this!

So many people keep saying “everyone has choices in life and you face the consequences bla bla”

But that’s crap. A choice in life is decisions like do I study law or physiology at uni

I’ve come to the conclusion many people just like being told what to do by the government.

I’m disgusted

When will it end

The science at the moment says that the vaccine is safe and effective.

By not having it, you are a risk to other people’s health.

We ban smoking indoors too.

Makes sense to ban unvaccinated people from certain things

100% safe? Really? Nonsense. Bad reactions are rare but it’s not 100% safe.

Risking others health? They can have the vaccine! To use your drving analogy, if we ban cars totally that will stop all road deaths! Sorted! Should we go that?

It is authoritarian and fascist to ban people from doing certain things if they choose their right of bodily autonomy. The fact you can’t see the precedent set there is frightening.

The vaccine protects but people without it are walking vectors of disease.

Certain people can’t get it. Are you gonna infect them cuz Facebook told you the vaccine isn’t safe?

Walking vectors of disease lol

I’ve never been on Facebook, and I didn’t say it wasn’t safe. I said it’s not 100% safe, and bad reactions are rare. But each person can weigh that up. Can you read?

But nobody on this thread has claimed it was a 100% say so I really don't understand what your issue is.

Putting on a seatbelt, which is the laughable comparison, is totally safe, so there’s no issue (maybe you might catch a nail in the buckle, but that’s about it!).

Why do you feel the need to insult people and call him scared and also you said he claimed it was a 100% safe and he didn't.

It's not a bad comparison at all it's just you don't want to see it that way because it doesn't go for fit with your narrative.

I said scared because he has a fear of a virus with an average death age over 80, and is happy to segregate society on this basis like an authoritarian fascist. I didn’t insult him."

I’m not scared of the virus, I just see where this is going.

Weee gonna have a year or 2 of heavy vaccination while the world rolls out more vaccinations.

Treatments are going to be developed, more studies on the virus, and most importantly, the virus mutations will come to an anticlimactic halt where it’s nothing more than the flu.

Then the vaccine will be offered out as optional like the flu vaccine is.

If anything you seem scared

Reply privately

Reply in forum

Reply +quote

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

"They can't be that dangerous if they cant find the right place to protest.

If they had walked 500 yards further up the road they would of found the BBC most important building. The one where they broadcast everything out of.

I was listening to one of the organisers of the protest yesterday being interviewed on the radio today. He said when asked why he had come to the wrong place "BBC or ITV they are both the same"

They share the same site and in a couple of weeks ITV will be moving in and occupying the same building. It’s the same as at Salford.