Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
" Well, that didn’t last long. For a couple of months, it really looked like being double-jabbed might buy you a ticket to free (ish) travel. More than that, it was our only exit strategy from this vicious circle of lockdowns at home. But new evidence has thrown all this into doubt. Anti-vaxxers will delight in this latest development: that being jabbed won’t stop you spreading the extra-infectious delta variant after all. It certainly protects you personally, to a high degree, from serious symptoms and death – but the vast majority of us weren’t at risk of that anyway. What it won’t do, according to an increasing body of evidence, is prevent you from being a carrier and thus a danger to others. This somewhat defeats the whole point – and is certainly the only reason international travel has resumed of late. Last week, in news that hasn’t got nearly enough airtime, Public Health England said in a statement: "Some initial findings [...] indicate that levels of virus in those who become infected with Delta having already been vaccinated may be similar to levels found in unvaccinated people. This may have implications for people's infectiousness, whether they have been vaccinated or not. What this means, in plain terms, is that those NHS Covid passes we’ve been using to escape quarantine both when visiting other countries and upon our return are going to plummet in value. Already, UK _estivals and other mass events are switching their entry requirements to require a negative test of everyone – regardless of vaccination status. International travel schemes such as the EU Covid certificate, will likely follow. Masks are back in America, where the US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reversed its guidance on the double-jabbed being exempt. Many will feel cheated by this. Certainly, the reason I rolled up my sleeve in the first place was not because I was afraid of Covid, but solely to get my freedoms back. I really did not want to get jabbed; for the same reason I’ve never got the flu shot, because personally I’d rather take my chances on catching the illness. Based on the Government’s own QCovid risk calculator tool, my risk – as a reasonably healthy 34-year-old – of being hospitalised with Covid-19 is 0.0218 per cent, and my risk of dying is 0.0007 per cent. This should have been my gamble alone to take, but it has been a deeply unpopular and ‘selfish’ stance. Since the early days of the drive, it’s been rammed down our throats that in getting vaccinated, we were doing a public service to others. It was our only chance to reach ‘herd immunity’, we were urged – (a notion that has since been branded an unattainable ‘mythical’ goal by the director of the Oxford Vaccine Group). Lo and behold, as data from the UK, the US and beyond is proving, the vaccines might well save you, but they won’t save everyone else. The messaging has thus changed. Professor Francois Balloux, director of the UCL Genetics Institute, stated this week: “It is not so much anymore a ‘duty to others’ to get vaccinated but a protection for oneself. There won't be any 'herd immunity wall' to hide behind.” Why, then, should we vaccinated Britons, from a nation where the delta variant is dominant, be any ‘safer’ as tourists in other countries to the un-vaxxed? With the science now clear that people around the world are still passing the virus to and fro despite being inoculated, the beleaguered travel industry – and our chance at recapturing freedom of movement – has hit another major stumbling block. The warning signs were there months ago, when the countries with the highest vaccination rates in the world were also recording enormous surges in case counts. Many of these, heavily reliant on tourism for their GDP, had rushed to inoculate their entire populations as a matter of urgency purely for this reason: to reopen for visitors. The Seychelles, for example, had by mid-May double-jabbed more than 80 per cent of its population, but regardless, its case count was 67 times higher than ours. According to Telegraph's live tracker, it has now vaccinated over 92 per cent of its citizens and its current infection rate is still a massive 336 per 100,000. Fat lot of good their drive did them, as the islands continue to languish on our red list. The good news is that the vaccines have done their job in drastically reducing illness and death. And that while testing will likely be here to stay for some time should we wish to travel, the exorbitant cost will hopefully come down. But all those with a saviour complex who had their jabs in an evangelical quest to ‘protect others’ should dismount their high horse. And all those who did so purely in pursuit of an easier holiday have every right to feel grumpy." | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Something weve known for a while. The holier than thou double jabbed pricks can gtfo out now." hey im double jabbed lol,didnt do it for any noble reason though purley selfish reasons as thought it would give me bit more freedom,can go fuck emselves now though if they start trying to force any boosters on people | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well right now, double vaccine +14 days does actually allow you to escape and go on holiday/visit relatives abroad/work abroad easier & cheaper. However, it's always been clear that these covid vaccines are actually a pre treatment against covid19 and not a vaccine in the traditional sense (that it will prevent you contracting and passing) so I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by the article. Plus, viruses mutate. It's what they do, so one or more mutation could either be resilient to, or even target a specific type. But, It's all we've got " spot on. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Something weve known for a while. The holier than thou double jabbed pricks can gtfo out now." The block button is such a wonderful thing  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" The Seychelles, for example, had by mid-May double-jabbed more than 80 per cent of its population, but regardless, its case count was 67 times higher than ours. According to Telegraph's live tracker, it has now vaccinated over 92 per cent of its citizens and its current infection rate is still a massive 336 per 100,000. Fat lot of good their drive did them, as the islands continue to languish on our red list. " Nice use of misleading stats, the population of the Seychelles is only approximately 100k. So that’s a “massive” average of 336 cases then? 
If you have to do some tests to travel, on top of being jabbed, that’s hardly a major imposition to keep the people of the country you’re a guest of safe.
The most important paragraph in that whole article
" The good news is that the vaccines have done their job in drastically reducing illness and death. " | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine even if you do stop me going to clubs or having a holiday! How long do you think they can keep that up? I’ll bet the queue for annual boosters will be a lot shorter! It’ll be like Brexit in a year, all forgotten " Or it might be like Brexit - causing increasing problems every day and certainly not forgotten. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine even if you do stop me going to clubs or having a holiday! How long do you think they can keep that up? I’ll bet the queue for annual boosters will be a lot shorter! It’ll be like Brexit in a year, all forgotten " Lol very true people have short selective memories. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Unfortunately our only options are either: 1. Get as many people vaccinated as possible, and try to keep infection as low as we can by whatever other means (masks, distance, hygeine) and have at least some hope of heading towards a situation where there's enough general immunity to improve matters. At the very least these measures will reduce the burden on hospitals and other parts of society, if not fix everything. 2. Do nothing, and have a certainty that there will be no herd immunity, a certainty that we haven't tried to reduce burdens on hospitals, a certainty that we haven't tried to fix anything. The "arguments" against vaxxing where possible, masking where possible, distancing where possible amount to no more than petulant whining. "You can't say with certainty that doing something to help will fix everything, so I'm not going to do anything to help". What I can say with certainty is that if you don't do anything to help, then there is no chance of fixing anything. The _only_ reason why governments are having to demand proof of vaccination, proof of testing, is that too many people are doing the spoilt baby "I don't wanna help, you can't make me, and I'm going to scream if you take my toys away". Grown ups shouldn't behave like that. If people don't want to be grown ups, then they have to be treated like children, and unfortunately that sometimes means taking their toys away." Rubbish. Maintaining medical autonomy is not childish. Testing everyone for events/holidays is reasonable, and does not involve disgusting segregation. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still can't see an issue Double jabbed still less likely to get seriously ill So restrict the un vaccinated for their safety and stop the NHS strain Nothing has changed everyone vaccinated knew we could still catch it or spread it Simple solution is one above covid passports " Restrict the unvaccinated? Vile segregation. It’s about medical autonomy, which is a fundamental freedom. Options of testing have to remain, particularly given that’s a better gauge of not carrying the virus than a double jab! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home" Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared." That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible." The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life." And the government is not in charge of our freedoms. We make our own risk based decisions. It’s not North Korea. God it’s frightening what 18 months of fear in the news has done to some people. Segregation. Disgusting. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You seem to be entirely unaware of what a government does. Have you ever heard of something called ‘the law’? If not, you’ll be amazed when you find out what it is, and who decides what it consists of." Yes, I’m well aware of the law. And I’m aware of medical autonomy. And informed consent. And none coercion. You are proposing medical segregation. Disgusting. If you want to hand over your medical autonomy to the government, fair enough. You’d love North Korea. Get the jab and get on with life like most have. If people dont want it that’s their look out. Increasing evidence suggests that transmission isn’t hugely impacted by the vaccine anyway. Even if in your authoritarian world everyone unvaccinated was to stay at home, it would still spread! Do you not think unvaccinated people should be able to buy food? How about make them wear a badge? Ship them off to an island? What are you thinking for gods sake? Stay at home? Disgusting. You stay at home and let adults make their own choices regarding infectious disease, like we always have! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You said this: ‘And the government is not in charge of our freedoms. We make our own risk based decisions.’ So, either you don’t know what the law is, or you don’t understand what the government’s role is in creating and passing laws to mitigate risk to the individual within society. As that’s fundamentally obvious, you might wonder about the other things you seem confident you know." And it’s not that simple because otherwise anything that carries any risk would be banned. Think about it. Medical autonomy is fundamental. You are proposing medical segregation for gods sake. That is beyond disgusting. How far would you take it? Banned from leaving the house? Can’t buy food shopping? Absolutely disgusting to segregate people like that. Vile. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You said this: ‘And the government is not in charge of our freedoms. We make our own risk based decisions.’ So, either you don’t know what the law is, or you don’t understand what the government’s role is in creating and passing laws to mitigate risk to the individual within society. As that’s fundamentally obvious, you might wonder about the other things you seem confident you know. And it’s not that simple because otherwise anything that carries any risk would be banned. Think about it. Medical autonomy is fundamental. You are proposing medical segregation for gods sake. That is beyond disgusting. How far would you take it? Banned from leaving the house? Can’t buy food shopping? Absolutely disgusting to segregate people like that. Vile." Why don’t you think about it? The first thing you’ve written is observably wrong, and is not counter to the explanation you’ve been given about law, government and risk. When you can work out why, we’ll talk further. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You said this: ‘And the government is not in charge of our freedoms. We make our own risk based decisions.’ So, either you don’t know what the law is, or you don’t understand what the government’s role is in creating and passing laws to mitigate risk to the individual within society. As that’s fundamentally obvious, you might wonder about the other things you seem confident you know. And it’s not that simple because otherwise anything that carries any risk would be banned. Think about it. Medical autonomy is fundamental. You are proposing medical segregation for gods sake. That is beyond disgusting. How far would you take it? Banned from leaving the house? Can’t buy food shopping? Absolutely disgusting to segregate people like that. Vile. Why don’t you think about it? The first thing you’ve written is observably wrong, and is not counter to the explanation you’ve been given about law, government and risk. When you can work out why, we’ll talk further. " Lol. I’m well aware of the law and laws being passed to mitigate risk. It’s not that simple and you know it. Otherwise every single thing that carries risk would be banned. Getting on a bike would be banned as it increases the risk to pedestrians. You could literally ban anything based on risk. So answer my questions about how far you’d take this disgusting segregation. Food shopping? Medical care? How far would you take this medical segregation? If you knew history, you’re not in good company supporting segregation…. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You said this: ‘And the government is not in charge of our freedoms. We make our own risk based decisions.’ So, either you don’t know what the law is, or you don’t understand what the government’s role is in creating and passing laws to mitigate risk to the individual within society. As that’s fundamentally obvious, you might wonder about the other things you seem confident you know. And it’s not that simple because otherwise anything that carries any risk would be banned. Think about it. Medical autonomy is fundamental. You are proposing medical segregation for gods sake. That is beyond disgusting. How far would you take it? Banned from leaving the house? Can’t buy food shopping? Absolutely disgusting to segregate people like that. Vile." This | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Well right now, double vaccine +14 days does actually allow you to escape and go on holiday/visit relatives abroad/work abroad easier & cheaper. However, it's always been clear that these covid vaccines are actually a pre treatment against covid19 and not a vaccine in the traditional sense (that it will prevent you contracting and passing) so I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised by the article. Plus, viruses mutate. It's what they do, so one or more mutation could either be resilient to, or even target a specific type. But, It's all we've got "This pretty much sums up my thoughts exactly. At this point in time the ONLY thing we've really got to try and MITIGATE THE SEVERITY of the virus is the vaccine. With the variants getting more transmissible, and the continual mutating, it would appear that Mother Nature is hellbent on trying to eliminate the pestilence that is humanity. Having had N1H1 (swine flu, another coronavirus) in 2009, I can tell you I will be first in line for whatever vaccine or booster they want to jab me with. I was so ill with N1H1 that I WANTED to die - no Covid-19 for me if I can help it. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’." In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still can't see an issue Double jabbed still less likely to get seriously ill So restrict the un vaccinated for their safety and stop the NHS strain Nothing has changed everyone vaccinated knew we could still catch it or spread it Simple solution is one above covid passports Restrict the unvaccinated? Vile segregation. It’s about medical autonomy, which is a fundamental freedom. Options of testing have to remain, particularly given that’s a better gauge of not carrying the virus than a double jab!" In that autonomous selection, you will have rights and responsibilities, including limited engagement with others who you could place at greater risk. You use the word vile, but it could be used more appropriately when someone's life is negligently put at risk. Vaccines and restrictions have only ever been our tools to reduce the harm that people's behaviour and the virus pose to our society. There's no magical spell that will make this disappear | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. " Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In that autonomous selection, you will have rights and responsibilities, including limited engagement with others who you could place at greater risk. You use the word vile, but it could be used more appropriately when someone's life is negligently put at risk. " I’ve tried to stay silent and read the responses but had to step in here. You say someone who hasn’t been double jabbed is negligently putting someone’s life at risk. How exactly? The virus can be spread by both jabbed and unjabbed (is that even a word? Lol) so surely it’s the irresponsible people who have symptoms and still leave the house are the ones being negligent? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In that autonomous selection, you will have rights and responsibilities, including limited engagement with others who you could place at greater risk. You use the word vile, but it could be used more appropriately when someone's life is negligently put at risk. I’ve tried to stay silent and read the responses but had to step in here. You say someone who hasn’t been double jabbed is negligently putting someone’s life at risk. How exactly? The virus can be spread by both jabbed and unjabbed (is that even a word? Lol) so surely it’s the irresponsible people who have symptoms and still leave the house are the ones being negligent?" Yes, but the data shows vaccinated people are less contagious than unvaccinated people. You might also make the (very!) general assumption that someone vaccinated is more concerned about the virus, and so more likely to follow safer behaviour such as mask wearing, social distancing and self-testing than someone who is unvaccinated for ideological reasons. If you have clear symptoms and choose to leave the house of course you are being irresponsible - but that’s not the only possible irresponsibility. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still can't see an issue Double jabbed still less likely to get seriously ill So restrict the un vaccinated for their safety and stop the NHS strain Nothing has changed everyone vaccinated knew we could still catch it or spread it Simple solution is one above covid passports Restrict the unvaccinated? Vile segregation. It’s about medical autonomy, which is a fundamental freedom. Options of testing have to remain, particularly given that’s a better gauge of not carrying the virus than a double jab! In that autonomous selection, you will have rights and responsibilities, including limited engagement with others who you could place at greater risk. You use the word vile, but it could be used more appropriately when someone's life is negligently put at risk. Vaccines and restrictions have only ever been our tools to reduce the harm that people's behaviour and the virus pose to our society. There's no magical spell that will make this disappear " One problem, EVERYONE is still able to put someone else at risk, REGARDLESS of being vaccinated or not. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In that autonomous selection, you will have rights and responsibilities, including limited engagement with others who you could place at greater risk. You use the word vile, but it could be used more appropriately when someone's life is negligently put at risk. I’ve tried to stay silent and read the responses but had to step in here. You say someone who hasn’t been double jabbed is negligently putting someone’s life at risk. How exactly? The virus can be spread by both jabbed and unjabbed (is that even a word? Lol) so surely it’s the irresponsible people who have symptoms and still leave the house are the ones being negligent? Yes, but the data shows vaccinated people are less contagious than unvaccinated people. You might also make the (very!) general assumption that someone vaccinated is more concerned about the virus, and so more likely to follow safer behaviour such as mask wearing, social distancing and self-testing than someone who is unvaccinated for ideological reasons. If you have clear symptoms and choose to leave the house of course you are being irresponsible - but that’s not the only possible irresponsibility." I wear a mask everywhere I go, I’m social distancing when I see friends and I self test. Yet I’m unvaccinated. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In that autonomous selection, you will have rights and responsibilities, including limited engagement with others who you could place at greater risk. You use the word vile, but it could be used more appropriately when someone's life is negligently put at risk. I’ve tried to stay silent and read the responses but had to step in here. You say someone who hasn’t been double jabbed is negligently putting someone’s life at risk. How exactly? The virus can be spread by both jabbed and unjabbed (is that even a word? Lol) so surely it’s the irresponsible people who have symptoms and still leave the house are the ones being negligent? Yes, but the data shows vaccinated people are less contagious than unvaccinated people. You might also make the (very!) general assumption that someone vaccinated is more concerned about the virus, and so more likely to follow safer behaviour such as mask wearing, social distancing and self-testing than someone who is unvaccinated for ideological reasons. If you have clear symptoms and choose to leave the house of course you are being irresponsible - but that’s not the only possible irresponsibility. I wear a mask everywhere I go, I’m social distancing when I see friends and I self test. Yet I’m unvaccinated. " What’s your point? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument." That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are actually people on here who would lock unvaccinated people back up EVEN THOUGH THE JAB DOESN'T STOP SPREAD. So, WHO exactly are the unvaccinated people putting at more risk than the vaccinated people? Fucking NO-ONE. Both sets are capable of infecting someone, in fact the ONLY people at the most risk are the unvaccinated people themselves!!?! And I've seen some of the attitude from pro - vax towards anti - vax on here, let's be honest, you couldn't give a fuck less if they end up catching covid, the first words out of your mouths would be "ha, told you so!". So you know everyone's at risk, regardless of the vaccination, the only reason you are still bleating on about the unvaccinated is because you are very happy to watch the power of the government being unleashed against the people you dislike and hate... " Spot on. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There are actually people on here who would lock unvaccinated people back up EVEN THOUGH THE JAB DOESN'T STOP SPREAD. So, WHO exactly are the unvaccinated people putting at more risk than the vaccinated people? Fucking NO-ONE. Both sets are capable of infecting someone, in fact the ONLY people at the most risk are the unvaccinated people themselves!!?! And I've seen some of the attitude from pro - vax towards anti - vax on here, let's be honest, you couldn't give a fuck less if they end up catching covid, the first words out of your mouths would be "ha, told you so!". So you know everyone's at risk, regardless of the vaccination, the only reason you are still bleating on about the unvaccinated is because you are very happy to watch the power of the government being unleashed against the people you dislike and hate... Spot on." Absolutely spot on | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer…" You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You said this: ‘And the government is not in charge of our freedoms. We make our own risk based decisions.’ So, either you don’t know what the law is, or you don’t understand what the government’s role is in creating and passing laws to mitigate risk to the individual within society. As that’s fundamentally obvious, you might wonder about the other things you seem confident you know. And it’s not that simple because otherwise anything that carries any risk would be banned. Think about it. Medical autonomy is fundamental. You are proposing medical segregation for gods sake. That is beyond disgusting. How far would you take it? Banned from leaving the house? Can’t buy food shopping? Absolutely disgusting to segregate people like that. Vile." Last time I looked it was antivaxxers who were blithely saying that everyone with any vulnerability should have to stay at home until the end of their lives. FFS the deal is this: If people want to take advantage of the privileges that society gives them, they have to do their part to meet the responsibilities to go with those privileges. Nobody has absolute rights, and they certainly don't have rights to behave like spoiled children saying "I can do what I want, I don't have to do anything for others". What we have is a societal contract, where in return for doing our part to support society, we get the privilege to receive advantages from that society. Because some people are fuckwits, we have to write down the rules of what things we are supposed to do and what things we get in return, and we call these laws. Because life is complicated, these laws are often complicated and include provision for cases where some people have different abilities to others, or are physically incapable of doing some things. Some selfish people then always try to use these provisions as loopholes to avoid meeting their responsibilities and/or grab more advantage than their fair share. These are the people that are vile. Medical autonomy is NOT fundamental. Medical autonomy is awarded by society as a privilege to those who are deemed as being capable of making sensible decisions, who will not use that medical autonomy to harm others, who take responsibility for the consequences of exercising that medical autonomy. Medical autonomy allows one to self harm, until that self harm spills over into harming others, and then society will no longer allow it. Nobody is forcing vaccine deniers and vaccine hesitant to take a vaccine, or any other type of drug. However society at large is saying that not being vaccinated has a consequence, and that consequence is that those unvaccinated must take their share of the responsibility for mitigating the spread of a dangerous disease in other ways. Those that will not take responsibility for trying even a little bit to protect everyone else from disease, must not be surprised when everybody else says "if you could make an effort to help, but won't, then stay away from all us who are doing what we can". Society is not forcing medical segregation on those who could be vaccinated but will not; those people are voluntarily excluding themselves from some of the privileges they could otherwise enjoy. Society requires this so that those who would like to be vaccinated, but cannot, may still enjoy some of those privileges. For anybody that does not like these rules of society - exercise your vote when the time comes, it there are enough in agreement with you then you can choose a government that makes rules more to your liking. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection? "No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test). How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it….. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You said this: ‘And the government is not in charge of our freedoms. We make our own risk based decisions.’ So, either you don’t know what the law is, or you don’t understand what the government’s role is in creating and passing laws to mitigate risk to the individual within society. As that’s fundamentally obvious, you might wonder about the other things you seem confident you know. And it’s not that simple because otherwise anything that carries any risk would be banned. Think about it. Medical autonomy is fundamental. You are proposing medical segregation for gods sake. That is beyond disgusting. How far would you take it? Banned from leaving the house? Can’t buy food shopping? Absolutely disgusting to segregate people like that. Vile. Last time I looked it was antivaxxers who were blithely saying that everyone with any vulnerability should have to stay at home until the end of their lives. FFS the deal is this: If people want to take advantage of the privileges that society gives them, they have to do their part to meet the responsibilities to go with those privileges. Nobody has absolute rights, and they certainly don't have rights to behave like spoiled children saying "I can do what I want, I don't have to do anything for others". What we have is a societal contract, where in return for doing our part to support society, we get the privilege to receive advantages from that society. Because some people are fuckwits, we have to write down the rules of what things we are supposed to do and what things we get in return, and we call these laws. Because life is complicated, these laws are often complicated and include provision for cases where some people have different abilities to others, or are physically incapable of doing some things. Some selfish people then always try to use these provisions as loopholes to avoid meeting their responsibilities and/or grab more advantage than their fair share. These are the people that are vile. Medical autonomy is NOT fundamental. Medical autonomy is awarded by society as a privilege to those who are deemed as being capable of making sensible decisions, who will not use that medical autonomy to harm others, who take responsibility for the consequences of exercising that medical autonomy. Medical autonomy allows one to self harm, until that self harm spills over into harming others, and then society will no longer allow it. Nobody is forcing vaccine deniers and vaccine hesitant to take a vaccine, or any other type of drug. However society at large is saying that not being vaccinated has a consequence, and that consequence is that those unvaccinated must take their share of the responsibility for mitigating the spread of a dangerous disease in other ways. Those that will not take responsibility for trying even a little bit to protect everyone else from disease, must not be surprised when everybody else says "if you could make an effort to help, but won't, then stay away from all us who are doing what we can". Society is not forcing medical segregation on those who could be vaccinated but will not; those people are voluntarily excluding themselves from some of the privileges they could otherwise enjoy. Society requires this so that those who would like to be vaccinated, but cannot, may still enjoy some of those privileges. For anybody that does not like these rules of society - exercise your vote when the time comes, it there are enough in agreement with you then you can choose a government that makes rules more to your liking. " “The anti vaxxers”? You do realise most people who haven’t had the vaccine are not anti vax in general? You do realise that most people who have had the vaccine don’t believe in excluding others who don’t want it? It’s not simply two groups, or is that a bit too nuanced for you? Society is not saying people should be excluded if they don’t want it. “Stay away from us”? My god that is disgusting. You have no right to know whether anyone has chosen to have it or not. You are in the company of vile authoritarian dictators, and it’s sickening. I’ll ask you as well, how far would you take this segregation? Not allowed in supermarkets? Wearing a badge? My god it’s vile. Turns my stomach. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it….. "Read what you’ve written again. Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it…..
Read what you’ve written again.
Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean?"I’ve read it. You keep repeating that, but fail to answer any of my questions in the debate. I mean historically those who believed in forms of segregation were disgusting. All forms of segregation. Work it out. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I guess if the unvaccinated are the higher risk then they should isolate themselves and let the rest of us continue with our happy normality ? What's the alternative ? Let the unvaccinated die ?" Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You said this: ‘And the government is not in charge of our freedoms. We make our own risk based decisions.’ So, either you don’t know what the law is, or you don’t understand what the government’s role is in creating and passing laws to mitigate risk to the individual within society. As that’s fundamentally obvious, you might wonder about the other things you seem confident you know. And it’s not that simple because otherwise anything that carries any risk would be banned. Think about it. Medical autonomy is fundamental. You are proposing medical segregation for gods sake. That is beyond disgusting. How far would you take it? Banned from leaving the house? Can’t buy food shopping? Absolutely disgusting to segregate people like that. Vile. Last time I looked it was antivaxxers who were blithely saying that everyone with any vulnerability should have to stay at home until the end of their lives. FFS the deal is this: If people want to take advantage of the privileges that society gives them, they have to do their part to meet the responsibilities to go with those privileges. Nobody has absolute rights, and they certainly don't have rights to behave like spoiled children saying "I can do what I want, I don't have to do anything for others". What we have is a societal contract, where in return for doing our part to support society, we get the privilege to receive advantages from that society. Because some people are fuckwits, we have to write down the rules of what things we are supposed to do and what things we get in return, and we call these laws. Because life is complicated, these laws are often complicated and include provision for cases where some people have different abilities to others, or are physically incapable of doing some things. Some selfish people then always try to use these provisions as loopholes to avoid meeting their responsibilities and/or grab more advantage than their fair share. These are the people that are vile. Medical autonomy is NOT fundamental. Medical autonomy is awarded by society as a privilege to those who are deemed as being capable of making sensible decisions, who will not use that medical autonomy to harm others, who take responsibility for the consequences of exercising that medical autonomy. Medical autonomy allows one to self harm, until that self harm spills over into harming others, and then society will no longer allow it. Nobody is forcing vaccine deniers and vaccine hesitant to take a vaccine, or any other type of drug. However society at large is saying that not being vaccinated has a consequence, and that consequence is that those unvaccinated must take their share of the responsibility for mitigating the spread of a dangerous disease in other ways. Those that will not take responsibility for trying even a little bit to protect everyone else from disease, must not be surprised when everybody else says "if you could make an effort to help, but won't, then stay away from all us who are doing what we can". Society is not forcing medical segregation on those who could be vaccinated but will not; those people are voluntarily excluding themselves from some of the privileges they could otherwise enjoy. Society requires this so that those who would like to be vaccinated, but cannot, may still enjoy some of those privileges. For anybody that does not like these rules of society - exercise your vote when the time comes, it there are enough in agreement with you then you can choose a government that makes rules more to your liking. " But polly, you’re not grasping the bigger picture. Unvaccinated people have to agree to this societal contract you talk about and mitigate the spread of the virus…….but vaccinated people can also spread the virus!!! So should they stay at home and not enjoy the so called privileges that you’re suggesting as well? That’s the only true way to eliminate this virus. Complete lockdown. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it…..
Read what you’ve written again.
Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean?
I’ve read it. You keep repeating that, but fail to answer any of my questions in the debate.
I mean historically those who believed in forms of segregation were disgusting. All forms of segregation. Work it out."No, you’re the one who keeps saying it - what do you mean? Who are you saying we are in disgusting company with? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it…..
Read what you’ve written again.
Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean?
I’ve read it. You keep repeating that, but fail to answer any of my questions in the debate.
I mean historically those who believed in forms of segregation were disgusting. All forms of segregation. Work it out.
No, you’re the one who keeps saying it - what do you mean? Who are you saying we are in disgusting company with?"Any authoritarian leader who believed in any form of segregation. Care to say how far you’d like to take this segregation or still avoiding the question? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You said this: ‘And the government is not in charge of our freedoms. We make our own risk based decisions.’ So, either you don’t know what the law is, or you don’t understand what the government’s role is in creating and passing laws to mitigate risk to the individual within society. As that’s fundamentally obvious, you might wonder about the other things you seem confident you know. And it’s not that simple because otherwise anything that carries any risk would be banned. Think about it. Medical autonomy is fundamental. You are proposing medical segregation for gods sake. That is beyond disgusting. How far would you take it? Banned from leaving the house? Can’t buy food shopping? Absolutely disgusting to segregate people like that. Vile. Last time I looked it was antivaxxers who were blithely saying that everyone with any vulnerability should have to stay at home until the end of their lives. FFS the deal is this: If people want to take advantage of the privileges that society gives them, they have to do their part to meet the responsibilities to go with those privileges. Nobody has absolute rights, and they certainly don't have rights to behave like spoiled children saying "I can do what I want, I don't have to do anything for others". What we have is a societal contract, where in return for doing our part to support society, we get the privilege to receive advantages from that society. Because some people are fuckwits, we have to write down the rules of what things we are supposed to do and what things we get in return, and we call these laws. Because life is complicated, these laws are often complicated and include provision for cases where some people have different abilities to others, or are physically incapable of doing some things. Some selfish people then always try to use these provisions as loopholes to avoid meeting their responsibilities and/or grab more advantage than their fair share. These are the people that are vile. Medical autonomy is NOT fundamental. Medical autonomy is awarded by society as a privilege to those who are deemed as being capable of making sensible decisions, who will not use that medical autonomy to harm others, who take responsibility for the consequences of exercising that medical autonomy. Medical autonomy allows one to self harm, until that self harm spills over into harming others, and then society will no longer allow it. Nobody is forcing vaccine deniers and vaccine hesitant to take a vaccine, or any other type of drug. However society at large is saying that not being vaccinated has a consequence, and that consequence is that those unvaccinated must take their share of the responsibility for mitigating the spread of a dangerous disease in other ways. Those that will not take responsibility for trying even a little bit to protect everyone else from disease, must not be surprised when everybody else says "if you could make an effort to help, but won't, then stay away from all us who are doing what we can". Society is not forcing medical segregation on those who could be vaccinated but will not; those people are voluntarily excluding themselves from some of the privileges they could otherwise enjoy. Society requires this so that those who would like to be vaccinated, but cannot, may still enjoy some of those privileges. For anybody that does not like these rules of society - exercise your vote when the time comes, it there are enough in agreement with you then you can choose a government that makes rules more to your liking. But polly, you’re not grasping the bigger picture. Unvaccinated people have to agree to this societal contract you talk about and mitigate the spread of the virus…….but vaccinated people can also spread the virus!!! So should they stay at home and not enjoy the so called privileges that you’re suggesting as well? That’s the only true way to eliminate this virus. Complete lockdown." Absolutely - but the government has opted against that sensible course of action, and opted instead for one that is less effective, but offers less restriction to the majority of the population. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You said this: ‘And the government is not in charge of our freedoms. We make our own risk based decisions.’ So, either you don’t know what the law is, or you don’t understand what the government’s role is in creating and passing laws to mitigate risk to the individual within society. As that’s fundamentally obvious, you might wonder about the other things you seem confident you know. And it’s not that simple because otherwise anything that carries any risk would be banned. Think about it. Medical autonomy is fundamental. You are proposing medical segregation for gods sake. That is beyond disgusting. How far would you take it? Banned from leaving the house? Can’t buy food shopping? Absolutely disgusting to segregate people like that. Vile. Last time I looked it was antivaxxers who were blithely saying that everyone with any vulnerability should have to stay at home until the end of their lives. FFS the deal is this: If people want to take advantage of the privileges that society gives them, they have to do their part to meet the responsibilities to go with those privileges. Nobody has absolute rights, and they certainly don't have rights to behave like spoiled children saying "I can do what I want, I don't have to do anything for others". What we have is a societal contract, where in return for doing our part to support society, we get the privilege to receive advantages from that society. Because some people are fuckwits, we have to write down the rules of what things we are supposed to do and what things we get in return, and we call these laws. Because life is complicated, these laws are often complicated and include provision for cases where some people have different abilities to others, or are physically incapable of doing some things. Some selfish people then always try to use these provisions as loopholes to avoid meeting their responsibilities and/or grab more advantage than their fair share. These are the people that are vile. Medical autonomy is NOT fundamental. Medical autonomy is awarded by society as a privilege to those who are deemed as being capable of making sensible decisions, who will not use that medical autonomy to harm others, who take responsibility for the consequences of exercising that medical autonomy. Medical autonomy allows one to self harm, until that self harm spills over into harming others, and then society will no longer allow it. Nobody is forcing vaccine deniers and vaccine hesitant to take a vaccine, or any other type of drug. However society at large is saying that not being vaccinated has a consequence, and that consequence is that those unvaccinated must take their share of the responsibility for mitigating the spread of a dangerous disease in other ways. Those that will not take responsibility for trying even a little bit to protect everyone else from disease, must not be surprised when everybody else says "if you could make an effort to help, but won't, then stay away from all us who are doing what we can". Society is not forcing medical segregation on those who could be vaccinated but will not; those people are voluntarily excluding themselves from some of the privileges they could otherwise enjoy. Society requires this so that those who would like to be vaccinated, but cannot, may still enjoy some of those privileges. For anybody that does not like these rules of society - exercise your vote when the time comes, it there are enough in agreement with you then you can choose a government that makes rules more to your liking. But polly, you’re not grasping the bigger picture. Unvaccinated people have to agree to this societal contract you talk about and mitigate the spread of the virus…….but vaccinated people can also spread the virus!!! So should they stay at home and not enjoy the so called privileges that you’re suggesting as well? That’s the only true way to eliminate this virus. Complete lockdown. Absolutely - but the government has opted against that sensible course of action, and opted instead for one that is less effective, but offers less restriction to the majority of the population." Sensible to never go out? How many would you like to kill in other ways? Christ you need to get a life. Go out and enjoy stuff and stop worrying. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it…..
Read what you’ve written again.
Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean?
I’ve read it. You keep repeating that, but fail to answer any of my questions in the debate.
I mean historically those who believed in forms of segregation were disgusting. All forms of segregation. Work it out.
No, you’re the one who keeps saying it - what do you mean? Who are you saying we are in disgusting company with?
Any authoritarian leader who believed in any form of segregation.
Care to say how far you’d like to take this segregation or still avoiding the question?"So someone imaginary? Or do you mean anyone specific? It’s hard to see that there is much disgusting about being in the company of an imaginary leader.  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You said this: ‘And the government is not in charge of our freedoms. We make our own risk based decisions.’ So, either you don’t know what the law is, or you don’t understand what the government’s role is in creating and passing laws to mitigate risk to the individual within society. As that’s fundamentally obvious, you might wonder about the other things you seem confident you know. And it’s not that simple because otherwise anything that carries any risk would be banned. Think about it. Medical autonomy is fundamental. You are proposing medical segregation for gods sake. That is beyond disgusting. How far would you take it? Banned from leaving the house? Can’t buy food shopping? Absolutely disgusting to segregate people like that. Vile. Last time I looked it was antivaxxers who were blithely saying that everyone with any vulnerability should have to stay at home until the end of their lives. FFS the deal is this: If people want to take advantage of the privileges that society gives them, they have to do their part to meet the responsibilities to go with those privileges. Nobody has absolute rights, and they certainly don't have rights to behave like spoiled children saying "I can do what I want, I don't have to do anything for others". What we have is a societal contract, where in return for doing our part to support society, we get the privilege to receive advantages from that society. Because some people are fuckwits, we have to write down the rules of what things we are supposed to do and what things we get in return, and we call these laws. Because life is complicated, these laws are often complicated and include provision for cases where some people have different abilities to others, or are physically incapable of doing some things. Some selfish people then always try to use these provisions as loopholes to avoid meeting their responsibilities and/or grab more advantage than their fair share. These are the people that are vile. Medical autonomy is NOT fundamental. Medical autonomy is awarded by society as a privilege to those who are deemed as being capable of making sensible decisions, who will not use that medical autonomy to harm others, who take responsibility for the consequences of exercising that medical autonomy. Medical autonomy allows one to self harm, until that self harm spills over into harming others, and then society will no longer allow it. Nobody is forcing vaccine deniers and vaccine hesitant to take a vaccine, or any other type of drug. However society at large is saying that not being vaccinated has a consequence, and that consequence is that those unvaccinated must take their share of the responsibility for mitigating the spread of a dangerous disease in other ways. Those that will not take responsibility for trying even a little bit to protect everyone else from disease, must not be surprised when everybody else says "if you could make an effort to help, but won't, then stay away from all us who are doing what we can". Society is not forcing medical segregation on those who could be vaccinated but will not; those people are voluntarily excluding themselves from some of the privileges they could otherwise enjoy. Society requires this so that those who would like to be vaccinated, but cannot, may still enjoy some of those privileges. For anybody that does not like these rules of society - exercise your vote when the time comes, it there are enough in agreement with you then you can choose a government that makes rules more to your liking. But polly, you’re not grasping the bigger picture. Unvaccinated people have to agree to this societal contract you talk about and mitigate the spread of the virus…….but vaccinated people can also spread the virus!!! So should they stay at home and not enjoy the so called privileges that you’re suggesting as well? That’s the only true way to eliminate this virus. Complete lockdown. Absolutely - but the government has opted against that sensible course of action, and opted instead for one that is less effective, but offers less restriction to the majority of the population. Sensible to never go out? How many would you like to kill in other ways? Christ you need to get a life. Go out and enjoy stuff and stop worrying." I swear covid has taken over peoples minds. It’s an illness in itself (thinking of nothing else). Reduce covid at all costs! Nothing else matters! Jesus some people are too far gone. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it…..
Read what you’ve written again.
Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean?
I’ve read it. You keep repeating that, but fail to answer any of my questions in the debate.
I mean historically those who believed in forms of segregation were disgusting. All forms of segregation. Work it out.
No, you’re the one who keeps saying it - what do you mean? Who are you saying we are in disgusting company with?
Any authoritarian leader who believed in any form of segregation.
Care to say how far you’d like to take this segregation or still avoiding the question?
So someone imaginary? Or do you mean anyone specific? It’s hard to see that there is much disgusting about being in the company of an imaginary leader. "If you don’t know about historical leaders who believed in segregation then read a book. And keep failing to answer how far you’d go with the segregation, as you know how vile it’ll make you sound…. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it…..
Read what you’ve written again.
Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean?
I’ve read it. You keep repeating that, but fail to answer any of my questions in the debate.
I mean historically those who believed in forms of segregation were disgusting. All forms of segregation. Work it out.
No, you’re the one who keeps saying it - what do you mean? Who are you saying we are in disgusting company with?
Any authoritarian leader who believed in any form of segregation.
Care to say how far you’d like to take this segregation or still avoiding the question?
So someone imaginary? Or do you mean anyone specific? It’s hard to see that there is much disgusting about being in the company of an imaginary leader.
If you don’t know about historical leaders who believed in segregation then read a book.
And keep failing to answer how far you’d go with the segregation, as you know how vile it’ll make you sound…."You seem very scared to say what you actually mean! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it…..
Read what you’ve written again.
Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean?
I’ve read it. You keep repeating that, but fail to answer any of my questions in the debate.
I mean historically those who believed in forms of segregation were disgusting. All forms of segregation. Work it out.
No, you’re the one who keeps saying it - what do you mean? Who are you saying we are in disgusting company with?
Any authoritarian leader who believed in any form of segregation.
Care to say how far you’d like to take this segregation or still avoiding the question?
So someone imaginary? Or do you mean anyone specific? It’s hard to see that there is much disgusting about being in the company of an imaginary leader.
If you don’t know about historical leaders who believed in segregation then read a book.
And keep failing to answer how far you’d go with the segregation, as you know how vile it’ll make you sound….
You seem very scared to say what you actually mean! "Nope, everyone reading this knows the type of people I mean. You’re going on about this to avoid debating your idea of segregating those who don’t choose the vaccine. You are extremely scared to say how far you’d take the segregation…. I wonder why…. So spit it out… someone chooses not to have the vaccine. What would you ban them from? Leaving the house? Shopping? Work? Round them up? Make them wear a badge? I’ve asked many times but you won’t answer how far you’d take it. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Something weve known for a while. The holier than thou double jabbed pricks can gtfo out now." You mean 78% of the adult population! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Something weve known for a while. The holier than thou double jabbed pricks can gtfo out now. You mean 78% of the adult population!" No, they mean the holier than thou ones. Most people who have had both jabs still believe it’s a personal choice and don’t care what others do. I mix with plenty of friends, some have had it, some haven’t. No one I know cares what others do. Because they value medical autonomy and personal choice. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Removing their internet access would probably be a good start! "So that’s the start. And where should it end in your opinion? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it…..
Read what you’ve written again.
Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean?
I’ve read it. You keep repeating that, but fail to answer any of my questions in the debate.
I mean historically those who believed in forms of segregation were disgusting. All forms of segregation. Work it out.
No, you’re the one who keeps saying it - what do you mean? Who are you saying we are in disgusting company with?
Any authoritarian leader who believed in any form of segregation.
Care to say how far you’d like to take this segregation or still avoiding the question?
So someone imaginary? Or do you mean anyone specific? It’s hard to see that there is much disgusting about being in the company of an imaginary leader.
If you don’t know about historical leaders who believed in segregation then read a book.
And keep failing to answer how far you’d go with the segregation, as you know how vile it’ll make you sound….
You seem very scared to say what you actually mean! "I'll say it! 1940s Germans, white hooded clowns in the US, protestants in Northern Ireland, rhodsesians in South africa... Pretty much any historical group of people who "othered" a different group of people for any reason, treated them like they were a risk, a disease, the unclean, stick em in their own bit of land, erect fences, put up barbed wire, in fact make it razor wire. Is that nice and clear? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life." The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Something weve known for a while. The holier than thou double jabbed pricks can gtfo out now. You mean 78% of the adult population! No, they mean the holier than thou ones. Most people who have had both jabs still believe it’s a personal choice and don’t care what others do. I mix with plenty of friends, some have had it, some haven’t. No one I know cares what others do. Because they value medical autonomy and personal choice." Oh dear! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Removing their internet access would probably be a good start!
So that’s the start. And where should it end in your opinion?"What are the current proposals? Whatever is there is fine. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Something weve known for a while. The holier than thou double jabbed pricks can gtfo out now. You mean 78% of the adult population! No, they mean the holier than thou ones. Most people who have had both jabs still believe it’s a personal choice and don’t care what others do. I mix with plenty of friends, some have had it, some haven’t. No one I know cares what others do. Because they value medical autonomy and personal choice. Oh dear! " Oh dear? Thank god I hang around with normal people. You need to get a life. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger!" And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Something weve known for a while. The holier than thou double jabbed pricks can gtfo out now. You mean 78% of the adult population! No, they mean the holier than thou ones. Most people who have had both jabs still believe it’s a personal choice and don’t care what others do. I mix with plenty of friends, some have had it, some haven’t. No one I know cares what others do. Because they value medical autonomy and personal choice. Oh dear! Oh dear? Thank god I hang around with normal people. You need to get a life." You need to stop with the insults! the reason I said oh dear is because you have no idea what the original poster of that comment meant as you didn't right it. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Removing their internet access would probably be a good start!
So that’s the start. And where should it end in your opinion?
What are the current proposals? Whatever is there is fine."There are no firm current proposals on anything other than nightclubs. Possibly large events. If the speculation in the media is correct, even that may include a test option, so there will be no segregation anyway. Which is the opposite of what you’ve been arguing…. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Something weve known for a while. The holier than thou double jabbed pricks can gtfo out now. You mean 78% of the adult population! No, they mean the holier than thou ones. Most people who have had both jabs still believe it’s a personal choice and don’t care what others do. I mix with plenty of friends, some have had it, some haven’t. No one I know cares what others do. Because they value medical autonomy and personal choice. Oh dear! Oh dear? Thank god I hang around with normal people. You need to get a life. You need to stop with the insults! the reason I said oh dear is because you have no idea what the original poster of that comment meant as you didn't right it. " Lol, you need to stop telling people what to put in their bodies. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too?" Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Something weve known for a while. The holier than thou double jabbed pricks can gtfo out now. You mean 78% of the adult population! No, they mean the holier than thou ones. Most people who have had both jabs still believe it’s a personal choice and don’t care what others do. I mix with plenty of friends, some have had it, some haven’t. No one I know cares what others do. Because they value medical autonomy and personal choice. Oh dear! Oh dear? Thank god I hang around with normal people. You need to get a life. You need to stop with the insults! the reason I said oh dear is because you have no idea what the original poster of that comment meant as you didn't right it. Lol, you need to stop telling people what to put in their bodies. " Can you show me any post I have ever written where I have told someone to put something in their bodies please? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. " And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it…..
Read what you’ve written again.
Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean?
I’ve read it. You keep repeating that, but fail to answer any of my questions in the debate.
I mean historically those who believed in forms of segregation were disgusting. All forms of segregation. Work it out.
No, you’re the one who keeps saying it - what do you mean? Who are you saying we are in disgusting company with?
Any authoritarian leader who believed in any form of segregation.
Care to say how far you’d like to take this segregation or still avoiding the question?
So someone imaginary? Or do you mean anyone specific? It’s hard to see that there is much disgusting about being in the company of an imaginary leader.
If you don’t know about historical leaders who believed in segregation then read a book.
And keep failing to answer how far you’d go with the segregation, as you know how vile it’ll make you sound….
You seem very scared to say what you actually mean!
I'll say it! 1940s Germans, white hooded clowns in the US, protestants in Northern Ireland, rhodsesians in South africa... Pretty much any historical group of people who "othered" a different group of people for any reason, treated them like they were a risk, a disease, the unclean, stick em in their own bit of land, erect fences, put up barbed wire, in fact make it razor wire. Is that nice and clear? "It’s clear in your meaning, but it makes no sense. Are you honestly comparing the inability for people to enter (for example) a sports event or concert because they choose to be unvaccinated, with the extermination of people due to religious beliefs in the Holocaust? Any one of those comparisons, if honestly meant, is a disgusting dismissal of genuine victims of prejudice and cruelty. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance?" I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it…..
Read what you’ve written again.
Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean?
I’ve read it. You keep repeating that, but fail to answer any of my questions in the debate.
I mean historically those who believed in forms of segregation were disgusting. All forms of segregation. Work it out.
No, you’re the one who keeps saying it - what do you mean? Who are you saying we are in disgusting company with?
Any authoritarian leader who believed in any form of segregation.
Care to say how far you’d like to take this segregation or still avoiding the question?
So someone imaginary? Or do you mean anyone specific? It’s hard to see that there is much disgusting about being in the company of an imaginary leader.
If you don’t know about historical leaders who believed in segregation then read a book.
And keep failing to answer how far you’d go with the segregation, as you know how vile it’ll make you sound….
You seem very scared to say what you actually mean!
I'll say it! 1940s Germans, white hooded clowns in the US, protestants in Northern Ireland, rhodsesians in South africa... Pretty much any historical group of people who "othered" a different group of people for any reason, treated them like they were a risk, a disease, the unclean, stick em in their own bit of land, erect fences, put up barbed wire, in fact make it razor wire. Is that nice and clear?
It’s clear in your meaning, but it makes no sense.
Are you honestly comparing the inability for people to enter (for example) a sports event or concert because they choose to be unvaccinated, with the extermination of people due to religious beliefs in the Holocaust? Any one of those comparisons, if honestly meant, is a disgusting dismissal of genuine victims of prejudice and cruelty.
"Isn’t it prejudice to refuse someone entry based on their beliefs? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. " Not necessarily. Testing rather than vaccination is sufficient for most countries. The checks on the 10 days self isolation are easily got round. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it…..
Read what you’ve written again.
Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean?
I’ve read it. You keep repeating that, but fail to answer any of my questions in the debate.
I mean historically those who believed in forms of segregation were disgusting. All forms of segregation. Work it out.
No, you’re the one who keeps saying it - what do you mean? Who are you saying we are in disgusting company with?
Any authoritarian leader who believed in any form of segregation.
Care to say how far you’d like to take this segregation or still avoiding the question?
So someone imaginary? Or do you mean anyone specific? It’s hard to see that there is much disgusting about being in the company of an imaginary leader.
If you don’t know about historical leaders who believed in segregation then read a book.
And keep failing to answer how far you’d go with the segregation, as you know how vile it’ll make you sound….
You seem very scared to say what you actually mean!
I'll say it! 1940s Germans, white hooded clowns in the US, protestants in Northern Ireland, rhodsesians in South africa... Pretty much any historical group of people who "othered" a different group of people for any reason, treated them like they were a risk, a disease, the unclean, stick em in their own bit of land, erect fences, put up barbed wire, in fact make it razor wire. Is that nice and clear?
It’s clear in your meaning, but it makes no sense.
Are you honestly comparing the inability for people to enter (for example) a sports event or concert because they choose to be unvaccinated, with the extermination of people due to religious beliefs in the Holocaust? Any one of those comparisons, if honestly meant, is a disgusting dismissal of genuine victims of prejudice and cruelty.
Isn’t it prejudice to refuse someone entry based on their beliefs?"No, it’s a public health decision. Beliefs are immaterial. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it…..
Read what you’ve written again.
Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean?
I’ve read it. You keep repeating that, but fail to answer any of my questions in the debate.
I mean historically those who believed in forms of segregation were disgusting. All forms of segregation. Work it out.
No, you’re the one who keeps saying it - what do you mean? Who are you saying we are in disgusting company with?
Any authoritarian leader who believed in any form of segregation.
Care to say how far you’d like to take this segregation or still avoiding the question?
So someone imaginary? Or do you mean anyone specific? It’s hard to see that there is much disgusting about being in the company of an imaginary leader.
If you don’t know about historical leaders who believed in segregation then read a book.
And keep failing to answer how far you’d go with the segregation, as you know how vile it’ll make you sound….
You seem very scared to say what you actually mean!
I'll say it! 1940s Germans, white hooded clowns in the US, protestants in Northern Ireland, rhodsesians in South africa... Pretty much any historical group of people who "othered" a different group of people for any reason, treated them like they were a risk, a disease, the unclean, stick em in their own bit of land, erect fences, put up barbed wire, in fact make it razor wire. Is that nice and clear?
It’s clear in your meaning, but it makes no sense.
Are you honestly comparing the inability for people to enter (for example) a sports event or concert because they choose to be unvaccinated, with the extermination of people due to religious beliefs in the Holocaust? Any one of those comparisons, if honestly meant, is a disgusting dismissal of genuine victims of prejudice and cruelty.
Isn’t it prejudice to refuse someone entry based on their beliefs?"What beliefs? Not taking a vaccine has nothing to do with belief. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Not necessarily. Testing rather than vaccination is sufficient for most countries. The checks on the 10 days self isolation are easily got round." Except big parts of Europe if you want to enter a bar, cafe ect | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You really should read your first paragraph again, and then again, and then again. Here’s a clue - ‘mitigate’ does not mean ‘eliminate’. In which case being able to choose the vaccine mitigates your risk! No need to place disgusting segregation on others like you have suggested. I note you dont answer any of my questions… I wonder why…. Because it places you in the same category as some of the most disgusting authoritarian maniacs in history. Your questions are not being answered because the presumption was they weren’t serious. To illustrate the point you think you are making regarding risk, by your current argument, if you’ve had your car MOT’d, then there is no need to wear a seatbelt. Or again, if you’ve had the brakes on your bicycle serviced, there’s no need to have any lights. That is your argument. That is not my argument. Absolute rubbish. You are still putting others at risk even with a seatbelt! People die in road accidents! So why aren’t cars banned? That mitigates risk even further by your logic! My argument is there is always risk, or everything in life would be banned. Seatbelts do not require an injection, it’s a laughable comparison. You are supporting segregation which puts you in the same place as some of the most vile dictators in history. You should be embarrassed. You aren’t answering my questions about how far you’d take the segregation because it will clearly show you up as being similar to some of the biggest maniacs who have ever lived. I’m deadly serious, how far would you take the segregation? I can’t wait to see the level of authoritarian maniac you really are….. go on, answer… You’re still confusing ‘mitigate’ with ‘eliminate’. You also don’t seem to be able to grasp the concept that risk can be reduced, with remaining risk balanced against a desired and acceptable outcome. Think on those, and read what you’ve written again. Are you sure seatbelts don’t require an injection?
No I’m not confusing eliminate either mitigate. Taking the vaccine mitigates your risk. It is an acceptable outcome to vaccinate if you’re worried, like most have. And if you don’t want to, you should not be excluded from anything, particularly if there’s a reasonable alternative to attend, say, a large event (negative test).
How far would you take the segregation? You are in bad bad company believing in this…. Disgusting company. Please tell me what you’d do with those who don’t want the vaccine. I can’t wait to hear it…..
Read what you’ve written again.
Also, you keep referring to us being in disgusting company - what do you mean?
I’ve read it. You keep repeating that, but fail to answer any of my questions in the debate.
I mean historically those who believed in forms of segregation were disgusting. All forms of segregation. Work it out.
No, you’re the one who keeps saying it - what do you mean? Who are you saying we are in disgusting company with?
Any authoritarian leader who believed in any form of segregation.
Care to say how far you’d like to take this segregation or still avoiding the question?
So someone imaginary? Or do you mean anyone specific? It’s hard to see that there is much disgusting about being in the company of an imaginary leader.
If you don’t know about historical leaders who believed in segregation then read a book.
And keep failing to answer how far you’d go with the segregation, as you know how vile it’ll make you sound….
You seem very scared to say what you actually mean!
I'll say it! 1940s Germans, white hooded clowns in the US, protestants in Northern Ireland, rhodsesians in South africa... Pretty much any historical group of people who "othered" a different group of people for any reason, treated them like they were a risk, a disease, the unclean, stick em in their own bit of land, erect fences, put up barbed wire, in fact make it razor wire. Is that nice and clear?
It’s clear in your meaning, but it makes no sense.
Are you honestly comparing the inability for people to enter (for example) a sports event or concert because they choose to be unvaccinated, with the extermination of people due to religious beliefs in the Holocaust? Any one of those comparisons, if honestly meant, is a disgusting dismissal of genuine victims of prejudice and cruelty.
"They are saying all segregation is disgusting! They listed more than one leader who believed in segregation. Just because one involves gassing people does not mean other segregation is ok. Is that what you’re saying? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. " Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Not necessarily. Testing rather than vaccination is sufficient for most countries. The checks on the 10 days self isolation are easily got round. Except big parts of Europe if you want to enter a bar, cafe ect " Mostly allowed with testing instead. And being ignored by many businesses. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice " Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice " And that's fine just realise you probably won't be able to go to an adult venue from September. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim." So where would you ban people from if they dont want the vaccine? How far would you take it? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim." I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice And that's fine just realise you probably won't be able to go to an adult venue from September. " It’ll be easy to get round…. Mark my words… | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice " Careful talking all that sense the Covid Police on here really dont like it I kinda like to think that with this situation im a bit like an alien looking in from afar. I have noticed how easily people fall into Authoritarian mindsets so quickly when being scared. Funnily enough they seem to be the same ones that wil change their DP to the flag overlay of the monnth or use the #Bekind hashtag. Its like some sort of battle to show everyone how pious they are | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. " And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice And that's fine just realise you probably won't be able to go to an adult venue from September. " I’m not getting double jabbed and risk my long term health just so I can have a few hours of fun in the club. If I can’t go to clubs anymore then I’ll adjust. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. " That does not make vaccination status irrelevant, which is what you are claiming, and supporting your claim with an anecdote. The medical data shows that vaccinated people transmit the virus less easily than unvaccinated people. Which means vaccination status is not irrelevant. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. " Doing extreme sports means you’re more likely to end up in hospital which impacts everyone. Being overweight too. Smoking too. Drinking too. So how do you propose to treat these people? My god it is EXTRAORDINARY how people can’t see past covid. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. Doing extreme sports means you’re more likely to end up in hospital which impacts everyone. Being overweight too. Smoking too. Drinking too. So how do you propose to treat these people? My god it is EXTRAORDINARY how people can’t see past covid." It’s no surprise you don’t realise every one of those things is already swathed in government regulation to mitigate the potential risks they cause to the individual, and other members of society. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. Doing extreme sports means you’re more likely to end up in hospital which impacts everyone. Being overweight too. Smoking too. Drinking too. So how do you propose to treat these people? My god it is EXTRAORDINARY how people can’t see past covid." Made me laugh when ITV news had a 28 stone guy in ICU with covid trying to emotionallly manipulate people to get vaccinanted. Like maybe if you had looked after yourself in the first place you wouldnt be there And this is coming from a fat fuck who smokes. If i get covid and become seriously ill I have no one but myself to blame. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. " According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Careful talking all that sense the Covid Police on here really dont like it I kinda like to think that with this situation im a bit like an alien looking in from afar. I have noticed how easily people fall into Authoritarian mindsets so quickly when being scared. Funnily enough they seem to be the same ones that wil change their DP to the flag overlay of the monnth or use the #Bekind hashtag. Its like some sort of battle to show everyone how pious they are" You are so right. This all comes down to fear. Peoples fear has made them think it’s reasonable to agree with segregation. Historically authoritarian leaders have used fear to get people onside. They’re literally begging for rules now, to be controlled, so they feel safe. I shouldn’t get annoyed with them, I should feel sorry for them. Get out and live life while you can. I know I have been. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. That does not make vaccination status irrelevant, which is what you are claiming, and supporting your claim with an anecdote. The medical data shows that vaccinated people transmit the virus less easily than unvaccinated people. Which means vaccination status is not irrelevant." Of course it does! Just cause a jab means you reduce the risk of transmitting, it doesn’t eliminate the risk. So my point still stands. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been vaccinated or not. You can still transmit the virus to others. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely?" It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely?" It does when you consider around 80% of the population are vaccinated, as far larger proportion of hospitalisations are unvaccinated people. Based on those numbers, you are around 10 or 11 times more likely to be hospitalised if contact Covid and you are unvaccinated. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. Doing extreme sports means you’re more likely to end up in hospital which impacts everyone. Being overweight too. Smoking too. Drinking too. So how do you propose to treat these people? My god it is EXTRAORDINARY how people can’t see past covid. It’s no surprise you don’t realise every one of those things is already swathed in government regulation to mitigate the potential risks they cause to the individual, and other members of society. "With absolutely no balance on the detrimental effects in other ways. But you don’t consider that, which proves my point. Covid covid covid… it’s all that exists. But given you are happy to segregate people, you’re way past any balanced thought. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It does when you consider around 80% of the population are vaccinated, as far larger proportion of hospitalisations are unvaccinated people. Based on those numbers, you are around 10 or 11 times more likely to be hospitalised if contact Covid and you are unvaccinated." Then take the vaccine and that’s fine! But don’t try to ruin other peoples lives who don’t want it. Get on with life. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. " But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. " Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. " You are still missing the point oh because the majority of people who are currently in hospital come from a small minority of people. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. " How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. " And there’ll be tons of free beds if we ban sport, ban smoking, ban drinking, limit eating, ban cars…. Jesus people are so far gone with this. Get out and enjoy life! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. That does not make vaccination status irrelevant, which is what you are claiming, and supporting your claim with an anecdote. The medical data shows that vaccinated people transmit the virus less easily than unvaccinated people. Which means vaccination status is not irrelevant. Of course it does! Just cause a jab means you reduce the risk of transmitting, it doesn’t eliminate the risk. So my point still stands. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been vaccinated or not. You can still transmit the virus to others. " You are confused on this point. If an unvaccinated person is more likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated person, vaccination status is relevant to the virus’ ability to spread. Both people CAN spread the virus, but the unvaccinated person is MORE LIKELY to spread the virus. Also, the more often the virus is spread, the more likely it is to mutate into a variant that the vaccine is less effective against. This is why vaccination status is relevant to the spread of the virus, not irrelevant as you claim. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Something weve known for a while. " This . | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it "Because the other 55% probably wouldnt be there or at least a good proportion of them wouldn't be. Again I will explain this. no the vaccination does not stop you catching coveid it does however vastly improve your chances of not getting very ill! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. And there’ll be tons of free beds if we ban sport, ban smoking, ban drinking, limit eating, ban cars…. Jesus people are so far gone with this. Get out and enjoy life!" Oh I do thanks. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. That does not make vaccination status irrelevant, which is what you are claiming, and supporting your claim with an anecdote. The medical data shows that vaccinated people transmit the virus less easily than unvaccinated people. Which means vaccination status is not irrelevant. Of course it does! Just cause a jab means you reduce the risk of transmitting, it doesn’t eliminate the risk. So my point still stands. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been vaccinated or not. You can still transmit the virus to others. You are confused on this point. If an unvaccinated person is more likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated person, vaccination status is relevant to the virus’ ability to spread. Both people CAN spread the virus, but the unvaccinated person is MORE LIKELY to spread the virus. Also, the more often the virus is spread, the more likely it is to mutate into a variant that the vaccine is less effective against. This is why vaccination status is relevant to the spread of the virus, not irrelevant as you claim." Although you make a good point, it’s based on bias. If I had been double jabbed and tested positive for COViD. Would you be willing to sit in close proximity to me for an hour and see how less likely you are catching it? Or would I be in isolation because people can still catch it? Do you trust the maths? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it
Because the other 55% probably wouldnt be there or at least a good proportion of them wouldn't be. Again I will explain this. no the vaccination does not stop you catching coveid it does however vastly improve your chances of not getting very ill!
"I agree with that last bit. But that does not give the government the right to coerce people into it. Not being obese reduces your chances of taking up a hospital bed. But are people coerced into not eating? Segregated from parts of society? Are they heck!! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. And there’ll be tons of free beds if we ban sport, ban smoking, ban drinking, limit eating, ban cars…. Jesus people are so far gone with this. Get out and enjoy life! Oh I do thanks. "Good, then you must be mixing with those who don’t want the vaccine. Good on you. No to segregation. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. That does not make vaccination status irrelevant, which is what you are claiming, and supporting your claim with an anecdote. The medical data shows that vaccinated people transmit the virus less easily than unvaccinated people. Which means vaccination status is not irrelevant. Of course it does! Just cause a jab means you reduce the risk of transmitting, it doesn’t eliminate the risk. So my point still stands. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been vaccinated or not. You can still transmit the virus to others. You are confused on this point. If an unvaccinated person is more likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated person, vaccination status is relevant to the virus’ ability to spread. Both people CAN spread the virus, but the unvaccinated person is MORE LIKELY to spread the virus. Also, the more often the virus is spread, the more likely it is to mutate into a variant that the vaccine is less effective against. This is why vaccination status is relevant to the spread of the virus, not irrelevant as you claim. Although you make a good point, it’s based on bias. If I had been double jabbed and tested positive for COViD. Would you be willing to sit in close proximity to me for an hour and see how less likely you are catching it? Or would I be in isolation because people can still catch it? Do you trust the maths?" No because who in their right mind whether they have been vaccinated or not would test positive for covid and deliberately being close contact with someone else just to prove a point! If I tested positive for covid I would isolate I would not put any body's health at risk vaccinated or otherwise. In the same way I insist on Protected sex because even know it does not guarantee me a 100% safety, it is better than the alternative and that's the bit I dont understand people's mind set on. Nothing is guaranteed and nothing is a 100% said but it's about mitigating the risk to you and others. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
" In that autonomous selection, you will have rights and responsibilities, including limited engagement with others who you could place at greater risk. You use the word vile, but it could be used more appropriately when someone's life is negligently put at risk. I’ve tried to stay silent and read the responses but had to step in here. You say someone who hasn’t been double jabbed is negligently putting someone’s life at risk. How exactly? The virus can be spread by both jabbed and unjabbed (is that even a word? Lol) so surely it’s the irresponsible people who have symptoms and still leave the house are the ones being negligent?" You 'stayed silent' but misread what I said, perhaps confusing it with those whilst you were silent | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. That does not make vaccination status irrelevant, which is what you are claiming, and supporting your claim with an anecdote. The medical data shows that vaccinated people transmit the virus less easily than unvaccinated people. Which means vaccination status is not irrelevant. Of course it does! Just cause a jab means you reduce the risk of transmitting, it doesn’t eliminate the risk. So my point still stands. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been vaccinated or not. You can still transmit the virus to others. You are confused on this point. If an unvaccinated person is more likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated person, vaccination status is relevant to the virus’ ability to spread. Both people CAN spread the virus, but the unvaccinated person is MORE LIKELY to spread the virus. Also, the more often the virus is spread, the more likely it is to mutate into a variant that the vaccine is less effective against. This is why vaccination status is relevant to the spread of the virus, not irrelevant as you claim. Although you make a good point, it’s based on bias. If I had been double jabbed and tested positive for COViD. Would you be willing to sit in close proximity to me for an hour and see how less likely you are catching it? Or would I be in isolation because people can still catch it? Do you trust the maths?" The point isn’t based on bias, it’s based on statistical evidence. You may not like the evidence, but it’s a matter of record. I’m not sure what the rest of your question means. No-one would willingly risk catching Covid, even if they were vaccinated. It’s an unnecessary risk. The vaccine does not guarantee you can’t catch Covid, or become very ill from it - it simply reduces your chances of both. Apologies if you didn’t understand this. And yes, you should be in isolation in that case. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it
Because the other 55% probably wouldnt be there or at least a good proportion of them wouldn't be. Again I will explain this. no the vaccination does not stop you catching coveid it does however vastly improve your chances of not getting very ill!
I agree with that last bit. But that does not give the government the right to coerce people into it. Not being obese reduces your chances of taking up a hospital bed. But are people coerced into not eating? Segregated from parts of society? Are they heck!! "Here is an example of the UK government coercing people into reducing their sugar intake, in the interests of public health: https://news.sky.com/story/sugar-tax-consumption-of-sugar-from-soft-drinks-falls-by-10-12242372 Sky News reporting in March this year that consumption of sugar in soft drinks has fallen by 10% since the introduction of the ‘sugar tax’ on soft drinks in 2018. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still can't see an issue Double jabbed still less likely to get seriously ill So restrict the un vaccinated for their safety and stop the NHS strain Nothing has changed everyone vaccinated knew we could still catch it or spread it Simple solution is one above covid passports Restrict the unvaccinated? Vile segregation. It’s about medical autonomy, which is a fundamental freedom. Options of testing have to remain, particularly given that’s a better gauge of not carrying the virus than a double jab! In that autonomous selection, you will have rights and responsibilities, including limited engagement with others who you could place at greater risk. You use the word vile, but it could be used more appropriately when someone's life is negligently put at risk. Vaccines and restrictions have only ever been our tools to reduce the harm that people's behaviour and the virus pose to our society. There's no magical spell that will make this disappear One problem, EVERYONE is still able to put someone else at risk, REGARDLESS of being vaccinated or not. " 2 solutions for your 'one problem' - restrictions and vaccines. Take your pick. Restrictions and vaccines are the only tools that we have to transform this bad situation in to a better outcome. We know that both of them work. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still can't see an issue Double jabbed still less likely to get seriously ill So restrict the un vaccinated for their safety and stop the NHS strain Nothing has changed everyone vaccinated knew we could still catch it or spread it Simple solution is one above covid passports Restrict the unvaccinated? Vile segregation. It’s about medical autonomy, which is a fundamental freedom. Options of testing have to remain, particularly given that’s a better gauge of not carrying the virus than a double jab! In that autonomous selection, you will have rights and responsibilities, including limited engagement with others who you could place at greater risk. You use the word vile, but it could be used more appropriately when someone's life is negligently put at risk. Vaccines and restrictions have only ever been our tools to reduce the harm that people's behaviour and the virus pose to our society. There's no magical spell that will make this disappear One problem, EVERYONE is still able to put someone else at risk, REGARDLESS of being vaccinated or not. 2 solutions for your 'one problem' - restrictions and vaccines. Take your pick. Restrictions and vaccines are the only tools that we have to transform this bad situation in to a better outcome. We know that both of them work. " But vaccines don’t stop the spread, the just reduce the risk of transmission. Restrictions work. We need a total lockdown. No one can leave their homes except for key workers. But no one will ever support that. And it will never happen cause then people will complain about being in a police state. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it
Because the other 55% probably wouldnt be there or at least a good proportion of them wouldn't be. Again I will explain this. no the vaccination does not stop you catching coveid it does however vastly improve your chances of not getting very ill!
I agree with that last bit. But that does not give the government the right to coerce people into it. Not being obese reduces your chances of taking up a hospital bed. But are people coerced into not eating? Segregated from parts of society? Are they heck!!
Here is an example of the UK government coercing people into reducing their sugar intake, in the interests of public health:
https://news.sky.com/story/sugar-tax-consumption-of-sugar-from-soft-drinks-falls-by-10-12242372
Sky News reporting in March this year that consumption of sugar in soft drinks has fallen by 10% since the introduction of the ‘sugar tax’ on soft drinks in 2018."Sugar taxes dont involve segregation. I can’t believe I’ve actually had to type that to explain. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still can't see an issue Double jabbed still less likely to get seriously ill So restrict the un vaccinated for their safety and stop the NHS strain Nothing has changed everyone vaccinated knew we could still catch it or spread it Simple solution is one above covid passports Restrict the unvaccinated? Vile segregation. It’s about medical autonomy, which is a fundamental freedom. Options of testing have to remain, particularly given that’s a better gauge of not carrying the virus than a double jab! In that autonomous selection, you will have rights and responsibilities, including limited engagement with others who you could place at greater risk. You use the word vile, but it could be used more appropriately when someone's life is negligently put at risk. Vaccines and restrictions have only ever been our tools to reduce the harm that people's behaviour and the virus pose to our society. There's no magical spell that will make this disappear One problem, EVERYONE is still able to put someone else at risk, REGARDLESS of being vaccinated or not. 2 solutions for your 'one problem' - restrictions and vaccines. Take your pick. Restrictions and vaccines are the only tools that we have to transform this bad situation in to a better outcome. We know that both of them work. But vaccines don’t stop the spread, the just reduce the risk of transmission. Restrictions work. We need a total lockdown. No one can leave their homes except for key workers. But no one will ever support that. And it will never happen cause then people will complain about being in a police state. " Lol. Total lockdown? My god some people need a hobby. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. That does not make vaccination status irrelevant, which is what you are claiming, and supporting your claim with an anecdote. The medical data shows that vaccinated people transmit the virus less easily than unvaccinated people. Which means vaccination status is not irrelevant. Of course it does! Just cause a jab means you reduce the risk of transmitting, it doesn’t eliminate the risk. So my point still stands. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been vaccinated or not. You can still transmit the virus to others. You are confused on this point. If an unvaccinated person is more likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated person, vaccination status is relevant to the virus’ ability to spread. Both people CAN spread the virus, but the unvaccinated person is MORE LIKELY to spread the virus. Also, the more often the virus is spread, the more likely it is to mutate into a variant that the vaccine is less effective against. This is why vaccination status is relevant to the spread of the virus, not irrelevant as you claim. Although you make a good point, it’s based on bias. If I had been double jabbed and tested positive for COViD. Would you be willing to sit in close proximity to me for an hour and see how less likely you are catching it? Or would I be in isolation because people can still catch it? Do you trust the maths? No because who in their right mind whether they have been vaccinated or not would test positive for covid and deliberately being close contact with someone else just to prove a point! If I tested positive for covid I would isolate I would not put any body's health at risk vaccinated or otherwise. In the same way I insist on Protected sex because even know it does not guarantee me a 100% safety, it is better than the alternative and that's the bit I dont understand people's mind set on. Nothing is guaranteed and nothing is a 100% said but it's about mitigating the risk to you and others. Then there’s my point. You’re confident enough in the vaccine to tell others to take theirs and even block them for having a different opinion to you (I noticed you had blocked me), but you’re not confident enough to risk your own health? That’s the entire reason I’ve not took the vaccine. No long term study of the side effects. I read a news article yesterday where they’re discovered new side effects including kidney problems. Just like you, I don’t want to risk my health "Firstly you have no idea why anybody blocks anybody you were just making assumptions. And you have every right to choose not to take it however what you also have to understand is of the people have the right to not want you of their premises or with their country. You seem OK with it however many on this forum don't want to have to take the any of the risks and don't want any consequences. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still can't see an issue Double jabbed still less likely to get seriously ill So restrict the un vaccinated for their safety and stop the NHS strain Nothing has changed everyone vaccinated knew we could still catch it or spread it Simple solution is one above covid passports Restrict the unvaccinated? Vile segregation. It’s about medical autonomy, which is a fundamental freedom. Options of testing have to remain, particularly given that’s a better gauge of not carrying the virus than a double jab! In that autonomous selection, you will have rights and responsibilities, including limited engagement with others who you could place at greater risk. You use the word vile, but it could be used more appropriately when someone's life is negligently put at risk. Vaccines and restrictions have only ever been our tools to reduce the harm that people's behaviour and the virus pose to our society. There's no magical spell that will make this disappear One problem, EVERYONE is still able to put someone else at risk, REGARDLESS of being vaccinated or not. 2 solutions for your 'one problem' - restrictions and vaccines. Take your pick. Restrictions and vaccines are the only tools that we have to transform this bad situation in to a better outcome. We know that both of them work. But vaccines don’t stop the spread, the just reduce the risk of transmission. Restrictions work. We need a total lockdown. No one can leave their homes except for key workers. But no one will ever support that. And it will never happen cause then people will complain about being in a police state. Lol. Total lockdown? My god some people need a hobby." Are people who want a total lockdown aware of the horrendous other impacts on health? Or have they forgotten anything exists except covid? The latter, clearly. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it
Because the other 55% probably wouldnt be there or at least a good proportion of them wouldn't be. Again I will explain this. no the vaccination does not stop you catching coveid it does however vastly improve your chances of not getting very ill!
I agree with that last bit. But that does not give the government the right to coerce people into it. Not being obese reduces your chances of taking up a hospital bed. But are people coerced into not eating? Segregated from parts of society? Are they heck!!
Here is an example of the UK government coercing people into reducing their sugar intake, in the interests of public health:
https://news.sky.com/story/sugar-tax-consumption-of-sugar-from-soft-drinks-falls-by-10-12242372
Sky News reporting in March this year that consumption of sugar in soft drinks has fallen by 10% since the introduction of the ‘sugar tax’ on soft drinks in 2018.
Sugar taxes dont involve segregation.
I can’t believe I’ve actually had to type that to explain."You said coerce, not segregate. The sugar tax is coercion in the interests of public health, which is something you claimed doesn’t exist. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it
Because the other 55% probably wouldnt be there or at least a good proportion of them wouldn't be. Again I will explain this. no the vaccination does not stop you catching coveid it does however vastly improve your chances of not getting very ill!
I agree with that last bit. But that does not give the government the right to coerce people into it. Not being obese reduces your chances of taking up a hospital bed. But are people coerced into not eating? Segregated from parts of society? Are they heck!!
Here is an example of the UK government coercing people into reducing their sugar intake, in the interests of public health:
https://news.sky.com/story/sugar-tax-consumption-of-sugar-from-soft-drinks-falls-by-10-12242372
Sky News reporting in March this year that consumption of sugar in soft drinks has fallen by 10% since the introduction of the ‘sugar tax’ on soft drinks in 2018.
Sugar taxes dont involve segregation.
I can’t believe I’ve actually had to type that to explain.
You said coerce, not segregate. The sugar tax is coercion in the interests of public health, which is something you claimed doesn’t exist. "The same as putting up the price of cigarettes ect... | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. That does not make vaccination status irrelevant, which is what you are claiming, and supporting your claim with an anecdote. The medical data shows that vaccinated people transmit the virus less easily than unvaccinated people. Which means vaccination status is not irrelevant. Of course it does! Just cause a jab means you reduce the risk of transmitting, it doesn’t eliminate the risk. So my point still stands. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been vaccinated or not. You can still transmit the virus to others. You are confused on this point. If an unvaccinated person is more likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated person, vaccination status is relevant to the virus’ ability to spread. Both people CAN spread the virus, but the unvaccinated person is MORE LIKELY to spread the virus. Also, the more often the virus is spread, the more likely it is to mutate into a variant that the vaccine is less effective against. This is why vaccination status is relevant to the spread of the virus, not irrelevant as you claim. Although you make a good point, it’s based on bias. If I had been double jabbed and tested positive for COViD. Would you be willing to sit in close proximity to me for an hour and see how less likely you are catching it? Or would I be in isolation because people can still catch it? Do you trust the maths? No because who in their right mind whether they have been vaccinated or not would test positive for covid and deliberately being close contact with someone else just to prove a point! If I tested positive for covid I would isolate I would not put any body's health at risk vaccinated or otherwise. In the same way I insist on Protected sex because even know it does not guarantee me a 100% safety, it is better than the alternative and that's the bit I dont understand people's mind set on. Nothing is guaranteed and nothing is a 100% said but it's about mitigating the risk to you and others. Then there’s my point. You’re confident enough in the vaccine to tell others to take theirs and even block them for having a different opinion to you (I noticed you had blocked me), but you’re not confident enough to risk your own health? That’s the entire reason I’ve not took the vaccine. No long term study of the side effects. I read a news article yesterday where they’re discovered new side effects including kidney problems. Just like you, I don’t want to risk my health
Firstly you have no idea why anybody blocks anybody you were just making assumptions.
And you have every right to choose not to take it however what you also have to understand is of the people have the right to not want you of their premises or with their country. You seem OK with it however many on this forum don't want to have to take the any of the risks and don't want any consequences. "No they don’t have the right to not want you on their premises! They have no right to know anyone else’s medical history in the slightest. Mind your own business! | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it
Because the other 55% probably wouldnt be there or at least a good proportion of them wouldn't be. Again I will explain this. no the vaccination does not stop you catching coveid it does however vastly improve your chances of not getting very ill!
I agree with that last bit. But that does not give the government the right to coerce people into it. Not being obese reduces your chances of taking up a hospital bed. But are people coerced into not eating? Segregated from parts of society? Are they heck!!
Here is an example of the UK government coercing people into reducing their sugar intake, in the interests of public health:
https://news.sky.com/story/sugar-tax-consumption-of-sugar-from-soft-drinks-falls-by-10-12242372
Sky News reporting in March this year that consumption of sugar in soft drinks has fallen by 10% since the introduction of the ‘sugar tax’ on soft drinks in 2018.
Sugar taxes dont involve segregation.
I can’t believe I’ve actually had to type that to explain.
You said coerce, not segregate. The sugar tax is coercion in the interests of public health, which is something you claimed doesn’t exist. "And, of course, taxation segregates on the ability of the individual to pay. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. That does not make vaccination status irrelevant, which is what you are claiming, and supporting your claim with an anecdote. The medical data shows that vaccinated people transmit the virus less easily than unvaccinated people. Which means vaccination status is not irrelevant. Of course it does! Just cause a jab means you reduce the risk of transmitting, it doesn’t eliminate the risk. So my point still stands. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been vaccinated or not. You can still transmit the virus to others. You are confused on this point. If an unvaccinated person is more likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated person, vaccination status is relevant to the virus’ ability to spread. Both people CAN spread the virus, but the unvaccinated person is MORE LIKELY to spread the virus. Also, the more often the virus is spread, the more likely it is to mutate into a variant that the vaccine is less effective against. This is why vaccination status is relevant to the spread of the virus, not irrelevant as you claim. Although you make a good point, it’s based on bias. If I had been double jabbed and tested positive for COViD. Would you be willing to sit in close proximity to me for an hour and see how less likely you are catching it? Or would I be in isolation because people can still catch it? Do you trust the maths? No because who in their right mind whether they have been vaccinated or not would test positive for covid and deliberately being close contact with someone else just to prove a point! If I tested positive for covid I would isolate I would not put any body's health at risk vaccinated or otherwise. In the same way I insist on Protected sex because even know it does not guarantee me a 100% safety, it is better than the alternative and that's the bit I dont understand people's mind set on. Nothing is guaranteed and nothing is a 100% said but it's about mitigating the risk to you and others. Then there’s my point. You’re confident enough in the vaccine to tell others to take theirs and even block them for having a different opinion to you (I noticed you had blocked me), but you’re not confident enough to risk your own health? That’s the entire reason I’ve not took the vaccine. No long term study of the side effects. I read a news article yesterday where they’re discovered new side effects including kidney problems. Just like you, I don’t want to risk my health
Firstly you have no idea why anybody blocks anybody you were just making assumptions.
And you have every right to choose not to take it however what you also have to understand is of the people have the right to not want you of their premises or with their country. You seem OK with it however many on this forum don't want to have to take the any of the risks and don't want any consequences. "And no I'm not prepared to risk my own health just to prove a point. Nobody in their right mind would. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still can't see an issue Double jabbed still less likely to get seriously ill So restrict the un vaccinated for their safety and stop the NHS strain Nothing has changed everyone vaccinated knew we could still catch it or spread it Simple solution is one above covid passports Restrict the unvaccinated? Vile segregation. It’s about medical autonomy, which is a fundamental freedom. Options of testing have to remain, particularly given that’s a better gauge of not carrying the virus than a double jab! In that autonomous selection, you will have rights and responsibilities, including limited engagement with others who you could place at greater risk. You use the word vile, but it could be used more appropriately when someone's life is negligently put at risk. Vaccines and restrictions have only ever been our tools to reduce the harm that people's behaviour and the virus pose to our society. There's no magical spell that will make this disappear One problem, EVERYONE is still able to put someone else at risk, REGARDLESS of being vaccinated or not. 2 solutions for your 'one problem' - restrictions and vaccines. Take your pick. Restrictions and vaccines are the only tools that we have to transform this bad situation in to a better outcome. We know that both of them work. But vaccines don’t stop the spread, the just reduce the risk of transmission. Restrictions work. We need a total lockdown. No one can leave their homes except for key workers. But no one will ever support that. And it will never happen cause then people will complain about being in a police state. Lol. Total lockdown? My god some people need a hobby." Lol I didn’t say I supported it! I was saying that would be the only true way to defeat the virus  | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it
Because the other 55% probably wouldnt be there or at least a good proportion of them wouldn't be. Again I will explain this. no the vaccination does not stop you catching coveid it does however vastly improve your chances of not getting very ill!
I agree with that last bit. But that does not give the government the right to coerce people into it. Not being obese reduces your chances of taking up a hospital bed. But are people coerced into not eating? Segregated from parts of society? Are they heck!!
Here is an example of the UK government coercing people into reducing their sugar intake, in the interests of public health:
https://news.sky.com/story/sugar-tax-consumption-of-sugar-from-soft-drinks-falls-by-10-12242372
Sky News reporting in March this year that consumption of sugar in soft drinks has fallen by 10% since the introduction of the ‘sugar tax’ on soft drinks in 2018.
Sugar taxes dont involve segregation.
I can’t believe I’ve actually had to type that to explain.
You said coerce, not segregate. The sugar tax is coercion in the interests of public health, which is something you claimed doesn’t exist. "Given the entire conversation we had was about segregation, that is the form of coercion I meant. I obviously wasn’t clear. So, prepared to say how far you’d take the segregation yet? Banned from going out? Separate parks and benches? Welcome to medical apartheid courtesy of the brainwashed “nothing else exists except covid” and “I want to be governed harder” brigade? | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Still can't see an issue Double jabbed still less likely to get seriously ill So restrict the un vaccinated for their safety and stop the NHS strain Nothing has changed everyone vaccinated knew we could still catch it or spread it Simple solution is one above covid passports Restrict the unvaccinated? Vile segregation. It’s about medical autonomy, which is a fundamental freedom. Options of testing have to remain, particularly given that’s a better gauge of not carrying the virus than a double jab! In that autonomous selection, you will have rights and responsibilities, including limited engagement with others who you could place at greater risk. You use the word vile, but it could be used more appropriately when someone's life is negligently put at risk. Vaccines and restrictions have only ever been our tools to reduce the harm that people's behaviour and the virus pose to our society. There's no magical spell that will make this disappear One problem, EVERYONE is still able to put someone else at risk, REGARDLESS of being vaccinated or not. 2 solutions for your 'one problem' - restrictions and vaccines. Take your pick. Restrictions and vaccines are the only tools that we have to transform this bad situation in to a better outcome. We know that both of them work. But vaccines don’t stop the spread, the just reduce the risk of transmission. Restrictions work. We need a total lockdown. No one can leave their homes except for key workers. But no one will ever support that. And it will never happen cause then people will complain about being in a police state. Lol. Total lockdown? My god some people need a hobby. Lol I didn’t say I supported it! I was saying that would be the only true way to defeat the virus "Apologies, genuinely. There are some around who do want that. I mistead. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. That does not make vaccination status irrelevant, which is what you are claiming, and supporting your claim with an anecdote. The medical data shows that vaccinated people transmit the virus less easily than unvaccinated people. Which means vaccination status is not irrelevant. Of course it does! Just cause a jab means you reduce the risk of transmitting, it doesn’t eliminate the risk. So my point still stands. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been vaccinated or not. You can still transmit the virus to others. You are confused on this point. If an unvaccinated person is more likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated person, vaccination status is relevant to the virus’ ability to spread. Both people CAN spread the virus, but the unvaccinated person is MORE LIKELY to spread the virus. Also, the more often the virus is spread, the more likely it is to mutate into a variant that the vaccine is less effective against. This is why vaccination status is relevant to the spread of the virus, not irrelevant as you claim. Although you make a good point, it’s based on bias. If I had been double jabbed and tested positive for COViD. Would you be willing to sit in close proximity to me for an hour and see how less likely you are catching it? Or would I be in isolation because people can still catch it? Do you trust the maths? No because who in their right mind whether they have been vaccinated or not would test positive for covid and deliberately being close contact with someone else just to prove a point! If I tested positive for covid I would isolate I would not put any body's health at risk vaccinated or otherwise. In the same way I insist on Protected sex because even know it does not guarantee me a 100% safety, it is better than the alternative and that's the bit I dont understand people's mind set on. Nothing is guaranteed and nothing is a 100% said but it's about mitigating the risk to you and others. Then there’s my point. You’re confident enough in the vaccine to tell others to take theirs and even block them for having a different opinion to you (I noticed you had blocked me), but you’re not confident enough to risk your own health? That’s the entire reason I’ve not took the vaccine. No long term study of the side effects. I read a news article yesterday where they’re discovered new side effects including kidney problems. Just like you, I don’t want to risk my health
Firstly you have no idea why anybody blocks anybody you were just making assumptions.
And you have every right to choose not to take it however what you also have to understand is of the people have the right to not want you of their premises or with their country. You seem OK with it however many on this forum don't want to have to take the any of the risks and don't want any consequences.
And no I'm not prepared to risk my own health just to prove a point. Nobody in their right mind would."Exactly | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There is only ONE defence against COVID and it's called your "innate immune system"......If you are reading this then there's proof enough it works...you're still alive "That ignores, amongst many other things, those healthy people where their immune system did not save them; the vaccines work by priming our immune systems and have saved hundreds of thousands of lives; restrictions have also reduced the potential for the virus to spread amongst people - staying at home, closing bars and clubs, wearing masks, other distancing between people, restrictions on travel between countries, testing and tracking of contacts with isolation, and many more. There is lots of credible evidence if we look for it. Our innate immune system is a wonderful, complex beast but is ably facilitated to fight unknown infections by tools like our vaccines. If infection takes hold, we are sick for a much shorter time, the illness is less severe, we can be less infectious to others, etc. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it
Because the other 55% probably wouldnt be there or at least a good proportion of them wouldn't be. Again I will explain this. no the vaccination does not stop you catching coveid it does however vastly improve your chances of not getting very ill!
I agree with that last bit. But that does not give the government the right to coerce people into it. Not being obese reduces your chances of taking up a hospital bed. But are people coerced into not eating? Segregated from parts of society? Are they heck!!
Here is an example of the UK government coercing people into reducing their sugar intake, in the interests of public health:
https://news.sky.com/story/sugar-tax-consumption-of-sugar-from-soft-drinks-falls-by-10-12242372
Sky News reporting in March this year that consumption of sugar in soft drinks has fallen by 10% since the introduction of the ‘sugar tax’ on soft drinks in 2018.
Sugar taxes dont involve segregation.
I can’t believe I’ve actually had to type that to explain.
You said coerce, not segregate. The sugar tax is coercion in the interests of public health, which is something you claimed doesn’t exist.
And, of course, taxation segregates on the ability of the individual to pay. "Possibly the lamest thing I’ve ever read. That’s like saying fillet steak segregates as it’s expensive. My god there’s no point. You’re too far gone. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. That does not make vaccination status irrelevant, which is what you are claiming, and supporting your claim with an anecdote. The medical data shows that vaccinated people transmit the virus less easily than unvaccinated people. Which means vaccination status is not irrelevant. Of course it does! Just cause a jab means you reduce the risk of transmitting, it doesn’t eliminate the risk. So my point still stands. It doesn’t matter if you’ve been vaccinated or not. You can still transmit the virus to others. You are confused on this point. If an unvaccinated person is more likely to spread the virus than an unvaccinated person, vaccination status is relevant to the virus’ ability to spread. Both people CAN spread the virus, but the unvaccinated person is MORE LIKELY to spread the virus. Also, the more often the virus is spread, the more likely it is to mutate into a variant that the vaccine is less effective against. This is why vaccination status is relevant to the spread of the virus, not irrelevant as you claim. Although you make a good point, it’s based on bias. If I had been double jabbed and tested positive for COViD. Would you be willing to sit in close proximity to me for an hour and see how less likely you are catching it? Or would I be in isolation because people can still catch it? Do you trust the maths? No because who in their right mind whether they have been vaccinated or not would test positive for covid and deliberately being close contact with someone else just to prove a point! If I tested positive for covid I would isolate I would not put any body's health at risk vaccinated or otherwise. In the same way I insist on Protected sex because even know it does not guarantee me a 100% safety, it is better than the alternative and that's the bit I dont understand people's mind set on. Nothing is guaranteed and nothing is a 100% said but it's about mitigating the risk to you and others. Then there’s my point. You’re confident enough in the vaccine to tell others to take theirs and even block them for having a different opinion to you (I noticed you had blocked me), but you’re not confident enough to risk your own health? That’s the entire reason I’ve not took the vaccine. No long term study of the side effects. I read a news article yesterday where they’re discovered new side effects including kidney problems. Just like you, I don’t want to risk my health
Firstly you have no idea why anybody blocks anybody you were just making assumptions.
And you have every right to choose not to take it however what you also have to understand is of the people have the right to not want you of their premises or with their country. You seem OK with it however many on this forum don't want to have to take the any of the risks and don't want any consequences.
And no I'm not prepared to risk my own health just to prove a point. Nobody in their right mind would.
Exactly "There is a complete difference between choosing not to take a vaccine s because you're concerned about the long term effects and me proving how effective I think the vaccine is by risking catching it. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it
Because the other 55% probably wouldnt be there or at least a good proportion of them wouldn't be. Again I will explain this. no the vaccination does not stop you catching coveid it does however vastly improve your chances of not getting very ill!
I agree with that last bit. But that does not give the government the right to coerce people into it. Not being obese reduces your chances of taking up a hospital bed. But are people coerced into not eating? Segregated from parts of society? Are they heck!!
Here is an example of the UK government coercing people into reducing their sugar intake, in the interests of public health:
https://news.sky.com/story/sugar-tax-consumption-of-sugar-from-soft-drinks-falls-by-10-12242372
Sky News reporting in March this year that consumption of sugar in soft drinks has fallen by 10% since the introduction of the ‘sugar tax’ on soft drinks in 2018.
Sugar taxes dont involve segregation.
I can’t believe I’ve actually had to type that to explain.
You said coerce, not segregate. The sugar tax is coercion in the interests of public health, which is something you claimed doesn’t exist.
Given the entire conversation we had was about segregation, that is the form of coercion I meant. I obviously wasn’t clear.
So, prepared to say how far you’d take the segregation yet? Banned from going out? Separate parks and benches? Welcome to medical apartheid courtesy of the brainwashed “nothing else exists except covid” and “I want to be governed harder” brigade?"Have you ever considered that one of the reasons no-one is taking you seriously here is you seem unable to try make a point without trying to be insulting? It’s not the only reason, but you could try to make the same points without it. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it
Because the other 55% probably wouldnt be there or at least a good proportion of them wouldn't be. Again I will explain this. no the vaccination does not stop you catching coveid it does however vastly improve your chances of not getting very ill!
I agree with that last bit. But that does not give the government the right to coerce people into it. Not being obese reduces your chances of taking up a hospital bed. But are people coerced into not eating? Segregated from parts of society? Are they heck!!
Here is an example of the UK government coercing people into reducing their sugar intake, in the interests of public health:
https://news.sky.com/story/sugar-tax-consumption-of-sugar-from-soft-drinks-falls-by-10-12242372
Sky News reporting in March this year that consumption of sugar in soft drinks has fallen by 10% since the introduction of the ‘sugar tax’ on soft drinks in 2018.
Sugar taxes dont involve segregation.
I can’t believe I’ve actually had to type that to explain.
You said coerce, not segregate. The sugar tax is coercion in the interests of public health, which is something you claimed doesn’t exist.
Given the entire conversation we had was about segregation, that is the form of coercion I meant. I obviously wasn’t clear.
So, prepared to say how far you’d take the segregation yet? Banned from going out? Separate parks and benches? Welcome to medical apartheid courtesy of the brainwashed “nothing else exists except covid” and “I want to be governed harder” brigade?
Have you ever considered that one of the reasons no-one is taking you seriously here is you seem unable to try make a point without trying to be insulting?
It’s not the only reason, but you could try to make the same points without it.
"No one is taking me seriously on here? You keep telling yourself that. There’s some agreeing, some disagreeing. And you are in favour of segregation, yet are taking the virtuous position. Laughable. You also fail to go into detail about how far you’d take it, despite many requests. You’ve decided sugar tax in a form of segregation, which is laughable. Segregation is vile. If you’re insulted by that, fine. You’re in bad company. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m done with this argument now. We’ve gone from segregation to the price of cigarettes. At the end of the day it’s down to personal choice, as it should be. I regularly test negative for the virus, and I won’t be taking the vaccine just so I can go to a few clubs or go on holiday. I value my long term health more than that. I’ll keep doing what I keep doing, I’ll wear my masks, I’ll socially distance, and I’ll keep self testing. Because those are my choices as a human being. Those are my basic human rights to decide what gets out into my body. If someone wants to take the vaccine, even my own kids, I’d never talk them out of it. It’s their choice. But until there’s a long term study of the side effects (which are growing by the day) for a vaccine that doesn’t eliminate the virus then I’m going to stay jab free. That’s the last thing I have to say on the matter. I only started this thread to talk about travel lol On a seperate note. LornaJo, I genuinely apologise for presuming that you blocked me for having a different opinion to you x" Thank you, I appreciate it. Just to clarify I dont have a problem with personal choice what I do have a problem with is people that spread false information. I've got a friend who doesn't want to take the vaccination but like you is prepared to take the consequences and that is fine although I will add I do think anyone that can have the vaccine should but I do not agree any body should be forced but that is no what is happening. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’m done with this argument now. We’ve gone from segregation to the price of cigarettes. At the end of the day it’s down to personal choice, as it should be. I regularly test negative for the virus, and I won’t be taking the vaccine just so I can go to a few clubs or go on holiday. I value my long term health more than that. I’ll keep doing what I keep doing, I’ll wear my masks, I’ll socially distance, and I’ll keep self testing. Because those are my choices as a human being. Those are my basic human rights to decide what gets out into my body. If someone wants to take the vaccine, even my own kids, I’d never talk them out of it. It’s their choice. But until there’s a long term study of the side effects (which are growing by the day) for a vaccine that doesn’t eliminate the virus then I’m going to stay jab free. That’s the last thing I have to say on the matter. I only started this thread to talk about travel lol On a seperate note. LornaJo, I genuinely apologise for presuming that you blocked me for having a different opinion to you x" Totally agree. Your body, your choice. You should not face being banned from anywhere when those who are worried can take the vaccine themselves. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it
Because the other 55% probably wouldnt be there or at least a good proportion of them wouldn't be. Again I will explain this. no the vaccination does not stop you catching coveid it does however vastly improve your chances of not getting very ill!
I agree with that last bit. But that does not give the government the right to coerce people into it. Not being obese reduces your chances of taking up a hospital bed. But are people coerced into not eating? Segregated from parts of society? Are they heck!!
Here is an example of the UK government coercing people into reducing their sugar intake, in the interests of public health:
https://news.sky.com/story/sugar-tax-consumption-of-sugar-from-soft-drinks-falls-by-10-12242372
Sky News reporting in March this year that consumption of sugar in soft drinks has fallen by 10% since the introduction of the ‘sugar tax’ on soft drinks in 2018.
Sugar taxes dont involve segregation.
I can’t believe I’ve actually had to type that to explain.
You said coerce, not segregate. The sugar tax is coercion in the interests of public health, which is something you claimed doesn’t exist.
Given the entire conversation we had was about segregation, that is the form of coercion I meant. I obviously wasn’t clear.
So, prepared to say how far you’d take the segregation yet? Banned from going out? Separate parks and benches? Welcome to medical apartheid courtesy of the brainwashed “nothing else exists except covid” and “I want to be governed harder” brigade?
Have you ever considered that one of the reasons no-one is taking you seriously here is you seem unable to try make a point without trying to be insulting?
It’s not the only reason, but you could try to make the same points without it.
No one is taking me seriously on here? You keep telling yourself that. There’s some agreeing, some disagreeing.
And you are in favour of segregation, yet are taking the virtuous position. Laughable.
You also fail to go into detail about how far you’d take it, despite many requests. You’ve decided sugar tax in a form of segregation, which is laughable.
Segregation is vile. If you’re insulted by that, fine. You’re in bad company."Here’s the definition of segregation for you to chew over: ‘the action or state of setting someone or something apart from others’. To explain the meaning of the words in this context, if you levy a tax on something that two people want to buy that sets those two people apart through their ability to pay that tax, you are segregating people through taxation into those who can afford to buy the thing, and those who can’t. Hope that was helpful. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I’ve said it from the start, which is why I don’t won’t be having the vaccine If you don't have both even if you don't want to go anywhere it's not just you your putting at risk They should make law have the jabs or stay at home Vile segregation. If you’re worried, you stay at home. Infectious disease is part of life, always has been. People need to grow up and make their own risk based decisions if they’re too scared. That’s okay for an individual, but the government is in charge of making risk-based decisions that affect society. Incredibly for such incompetents they are making a smart decision here, to reduce the risk unvaccinated people present to the rest of us as much as possible. The unvaccinated are not a danger to you. The vaccinated can still spread covid. You are proposing segregation which is vile. Get the vaccine if you want, as most have, and get on with life. The unvaccinated are a danger to me and everyone else because currently they make up 55% of all people currently in hospital with covid, bearing in mind they come from only a tiny portion of the population so when my hospital treatments keep getting cancelled because they don't want a vaccine too right they are a danger! And 45% still have had the vaccine are taking up the beds in this hospital. Should they have stayed at home too? Who are you talking about staying at home? And no they shouldn't because they have mitigated their risk. And didn’t I mitigate my risk by wearing face masks and keeping a socially acceptable distance? I don't know? Did you? It's very simple whether people like it or not if they want to travel they are going to have to have two vaccinations or self isolate it doesn't matter if you believe it to be effective or not it's what the rules are in many countries around the world. Yes I did. And I still do. And I still self test twice a week. I’ve managed to avoid COViD, despite people around me catching it. Including my 2 kids who tested positive the day after they stayed at mine. And where did they catch it? From their vaccinated mothers boyfriend (who’s also vaccinated) who cares for someone vulnerable. So being vaccinated or unvaccinated is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. I’m not anti vax, I’m pro personal choice Medical data is not based on individual anecdotes, and supports the view that vaccination status is not irrelevant, as you claim. I didn’t say it was based on anecdotes. I’m clearly explaining why I’m here discussing that being vaccinated or not is irrelevant to the spread of the virus. You can catch it, and spread it wether you’ve been double jabbed or not. And everyone knows that. You are however much more likely to wind up in hospital which impacts everybody. According to the comments above, 55% of the COViD cases hospitalised were unvaccinated. That means 45% are vaccinated. I wouldn’t say that that was much more likely? It's very basic maths. 90% of the adult population has been vaccinated so the 55% comes from 10% of the population so yes mathematically, statistically and realistically you are much more likely to end up in hospital if you have not had a single vaccination. But we aren’t talking the entire population. We are talking the population of the hospital ward. So if there are 100 beds in that hospital, 45 are full from people who’ve been vaccinated. Almost half. Yes think about it. There would probably only be another 10 rather than a 100 if all of them were vaccinated. How do you figure that? If they were all vaccinated then 100 beds would be full cause guess what? The vaccination doesn’t stop you from catching it
Because the other 55% probably wouldnt be there or at least a good proportion of them wouldn't be. Again I will explain this. no the vaccination does not stop you catching coveid it does however vastly improve your chances of not getting very ill!
I agree with that last bit. But that does not give the government the right to coerce people into it. Not being obese reduces your chances of taking up a hospital bed. But are people coerced into not eating? Segregated from parts of society? Are they heck!!
Here is an example of the UK government coercing people into reducing their sugar intake, in the interests of public health:
https://news.sky.com/story/sugar-tax-consumption-of-sugar-from-soft-drinks-falls-by-10-12242372
Sky News reporting in March this year that consumption of sugar in soft drinks has fallen by 10% since the introduction of the ‘sugar tax’ on soft drinks in 2018.
Sugar taxes dont involve segregation.
I can’t believe I’ve actually had to type that to explain.
You said coerce, not segregate. The sugar tax is coercion in the interests of public health, which is something you claimed doesn’t exist.
Given the entire conversation we had was about segregation, that is the form of coercion I meant. I obviously wasn’t clear.
So, prepared to say how far you’d take the segregation yet? Banned from going out? Separate parks and benches? Welcome to medical apartheid courtesy of the brainwashed “nothing else exists except covid” and “I want to be governed harder” brigade?
Have you ever considered that one of the reasons no-one is taking you seriously here is you seem unable to try make a point without trying to be insulting?
It’s not the only reason, but you could try to make the same points without it.
No one is taking me seriously on here? You keep telling yourself that. There’s some agreeing, some disagreeing.
And you are in favour of segregation, yet are taking the virtuous position. Laughable.
You also fail to go into detail about how far you’d take it, despite many requests. You’ve decided sugar tax in a form of segregation, which is laughable.
Segregation is vile. If you’re insulted by that, fine. You’re in bad company.
Here’s the definition of segregation for you to chew over:
‘the action or state of setting someone or something apart from others’.
To explain the meaning of the words in this context, if you levy a tax on something that two people want to buy that sets those two people apart through their ability to pay that tax, you are segregating people through taxation into those who can afford to buy the thing, and those who can’t.
Hope that was helpful."By that measure anything that costs money, even a penny chew, is segregation, if you haven’t got a penny to spend. And you think people aren’t taking me seriously? Lol. You want to ban people from places. That is the segregation people are talking about. You know this. You have failed to expand on how far you’d take it because you’re aware of how it would make you sound. Like some of the most disgusting leaders in history. I’m off down the park for a walk, then nip into the shops, where there will be people who have had the vaccine, and not had the vaccine, mixing freely but being sensible where required. Where people aren’t banned due to their choice not to have a vaccine. Long live this freedom. I hope those who want to segregate like yourself are never on the receiving end of such disgusting divisive measures. History shows there is no place for such segregation. Its vile. And if you answer with “sugar tax is a form of segregation”, enough said. You certainly aren’t going to answer how far you’d take it and where you’d ban people from, you’ve had enough chances. | |||
(thread closed by moderator) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
