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 |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy!" It will be exactly the same people, naturally. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Exactly this. Worded so much more succinctly than I ever could." And this for me too. But you do put yourself across well polly. X | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we aren't requiring vaccine passports for every other disease that you can potentially pass on to others in a crowd then I don't believe we should be for covid. If they want to go to the hassle of sending me out a card or something then so be it but i won't be installing any app or going out of my way to provide proof." There is a big difference between hove it at the moment and other preventable diseases that are controlled by vaccination. Because we have an established vaccination program and most of the other preventable illnesses are not at epidemical or pandemic levels unlike coverd that is why it is required now. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we aren't requiring vaccine passports for every other disease that you can potentially pass on to others in a crowd then I don't believe we should be for covid. If they want to go to the hassle of sending me out a card or something then so be it but i won't be installing any app or going out of my way to provide proof." Also that has nothing to do with isolation of vaunable people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we aren't requiring vaccine passports for every other disease that you can potentially pass on to others in a crowd then I don't believe we should be for covid. If they want to go to the hassle of sending me out a card or something then so be it but i won't be installing any app or going out of my way to provide proof. There is a big difference between hove it at the moment and other preventable diseases that are controlled by vaccination. Because we have an established vaccination program and most of the other preventable illnesses are not at epidemical or pandemic levels unlike coverd that is why it is required now. " Yet people still catch and pass on those diseases/viruses and people still die of them, the flu being the main one, why not make that mandatory? Personally though, I don't believe "passports" will make any difference at all. You can still catch it and spread it, albeit at a lesser rate but I still think its providing the vaccinated with a false sense of security. Its another in a long line of mistakes by those in charge. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we aren't requiring vaccine passports for every other disease that you can potentially pass on to others in a crowd then I don't believe we should be for covid. If they want to go to the hassle of sending me out a card or something then so be it but i won't be installing any app or going out of my way to provide proof. Also that has nothing to do with isolation of vaunable people. " 
It's amazing how strongly such medical segregation was argued for. Based on things that these people cannot help. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we aren't requiring vaccine passports for every other disease that you can potentially pass on to others in a crowd then I don't believe we should be for covid. If they want to go to the hassle of sending me out a card or something then so be it but i won't be installing any app or going out of my way to provide proof." You'd perhaps like to speak with the many heads of government around the world, who seem to have misinterpreted this pandemic as a severe immediate emergency, requiring covid passports, of a similar nature, in order to lessen the risk levels of people in parts of their countries, or even to walk on their soil. It's restrictions and vaccines that are the only tools that will help us to get out of this unholy mess. Take your pick. Paper vaccine confirmations are available, as this country has been using for decades. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we aren't requiring vaccine passports for every other disease that you can potentially pass on to others in a crowd then I don't believe we should be for covid. If they want to go to the hassle of sending me out a card or something then so be it but i won't be installing any app or going out of my way to provide proof. You'd perhaps like to speak with the many heads of government around the world, who seem to have misinterpreted this pandemic as a severe immediate emergency, requiring covid passports, of a similar nature, in order to lessen the risk levels of people in parts of their countries, or even to walk on their soil. It's restrictions and vaccines that are the only tools that will help us to get out of this unholy mess. Take your pick. Paper vaccine confirmations are available, as this country has been using for decades. " I'm vaccinated and have also had covid, I however don't believe it gives me any more rights than anyone else. I still social distance from those I don't know. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not convinced now that there's any point in segregation between vaxxed and unvaxxed with the latest info seeming to be that everybody has an equal chance of spreading the delta variant, with the vaccinated having less chance of filling up the hospitals. If everybody did a lateral flow test every 24-hours and kept that updated, then that seems to be to me a most up-to-date way of showing who would be contagious." I am inclined to agree with this, I think regular testing is more likely to prevent transmission than reliance on vaccination. The test events like the raves in Liverpool relied solely on testing and are a key reason in the relaxation of social restrictions. As the primary purpose of the vaccine is to lessen the effects of covid on someone who becomes infected I see no reason for unvaccinated persons to be excluded from social spaces or travel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not convinced now that there's any point in segregation between vaxxed and unvaxxed with the latest info seeming to be that everybody has an equal chance of spreading the delta variant, with the vaccinated having less chance of filling up the hospitals. If everybody did a lateral flow test every 24-hours and kept that updated, then that seems to be to me a most up-to-date way of showing who would be contagious. I am inclined to agree with this, I think regular testing is more likely to prevent transmission than reliance on vaccination. The test events like the raves in Liverpool relied solely on testing and are a key reason in the relaxation of social restrictions. As the primary purpose of the vaccine is to lessen the effects of covid on someone who becomes infected I see no reason for unvaccinated persons to be excluded from social spaces or travel." I think it's reasonable to keep it as a reserve option at least, as autumn and winter will pose higher levels of risk to us all. The app and alternative vaccine confirmation are in place but support for any rollout would be needed. We do have to have contingency measures in place I think, because this virus has shown us that it's not easily predictable and that when we think it's all going well, it has a nasty habit of surprising us. We largely need to plan wisely and to be flexible. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy!" Well... It wasn't everyone suggesting that.. And even those that were... It was only ever a temporary measure. Depends what happens when we go into winter again... If its proven an unsafe risk we need a way to manage that risk. If it is a risk... Ignoring it doesn't move us along very much. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yes, there were quite a few who wanted the implausible relocation of millions of people who were vulnerable and anyone else who had contact with them. This included the BAME population - a new apartheid, carers, people who provided services to them etc. It would have meant many people moving out of homes, such as partners and family, to be placed into some unknown place, via some form of transport that didn't exist. They did clamour for it and presumably didn't see why such a solution wasn't being implemented anywhere in the world. The great Barrington debate was 1 such serving of tripe. After their desired wholesale movement and segregation of millions of people, including ethnic minorities, the unvaccinated are now seen as the greater risk to others and some see the much smaller conceptual limits of visiting optional services as something like such societal upheaval, including racial apartheid, that some felt was right earlier. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! Well... It wasn't everyone suggesting that.. And even those that were... It was only ever a temporary measure. Depends what happens when we go into winter again... If its proven an unsafe risk we need a way to manage that risk. If it is a risk... Ignoring it doesn't move us along very much. " Can we really allow the unvaccinated to move among us if they are not only putting themselves in danger but also others? Maybe we need to ‘protect’ them until the pandemic is over? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not convinced now that there's any point in segregation between vaxxed and unvaxxed with the latest info seeming to be that everybody has an equal chance of spreading the delta variant, with the vaccinated having less chance of filling up the hospitals. If everybody did a lateral flow test every 24-hours and kept that updated, then that seems to be to me a most up-to-date way of showing who would be contagious." I think this is a better way. Only being in a venue with those who have been vaccinated means nothing unless they have proven they aren’t carrying the virus on that day as well. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If we aren't requiring vaccine passports for every other disease that you can potentially pass on to others in a crowd then I don't believe we should be for covid. If they want to go to the hassle of sending me out a card or something then so be it but i won't be installing any app or going out of my way to provide proof. There is a big difference between hove it at the moment and other preventable diseases that are controlled by vaccination. Because we have an established vaccination program and most of the other preventable illnesses are not at epidemical or pandemic levels unlike coverd that is why it is required now. Yet people still catch and pass on those diseases/viruses and people still die of them, the flu being the main one, why not make that mandatory? Personally though, I don't believe "passports" will make any difference at all. You can still catch it and spread it, albeit at a lesser rate but I still think its providing the vaccinated with a false sense of security. Its another in a long line of mistakes by those in charge." Amazing how many do not see the problem of apportioning the pandemic responses to mistakes, in a group of people who literally have the best advice available to them. Mistakes does not fit the bill, deliberate mistakes makes complete sense. This virus targets the groups of people who cost govts money. What a surprise that govts are unable to protect a group/s that they don’t want. Do not attribute blame to mistakes, where malice fits better | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not convinced now that there's any point in segregation between vaxxed and unvaxxed with the latest info seeming to be that everybody has an equal chance of spreading the delta variant, with the vaccinated having less chance of filling up the hospitals. If everybody did a lateral flow test every 24-hours and kept that updated, then that seems to be to me a most up-to-date way of showing who would be contagious." "I am inclined to agree with this, I think regular testing is more likely to prevent transmission than reliance on vaccination. The test events like the raves in Liverpool relied solely on testing and are a key reason in the relaxation of social restrictions. As the primary purpose of the vaccine is to lessen the effects of covid on someone who becomes infected I see no reason for unvaccinated persons to be excluded from social spaces or travel." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yayyy another bully the unvaccinated thread! Flaming hell this is tiring. Anywho these two comments below are rather sensible. Testing is still very important. I'm not convinced now that there's any point in segregation between vaxxed and unvaxxed with the latest info seeming to be that everybody has an equal chance of spreading the delta variant, with the vaccinated having less chance of filling up the hospitals. If everybody did a lateral flow test every 24-hours and kept that updated, then that seems to be to me a most up-to-date way of showing who would be contagious. I am inclined to agree with this, I think regular testing is more likely to prevent transmission than reliance on vaccination. The test events like the raves in Liverpool relied solely on testing and are a key reason in the relaxation of social restrictions. As the primary purpose of the vaccine is to lessen the effects of covid on someone who becomes infected I see no reason for unvaccinated persons to be excluded from social spaces or travel." No one Is bullying the unvaccinated, we’re just ‘asking questions’. After all there were plenty of people who thought that in order to save the economy the vulnerable should have to isolate. Just asking whether we should be doing the same to ‘protect’ the unvaccinated and allow the rest of us to get the economy back on track? It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy after all. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yayyy another bully the unvaccinated thread! Flaming hell this is tiring. Anywho these two comments below are rather sensible. Testing is still very important. I'm not convinced now that there's any point in segregation between vaxxed and unvaxxed with the latest info seeming to be that everybody has an equal chance of spreading the delta variant, with the vaccinated having less chance of filling up the hospitals. If everybody did a lateral flow test every 24-hours and kept that updated, then that seems to be to me a most up-to-date way of showing who would be contagious. I am inclined to agree with this, I think regular testing is more likely to prevent transmission than reliance on vaccination. The test events like the raves in Liverpool relied solely on testing and are a key reason in the relaxation of social restrictions. As the primary purpose of the vaccine is to lessen the effects of covid on someone who becomes infected I see no reason for unvaccinated persons to be excluded from social spaces or travel. No one Is bullying the unvaccinated, we’re just ‘asking questions’. After all there were plenty of people who thought that in order to save the economy the vulnerable should have to isolate. Just asking whether we should be doing the same to ‘protect’ the unvaccinated and allow the rest of us to get the economy back on track? It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy after all." Why can’t testing be mandatory and vaccination be optional and the economy would still keep going? Vaccinated or not you can still carry and share covid so wouldn't testing rigorously be a better way to monitor infection rates? Maybe you're right OP keep all the unvaxxed at home and wear out the rest of the jabbed population, making them do extra shifts and twice the work load to keep the economy going. Doesn't sound right though. Glad its Boris who has to make these choices  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy!" It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Yayyy another bully the unvaccinated thread! Flaming hell this is tiring. Anywho these two comments below are rather sensible. Testing is still very important. I'm not convinced now that there's any point in segregation between vaxxed and unvaxxed with the latest info seeming to be that everybody has an equal chance of spreading the delta variant, with the vaccinated having less chance of filling up the hospitals. If everybody did a lateral flow test every 24-hours and kept that updated, then that seems to be to me a most up-to-date way of showing who would be contagious. I am inclined to agree with this, I think regular testing is more likely to prevent transmission than reliance on vaccination. The test events like the raves in Liverpool relied solely on testing and are a key reason in the relaxation of social restrictions. As the primary purpose of the vaccine is to lessen the effects of covid on someone who becomes infected I see no reason for unvaccinated persons to be excluded from social spaces or travel." I like reading comments like these above too. Straight forward and sensible and spot on. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live" But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy." When everyone is vaxed it will be the vaxed spreading the virus around. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not convinced now that there's any point in segregation between vaxxed and unvaxxed with the latest info seeming to be that everybody has an equal chance of spreading the delta variant, with the vaccinated having less chance of filling up the hospitals. If everybody did a lateral flow test every 24-hours and kept that updated, then that seems to be to me a most up-to-date way of showing who would be contagious. I think this is a better way. Only being in a venue with those who have been vaccinated means nothing unless they have proven they aren’t carrying the virus on that day as well. " Yes it does because the reason the government only want vaccinated people in big venues is because they want to keep hospital numbers low. Therefore if there are unvaccinated they are more likely to get more sick and end up in hospital. It will probably not be a problem for the majority of people now to catch covid even those who are vaunable unless you are not vaccinated, so it just makes sense to make sure as many people as possible are vaccinated rather than testing everybody all the time. The other reason it is being done is to encourage young people to get the vaccination. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy." But the medically vulnerable were "advised" to isolate for their own health not for the economy and Boris kept saying "To save the NHS" as there wasn't a vaccine available at that stage. Regular testing is still key to this at mass crowd events as, for example, 20000 folk can all wave their Covid pass to get in to an event but if none of them have taken a test then statistically some will have Covid and will still spread it... and once you catch Covid irrespective of vaccine or not it can still go either way in terms of being mild, resulting in hospital treatment or even death. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy. When everyone is vaxed it will be the vaxed spreading the virus around." You are missing the point, it doesn't really matter if we spread covid amongst ourselves, it only matters when vast numbers up getting sick at the same time and needing hospital treatment which is happening less and less in vaccinated people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy. When everyone is vaxed it will be the vaxed spreading the virus around." Everyone will have a certain level of protection though, and we won’t have a group who are more likely to catch an spread Covid. Surely if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable so everyone else could get on with their lives it is ok to isolate the unvaccinated until the pandemic is over, so everyone else can get on with their lives? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy. But the medically vulnerable were "advised" to isolate for their own health not for the economy and Boris kept saying "To save the NHS" as there wasn't a vaccine available at that stage. Regular testing is still key to this at mass crowd events as, for example, 20000 folk can all wave their Covid pass to get in to an event but if none of them have taken a test then statistically some will have Covid and will still spread it... and once you catch Covid irrespective of vaccine or not it can still go either way in terms of being mild, resulting in hospital treatment or even death." It was very strongly advised however it was the attitude of many individuals who were saying things like "can't they just shut themselves away so the rest of us can get on with life" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But the medically vulnerable were "advised" to isolate for their own health not for the economy and Boris kept saying "To save the NHS" as there wasn't a vaccine available" Ah but on these very forums there loads of people suggesting that the vulnerable should isolate so everyone else could get on with their lives. I’m just wondering if they apply the same logic to the unvaccinated as they are now the blocker to everyone being able to go back to normal? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not convinced now that there's any point in segregation between vaxxed and unvaxxed with the latest info seeming to be that everybody has an equal chance of spreading the delta variant, with the vaccinated having less chance of filling up the hospitals. If everybody did a lateral flow test every 24-hours and kept that updated, then that seems to be to me a most up-to-date way of showing who would be contagious. I think this is a better way. Only being in a venue with those who have been vaccinated means nothing unless they have proven they aren’t carrying the virus on that day as well. Yes it does because the reason the government only want vaccinated people in big venues is because they want to keep hospital numbers low. Therefore if there are unvaccinated they are more likely to get more sick and end up in hospital. It will probably not be a problem for the majority of people now to catch covid even those who are vaunable unless you are not vaccinated, so it just makes sense to make sure as many people as possible are vaccinated rather than testing everybody all the time. The other reason it is being done is to encourage young people to get the vaccination. " The reason they want the vaccinated to mingle is to see how well the vaccine efficacy is ie have antibodies from the jab that is why you are seeing double jabbed coming down with covid the efficacy has dropped or they did not get a auto immune response. We are all lab rats. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not convinced now that there's any point in segregation between vaxxed and unvaxxed with the latest info seeming to be that everybody has an equal chance of spreading the delta variant, with the vaccinated having less chance of filling up the hospitals. If everybody did a lateral flow test every 24-hours and kept that updated, then that seems to be to me a most up-to-date way of showing who would be contagious. I think this is a better way. Only being in a venue with those who have been vaccinated means nothing unless they have proven they aren’t carrying the virus on that day as well. Yes it does because the reason the government only want vaccinated people in big venues is because they want to keep hospital numbers low. Therefore if there are unvaccinated they are more likely to get more sick and end up in hospital. It will probably not be a problem for the majority of people now to catch covid even those who are vaunable unless you are not vaccinated, so it just makes sense to make sure as many people as possible are vaccinated rather than testing everybody all the time. The other reason it is being done is to encourage young people to get the vaccination. The reason they want the vaccinated to mingle is to see how well the vaccine efficacy is ie have antibodies from the jab that is why you are seeing double jabbed coming down with covid the efficacy has dropped or they did not get a auto immune response. We are all lab rats. " Well of course we are. This is a new virus and we have no option but to try and mitigate the risk and carry on as normal. Being vaccinated is the biggest thing we can all do to mitigate the risk. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy. When everyone is vaxed it will be the vaxed spreading the virus around. Everyone will have a certain level of protection though, and we won’t have a group who are more likely to catch an spread Covid. Surely if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable so everyone else could get on with their lives it is ok to isolate the unvaccinated until the pandemic is over, so everyone else can get on with their lives?"
Surely it's everyone's responsibility to protect the NHS after all it's been through.
Vaccination or restrictions. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy. When everyone is vaxed it will be the vaxed spreading the virus around. Everyone will have a certain level of protection though, and we won’t have a group who are more likely to catch an spread Covid. Surely if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable so everyone else could get on with their lives it is ok to isolate the unvaccinated until the pandemic is over, so everyone else can get on with their lives?
Surely it's everyone's responsibility to protect the NHS after all it's been through.
Vaccination or restrictions."Yep | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not convinced now that there's any point in segregation between vaxxed and unvaxxed with the latest info seeming to be that everybody has an equal chance of spreading the delta variant, with the vaccinated having less chance of filling up the hospitals. If everybody did a lateral flow test every 24-hours and kept that updated, then that seems to be to me a most up-to-date way of showing who would be contagious. I think this is a better way. Only being in a venue with those who have been vaccinated means nothing unless they have proven they aren’t carrying the virus on that day as well. Yes it does because the reason the government only want vaccinated people in big venues is because they want to keep hospital numbers low. Therefore if there are unvaccinated they are more likely to get more sick and end up in hospital. It will probably not be a problem for the majority of people now to catch covid even those who are vaunable unless you are not vaccinated, so it just makes sense to make sure as many people as possible are vaccinated rather than testing everybody all the time. The other reason it is being done is to encourage young people to get the vaccination. " Until you catch it as a vaccinated person you have no idea whether your immune system has done what it is supposed to do, so yes I would prefer to still be in a venue where people have been tested rather than just a vaccine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy." just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ??" I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Wow this thread is full of assumptions and provocation! Not been reading or posting here as much lately as it rapidly turns into a tribalist cesspit! There appears to be the rhetoric being built here that there is a direct correlation between those who a year or so ago were advocating isolating/protecting the vulnerable and those who are currently anti-vax and/or anti vax-passports. Can anyone provide the data to back up that position or are you reaching for conclusions to create (yet another) divisive issue? As always folks this is a complex issue and certainly not binary. Sadly nuance and shades of grey continue to be lacking with many posters (of all tribes) on here " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I'm not convinced now that there's any point in segregation between vaxxed and unvaxxed with the latest info seeming to be that everybody has an equal chance of spreading the delta variant, with the vaccinated having less chance of filling up the hospitals. If everybody did a lateral flow test every 24-hours and kept that updated, then that seems to be to me a most up-to-date way of showing who would be contagious. I think this is a better way. Only being in a venue with those who have been vaccinated means nothing unless they have proven they aren’t carrying the virus on that day as well. Yes it does because the reason the government only want vaccinated people in big venues is because they want to keep hospital numbers low. Therefore if there are unvaccinated they are more likely to get more sick and end up in hospital. It will probably not be a problem for the majority of people now to catch covid even those who are vaunable unless you are not vaccinated, so it just makes sense to make sure as many people as possible are vaccinated rather than testing everybody all the time. The other reason it is being done is to encourage young people to get the vaccination. The reason they want the vaccinated to mingle is to see how well the vaccine efficacy is ie have antibodies from the jab that is why you are seeing double jabbed coming down with covid the efficacy has dropped or they did not get a auto immune response. We are all lab rats. Well of course we are. This is a new virus and we have no option but to try and mitigate the risk and carry on as normal. Being vaccinated is the biggest thing we can all do to mitigate the risk." IMHO: I think being vaccinated is the sensible thing in regards to reducing the burden on the NHS. Taking regular tests and exercising common sense, good judgement and awareness of others are the best things one can do to mitigate transmission of the virus. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good." So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… " I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ??" It was a propositions from many on here as well as from some such as the great Barrington debate, that assumed that the vulnerable were somehow not contributing to the economy, including working or business owners, I presume and that several million people could be magically separated from the rest of the people in society, that some unspecified authority would deem not vulnerable. Although repeated many times, it never detailed the specifics of how this could be achieved and didn't really stand up to much more than the weakest of scrutiny. I wasn't a proponent, as you can probably tell. It would have been the land of milk and honey for all those who weren't segregated, letting them enjoy all of the fruits of the tree of life, as before the pandemic, including golden prosperity for the economy. You may be able to find some of the older posts. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? It was a propositions from many on here as well as from some such as the great Barrington debate, that assumed that the vulnerable were somehow not contributing to the economy, including working or business owners, I presume and that several million people could be magically separated from the rest of the people in society, that some unspecified authority would deem not vulnerable. Although repeated many times, it never detailed the specifics of how this could be achieved and didn't really stand up to much more than the weakest of scrutiny. I wasn't a proponent, as you can probably tell. It would have been the land of milk and honey for all those who weren't segregated, letting them enjoy all of the fruits of the tree of life, as before the pandemic, including golden prosperity for the economy. You may be able to find some of the older posts. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? It was a propositions from many on here as well as from some such as the great Barrington debate, that assumed that the vulnerable were somehow not contributing to the economy, including working or business owners, I presume and that several million people could be magically separated from the rest of the people in society, that some unspecified authority would deem not vulnerable. Although repeated many times, it never detailed the specifics of how this could be achieved and didn't really stand up to much more than the weakest of scrutiny. I wasn't a proponent, as you can probably tell. It would have been the land of milk and honey for all those who weren't segregated, letting them enjoy all of the fruits of the tree of life, as before the pandemic, including golden prosperity for the economy. You may be able to find some of the older posts. " I've found 1 on the Barrington stupidity | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ??" It didn't, the OP is talking about people who were advocating for things to open back up when we are in lock down and just isolate the vulnerable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?" why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? " I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives?" I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? " Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. " What happens if the pandemic is never over. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. " I think your having a joke ? Surely you can’t be serious ? How does locking up healthy people protect the economy when it would have the opposite effect ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. I think your having a joke ? Surely you can’t be serious ? How does locking up healthy people protect the economy when it would have the opposite effect ? " Sounds ace, I could do with a break - where do I sign up? Having not missed a day’s work in the past 4 years I’ll have a bit of this. Especially if I’m protecting the economy. About time those who worked throughout got some of the free money for nothing  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. I think your having a joke ? Surely you can’t be serious ? How does locking up healthy people protect the economy when it would have the opposite effect ? Sounds ace, I could do with a break - where do I sign up? Having not missed a day’s work in the past 4 years I’ll have a bit of this. Especially if I’m protecting the economy. About time those who worked throughout got some of the free money for nothing "You have to spend the free money though it keeps the economy going. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. I think your having a joke ? Surely you can’t be serious ? How does locking up healthy people protect the economy when it would have the opposite effect ? Sounds ace, I could do with a break - where do I sign up? Having not missed a day’s work in the past 4 years I’ll have a bit of this. Especially if I’m protecting the economy. About time those who worked throughout got some of the free money for nothing
You have to spend the free money though it keeps the economy going.
"and they could “clap for the vaxed “ every Thursday night at 7pm to show their appreciation! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives?" Not sure you’ve thought this through, what about all those under 18s who aren’t offered the vaccine, they fall under your unvaccinated group? If not, why not ? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"3 weeks to flatten the curve!! " thats true enough; and now they have stocked up on boosters for 2022 ! This ain’t ending anytime soon; | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. I think your having a joke ? Surely you can’t be serious ? How does locking up healthy people protect the economy when it would have the opposite effect ? " 11x more likely to end up in hospital if they catch Covid. Chews up NHS resources and money, neither of which fall off trees. Occupy beds that could be used by others waiting to have their health issues resolved - having a knock on effect on the economic production of people with other health problems. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. I think your having a joke ? Surely you can’t be serious ? How does locking up healthy people protect the economy when it would have the opposite effect ? 11x more likely to end up in hospital if they catch Covid. Chews up NHS resources and money, neither of which fall off trees. Occupy beds that could be used by others waiting to have their health issues resolved - having a knock on effect on the economic production of people with other health problems." Exactly the same arguement can be used for people that ride motorbikes over a car... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. I think your having a joke ? Surely you can’t be serious ? How does locking up healthy people protect the economy when it would have the opposite effect ? 11x more likely to end up in hospital if they catch Covid. Chews up NHS resources and money, neither of which fall off trees. Occupy beds that could be used by others waiting to have their health issues resolved - having a knock on effect on the economic production of people with other health problems. Exactly the same arguement can be used for people that ride motorbikes over a car..." Hospital staff don't call them donorcycles for nothing. But you're correct. Both are vulnerable by choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. I think your having a joke ? Surely you can’t be serious ? How does locking up healthy people protect the economy when it would have the opposite effect ? 11x more likely to end up in hospital if they catch Covid. Chews up NHS resources and money, neither of which fall off trees. Occupy beds that could be used by others waiting to have their health issues resolved - having a knock on effect on the economic production of people with other health problems. Exactly the same arguement can be used for people that ride motorbikes over a car... Hospital staff don't call them donorcycles for nothing. But you're correct. Both are vulnerable by choice." And it is out choice to make within the law ourselves, not yours to force upon others I know very well that my choice makes me more vunerable. But im also a better road user than most due to that. You are quite aware of your own mortality when you are sat doing 60 2 metres from a HGV wheel in pissing rain and crosswinds. Also why the charity i mostly donate too is the Air Ambulance | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. I think your having a joke ? Surely you can’t be serious ? How does locking up healthy people protect the economy when it would have the opposite effect ? 11x more likely to end up in hospital if they catch Covid. Chews up NHS resources and money, neither of which fall off trees. Occupy beds that could be used by others waiting to have their health issues resolved - having a knock on effect on the economic production of people with other health problems. Exactly the same arguement can be used for people that ride motorbikes over a car... Hospital staff don't call them donorcycles for nothing. But you're correct. Both are vulnerable by choice. And it is out choice to make within the law ourselves, not yours to force upon others I know very well that my choice makes me more vunerable. But im also a better road user than most due to that. You are quite aware of your own mortality when you are sat doing 60 2 metres from a HGV wheel in pissing rain and crosswinds. Also why the charity i mostly donate too is the Air Ambulance" I'm not doing anything other than saying words on the internet. If I force anyone to do anything, you have my blessing to have me arrested, charged, and imprisoned | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy!" Fear not, I’m sure they will lock us all up again in October. Considering the vaccinated and unvaccinated can still catch and transmit the virus, it’s surely the safest route. Gotta stay safe! Thank heavens they keep us all safe! Stay safe! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. I think your having a joke ? Surely you can’t be serious ? How does locking up healthy people protect the economy when it would have the opposite effect ? 11x more likely to end up in hospital if they catch Covid. Chews up NHS resources and money, neither of which fall off trees. Occupy beds that could be used by others waiting to have their health issues resolved - having a knock on effect on the economic production of people with other health problems. Exactly the same arguement can be used for people that ride motorbikes over a car... Hospital staff don't call them donorcycles for nothing. But you're correct. Both are vulnerable by choice. And it is out choice to make within the law ourselves, not yours to force upon others I know very well that my choice makes me more vunerable. But im also a better road user than most due to that. You are quite aware of your own mortality when you are sat doing 60 2 metres from a HGV wheel in pissing rain and crosswinds. Also why the charity i mostly donate too is the Air Ambulance I'm not doing anything other than saying words on the internet. If I force anyone to do anything, you have my blessing to have me arrested, charged, and imprisoned "Or called our as a wizard casting spells and putting people under them.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. What happens if the pandemic is never over." We can ask the folk who were willing to isolate the vulnerable, I’m sure they have a plan for what would’ve been done in that situation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. I think your having a joke ? Surely you can’t be serious ? How does locking up healthy people protect the economy when it would have the opposite effect ? 11x more likely to end up in hospital if they catch Covid. Chews up NHS resources and money, neither of which fall off trees. Occupy beds that could be used by others waiting to have their health issues resolved - having a knock on effect on the economic production of people with other health problems. -----' Exactly the same arguement can be used for people that ride motorbikes over a car..." In fact, that is quite accurate. Most motorcycle accidents are actually caused by car drivers. Cal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? I see; how long would they have to isolate for ? And the thinking is by isolating the unvaccinated then life will go on as normal? What happens when the flu makes a come back ? Or someone gets pneumonia? Do we lock them up too ? Just until the pandemic is over, then once it’s safe they can be reintegrated, just like the vulnerable would’ve been. It’s for their own good, and the good of the economy. What happens if the pandemic is never over. We can ask the folk who were willing to isolate the vulnerable, I’m sure they have a plan for what would’ve been done in that situation." | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? Not sure you’ve thought this through, what about all those under 18s who aren’t offered the vaccine, they fall under your unvaccinated group? If not, why not ? " It's perfectly obvious that under 18s ought to be offered vaccination, and our government have even stated that they have authorised the vaccines down to age 12. Damned if I know why they have then said they will only vaccinate the most vulnerable in this age group. Every other rich country is offering vaccination for all down to 12 years old. As it is, kids are becoming an increasing fraction of the hospital covid admissions. In the US they are finding that about 15% of their cases are in under 18s now that a large number of the older demographic are vaccinated. There is no reason to expect the UK to be any different. Yesterday there were nearly 30,000 new cases of covid in the UK. This indicates that very shortly we could be seeing several thousand children infected with covid every single day. Even if only a small part of these end up in hospital or with long covid, the numbers will mount up. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? Not sure you’ve thought this through, what about all those under 18s who aren’t offered the vaccine, they fall under your unvaccinated group? If not, why not ? It's perfectly obvious that under 18s ought to be offered vaccination, and our government have even stated that they have authorised the vaccines down to age 12. Damned if I know why they have then said they will only vaccinate the most vulnerable in this age group. Every other rich country is offering vaccination for all down to 12 years old. As it is, kids are becoming an increasing fraction of the hospital covid admissions. In the US they are finding that about 15% of their cases are in under 18s now that a large number of the older demographic are vaccinated. There is no reason to expect the UK to be any different. Yesterday there were nearly 30,000 new cases of covid in the UK. This indicates that very shortly we could be seeing several thousand children infected with covid every single day. Even if only a small part of these end up in hospital or with long covid, the numbers will mount up." And yet one of the scientists that created the Oxford vaccine said its pointless to vacccinate that section of society and vacccines should go to to other countries instead on BBC news last week I thought we where supposed to be listening to the science, or is that only when it agrees with your viewpoint? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! It was 'If you need to isolate anyone, it should be the at risk and vulnerable, and even then that should be an option provided to them, and everyone else at lower risk can continue moving the economy forward and help those who have to shield'. It's cowards like you and others here who want to impose imprisonment on others for your own damn safety, whilst pretending you're doing it out if some sort or noble compassion. The reality is that you're serving your own narcissism and cravenness. And look, you want to impose upon people again. Surprise surprise, how quickly you embrace fascism to feel a little safer I'm not sure how to classify you. Not a bottom feeder, they are better than you. Not even the detritus a bottom feeder lives off. You are whatever a bottom feeder spits out as not being good enough to eat. Leave people alone. Stop imposing your will upon them, just because you're so scared off death, you're afraid to live But if it was ok to isolate the vulnerable to save the economy why is it not ok to isolate the unvaccinated? They are not only more likely to catch Covid, they are more likely to spread it, a far bigger threat to the economy.just a question- how did isolating the vulnerable save the economy ? Can you elaborate please ?? I have no idea, it was a common suggestion on the forums though, definitely to protect both the vulnerable and the economy and certainly not because some people really didn’t think they should be inconvenienced, even slightly, for the greater good. So out of spite you want to see ‘some people’ inconvenienced. That says far more about you than anything else… I’m just asking the question, I’d be interested to hear if the same people who advocated the vulnerable be isolated feel the same about the unvaccinated?why would you think the unvaccinated should be isolated? I didn’t say they should be, I’m just asking if the people who were pushing for the vulnerable to be isolated so everyone else could get on with their lives now think it would be a good idea for the unvaccinated to be isolated so the rest of us can safely get on with our lives? Not sure you’ve thought this through, what about all those under 18s who aren’t offered the vaccine, they fall under your unvaccinated group? If not, why not ? It's perfectly obvious that under 18s ought to be offered vaccination, and our government have even stated that they have authorised the vaccines down to age 12. Damned if I know why they have then said they will only vaccinate the most vulnerable in this age group. Every other rich country is offering vaccination for all down to 12 years old. As it is, kids are becoming an increasing fraction of the hospital covid admissions. In the US they are finding that about 15% of their cases are in under 18s now that a large number of the older demographic are vaccinated. There is no reason to expect the UK to be any different. Yesterday there were nearly 30,000 new cases of covid in the UK. This indicates that very shortly we could be seeing several thousand children infected with covid every single day. Even if only a small part of these end up in hospital or with long covid, the numbers will mount up." I don’t think it’s clear at all. They haven’t even made it clear that the 12-18 year old vulnerable children will be getting two doses, due to increased risks identified after two doses. Time will tell. I’ll await the original writers response to the question posed to him | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! Time will tell. I’ll await the original writers response to the question posed to him " I think you have completely missed the point of the post. The intention is to point out the hypocrisy of people who were happy to lock other people up for the greater good but when the same logic is applied to them, and they are the ones who will be locked away and forgotten about… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! Time will tell. I’ll await the original writers response to the question posed to him I think you have completely missed the point of the post. The intention is to point out the hypocrisy of people who were happy to lock other people up for the greater good but when the same logic is applied to them, and they are the ones who will be locked away and forgotten about…" I hadn’t I was following on from a longer conversation and not the original OP as you quoted here | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! Time will tell. I’ll await the original writers response to the question posed to him I think you have completely missed the point of the post. The intention is to point out the hypocrisy of people who were happy to lock other people up for the greater good but when the same logic is applied to them, and they are the ones who will be locked away and forgotten about… I hadn’t I was following on from a longer conversation and not the original OP as you quoted here " The longer conversation is a moot point as far as I’m concerned as I find the idea of locking away the unvaccinated as ridiculous as locking away the vulnerable. Not as horrendous though as there is something especially sinister about able bodied people trying to lock away the disabled etc. and using the economy as an excuse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! Time will tell. I’ll await the original writers response to the question posed to him I think you have completely missed the point of the post. The intention is to point out the hypocrisy of people who were happy to lock other people up for the greater good but when the same logic is applied to them, and they are the ones who will be locked away and forgotten about… I hadn’t I was following on from a longer conversation and not the original OP as you quoted here The longer conversation is a moot point as far as I’m concerned as I find the idea of locking away the unvaccinated as ridiculous as locking away the vulnerable. Not as horrendous though as there is something especially sinister about able bodied people trying to lock away the disabled etc. and using the economy as an excuse." Yes. Locking away or punishing the disabled for things that they can't help is incredibly sinister. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! Time will tell. I’ll await the original writers response to the question posed to him I think you have completely missed the point of the post. The intention is to point out the hypocrisy of people who were happy to lock other people up for the greater good but when the same logic is applied to them, and they are the ones who will be locked away and forgotten about… I hadn’t I was following on from a longer conversation and not the original OP as you quoted here The longer conversation is a moot point as far as I’m concerned as I find the idea of locking away the unvaccinated as ridiculous as locking away the vulnerable. Not as horrendous though as there is something especially sinister about able bodied people trying to lock away the disabled etc. and using the economy as an excuse. Yes. Locking away or punishing the disabled for things that they can't help is incredibly sinister." But remember WE would be doing it for their own good, not like those other people who have locked the untermenschlich away in the past. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! Time will tell. I’ll await the original writers response to the question posed to him I think you have completely missed the point of the post. The intention is to point out the hypocrisy of people who were happy to lock other people up for the greater good but when the same logic is applied to them, and they are the ones who will be locked away and forgotten about… I hadn’t I was following on from a longer conversation and not the original OP as you quoted here The longer conversation is a moot point as far as I’m concerned as I find the idea of locking away the unvaccinated as ridiculous as locking away the vulnerable. Not as horrendous though as there is something especially sinister about able bodied people trying to lock away the disabled etc. and using the economy as an excuse. Yes. Locking away or punishing the disabled for things that they can't help is incredibly sinister. But remember WE would be doing it for their own good, not like those other people who have locked the untermenschlich away in the past." Well quite | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! Time will tell. I’ll await the original writers response to the question posed to him I think you have completely missed the point of the post. The intention is to point out the hypocrisy of people who were happy to lock other people up for the greater good but when the same logic is applied to them, and they are the ones who will be locked away and forgotten about… I hadn’t I was following on from a longer conversation and not the original OP as you quoted here The longer conversation is a moot point as far as I’m concerned as I find the idea of locking away the unvaccinated as ridiculous as locking away the vulnerable. Not as horrendous though as there is something especially sinister about able bodied people trying to lock away the disabled etc. and using the economy as an excuse." Glad that’s cleared up, locking anyone away or treating them differently is not acceptable | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"People were suggesting that we confine the vulnerable to their homes for their own protection? I wonder how many of those who were suggesting such things now consider not allowing unvaccinated people into nightclubs, football matches etc. to be ‘vile segregation’? Perhaps the unvaccinated should be made to stay at home for their ‘protection’ so the rest of us can get on with rebuilding the economy? After all it’s for their own good, and the good of the economy! Time will tell. I’ll await the original writers response to the question posed to him I think you have completely missed the point of the post. The intention is to point out the hypocrisy of people who were happy to lock other people up for the greater good but when the same logic is applied to them, and they are the ones who will be locked away and forgotten about… I hadn’t I was following on from a longer conversation and not the original OP as you quoted here The longer conversation is a moot point as far as I’m concerned as I find the idea of locking away the unvaccinated as ridiculous as locking away the vulnerable. Not as horrendous though as there is something especially sinister about able bodied people trying to lock away the disabled etc. and using the economy as an excuse. Glad that’s cleared up, locking anyone away or treating them differently is not acceptable " Agreed, sadly to some it’s only unacceptable when it affects them. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
