(12-02-2021, 05:15 PM)Ted Maul Wrote: If Covid was as potent as the jab side effects that are often quoted then we would have never had a lockdown, you'd not own a face mask, shit me we'd probably have never even heard of it.

Weird how you can argue you're young and healthy and definitely wont die of a disease that has killed millions, but you're also young and healthy and might have an adverse reaction to and injection that's directly led to the death of how many people? I'm pretty sure it isn't 5 million plus.

(12-02-2021, 05:13 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:

(12-02-2021, 05:08 PM)Ted Maul Wrote:

Quote:Not being able to visit the odd holiday destination is not the same as being fined, imprisoned, not being able to work, being locked down. Just a slight difference!!

Experts are experts, but should policies be totally determined by them? They are experts in a field, but are they experts on knock on effects? What are the knock on effects of a mandation? There's plenty!

Now, I'll throw a totally hypothetical situation out there:

Say someone does 10,000 miles in a car a year. They do many of those miles going to see their elderly family on weekends who live out in the sticks. The experts decide that due to climate change, every individual can do max 3000 miles. That's it. Its a climate emergency. Max 3000 miles a year, per person. We can't argue. They're experts. There's no way any of us can argue with their science. Its "the science".

This severely limits that person's quality of life with their family. They can't see them very often. There's no way they can do public transport due to the area of the country their parents live. It would be a ridiculous journey or bus/train/change train/bus/bus, and the times make it impossible as this person travels after working long hours and has to travel late Saturday and come back Sunday night.

But that's it. The expert says its required to get to net zero. So no questions, put up with it. One word against it, and that person gets called a "climate denier". Its required, there's definitely a climate emergency, no one can argue with that. So that's it, if the expert in THAT field says its required, its required. You can only see the family 10 times a year instead of every saturday night/sunday. The experts said so. Disagree and you're a "climate change denier". This is what is happening RIGHT NOW with vaccines. There are about half a million true anti vax people in the uk. Covid propaganda has ensured that's now 5 million. Even though the vast majority have taken tons of vaccines, and still would. I must also be a vegetarian because I don't eat rabbit according to this logic.

That the kind of world you want to live in? This is where I talk about the bigger picture.

I'm not arguing with the vaccine scientists. But is the expert on viruses also an expert on social and economic effects of mandation? An expert on effects of segregation? A behavioural expert? Will crime go up? Will people in poverty be more effected? Ethnic minorities? Are they experts on all this? Or are they experts on just the vaccines? Therefore is there more to it than simply following experts? In addition, are the experts compromised by money? 'Follow the money' is always a good idea. Do you trust the government experts to be absolutely 100% true to science and not be affected by financial gain?

I have to admit, the lack of seeing the bigger picture here absolutely fucking staggers me. I'm dumbfounded.

The knock on effect is that hundreds if not thousands of lives have been saved, thousands have been kept out of hospital and for the last five months life for the majority has been close to normal. Which fair enough, is obviously a happy accident.

I don't think you're anti-vax fwiw and I get the point r.e forcing people to do things. However, your big picture argument has to take into account that these vaccines only exist because we're in the middle of a pandemic that has killed millions across the globe. Scientists didn't wake up 12 months ago and think "fuck me, let's plough people full of this funky serum and see what flys". The big picture, to me, would suggest that there is nothing gained to society by having us locked down or restricted. They aren't going to start vaccinating people with things for no reason.

I talked about the knock on effects of mandation and state control. The knock on effect of saving lives is not a knock on effect. That's a direct effect.

I fully believe these vaccines will be forever. I hope I'm wrong.

I also think many many parents believe there is no reason to vaccinate kids, I know some parents (who are vaccinated themselves) that are adamant their kids won't be having it.

(12-02-2021, 05:17 PM)baggy1 Wrote:

(12-02-2021, 05:10 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:

(12-02-2021, 05:00 PM)baggy1 Wrote:

(12-02-2021, 04:53 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote: I also heard some say nearly 12 months ago they wanted to see what they were "signing up to". The fact it looks like jabs 4 and 5 are coming vindicates them. Its looking like one a year or second class citizen. Or in Greece and Austria, they'll be bankrupted instead. fucking hell!

This is the bit that I just can't get my head around - we can show conclusively that jabs work, we can show conclusively that they are safe, we can show conclusively that the best way out of this mess to gain our freedoms that people are marching for is to have the vaccines. So what exactly is the problem of having to have a 6 monthly vaccination until we see a global improvement.

On a side note I see they have identified the reason why one of the rare side affects is the blood clotting and are working to solve that problem.

The problem for some is they don't want an annual vaccine that hasn't been around 5 minutes. That's it. Some have also had nasty side effects, or know people who have. And as I say, the key here is for youngsters, their covid risks are very very small. That's what they're weighing it against. Many have had covid, some twice, most midly, they just don't want it. There's 5 million. And I think more will turn down the boosters at a guess.

And the fact you've said they're "conclusively safe" is simply not true. The bad side effects are very rare, but conclusively safe sounds like 100%. Not true.

And the best way out is to have vaccines? I'm afraid the last few months has indicated to many, given the large take up, that that is simply not true either. There are places in the world like Singapore who have almost 100% rate, and they had an enormous covid wave about 6 weeks ago and had to bring in further restrictions. If we're at 75%, another 10% ain't getting us out of this.

Agreed about the astrazeneca. I also believe Novavax may increase uptake slightly if that gets approved. Many are wary of the mRNA vaccines. I could be wrong but that's a hunch.

You keep on referring to 'getting out of this' as not having covid any more, we will always have covid and there will be lockdowns at times because of the seriousness of the virus and it's impact. The vaccine reduces the chances and times that the virus will have the upper hand and it is proven to give us back the freedoms we want. Life really is pretty much back to normal short of being in an office environment and that is primarily down to the vaccine roll out. 

You might be right we might get a lower take up, but when that results in other restrictions having to be implemented people will realise it really is the best and easiest way back to normality.

(12-02-2021, 05:18 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:

(12-02-2021, 05:15 PM)Ted Maul Wrote: If Covid was as potent as the jab side effects that are often quoted then we would have never had a lockdown, you'd not own a face mask, shit me we'd probably have never even heard of it.

Weird how you can argue you're young and healthy and definitely wont die of a disease that has killed millions, but you're also young and healthy and might have an adverse reaction to and injection that's directly led to the death of how many people? I'm pretty sure it isn't 5 million plus.

I didn't say definitely won't die. But the number for young healthy people are tiny.

I'm not arguing anyone should do anything, its none pf my business what people choose to do medically. I'm just saying there's reasons some choose not to, and looking at the mortality rate for an 18 year old, I can see why.

(12-02-2021, 05:19 PM)Ted Maul Wrote:

(12-02-2021, 05:13 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:

(12-02-2021, 05:08 PM)Ted Maul Wrote:

Quote:Not being able to visit the odd holiday destination is not the same as being fined, imprisoned, not being able to work, being locked down. Just a slight difference!!

Experts are experts, but should policies be totally determined by them? They are experts in a field, but are they experts on knock on effects? What are the knock on effects of a mandation? There's plenty!

Now, I'll throw a totally hypothetical situation out there:

Say someone does 10,000 miles in a car a year. They do many of those miles going to see their elderly family on weekends who live out in the sticks. The experts decide that due to climate change, every individual can do max 3000 miles. That's it. Its a climate emergency. Max 3000 miles a year, per person. We can't argue. They're experts. There's no way any of us can argue with their science. Its "the science".

This severely limits that person's quality of life with their family. They can't see them very often. There's no way they can do public transport due to the area of the country their parents live. It would be a ridiculous journey or bus/train/change train/bus/bus, and the times make it impossible as this person travels after working long hours and has to travel late Saturday and come back Sunday night.

But that's it. The expert says its required to get to net zero. So no questions, put up with it. One word against it, and that person gets called a "climate denier". Its required, there's definitely a climate emergency, no one can argue with that. So that's it, if the expert in THAT field says its required, its required. You can only see the family 10 times a year instead of every saturday night/sunday. The experts said so. Disagree and you're a "climate change denier". This is what is happening RIGHT NOW with vaccines. There are about half a million true anti vax people in the uk. Covid propaganda has ensured that's now 5 million. Even though the vast majority have taken tons of vaccines, and still would. I must also be a vegetarian because I don't eat rabbit according to this logic.

That the kind of world you want to live in? This is where I talk about the bigger picture.

I'm not arguing with the vaccine scientists. But is the expert on viruses also an expert on social and economic effects of mandation? An expert on effects of segregation? A behavioural expert? Will crime go up? Will people in poverty be more effected? Ethnic minorities? Are they experts on all this? Or are they experts on just the vaccines? Therefore is there more to it than simply following experts? In addition, are the experts compromised by money? 'Follow the money' is always a good idea. Do you trust the government experts to be absolutely 100% true to science and not be affected by financial gain?

I have to admit, the lack of seeing the bigger picture here absolutely fucking staggers me. I'm dumbfounded.

The knock on effect is that hundreds if not thousands of lives have been saved, thousands have been kept out of hospital and for the last five months life for the majority has been close to normal. Which fair enough, is obviously a happy accident.

I don't think you're anti-vax fwiw and I get the point r.e forcing people to do things. However, your big picture argument has to take into account that these vaccines only exist because we're in the middle of a pandemic that has killed millions across the globe. Scientists didn't wake up 12 months ago and think "fuck me, let's plough people full of this funky serum and see what flys". The big picture, to me, would suggest that there is nothing gained to society by having us locked down or restricted. They aren't going to start vaccinating people with things for no reason.

I talked about the knock on effects of mandation and state control. The knock on effect of saving lives is not a knock on effect. That's a direct effect.

I fully believe these vaccines will be forever. I hope I'm wrong.

I also think many many parents believe there is no reason to vaccinate kids, I know some parents (who are vaccinated themselves) that are adamant their kids won't be having it.

But that's the point. If rampant state control and mandation was to happen, it would have by now. The only reason it's happening now are because of the huge direct benefits of the vaccination programme. I don't care if they're forever, it takes twenty minutes to get a jab and I tend to have a yearly flu jab anyway. If it means we can continue living free unaffected lives then what problem. Giving members one injection per year does not equal mass state control and coercion for me.

(12-02-2021, 05:22 PM)Ted Maul Wrote:

(12-02-2021, 05:18 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:

(12-02-2021, 05:15 PM)Ted Maul Wrote: If Covid was as potent as the jab side effects that are often quoted then we would have never had a lockdown, you'd not own a face mask, shit me we'd probably have never even heard of it.

Weird how you can argue you're young and healthy and definitely wont die of a disease that has killed millions, but you're also young and healthy and might have an adverse reaction to and injection that's directly led to the death of how many people? I'm pretty sure it isn't 5 million plus.

I didn't say definitely won't die. But the number for young healthy people are tiny.

I'm not arguing anyone should do anything, its none pf my business what people choose to do medically. I'm just saying there's reasons some choose not to, and looking at the mortality rate for an 18 year old, I can see why.

Agreed. However the likelihood of your average 18-30 year old dying of Covid is still far greater than them dying of any vaccine side effects. So when you're arguing personal choice in the face of straight up science/facts then you cannot be shocked at the reaction.

(12-02-2021, 05:27 PM)baggy1 Wrote: So bb, in this country what restrictions on our freedom are in place, and if the vaccination program hasn't given us the freedoms we want what has - I've already given you the comparable stats between this year and last and the difference is that we have had the vaccine. Now you will argue that there is an increased level of immunity from having had Covid, but that is the same across central europe and they are facing a much worse wave than us. The only difference being the vaccination programme being more successful over here.

(12-02-2021, 05:26 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:

(12-02-2021, 05:19 PM)Ted Maul Wrote:

(12-02-2021, 05:13 PM)backsidebaggie Wrote:

(12-02-2021, 05:08 PM)Ted Maul Wrote:

Quote:Not being able to visit the odd holiday destination is not the same as being fined, imprisoned, not being able to work, being locked down. Just a slight difference!!

Experts are experts, but should policies be totally determined by them? They are experts in a field, but are they experts on knock on effects? What are the knock on effects of a mandation? There's plenty!

Now, I'll throw a totally hypothetical situation out there:

Say someone does 10,000 miles in a car a year. They do many of those miles going to see their elderly family on weekends who live out in the sticks. The experts decide that due to climate change, every individual can do max 3000 miles. That's it. Its a climate emergency. Max 3000 miles a year, per person. We can't argue. They're experts. There's no way any of us can argue with their science. Its "the science".

This severely limits that person's quality of life with their family. They can't see them very often. There's no way they can do public transport due to the area of the country their parents live. It would be a ridiculous journey or bus/train/change train/bus/bus, and the times make it impossible as this person travels after working long hours and has to travel late Saturday and come back Sunday night.

But that's it. The expert says its required to get to net zero. So no questions, put up with it. One word against it, and that person gets called a "climate denier". Its required, there's definitely a climate emergency, no one can argue with that. So that's it, if the expert in THAT field says its required, its required. You can only see the family 10 times a year instead of every saturday night/sunday. The experts said so. Disagree and you're a "climate change denier". This is what is happening RIGHT NOW with vaccines. There are about half a million true anti vax people in the uk. Covid propaganda has ensured that's now 5 million. Even though the vast majority have taken tons of vaccines, and still would. I must also be a vegetarian because I don't eat rabbit according to this logic.

That the kind of world you want to live in? This is where I talk about the bigger picture.

I'm not arguing with the vaccine scientists. But is the expert on viruses also an expert on social and economic effects of mandation? An expert on effects of segregation? A behavioural expert? Will crime go up? Will people in poverty be more effected? Ethnic minorities? Are they experts on all this? Or are they experts on just the vaccines? Therefore is there more to it than simply following experts? In addition, are the experts compromised by money? 'Follow the money' is always a good idea. Do you trust the government experts to be absolutely 100% true to science and not be affected by financial gain?

I have to admit, the lack of seeing the bigger picture here absolutely fucking staggers me. I'm dumbfounded.

The knock on effect is that hundreds if not thousands of lives have been saved, thousands have been kept out of hospital and for the last five months life for the majority has been close to normal. Which fair enough, is obviously a happy accident.

I don't think you're anti-vax fwiw and I get the point r.e forcing people to do things. However, your big picture argument has to take into account that these vaccines only exist because we're in the middle of a pandemic that has killed millions across the globe. Scientists didn't wake up 12 months ago and think "fuck me, let's plough people full of this funky serum and see what flys". The big picture, to me, would suggest that there is nothing gained to society by having us locked down or restricted. They aren't going to start vaccinating people with things for no reason.

I talked about the knock on effects of mandation and state control. The knock on effect of saving lives is not a knock on effect. That's a direct effect.

I fully believe these vaccines will be forever. I hope I'm wrong.

I also think many many parents believe there is no reason to vaccinate kids, I know some parents (who are vaccinated themselves) that are adamant their kids won't be having it.

But that's the point. If rampant state control and mandation was to happen, it would have by now. The only reason it's happening now are because of the huge direct benefits of the vaccination programme. I don't care if they're forever, it takes twenty minutes to get a jab and I tend to have a yearly flu jab anyway. If it means we can continue living free unaffected lives then what problem. Giving members one injection per year does not equal mass state control and coercion for me.

I disagree. State control happens slowly and steadily. Mandation is starting abroad. Singapore has a near 100% take up but still had restriction in October after a sharp rise in cases and hospitalisations.

And as I've said, medical automony is crucial in many aspects. Many people don't care if its forever. But many do.

The question is, do you care if people are fined/imprisoned/can't work for not taking a vaccine they don't want, perhaps even if they've had covid already? Is that a world you want to live in? Do any knock on effects worry you? Does this being a thin end of the wedge worry you? There's a big picture.

(12-02-2021, 05:35 PM)baggiebuckster Wrote: Where are the stats stating that our vaccination programme is more successful?  Is that based on percentage of double jabbed?