03-30-2021, 04:08 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-30-2021, 04:09 PM by backsidebaggie.)
(03-30-2021, 03:48 PM)baggy1 Wrote: So lets get this straight, we all agree that the virus transmits more in people that aren't vaccinated, I presume that is understood I suppose. And we also agree that people shouldn't have to get vaccinated if they don't want to. But you feel that if people don't get vaccinated then they should be allowed to continue to spread the virus, and your basis for that is that because the vulnerable are protected then it won't impact us like before.
We also agree that none of us want to get back into a lockdown, the big difference here is that you are willing to take more of a gamble with the lockdown scenario than I am based on your belief that the government are running a sinister covert programme to get all of our details in digital id form. These details that they already have btw and are already available if needed.
Yes, like other infectious disease, forever. I've got elderly relatives who are very frail and would die if they had influenza but they've never expected anyone else to get vaccinated on their behalf, they take their own vaccine as their own precaution (and before you say its not flu, I know that, but that exact principle stands despite covid being worse than flu). Yes, I believe if someone is vaccinated and still worried about catching covid from someone who isn't vaccinated, then they are the paranoid ones! Absolutely bat shit mental paranoid tbh.
And yes my basis is that with the 98-99% portion of those who are hospitalised would have been vaccinated, how on earth can that therefore not be enough to keep the NHS protected?
"Sinister covert programme" sounds very extreme, but I simply agree with that Guardian article above - that they can use this crisis to push through something they wish, and I am totally against digital ID's. The fact is the goalposts keep moving, as I have described above. How come we have gone from "only foreign travel", to "landlords could request it", then one stage further in today's press?
And we don't even know how long the vaccines work for? If its valid for 6 months, someone who is 1 day prior to it "expiring" may well not be much different to someone who is not vaccinated. The idea is a human rights minefield for a start, and is not even supported by "the science". What an irony.
Plus, what are you actually saying? What about supermarkets? Those who don't want to be vaccinated can't go and get food? What's the difference between a pub and a shop? I'll turn it round to you, if, say, a proportion of people turn down the vaccine, what would you suggest? Walk round with a badge on so they can be avoided? I'm dying to hear your ideas... I can't actually believe I'm having this conversation. I'm stunned.