The MRNA vaccine danger was discredited years ago. The doctor responsible was struck off due both his data being rubbish and no one else able to match his conclusions. Very like the aluminium scandal years earlier, except that was a mistake rather than incompetence. He then went off to America to peddle his crap where he found a rather more generally gullible audience. Now due to social media the whole saga has resurfaced reinforced by conspiracy theories.
He then went off to America to peddle his crap where he found a rather more generally gullible audience.
And love with Elle MacPherson
True. But, but, but…
Not agreeing with people isn’t the same as not listening.
True. But there comes a point where "opinion" is irrelevant. There comes a point where "opinion" is dangerous.
And there comes a point where people are simply wrong. You might want to argue in favour of a Flat Earther's rights to their opinions, but would you want to give one a job as an Air Traffic Controller?
Because that's really what this thread is all about. If you're discussing vaccinations and someone goes "yes but autism" then it no longer becomes a matter of opinion, they are just flat out wrong. It is literally that simple. It is absolutely black and white.
Questioning what people are saying isn’t the same as not listening.
Questioning what people are saying is to be applauded, I've already said this at least once on this thread (something something listening something?). But if one is not revising ones oh-so-valuable "opinion" when presented with new information, one should not be surprised when one hears words like "dumb" or "cult".
Nothing is black and white, there are always buts. Testing the hypothesis is what science is all about, no?
That's part 1. Part 2 is then learning from the results, iterating and adapting, rather than doubling-down on an increasingly fallacious original hypothesis.
I haven’t been offered much in the way of scientific enlightenment on this thread anyway.
Again, I've already said this. What have you asked that hasn't been answered? If you ask logical questions you'll get logical answers. If instead you solicit opinion then that's what you'll get, robustly.
I’ve been trying to exit this thread for a few days
Well, that's on you. If you want to have a discussion then fantastic, it's genuinely great to have alternate viewpoints and inquisitive minds. But if you don't then and yet you're still batting then that's no-one else's fault.
it would be great if just one or two of you would for a moment consider that even someone who “doesn’t listen” to you or doesn’t unquestioningly agree with everything you say might still be worth listening to.
OK, we're listening. Well, I am, can't speak for anyone else. What've you got that's worth hearing?
Yeah there’s a difference – you don’t find out the potential harmful effects of any new vaccine until years later.
Given that we've been vaccinating since the 1700s, that we have completely eradicated polio globally and the only thing still keeping a couple of other contagious diseases in existence is media-fuelled scare stories and pox parties: how many vaccines can you name which have ever proven to be more harmful than beneficial? There's probably others but the only major medical 'whoops' I can think of in my living memory is Thalidomide and that was a) 10-20 years before I was born and b) not a vaccine.
Where do you think the greater risk is here? How many years are you prepared to wait in order to ascertain the "potential harmful effects" of not taking it? Do you have any credible reason to think that it might be dangerous beyond JHJ levels of "makes you think, do your own research"?
This is not territory unknown, this is incredibly mature science. Stop being a plum, you're better than this.
It is almost a waste of time taking a part in many threads due the the dogmatic unacceptance of others points of view.
All depends how ill informed or trollish your comments are. If you make opposing statements in a discussion without any evidence (or anything else in fact) to back them up they will be questioned and 'ganged up' on by the people who have given it more that 10 seconds of thought.
I find it works well and helps to provide facts, information and lines of thought that I may have missed before.
Plus, there’s an increasing amount of evidence that the longer term effects of covid are pretty awful - chronic respiratory symptoms, effect on athletes’ hearts, permanent loss of smell/taste.
No. Brainer.
And there comes a point where people are simply wrong. You might want to argue in favour of a Flat Earther’s rights to their opinions, but would you want to give one a job as an Air Traffic Controller?
I'm saving that one. It's funny cos it's true.
Oh, most definitely. I have absolutely no issue with a vaccination programme. I’m just very much of the mindset that it should be personal choice.
I quite agree. so long as the non vaccinated cannot enter public buildings, go to the pub, access services etc.
Why should your choice not to be vaccinated increase my risk?
I quite agree. so long as the non vaccinated cannot enter public buildings, go to the pub, access services etc.
Why should your choice not to be vaccinated increase my risk?
It's not been proven that vaccination totally reduces the spread of the virus
I'm allergic to penicillin, so I'll wait a bit longer thanks
And surely, if you've had the vaccine, I'll be no risk to you?
I’m allergic to penicillin, so I’ll wait a bit longer thanks
🤨
Heard reports that people with penicillin (or other) allergies may have a reaction to the vaccine - especially the pfizer.
I'll see if it develops. If there's nothing to it, then fine
.
Individuals with previous allergy to antibiotics
Allergy UK (Allergy and the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccine page) advise that allergy to penicillins and other drugs is not a contraindication to the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. They also state that an antibiotic called kanamycin is used during the manufacturing process but is not detectable in the final product. No other antibiotics (such as penicillins, sulphonamides and neomycin) are used during the manufacturing process
The head of the MHRA, Dr June Raine, said: "Any person with a history of anaphylaxis to a vaccine, medicine or food should not receive the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine.
Now, I don't know what my reaction to penicillin is - there's no one alive who can tell me. I'm sure there's a very strong chance that I'd be totally fine, but I'll see what develops over the coming months. I'll not be in line for it for a while anyway
And surely, if you’ve had the vaccine, I’ll be no risk to you?
You're right, you probably won't. But you will be a risk to my wife whose compromised immune system will most likely mean she can't be vaccinated. Her and tens of thousands like her. So you might perhaps understand why I think your selfish attitude stinks.
Now, I don’t know what my reaction to penicillin is – there’s no one alive who can tell me. I’m sure there’s a very strong chance that I’d be totally fine, but I’ll see what develops over the coming months. I’ll not be in line for it for a while anyway
Would it not perhaps have been sensible to lead with that information rather than saving it for your closing argument? You could have saved us all a load of grief.
Here's a thought, avoid the Pfizer and get the AZ. Problem solved.
So you don't have a history of anaphylaxis as a response to penicillin, is that what you're saying? How do you know you're allergic to it?
I had pneumonia twice as an infant and gather that it was found out at the time, or maybe something else. I was told by my mother from a young age that I was allergic to penicillin, so have never taken it.
What reaction to it I would have at 49 years old, I have no idea
Now, I don’t know what my reaction to penicillin is – there’s no one alive who can tell me
I suggest a medical professional? Pin-prick and/or oral challenge tests.
https://www.srft.nhs.uk/EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=193160&type=full&servicetype=Inline
Other locations available. If the hospitals aren’t heaving with Covid patients. Hopefully a vaccine will be available to us all sooner than later to help with that problem. Penicillin can be life-saving so I’d consider it fairly crucial to be informed as to your own situation. IANAD etc
Further reading:
https://psnet.ahrq.gov/web-mm/delayed-sepsis-management-due-ambiguous-allergy
I look at it this way...
In a small street of 200 people, if all of them caught COVID at least 1 will die. 40 others will suffer "long COVID" affecting their lifestyle for an unknown period of time.
If that whole street were vaccinated then maybe one would have a minor allergic reaction. 4-6 would develop minor symptoms of COVID. The rest would not notice they had COVID. If every street around them were also vaccinated then the local hospital would not need to treat anyone for COVID and could treat other more serious ailments.
Now have a street full of anti-vaxxers....
Back to 1 neighbour dieing and 40 suffering long term. I know what street I'd rather be in
Now if I can go back to the paint analogy....
Paint makers have been making white paint for 200 years. 190 years ago someone asked them to make blue paint that worked just as well. It took them a year but they did it. Over time more people wanted paint so they hired more people to make it. Then other colours were requested. Over the years the paint makers mastered loads of new colours as customers requested them. All based on the white paint they started from, all successful. Suddenly 200 years later the whole world decides they want the same new colour. Loads of stakeholder money pours in allowing the paint makers to focus all their time and energy on this one new colour. Why does anyone doubt this colour will work?
All depends how ill informed or trollish your comments are.
Ahh the old "you're too thick and are a stupid troll" approach.
Quite common that one.
Ahh the old “you’re too thick and are a stupid troll” approach.
Most people engaging in trollish behaviour, posting ill informed comments for a rise, to get people “frothing”, are not thick or stupid. They are playing a game (call it devil’s advocate if you want it to sound reasoned), one which requires reasonable knowledge of the subject, and a good understanding of how to press people’s buttons.
I believe it should be down to individual choice, however, if you chose not to & then find yourself excluded from international travel for example the EU.....
Yet, for example, your R&D team was 2 fairly average people when developing blue paint, because it was a limited market. The entire world suddenly goes nuts for green paint. So you have limitless funding and an R&D team the size of a small country, filled with all of the world’s best paint designers. Green paint will be the bomb. And that is a fact.
Indeed.
NEVER before has there been a collective GLOBAL effort to achieve a positive outcome. It is quite frankly amazing what has been achieved, I for one am staggered.
Sadly, it does rather make you wonder what else we could crack if we worked together?...
I believe it should be down to individual choice, however, if you chose not to & then find yourself excluded from international travel for example the EU…..
I think that's fair enough - but to say you shouldn't be allowed in pubs and on public transport is completely OTT IMO
Depends if pubs and public transport operators want the rest of us to use them, I suppose.
Anyway, this is all irrelevant right now. Getting enough of the new vaccines in people is not being hampered by anti-vaxxers, and recent problems as regards measles etc have died down.
The only folk I know that are adamant they're not having the vaccine are the kinda folk that wouldn't listen to such rules anyway.
You see, that's where a sensible debate could be held. I personally feel it is proportionate to have some kind of passport system for vaccinations so that those who CHOOSE not to have it are not allowed into confined public spaces such as pubs, gigs, sports UNTIL we reach a point where the virus is controlled properly.
It would also mean those who haven't yet been vaccinated because their turn hasn't come can't go, but that's just the rub of it.
I don't know where the line comes that defines under control, or indeed if there is a line where the younger sections who don't need a vaccine or won't be offered it for ages are exempted, but I can see that allowing parts of society to reopen once they have been vaccinated is an option.
I can also see that you may have a different view and I'm more than happy to discuss that and even be convinced otherwise.
It'll be interesting because in the end these places are private venues and can set their own rules within reason - no trainers, ripped jeans, etc. I wonder if for example hotels, theme parks (eg Disney) will be insisting on it even if the Gov doesn't mandate it.
I personally feel it is proportionate to have some kind of passport system for vaccinations so that those who CHOOSE not to have it are not allowed into confined public spaces such as pubs, gigs, sports UNTIL we reach a point where the virus is controlled properly.
It would also mean those who haven’t yet been vaccinated because their turn hasn’t come can’t go, but that’s just the rub of it.
It would be a simple health and safety argument to make.... if you are not vaccinated then the venue isn't insured if you contract symptomatic COVID
It would also mean those who haven’t yet been vaccinated because their turn hasn’t come can’t go, but that’s just the rub of it.
It would also mean that immunosuppressed people who can't take a vaccine would never get to go.
I think that’s fair enough – but to say you shouldn’t be allowed in pubs and on public transport is completely OTT IMO
Well - as you might have noticed - nobody is allowed into pubs at the moment. I get tested for covid twice a week, at huge expense to my employer and before I can turn up to work I have to make a declaration, every single day, confirming amongst other things that I haven't used public transport - so in practice I'm banned from using public transport too. If pubs were open I'd have to confirm I hadn't been in one.
The tools to achieve those freedoms - to extend those individual liberties - are now available and people want to refuse to use them in the name of 'choice'. The purpose of a vaccination program is for everyone to be able to do those normal things again.
There would have to be exemptions, hence why I put choose in caps.
How realistic is this though? Think of the logistics for implementing and enforcing it, and that’s even before you get to human rights.
And would it extend to other diseases like measles? Or HIV?
Would we also have limits on BMI?
The comparison with measles or especially hiv is utterly wrong.
Neither of those viruses are as infectious or dangerous and even less so they are no where near as prevalent so the relative risk of being in contact with someone positive is tiny and even lower to be infected by them.
Covid incidence is both higher and your chance of subsequent infection is higher again.
Anyway for people bleating, just wait until we get a really bad pandemic and see what happens
^ I was working on the assumption that chrispo was presenting some kind of ‘slippery slope’ hypothetical argument based upon violating people’s human rights by denying them entry to places unless they are vaccinated. Maybe chrispo, you would clarify how that figures/equates with BMI (?), HIV, measles etc? What did you mean?
Yes, P7, you are right. Sorry, the BMI reference is a bit obscure. Ignore it.
I realise the human rights aspects don't worry most here, but the practicalities are the main point given the government record on track and trace etc. ID cards and iris scanners fitted on every bus is it?
Bill Gates must be rubbing his hands 😉
I realise the human rights aspects don’t worry most here
Here we go again. With that, I’m oot. Play nice all. Depressing though it is.
What have I done wrong now?
The tools to achieve those freedoms – to extend those individual liberties – are now available and people want to refuse to use them in the name of ‘choice’. The purpose of a vaccination program is for everyone to be able to do those normal things again.
That's the message that needs hammering home. Restrictions and vaccines are the only way to get on top of this virus, if people want their "normal" and "freedoms" back, they need to knuckle down.
And would it extend to other diseases like measles? Or HIV?
Would we also have limits on BMI?
Please make it stop. 😩
I believe it should be down to individual choice, however, if you chose not to & then find yourself excluded from international travel for example the EU…..
I think that’s fair enough – but to say you shouldn’t be allowed in pubs and on public transport is completely OTT IMO
I don't believe it should be legislated against but rather it should be down to individual owners to decide who to allow in or turn away. Which they can already do anyway so long as it's not a decision made out of prejudice.
Otherwise, you're rallying against mandatory vaccinations (which is a straw man in itself because no-one in the UK has ever seriously suggested such a thing in the history of ever outside of opinions* on the Internet) and championing personal choice; then in the next breath you're saying that it's OTT to allow pub owners etc to be able choose whether or not to allow potential plague carriers into their establishments and they should be forced to let you in.
If that is what you're proposing - and apologies if it's not, I'm really just thinking out loud generally rather than having a go at you personally - then all other things aside it would be a monumentally hypocritical standpoint. You cannot be be pro-choice when it's your own and anti-choice when it's someone else's.
(* - oh look, there they are again.)
How realistic is this though? Think of the logistics for implementing and enforcing it,
Doorman checking for either certification of immunisation or a medical exemption certificate. We've been doing it to validate minimum ages for decades, go try and buy fags aged 16 and see what happens.
and that’s even before you get to human rights.
I hate to break this to you, but not being able to go to Wetherspoons because you might have an infectious disease is not a human rights issue. And frankly it's kind of offensive to equate the two.
And would it extend to other diseases like measles? Or HIV?
Would we also have limits on BMI?
Have you not been paying attention to anything for the last year? You're like someone who walks in 20 minutes before the end of a film and starts going "Who's he? Why's she doing that? What's in the briefcase?"
The difference between this virus and any other whataboutery you can come up with is that it has an unusually long and invisible incubation period. Ie, you could be infected, not know, and be randomly spreading it to all and sundry. This is what I used to refer to in the brexit thread as a "page 2 argument," we shouldn't still be having to explain this.
Last I checked, measles was visible (and commonly immunised against), HIV was not airborne and you can't inadvertently catch obesity. Once more with feeling: these things are not equivalent.
Bill Gates must be rubbing his hands 😉
You know he retired like 20 years ago, right? The only way he'll be 'rubbing his hands' is with sanitising gel.
What have I done wrong now?
Mostly not understanding the scale of an epidemic and the actions required to stop it going on for another 3 years and making ridiculous statements about people not caring about human rights.
Bill Gates must be rubbing his hands
This surely has to be the stupidest bit of this particularly idiotic conspiracy theory though. Bill Gates demanding control through a 5G implant of a bunch of mumbling incontinent housebound 80 year olds that can't tell you what day it is, but like that nice young man off the telly Englebert Humperdink, and who's only concerns are when Blankety Blank is on, and if there's going to be trifle or treacle pudding...
Sorry, I do realise that the words "dumb" and "****ers" are rising in my throat, I promise not to say it out loud this time...
I seem to recall someone said something about trolls and feeding once upon a time,welcome back to the dark ages.
