China Coronavirus

[imtommygunn]

I never was a fan of them if I'm honest (I got the vaccines etc). I still think people should get vaccinated but I would know people who didn't get them and I wouldn't lose any friendships over it. There's a lot of information out there on them of the negative variety and some people process that very differently to others. It's just the society we live in. There still is and stuff coming out makes some people think they've "won". It was a shitty situation no one knew how to get out of.

That being said it was worth it to see Jim Corr being caught out using a fake one  (Disclaimer may be fake news but funny anyway).

[Man Marker]

Lenny is cut from the same cloth as those bitter unionists who want us taigs back in our civil rights backwoods. Its one thing supporting mandates back in the day, even tho is was blatantly obvious it was a restriction on peoples civil rights, but it an entirely different thing supporting discrimination when you know its not based on science but only your prejudice.

[PadraicHenryPearse]

Lenny is cut from the same cloth as those bitter unionists who want us taigs back in our civil rights backwoods. Its one thing supporting mandates back in the day, even tho is was blatantly obvious it was a restriction on peoples civil rights, but it an entirely different thing supporting discrimination when you know its not based on science but only your prejudice.

how was it not based on science...unvaccinated were more likely to end up in ICU and hospital... also I read that it helped people decide to get the vaccine too..

similar In a way to the smoking ban in terms of discrimination and civil rights for me

[grounded]

Lenny is cut from the same cloth as those bitter unionists who want us taigs back in our civil rights backwoods. Its one thing supporting mandates back in the day, even tho is was blatantly obvious it was a restriction on peoples civil rights, but it an entirely different thing supporting discrimination when you know its not based on science but only your prejudice.

how was it not based on science...unvaccinated were more likely to end up in ICU and hospital... also I read that it helped people decide to get the vaccine too..

similar In a way to the smoking ban in terms of discrimination and civil rights for me

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2022/08/16/at-least-one-other-condition-contributed-to-almost-all-covid-19-related-deaths-in-ireland-cso/

Its very well documented who were overwhelmingly most at risk from death and serious illness from covid 19 infection(whether vaccinated or unvaccinated)

The very uncomfortable truth is that based on the scientific evidence at that time , that those groupings most at risk of death and serious illness should have been included in any Covid passport if there was to be one.

Providing that is, that the function of tye covid passport was to protect the health service(s) and in particular prevent the collapse of the ICU's.
       

       
         

[PadraicHenryPearse]

Lenny is cut from the same cloth as those bitter unionists who want us taigs back in our civil rights backwoods. Its one thing supporting mandates back in the day, even tho is was blatantly obvious it was a restriction on peoples civil rights, but it an entirely different thing supporting discrimination when you know its not based on science but only your prejudice.

how was it not based on science...unvaccinated were more likely to end up in ICU and hospital... also I read that it helped people decide to get the vaccine too..

similar In a way to the smoking ban in terms of discrimination and civil rights for me

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2022/08/16/at-least-one-other-condition-contributed-to-almost-all-covid-19-related-deaths-in-ireland-cso/

Its very well documented who were overwhelmingly most at risk from death and serious illness from covid 19 infection(whether vaccinated or unvaccinated)

The very uncomfortable truth is that based on the scientific evidence at that time , that those groupings most at risk of death and serious illness should have been included in any Covid passport if there was to be one.   
         

as you say it was very well know who were most at risk, they didn't need a passport to protect themselves... they needed the passport so that if they did end up in hospitals and ICUs there was availability and staff for them.

[armaghniac]

I never was a fan of them if I'm honest (I got the vaccines etc). I still think people should get vaccinated but I would know people who didn't get them and I wouldn't lose any friendships over it. There's a lot of information out there on them of the negative variety and some people process that very differently to others. It's just the society we live in. There still is and stuff coming out makes some people think they've "won". It was a shitty situation no one knew how to get out of.

That being said it was worth it to see Jim Corr being caught out using a fake one  (Disclaimer may be fake news but funny anyway).

You might as well say, I don't drive drunk but I know a few people who do and I wouldn't fall out over it. 40 years ago many people thought like this.

[grounded]

Lenny is cut from the same cloth as those bitter unionists who want us taigs back in our civil rights backwoods. Its one thing supporting mandates back in the day, even tho is was blatantly obvious it was a restriction on peoples civil rights, but it an entirely different thing supporting discrimination when you know its not based on science but only your prejudice.

how was it not based on science...unvaccinated were more likely to end up in ICU and hospital... also I read that it helped people decide to get the vaccine too..

similar In a way to the smoking ban in terms of discrimination and civil rights for me

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2022/08/16/at-least-one-other-condition-contributed-to-almost-all-covid-19-related-deaths-in-ireland-cso/

Its very well documented who were overwhelmingly most at risk from death and serious illness from covid 19 infection(whether vaccinated or unvaccinated)

The very uncomfortable truth is that based on the scientific evidence at that time , that those groupings most at risk of death and serious illness should have been included in any Covid passport if there was to be one.   
         

as you say it was very well know who were most at risk, they didn't need a passport to protect themselves... they needed the passport so that if they did end up in hospitals and ICUs there was availability and staff for them.

Thats a very weak argument based on scientific evidence.
     You are targetting one group(the unvaccinated) with a whole raft of measures while ignoring another group (s) who were overwhelmingly more at risk of death or serious illness from Covid 19. Thus potentially bringing down the ICU's hospitals.

Now if its an emotive or moralistic argument for the covid passport then fair enough, but at least be honest enough to say so. For me it was coercion pure and simple, because it wasn't based on sound scientific evidence available at the time.

[grounded]

I never was a fan of them if I'm honest (I got the vaccines etc). I still think people should get vaccinated but I would know people who didn't get them and I wouldn't lose any friendships over it. There's a lot of information out there on them of the negative variety and some people process that very differently to others. It's just the society we live in. There still is and stuff coming out makes some people think they've "won". It was a shitty situation no one knew how to get out of.

That being said it was worth it to see Jim Corr being caught out using a fake one  (Disclaimer may be fake news but funny anyway).

You might as well say, I don't drive drunk but I know a few people who do and I wouldn't fall out over it. 40 years ago many people thought like this.

This drink driving analogy was thrown round alot in relation to the unvaccinated and the covid passport.
           But we knew then and we certainly know now, who were overwhelmingly most at risk from death and serious illness from covid 19 infection(whether vaccinated or unvaccinated.
          Excluding the unvaccinated on this Covid passport but including these other groups(who were more at risk) was akin to saying a blind man is ok to drive a car just because he has a driving licence.
   

[PadraicHenryPearse]

Lenny is cut from the same cloth as those bitter unionists who want us taigs back in our civil rights backwoods. Its one thing supporting mandates back in the day, even tho is was blatantly obvious it was a restriction on peoples civil rights, but it an entirely different thing supporting discrimination when you know its not based on science but only your prejudice.

how was it not based on science...unvaccinated were more likely to end up in ICU and hospital... also I read that it helped people decide to get the vaccine too..

similar In a way to the smoking ban in terms of discrimination and civil rights for me

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2022/08/16/at-least-one-other-condition-contributed-to-almost-all-covid-19-related-deaths-in-ireland-cso/

Its very well documented who were overwhelmingly most at risk from death and serious illness from covid 19 infection(whether vaccinated or unvaccinated)

The very uncomfortable truth is that based on the scientific evidence at that time , that those groupings most at risk of death and serious illness should have been included in any Covid passport if there was to be one.   
         

as you say it was very well know who were most at risk, they didn't need a passport to protect themselves... they needed the passport so that if they did end up in hospitals and ICUs there was availability and staff for them.

Thats a very weak argument based on scientific evidence.
     You are targetting one group(the unvaccinated) with a whole raft of measures while ignoring another group (s) who were overwhelmingly more at risk of death or serious illness from Covid 19. Thus potentially bringing down the ICU's hospitals.

Now if its an emotive or moralistic argument for the covid passport then fair enough, but at least be honest enough to say so. For me it was coercion pure and simple, because it wasn't based on sound scientific evidence available at the time.

it is argument taking as much as possible into account, both a moral and a scientific argument. I also believe at the time the science was not established regarding transmission so this was a factor too. it could and should not have been a purely scientific argument... if it was then surely zero covid and complete lockdown would have been number 1 choice.  covid cannot spread of it doesn't have a host...

the old and vulnerable cocooned early doors but they cannot get younger and they  cannot reserve their medical conditions quickly. Getting a vaccine took me 30 minutes x2.  the most vulnerable in theory would be more cautious, than the unvaccinated also in my opinion.

it was not perfect, nothing rarely is, but overall a better more palable outcomes than others.

[grounded]

Lenny is cut from the same cloth as those bitter unionists who want us taigs back in our civil rights backwoods. Its one thing supporting mandates back in the day, even tho is was blatantly obvious it was a restriction on peoples civil rights, but it an entirely different thing supporting discrimination when you know its not based on science but only your prejudice.

how was it not based on science...unvaccinated were more likely to end up in ICU and hospital... also I read that it helped people decide to get the vaccine too..

similar In a way to the smoking ban in terms of discrimination and civil rights for me

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2022/08/16/at-least-one-other-condition-contributed-to-almost-all-covid-19-related-deaths-in-ireland-cso/

Its very well documented who were overwhelmingly most at risk from death and serious illness from covid 19 infection(whether vaccinated or unvaccinated)

The very uncomfortable truth is that based on the scientific evidence at that time , that those groupings most at risk of death and serious illness should have been included in any Covid passport if there was to be one.   
         

as you say it was very well know who were most at risk, they didn't need a passport to protect themselves... they needed the passport so that if they did end up in hospitals and ICUs there was availability and staff for them.

Thats a very weak argument based on scientific evidence.
     You are targetting one group(the unvaccinated) with a whole raft of measures while ignoring another group (s) who were overwhelmingly more at risk of death or serious illness from Covid 19. Thus potentially bringing down the ICU's hospitals.

Now if its an emotive or moralistic argument for the covid passport then fair enough, but at least be honest enough to say so. For me it was coercion pure and simple, because it wasn't based on sound scientific evidence available at the time.

it is argument taking as much as possible into account, both a moral and a scientific argument. I also believe at the time the science was not established regarding transmission so this was a factor too. it could and should not have been a purely scientific argument... if it was then surely zero covid and complete lockdown would have been number 1 choice.  covid cannot spread of it doesn't have a host...

the old and vulnerable cocooned early doors but they cannot get younger and they  cannot reserve their medical conditions quickly. Getting a vaccine took me 30 minutes x2.  the most vulnerable in theory would be more cautious, than the unvaccinated also in my opinion.

it was not perfect, nothing rarely is, but overall a better more palable outcomes than others.

Thanks for the honest reply.
       For me a lot of the decisions such as Covid passports, mandates, vaccination protocols etc were sold based on sound scientific research and not a moralistic stance .
      ' trust the science ' we were told. Any dissent (even from reputable sources) was quickly ridiculed, silenced and shut down.
     But as it's turning out the science wasn't as sound as the public health representatives and politicians were extolling. Now that is very damaging as regards the public's faith in future directions from public health authorities and only gives more ammunition for halfwits to forego sensible public health programmes. Thus undermining tried and tested public health protocols such as current and successful child/adolescent vaccination programmes.

One other point. Zero covid was never a realistic possibility, given the circumstances. b][/b] it's a Zoonotic disease, unless you eliminate all the animal hosts then that's a non-runner. Mers is obvious example.
     
Can I ask one question, in your opinion was the covid passport used as a vehicle to push those unvaccinated to get their jabs?

[PadraicHenryPearse]

Lenny is cut from the same cloth as those bitter unionists who want us taigs back in our civil rights backwoods. Its one thing supporting mandates back in the day, even tho is was blatantly obvious it was a restriction on peoples civil rights, but it an entirely different thing supporting discrimination when you know its not based on science but only your prejudice.

how was it not based on science...unvaccinated were more likely to end up in ICU and hospital... also I read that it helped people decide to get the vaccine too..

similar In a way to the smoking ban in terms of discrimination and civil rights for me

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2022/08/16/at-least-one-other-condition-contributed-to-almost-all-covid-19-related-deaths-in-ireland-cso/

Its very well documented who were overwhelmingly most at risk from death and serious illness from covid 19 infection(whether vaccinated or unvaccinated)

The very uncomfortable truth is that based on the scientific evidence at that time , that those groupings most at risk of death and serious illness should have been included in any Covid passport if there was to be one.   
         

as you say it was very well know who were most at risk, they didn't need a passport to protect themselves... they needed the passport so that if they did end up in hospitals and ICUs there was availability and staff for them.

Thats a very weak argument based on scientific evidence.
     You are targetting one group(the unvaccinated) with a whole raft of measures while ignoring another group (s) who were overwhelmingly more at risk of death or serious illness from Covid 19. Thus potentially bringing down the ICU's hospitals.

Now if its an emotive or moralistic argument for the covid passport then fair enough, but at least be honest enough to say so. For me it was coercion pure and simple, because it wasn't based on sound scientific evidence available at the time.

it is argument taking as much as possible into account, both a moral and a scientific argument. I also believe at the time the science was not established regarding transmission so this was a factor too. it could and should not have been a purely scientific argument... if it was then surely zero covid and complete lockdown would have been number 1 choice.  covid cannot spread of it doesn't have a host...

the old and vulnerable cocooned early doors but they cannot get younger and they  cannot reserve their medical conditions quickly. Getting a vaccine took me 30 minutes x2.  the most vulnerable in theory would be more cautious, than the unvaccinated also in my opinion.

it was not perfect, nothing rarely is, but overall a better more palable outcomes than others.

Thanks for the honest reply.
       For me a lot of the decisions such as Covid passports, mandates, vaccination protocols etc were sold based on sound scientific research and not a moralistic stance .
      ' trust the science ' we were told. Any dissent (even from reputable sources) was quickly ridiculed, silenced and shut down.
     But as it's turning out the science wasn't as sound as the public health representatives and politicians were extolling. Now that is very damaging as regards the public's faith in future directions from public health authorities and only gives more ammunition for halfwits to forego sensible public health programmes. Thus undermining tried and tested public health protocols such as current and successful child/adolescent vaccination programmes.

Just a few one other point. Zero covid was never a realistic possibility, given the circumstances. b][/b] it's a Zoonotic disease, unless you eliminate all the animal hosts then that's a non-runner. Mers is obvious example.
     

what science wasn't as sound? I don't agree with almost all of your last post. I think false narratives are/were put forward alot which undermines confidence... just look what kicked this thread off again.... the false narrative on transmissions...

  we were told xyz (when we werent) they don't know what they are doing, the science is a lie , it's all a conspiracy... the most surprising thing is a lot of unvaccinated believed in alternative untested treatments... this tells is that no amount of science was going to convince them. I'm the US, like everything it was completely politicised...

[grounded]

Lenny is cut from the same cloth as those bitter unionists who want us taigs back in our civil rights backwoods. Its one thing supporting mandates back in the day, even tho is was blatantly obvious it was a restriction on peoples civil rights, but it an entirely different thing supporting discrimination when you know its not based on science but only your prejudice.

how was it not based on science...unvaccinated were more likely to end up in ICU and hospital... also I read that it helped people decide to get the vaccine too..

similar In a way to the smoking ban in terms of discrimination and civil rights for me

https://www.irishtimes.com/health/2022/08/16/at-least-one-other-condition-contributed-to-almost-all-covid-19-related-deaths-in-ireland-cso/

Its very well documented who were overwhelmingly most at risk from death and serious illness from covid 19 infection(whether vaccinated or unvaccinated)

The very uncomfortable truth is that based on the scientific evidence at that time , that those groupings most at risk of death and serious illness should have been included in any Covid passport if there was to be one.   
         

as you say it was very well know who were most at risk, they didn't need a passport to protect themselves... they needed the passport so that if they did end up in hospitals and ICUs there was availability and staff for them.

Thats a very weak argument based on scientific evidence.
     You are targetting one group(the unvaccinated) with a whole raft of measures while ignoring another group (s) who were overwhelmingly more at risk of death or serious illness from Covid 19. Thus potentially bringing down the ICU's hospitals.

Now if its an emotive or moralistic argument for the covid passport then fair enough, but at least be honest enough to say so. For me it was coercion pure and simple, because it wasn't based on sound scientific evidence available at the time.

it is argument taking as much as possible into account, both a moral and a scientific argument. I also believe at the time the science was not established regarding transmission so this was a factor too. it could and should not have been a purely scientific argument... if it was then surely zero covid and complete lockdown would have been number 1 choice.  covid cannot spread of it doesn't have a host...

the old and vulnerable cocooned early doors but they cannot get younger and they  cannot reserve their medical conditions quickly. Getting a vaccine took me 30 minutes x2.  the most vulnerable in theory would be more cautious, than the unvaccinated also in my opinion.

it was not perfect, nothing rarely is, but overall a better more palable outcomes than others.

Thanks for the honest reply.
       For me a lot of the decisions such as Covid passports, mandates, vaccination protocols etc were sold based on sound scientific research and not a moralistic stance .
      ' trust the science ' we were told. Any dissent (even from reputable sources) was quickly ridiculed, silenced and shut down.
     But as it's turning out the science wasn't as sound as the public health representatives and politicians were extolling. Now that is very damaging as regards the public's faith in future directions from public health authorities and only gives more ammunition for halfwits to forego sensible public health programmes. Thus undermining tried and tested public health protocols such as current and successful child/adolescent vaccination programmes.

Just a few one other point. Zero covid was never a realistic possibility, given the circumstances. b][/b] it's a Zoonotic disease, unless you eliminate all the animal hosts then that's a non-runner. Mers is obvious example.
     

what science wasn't as sound? I don't agree with almost all of your last post. I think false narratives are/were put forward alot which undermines confidence... just look what kicked this thread off again.... the false narrative on transmissions...

  we were told xyz (when we werent) they don't know what they are doing, the science is a lie , it's all a conspiracy... the most surprising thing is a lot of unvaccinated believed in alternative untested treatments... this tells is that no amount of science was going to convince them. I'm the US, like everything it was completely politicised...

Can I ask one question, in your opinion was the covid passport used as a vehicle to push those unvaccinated to get their jabs?

[PadraicHenryPearse]

I am sure it played some part in increasing numbers who took the vaccine but i doubt why much, as I said there was a lots factors so it may have been one...

[grounded]

I am sure it played some part in increasing numbers who took the vaccine but i doubt why much, as I said there was a lots factors so it may have been one...

' It's done the trick in terms of getting people vaccinated."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58722878

[PadraicHenryPearse]

I am sure it played some part in increasing numbers who took the vaccine but i doubt why much, as I said there was a lots factors so it may have been one...

' It's done the trick in terms of getting people vaccinated."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-58722878

that seems based on 2 or 3 peoples opinion rather than anything else, unless I missed something