Joe Duffy - Liveline

[trueblue1234]

Sorry but not taking the vaccine is 100% a selfish decision. Its a matter of fact that people have faced critical delays in getting surgery, cancer treatments etc due to hospitals being over-stretched by covid. The best way to ensure that doesn't continue is by a successful vaccination programme. Given that we know the vaccine is safe, then there is simply no good reason not to get it.

The vaccine either works or it doesn't.

You seem to be one of those that say it's effectively useless is it?

Young, fit and healthy people don't really need this vaccine, the data backs that up. It's as selfish for people demanding young, fit and healthy people get the vaccine against their will as people who as it is for young people to choose not to get the vaccine. There has to be respect for people's choices and some people don't seem to be showing any towards that.

There should be tolerance and respect in society and gaslighting and insulting people who should have the ability to make decisions regarding their health is just nasty.

If you had a state broadcaster fit for purpose then Duffy would have censored and suspended over his comments on Robinson.

I'm not demanding people take it, so relax the straw man arguments. I AM saying that those who choose not to take it are being wreckless, arrogant and selfish.

And society DOES need young to take it. Taking it reduces transmission rates by up to two thirds, regardless of age. That is scientifically tested and proven. The lower the transmission rates the lower the case numbers, the lesser the pressure on the health service, the less people will needlessly have to face delays for critical care/cancer treatments/surgery etc.

It has also been scientifically tested and proven that the vaccine is safe, so again, there is no good reason for young people to choose not to take it.

To not take it is indefensible stupidity, arrogance and selfishness.

They are not being reckless, arrogant & selfish.

The people, like you, leading campaigns of shame and projecting tags onto a person who exercises their own choice on this are the ones who are reckless, arrogant and selfish. Who are you to tell and judge people? Why do you get to decide for people and cast aspersions on their character because they have a different viewpoint?

People are entitled to make a choice on this matter, they are entitled to have that choice respected. Respect is a two way street and when you go around throwing tags out about people, simply because they take a different view on this matter to others, then there is no respect. We have intolerance and the backlash against Robinson was disgusting.

If I came on here and linked your outlook and the outlook of people on you, who want to shame and degrade people on the vaccine issue - to the death or illnesses of people who took the vaccine - an example being that lady who worked with the BBC and had a blood clot and died, that it was your arrogance and selfishness that was impacting this - what would you say?

There are three types of people in this debate

1) Anti-vaxx nutters who go on about 5g and all this and dissuade everyone from taking the vaccine
2) Sensible and rational middle grounders who can see the vaccine is a personal choice and people should make informed decisions on the basis of their health, age and exposure to others and who don't try and misrepresent or label anyone whose views differ with theirs.
3) Vaccine fascists who want everyone to get vaccinated regardless and don't respect anyone with an opposing view or who exercises their personal decision not to get one

Sadly you are falling into option 3, that's totalitarianism.

How about showing a bit of respect to Robinson, accept he has his reasons and you disagree with him. Respect he has weighed up the options and feels he has came to the best ones for himself and avoid gaslighting him by saying he's selfish, arrogant and reckless. Do you think going around calling people with a different viewpoint to you on this as selfish, arrogant or reckless is a good way to win people around? I don't and vaccine fascists do every bit as much to polarise this debate as the anti-vaxx nuts.

I'm in category 2 myself, I haven't got the vaccine - not because I'm anti vax or don't think they work but I've seen the data and I can see that 13 deaths in 150k cases in the u40 age group shows its not really too much of a threat. It's as much an anomaly as me hopping into my car and wrapping it around a tree on a 20 mile journey. I respect anyone who wants to go and get a vaccine if that's what they wish to do. I'm not going to call them selfish or arrogant or reckless for doing so. If I display symptoms I'll follow the advice on isolation and restricting my movements and will get myself tested. I'd imagine most sensible people will do this. It's a bit irking to be taking moral lectures from people with zero tolerance and zero respect for opposing viewpoints.

People under 50 are 18 times more likely to be hospitalised if they are unvaccinated. That one fact alone is reason enough to do your bit to help the nhs when all the data points to the vaccine being safe.

[Snapchap]

Sorry but not taking the vaccine is 100% a selfish decision. Its a matter of fact that people have faced critical delays in getting surgery, cancer treatments etc due to hospitals being over-stretched by covid. The best way to ensure that doesn't continue is by a successful vaccination programme. Given that we know the vaccine is safe, then there is simply no good reason not to get it.

The vaccine either works or it doesn't.

You seem to be one of those that say it's effectively useless is it?

Young, fit and healthy people don't really need this vaccine, the data backs that up. It's as selfish for people demanding young, fit and healthy people get the vaccine against their will as people who as it is for young people to choose not to get the vaccine. There has to be respect for people's choices and some people don't seem to be showing any towards that.

There should be tolerance and respect in society and gaslighting and insulting people who should have the ability to make decisions regarding their health is just nasty.

If you had a state broadcaster fit for purpose then Duffy would have censored and suspended over his comments on Robinson.

I'm not demanding people take it, so relax the straw man arguments. I AM saying that those who choose not to take it are being wreckless, arrogant and selfish.

And society DOES need young to take it. Taking it reduces transmission rates by up to two thirds, regardless of age. That is scientifically tested and proven. The lower the transmission rates the lower the case numbers, the lesser the pressure on the health service, the less people will needlessly have to face delays for critical care/cancer treatments/surgery etc.

It has also been scientifically tested and proven that the vaccine is safe, so again, there is no good reason for young people to choose not to take it.

To not take it is indefensible stupidity, arrogance and selfishness.

They are not being reckless, arrogant & selfish.

The people, like you, leading campaigns of shame and projecting tags onto a person who exercises their own choice on this are the ones who are reckless, arrogant and selfish. Who are you to tell and judge people? Why do you get to decide for people and cast aspersions on their character because they have a different viewpoint?

People are entitled to make a choice on this matter, they are entitled to have that choice respected. Respect is a two way street and when you go around throwing tags out about people, simply because they take a different view on this matter to others, then there is no respect. We have intolerance and the backlash against Robinson was disgusting.

If I came on here and linked your outlook and the outlook of people on you, who want to shame and degrade people on the vaccine issue - to the death or illnesses of people who took the vaccine - an example being that lady who worked with the BBC and had a blood clot and died, that it was your arrogance and selfishness that was impacting this - what would you say?

There are three types of people in this debate

1) Anti-vaxx nutters who go on about 5g and all this and dissuade everyone from taking the vaccine
2) Sensible and rational middle grounders who can see the vaccine is a personal choice and people should make informed decisions on the basis of their health, age and exposure to others and who don't try and misrepresent or label anyone whose views differ with theirs.
3) Vaccine fascists who want everyone to get vaccinated regardless and don't respect anyone with an opposing view or who exercises their personal decision not to get one

Sadly you are falling into option 3, that's totalitarianism.

How about showing a bit of respect to Robinson, accept he has his reasons and you disagree with him. Respect he has weighed up the options and feels he has came to the best ones for himself and avoid gaslighting him by saying he's selfish, arrogant and reckless. Do you think going around calling people with a different viewpoint to you on this as selfish, arrogant or reckless is a good way to win people around? I don't and vaccine fascists do every bit as much to polarise this debate as the anti-vaxx nuts.

I'm in category 2 myself, I haven't got the vaccine - not because I'm anti vax or don't think they work but I've seen the data and I can see that 13 deaths in 150k cases in the u40 age group shows its not really too much of a threat. It's as much an anomaly as me hopping into my car and wrapping it around a tree on a 20 mile journey. I respect anyone who wants to go and get a vaccine if that's what they wish to do. I'm not going to call them selfish or arrogant or reckless for doing so. If I display symptoms I'll follow the advice on isolation and restricting my movements and will get myself tested. I'd imagine most sensible people will do this. It's a bit irking to be taking moral lectures from people with zero tolerance and zero respect for opposing viewpoints.

Except the bit you don't seem to get is that the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine is a not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of proven scientific fact.

So to say the views of people who don't want to take it deserve respect is just complete nonsense. Why does such a view deserve respect when there is simply no good reason for not taking the vaccine and so many reasons to take it?

Akin to saying we should respect people who decide they are OK to drink and drive because they are of the opinion that alcohol doesn't impair driving. Such an opinion doesn't deserve respect. Not taking the vaccine and willfully putting others at risk because you perhaps believe you know better than the world's scientific and biomedical community about its safety, is an opinion that doesn't deserve respect.

[Tres Bien]

Sorry but not taking the vaccine is 100% a selfish decision. Its a matter of fact that people have faced critical delays in getting surgery, cancer treatments etc due to hospitals being over-stretched by covid. The best way to ensure that doesn't continue is by a successful vaccination programme. Given that we know the vaccine is safe, then there is simply no good reason not to get it.

The vaccine either works or it doesn't.

You seem to be one of those that say it's effectively useless is it?

Young, fit and healthy people don't really need this vaccine, the data backs that up. It's as selfish for people demanding young, fit and healthy people get the vaccine against their will as people who as it is for young people to choose not to get the vaccine. There has to be respect for people's choices and some people don't seem to be showing any towards that.

There should be tolerance and respect in society and gaslighting and insulting people who should have the ability to make decisions regarding their health is just nasty.

If you had a state broadcaster fit for purpose then Duffy would have censored and suspended over his comments on Robinson.

I'm not demanding people take it, so relax the straw man arguments. I AM saying that those who choose not to take it are being wreckless, arrogant and selfish.

And society DOES need young to take it. Taking it reduces transmission rates by up to two thirds, regardless of age. That is scientifically tested and proven. The lower the transmission rates the lower the case numbers, the lesser the pressure on the health service, the less people will needlessly have to face delays for critical care/cancer treatments/surgery etc.

It has also been scientifically tested and proven that the vaccine is safe, so again, there is no good reason for young people to choose not to take it.

To not take it is indefensible stupidity, arrogance and selfishness.

They are not being reckless, arrogant & selfish.

The people, like you, leading campaigns of shame and projecting tags onto a person who exercises their own choice on this are the ones who are reckless, arrogant and selfish. Who are you to tell and judge people? Why do you get to decide for people and cast aspersions on their character because they have a different viewpoint?

People are entitled to make a choice on this matter, they are entitled to have that choice respected. Respect is a two way street and when you go around throwing tags out about people, simply because they take a different view on this matter to others, then there is no respect. We have intolerance and the backlash against Robinson was disgusting.

If I came on here and linked your outlook and the outlook of people on you, who want to shame and degrade people on the vaccine issue - to the death or illnesses of people who took the vaccine - an example being that lady who worked with the BBC and had a blood clot and died, that it was your arrogance and selfishness that was impacting this - what would you say?

There are three types of people in this debate

1) Anti-vaxx nutters who go on about 5g and all this and dissuade everyone from taking the vaccine
2) Sensible and rational middle grounders who can see the vaccine is a personal choice and people should make informed decisions on the basis of their health, age and exposure to others and who don't try and misrepresent or label anyone whose views differ with theirs.
3) Vaccine fascists who want everyone to get vaccinated regardless and don't respect anyone with an opposing view or who exercises their personal decision not to get one

Sadly you are falling into option 3, that's totalitarianism.

How about showing a bit of respect to Robinson, accept he has his reasons and you disagree with him. Respect he has weighed up the options and feels he has came to the best ones for himself and avoid gaslighting him by saying he's selfish, arrogant and reckless. Do you think going around calling people with a different viewpoint to you on this as selfish, arrogant or reckless is a good way to win people around? I don't and vaccine fascists do every bit as much to polarise this debate as the anti-vaxx nuts.

I'm in category 2 myself, I haven't got the vaccine - not because I'm anti vax or don't think they work but I've seen the data and I can see that 13 deaths in 150k cases in the u40 age group shows its not really too much of a threat. It's as much an anomaly as me hopping into my car and wrapping it around a tree on a 20 mile journey. I respect anyone who wants to go and get a vaccine if that's what they wish to do. I'm not going to call them selfish or arrogant or reckless for doing so. If I display symptoms I'll follow the advice on isolation and restricting my movements and will get myself tested. I'd imagine most sensible people will do this. It's a bit irking to be taking moral lectures from people with zero tolerance and zero respect for opposing viewpoints.

People under 50 are 18 times more likely to be hospitalised if they are unvaccinated. That one fact alone is reason enough to do your bit to help the nhs when all the data points to the vaccine being safe.

18x what?

You're talking very broadly there.

People should make choices on the vaccine with regard to their health. I would say if you're young, fit and healthy then the chances of you needing to be hospitalised are beyond remote, can still happen but very unlikely.

People who are elderly are more susceptible to severe illness than people who are young to Covid.
People who have underlying health conditions are far more likely to be susceptible to severe illness than people who don't to Covid.
People who are unhealthy, overweight or inactive are far more likely to be susceptible to severe illness than people who are to Covid.

These are the three factors that should impact a person's decision, the chances of you dying if you are young, fit and healthy from Covid are so, so, so remote. Have a look at the stats on the Covid dashboard, 13 deaths of u40s in 18 months in around 150k positive cases. I'd hazard a guess obesity would have been present in a lot of those 13 deaths.

People who tick any of the vulnerable category boxes should look after themselves and get the vaccine, if they don't then the upside is really negligible.

You don't take a one size fits all approach to this, you determine it to your own circumstances but some people want to stand their screaming and shouting at others about something that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

Robinson has had Covid twice in the past year, doesn't seem to have had much of an impact on a young, fit healthy man. Has it? It didn't seem to have a great impact on the Tyrone team this year. It didn't seem to have a great impact on the Spanish side at the Euros. Nor did it seem to have a great impact on Novak Djokovic when he got it last year.

Covid is very dangerous to some categories, it is of minimal threat to other groupings so we should tailor our outlook, attitude and approach to what the data tells us - that is what a rational, pragmatic and sensible person will do. A hysterical, reactionary person might just scream that everyone follow what they did and cast allegations and assertions on others who choose not to. I know which side I'd like to be on in that discussion.

[trueblue1234]

Sorry but not taking the vaccine is 100% a selfish decision. Its a matter of fact that people have faced critical delays in getting surgery, cancer treatments etc due to hospitals being over-stretched by covid. The best way to ensure that doesn't continue is by a successful vaccination programme. Given that we know the vaccine is safe, then there is simply no good reason not to get it.

The vaccine either works or it doesn't.

You seem to be one of those that say it's effectively useless is it?

Young, fit and healthy people don't really need this vaccine, the data backs that up. It's as selfish for people demanding young, fit and healthy people get the vaccine against their will as people who as it is for young people to choose not to get the vaccine. There has to be respect for people's choices and some people don't seem to be showing any towards that.

There should be tolerance and respect in society and gaslighting and insulting people who should have the ability to make decisions regarding their health is just nasty.

If you had a state broadcaster fit for purpose then Duffy would have censored and suspended over his comments on Robinson.

I'm not demanding people take it, so relax the straw man arguments. I AM saying that those who choose not to take it are being wreckless, arrogant and selfish.

And society DOES need young to take it. Taking it reduces transmission rates by up to two thirds, regardless of age. That is scientifically tested and proven. The lower the transmission rates the lower the case numbers, the lesser the pressure on the health service, the less people will needlessly have to face delays for critical care/cancer treatments/surgery etc.

It has also been scientifically tested and proven that the vaccine is safe, so again, there is no good reason for young people to choose not to take it.

To not take it is indefensible stupidity, arrogance and selfishness.

They are not being reckless, arrogant & selfish.

The people, like you, leading campaigns of shame and projecting tags onto a person who exercises their own choice on this are the ones who are reckless, arrogant and selfish. Who are you to tell and judge people? Why do you get to decide for people and cast aspersions on their character because they have a different viewpoint?

People are entitled to make a choice on this matter, they are entitled to have that choice respected. Respect is a two way street and when you go around throwing tags out about people, simply because they take a different view on this matter to others, then there is no respect. We have intolerance and the backlash against Robinson was disgusting.

If I came on here and linked your outlook and the outlook of people on you, who want to shame and degrade people on the vaccine issue - to the death or illnesses of people who took the vaccine - an example being that lady who worked with the BBC and had a blood clot and died, that it was your arrogance and selfishness that was impacting this - what would you say?

There are three types of people in this debate

1) Anti-vaxx nutters who go on about 5g and all this and dissuade everyone from taking the vaccine
2) Sensible and rational middle grounders who can see the vaccine is a personal choice and people should make informed decisions on the basis of their health, age and exposure to others and who don't try and misrepresent or label anyone whose views differ with theirs.
3) Vaccine fascists who want everyone to get vaccinated regardless and don't respect anyone with an opposing view or who exercises their personal decision not to get one

Sadly you are falling into option 3, that's totalitarianism.

How about showing a bit of respect to Robinson, accept he has his reasons and you disagree with him. Respect he has weighed up the options and feels he has came to the best ones for himself and avoid gaslighting him by saying he's selfish, arrogant and reckless. Do you think going around calling people with a different viewpoint to you on this as selfish, arrogant or reckless is a good way to win people around? I don't and vaccine fascists do every bit as much to polarise this debate as the anti-vaxx nuts.

I'm in category 2 myself, I haven't got the vaccine - not because I'm anti vax or don't think they work but I've seen the data and I can see that 13 deaths in 150k cases in the u40 age group shows its not really too much of a threat. It's as much an anomaly as me hopping into my car and wrapping it around a tree on a 20 mile journey. I respect anyone who wants to go and get a vaccine if that's what they wish to do. I'm not going to call them selfish or arrogant or reckless for doing so. If I display symptoms I'll follow the advice on isolation and restricting my movements and will get myself tested. I'd imagine most sensible people will do this. It's a bit irking to be taking moral lectures from people with zero tolerance and zero respect for opposing viewpoints.

People under 50 are 18 times more likely to be hospitalised if they are unvaccinated. That one fact alone is reason enough to do your bit to help the nhs when all the data points to the vaccine being safe.

18x what?

You're talking very broadly there.

People should make choices on the vaccine with regard to their health. I would say if you're young, fit and healthy then the chances of you needing to be hospitalised are beyond remote, can still happen but very unlikely.

People who are elderly are more susceptible to severe illness than people who are young to Covid.
People who have underlying health conditions are far more likely to be susceptible to severe illness than people who don't to Covid.
People who are unhealthy, overweight or inactive are far more likely to be susceptible to severe illness than people who are to Covid.

These are the three factors that should impact a person's decision, the chances of you dying if you are young, fit and healthy from Covid are so, so, so remote. Have a look at the stats on the Covid dashboard, 13 deaths of u40s in 18 months in around 150k positive cases. I'd hazard a guess obesity would have been present in a lot of those 13 deaths.

People who tick any of the vulnerable category boxes should look after themselves and get the vaccine, if they don't then the upside is really negligible.

You don't take a one size fits all approach to this, you determine it to your own circumstances but some people want to stand their screaming and shouting at others about something that has absolutely nothing to do with them.

Robinson has had Covid twice in the past year, doesn't seem to have had much of an impact on a young, fit healthy man. Has it? It didn't seem to have a great impact on the Tyrone team this year. It didn't seem to have a great impact on the Spanish side at the Euros. Nor did it seem to have a great impact on Novak Djokovic when he got it last year.

Covid is very dangerous to some categories, it is of minimal threat to other groupings so we should tailor our outlook, attitude and approach to what the data tells us - that is what a rational, pragmatic and sensible person will do. A hysterical, reactionary person might just scream that everyone follow what they did and cast allegations and assertions on others who choose not to. I know which side I'd like to be on in that discussion.

A unvaccinated u50 person is 18 x more likely to be hospitalised than an vaccinated u50.

Nuff said.

[Snapchap]

At least one of those Tyrone players that "weren't that impacted" was hospitalised. Hospitals are under undue pressure because so many people won't get vaccinated.

Given that we know for a scientifically verifiable fact that the vaccine is:
(i) Safe
(ii) Effective
(iii) Reduces transmission rates dramatically

Then where is there even one good reason for not getting it?

[Milltown Row2]

I wonder did Angelo go to the funeral of the lad from Donegal

[Tres Bien]

Except the bit you don't seem to get is that the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine is a not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of proven scientific fact.

So to say the views of people who don't want to take it deserve respect is just complete nonsense. Why does such a view deserve respect when there is simply no good reason for not taking the vaccine and so many reasons to take it?

Akin to saying we should respect people who decide they are OK to drink and drive because they are of the opinion that alcohol doesn't impair driving. Such an opinion doesn't deserve respect. Not taking the vaccine and willfully putting others at risk because you perhaps believe you know better than the world's scientific and biomedical community about its safety, is an opinion that doesn't deserve respect.

You're contradicting yourself now and you're actually telling lies.

I can google furiously, show you incidents where people died from a reaction to the vaccine, show you incidents where the vaccine has been linked to hospitalisations and illnesses, show you incidents of medical authorities banning certain vaccines in age groups due to cases of illnesses and deaths associated with the vaccine, show you incidents of medical authorities limiting use of certain vaccines due to illness and deaths associated with them. They exist but it's a tit for tat worthless display. You have your subjective bias that thinks your opinion should be enforced dogmatically and anyone who disagrees be labelled negatively. It's easy find that and you want to selectively say the vaccines are safe and then ignore real life incidents that have shown they have caused deaths, have caused severe illnesses - the BBC lady being one specific example, an example that came to light 5 months after she died when the coroner ruled the vaccine caused her death.

For fear of being labelled an anti-vax nut without any foundation, I'll avoid that. If I was over 50, had health ailments or didn't look after myself I'd have no problem getting the vaccine. I'm not though, I'm under 40, I look after myself, I don't do drugs, I've never smoked, I'm physically active, I eat well and have a low body fat %. So the need for the vaccine for me is different to someone else and we have to look at through a lens of rationality and perspective. I look at this debate with respect for people's own situations, not just ramming my views down another person's throat.

Are vaccines effective? You say they are? Great. If they're effective then and we have >90% of the groupings who are at risk of severe illness and death from Covid then why are you so vociferous about people who have such an absolutely minimal chance of getting severely ill or dying from Covid vaccinated? It's a contradictory viewpoint. You tell us the vaccines are effective and then basically say they aren't worth a shite. Which is it?

Effective or ineffective? You seem to saying they are effective but the argument you put forwards says they aren't worth a damn. Do you want us vaccinating 6 and 7 year olds with this next? Where does it stop?

[Tres Bien]

I wonder did Angelo go to the funeral of the lad from Donegal

Ah look. This isn't even debate.

This is just misrepresentation from a poster incapable of anything intelligent.

You clearly fall into category 3.

3) Vaccine fascists who want everyone to get vaccinated regardless and don't respect anyone with an opposing view or who exercises their personal decision not to get one

[Tres Bien]

I'm not anti-vax. I've had 2 jabs and would encourage people to have it but he has some sort of point though. The NHS has been under pressure for a long time. A lot of that has been due to people's lifestyles choices. Their own decisions. They've never been castigated in the same way as the unvaccinated.

I agree with that and it's entirely sensible. I'm not arguing for or against people to get vaccine or not. I think for some people vaccines have enormous upside, it's well established now which groupings (elderly, ill, obesity, those with auto-immunity issues etc) are at risk - unquestionably these people should be encouraged to get the vaccine for their own benefit. But people who are outside those categories? It's seem to be a very illogical argument to force or coerce these people, against their will, to get a vaccine that has negligible positive impacts for them.

[armaghniac]

I'm not anti-vax. I've had 2 jabs and would encourage people to have it but he has some sort of point though. The NHS has been under pressure for a long time. A lot of that has been due to people's lifestyles choices. Their own decisions. They've never been castigated in the same way as the unvaccinated.

which lifestyle choices can be substantially sorted with two 3 minute injections?

[Tres Bien]

At least one of those Tyrone players that "weren't that impacted" was hospitalised. Hospitals are under undue pressure because so many people won't get vaccinated.

Given that we know for a scientifically verifiable fact that the vaccine is:
(i) Safe
(ii) Effective
(iii) Reduces transmission rates dramatically

Then where is there even one good reason for not getting it?

Hospitals are under pressure for lots of reasons. This seems to be the first time I've ever heard of a public backlash on a grouping in society for the hospital being under pressure.

You want to start picketing take aways now for the hospitals being under pressure? How about pubs? Maybe vaping shops? You want to look at sweet shops?

I'd hazard a guess that more deaths and hospitalisations this year are probably down to poor lifestyle choices and diet than people who choose not to get the vaccine so it's a spurious logic.

[Tres Bien]

I'm not anti-vax. I've had 2 jabs and would encourage people to have it but he has some sort of point though. The NHS has been under pressure for a long time. A lot of that has been due to people's lifestyles choices. Their own decisions. They've never been castigated in the same way as the unvaccinated.

which lifestyle choices can be substantially sorted with two 3 minute injections?

What would two 3 minute injections have sorted for Callum Robinson?

[Milltown Row2]

I wonder did Angelo go to the funeral of the lad from Donegal

Ah look. This isn't even debate.

This is just misrepresentation from a poster incapable of anything intelligent.

You clearly fall into category 3.

3) Vaccine fascists who want everyone to get vaccinated regardless and don't respect anyone with an opposing view or who exercises their personal decision not to get one

So that's a no? I didn't think so, Angelo falls into category of rather people dying than have a vaccine that could prevent it. I wonder what that family are thinking now

[sid waddell]

I can google furiously

Nobody doubts that for a second. 

But you are unable to think.

[Tres Bien]

I wonder did Angelo go to the funeral of the lad from Donegal

Ah look. This isn't even debate.

This is just misrepresentation from a poster incapable of anything intelligent.

You clearly fall into category 3.

3) Vaccine fascists who want everyone to get vaccinated regardless and don't respect anyone with an opposing view or who exercises their personal decision not to get one

So that's a no? I didn't think so, Angelo falls into category of rather people dying than have a vaccine that could prevent it. I wonder what that family are thinking now

This is hysterical and doesn't warrant any entertaining or indulging your misrepresentations.

I've stated my position very clearly, I'm not anti-vax. I think vulnerable groupings should make get vaccinated and should be encouraged to do so. In the case of Donegal, it was clearly anti-vax nutters and it was sad that the ill man was removed from hospital and not treated.

You're being extremely disingenuous here, debating in bad faith and trying to frame something completely at odds with what I said and the question any sensible or reasonable minded poster would ask when they read your post is what is your motive here?

Why did you interject here, use hysterical and emotive cases to spin something completely with odds to what the poster actually said?

I could go down your rabbit hole, focus on a vaccine related death and attribute it to your vaccine fascism mindset. There's no sensibility in that kind of polarising and dishonest debate though which is why I'll be ignoring any of your contributions from here on in.