Poll
Question:
Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?
Option 1: Yes
votes: 122
Option 2: No
votes: 48
It's a simple no for me.
A vaccine is trying to be rushed through, it is not going through the proper testing and approval measures it normally would.
The virus on the other hand is being shown to have a extremely remote fatality rate, an extremely low hospitalisation rate, for people in my demograph.
Any chance you'd get an injection of common sense?
Very badly required.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 11:16:34 AM
Any chance you'd get an injection of common sense?
Very badly required.
You must have cracked the record for the highest number of unfunny quips made on here at this rate.
If you don't have anything worthwhile to add then piss off as we don't need to be subjected to your inane attempts at humour.
There is a sensible conversation to be had on the process of vaccine approval and deployment. There are definitely concerns about expediting terms of the approval process.
However, I have read your argumentative posting and trolling elsewhere on Covid issues. I'll not be debating it with you as you are a scourge.
Quote from: APM on October 22, 2020, 11:26:28 AM
There is a sensible conversation to be had on the process of vaccine approval and deployment. There are definitely concerns about expediting terms of the approval process.
However, I have read your argumentative posting and trolling elsewhere on Covid issues. I'll not be debating it with you as you are a scourge.
You have read my arguments and trolling?
No what you have read is a load of zealots insult me, play victim bingo, misrepresent what I have said and make hysterical claims that I want people to die because I think the effects of the lockdowns will have more negative impacts that positive ones on society as whole.
Maybe you should actually read some of the responses to my posts, clown.
But what if Nadal takes the vaccine? You'll be all over it
No nor will any of my family.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 11:16:34 AM
Any chance you'd get an injection of common sense?
Very badly required.
::)
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 11:30:48 AM
Quote from: APM on October 22, 2020, 11:26:28 AM
There is a sensible conversation to be had on the process of vaccine approval and deployment. There are definitely concerns about expediting terms of the approval process.
However, I have read your argumentative posting and trolling elsewhere on Covid issues. I'll not be debating it with you as you are a scourge.
You have read my arguments and trolling?
No what you have read is a load of zealots insult me, play victim bingo, misrepresent what I have said and make hysterical claims that I want people to die because I think the effects of the lockdowns will have more negative impacts that positive ones on society as whole.
Maybe you should actually read some of the responses to my posts, clown.
Finally a bit of self awareness
Accepting you're trolling is the first step towards stopping
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 11:16:34 AM
Any chance you'd get an injection of common sense?
Very badly required.
He refuses to get vaccinated, but is only dying to get needled
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 22, 2020, 12:53:35 PM
But what if Nadal takes the vaccine? You'll be all over it
This is your contribution.
Depends on the process it has passed through.
Personally, I have relatives in the field, so I'll be relying on them for their advice and expertise.
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 12:59:59 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 22, 2020, 12:53:35 PM
But what if Nadal takes the vaccine? You'll be all over it
This is your contribution.
This thread was already up ages ago, my contribution is already posted.. but sure put up another thread about something that was already done will ya!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 22, 2020, 12:53:35 PM
But what if Nadal takes the vaccine? You'll be all over it
But what happens if both Nadal
and Messi get it? Won't there be a conflict of interest?
Quote from: mouview on October 22, 2020, 01:03:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 22, 2020, 12:53:35 PM
But what if Nadal takes the vaccine? You'll be all over it
But what happens if both Nadal and Messi get it? Won't there be a conflict of interest?
Aw, your mixing it up here!
Quote from: J70 on October 22, 2020, 01:02:04 PM
Depends on the process it has passed through.
Personally, I have relatives in the field, so I'll be relying on them for their advice and expertise.
I'd agree. It seems with a fair percentage that if you're 'anti', you're anti everything. Anti lockdown, anti vax etc. You'd have to believe a vaccine will not be rolled out until it is 100% safe. So to that end, a vaccine will help eliminate lockdowns in the future.
However, the level of paranoia with some people means they are unable to think straight atm.
Depressing that nearly half of respondants said no.
Do these people like the status quo at the minute?
Maybe it's a "well ill let someone else try it first" sort of attitude.
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 01:33:38 PM
Depressing that nearly half of respondants said no.
Do these people like the status quo at the minute?
Maybe it's a "well ill let someone else try it first" sort of attitude.
I don't see as depressing, I see it as pragmatic.
Take your chance with a vaccine rushed through the normal process that has not been tested as stringently as it normally would.
Or take your chance with a virus you or may not contract that has an extremely remote chance of hospitalising or killing people in your demograph.
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 01:49:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 01:33:38 PM
Depressing that nearly half of respondants said no.
Do these people like the status quo at the minute?
Maybe it's a "well ill let someone else try it first" sort of attitude.
I don't see as depressing, I see it as pragmatic.
Take your chance with a vaccine rushed through the normal process that has not been tested as stringently as it normally would.
Or take your chance with a virus you or may not contract that has an extremely remote chance of hospitalising or killing people in your demograph.
What processes would you like the vaccine to go through that it isn't, and why?
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 01:51:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 01:49:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 01:33:38 PM
Depressing that nearly half of respondants said no.
Do these people like the status quo at the minute?
Maybe it's a "well ill let someone else try it first" sort of attitude.
I don't see as depressing, I see it as pragmatic.
Take your chance with a vaccine rushed through the normal process that has not been tested as stringently as it normally would.
Or take your chance with a virus you or may not contract that has an extremely remote chance of hospitalising or killing people in your demograph.
What processes would you like the vaccine to go through that it isn't, and why?
Vaccines normally take 4-5 years for approval.
The problem for me is that Covid does not significantly impact people in my demograph and that's if I catch it.
What is the fatality rate for people 30-40 with no underlying health conditions? What is the rate of hospitalisation?
I'd probably rather take my chances with the possibility of me getting Covid or not than taking a vaccine that has been rushed through the normal process, has not been sufficiently tested. I'd imagine that rationale would be the same for many who have said no but I'll let them give you their reasoning.
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 01:33:38 PM
Depressing that nearly half of respondants said no.
Do these people like the status quo at the minute?
Maybe it's a "well ill let someone else try it first" sort of attitude.
Why don't you volunteer to aid in it's testing.
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 01:51:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 01:49:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 01:33:38 PM
Depressing that nearly half of respondants said no.
Do these people like the status quo at the minute?
Maybe it's a "well ill let someone else try it first" sort of attitude.
I don't see as depressing, I see it as pragmatic.
Take your chance with a vaccine rushed through the normal process that has not been tested as stringently as it normally would.
Or take your chance with a virus you or may not contract that has an extremely remote chance of hospitalising or killing people in your demograph.
What processes would you like the vaccine to go through that it isn't, and why?
Proper clinical trials in which long term complications can be monitored. And why - selfishly so I don't end up worse taking an untested vaccine than I would catching a virus that won't significantly affect me.
Simples
If Fauci says it's safe, then it's safe
It Trump says it's safe and Fauci doesn't say that, then it's not safe
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 02:00:05 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 01:51:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 01:49:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 01:33:38 PM
Depressing that nearly half of respondants said no.
Do these people like the status quo at the minute?
Maybe it's a "well ill let someone else try it first" sort of attitude.
I don't see as depressing, I see it as pragmatic.
Take your chance with a vaccine rushed through the normal process that has not been tested as stringently as it normally would.
Or take your chance with a virus you or may not contract that has an extremely remote chance of hospitalising or killing people in your demograph.
What processes would you like the vaccine to go through that it isn't, and why?
Vaccines normally take 4-5 years for approval.
The problem for me is that Covid does not significantly impact people in my demograph and that's if I catch it.
What is the fatality rate for people 30-40 with no underlying health conditions? What is the rate of hospitalisation?
I'd probably rather take my chances with the possibility of me getting Covid or not than taking a vaccine that has been rushed through the normal process, has not been sufficiently tested. I'd imagine that rationale would be the same for many who have said no but I'll let them give you their reasoning.
The reason vaccines normally take so long is due to lack of funding at each stage. Vaccines are not that attractive for pharmaceutical companies. They prefer chronic illnesses which require ongoing treatment because that's a complete guaranteed money spinner. Vaccines are often a one off treatment which is initially lucrative but it's a one off. The difference here is that this is a worldwide illness which is so damaging to economies that there has been no issues at all getting funding. Britain has funded around 60 million doses of each of about 7 or 8 vaccines because they are hedging their bets over which gives the best outcome. I've heard a few scientists talking about it and they are absolutely convinced about the safety not being in any way compromised by the speed of testing. That's good enough for me and I'd love to be one of the first getting a vaccine once they're given the all clear.
There has never been a vaccine process that has had as much resources and money thrown at it as this. That alone was going to significantly reduce the length of time for a vaccine.
If I was making a decision on whether to take it or not I'd need to know what stages were cut out of a normal process. Just saying it's happened too quickly doesn't cut it unless there's evidence to say processes were changed to try and fast track it. And if there is, you'd have to evaluate the risk factor of those changes. Were they just fast tracked administrate stages, or was it on the testing? Just saying it's too quick isn't really enough.
That said, I'd definitely be researching it before deciding to go ahead. The problem will be the amount of disinformation that will be out there. It'll be a nightmare.
If a vaccine is approved by the EU I'll be taking it.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:38:07 PM
If a vaccine is approved by the EU I'll be taking it.
Anybody with half a brain will do likewise.
You have to wonder how it is even a debate
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 04:44:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:38:07 PM
If a vaccine is approved by the EU I'll be taking it.
Anybody with half a brain will do likewise.
You have to wonder how it is even a debate
Three words: Right wing propaganda
The reason for the shorter approval process is that anything associated with covid vaccine projects goes straight to the top of the pile, that's at the development stage, regulator review and manufacturing. The vaccine candidates are being fast tracked, not short cut.
The phase 3 trials are including 30-50k people so it's a decent sample size. However, if you give several billion people an injection of something, there will be individuals who have adverse reactions, that's just the maths of it, nó study will be large enough to mitigate that risk. Once the phase 3 trials are completed, this risk will be extremely low but not zero.
Fairly depressing that almost half of people are taking the "I'm alright Jack" approach in this survey
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 03:31:57 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 01:51:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 01:49:36 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 01:33:38 PM
Depressing that nearly half of respondants said no.
Do these people like the status quo at the minute?
Maybe it's a "well ill let someone else try it first" sort of attitude.
I don't see as depressing, I see it as pragmatic.
Take your chance with a vaccine rushed through the normal process that has not been tested as stringently as it normally would.
Or take your chance with a virus you or may not contract that has an extremely remote chance of hospitalising or killing people in your demograph.
What processes would you like the vaccine to go through that it isn't, and why?
Proper clinical trials in which long term complications can be monitored. And why - selfishly so I don't end up worse taking an untested vaccine than I would catching a virus that won't significantly affect me.
Long term complications are being monitored.
Its why we don't have a marketed vaccine yet.
What is it about the current trials that isnt proper?
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 04:50:28 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 04:44:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:38:07 PM
If a vaccine is approved by the EU I'll be taking it.
Anybody with half a brain will do likewise.
You have to wonder how it is even a debate
Three words: Right wing propaganda
Plenty of wing nuts on the left advocating for no vaccines too, take that crap to the US politics thread.
I'm going to get all 3 Covid vaccines to be sure.
The perverse logic of this is incredible but not unsurprising
Covid - The Disease
Don't know the long term consequences
Unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely aid the spread of the disease if I get it, potentially causing the death of others
"HAPPY ENOUGH WITH THAT, CARRY ON REGARDLESS, BRING IT ON"
Covid - The Vaccine
Don't know the long term consequences
VERY unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely help stop the spread of the disease, potentially saving the lives of others
"FCUK THAT SHIT, DON'T WANT IT ANYWHERE NEAR ME"
How, in the name of sweet fcuk does anyone with a brain arrive at this kind of decision?
Quote from: Franko on October 22, 2020, 06:00:45 PM
The perverse logic of this is incredible but not unsurprising
Covid - The Disease
Don't know the long term consequences
Unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely aid the spread of the disease if I get it, potentially causing the death of others
"HAPPY ENOUGH WITH THAT, CARRY ON REGARDLESS, BRING IT ON"
Covid - The Vaccine
Don't know the long term consequences
VERY unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely help stop the spread of the disease, potentially saving the lives of others
"FCUK THAT SHIT, DON'T WANT IT ANYWHERE NEAR ME"
How, in the name of sweet fcuk does anyone with a brain arrive at this kind of decision?
Propaganda and choosing what they want to believe.
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 04:50:28 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 04:44:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:38:07 PM
If a vaccine is approved by the EU I'll be taking it.
Anybody with half a brain will do likewise.
You have to wonder how it is even a debate
Three words: Right wing propaganda
Plenty of wing nuts on the left advocating for no vaccines too, take that crap to the US politics thread.
The anti-vaccine ideology is overwhelmingly pushed by those with right-wing "libertarian" sympathies
Anti-vaccine ideology has deeply infected mainstream right-wing politics and media
There is no such similar problem on the broad left
Right-wing propaganda and disinformation is one of the central problems of our time, it is a virulent cancer
Again, there is no such similar problem on the broad left
Look at the New Zealand election
Why did that country overwhelmingly opt for sensible social democratic government rather than the screaming yahoos that rule the roost in the US, UK and increasingly Australia?
Because Murdoch media is not a factorWe are far from perfect in this country but Murdoch media is not a factor here either - unfortunately we do have some other outlets and minor demagogues here to take up the slack of disinformation and we are also quite influenced by what's happening in the UK and US
Quote from: Franko on October 22, 2020, 06:00:45 PM
The perverse logic of this is incredible but not unsurprising
Covid - The Disease
Don't know the long term consequences
Unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely aid the spread of the disease if I get it, potentially causing the death of others
"HAPPY ENOUGH WITH THAT, CARRY ON REGARDLESS, BRING IT ON"
Covid - The Vaccine
Don't know the long term consequences
VERY unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely help stop the spread of the disease, potentially saving the lives of others
"FCUK THAT SHIT, DON'T WANT IT ANYWHERE NEAR ME"
How, in the name of sweet fcuk does anyone with a brain arrive at this kind of decision?
You use words like likely and potentially, what if the vaccine was likely, potentially very much the cause of deaths, illness or deformities in the future, are those more acceptable than whatever number of deaths from covid when you subtract the 28 day lag anomaly.
Quote from: Franko on October 22, 2020, 06:00:45 PM
The perverse logic of this is incredible but not unsurprising
Covid - The Disease
Don't know the long term consequences
Unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely aid the spread of the disease if I get it, potentially causing the death of others
"HAPPY ENOUGH WITH THAT, CARRY ON REGARDLESS, BRING IT ON"
Covid - The Vaccine
Don't know the long term consequences
VERY unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely help stop the spread of the disease, potentially saving the lives of others
"FCUK THAT SHIT, DON'T WANT IT ANYWHERE NEAR ME"
How, in the name of sweet fcuk does anyone with a brain arrive at this kind of decision?
Franko is a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions there, maybe the WHO will be onto to solve this seeing as you seem to know so much about it.
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Your views sir are moronic
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Incredibly selfish attitude to take.
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 04:50:28 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 04:44:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:38:07 PM
If a vaccine is approved by the EU I'll be taking it.
Anybody with half a brain will do likewise.
You have to wonder how it is even a debate
Three words: Right wing propaganda
Plenty of wing nuts on the left advocating for no vaccines too, take that crap to the US politics thread.
The anti-vaccine ideology is overwhelmingly pushed by those with right-wing "libertarian" sympathies
Anti-vaccine ideology has deeply infected mainstream right-wing politics and media
There is no such similar problem on the broad left
Right-wing propaganda and disinformation is one of the central problems of our time, it is a virulent cancer
Again, there is no such similar problem on the broad left
Look at the New Zealand election
Why did that country overwhelmingly opt for sensible social democratic government rather than the screaming yahoos that rule the roost in the US, UK and increasingly Australia?
Because Murdoch media is not a factor
We are far from perfect in this country but Murdoch media is not a factor here either - unfortunately we do have some other outlets and minor demagogues here to take up the slack of disinformation and we are also quite influenced by what's happening in the UK and US
Plenty on the left too.
Heres governor of Vermont Democratic candidate David Zuckerman. His voting history makes for interesting reading....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/03/21/anti-vaccine-coronavirus-137446
What are the odds on having a severe reaction to a vaccine shot ?
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 07:45:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Incredibly selfish attitude to take.
I value my own health, if that's deemed as selfish then so be it.
Look at the flu vaccine in South Korea as a recent example.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/doctors-in-south-korea-call-for-flu-vaccinations-to-be-paused-after-25-deaths
Here we go on the flu again!!
You love a good talk on flu
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 07:55:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 04:50:28 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 04:44:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:38:07 PM
If a vaccine is approved by the EU I'll be taking it.
Anybody with half a brain will do likewise.
You have to wonder how it is even a debate
Three words: Right wing propaganda
Plenty of wing nuts on the left advocating for no vaccines too, take that crap to the US politics thread.
The anti-vaccine ideology is overwhelmingly pushed by those with right-wing "libertarian" sympathies
Anti-vaccine ideology has deeply infected mainstream right-wing politics and media
There is no such similar problem on the broad left
Right-wing propaganda and disinformation is one of the central problems of our time, it is a virulent cancer
Again, there is no such similar problem on the broad left
Look at the New Zealand election
Why did that country overwhelmingly opt for sensible social democratic government rather than the screaming yahoos that rule the roost in the US, UK and increasingly Australia?
Because Murdoch media is not a factor
We are far from perfect in this country but Murdoch media is not a factor here either - unfortunately we do have some other outlets and minor demagogues here to take up the slack of disinformation and we are also quite influenced by what's happening in the UK and US
Plenty on the left too.
Heres governor of Vermont Democratic candidate David Zuckerman. His voting history makes for interesting reading....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/03/21/anti-vaccine-coronavirus-137446
You can scour the internet for individuals if you like in an effort to create a false equivalence but isolated individuals and cranks do not make a systemic problem
Science denial and fact rejection are now intrinsic parts of the international right-wing
That is very far from the case on the broad left
False equivalence is also a systemic right-wing problem
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 22, 2020, 08:09:30 PM
Here we go on the flu again!!
You love a good talk on flu
This is a thread on vaccines, that's a post on vaccines.
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 07:45:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Incredibly selfish attitude to take.
I value my own health, if that's deemed as selfish then so be it.
Look at the flu vaccine in South Korea as a recent example.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/doctors-in-south-korea-call-for-flu-vaccinations-to-be-paused-after-25-deaths
Did you even read that article? It disproves your point.
"Authorities say programme will continue after finding no direct links between the deaths and the vaccines"
You've just read the headline and couldn't get it posted quick enough.
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 06:37:52 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 22, 2020, 06:00:45 PM
The perverse logic of this is incredible but not unsurprising
Covid - The Disease
Don't know the long term consequences
Unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely aid the spread of the disease if I get it, potentially causing the death of others
"HAPPY ENOUGH WITH THAT, CARRY ON REGARDLESS, BRING IT ON"
Covid - The Vaccine
Don't know the long term consequences
VERY unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely help stop the spread of the disease, potentially saving the lives of others
"FCUK THAT SHIT, DON'T WANT IT ANYWHERE NEAR ME"
How, in the name of sweet fcuk does anyone with a brain arrive at this kind of decision?
You use words like likely and potentially, what if the vaccine was likely, potentially very much the cause of deaths, illness or deformities in the future, are those more acceptable than whatever number of deaths from covid when you subtract the 28 day lag anomaly.
I do use those words. There's no point in using absolutisms when the reality is that we're not certain.
The "what if" game is a ridiculous one.
What if Covid was the cause of "deaths, illness or deformities in the future?"
See how easy this is?
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:11:51 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 22, 2020, 06:00:45 PM
The perverse logic of this is incredible but not unsurprising
Covid - The Disease
Don't know the long term consequences
Unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely aid the spread of the disease if I get it, potentially causing the death of others
"HAPPY ENOUGH WITH THAT, CARRY ON REGARDLESS, BRING IT ON"
Covid - The Vaccine
Don't know the long term consequences
VERY unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely help stop the spread of the disease, potentially saving the lives of others
"FCUK THAT SHIT, DON'T WANT IT ANYWHERE NEAR ME"
How, in the name of sweet fcuk does anyone with a brain arrive at this kind of decision?
Franko is a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
You're making an awful lot of assumptions there, maybe the WHO will be onto to solve this seeing as you seem to know so much about it.
Some substance here.
NB.
The WHO line wasn't funny the first 2 times you used it either.
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 08:24:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 07:45:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Incredibly selfish attitude to take.
I value my own health, if that's deemed as selfish then so be it.
Look at the flu vaccine in South Korea as a recent example.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/doctors-in-south-korea-call-for-flu-vaccinations-to-be-paused-after-25-deaths
Did you even read that article? It disproves your point.
"Authorities say programme will continue after finding no direct links between the deaths and the vaccines"
You've just read the headline and couldn't get it posted quick enough.
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Brilliant.
Another facepalm moment.
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 07:45:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Incredibly selfish attitude to take.
I value my own health, if that's deemed as selfish then so be it.
Look at the flu vaccine in South Korea as a recent example.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/doctors-in-south-korea-call-for-flu-vaccinations-to-be-paused-after-25-deaths
Perhaps you should have noted the sub-heading on that article "Authorities say programme will continue after finding no direct links between the deaths and the vaccines"
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Question - if your going to "take your chances", will you refuse hospital treatment if things get serious?
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 08:24:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 08:04:50 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 07:45:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Incredibly selfish attitude to take.
I value my own health, if that's deemed as selfish then so be it.
Look at the flu vaccine in South Korea as a recent example.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/22/doctors-in-south-korea-call-for-flu-vaccinations-to-be-paused-after-25-deaths
Did you even read that article? It disproves your point.
"Authorities say programme will continue after finding no direct links between the deaths and the vaccines"
You've just read the headline and couldn't get it posted quick enough.
Nope. I actually the article, did you?
25 people who got the vaccine have died.
A group of leading doctors have campaigned for the vaccines to be stopped until it can be established if the vaccine was a contributing factor.
The authorities seem unwilling to investigate this to proper effect. Do you accept everything the authorities tell you in blind faith? Or do you not think that they have a vested interest in saying the vaccine was not an issue?
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 08:55:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Question - if your going to "take your chances", will you refuse hospital treatment if things get serious?
I don't have Covid and hope to keep it that way and it would be extremely remote that I would need hospital treatment if I did.
Would you refuse hospital treatment if you got an adverse reaction to the vaccine?
Whilst you would have concerns about the safety of a rushed vaccine it pales in comparison to the worry you'd have about contracting Covid.
Whilst I readily acknowledge the increased danger of rushing a vaccine through, IMO the probability that it could be dangerous is miniscule. Anyone who tries to dress it up as a major concern must be a f**king idiot. There's as much chance that your next meal will kill you as the Covid vaccine harming your health.
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 09:21:40 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 08:55:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Question - if your going to "take your chances", will you refuse hospital treatment if things get serious?
I don't have Covid and hope to keep it that way and it would be extremely remote that I would need hospital treatment if I did.
Would you refuse hospital treatment if you got an adverse reaction to the vaccine?
You didn't answer the question, presumably because your answer would expose your hypocrisy.
And to cover your backside your trying to deflect attention back onto me- juvenile enough approach to a debate but that what you get from the anti vac brigade as the actual substance of their argument is pathetic.
My position is clear, I would take the vaccine and hopefully that would hopefully prevent illness. If however I still got sick for some unlikely reason, including an adverse reaction to the vaccine, and needed treatment I would of course accept hospital care.
You see unlike you antivac clowns I always listen to qualified medical experts, not quacks or yahoo's that I find on the internet, or unqualified gobshites from up the road.
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 08:11:45 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 07:55:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 04:50:28 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 04:44:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:38:07 PM
If a vaccine is approved by the EU I'll be taking it.
Anybody with half a brain will do likewise.
You have to wonder how it is even a debate
Three words: Right wing propaganda
Plenty of wing nuts on the left advocating for no vaccines too, take that crap to the US politics thread.
The anti-vaccine ideology is overwhelmingly pushed by those with right-wing "libertarian" sympathies
Anti-vaccine ideology has deeply infected mainstream right-wing politics and media
There is no such similar problem on the broad left
Right-wing propaganda and disinformation is one of the central problems of our time, it is a virulent cancer
Again, there is no such similar problem on the broad left
Look at the New Zealand election
Why did that country overwhelmingly opt for sensible social democratic government rather than the screaming yahoos that rule the roost in the US, UK and increasingly Australia?
Because Murdoch media is not a factor
We are far from perfect in this country but Murdoch media is not a factor here either - unfortunately we do have some other outlets and minor demagogues here to take up the slack of disinformation and we are also quite influenced by what's happening in the UK and US
Plenty on the left too.
Heres governor of Vermont Democratic candidate David Zuckerman. His voting history makes for interesting reading....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/03/21/anti-vaccine-coronavirus-137446
You can scour the internet for individuals if you like in an effort to create a false equivalence but isolated individuals and cranks do not make a systemic problem
Science denial and fact rejection are now intrinsic parts of the international right-wing
That is very far from the case on the broad left
False equivalence is also a systemic right-wing problem
I didnt have to scour. Hes on the ballot in Vermont in November. He's a left wing democrat. And he's not alone.
San Francisco kids are well below the required vaccinated level (95%) for herd immunity. San Fran of course. Being a city that *checks notes* Hillary won 84.5% of the vote in 2016.
There are loons in all political walks of life.
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 08:55:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Question - if your going to "take your chances", will you refuse hospital treatment if things get serious?
If you change your mind
Be the first in line
The vaccine is free
Take a chance on me
If you need me, let me know
Gonna be around
Covid has no place to go
When I come to town
If you're all alone
Up there in Tyrone
Honey, I'll be free
Take a chance on me
Gonna do my very best
And it ain't no lie
If you put me to the test
I won't let you die
Take a chance on me
That's all I ask of you, honey
Take a chance on me
Go and get vaccined
Stop Covid nineteen
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 10:33:55 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 08:55:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Question - if your going to "take your chances", will you refuse hospital treatment if things get serious?
If you change your mind
Be the first in line
The vaccine is free
Take a chance on me
If you need me, let me know
Gonna be around
Covid has no place to go
When I come to town
If you're all alone
Up there in Tyrone
Honey, I'll be free
Take a chance on me
Gonna do my very best
And it ain't no lie
If you put me to the test
I won't let you die
Take a chance on me
That's all I ask of you, honey
Take a chance on me
Go and get vaccined
Stop Covid nineteen
Jesus wept...
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 10:22:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 08:11:45 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 07:55:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 04:50:28 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 04:44:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:38:07 PM
If a vaccine is approved by the EU I'll be taking it.
Anybody with half a brain will do likewise.
You have to wonder how it is even a debate
Three words: Right wing propaganda
Plenty of wing nuts on the left advocating for no vaccines too, take that crap to the US politics thread.
The anti-vaccine ideology is overwhelmingly pushed by those with right-wing "libertarian" sympathies
Anti-vaccine ideology has deeply infected mainstream right-wing politics and media
There is no such similar problem on the broad left
Right-wing propaganda and disinformation is one of the central problems of our time, it is a virulent cancer
Again, there is no such similar problem on the broad left
Look at the New Zealand election
Why did that country overwhelmingly opt for sensible social democratic government rather than the screaming yahoos that rule the roost in the US, UK and increasingly Australia?
Because Murdoch media is not a factor
We are far from perfect in this country but Murdoch media is not a factor here either - unfortunately we do have some other outlets and minor demagogues here to take up the slack of disinformation and we are also quite influenced by what's happening in the UK and US
Plenty on the left too.
Heres governor of Vermont Democratic candidate David Zuckerman. His voting history makes for interesting reading....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/03/21/anti-vaccine-coronavirus-137446
You can scour the internet for individuals if you like in an effort to create a false equivalence but isolated individuals and cranks do not make a systemic problem
Science denial and fact rejection are now intrinsic parts of the international right-wing
That is very far from the case on the broad left
False equivalence is also a systemic right-wing problem
I didnt have to scour. Hes on the ballot in Vermont in November. He's a left wing democrat. And he's not alone.
San Francisco kids are well below the required vaccinated level (95%) for herd immunity. San Fran of course. Being a city that *checks notes* Hillary won 84.5% of the vote in 2016.
There are loons in all political walks of life.
But again, there are a hell of a lot more in right-wing politics
Science denial, fact rejection and a fantasy world of la la is the defining characteristic of right-wing politics
It's a freak show
Of course as a Trump supporter you would deny this because you are one of the people who have been brainwashed
Noam Chomsky quite rightly says the Republican party is the most dangerous organisation in the world - in human history
Even the Nazis didn't plan to incinerate the planet
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 10:37:54 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 10:22:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 08:11:45 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 07:55:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 04:50:28 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 04:44:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:38:07 PM
If a vaccine is approved by the EU I'll be taking it.
Anybody with half a brain will do likewise.
You have to wonder how it is even a debate
Three words: Right wing propaganda
Plenty of wing nuts on the left advocating for no vaccines too, take that crap to the US politics thread.
The anti-vaccine ideology is overwhelmingly pushed by those with right-wing "libertarian" sympathies
Anti-vaccine ideology has deeply infected mainstream right-wing politics and media
There is no such similar problem on the broad left
Right-wing propaganda and disinformation is one of the central problems of our time, it is a virulent cancer
Again, there is no such similar problem on the broad left
Look at the New Zealand election
Why did that country overwhelmingly opt for sensible social democratic government rather than the screaming yahoos that rule the roost in the US, UK and increasingly Australia?
Because Murdoch media is not a factor
We are far from perfect in this country but Murdoch media is not a factor here either - unfortunately we do have some other outlets and minor demagogues here to take up the slack of disinformation and we are also quite influenced by what's happening in the UK and US
Plenty on the left too.
Heres governor of Vermont Democratic candidate David Zuckerman. His voting history makes for interesting reading....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/03/21/anti-vaccine-coronavirus-137446
You can scour the internet for individuals if you like in an effort to create a false equivalence but isolated individuals and cranks do not make a systemic problem
Science denial and fact rejection are now intrinsic parts of the international right-wing
That is very far from the case on the broad left
False equivalence is also a systemic right-wing problem
I didnt have to scour. Hes on the ballot in Vermont in November. He's a left wing democrat. And he's not alone.
San Francisco kids are well below the required vaccinated level (95%) for herd immunity. San Fran of course. Being a city that *checks notes* Hillary won 84.5% of the vote in 2016.
There are loons in all political walks of life.
But again, there are a hell of a lot more in right-wing politics
Science denial, fact rejection and a fantasy world of la la is the defining characteristic of right-wing politics
It's a freak show
Of course as a Trump supporter you would deny this because you are one of the people who have been brainwashed
Noam Chomsky quite rightly says the Republican party is the most dangerous organisation in the world - in human history
Even the Nazis didn't plan to incinerate the planet
I'm not a Trump supporter. I just have my reservations with the modern Democrat party.
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 10:51:05 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 10:37:54 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 10:22:29 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 08:11:45 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 07:55:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 06:33:13 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 22, 2020, 05:49:02 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 22, 2020, 04:50:28 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 04:44:21 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 22, 2020, 04:38:07 PM
If a vaccine is approved by the EU I'll be taking it.
Anybody with half a brain will do likewise.
You have to wonder how it is even a debate
Three words: Right wing propaganda
Plenty of wing nuts on the left advocating for no vaccines too, take that crap to the US politics thread.
The anti-vaccine ideology is overwhelmingly pushed by those with right-wing "libertarian" sympathies
Anti-vaccine ideology has deeply infected mainstream right-wing politics and media
There is no such similar problem on the broad left
Right-wing propaganda and disinformation is one of the central problems of our time, it is a virulent cancer
Again, there is no such similar problem on the broad left
Look at the New Zealand election
Why did that country overwhelmingly opt for sensible social democratic government rather than the screaming yahoos that rule the roost in the US, UK and increasingly Australia?
Because Murdoch media is not a factor
We are far from perfect in this country but Murdoch media is not a factor here either - unfortunately we do have some other outlets and minor demagogues here to take up the slack of disinformation and we are also quite influenced by what's happening in the UK and US
Plenty on the left too.
Heres governor of Vermont Democratic candidate David Zuckerman. His voting history makes for interesting reading....
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.politico.com/amp/news/2020/03/21/anti-vaccine-coronavirus-137446
You can scour the internet for individuals if you like in an effort to create a false equivalence but isolated individuals and cranks do not make a systemic problem
Science denial and fact rejection are now intrinsic parts of the international right-wing
That is very far from the case on the broad left
False equivalence is also a systemic right-wing problem
I didnt have to scour. Hes on the ballot in Vermont in November. He's a left wing democrat. And he's not alone.
San Francisco kids are well below the required vaccinated level (95%) for herd immunity. San Fran of course. Being a city that *checks notes* Hillary won 84.5% of the vote in 2016.
There are loons in all political walks of life.
But again, there are a hell of a lot more in right-wing politics
Science denial, fact rejection and a fantasy world of la la is the defining characteristic of right-wing politics
It's a freak show
Of course as a Trump supporter you would deny this because you are one of the people who have been brainwashed
Noam Chomsky quite rightly says the Republican party is the most dangerous organisation in the world - in human history
Even the Nazis didn't plan to incinerate the planet
I'm not a Trump supporter. I just have my reservations with the modern Democrat party.
A lot of people say that
We had one guy here recently who kept insisting he wasn't a Trump supporter but has now admitted to voting for them
It's why this is very far from a done deal for Biden
I don't think there's a person supporting the Democrats who doesn't have reservations about them for different reasons
That's a function of them being a broad church party, a church so broad that it is the party of basically anybody in US politics who isn't crazy
Quote from: Franko on October 22, 2020, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 06:37:52 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 22, 2020, 06:00:45 PM
The perverse logic of this is incredible but not unsurprising
Covid - The Disease
Don't know the long term consequences
Unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely aid the spread of the disease if I get it, potentially causing the death of others
"HAPPY ENOUGH WITH THAT, CARRY ON REGARDLESS, BRING IT ON"
Covid - The Vaccine
Don't know the long term consequences
VERY unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely help stop the spread of the disease, potentially saving the lives of others
"FCUK THAT SHIT, DON'T WANT IT ANYWHERE NEAR ME"
How, in the name of sweet fcuk does anyone with a brain arrive at this kind of decision?
You use words like likely and potentially, what if the vaccine was likely, potentially very much the cause of deaths, illness or deformities in the future, are those more acceptable than whatever number of deaths from covid when you subtract the 28 day lag anomaly.
I do use those words. There's no point in using absolutisms when the reality is that we're not certain.
The "what if" game is a ridiculous one.
What if Covid was the cause of "deaths, illness or deformities in the future?"
See how easy this is?
And what if it weren't and a vaccine with unknown health implications was?
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 08:55:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Question - if your going to "take your chances", will you refuse hospital treatment if things get serious?
Why would one, I have contributed all my life to the NHS through my taxes, why would one refuse hospital treatment, what a ridiculous statement.
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 22, 2020, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 06:37:52 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 22, 2020, 06:00:45 PM
The perverse logic of this is incredible but not unsurprising
Covid - The Disease
Don't know the long term consequences
Unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely aid the spread of the disease if I get it, potentially causing the death of others
"HAPPY ENOUGH WITH THAT, CARRY ON REGARDLESS, BRING IT ON"
Covid - The Vaccine
Don't know the long term consequences
VERY unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely help stop the spread of the disease, potentially saving the lives of others
"FCUK THAT SHIT, DON'T WANT IT ANYWHERE NEAR ME"
How, in the name of sweet fcuk does anyone with a brain arrive at this kind of decision?
You use words like likely and potentially, what if the vaccine was likely, potentially very much the cause of deaths, illness or deformities in the future, are those more acceptable than whatever number of deaths from covid when you subtract the 28 day lag anomaly.
I do use those words. There's no point in using absolutisms when the reality is that we're not certain.
The "what if" game is a ridiculous one.
What if Covid was the cause of "deaths, illness or deformities in the future?"
See how easy this is?
And what if it weren't and a vaccine with unknown health implications was?
Ah FFS.
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 09:57:55 PM
You didn't answer the question, presumably because your answer would expose your hypocrisy.
And to cover your backside your trying to deflect attention back onto me- juvenile enough approach to a debate but that what you get from the anti vac brigade as the actual substance of their argument is pathetic.
My position is clear, I would take the vaccine and hopefully that would hopefully prevent illness. If however I still got sick for some unlikely reason, including an adverse reaction to the vaccine, and needed treatment I would of course accept hospital care.
You see unlike you antivac clowns I always listen to qualified medical experts, not quacks or yahoo's that I find on the internet, or unqualified gobshites from up the road.
There is a running theme here - ask loads of questions but if someone else asks questions they are somehow being disingenuous, I have been called an angry man twice now yet the vitriol being hurled to those especially Angelo who disagreed with the narrative is unreal.
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 08:40:57 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 22, 2020, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 06:37:52 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 22, 2020, 06:00:45 PM
The perverse logic of this is incredible but not unsurprising
Covid - The Disease
Don't know the long term consequences
Unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely aid the spread of the disease if I get it, potentially causing the death of others
"HAPPY ENOUGH WITH THAT, CARRY ON REGARDLESS, BRING IT ON"
Covid - The Vaccine
Don't know the long term consequences
VERY unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely help stop the spread of the disease, potentially saving the lives of others
"FCUK THAT SHIT, DON'T WANT IT ANYWHERE NEAR ME"
How, in the name of sweet fcuk does anyone with a brain arrive at this kind of decision?
You use words like likely and potentially, what if the vaccine was likely, potentially very much the cause of deaths, illness or deformities in the future, are those more acceptable than whatever number of deaths from covid when you subtract the 28 day lag anomaly.
I do use those words. There's no point in using absolutisms when the reality is that we're not certain.
The "what if" game is a ridiculous one.
What if Covid was the cause of "deaths, illness or deformities in the future?"
See how easy this is?
And what if it weren't and a vaccine with unknown health implications was?
Ah FFS.
Ah bless does the game not work when you aren't winning!
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:47:13 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 08:40:57 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:35:28 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 22, 2020, 08:24:08 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 06:37:52 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 22, 2020, 06:00:45 PM
The perverse logic of this is incredible but not unsurprising
Covid - The Disease
Don't know the long term consequences
Unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely aid the spread of the disease if I get it, potentially causing the death of others
"HAPPY ENOUGH WITH THAT, CARRY ON REGARDLESS, BRING IT ON"
Covid - The Vaccine
Don't know the long term consequences
VERY unlikely to kill me in the short term
Will most likely help stop the spread of the disease, potentially saving the lives of others
"FCUK THAT SHIT, DON'T WANT IT ANYWHERE NEAR ME"
How, in the name of sweet fcuk does anyone with a brain arrive at this kind of decision?
You use words like likely and potentially, what if the vaccine was likely, potentially very much the cause of deaths, illness or deformities in the future, are those more acceptable than whatever number of deaths from covid when you subtract the 28 day lag anomaly.
I do use those words. There's no point in using absolutisms when the reality is that we're not certain.
The "what if" game is a ridiculous one.
What if Covid was the cause of "deaths, illness or deformities in the future?"
See how easy this is?
And what if it weren't and a vaccine with unknown health implications was?
Ah FFS.
Ah bless does the game not work when you aren't winning!
This is depressing.
And what if it weren't and a disease with unknown health implications was?
And therein lies the conundrum, so what totally berate folk who are trying to weigh up the options and make an informed choice with the information available, or do you just like name calling?
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:53:26 AM
And therein lies the conundrum, so what totally berate folk who are trying to weigh up the options and make an informed choice with the information available, or do you just like name calling?
If it really is a 50:50 shot, why not pick the option that has the potential to save lives, over the one which has been proven worldwide over the past 10 months to aid the spread of a disease which kills people?
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 08:55:55 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:53:26 AM
And therein lies the conundrum, so what totally berate folk who are trying to weigh up the options and make an informed choice with the information available, or do you just like name calling?
If it really is a 50:50 shot, why not pick the option that has the potential to save lives, over the one which has been proven worldwide over the past 10 months to aid the spread of a disease which kills people?
Alternatively you could look at it as why not resist the option which may impact the health of oneself and ones family in years to come, whilst continuing to practice the fundamental rules of washing hands often and for 30 seconds, wear masks in indoor settings and practice social distancing? From what I gather they are going to give the vaccine to the vulnerable first, so if these have current underlying health conditions or are near their end of life, if they get the vaccine and die within 28 days have they died from the vaccine?
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 09:03:17 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 08:55:55 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:53:26 AM
And therein lies the conundrum, so what totally berate folk who are trying to weigh up the options and make an informed choice with the information available, or do you just like name calling?
If it really is a 50:50 shot, why not pick the option that has the potential to save lives, over the one which has been proven worldwide over the past 10 months to aid the spread of a disease which kills people?
Alternatively you could look at it as why not resist the option which may impact the health of oneself and ones family in years to come, whilst continuing to practice the fundamental rules of washing hands often and for 30 seconds, wear masks in indoor settings and practice social distancing? From what I gather they are going to give the vaccine to the vulnerable first, so if these have current underlying health conditions or are near their end of life, if they get the vaccine and die within 28 days have they died from the vaccine?
You ignored the question.
The masks and social distancing is working well at the minute across the world.
They will have died from whatever it is that killed them.
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 09:21:06 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 09:03:17 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 08:55:55 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:53:26 AM
And therein lies the conundrum, so what totally berate folk who are trying to weigh up the options and make an informed choice with the information available, or do you just like name calling?
If it really is a 50:50 shot, why not pick the option that has the potential to save lives, over the one which has been proven worldwide over the past 10 months to aid the spread of a disease which kills people?
Alternatively you could look at it as why not resist the option which may impact the health of oneself and ones family in years to come, whilst continuing to practice the fundamental rules of washing hands often and for 30 seconds, wear masks in indoor settings and practice social distancing? From what I gather they are going to give the vaccine to the vulnerable first, so if these have current underlying health conditions or are near their end of life, if they get the vaccine and die within 28 days have they died from the vaccine?
You ignored the question.
The masks and social distancing is working well at the minute across the world.
They will have died from whatever it is that killed them.
I give an alternative, if you are tested positive for covid and get hit but a bus 28 days later you are a registered covid death.
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 09:34:01 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 09:21:06 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 09:03:17 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 08:55:55 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:53:26 AM
And therein lies the conundrum, so what totally berate folk who are trying to weigh up the options and make an informed choice with the information available, or do you just like name calling?
If it really is a 50:50 shot, why not pick the option that has the potential to save lives, over the one which has been proven worldwide over the past 10 months to aid the spread of a disease which kills people?
Alternatively you could look at it as why not resist the option which may impact the health of oneself and ones family in years to come, whilst continuing to practice the fundamental rules of washing hands often and for 30 seconds, wear masks in indoor settings and practice social distancing? From what I gather they are going to give the vaccine to the vulnerable first, so if these have current underlying health conditions or are near their end of life, if they get the vaccine and die within 28 days have they died from the vaccine?
You ignored the question.
The masks and social distancing is working well at the minute across the world.
They will have died from whatever it is that killed them.
I give an alternative, if you are tested positive for covid and get hit but a bus 28 days later you are a registered covid death.
And if you have been tested for covid and not positive, then hit by a bus you'll be registered as being, very unlucky.
Crazy alternatives, can we have some more alternatives? What if I had COPD and caught covid, and died, which would have killed me?
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 09:34:01 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 09:21:06 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 09:03:17 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 08:55:55 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:53:26 AM
And therein lies the conundrum, so what totally berate folk who are trying to weigh up the options and make an informed choice with the information available, or do you just like name calling?
If it really is a 50:50 shot, why not pick the option that has the potential to save lives, over the one which has been proven worldwide over the past 10 months to aid the spread of a disease which kills people?
Alternatively you could look at it as why not resist the option which may impact the health of oneself and ones family in years to come, whilst continuing to practice the fundamental rules of washing hands often and for 30 seconds, wear masks in indoor settings and practice social distancing? From what I gather they are going to give the vaccine to the vulnerable first, so if these have current underlying health conditions or are near their end of life, if they get the vaccine and die within 28 days have they died from the vaccine?
You ignored the question.
The masks and social distancing is working well at the minute across the world.
They will have died from whatever it is that killed them.
I give an alternative, if you are tested positive for covid and get hit but a bus 28 days later you are a registered covid death.
;D ;D
Who knew? I am deeply shocked that this is what you come back with. You were definitely playing some 4D chess when you were teeing that one up.
28 days? Hit by a bus? I just never saw it coming (pardon the pun).
Anyway. Fun over.
I don't agree at all with that policy. I don't know why they do it (mortuary staff shortages?).
It's just one of a great many mistakes that this Gov't seem to be making on a daily basis around the handling of this disease.
So if you are looking for some sort of a defence of that, you may look elsewhere.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 09:39:33 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 09:34:01 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 09:21:06 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 09:03:17 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 08:55:55 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:53:26 AM
And therein lies the conundrum, so what totally berate folk who are trying to weigh up the options and make an informed choice with the information available, or do you just like name calling?
If it really is a 50:50 shot, why not pick the option that has the potential to save lives, over the one which has been proven worldwide over the past 10 months to aid the spread of a disease which kills people?
Alternatively you could look at it as why not resist the option which may impact the health of oneself and ones family in years to come, whilst continuing to practice the fundamental rules of washing hands often and for 30 seconds, wear masks in indoor settings and practice social distancing? From what I gather they are going to give the vaccine to the vulnerable first, so if these have current underlying health conditions or are near their end of life, if they get the vaccine and die within 28 days have they died from the vaccine?
You ignored the question.
The masks and social distancing is working well at the minute across the world.
They will have died from whatever it is that killed them.
I give an alternative, if you are tested positive for covid and get hit but a bus 28 days later you are a registered covid death.
And if you have been tested for covid and not positive, then hit by a bus you'll be registered as being, very unlucky.
Crazy alternatives, can we have some more alternatives? What if I had COPD and caught covid, and died, which would have killed me?
I don't register the deaths, you would to speak to someone in power, my point is the death toll from covid is completely skewed, but like others here don't you let facts get in the way of your narrative.
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 09:43:06 AM
So if you are looking for some sort of a defence of that, you may look elsewhere.
I am not looking for anything, certainly not for the queue for the vaccine.
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:38:01 AM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 08:55:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Question - if your going to "take your chances", will you refuse hospital treatment if things get serious?
Why would one, I have contributed all my life to the NHS through my taxes, why would one refuse hospital treatment, what a ridiculous statement.
Well because that position exposes an inherent hypocrisy in antivax campaigners. They know better, and actively undermine, the health experts up and until they actually get sick, at which point they slavishly throw themselves before the system they claim was spreading falsehoods to begin with, with no regards to those who listened to them up to the end and died as a result.
I don't deny that it is your right to be a hypocrite in the above manner, but get ready to have people call you out, mock you and condemn your quackery when you do.
Tight vote here .
Personally I wont get it.
Most of the antivax brigade will be fine with homeopathic remedies
Quote from: thebigfella on October 23, 2020, 10:06:37 AM
Most of the antivax brigade will be fine with homeopathic remedies
or just hope their immune systems can withstand the virus
Quote from: thebigfella on October 23, 2020, 10:06:37 AM
Most of the antivax brigade will be fine with homeopathic remedies
Or mega dosing with vitamin C.
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 09:46:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 09:43:06 AM
So if you are looking for some sort of a defence of that, you may look elsewhere.
I am not looking for anything, certainly not for the queue for the vaccine.
So it would seem.
Better to let the rest of us get it - then you can take your mask off and stop washing your hands.
Informed. ::)
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2020, 10:12:07 AM
Quote from: thebigfella on October 23, 2020, 10:06:37 AM
Most of the antivax brigade will be fine with homeopathic remedies
or just hope their immune systems can withstand the virus
And that they don't infect 10 others while waiting to find out.
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 10:15:01 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2020, 10:12:07 AM
Quote from: thebigfella on October 23, 2020, 10:06:37 AM
Most of the antivax brigade will be fine with homeopathic remedies
or just hope their immune systems can withstand the virus
And that they don't infect 10 others while waiting to find out.
If the Covid Vaccine uptake is high, this should not present major problems.
We don't all get the flu vaccine, we have a robust and normally widely available flu vaccine, it doesn't prevent spread but it ensures that we have a manageable problem.
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 09:56:55 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:38:01 AM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 08:55:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Question - if your going to "take your chances", will you refuse hospital treatment if things get serious?
Why would one, I have contributed all my life to the NHS through my taxes, why would one refuse hospital treatment, what a ridiculous statement.
Well because that position exposes an inherent hypocrisy in antivax campaigners. They know better, and actively undermine, the health experts up and until they actually get sick, at which point they slavishly throw themselves before the system they claim was spreading falsehoods to begin with, with no regards to those who listened to them up to the end and died as a result.
I don't deny that it is your right to be a hypocrite in the above manner, but get ready to have people call you out, mock you and condemn your quackery when you do.
So you don't smoke, drink, aren't overweight, exercise loads - these are all health experts tips to stay healthy, yet those who do when they become sick slavishly throw themselves before the system - what was the word - ah yeah hypocrite!
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 10:13:57 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 09:46:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 09:43:06 AM
So if you are looking for some sort of a defence of that, you may look elsewhere.
I am not looking for anything, certainly not for the queue for the vaccine.
So it would seem.
Better to let the rest of us get it - then you can take your mask off and stop washing your hands.
Informed. ::)
If you are happy enough to get it - you knock yourself out son.
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 10:24:08 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 10:13:57 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 09:46:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 09:43:06 AM
So if you are looking for some sort of a defence of that, you may look elsewhere.
I am not looking for anything, certainly not for the queue for the vaccine.
So it would seem.
Better to let the rest of us get it - then you can take your mask off and stop washing your hands.
Informed. ::)
If you are happy enough to get it - you knock yourself out son.
Yep. Informed.
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 10:23:26 AM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 09:56:55 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 08:38:01 AM
Quote from: Chief on October 22, 2020, 08:55:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 07:32:01 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 22, 2020, 07:22:09 PM
Quote from: ballinaman on October 22, 2020, 07:18:07 PM
For a vaccine to be effective at stopping community transmission , it'll have to be taken by the majority of the population , no ?
I'm alright though Jack, I'm not in an at-risk demographic
Maybe do some research on vaccines in our history and some of the long term health problems they can be attributed to.
I'll take my chances without it. If I catch the virus I will look after myself and following the quarantine procedures.
Do you get the flu vaccine annually?
Question - if your going to "take your chances", will you refuse hospital treatment if things get serious?
Why would one, I have contributed all my life to the NHS through my taxes, why would one refuse hospital treatment, what a ridiculous statement.
Well because that position exposes an inherent hypocrisy in antivax campaigners. They know better, and actively undermine, the health experts up and until they actually get sick, at which point they slavishly throw themselves before the system they claim was spreading falsehoods to begin with, with no regards to those who listened to them up to the end and died as a result.
I don't deny that it is your right to be a hypocrite in the above manner, but get ready to have people call you out, mock you and condemn your quackery when you do.
So you don't smoke, drink, aren't overweight, exercise loads - these are all health experts tips to stay healthy, yet those who do when they become sick slavishly throw themselves before the system - what was the word - ah yeah hypocrite!
You make a sneaky lane shift there but your talking rubbish and trying to deflect.
Most people who smoke, drink, are overweight and/or inactive at least accept the science behind their life choices - there is a degree of hypocrisy I admit in then seeking help if you fall into this category, but that is the type of hypocrisy that is normal in humans, that we are all guilty of, and which is therefore tolerated in any compassionate society that tries help people.
You antivax clowns however fall squarely into the same reprehensible bracket as those who advocate that their is no issue from a health perspective from smoking, drinking, being overweight or inactive. You're peddling falsehoods as science or fact, and as such your hypocrisy is off the scale.
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 11:50:43 AM
You make a sneaky lane shift there but your talking rubbish and trying to deflect.
Most people who smoke, drink, are overweight and/or inactive at least accept the science behind their life choices - there is a degree of hypocrisy I admit in then seeking help if you fall into this category, but that is the type of hypocrisy that is normal in humans, that we are all guilty of, and which is therefore tolerated in any compassionate society that tries help people.
You antivax clowns however fall squarely into the same reprehensible bracket as those who advocate that their is no issue from a health perspective from smoking, drinking, being overweight or inactive. You're peddling falsehoods as science or fact, and as such your hypocrisy is off the scale.
Dear God do you not read what you post, a sneaky lane shift, I am talking rubbish, you then go on to say all humans are hypocrites but this is normal, but not normal when it doesn't suit your narrative, as for the bit in bold that is just of the scale, someone who is making an informed choice is peddling falsehoods as science or fact - tell me are you currently on any medication, or maybe you can't get it because of the lockdown.
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 12:02:47 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 11:50:43 AM
You make a sneaky lane shift there but your talking rubbish and trying to deflect.
Most people who smoke, drink, are overweight and/or inactive at least accept the science behind their life choices - there is a degree of hypocrisy I admit in then seeking help if you fall into this category, but that is the type of hypocrisy that is normal in humans, that we are all guilty of, and which is therefore tolerated in any compassionate society that tries help people.
You antivax clowns however fall squarely into the same reprehensible bracket as those who advocate that their is no issue from a health perspective from smoking, drinking, being overweight or inactive. You're peddling falsehoods as science or fact, and as such your hypocrisy is off the scale.
Dear God do you not read what you post, a sneaky lane shift, I am talking rubbish, you then go on to say all humans are hypocrites but this is normal, but not normal when it doesn't suit your narrative, as for the bit in bold that is just of the scale, someone who is making an informed choice is peddling falsehoods as science or fact - tell me are you currently on any medication, or maybe you can't get it because of the lockdown.
It's not normal level of human operation when your advertised choice goes against the vast majority of scientific opinion and has the potential to harm the health of wider society via your influence on others.
By the way your anti vac opinions aren't informed - they are blindingly stupid. They stand in opposition to hundreds of years of scientific work.
They are idiotic opinions, misinformed if I choose to operate at the very kindest end of the spectrum, but certainly not 'informed' in any credible sense of the word.
The fact you decided to suggest/imply mental health issues in a mocking tone, via your sentence at the end of the last post, reveals all that needs to be said about you really.
Just wondering how many people get polio nowadays?
And wondering how many got before vaccinations started (c1960?).
The 1956 All Irelands were delayed because of a polio outbreak in Cork City that year.
PS God be with the days when we thought Syferus was the worst clown ever on GAAboard.
He was only a novice compared to the 2 we have now.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 23, 2020, 12:23:53 PM
Just wondering how many people get polio nowadays?
And wondering how many got before vaccinations started (c1960?).
The 1956 All Irelands were delayed because of a polio outbreak in Cork City that year.
PS God be with the days when we thought Syferus was the worst clown ever on GAAboard.
He was only a novice compared to the 2 we have now.
If anybody has an 'informed' opinion on how smallpox was eradicated that would be great as well...
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 12:35:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 23, 2020, 12:23:53 PM
Just wondering how many people get polio nowadays?
And wondering how many got before vaccinations started (c1960?).
The 1956 All Irelands were delayed because of a polio outbreak in Cork City that year.
PS God be with the days when we thought Syferus was the worst clown ever on GAAboard.
He was only a novice compared to the 2 we have now.
If anybody has an 'informed' opinion on how smallpox was eradicated that would be great as well...
Or Tetanus, Measles, Rubella, Pneumococcal, Pertussis, Diphtheria... The list goes on.
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 23, 2020, 01:00:57 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 12:35:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 23, 2020, 12:23:53 PM
Just wondering how many people get polio nowadays?
And wondering how many got before vaccinations started (c1960?).
The 1956 All Irelands were delayed because of a polio outbreak in Cork City that year.
PS God be with the days when we thought Syferus was the worst clown ever on GAAboard.
He was only a novice compared to the 2 we have now.
If anybody has an 'informed' opinion on how smallpox was eradicated that would be great as well...
Or Tetanus, Measles, Rubella, Pneumococcal, Pertussis, Diphtheria... The list goes on.
Ah here, stop it with this madness
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 12:10:45 PM
It's not normal level of human operation when your advertised choice goes against the vast majority of scientific opinion and has the potential to harm the health of wider society via your influence on others.
So you want a new vaccine mandatory and if there are side effects, consequences down the line that is ok, be that in the vulnerable who are the first guinea pig, the young, the unborn, new borns, you believe that the potential harm by not getting it trumps the potential harm of getting it?
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 12:10:45 PM
By the way your anti vac opinions aren't informed - they are blindingly stupid. They stand in opposition to hundreds of years of scientific work.
Covid has been around less than a year.
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 12:10:45 PM
They are idiotic opinions, misinformed if I choose to operate at the very kindest end of the spectrum, but certainly not 'informed' in any credible sense of the word.
That is your perception.
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 12:10:45 PM
The fact you decided to suggest/imply mental health issues in a mocking tone, via your sentence at the end of the last post, reveals all that needs to be said about you really.
As opposed to calling folk who differ from your narrative, clowns, gobshites, hypocrites, you couldn't make it up.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 23, 2020, 12:23:53 PM
Just wondering how many people get polio nowadays?
And wondering how many got before vaccinations started (c1960?).
The 1956 All Irelands were delayed because of a polio outbreak in Cork City that year.
PS God be with the days when we thought Syferus was the worst clown ever on GAAboard.
He was only a novice compared to the 2 we have now.
And was that developed and test in a matter of months?
Quote from: thebigfella on October 23, 2020, 10:06:37 AM
Most of the antivax brigade will be fine with homeopathic remedies
Or an untested Russian vaccine
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 12:35:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 23, 2020, 12:23:53 PM
Just wondering how many people get polio nowadays?
And wondering how many got before vaccinations started (c1960?).
The 1956 All Irelands were delayed because of a polio outbreak in Cork City that year.
PS God be with the days when we thought Syferus was the worst clown ever on GAAboard.
He was only a novice compared to the 2 we have now.
If anybody has an 'informed' opinion on how smallpox was eradicated that would be great as well...
Did that one take 6 months to develop?
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 23, 2020, 01:00:57 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 12:35:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 23, 2020, 12:23:53 PM
Just wondering how many people get polio nowadays?
And wondering how many got before vaccinations started (c1960?).
The 1956 All Irelands were delayed because of a polio outbreak in Cork City that year.
PS God be with the days when we thought Syferus was the worst clown ever on GAAboard.
He was only a novice compared to the 2 we have now.
If anybody has an 'informed' opinion on how smallpox was eradicated that would be great as well...
Or Tetanus, Measles, Rubella, Pneumococcal, Pertussis, Diphtheria... The list goes on.
As did the clinical trails before being rolled out!
Pretty decent article here in the Lancet re: first generation covid 19 vaccines.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31976-0/fulltext
I think the crux of the article is that the role of a vaccine (certainly first generation) vaccines is being well overplayed. They may have a small part to play in the overall programme of disease control. Its sobering reading.
As to the question; yes of course I and most people would take the vaccine given that it was suitably approved by the relevant governements and health authorities.
Coincidentally it was the Lancet who published the now descredited article by Andre Wakefield linking autism to the mmr vaccine. He was a right tool.
Quote from: Rossfan on October 23, 2020, 12:23:53 PM
Just wondering how many people get polio nowadays?
And wondering how many got before vaccinations started (c1960?).
The 1956 All Irelands were delayed because of a polio outbreak in Cork City that year.
PS God be with the days when we thought Syferus was the worst clown ever on GAAboard.
He was only a novice compared to the 2 we have now.
Is that a standard reply - so if you were in a pub and someone said they would be unwilling to get the vaccine due to some concerns, would you openly call them a clown or are you nice and safe there behind your keyboard.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2020, 10:20:37 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 10:15:01 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2020, 10:12:07 AM
Quote from: thebigfella on October 23, 2020, 10:06:37 AM
Most of the antivax brigade will be fine with homeopathic remedies
or just hope their immune systems can withstand the virus
And that they don't infect 10 others while waiting to find out.
If the Covid Vaccine uptake is high, this should not present major problems.
We don't all get the flu vaccine, we have a robust and normally widely available flu vaccine, it doesn't prevent spread but it ensures that we have a manageable problem.
Judging by the poll conducted here that's a big if.
And please stop with the flu comparisons. Even those
trying to prove that it's the same as Covid have ended up giving us proof that it isn't.
I'm not necessarily putting you (or anyone else on here - before this descend into anarchy again) in this bracket but there is a weird correlation between those who shout loudest about "living with the disease" and those who oppose any of the measures necessary for us to do so (without killing people).
Would Seaney take the vaccine if it was safe and was given the go ahead by the medical experts that approve these vaccines?
Or just not take it at all? And I don't think its mandatory if it comes about
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 23, 2020, 01:00:57 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 12:35:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 23, 2020, 12:23:53 PM
Just wondering how many people get polio nowadays?
And wondering how many got before vaccinations started (c1960?).
The 1956 All Irelands were delayed because of a polio outbreak in Cork City that year.
PS God be with the days when we thought Syferus was the worst clown ever on GAAboard.
He was only a novice compared to the 2 we have now.
If anybody has an 'informed' opinion on how smallpox was eradicated that would be great as well...
Or Tetanus, Measles, Rubella, Pneumococcal, Pertussis, Diphtheria... The list goes on.
How many people get flu?
Which is Covid more similar to? Flu or those listed above?
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:57:31 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 23, 2020, 01:00:57 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 12:35:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on October 23, 2020, 12:23:53 PM
Just wondering how many people get polio nowadays?
And wondering how many got before vaccinations started (c1960?).
The 1956 All Irelands were delayed because of a polio outbreak in Cork City that year.
PS God be with the days when we thought Syferus was the worst clown ever on GAAboard.
He was only a novice compared to the 2 we have now.
If anybody has an 'informed' opinion on how smallpox was eradicated that would be great as well...
Or Tetanus, Measles, Rubella, Pneumococcal, Pertussis, Diphtheria... The list goes on.
How many people get flu?
Which is Covid more similar to? Flu or those listed above?
Is the thread about taking a vaccine for covid or is flu like covid?
Start another thread on the differences (if any) between the seasonal flu and all year round covid
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 01:26:44 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2020, 10:20:37 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 10:15:01 AM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on October 23, 2020, 10:12:07 AM
Quote from: thebigfella on October 23, 2020, 10:06:37 AM
Most of the antivax brigade will be fine with homeopathic remedies
or just hope their immune systems can withstand the virus
And that they don't infect 10 others while waiting to find out.
If the Covid Vaccine uptake is high, this should not present major problems.
We don't all get the flu vaccine, we have a robust and normally widely available flu vaccine, it doesn't prevent spread but it ensures that we have a manageable problem.
Judging by the poll conducted here that's a big if.
And please stop with the flu comparisons. Even those trying to prove that it's the same as Covid have ended up giving us proof that it isn't.
I'm not necessarily putting you (or anyone else on here - before this descend into anarchy again) in this bracket but there is a weird correlation between those who shout loudest about "living with the disease" and those who oppose any of the measures necessary for us to do so (without killing people).
I do appreciate that it is not flu, I have had it and thankfully at the minute I have recovered but there is growing evidence that you can get it twice. I will still choose not to get the vaccine, I do not fully trust it but I am not prepared to dictate to anyone who chooses to have it or not have it
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
The vulnerable? The flu kills yet how many don't protect the vulnerable by not getting it, not isolating when they have it for 2 weeks.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.
Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?
Yes or no.
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.
Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?
Yes or no.
I've asthma, I get the flu jab every year.
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.
Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?
Yes or no.
Pay for it? strange. At the moment, the free NHS flu programme is for people aged 65 and over, pregnant women, people with certain conditions such as kidney disease, asthma or heart disease and carers or those in care homes. Frontline health and social care workers are also eligible to receive the vaccine
Maybe its changed. But if it hasn't then these are the only ones that will get the jab, if they want it of course
Quote from: trueblue1234 on October 23, 2020, 02:16:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.
Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?
Yes or no.
I've asthma, I get the flu jab every year.
Same
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 02:19:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.
Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?
Yes or no.
Pay for it? strange. At the moment, the free NHS flu programme is for people aged 65 and over, pregnant women, people with certain conditions such as kidney disease, asthma or heart disease and carers or those in care homes. Frontline health and social care workers are also eligible to receive the vaccine
Maybe its changed. But if it hasn't then these are the only ones that will get the jab, if they want it of course
You can pay to get the flu jab if you do not avail a free one.
Do you get the flu jab or not?
Simple question.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 02:19:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.
Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?
Yes or no.
Pay for it? strange. At the moment, the free NHS flu programme is for people aged 65 and over, pregnant women, people with certain conditions such as kidney disease, asthma or heart disease and carers or those in care homes. Frontline health and social care workers are also eligible to receive the vaccine
Maybe its changed. But if it hasn't then these are the only ones that will get the jab, if they want it of course
It can kill, if they don't take it are they to be taken to task.
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:24:21 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 02:19:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.
Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?
Yes or no.
Pay for it? strange. At the moment, the free NHS flu programme is for people aged 65 and over, pregnant women, people with certain conditions such as kidney disease, asthma or heart disease and carers or those in care homes. Frontline health and social care workers are also eligible to receive the vaccine
Maybe its changed. But if it hasn't then these are the only ones that will get the jab, if they want it of course
It can kill, if they don't take it are they to be taken to task.
Indeed. ::)
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
I see the cowards still haven't got the balls to answer this one?
Why do they mouth off and run from a fairly basic question like that? Why do your contradictions frighten you?
Maybe they have all got nose bleeds they are so high up on their moral high horse.
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:26:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
I see the cowards still haven't got the balls to answer this one?
Why do they mouth off and run from a fairly basic question like that? Why do your contradictions frighten you?
When you stop talking and linking Covid to flu..
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 02:28:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:26:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
I see the cowards still haven't got the balls to answer this one?
Why do they mouth off and run from a fairly basic question like that? Why do your contradictions frighten you?
When you stop talking and linking Covid to flu..
You didn't answer the question.
We accept viruses in our society that kill, leave long lasting heath problems and overwhelm the health service, at what point those Covid become as acceptable a risk as those we do very little to counter?
At what point? Or are you too coward to admit to everyone that you couldn't give a toss about those who die from flu?
Do you get the flu vaccine? Yes or no.
A lot of uncomfortable truths here for a guy who is attempting to pontificate to others.
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.
Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?
Yes or no.
Yes. I got it few weeks ago. I got the quadrivalent version because I'm under 65. I encourage everyone who's eligible to do the same.
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 23, 2020, 02:32:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.
Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?
Yes or no.
Yes. I got it few weeks ago. I got the quadrivalent version because I'm under 65. I encourage everyone who's eligible to do the same.
That's fair enough. You are consistent in your position.
But are others?
Milltown is being extremely evasive here. I wonder why that is? He wants to lecture to others about getting a Covid vaccine but doesn't see it as worthwhile doing his bit to stop spreading the flu.
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:35:34 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 23, 2020, 02:32:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.
Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?
Yes or no.
Yes. I got it few weeks ago. I got the quadrivalent version because I'm under 65. I encourage everyone who's eligible to do the same.
That's fair enough. You are consistent in your position.
But are others?
Milltown is being extremely evasive here. I wonder why that is? He wants to lecture to others about getting a Covid vaccine but doesn't see it as worthwhile doing his bit to stop spreading the flu.
Got the flu vaccine yeah. Get it every year even though I'm not in a vulnerable category.
I got it even though it's significantly less contagious than Covid, and is much less likely to overrun the health system than Covid.
All of which makes the argument for getting a Covid vaccine all the stronger
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 02:28:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:26:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
I see the cowards still haven't got the balls to answer this one?
Why do they mouth off and run from a fairly basic question like that? Why do your contradictions frighten you?
When you stop talking and linking Covid to flu..
You didn't answer the question.
We accept viruses in our society that kill, leave long lasting heath problems and overwhelm the health service, at what point those Covid become as acceptable a risk as those we do very little to counter?
At what point? Or are you too coward to admit to everyone that you couldn't give a toss about those who die from flu?
Do you get the flu vaccine? Yes or no.
A lot of uncomfortable truths here for a guy who is attempting to pontificate to others.
I don't fall into the category of the list I put up so there are more important people requiring it than me
I give a toss about everyone's life..
Having vaccinations have saved more lives so its important that a safe vaccine that's approved will be available for all virus's and people at risk
Any other uncomfortable questions on Covid? as thats the flu covered
Sorry, for not getting back sooner, work and all that ;D
as for answering about the vaccine and taking it.. Like I said already, on the original vaccine thread I answered that, first page I think
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 23, 2020, 02:32:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.
Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?
Yes or no.
Yes. I got it few weeks ago. I got the quadrivalent version because I'm under 65. I encourage everyone who's eligible to do the same.
I got it also. Some people get an immune response which can take a day or 2 to get over. I had that the first year I got it but the last 3 or 4 years I've had no reaction at all and thankfully also I've avoided the flu. The flu vaccine is only about 50-60% effective but that's enough to ensure the NHS isn't overwhelmed in a normal year. The Covid vaccine is unlikely to be 100% effective but it should mean if you do get Covid you'll get a much milder dose.
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
When
1) Covid becomes as broadly seasonal as the flu,
2) When it's contagious-ness is reduced to a level similar to flu,
3) When the death rates and hospitalisation rates are similar to flu, and
4) When we have a vaccine like we do for the flu?
Clear enough?
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 02:52:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:35:34 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 23, 2020, 02:32:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.
Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?
Yes or no.
Yes. I got it few weeks ago. I got the quadrivalent version because I'm under 65. I encourage everyone who's eligible to do the same.
That's fair enough. You are consistent in your position.
But are others?
Milltown is being extremely evasive here. I wonder why that is? He wants to lecture to others about getting a Covid vaccine but doesn't see it as worthwhile doing his bit to stop spreading the flu.
Got the flu vaccine yeah. Get it every year even though I'm not in a vulnerable category.
I got it even though it's significantly less contagious than Covid, and is much less likely to overrun the health system than Covid.
All of which makes the argument for getting a Covid vaccine all the stronger
Fair enough, you are consistent.
But all talk that Covid is worse than flu is speculative.
We don't test for flu. Covid is a novel virus.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 02:28:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:26:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
I see the cowards still haven't got the balls to answer this one?
Why do they mouth off and run from a fairly basic question like that? Why do your contradictions frighten you?
When you stop talking and linking Covid to flu..
You didn't answer the question.
We accept viruses in our society that kill, leave long lasting heath problems and overwhelm the health service, at what point those Covid become as acceptable a risk as those we do very little to counter?
At what point? Or are you too coward to admit to everyone that you couldn't give a toss about those who die from flu?
Do you get the flu vaccine? Yes or no.
A lot of uncomfortable truths here for a guy who is attempting to pontificate to others.
I don't fall into the category of the list I put up so there are more important people requiring it than me
I give a toss about everyone's life..
Having vaccinations have saved more lives so its important that a safe vaccine that's approved will be available for all virus's and people at risk
Any other uncomfortable questions on Covid? as thats the flu covered
Sorry, for not getting back sooner, work and all that ;D
as for answering about the vaccine and taking it.. Like I said already, on the original vaccine thread I answered that, first page I think
Not sure if that's a yes or no?
You don't get the flu vaccine? Am I correct in saying that?
Maybe you should if you feel so strongly about protecting vulnerable people and saving lives rather than paying lip service to it?
The flu also kills, the flu also overwhelms the health service, the flu also causes long lasting health problems. Surely that matters something?
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
When
1) Covid becomes as broadly seasonal as the flu,
2) When it's contagious-ness is reduced to a level similar to flu,
3) When the death rates and hospitalisation rates are similar to flu, and
4) When we have a vaccine like we do for the flu?
Clear enough?
Very vague and subjective there
We don't test for flu.
Can you quantify the death rates and hospitalisation rates?
We also know that covid related deaths are overstated, that Covid is classified as the cause of death when nothing suggests it was, there have been a number of examples of this and this has been acknowledged by health authorities and governments.
If we had 400 flu deaths a year, does that mean 400 annual Covid deaths is then deemed acceptable?
We have ramifications of lockdowns, are all these ramifications of lockdowns and the consequences self[-defeating if the damage done is far worse than saving 150 lives from Covid?
These are the questions and discussions we should be having free from hysterics and misrepresentations.
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:10:49 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
When
1) Covid becomes as broadly seasonal as the flu,
2) When it's contagious-ness is reduced to a level similar to flu,
3) When the death rates and hospitalisation rates are similar to flu, and
4) When we have a vaccine like we do for the flu?
Clear enough?
Very vague and subjective there
We don't test for flu.
Can you quantify the death rates and hospitalisation rates?
We also know that covid related deaths are overstated, that Covid is classified as the cause of death when nothing suggests it was, there have been a number of examples of this and this has been acknowledged by health authorities and governments.
If we had 400 flu deaths a year, does that mean 400 annual Covid deaths is then deemed acceptable?
We have ramifications of lockdowns, are all these ramifications of lockdowns and the consequences self[-defeating if the damage done is far worse than saving 150 lives from Covid?
These are the questions and discussions we should be having free from hysterics and misrepresentations.
A vaccine would reduce the need for lockdowns and all the collateral damage cause - a great reason to take a vaccine
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:01:12 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 02:52:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:35:34 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on October 23, 2020, 02:32:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:03:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 01:58:24 PM
Do all the people here who voted yes get their annual flu jab?
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
Anyone can get it but they some might get it for free whereas others pay. I'm open to correction on this.
Now, back to the questions. Those who voted yes and who seem to pushing their views that others should be getting a Covid vaccine when (more likely if) it comes on stream, do you get your annual flu jab?
Yes or no.
Yes. I got it few weeks ago. I got the quadrivalent version because I'm under 65. I encourage everyone who's eligible to do the same.
That's fair enough. You are consistent in your position.
But are others?
Milltown is being extremely evasive here. I wonder why that is? He wants to lecture to others about getting a Covid vaccine but doesn't see it as worthwhile doing his bit to stop spreading the flu.
Got the flu vaccine yeah. Get it every year even though I'm not in a vulnerable category.
I got it even though it's significantly less contagious than Covid, and is much less likely to overrun the health system than Covid.
All of which makes the argument for getting a Covid vaccine all the stronger
Fair enough, you are consistent.
But all talk that Covid is worse than flu is speculative.
We don't test for flu. Covid is a novel virus.
See this is where you prove that debate is not what you are looking for. You just enjoy the process of arguing.
You posted data
yourself which proved that covid had killed twice as many people in 10 months (while severe restrictions were in place) as the flu did in a year.
Yet a couple of days later you say the above.
There's no point in debating or reasoning in a genuine way with someone who behaves like this.
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 03:23:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:10:49 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
When
1) Covid becomes as broadly seasonal as the flu,
2) When it's contagious-ness is reduced to a level similar to flu,
3) When the death rates and hospitalisation rates are similar to flu, and
4) When we have a vaccine like we do for the flu?
Clear enough?
Very vague and subjective there
We don't test for flu.
Can you quantify the death rates and hospitalisation rates?
We also know that covid related deaths are overstated, that Covid is classified as the cause of death when nothing suggests it was, there have been a number of examples of this and this has been acknowledged by health authorities and governments.
If we had 400 flu deaths a year, does that mean 400 annual Covid deaths is then deemed acceptable?
We have ramifications of lockdowns, are all these ramifications of lockdowns and the consequences self[-defeating if the damage done is far worse than saving 150 lives from Covid?
These are the questions and discussions we should be having free from hysterics and misrepresentations.
A vaccine would reduce the need for lockdowns and all the collateral damage cause - a great reason to take a vaccine
Flu vaccines aren't mandatory, the uptake of them is limited, think it might be under 20% of the population.
There is no data that disproves or proves Covid is worse than flu, as much as some would like to mislead.
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:04:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 02:28:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:26:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
I see the cowards still haven't got the balls to answer this one?
Why do they mouth off and run from a fairly basic question like that? Why do your contradictions frighten you?
When you stop talking and linking Covid to flu..
You didn't answer the question.
We accept viruses in our society that kill, leave long lasting heath problems and overwhelm the health service, at what point those Covid become as acceptable a risk as those we do very little to counter?
At what point? Or are you too coward to admit to everyone that you couldn't give a toss about those who die from flu?
Do you get the flu vaccine? Yes or no.
A lot of uncomfortable truths here for a guy who is attempting to pontificate to others.
I don't fall into the category of the list I put up so there are more important people requiring it than me
I give a toss about everyone's life..
Having vaccinations have saved more lives so its important that a safe vaccine that's approved will be available for all virus's and people at risk
Any other uncomfortable questions on Covid? as thats the flu covered
Sorry, for not getting back sooner, work and all that ;D
as for answering about the vaccine and taking it.. Like I said already, on the original vaccine thread I answered that, first page I think
Not sure if that's a yes or no?
You don't get the flu vaccine? Am I correct in saying that?
Maybe you should if you feel so strongly about protecting vulnerable people and saving lives rather than paying lip service to it?
The flu also kills, the flu also overwhelms the health service, the flu also causes long lasting health problems. Surely that matters something?
Why should I get it if I don't fall into those areas I've explained? I've had the flu once, no lasting health problems since it..
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 03:24:33 PM
See this is where you prove that debate is not what you are looking for. You just enjoy the process of arguing.
You posted data yourself which proved that covid had killed twice as many people in 10 months (while severe restrictions were in place) as the flu did in a year.
Yet a couple of days later you say the above.
There's no point in debating or reasoning in a genuine way with someone who behaves like this.
I have not.
I corrected you when you were assertively making claims that simply cannot be verified.
We simply do not know if Covid is worse than flu. It is impossible to say but it has not stopped a blowhard like you assertively saying otherwise.
We do not test for flu, we have countless examples of Covid deaths being overstated.
We had the WHO come out last month estimating 10% of the world has contracted Covid which would at that point have given us a fatality rate of 0.13% - possibly less due to the no of Covid deaths we overstate.
The WHO speculates that flu causes 250,000 - 500,000 deaths every year, that flu has a mortality rate of 0.1%.
Flu is seasonal, the first wave of Covid deaths seem to have been outliers with health services caught on the top and another number of mitigating reasons, since then we can see that death rates have fallen in double digit multiples.
These are important things we should discuss objectively without certain people like yourself, making completely unverified claims that cannot be known and attempting to bully, ridicule and insult those who have a differing viewpoint.
You can be mature about this or you can continue to act like a child when you don't like a grounded debate that pokes holes in some of your blinkered thinking.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 03:33:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:04:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 02:56:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:31:34 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 02:28:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:26:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
I see the cowards still haven't got the balls to answer this one?
Why do they mouth off and run from a fairly basic question like that? Why do your contradictions frighten you?
When you stop talking and linking Covid to flu..
You didn't answer the question.
We accept viruses in our society that kill, leave long lasting heath problems and overwhelm the health service, at what point those Covid become as acceptable a risk as those we do very little to counter?
At what point? Or are you too coward to admit to everyone that you couldn't give a toss about those who die from flu?
Do you get the flu vaccine? Yes or no.
A lot of uncomfortable truths here for a guy who is attempting to pontificate to others.
I don't fall into the category of the list I put up so there are more important people requiring it than me
I give a toss about everyone's life..
Having vaccinations have saved more lives so its important that a safe vaccine that's approved will be available for all virus's and people at risk
Any other uncomfortable questions on Covid? as thats the flu covered
Sorry, for not getting back sooner, work and all that ;D
as for answering about the vaccine and taking it.. Like I said already, on the original vaccine thread I answered that, first page I think
Not sure if that's a yes or no?
You don't get the flu vaccine? Am I correct in saying that?
Maybe you should if you feel so strongly about protecting vulnerable people and saving lives rather than paying lip service to it?
The flu also kills, the flu also overwhelms the health service, the flu also causes long lasting health problems. Surely that matters something?
Why should I get it if I don't fall into those areas I've explained? I've had the flu once, no lasting health problems since it..
So presumably you would have no issue with anyone opting against getting a Covid vaccine?
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:35:45 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 03:24:33 PM
See this is where you prove that debate is not what you are looking for. You just enjoy the process of arguing.
You posted data yourself which proved that covid had killed twice as many people in 10 months (while severe restrictions were in place) as the flu did in a year.
Yet a couple of days later you say the above.
There's no point in debating or reasoning in a genuine way with someone who behaves like this.
I have not.
I corrected you when you were assertively making claims that simply cannot be verified.
We simply do not know if Covid is worse than flu. It is impossible to say but it has not stopped a blowhard like you assertively saying otherwise.
We do not test for flu, we have countless examples of Covid deaths being overstated.
We had the WHO come out last month estimating 10% of the world has contracted Covid which would at that point have given us a fatality rate of 0.13% - possibly less due to the no of Covid deaths we overstate.
The WHO speculates that flu causes 250,000 - 500,000 deaths every year, that flu has a mortality rate of 0.1%.
Flu is seasonal, the first wave of Covid deaths seem to have been outliers with health services caught on the top and another number of mitigating reasons, since then we can see that death rates have fallen in double digit multiples.
These are important things we should discuss objectively without certain people like yourself, making completely unverified claims that cannot be known and attempting to bully, ridicule and insult those who have a differing viewpoint.
You can be mature about this or you can continue to act like a child when you don't like a grounded debate that pokes holes in some of your blinkered thinking.
And, like clockwork, you go and prove me right.
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 03:43:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:35:45 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 03:24:33 PM
See this is where you prove that debate is not what you are looking for. You just enjoy the process of arguing.
You posted data yourself which proved that covid had killed twice as many people in 10 months (while severe restrictions were in place) as the flu did in a year.
Yet a couple of days later you say the above.
There's no point in debating or reasoning in a genuine way with someone who behaves like this.
I have not.
I corrected you when you were assertively making claims that simply cannot be verified.
We simply do not know if Covid is worse than flu. It is impossible to say but it has not stopped a blowhard like you assertively saying otherwise.
We do not test for flu, we have countless examples of Covid deaths being overstated.
We had the WHO come out last month estimating 10% of the world has contracted Covid which would at that point have given us a fatality rate of 0.13% - possibly less due to the no of Covid deaths we overstate.
The WHO speculates that flu causes 250,000 - 500,000 deaths every year, that flu has a mortality rate of 0.1%.
Flu is seasonal, the first wave of Covid deaths seem to have been outliers with health services caught on the top and another number of mitigating reasons, since then we can see that death rates have fallen in double digit multiples.
These are important things we should discuss objectively without certain people like yourself, making completely unverified claims that cannot be known and attempting to bully, ridicule and insult those who have a differing viewpoint.
You can be mature about this or you can continue to act like a child when you don't like a grounded debate that pokes holes in some of your blinkered thinking.
And, like clockwork, you go and prove me right.
The opportunity was there and my words have been proven prophetic.
There was plenty there you could have tried to discuss like an adult but that sort of maturity is above you.
Your main contributions are to assertively claim something that is impossible to conclude and when challenged on that you behave like a child.
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:46:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 03:43:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:35:45 PM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 03:24:33 PM
See this is where you prove that debate is not what you are looking for. You just enjoy the process of arguing.
You posted data yourself which proved that covid had killed twice as many people in 10 months (while severe restrictions were in place) as the flu did in a year.
Yet a couple of days later you say the above.
There's no point in debating or reasoning in a genuine way with someone who behaves like this.
I have not.
I corrected you when you were assertively making claims that simply cannot be verified.
We simply do not know if Covid is worse than flu. It is impossible to say but it has not stopped a blowhard like you assertively saying otherwise.
We do not test for flu, we have countless examples of Covid deaths being overstated.
We had the WHO come out last month estimating 10% of the world has contracted Covid which would at that point have given us a fatality rate of 0.13% - possibly less due to the no of Covid deaths we overstate.
The WHO speculates that flu causes 250,000 - 500,000 deaths every year, that flu has a mortality rate of 0.1%.
Flu is seasonal, the first wave of Covid deaths seem to have been outliers with health services caught on the top and another number of mitigating reasons, since then we can see that death rates have fallen in double digit multiples.
These are important things we should discuss objectively without certain people like yourself, making completely unverified claims that cannot be known and attempting to bully, ridicule and insult those who have a differing viewpoint.
You can be mature about this or you can continue to act like a child when you don't like a grounded debate that pokes holes in some of your blinkered thinking.
And, like clockwork, you go and prove me right.
The opportunity was there and my words have been proven prophetic.
There was plenty there you could have tried to discuss like an adult but that sort of maturity is above you.
Your main contributions are to assertively claim something that is impossible to conclude and when challenged on that you behave like a child.
And again.
I love when Angelo calls somebody else a blowhard
It's like when Trump accuses somebody else of being a liar
It's very funny, totally unintentionally so of course
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:26:57 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 03:23:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:10:49 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
When
1) Covid becomes as broadly seasonal as the flu,
2) When it's contagious-ness is reduced to a level similar to flu,
3) When the death rates and hospitalisation rates are similar to flu, and
4) When we have a vaccine like we do for the flu?
Clear enough?
Very vague and subjective there
We don't test for flu.
Can you quantify the death rates and hospitalisation rates?
We also know that covid related deaths are overstated, that Covid is classified as the cause of death when nothing suggests it was, there have been a number of examples of this and this has been acknowledged by health authorities and governments.
If we had 400 flu deaths a year, does that mean 400 annual Covid deaths is then deemed acceptable?
We have ramifications of lockdowns, are all these ramifications of lockdowns and the consequences self[-defeating if the damage done is far worse than saving 150 lives from Covid?
These are the questions and discussions we should be having free from hysterics and misrepresentations.
A vaccine would reduce the need for lockdowns and all the collateral damage cause - a great reason to take a vaccine
Flu vaccines aren't mandatory, the uptake of them is limited, think it might be under 20% of the population.
There is no data that disproves or proves Covid is worse than flu, as much as some would like to mislead.
No data apart from the data that shows that Covid is about 5 times more lethal than flu.
https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vs-flu-deaths-hospitalized-patients.html
Quote from: lenny on October 23, 2020, 03:57:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:26:57 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 03:23:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:10:49 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
When
1) Covid becomes as broadly seasonal as the flu,
2) When it's contagious-ness is reduced to a level similar to flu,
3) When the death rates and hospitalisation rates are similar to flu, and
4) When we have a vaccine like we do for the flu?
Clear enough?
Very vague and subjective there
We don't test for flu.
Can you quantify the death rates and hospitalisation rates?
We also know that covid related deaths are overstated, that Covid is classified as the cause of death when nothing suggests it was, there have been a number of examples of this and this has been acknowledged by health authorities and governments.
If we had 400 flu deaths a year, does that mean 400 annual Covid deaths is then deemed acceptable?
We have ramifications of lockdowns, are all these ramifications of lockdowns and the consequences self[-defeating if the damage done is far worse than saving 150 lives from Covid?
These are the questions and discussions we should be having free from hysterics and misrepresentations.
A vaccine would reduce the need for lockdowns and all the collateral damage cause - a great reason to take a vaccine
Flu vaccines aren't mandatory, the uptake of them is limited, think it might be under 20% of the population.
There is no data that disproves or proves Covid is worse than flu, as much as some would like to mislead.
No data apart from the data that shows that Covid is about 5 times more lethal than flu.
https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vs-flu-deaths-hospitalized-patients.html
So to close the circle here Angelo, and to answer your question (again) when Covid is about 5 times less deadly we can treat it as an "acceptable" risk to society.
In the interim we should get vaccines when they are ready so we can avoid the virus, and/or lockdowns and all the collateral damage that goes with them.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
I get it every year, I don't have asthma or any underlying conditions.
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 23, 2020, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
I get it every year, I don't have asthma or any underlying conditions.
Why?
And I'm not saying it's a bad thing or wrong, the text I put up came from the NHS website.
mate of mine got it last week and I asked her why and she said I dunno was offered it at work. She works in hospital.
I'd a patient in the other day, aged 78, underlying conditions and has been waiting on getting the jab 4 weeks they told him there's a shortage
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 03:56:29 PM
I love when Angelo calls somebody else a blowhard
It's like when Trump accuses somebody else of being a liar
It's very funny, totally unintentionally so of course
You have a mental illness where you have to bring everything back to American politics and left wing/right wing nonsense nobody cares about.
Yawn.
As long as we don't bring it back to flu ;D
Quote from: lenny on October 23, 2020, 03:57:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:26:57 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 03:23:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:10:49 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
When
1) Covid becomes as broadly seasonal as the flu,
2) When it's contagious-ness is reduced to a level similar to flu,
3) When the death rates and hospitalisation rates are similar to flu, and
4) When we have a vaccine like we do for the flu?
Clear enough?
Very vague and subjective there
We don't test for flu.
Can you quantify the death rates and hospitalisation rates?
We also know that covid related deaths are overstated, that Covid is classified as the cause of death when nothing suggests it was, there have been a number of examples of this and this has been acknowledged by health authorities and governments.
If we had 400 flu deaths a year, does that mean 400 annual Covid deaths is then deemed acceptable?
We have ramifications of lockdowns, are all these ramifications of lockdowns and the consequences self[-defeating if the damage done is far worse than saving 150 lives from Covid?
These are the questions and discussions we should be having free from hysterics and misrepresentations.
A vaccine would reduce the need for lockdowns and all the collateral damage cause - a great reason to take a vaccine
Flu vaccines aren't mandatory, the uptake of them is limited, think it might be under 20% of the population.
There is no data that disproves or proves Covid is worse than flu, as much as some would like to mislead.
No data apart from the data that shows that Covid is about 5 times more lethal than flu.
https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vs-flu-deaths-hospitalized-patients.html
Any data that makes claims like that is completely misleading.
We have no way of telling whether Covid is worse than flu or not so anyone stating other is not being truthful.
- We don't test for flu
- We know Covid deaths have been overstated when Covid was not the cause
- Covid is a novel virus and the first wave was likely an outlier and caught health services on the hop
To conclude that Covid is worse than flu or isn't is not possible yet so we should be mindful of stating this assertively.
Is it worse than malaria?
I'm bored of the flu
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 07:39:55 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 03:56:29 PM
I love when Angelo calls somebody else a blowhard
It's like when Trump accuses somebody else of being a liar
It's very funny, totally unintentionally so of course
You have a mental illness where you have to bring everything back to American politics and left wing/right wing nonsense nobody cares about.
Yawn.
Lolz
Accusing me of having a mental illness now
You've really revealed what sort of a person you are here, haven't you
Your last couple of of days on the forum has been nothing but a tirade of unprompted personal abuse against others
You know you have somebody's number big time when they're reduced to that
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 06:53:37 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 23, 2020, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
I get it every year, I don't have asthma or any underlying conditions.
Why?
And I'm not saying it's a bad thing or wrong, the text I put up came from the NHS website.
mate of mine got it last week and I asked her why and she said I dunno was offered it at work. She works in hospital.
I'd a patient in the other day, aged 78, underlying conditions and has been waiting on getting the jab 4 weeks they told him there's a shortage
Get it through work. The reason I get the vaccine is so I won't get the flu. If more people got the vaccine, less people would get the flu
Haven't got it yet this year but booked into the GP for mid Nov
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 08:20:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 07:39:55 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 03:56:29 PM
I love when Angelo calls somebody else a blowhard
It's like when Trump accuses somebody else of being a liar
It's very funny, totally unintentionally so of course
You have a mental illness where you have to bring everything back to American politics and left wing/right wing nonsense nobody cares about.
Yawn.
Lolz
Accusing me of having a mental illness now
You've really revealed what sort of a person you are here, haven't you
Your last couple of of days on the forum has been nothing but a tirade of unprompted personal abuse against others
You know you have somebody's number big time when they're reduced to that
Accusation? More like an observation. Your obsession with turning every single conversation into American politics and left wing/right wing is a clear sign of an unhinged headbanger. Couldn't give a toss about American politics but I find it bizarre how a political figure across the Atlantic lives rent free in your head when he should have no daily impact on your life. It's just plain weird.
I'll respond fire with fire, you have made plenty of below the belt remarks on here so if you can't handle it then don't dish it out.. All you have done in this thread is try and twist people's words, time and time again you have tried to put words in people's mouths, to misrepresent their views and when you've been called to task on that you've acted like a shitbag. When you have to resort to misrepresenting views, then we know you don't have much confidence in your argument.
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 23, 2020, 08:27:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 06:53:37 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 23, 2020, 04:30:56 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on October 23, 2020, 01:59:29 PM
You only get the flu jab if you fall into a certain category I think
I get it every year, I don't have asthma or any underlying conditions.
Why?
And I'm not saying it's a bad thing or wrong, the text I put up came from the NHS website.
mate of mine got it last week and I asked her why and she said I dunno was offered it at work. She works in hospital.
I'd a patient in the other day, aged 78, underlying conditions and has been waiting on getting the jab 4 weeks they told him there's a shortage
Get it through work. The reason I get the vaccine is so I won't get the flu. If more people got the vaccine, less people would get the flu
Haven't got it yet this year but booked into the GP for mid Nov
Dead on, I'd need to be registered with a gp then, haven't been at one since my late teens!
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 08:35:26 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 08:20:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 07:39:55 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 03:56:29 PM
I love when Angelo calls somebody else a blowhard
It's like when Trump accuses somebody else of being a liar
It's very funny, totally unintentionally so of course
You have a mental illness where you have to bring everything back to American politics and left wing/right wing nonsense nobody cares about.
Yawn.
Lolz
Accusing me of having a mental illness now
You've really revealed what sort of a person you are here, haven't you
Your last couple of of days on the forum has been nothing but a tirade of unprompted personal abuse against others
You know you have somebody's number big time when they're reduced to that
Accusation? More like an observation. Your obsession with turning every single conversation into American politics and left wing/right wing is a clear sign of an unhinged headbanger. Couldn't give a toss about American politics but I find it bizarre how a political figure across the Atlantic lives rent free in your head when he should have no daily impact on your life. It's just plain weird.
I'll respond fire with fire, you have made plenty of below the belt remarks on here so if you can't handle it then don't dish it out.. All you have done in this thread is try and twist people's words, time and time again you have tried to put words in people's mouths, to misrepresent their views and when you've been called to task on that you've acted like a shitbag. When you have to resort to misrepresenting views, then we know you don't have much confidence in your argument.
I hope you don't behave in real life like you behave on here because you wouldn't be long getting a puck around the head, and rightly so
You're full of shit
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 07:48:47 PM
Quote from: lenny on October 23, 2020, 03:57:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:26:57 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 03:23:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:10:49 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
When
1) Covid becomes as broadly seasonal as the flu,
2) When it's contagious-ness is reduced to a level similar to flu,
3) When the death rates and hospitalisation rates are similar to flu, and
4) When we have a vaccine like we do for the flu?
Clear enough?
Very vague and subjective there
We don't test for flu.
Can you quantify the death rates and hospitalisation rates?
We also know that covid related deaths are overstated, that Covid is classified as the cause of death when nothing suggests it was, there have been a number of examples of this and this has been acknowledged by health authorities and governments.
If we had 400 flu deaths a year, does that mean 400 annual Covid deaths is then deemed acceptable?
We have ramifications of lockdowns, are all these ramifications of lockdowns and the consequences self[-defeating if the damage done is far worse than saving 150 lives from Covid?
These are the questions and discussions we should be having free from hysterics and misrepresentations.
A vaccine would reduce the need for lockdowns and all the collateral damage cause - a great reason to take a vaccine
Flu vaccines aren't mandatory, the uptake of them is limited, think it might be under 20% of the population.
There is no data that disproves or proves Covid is worse than flu, as much as some would like to mislead.
No data apart from the data that shows that Covid is about 5 times more lethal than flu.
https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vs-flu-deaths-hospitalized-patients.html
Any data that makes claims like that is completely misleading.
We have no way of telling whether Covid is worse than flu or not so anyone stating other is not being truthful.
- We don't test for flu
- We know Covid deaths have been overstated when Covid was not the cause
- Covid is a novel virus and the first wave was likely an outlier and caught health services on the hop
To conclude that Covid is worse than flu or isn't is not possible yet so we should be mindful of stating this assertively.
Lol, so you're saying the scientists who've produced that report haven't really thought it through or don't really understand what they're talking about. And that you know better. Very good.
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 08:35:26 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 08:20:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 07:39:55 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 03:56:29 PM
I love when Angelo calls somebody else a blowhard
It's like when Trump accuses somebody else of being a liar
It's very funny, totally unintentionally so of course
You have a mental illness where you have to bring everything back to American politics and left wing/right wing nonsense nobody cares about.
Yawn.
Lolz
Accusing me of having a mental illness now
You've really revealed what sort of a person you are here, haven't you
Your last couple of of days on the forum has been nothing but a tirade of unprompted personal abuse against others
You know you have somebody's number big time when they're reduced to that
Accusation? More like an observation. Your obsession with turning every single conversation into American politics and left wing/right wing is a clear sign of an unhinged headbanger. Couldn't give a toss about American politics but I find it bizarre how a political figure across the Atlantic lives rent free in your head when he should have no daily impact on your life. It's just plain weird.
I'll respond fire with fire, you have made plenty of below the belt remarks on here so if you can't handle it then don't dish it out.. All you have done in this thread is try and twist people's words, time and time again you have tried to put words in people's mouths, to misrepresent their views and when you've been called to task on that you've acted like a shitbag. When you have to resort to misrepresenting views, then we know you don't have much confidence in your argument.
I hope you don't behave in real life like you behave on here because you wouldn't be long getting a puck around the head, and rightly so
You're full of shit
A puck around the head, your getting violent now Sid. So basically Angelo is antagonistic so he deserves a puck in the head. Whatever suits your narrative, the irony. I doubt it's you that full of shit.
Quote from: lenny on October 23, 2020, 08:44:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 07:48:47 PM
Quote from: lenny on October 23, 2020, 03:57:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:26:57 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 03:23:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 03:10:49 PM
Quote from: Chief on October 23, 2020, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 02:05:34 PM
Don't hold your breath for an answer.
None of those zealots have had the courage to answer me a question about when Covid becomes an acceptable risk to society like we accept seasonal flu?
It seems it doesn't matter if you die from flu. Tough luck seems to be their outlook. They are too thick to see the woods from the trees.
When
1) Covid becomes as broadly seasonal as the flu,
2) When it's contagious-ness is reduced to a level similar to flu,
3) When the death rates and hospitalisation rates are similar to flu, and
4) When we have a vaccine like we do for the flu?
Clear enough?
Very vague and subjective there
We don't test for flu.
Can you quantify the death rates and hospitalisation rates?
We also know that covid related deaths are overstated, that Covid is classified as the cause of death when nothing suggests it was, there have been a number of examples of this and this has been acknowledged by health authorities and governments.
If we had 400 flu deaths a year, does that mean 400 annual Covid deaths is then deemed acceptable?
We have ramifications of lockdowns, are all these ramifications of lockdowns and the consequences self[-defeating if the damage done is far worse than saving 150 lives from Covid?
These are the questions and discussions we should be having free from hysterics and misrepresentations.
A vaccine would reduce the need for lockdowns and all the collateral damage cause - a great reason to take a vaccine
Flu vaccines aren't mandatory, the uptake of them is limited, think it might be under 20% of the population.
There is no data that disproves or proves Covid is worse than flu, as much as some would like to mislead.
No data apart from the data that shows that Covid is about 5 times more lethal than flu.
https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vs-flu-deaths-hospitalized-patients.html
Any data that makes claims like that is completely misleading.
We have no way of telling whether Covid is worse than flu or not so anyone stating other is not being truthful.
- We don't test for flu
- We know Covid deaths have been overstated when Covid was not the cause
- Covid is a novel virus and the first wave was likely an outlier and caught health services on the hop
To conclude that Covid is worse than flu or isn't is not possible yet so we should be mindful of stating this assertively.
Lol, so you're saying the scientists who've produced that report haven't really thought it through or don't really understand what they're talking about. And that you know better. Very good.
Yes.
Scientists regularly produce reports that are completely at odds with other scientists. So how can both be right?
Are you naive enough to think any report issued by scientists is correct?
It's impossible to say one way or another about it yet and science has been completely mugged off by Covid so far. They still can't tell us the fundamentals.
Quote from: Rudi on October 23, 2020, 08:53:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 08:35:26 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 08:20:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 07:39:55 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 03:56:29 PM
I love when Angelo calls somebody else a blowhard
It's like when Trump accuses somebody else of being a liar
It's very funny, totally unintentionally so of course
You have a mental illness where you have to bring everything back to American politics and left wing/right wing nonsense nobody cares about.
Yawn.
Lolz
Accusing me of having a mental illness now
You've really revealed what sort of a person you are here, haven't you
Your last couple of of days on the forum has been nothing but a tirade of unprompted personal abuse against others
You know you have somebody's number big time when they're reduced to that
Accusation? More like an observation. Your obsession with turning every single conversation into American politics and left wing/right wing is a clear sign of an unhinged headbanger. Couldn't give a toss about American politics but I find it bizarre how a political figure across the Atlantic lives rent free in your head when he should have no daily impact on your life. It's just plain weird.
I'll respond fire with fire, you have made plenty of below the belt remarks on here so if you can't handle it then don't dish it out.. All you have done in this thread is try and twist people's words, time and time again you have tried to put words in people's mouths, to misrepresent their views and when you've been called to task on that you've acted like a shitbag. When you have to resort to misrepresenting views, then we know you don't have much confidence in your argument.
I hope you don't behave in real life like you behave on here because you wouldn't be long getting a puck around the head, and rightly so
You're full of shit
A puck around the head, your getting violent now Sid. So basically Angelo is antagonistic so he deserves a puck in the head. Whatever suits your narrative, the irony. I doubt it's you that full of shit.
I agree, it's certainly not me that's full of shit, it's not the way I was brought up
Where I grew up, you'd absolutely get a puck around the head for the sort of nonsense you and your mate Angelo engage in
I'm quite old school in many ways and that enables me to see right through pathetic, preening, narcissistic, misogynistic gobshites like you who have nothing to contribute except sad, self-pitying trolling
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 09:02:10 PM
Quote from: Rudi on October 23, 2020, 08:53:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 08:35:26 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 08:20:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 07:39:55 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 03:56:29 PM
I love when Angelo calls somebody else a blowhard
It's like when Trump accuses somebody else of being a liar
It's very funny, totally unintentionally so of course
You have a mental illness where you have to bring everything back to American politics and left wing/right wing nonsense nobody cares about.
Yawn.
Lolz
Accusing me of having a mental illness now
You've really revealed what sort of a person you are here, haven't you
Your last couple of of days on the forum has been nothing but a tirade of unprompted personal abuse against others
You know you have somebody's number big time when they're reduced to that
Accusation? More like an observation. Your obsession with turning every single conversation into American politics and left wing/right wing is a clear sign of an unhinged headbanger. Couldn't give a toss about American politics but I find it bizarre how a political figure across the Atlantic lives rent free in your head when he should have no daily impact on your life. It's just plain weird.
I'll respond fire with fire, you have made plenty of below the belt remarks on here so if you can't handle it then don't dish it out.. All you have done in this thread is try and twist people's words, time and time again you have tried to put words in people's mouths, to misrepresent their views and when you've been called to task on that you've acted like a shitbag. When you have to resort to misrepresenting views, then we know you don't have much confidence in your argument.
I hope you don't behave in real life like you behave on here because you wouldn't be long getting a puck around the head, and rightly so
You're full of shit
A puck around the head, your getting violent now Sid. So basically Angelo is antagonistic so he deserves a puck in the head. Whatever suits your narrative, the irony. I doubt it's you that full of shit.
I agree, it's certainly not me that's full of shit, it's not the way I was brought up
Where I grew up, you'd absolutely get a puck around the head for the sort of nonsense you and your mate Angelo engage in
I'm quite old school in many ways and that enables me to see right through pathetic, preening, narcissistic, misogynistic gobshites like you who have nothing to contribute except sad, self-pitying trolling
Your getting nasty now I was your mate in a previous post, now I'm Angelo's mate. Jesus wept. Your turning into a hard man, doesn't suit ya. Regarding trolling have been on gaaboard for 15 years I think, I have under 900 posts, I dont comment anywhere else on social media.
If a vaccine becomes available, given the current circumstances, I'll have no hesitation in getting it. A roll of the dice, but even that is better than the current situation of cyclical lockdowns, and extremely limited social interaction.
Quote from: Rudi on October 23, 2020, 09:13:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 09:02:10 PM
Quote from: Rudi on October 23, 2020, 08:53:01 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 08:38:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 08:35:26 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 08:20:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on October 23, 2020, 07:39:55 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 23, 2020, 03:56:29 PM
I love when Angelo calls somebody else a blowhard
It's like when Trump accuses somebody else of being a liar
It's very funny, totally unintentionally so of course
You have a mental illness where you have to bring everything back to American politics and left wing/right wing nonsense nobody cares about.
Yawn.
Lolz
Accusing me of having a mental illness now
You've really revealed what sort of a person you are here, haven't you
Your last couple of of days on the forum has been nothing but a tirade of unprompted personal abuse against others
You know you have somebody's number big time when they're reduced to that
Accusation? More like an observation. Your obsession with turning every single conversation into American politics and left wing/right wing is a clear sign of an unhinged headbanger. Couldn't give a toss about American politics but I find it bizarre how a political figure across the Atlantic lives rent free in your head when he should have no daily impact on your life. It's just plain weird.
I'll respond fire with fire, you have made plenty of below the belt remarks on here so if you can't handle it then don't dish it out.. All you have done in this thread is try and twist people's words, time and time again you have tried to put words in people's mouths, to misrepresent their views and when you've been called to task on that you've acted like a shitbag. When you have to resort to misrepresenting views, then we know you don't have much confidence in your argument.
I hope you don't behave in real life like you behave on here because you wouldn't be long getting a puck around the head, and rightly so
You're full of shit
A puck around the head, your getting violent now Sid. So basically Angelo is antagonistic so he deserves a puck in the head. Whatever suits your narrative, the irony. I doubt it's you that full of shit.
I agree, it's certainly not me that's full of shit, it's not the way I was brought up
Where I grew up, you'd absolutely get a puck around the head for the sort of nonsense you and your mate Angelo engage in
I'm quite old school in many ways and that enables me to see right through pathetic, preening, narcissistic, misogynistic gobshites like you who have nothing to contribute except sad, self-pitying trolling
Your getting nasty now I was your mate in a previous post, now I'm Angelo's mate. Jesus wept. Your turning into a hard man, doesn't suit ya. Regarding trolling have been on gaaboard for 15 years I think, I have under 900 posts, I dont comment anywhere else on social media.
I'm not the person blaming a peaceful protestor for being assaulted by a fascist, you are
Hard man, troll, eh
Quote from: balladmaker on October 23, 2020, 09:17:22 PM
If a vaccine becomes available, given the current circumstances, I'll have no hesitation in getting it. A roll of the dice, but even that is better than the current situation of cyclical lockdowns, and extremely limited social interaction.
Would certainly reduce the mental issues, the domestic abuse, the loss of jobs, the missed operations, Missed social interaction and all those other problems some posters were complaining about that's been caused lately.
No brainier when you put it like that
Quote from: balladmaker on October 23, 2020, 09:17:22 PM
If a vaccine becomes available, given the current circumstances, I'll have no hesitation in getting it. A roll of the dice, but even that is better than the current situation of cyclical lockdowns, and extremely limited social interaction.
Balladmaker, I work in this area. It's not a roll of the dice whatsoever, the risk is literally miniscule
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 24, 2020, 02:30:17 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 23, 2020, 09:17:22 PM
If a vaccine becomes available, given the current circumstances, I'll have no hesitation in getting it. A roll of the dice, but even that is better than the current situation of cyclical lockdowns, and extremely limited social interaction.
Balladmaker, I work in this area. It's not a roll of the dice whatsoever, the risk is literally miniscule
That's me sold!
Quote from: Seaney on October 24, 2020, 09:18:58 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 24, 2020, 02:30:17 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 23, 2020, 09:17:22 PM
If a vaccine becomes available, given the current circumstances, I'll have no hesitation in getting it. A roll of the dice, but even that is better than the current situation of cyclical lockdowns, and extremely limited social interaction.
Balladmaker, I work in this area. It's not a roll of the dice whatsoever, the risk is literally miniscule
That's me sold!
You say we should ignore risk with Covid yet hide under our beds from a medically approved vaccine that goes through exhaustive scientific testing
As a demonstration of eejitry that would be very hard bet
https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/first-batch-of-covid-19-vaccine-may-be-ready-to-go-within-weeks-39662915.html?
Quote from: sid waddell on October 24, 2020, 10:01:40 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 24, 2020, 09:18:58 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 24, 2020, 02:30:17 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 23, 2020, 09:17:22 PM
If a vaccine becomes available, given the current circumstances, I'll have no hesitation in getting it. A roll of the dice, but even that is better than the current situation of cyclical lockdowns, and extremely limited social interaction.
Balladmaker, I work in this area. It's not a roll of the dice whatsoever, the risk is literally miniscule
That's me sold!
You say we should ignore risk with Covid yet hide under our beds from a medically approved vaccine that goes through exhaustive scientific testing
As a demonstration of eejitry that would be very hard bet
Have you ever posted a factually correct statement.
Quote from: Seaney on October 24, 2020, 12:58:16 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on October 24, 2020, 10:01:40 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 24, 2020, 09:18:58 AM
Quote from: macdanger2 on October 24, 2020, 02:30:17 AM
Quote from: balladmaker on October 23, 2020, 09:17:22 PM
If a vaccine becomes available, given the current circumstances, I'll have no hesitation in getting it. A roll of the dice, but even that is better than the current situation of cyclical lockdowns, and extremely limited social interaction.
Balladmaker, I work in this area. It's not a roll of the dice whatsoever, the risk is literally miniscule
That's me sold!
You say we should ignore risk with Covid yet hide under our beds from a medically approved vaccine that goes through exhaustive scientific testing
As a demonstration of eejitry that would be very hard bet
Have you ever posted a factually correct statement.
I posted an accurate representation of your position
You say "let people live"
Yet you will refuse to get the vaccine and refuse to let your family get it if and when one arrives
So you're happy to propose that society as a whole should accept what to any reasonable person would be an unacceptable degree of risk during Covid, yet you believe that a scientifically tested vaccine would present an unacceptable level of risk to you and your family, based on nothing
I have accurately represented your position and it is a position of eejitry
In which case you will be able to trawl through my 100 posts, I did give you the opportunity when I only had 60, and provide quotes to back up your conclusions, if not I suggest you wind your neck in. I'll await all the quotes.
Quote from: Seaney on October 24, 2020, 06:47:52 PM
In which case you will be able to trawl through my 100 posts, I did give you the opportunity when I only had 60, and provide quotes to back up your conclusions, if not I suggest you wind your neck in. I'll await all the quotes.
What did you make of Armagh today, Seaney?
Must be great to be back in Division One after so long.
I'd say that buck would be a big GAA man right enough ::)
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on October 24, 2020, 07:12:39 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 24, 2020, 06:47:52 PM
In which case you will be able to trawl through my 100 posts, I did give you the opportunity when I only had 60, and provide quotes to back up your conclusions, if not I suggest you wind your neck in. I'll await all the quotes.
What did you make of Armagh today, Seaney?
Must be great to be back in Division One after so long.
I thought they did ok against a decent Clare team, not sure Grimley should have started, their defence would need to improve or they will be back in division 2 next year. I was disappointed they didn't get their last year but seeing how Meath done, another year in Division 2 has done them no harm. Not sure what the issue is with Jemar not starting. The Roscommon game was a throwback 15 men defending, last years championship run was great and the game in Castlebar was good attacking football albeit with usual handling errors. Nice going in against Derry having been promoted but the soft frees for pushing is very frustrating. You enjoy it yourself?
Quote from: Rossfan on October 24, 2020, 07:16:47 PM
I'd say that buck would be a big GAA man right enough ::)
Because my name isn't ArmaghFan ?::)
Quote from: Seaney on October 24, 2020, 09:25:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on October 24, 2020, 07:12:39 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 24, 2020, 06:47:52 PM
In which case you will be able to trawl through my 100 posts, I did give you the opportunity when I only had 60, and provide quotes to back up your conclusions, if not I suggest you wind your neck in. I'll await all the quotes.
What did you make of Armagh today, Seaney?
Must be great to be back in Division One after so long.
I thought they did ok against a decent Clare team, not sure Grimley should have started, their defence would need to improve or they will be back in division 2 next year. I was disappointed they didn't get their last year but seeing how Meath done, another year in Division 2 has done them no harm. Not sure what the issue is with Jemar not starting. The Roscommon game was a throwback 15 men defending, last years championship run was great and the game in Castlebar was good attacking football albeit with usual handling errors. Nice going in against Derry having been promoted but the soft frees for pushing is very frustrating. You enjoy it yourself?
You never
enjoy watching Armagh. You endure it.
Good man, though. Chip in on the other side of the board. It's better craic, and a lot less hostile. Except on the Tyrone threads. Those cnuts are always hostile.
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on October 24, 2020, 09:53:30 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 24, 2020, 09:25:12 PM
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on October 24, 2020, 07:12:39 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 24, 2020, 06:47:52 PM
In which case you will be able to trawl through my 100 posts, I did give you the opportunity when I only had 60, and provide quotes to back up your conclusions, if not I suggest you wind your neck in. I'll await all the quotes.
What did you make of Armagh today, Seaney?
Must be great to be back in Division One after so long.
I thought they did ok against a decent Clare team, not sure Grimley should have started, their defence would need to improve or they will be back in division 2 next year. I was disappointed they didn't get their last year but seeing how Meath done, another year in Division 2 has done them no harm. Not sure what the issue is with Jemar not starting. The Roscommon game was a throwback 15 men defending, last years championship run was great and the game in Castlebar was good attacking football albeit with usual handling errors. Nice going in against Derry having been promoted but the soft frees for pushing is very frustrating. You enjoy it yourself?
You never enjoy watching Armagh. You endure it.
Good man, though. Chip in on the other side of the board. It's better craic, and a lot less hostile. Except on the Tyrone threads. Those cnuts are always hostile.
Endurement indeed was waiting for a Westmeath repeat.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/1104/1175953-vaccine-case/ (https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2020/1104/1175953-vaccine-case/)
Desperate rare cases where the vaccine produced these horrible side effects, family are pro vaccine and pro science but this vaccine didn't use the same booster as Canada which had a safer standing... companies rightly sued ..
These pharmaceutical companies rushing through a global vaccine would be bankrupt if they get it wrong.
How many years was this particular vaccine developed?
You no access to the internet?
Imagine if the whole world took a rushed through vaccination, you think the benefits would outweigh the harm?
Quote from: Seaney on November 04, 2020, 11:27:08 PM
Imagine if the whole world took a rushed through vaccination, you think the benefits would outweigh the harm?
Imagine the whole world caught a new disease which no one had any idea of the long term consequences of?
Jim Corr has your head turned pal.
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 12:14:29 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 04, 2020, 11:27:08 PM
Imagine if the whole world took a rushed through vaccination, you think the benefits would outweigh the harm?
Imagine the whole world caught a new disease which no one had any idea of the long term consequences of?
Jim Corr has your head turned pal.
Bless, when one questions the narrative they are a looney, that the best you can come up with?
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 07:07:35 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 12:14:29 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 04, 2020, 11:27:08 PM
Imagine if the whole world took a rushed through vaccination, you think the benefits would outweigh the harm?
Imagine the whole world caught a new disease which no one had any idea of the long term consequences of?
Jim Corr has your head turned pal.
Bless, when one questions the narrative they are a looney, that the best you can come up with?
If your question flies in the face of common sense then you can expect to occasionally get that - can you answer the question posed to you?
Quote from: OgraAnDun on November 05, 2020, 07:20:13 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 07:07:35 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 12:14:29 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 04, 2020, 11:27:08 PM
Imagine if the whole world took a rushed through vaccination, you think the benefits would outweigh the harm?
Imagine the whole world caught a new disease which no one had any idea of the long term consequences of?
Jim Corr has your head turned pal.
Bless, when one questions the narrative they are a looney, that the best you can come up with?
If your question flies in the face of common sense then you can expect to occasionally get that - can you answer the question posed to you?
With pleasure - see below!
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 12:14:29 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 04, 2020, 11:27:08 PM
Imagine if the whole world took a rushed through vaccination, you think the benefits would outweigh the harm?
Imagine the whole world caught a new disease which no one had any idea of the long term consequences of?
Jim Corr has your head turned pal.
Imagine if it materialises there is no long term damage, but those caused by taking a rushed through vaccine?
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 07:46:36 AM
Quote from: OgraAnDun on November 05, 2020, 07:20:13 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 07:07:35 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 12:14:29 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 04, 2020, 11:27:08 PM
Imagine if the whole world took a rushed through vaccination, you think the benefits would outweigh the harm?
Imagine the whole world caught a new disease which no one had any idea of the long term consequences of?
Jim Corr has your head turned pal.
Bless, when one questions the narrative they are a looney, that the best you can come up with?
If your question flies in the face of common sense then you can expect to occasionally get that - can you answer the question posed to you?
With pleasure - see below!
Happy enough there are you? I can play the game on here which is answer nothing and just put a question mark at the end of everything.
Seaney, would you take a blood transfusion if needed?
Yes, your point being?
I also have had breaks set by doctors, and taken antibiotics for tonsillitis.
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:18:55 AM
Yes, your point being?
Hemolytic reactions: In very rare cases, the patient's blood destroys the donor red blood cells. This is called hemolysis. The chance of an acute hemolytic reaction is one in 25,000. This can be severe and may result in bleeding and in kidney failure. However, complications can usually be prevented by medical treatment.
Transmissible infections: The risk of chronic infection, injury or death from transfusion transmitted infections is very small but the risk cannot be completely removed by available testing. All volunteer donor blood is screed for infectious diseases. In addition, the donors have undergone a screening process to become eligible to donate. Donated blood is tested for haptitis, HIV or the AIDS virus, and other infectious agents. Only blood that tests negative for infectious agents is allowed to be used.
Dangerous don't you think?
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
You are talking about stuff that we don't know about, you're assuming that the vaccine that will be produced will have issues. Can you give me the lotto numbers for the weekend please?
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
That will be some comfort if your are left with no quality of life!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 11:04:59 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
You are talking about stuff that we don't know about, you're assuming that the vaccine that will be produced will have issues. Can you give me the lotto numbers for the weekend please?
And therein lies the conundrum, those who had an adverse effect to the swine flu vaccine probably assumed it would have no issues. The numbers for UK lotto will be from 1 to 59, choose 6 I believe.
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 11:35:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 11:04:59 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
You are talking about stuff that we don't know about, you're assuming that the vaccine that will be produced will have issues. Can you give me the lotto numbers for the weekend please?
And therein lies the conundrum, those who had an adverse effect to the swine flu vaccine probably assumed it would have no issues. The numbers for UK lotto will be from 1 to 59, choose 6 I believe.
"those who had an adverse effect to swine flu probably assumed it would have no issues"
And this brings us back to the question I asked weeks ago, that you dodged.
If it is a conundrum, why not choose the option which could save lives, prevent the need for lockdowns and protect the economy and local businesses?
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:41:05 AM
"those who had an adverse effect to swine flu probably assumed it would have no issues"
And this brings us back to the question I asked weeks ago, that you dodged.
If it is a conundrum, why not choose the option which could save lives, prevent the need for lockdowns and protect the economy and local businesses?
It will or it could, it could cause long term pain and suffering to those who take it, why can one not wait and assess the situation over a longer period rather than rush to take a new vaccine?
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To achieve the magical 'herd immunity', it's assumed that 60-70% of people will need to be either vaccinated or have the disease.
Those people will have to bite the bullet in order for everyone to return to some sort of normality.
You freely admit that Covid is unlikely to cause serious short term problems for you.
Given this, to lump the responsibility for achieving this societal figure onto others is a very cowardly stance to take.
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 11:46:54 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:41:05 AM
"those who had an adverse effect to swine flu probably assumed it would have no issues"
And this brings us back to the question I asked weeks ago, that you dodged.
If it is a conundrum, why not choose the option which could save lives, prevent the need for lockdowns and protect the economy and local businesses?
It will or it could, it could cause long term pain and suffering to those who take it, why can one not wait and assess the situation over a longer period rather than rush to take a new vaccine?
Because, by doing so, you are then prolonging the need for the lockdowns and other measures which you are so against?
Surely this is obvious?
And again, you didn't answer the question. Will/could is irrelevant.
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To achieve the magical 'herd immunity', it's assumed that 60-70% of people will need to be either vaccinated or have the disease.
Those people will have to bite the bullet in order for everyone to return to some sort of normality.
You freely admit that Covid is unlikely to cause serious short term problems for you.
Given this, to lump the responsibility for achieving this societal figure onto others is a very cowardly stance to take.
That's great but you're making a whole lot of assumptions there.
Covid is unlikely to cause serious health problems to me, I have not caught it yet, I practice all the guidelines such as hand hygiene, mask wearing, social distancing etc.
I'm taking steps to diminish the chance of me catching and spreading the virus. I don't want to put a rushed vaccine that could have serious consequences into my body.
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:51:52 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To achieve the magical 'herd immunity', it's assumed that 60-70% of people will need to be either vaccinated or have the disease.
Those people will have to bite the bullet in order for everyone to return to some sort of normality.
You freely admit that Covid is unlikely to cause serious short term problems for you.
Given this, to lump the responsibility for achieving this societal figure onto others is a very cowardly stance to take.
That's great but you're making a whole lot of assumptions there.
Covid is unlikely to cause serious health problems to me, I have not caught it yet, I practice all the guidelines such as hand hygiene, mask wearing, social distancing etc.
I'm taking steps to diminish the chance of me catching and spreading the virus. I don't want to put a rushed vaccine that could have serious consequences into my body.
Like I said.
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To achieve the magical 'herd immunity', it's assumed that 60-70% of people will need to be either vaccinated or have the disease.
Those people will have to bite the bullet in order for everyone to return to some sort of normality.
You freely admit that Covid is unlikely to cause serious short term problems for you.
Given this, to lump the responsibility for achieving this societal figure onto others is a very cowardly stance to take.
The moral high ground, the magical thing about these boards is that we can all say any oul shite, so you and Milhouse are going to be front and centre if the "vaccine" is available before Christmas, sleeve rolled up and family in tow, socially distant outside the surgery awaiting to be guinea pigs for the good of humanity - where Milhouse has shown as long as he is ok, to hell with the rest - I doubt it! Your stance to call someone who is cautious a coward is pathetic to say the least.
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:51:52 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To achieve the magical 'herd immunity', it's assumed that 60-70% of people will need to be either vaccinated or have the disease.
Those people will have to bite the bullet in order for everyone to return to some sort of normality.
You freely admit that Covid is unlikely to cause serious short term problems for you.
Given this, to lump the responsibility for achieving this societal figure onto others is a very cowardly stance to take.
That's great but you're making a whole lot of assumptions there.
Covid is unlikely to cause serious health problems to me, I have not caught it yet, I practice all the guidelines such as hand hygiene, mask wearing, social distancing etc.
I'm taking steps to diminish the chance of me catching and spreading the virus. I don't want to put a rushed vaccine that could have serious consequences into my body.
Like I said.
Like I said.
I'm taking measures to avoid catching and spreading the virus. I'm not going to voluntarily administer my body with something that could cause serious long term damage.
If you wish to take that chance then be my guest but I'm not going to.
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 11:54:48 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To achieve the magical 'herd immunity', it's assumed that 60-70% of people will need to be either vaccinated or have the disease.
Those people will have to bite the bullet in order for everyone to return to some sort of normality.
You freely admit that Covid is unlikely to cause serious short term problems for you.
Given this, to lump the responsibility for achieving this societal figure onto others is a very cowardly stance to take.
The moral high ground, the magical thing about these boards is that we can all say any oul shite, so you and Milhouse are going to be front and centre if the "vaccine" is available before Christmas, sleeve rolled up and family in tow, socially distant outside the surgery awaiting to be guinea pigs for the good of humanity - where Milhouse has shown as long as he is ok, to hell with the rest - I doubt it! Your stance to call someone who is cautious a coward is pathetic to say the least.
If the cap fits.
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:56:20 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:51:52 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To achieve the magical 'herd immunity', it's assumed that 60-70% of people will need to be either vaccinated or have the disease.
Those people will have to bite the bullet in order for everyone to return to some sort of normality.
You freely admit that Covid is unlikely to cause serious short term problems for you.
Given this, to lump the responsibility for achieving this societal figure onto others is a very cowardly stance to take.
That's great but you're making a whole lot of assumptions there.
Covid is unlikely to cause serious health problems to me, I have not caught it yet, I practice all the guidelines such as hand hygiene, mask wearing, social distancing etc.
I'm taking steps to diminish the chance of me catching and spreading the virus. I don't want to put a rushed vaccine that could have serious consequences into my body.
Like I said.
Like I said.
I'm taking measures to avoid catching and spreading the virus. I'm not going to voluntarily administer my body with something that could cause serious long term damage.
If you wish to take that chance then be my guest but I'm not going to.
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:56:33 AM
If the cap fits.
Indeed you have shown yourself to be pathetic on several occasions.
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:59:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:56:20 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:51:52 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To achieve the magical 'herd immunity', it's assumed that 60-70% of people will need to be either vaccinated or have the disease.
Those people will have to bite the bullet in order for everyone to return to some sort of normality.
You freely admit that Covid is unlikely to cause serious short term problems for you.
Given this, to lump the responsibility for achieving this societal figure onto others is a very cowardly stance to take.
That's great but you're making a whole lot of assumptions there.
Covid is unlikely to cause serious health problems to me, I have not caught it yet, I practice all the guidelines such as hand hygiene, mask wearing, social distancing etc.
I'm taking steps to diminish the chance of me catching and spreading the virus. I don't want to put a rushed vaccine that could have serious consequences into my body.
Like I said.
Like I said.
I'm taking measures to avoid catching and spreading the virus. I'm not going to voluntarily administer my body with something that could cause serious long term damage.
If you wish to take that chance then be my guest but I'm not going to.
A perfectly rational statement. So will you and your family be front and centre if the vaccine is available before Christmas?
Yes.
If that happens, hope it all works out for you all. You are very brave. (That's the opposite of coward isn't it - yes, yes it is).
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:59:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:56:20 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:51:52 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To achieve the magical 'herd immunity', it's assumed that 60-70% of people will need to be either vaccinated or have the disease.
Those people will have to bite the bullet in order for everyone to return to some sort of normality.
You freely admit that Covid is unlikely to cause serious short term problems for you.
Given this, to lump the responsibility for achieving this societal figure onto others is a very cowardly stance to take.
That's great but you're making a whole lot of assumptions there.
Covid is unlikely to cause serious health problems to me, I have not caught it yet, I practice all the guidelines such as hand hygiene, mask wearing, social distancing etc.
I'm taking steps to diminish the chance of me catching and spreading the virus. I don't want to put a rushed vaccine that could have serious consequences into my body.
Like I said.
Like I said.
I'm taking measures to avoid catching and spreading the virus. I'm not going to voluntarily administer my body with something that could cause serious long term damage.
If you wish to take that chance then be my guest but I'm not going to.
It's a personal choice, you do what you feel best and I'll do what I feel is best for my own health.
If you want to do it then that's your prerogative but your assertion that I'm a coward because I don't want to jeopardise my own health is just ridiculous.
I take all the necessary precautions in my daily life now, I wear a mask when in public, I wash my hands anytime I'm entering a premises or when I'm in shared spaces with people, I limit my contacts, I practice social distancing. I do my bit to ensure I don't get the virus and not spread it.
If your way of doing that is to put something that could have serious consequences into your body then that's your choice. The leading company in the manufacturing race have acknowledged the vaccine may not even work. It just seems a bit naive that people are so trusting of billion dollar companies. There is huge financial incentive in the vaccine market and of being first to market. I'd be very concerned about the vaccine.
In fairness it's easy to say any oul shite on these boards to claim the moral high ground, anyone who doesn't have any reservations are very naive.
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 12:07:45 PM
If that happens, hope it all works out for you all. You are very brave. (That's the opposite of coward isn't it - yes, yes it is).
Good lad. I'll let you know when it's ok to come out from behind the sofa.
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 12:11:46 PM
I take all the necessary precautions in my daily life now, I wear a mask when in public, I wash my hands anytime I'm entering a premises or when I'm in shared spaces with people, I limit my contacts, I practice social distancing. I do my bit to ensure I don't get the virus and not spread it.
If a tested and effective vaccine is available and you do not take it then you are not doing your bit to not spread the virus.
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 11:32:53 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
That will be some comfort if your are left with no quality of life!
Undoubtedly not good enough but more comfort at least than if long Covid does the same thing...
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To not catch it, absent a vaccine, we will need to lockdown indefinitely or in a globally consistent way.
On the first, no thanks.
On the second, hardly likely.
Therefore when a vaccine is ready I'll be having it.
Quote from: armaghniac on November 05, 2020, 12:22:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 12:11:46 PM
I take all the necessary precautions in my daily life now, I wear a mask when in public, I wash my hands anytime I'm entering a premises or when I'm in shared spaces with people, I limit my contacts, I practice social distancing. I do my bit to ensure I don't get the virus and not spread it.
If a tested and effective vaccine is available and you do not take it then you are not doing your bit to not spread the virus.
All vaccines are tested, doesn't stop them from having fatal consequences and for me this is far more likely when it has been rushed through as this one has.
Pfizer has said they cannot guarantee effectiveness.
So your point is based on complete uncertainties. I haven't caught the virus yet, I hope to keep it that way by doing what I've been doing.
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To not catch it, absent a vaccine, we will need to lockdown indefinitely or in a globally consistent way.
On the first, no thanks.
On the second, hardly likely.
Therefore when a vaccine is ready I'll be having it.
That's your choice if that is what you want to do then that's fair enough.
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 12:17:08 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 12:07:45 PM
If that happens, hope it all works out for you all. You are very brave. (That's the opposite of coward isn't it - yes, yes it is).
Good lad. I'll let you know when it's ok to come out from behind the sofa.
You are too kind, I never went behind it, don't get a nose bleed up on your moral high horse now!
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 12:22:29 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 11:32:53 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
That will be some comfort if your are left with no quality of life!
Undoubtedly not good enough but more comfort at least than if long Covid does the same thing...
How long is it, its only been around a few months.
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 12:38:42 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 12:22:29 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 11:32:53 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
That will be some comfort if your are left with no quality of life!
Undoubtedly not good enough but more comfort at least than if long Covid does the same thing...
How long is it, its only been around a few months.
To use the same criteria as your using for unknown effects of an undeveloped vaccine I'm going to take a punt and say 1,000,000 years
Good as shout as any.
I think if the vaccine is safe, tested properly then I struggle to see the problem not taking it...
I'll not be front and center as I don't work in an environment that requires it, nor do I have underlying conditions that mean I need it quicker than others, I think It would be a year or more before it comes to me, by that time it will have been adjusted and changed, like the current flu vaccine is used.
Those that refuse to take it, its their choice. The odds of something happening to you after a vaccine has been tested and passed (not rushed, don't know who'll be passing a rushed untested drug on people and not be liable) are slimmer than actually catching the virus and having long lasting issues from that.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 01:08:05 PM
I think if the vaccine is safe, tested properly then I struggle to see the problem not taking it...
I'll not be front and center as I don't work in an environment that requires it, nor do I have underlying conditions that mean I need it quicker than others, I think It would be a year or more before it comes to me, by that time it will have been adjusted and changed, like the current flu vaccine is used.
Those that refuse to take it, its their choice. The odds of something happening to you after a vaccine has been tested and passed (not rushed, don't know who'll be passing a rushed untested drug on people and not be liable) are slimmer than actually catching the virus and having long lasting issues from that.
The title of the thread is
Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021? - Yet those of us who said no and would rather wait have been lambasted, Jesus Wept - it really is the Trump world just keep telling lies!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 01:08:05 PM
I think if the vaccine is safe, tested properly then I struggle to see the problem not taking it...
I'll not be front and center as I don't work in an environment that requires it, nor do I have underlying conditions that mean I need it quicker than others, I think It would be a year or more before it comes to me, by that time it will have been adjusted and changed, like the current flu vaccine is used.
Those that refuse to take it, its their choice. The odds of something happening to you after a vaccine has been tested and passed (not rushed, don't know who'll be passing a rushed untested drug on people and not be liable) are slimmer than actually catching the virus and having long lasting issues from that.
Franko do you think he is a coward?
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 01:08:05 PM
I think if the vaccine is safe, tested properly then I struggle to see the problem not taking it...
I'll not be front and center as I don't work in an environment that requires it, nor do I have underlying conditions that mean I need it quicker than others, I think It would be a year or more before it comes to me, by that time it will have been adjusted and changed, like the current flu vaccine is used.
Those that refuse to take it, its their choice. The odds of something happening to you after a vaccine has been tested and passed (not rushed, don't know who'll be passing a rushed untested drug on people and not be liable) are slimmer than actually catching the virus and having long lasting issues from that.
Franko do you think he is a coward?
I've explained myself, there will be far more deserving people than me or Franko for that matter. You know how it works?
I know when folk try to be smart arses they usually tie themselves up.
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 01:08:05 PM
I think if the vaccine is safe, tested properly then I struggle to see the problem not taking it...
I'll not be front and center as I don't work in an environment that requires it, nor do I have underlying conditions that mean I need it quicker than others, I think It would be a year or more before it comes to me, by that time it will have been adjusted and changed, like the current flu vaccine is used.
Those that refuse to take it, its their choice. The odds of something happening to you after a vaccine has been tested and passed (not rushed, don't know who'll be passing a rushed untested drug on people and not be liable) are slimmer than actually catching the virus and having long lasting issues from that.
Franko do you think he is a coward?
No, why would I?
He's saying he'd take the vaccine at whatever point it's given to him?
Not hiding behind the sofa hoping enough other people get it so he can go back to normal.
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 01:32:44 PM
I know when folk try to be smart arses they usually tie themselves up.
I'm not surprised you do, you only have to hear yourself back ;D
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 02:22:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 01:08:05 PM
I think if the vaccine is safe, tested properly then I struggle to see the problem not taking it...
I'll not be front and center as I don't work in an environment that requires it, nor do I have underlying conditions that mean I need it quicker than others, I think It would be a year or more before it comes to me, by that time it will have been adjusted and changed, like the current flu vaccine is used.
Those that refuse to take it, its their choice. The odds of something happening to you after a vaccine has been tested and passed (not rushed, don't know who'll be passing a rushed untested drug on people and not be liable) are slimmer than actually catching the virus and having long lasting issues from that.
Franko do you think he is a coward?
No, why would I?
He's saying he'd take the vaccine at whatever point it's given to him?
Not hiding behind the sofa hoping enough other people get it so he can go back to normal.
Did you not read the title of the thread either, or can you not see from up there on your high horse, Angelo, I and Milhouse all said we wouldn't get it but you attack only two people.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 02:39:44 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 01:32:44 PM
I know when folk try to be smart arses they usually tie themselves up.
I'm not surprised you do, you only have to hear yourself back ;D
I bet this is your only interaction with folk, bet in the real world your are avoided like the plague.
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 12:11:46 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:59:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:56:20 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:51:52 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To achieve the magical 'herd immunity', it's assumed that 60-70% of people will need to be either vaccinated or have the disease.
Those people will have to bite the bullet in order for everyone to return to some sort of normality.
You freely admit that Covid is unlikely to cause serious short term problems for you.
Given this, to lump the responsibility for achieving this societal figure onto others is a very cowardly stance to take.
That's great but you're making a whole lot of assumptions there.
Covid is unlikely to cause serious health problems to me, I have not caught it yet, I practice all the guidelines such as hand hygiene, mask wearing, social distancing etc.
I'm taking steps to diminish the chance of me catching and spreading the virus. I don't want to put a rushed vaccine that could have serious consequences into my body.
Like I said.
Like I said.
I'm taking measures to avoid catching and spreading the virus. I'm not going to voluntarily administer my body with something that could cause serious long term damage.
If you wish to take that chance then be my guest but I'm not going to.
It's a personal choice, you do what you feel best and I'll do what I feel is best for my own health.
If you want to do it then that's your prerogative but your assertion that I'm a coward because I don't want to jeopardise my own health is just ridiculous.
I take all the necessary precautions in my daily life now, I wear a mask when in public, I wash my hands anytime I'm entering a premises or when I'm in shared spaces with people, I limit my contacts, I practice social distancing. I do my bit to ensure I don't get the virus and not spread it.
If your way of doing that is to put something that could have serious consequences into your body then that's your choice. The leading company in the manufacturing race have acknowledged the vaccine may not even work. It just seems a bit naive that people are so trusting of billion dollar companies. There is huge financial incentive in the vaccine market and of being first to market. I'd be very concerned about the vaccine.
There's a bigger financial incentive not to get it wrong.
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 05:25:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 12:11:46 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:59:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:56:20 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:51:52 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To achieve the magical 'herd immunity', it's assumed that 60-70% of people will need to be either vaccinated or have the disease.
Those people will have to bite the bullet in order for everyone to return to some sort of normality.
You freely admit that Covid is unlikely to cause serious short term problems for you.
Given this, to lump the responsibility for achieving this societal figure onto others is a very cowardly stance to take.
That's great but you're making a whole lot of assumptions there.
Covid is unlikely to cause serious health problems to me, I have not caught it yet, I practice all the guidelines such as hand hygiene, mask wearing, social distancing etc.
I'm taking steps to diminish the chance of me catching and spreading the virus. I don't want to put a rushed vaccine that could have serious consequences into my body.
Like I said.
Like I said.
I'm taking measures to avoid catching and spreading the virus. I'm not going to voluntarily administer my body with something that could cause serious long term damage.
If you wish to take that chance then be my guest but I'm not going to.
It's a personal choice, you do what you feel best and I'll do what I feel is best for my own health.
If you want to do it then that's your prerogative but your assertion that I'm a coward because I don't want to jeopardise my own health is just ridiculous.
I take all the necessary precautions in my daily life now, I wear a mask when in public, I wash my hands anytime I'm entering a premises or when I'm in shared spaces with people, I limit my contacts, I practice social distancing. I do my bit to ensure I don't get the virus and not spread it.
If your way of doing that is to put something that could have serious consequences into your body then that's your choice. The leading company in the manufacturing race have acknowledged the vaccine may not even work. It just seems a bit naive that people are so trusting of billion dollar companies. There is huge financial incentive in the vaccine market and of being first to market. I'd be very concerned about the vaccine.
There's a bigger financial incentive not to get it wrong.
That's debatable.
Plenty of big pharma have got it wrong in the past. They are willing to take risks to reap the rewards.
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 02:59:41 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 02:22:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 01:08:05 PM
I think if the vaccine is safe, tested properly then I struggle to see the problem not taking it...
I'll not be front and center as I don't work in an environment that requires it, nor do I have underlying conditions that mean I need it quicker than others, I think It would be a year or more before it comes to me, by that time it will have been adjusted and changed, like the current flu vaccine is used.
Those that refuse to take it, its their choice. The odds of something happening to you after a vaccine has been tested and passed (not rushed, don't know who'll be passing a rushed untested drug on people and not be liable) are slimmer than actually catching the virus and having long lasting issues from that.
Franko do you think he is a coward?
No, why would I?
He's saying he'd take the vaccine at whatever point it's given to him?
Not hiding behind the sofa hoping enough other people get it so he can go back to normal.
Did you not read the title of the thread either, or can you not see from up there on your high horse, Angelo, I and Milhouse all said we wouldn't get it but you attack only two people.
Weak.
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 05:27:54 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 05:25:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 12:11:46 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:59:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:56:20 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:51:52 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To achieve the magical 'herd immunity', it's assumed that 60-70% of people will need to be either vaccinated or have the disease.
Those people will have to bite the bullet in order for everyone to return to some sort of normality.
You freely admit that Covid is unlikely to cause serious short term problems for you.
Given this, to lump the responsibility for achieving this societal figure onto others is a very cowardly stance to take.
That's great but you're making a whole lot of assumptions there.
Covid is unlikely to cause serious health problems to me, I have not caught it yet, I practice all the guidelines such as hand hygiene, mask wearing, social distancing etc.
I'm taking steps to diminish the chance of me catching and spreading the virus. I don't want to put a rushed vaccine that could have serious consequences into my body.
Like I said.
Like I said.
I'm taking measures to avoid catching and spreading the virus. I'm not going to voluntarily administer my body with something that could cause serious long term damage.
If you wish to take that chance then be my guest but I'm not going to.
It's a personal choice, you do what you feel best and I'll do what I feel is best for my own health.
If you want to do it then that's your prerogative but your assertion that I'm a coward because I don't want to jeopardise my own health is just ridiculous.
I take all the necessary precautions in my daily life now, I wear a mask when in public, I wash my hands anytime I'm entering a premises or when I'm in shared spaces with people, I limit my contacts, I practice social distancing. I do my bit to ensure I don't get the virus and not spread it.
If your way of doing that is to put something that could have serious consequences into your body then that's your choice. The leading company in the manufacturing race have acknowledged the vaccine may not even work. It just seems a bit naive that people are so trusting of billion dollar companies. There is huge financial incentive in the vaccine market and of being first to market. I'd be very concerned about the vaccine.
There's a bigger financial incentive not to get it wrong.
That's debatable.
Plenty of big pharma have got it wrong in the past. They are willing to take risks to reap the rewards.
Fair enough.
The rest of us will have to do it so.
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 03:00:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 02:39:44 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 01:32:44 PM
I know when folk try to be smart arses they usually tie themselves up.
I'm not surprised you do, you only have to hear yourself back ;D
I bet this is your only interaction with folk, bet in the real world your are avoided like the plague.
;D ;D
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 05:43:38 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 02:59:41 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 02:22:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 01:08:05 PM
I think if the vaccine is safe, tested properly then I struggle to see the problem not taking it...
I'll not be front and center as I don't work in an environment that requires it, nor do I have underlying conditions that mean I need it quicker than others, I think It would be a year or more before it comes to me, by that time it will have been adjusted and changed, like the current flu vaccine is used.
Those that refuse to take it, its their choice. The odds of something happening to you after a vaccine has been tested and passed (not rushed, don't know who'll be passing a rushed untested drug on people and not be liable) are slimmer than actually catching the virus and having long lasting issues from that.
Franko do you think he is a coward?
No, why would I?
He's saying he'd take the vaccine at whatever point it's given to him?
Not hiding behind the sofa hoping enough other people get it so he can go back to normal.
Did you not read the title of the thread either, or can you not see from up there on your high horse, Angelo, I and Milhouse all said we wouldn't get it but you attack only two people.
Weak.
Not pathetic? You still haven't answered.
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 05:46:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 05:27:54 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 05:25:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 12:11:46 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:59:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:56:20 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:53:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:51:52 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 11:48:36 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 05, 2020, 11:38:43 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 05, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:44:25 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 10:40:12 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
You do understand that by refusing the vaccine, you leave yourself open to contracting a disease...
...without knowing the long term effects??
I fail to see how you are being cautious by going down this route.
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Just the same as you are by catching the disease.
Except the disease isn't tested at all, isn't administered in a controlled way or environment, and it cripples normal life in a way the vaccine likely won't for most people.
You also can't sue or seek legal redress from the disease. If the vaccine is a bad one in terms of side effects, you can at least seek some legal satisfaction via the courts.
Literally a no brainier...
Not the same. You may never catch the virus, so you may not be open to potential long term effects.
If you take the vaccine, you are open to potential long term effects.
To achieve the magical 'herd immunity', it's assumed that 60-70% of people will need to be either vaccinated or have the disease.
Those people will have to bite the bullet in order for everyone to return to some sort of normality.
You freely admit that Covid is unlikely to cause serious short term problems for you.
Given this, to lump the responsibility for achieving this societal figure onto others is a very cowardly stance to take.
That's great but you're making a whole lot of assumptions there.
Covid is unlikely to cause serious health problems to me, I have not caught it yet, I practice all the guidelines such as hand hygiene, mask wearing, social distancing etc.
I'm taking steps to diminish the chance of me catching and spreading the virus. I don't want to put a rushed vaccine that could have serious consequences into my body.
Like I said.
Like I said.
I'm taking measures to avoid catching and spreading the virus. I'm not going to voluntarily administer my body with something that could cause serious long term damage.
If you wish to take that chance then be my guest but I'm not going to.
It's a personal choice, you do what you feel best and I'll do what I feel is best for my own health.
If you want to do it then that's your prerogative but your assertion that I'm a coward because I don't want to jeopardise my own health is just ridiculous.
I take all the necessary precautions in my daily life now, I wear a mask when in public, I wash my hands anytime I'm entering a premises or when I'm in shared spaces with people, I limit my contacts, I practice social distancing. I do my bit to ensure I don't get the virus and not spread it.
If your way of doing that is to put something that could have serious consequences into your body then that's your choice. The leading company in the manufacturing race have acknowledged the vaccine may not even work. It just seems a bit naive that people are so trusting of billion dollar companies. There is huge financial incentive in the vaccine market and of being first to market. I'd be very concerned about the vaccine.
There's a bigger financial incentive not to get it wrong.
That's debatable.
Plenty of big pharma have got it wrong in the past. They are willing to take risks to reap the rewards.
Fair enough.
The rest of us will have to do it so.
You won't be seeing Milhouse in the queue, he's waiting until at least 2022.
Christ I'm only getting it.... Milhouse - Milltown!! Comic genius, absolutely wasted on here lad.
;D
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 08:50:24 PM
Christ I'm only getting it.... Milhouse - Milltown!! Comic genius, absolutely wasted on here lad.
Cheers son, facts and common sense wasted on you, oh but you are ok, to hell with the rest.
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 08:21:35 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 05:43:38 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 02:59:41 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 05, 2020, 02:22:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 01:17:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 01:08:05 PM
I think if the vaccine is safe, tested properly then I struggle to see the problem not taking it...
I'll not be front and center as I don't work in an environment that requires it, nor do I have underlying conditions that mean I need it quicker than others, I think It would be a year or more before it comes to me, by that time it will have been adjusted and changed, like the current flu vaccine is used.
Those that refuse to take it, its their choice. The odds of something happening to you after a vaccine has been tested and passed (not rushed, don't know who'll be passing a rushed untested drug on people and not be liable) are slimmer than actually catching the virus and having long lasting issues from that.
Franko do you think he is a coward?
No, why would I?
He's saying he'd take the vaccine at whatever point it's given to him?
Not hiding behind the sofa hoping enough other people get it so he can go back to normal.
Did you not read the title of the thread either, or can you not see from up there on your high horse, Angelo, I and Milhouse all said we wouldn't get it but you attack only two people.
Weak.
Not pathetic? You still haven't answered.
Answered what? :-\
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 09:31:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 08:50:24 PM
Christ I'm only getting it.... Milhouse - Milltown!! Comic genius, absolutely wasted on here lad.
Cheers son, facts and common sense wasted on you, oh but you are ok, to hell with the rest.
Lol. Not as much as a hint ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Franko on November 06, 2020, 08:28:27 AM
Answered what? :-\
The title of the thread is Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021? - Your mate has said he is waiting until at least 2022, so his answer is no, my answer is no and others said no, but you berate those and not your mate - the question is the same - why is that?
Quote from: Seaney on November 06, 2020, 10:02:17 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 06, 2020, 08:28:27 AM
Answered what? :-\
The title of the thread is Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021? - Your mate has said he is waiting until at least 2022, so his answer is no, my answer is no and others said no, but you berate those and not your mate - the question is the same - why is that?
He said he was waiting due to circumstances not in his control, not his own choice?
Again, surely this was obvious?
Maybe I'm over estimating you?
Yeah I definitely am.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 01:08:05 PM
I think if the vaccine is safe, tested properly then I struggle to see the problem not taking it...
I'll not be front and center as I don't work in an environment that requires it, nor do I have underlying conditions that mean I need it quicker than others, I think It would be a year or more before it comes to me, by that time it will have been adjusted and changed, like the current flu vaccine is used.
Those that refuse to take it, its their choice. The odds of something happening to you after a vaccine has been tested and passed (not rushed, don't know who'll be passing a rushed untested drug on people and not be liable) are slimmer than actually catching the virus and having long lasting issues from that.
He is hedging his bets, waiting for it to be adjusted and changed, he won't like you be front and centre, sleeve rolled up Christmas eve with family in tow waiting to save humanity, he answered the title of the thread with a definitive NO, is he a coward?
Tell you what.
Lets ask him.
MR2, if the vaccine happens to be offered to you in 2021, would you be happy to take it?
Franko floundering here. It's not a good look.
Quote from: Seaney on November 06, 2020, 12:24:18 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 05, 2020, 01:08:05 PM
I think if the vaccine is safe, tested properly then I struggle to see the problem not taking it...
I'll not be front and center as I don't work in an environment that requires it, nor do I have underlying conditions that mean I need it quicker than others, I think It would be a year or more before it comes to me, by that time it will have been adjusted and changed, like the current flu vaccine is used.
Those that refuse to take it, its their choice. The odds of something happening to you after a vaccine has been tested and passed (not rushed, don't know who'll be passing a rushed untested drug on people and not be liable) are slimmer than actually catching the virus and having long lasting issues from that.
He is hedging his bets, waiting for it to be adjusted and changed, he won't like you be front and centre, sleeve rolled up Christmas eve with family in tow waiting to save humanity, he answered the title of the thread with a definitive NO, is he a coward?
Seany, much like Angelo in the Covid thread, you are making this thread unbloodyreadable.
The PHA will be rolling out the vaccine to select groups. Those not in the select groups won't have the option. That does not make them cow... Oh what's the point even replying :-X
Seaney Angelo and Trump.
3 inhabitants of a weird Universe ;D
Quote from: Rossfan on November 06, 2020, 12:34:14 PM
Seaney Angelo and Trump.
3 inhabitants of a weird Universe ;D
I see you're avoiding the Fine Gael thread like the good little establishment shill you are.
Quote from: Angelo on November 06, 2020, 12:29:31 PM
Franko floundering here. It's not a good look.
*said Angelo, as he peered out from behind the sofa
Quote from: Seaney on November 06, 2020, 10:02:17 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 06, 2020, 08:28:27 AM
Answered what? :-\
The title of the thread is Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021? - Your mate has said he is waiting until at least 2022, so his answer is no, my answer is no and others said no, but you berate those and not your mate - the question is the same - why is that?
If I'm reading this correct, (I've been known not too) me and Franko ain't mates and if you'd check our previous that would be obvious. But that doesn't mean I'll be against anyone over a topic that I actually agree with ( don't cut off your nose .... )
I didn't realise I'd put a date on when I'll take the vaccine, think you've made that bit up. It's very simple, there are thousands of people who'll be needing the vaccine before me, so be listed them to you in earlier post.
When it's my turn I and my family will be taking it. I'd rather go about living without having to worry about socially distancing wearing face masks and having an opened up society, than the one you propose of just living with it.
Get it done and all those other areas that you have highlighted will be sorted, though the reality the NHS is broken and was broken long before COVID-19...
Waiting lists were horrible before Covid abuse help lines and mental health awareness and measures to stem it have been non existent. But I suppose it's a good sound bite for you to use, I actually think you don't give a f**k about them and only concerned about yourself
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 06, 2020, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 06, 2020, 10:02:17 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 06, 2020, 08:28:27 AM
Answered what? :-\
The title of the thread is Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021? - Your mate has said he is waiting until at least 2022, so his answer is no, my answer is no and others said no, but you berate those and not your mate - the question is the same - why is that?
If I'm reading this correct, (I've been known not too) me and Franko ain't mates and if you'd check our previous that would be obvious. But that doesn't mean I'll be against anyone over a topic that I actually agree with ( don't cut off your nose .... )
I didn't realise I'd put a date on when I'll take the vaccine, think you've made that bit up. It's very simple, there are thousands of people who'll be needing the vaccine before me, so be listed them to you in earlier post.
When it's my turn I and my family will be taking it. I'd rather go about living without having to worry about socially distancing wearing face masks and having an opened up society, than the one you propose of just living with it.
Get it done and all those other areas that you have highlighted will be sorted, though the reality the NHS is broken and was broken long before COVID-19...
Waiting lists were horrible before Covid abuse help lines and mental health awareness and measures to stem it have been non existent. But I suppose it's a good sound bite for you to use, I actually think you don't give a f**k about them and only concerned about yourself
Over to you Seaney.
See if you can find another straw to clutch at.
Quote from: Franko on November 06, 2020, 12:37:50 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 06, 2020, 12:29:31 PM
Franko floundering here. It's not a good look.
*said Angelo, as he peered out from behind the sofa
Stop projecting.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 06, 2020, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 06, 2020, 10:02:17 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 06, 2020, 08:28:27 AM
Answered what? :-\
The title of the thread is Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021? - Your mate has said he is waiting until at least 2022, so his answer is no, my answer is no and others said no, but you berate those and not your mate - the question is the same - why is that?
If I'm reading this correct, (I've been known not too) me and Franko ain't mates and if you'd check our previous that would be obvious. But that doesn't mean I'll be against anyone over a topic that I actually agree with ( don't cut off your nose .... )
I didn't realise I'd put a date on when I'll take the vaccine, think you've made that bit up. It's very simple, there are thousands of people who'll be needing the vaccine before me, so be listed them to you in earlier post.
When it's my turn I and my family will be taking it. I'd rather go about living without having to worry about socially distancing wearing face masks and having an opened up society, than the one you propose of just living with it.
Get it done and all those other areas that you have highlighted will be sorted, though the reality the NHS is broken and was broken long before COVID-19...
Waiting lists were horrible before Covid abuse help lines and mental health awareness and measures to stem it have been non existent. But I suppose it's a good sound bite for you to use, I actually think you don't give a f**k about them and only concerned about yourself
You have proven time and again you are I am alright jack to hell with the rest. So you are saying you would be front and centre if the first batch was offered to all, or are you still going to go as far to the back of the queue as you can, so that it can be changed and adjusted before it reaches you, sure if it's put in the general population it must be safe, what is it being changed and adjusted for?
Quote from: JoG2 on November 06, 2020, 12:32:18 PM
Seany, much like Angelo in the Covid thread, you are making this thread unbloodyreadable.
The PHA will be rolling out the vaccine to select groups. Those not in the select groups won't have the option. That does not make them cow... Oh what's the point even replying :-X
Don't read it.
Quote from: Seaney on November 06, 2020, 03:32:42 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 06, 2020, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 06, 2020, 10:02:17 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 06, 2020, 08:28:27 AM
Answered what? :-\
The title of the thread is Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021? - Your mate has said he is waiting until at least 2022, so his answer is no, my answer is no and others said no, but you berate those and not your mate - the question is the same - why is that?
If I'm reading this correct, (I've been known not too) me and Franko ain't mates and if you'd check our previous that would be obvious. But that doesn't mean I'll be against anyone over a topic that I actually agree with ( don't cut off your nose .... )
I didn't realise I'd put a date on when I'll take the vaccine, think you've made that bit up. It's very simple, there are thousands of people who'll be needing the vaccine before me, so be listed them to you in earlier post.
When it's my turn I and my family will be taking it. I'd rather go about living without having to worry about socially distancing wearing face masks and having an opened up society, than the one you propose of just living with it.
Get it done and all those other areas that you have highlighted will be sorted, though the reality the NHS is broken and was broken long before COVID-19...
Waiting lists were horrible before Covid abuse help lines and mental health awareness and measures to stem it have been non existent. But I suppose it's a good sound bite for you to use, I actually think you don't give a f**k about them and only concerned about yourself
You have proven time and again you are I am alright jack to hell with the rest. So you are saying you would be front and centre if the first batch was offered to all, or are you still going to go as far to the back of the queue as you can, so that it can be changed and adjusted before it reaches you, sure if it's put in the general population it must be safe, what is it being changed and adjusted for?
Again, said without a hint of irony.
I honestly think he doesn't even realise.
Quote from: Seaney on November 06, 2020, 03:32:42 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 06, 2020, 12:40:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 06, 2020, 10:02:17 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 06, 2020, 08:28:27 AM
Answered what? :-\
The title of the thread is Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021? - Your mate has said he is waiting until at least 2022, so his answer is no, my answer is no and others said no, but you berate those and not your mate - the question is the same - why is that?
If I'm reading this correct, (I've been known not too) me and Franko ain't mates and if you'd check our previous that would be obvious. But that doesn't mean I'll be against anyone over a topic that I actually agree with ( don't cut off your nose .... )
I didn't realise I'd put a date on when I'll take the vaccine, think you've made that bit up. It's very simple, there are thousands of people who'll be needing the vaccine before me, so be listed them to you in earlier post.
When it's my turn I and my family will be taking it. I'd rather go about living without having to worry about socially distancing wearing face masks and having an opened up society, than the one you propose of just living with it.
Get it done and all those other areas that you have highlighted will be sorted, though the reality the NHS is broken and was broken long before COVID-19...
Waiting lists were horrible before Covid abuse help lines and mental health awareness and measures to stem it have been non existent. But I suppose it's a good sound bite for you to use, I actually think you don't give a f**k about them and only concerned about yourself
You have proven time and again you are I am alright jack to hell with the rest. So you are saying you would be front and centre if the first batch was offered to all, or are you still going to go as far to the back of the queue as you can, so that it can be changed and adjusted before it reaches you, sure if it's put in the general population it must be safe, what is it being changed and adjusted for?
New member Seaney? ;D How many different names have you used over the years after being booted off for being a tool?
Your underbelly of bile and hatred always shines through,its milhouses world and the rest can whistle. You don't care about anyone but your status on a board with about 20 active members, your mask repeatedly slips.
Quote from: Seaney on November 06, 2020, 08:04:04 PM
Your underbelly of bile and hatred always shines through,its milhouses world and the rest can whistle. You don't care about anyone but your status on a board with about 20 active members, your mask repeatedly slips.
So who were you before seaney? Masks slips ;D ;D
You tell me son.
Whereas the only thing you keep giving is abuse and personal insults when you inevitably get to the point of contradicting yourself again and again. That's the problem with telling lies when you tell as many as you do it's hard to remember them all.
Quote from: Seaney on November 07, 2020, 10:42:13 AM
Whereas the only thing you keep giving is abuse and personal insults when you inevitably get to the point of contradicting yourself again and again. That's the problem with telling lies when you tell as many as you do it's hard to remember them all.
Never been kicked out or thrown my toys out of the pram like you..
You'll crack again and leave or get booted out
Whereas you can continue to insult and abuse with impunity when called out, if this place and the sense of status you believe you have on it floats your boat, knock yourself out son. You still never answered if you would get the vaccine if it was offered to all before Christmas, but deflection and lies obviously massage your ego. No doubt a smiley face beckons.
Quote from: Seaney on November 07, 2020, 12:46:19 PM
Whereas you can continue to insult and abuse with impunity when called out, if this place and the sense of status you believe you have on it floats your boat, knock yourself out son. You still never answered if you would get the vaccine if it was offered to all before Christmas, but deflection and lies obviously massage your ego. No doubt a smiley face beckons.
I really believe you've difficulty in reading posts, I've answered this!
If before Xmas they have safely produced a vaccine that passes all the stringent checks and balances and if those who need it first, nurses/doctors/hospital staff/elderly/underlying conditions then I'll happily without fear take the vaccine.
But you'd be a complete fool to think any of that will be available before Xmas ... oh wait
So again you are saying you want to be as far to the back of the queue as possible so any adverse reactions in the first rollout don't impede you. You can keep doing the smiley faces, you know you love them.
Quote from: Seaney on November 07, 2020, 01:49:10 PM
So again you are saying you want to be as far to the back of the queue as possible so any adverse reactions in the first rollout don't impede you. You can keep doing the smiley faces, you know you love them.
Keep doing the smiley faces?
Bit early to be on the beer
;D
Based on the mutation of the virus in Denmark, setting aside the risks of a rushed through vaccine, one wonders how protected will one be with any vaccine.
Quote from: Seaney on November 08, 2020, 10:16:52 AM
Based on the mutation of the virus in Denmark, setting aside the risks of a rushed through vaccine, one wonders how protected will one be with any vaccine.
Has anyone mentioned hat they'll take a rushed through vaccine? I'm just curious as to why you always talk about it...
I am curious why you insist on quoting large posts but there you go, by the way are you stalking me. ::)
Quote from: Seaney on November 08, 2020, 03:09:31 PM
I am curious why you insist on quoting large posts but there you go, by the way are you stalking me. ::)
Not going to answer? Sums you up
Says the man who answers every question with a question. You must love this place, I believe you actually think you have a superior intellect than the other 20 active members, hence your love of the smiley face.
Quote from: Seaney on November 08, 2020, 04:56:53 PM
Says the man who answers every question with a question. You must love this place, I believe you actually think you have a superior intellect than the other 20 active members, hence your love of the smiley face.
So that's a no? Good man.
Quote from: Seaney on November 07, 2020, 01:49:10 PM
So again you are saying you want to be as far to the back of the queue as possible so any adverse reactions in the first rollout don't impede you. You can keep doing the smiley faces, you know you love them.
Still clinging to this one? ;D ;D ;D
Christ man, I know it's an anonymous forum but have some self-respect.
Still calling folk out you mean, as mentioned before the great thing about these boards is you can pedal any oul shite, the reality of the situation is usually quite different from folk trying to be moral guardians of the human race, especially giving the bile they post about their fellow man in the past.
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 08:20:13 AM
Still calling folk out you mean, as mentioned before the great thing about these boards is you can pedal any oul shite, the reality of the situation is usually quite different from folk trying to be moral guardians of the human race, especially giving the bile they post about their fellow man in the past.
In abundance!
If the cap fits!
Interesting read for those pinning their hopes on a vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/07/could-a-covid-vaccine-bring-back-normality (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/07/could-a-covid-vaccine-bring-back-normality)
Only a generation to wait!
Moreover, warns Peter Hotez of Baylor College of Medicine in Texas, the first vaccines might stop vaccinated people getting sick, but not prevent them catching and transmitting the virus. "In that case we'll still require masks and social distancing, until better vaccines come along," he says.
Some immunologists think that is not all bad. If young children – who do not usually get so sick from Covid as adults – start catching the virus every winter we may develop enough immunity, if not to stop the virus circulating then at least to limit its impact. In a generation, everyone will have had it as children, and Covid will be mild. That may be what happened with the four coronaviruses that now cause common colds in winter. Genetic analysis shows one, OC43, left cattle and entered humans around 1890. It may be what really caused a pandemic that year of what we thought was severe flu, says Nicholas Christakis of Yale University, but which we now realise had Covid-like symptoms.
BBC reporting that Pfizer vaccine stops 90% of people getting the virus according to their preliminary results.
A great day.
Saw it on Twitter and the first dozen replies were from anti-vax knobheads, so numerous battles lie ahead.
Biden has been President-elect for less than two days and already he's come up with a vaccine
What a man
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:10:52 PM
A great day.
Saw it on Twitter and the first dozen replies were from anti-vax knobheads, so numerous battles lie ahead.
Get the sleeve rolled up! You could be lying on a beach by July! If one is cautious about administering an expediently developed vaccine are they also knobheads? I have had every vaccination it is recommended to take as had all my children, has one the option to be cautious on this one and wait or is the toxic language from folk like yourself meant to bully folk and their families into getting it.
Some positive news at last, although I'm sure it will be pissed all over in the next couple of days.
If you want the vaccine take it. If not? Don't take it. End of.
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:10:52 PM
A great day.
Saw it on Twitter and the first dozen replies were from anti-vax knobheads, so numerous battles lie ahead.
Get the sleeve rolled up! You could be lying on a beach by July! If one is cautious about administering an expediently developed vaccine are they also knobheads? I have had every vaccination it is recommended to take as had all my children, has one the option to be cautious on this one and wait or is the toxic language from folk like yourself meant to bully folk and their families into getting it.
The replies I read on Twitter were all replies to Piers Morgan who had quote tweeted Pfizer, so I can assure you Knobhead was very appropriate. Also, I don't care what you do chief. I learned a long time ago all you can do is look after yourself & your own - and I'll take a Government approved Vaccine without a 2nd thought.
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:10:52 PM
A great day.
Saw it on Twitter and the first dozen replies were from anti-vax knobheads, so numerous battles lie ahead.
Get the sleeve rolled up! You could be lying on a beach by July! If one is cautious about administering an expediently developed vaccine are they also knobheads? I have had every vaccination it is recommended to take as had all my children, has one the option to be cautious on this one and wait or is the toxic language from folk like yourself meant to bully folk and their families into getting it.
The replies I read on Twitter were all replies to Piers Morgan who had quote tweeted Pfizer, so I can assure you Knobhead was very appropriate. Also, I don't care what you do chief. I learned a long time ago all you can do is look after yourself & your own - and I'll take a Government approved Vaccine without a 2nd thought.
What did I do....
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on November 09, 2020, 12:36:30 PM
Some positive news at last, although I'm sure it will be pissed all over in the next couple of days.
If you want the vaccine take it. If not? Don't take it. End of.
Close the thread, common sense prevails.
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:10:52 PM
A great day.
Saw it on Twitter and the first dozen replies were from anti-vax knobheads, so numerous battles lie ahead.
Get the sleeve rolled up! You could be lying on a beach by July! If one is cautious about administering an expediently developed vaccine are they also knobheads? I have had every vaccination it is recommended to take as had all my children, has one the option to be cautious on this one and wait or is the toxic language from folk like yourself meant to bully folk and their families into getting it.
The replies I read on Twitter were all replies to Piers Morgan who had quote tweeted Pfizer, so I can assure you Knobhead was very appropriate. Also, I don't care what you do chief. I learned a long time ago all you can do is look after yourself & your own - and I'll take a Government approved Vaccine without a 2nd thought.
Good man, thankfully we have a government that is immune to mistakes, so you have every right to place your health in their hands.
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 12:56:06 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:10:52 PM
A great day.
Saw it on Twitter and the first dozen replies were from anti-vax knobheads, so numerous battles lie ahead.
Get the sleeve rolled up! You could be lying on a beach by July! If one is cautious about administering an expediently developed vaccine are they also knobheads? I have had every vaccination it is recommended to take as had all my children, has one the option to be cautious on this one and wait or is the toxic language from folk like yourself meant to bully folk and their families into getting it.
The replies I read on Twitter were all replies to Piers Morgan who had quote tweeted Pfizer, so I can assure you Knobhead was very appropriate. Also, I don't care what you do chief. I learned a long time ago all you can do is look after yourself & your own - and I'll take a Government approved Vaccine without a 2nd thought.
Good man, thankfully we have a government that is immune to mistakes, so you have every right to place your health in their hands.
Dunno how the UK Government is gonna mess it up ??? it's a German/US vaccine with no UK Government involvement.
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:10:52 PM
A great day.
Saw it on Twitter and the first dozen replies were from anti-vax knobheads, so numerous battles lie ahead.
Get the sleeve rolled up! You could be lying on a beach by July! If one is cautious about administering an expediently developed vaccine are they also knobheads? I have had every vaccination it is recommended to take as had all my children, has one the option to be cautious on this one and wait or is the toxic language from folk like yourself meant to bully folk and their families into getting it.
You continue to struggle with the fact that the clinical trial process is being followed. Globally all available resources have been thrown at vaccine development. When money is no object it's the same as having 2 lads laying block or 20 lads laying block, the outcome is the same but it'll be done a lot quicker. The pharmaceutical industry is very heavily regulated so there is no way any regulatory agency would sign off on a vaccine that isn't safe. It must be effective AND safe.
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 11:36:06 AM
Interesting read for those pinning their hopes on a vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/07/could-a-covid-vaccine-bring-back-normality (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/07/could-a-covid-vaccine-bring-back-normality)
Only a generation to wait!
Moreover, warns Peter Hotez of Baylor College of Medicine in Texas, the first vaccines might stop vaccinated people getting sick, but not prevent them catching and transmitting the virus. "In that case we'll still require masks and social distancing, until better vaccines come along," he says.
Some immunologists think that is not all bad. If young children – who do not usually get so sick from Covid as adults – start catching the virus every winter we may develop enough immunity, if not to stop the virus circulating then at least to limit its impact. In a generation, everyone will have had it as children, and Covid will be mild. That may be what happened with the four coronaviruses that now cause common colds in winter. Genetic analysis shows one, OC43, left cattle and entered humans around 1890. It may be what really caused a pandemic that year of what we thought was severe flu, says Nicholas Christakis of Yale University, but which we now realise had Covid-like symptoms.
Given the announcement today, I'd say (very tentatively) that this is not overly relevant any more.
On the other hand, it's not a great article for those who like to put forward the argument that Covid is basically the same as the flu.
Thank goodness for you that you didn't do that - or you'd be looking a bit silly right now.
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:10:52 PM
A great day.
Saw it on Twitter and the first dozen replies were from anti-vax knobheads, so numerous battles lie ahead.
Get the sleeve rolled up! You could be lying on a beach by July! If one is cautious about administering an expediently developed vaccine are they also knobheads? I have had every vaccination it is recommended to take as had all my children, has one the option to be cautious on this one and wait or is the toxic language from folk like yourself meant to bully folk and their families into getting it.
"One" of course has that option.
The "behind the sofa" option.
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:10:52 PM
A great day.
Saw it on Twitter and the first dozen replies were from anti-vax knobheads, so numerous battles lie ahead.
Get the sleeve rolled up! You could be lying on a beach by July! If one is cautious about administering an expediently developed vaccine are they also knobheads? I have had every vaccination it is recommended to take as had all my children, has one the option to be cautious on this one and wait or is the toxic language from folk like yourself meant to bully folk and their families into getting it.
The pharma companies will have tested and trialed the drug before making it available to the general public. They're not stupid. The law suits they could potentially face if they haven't covered all their bases could bankrupt them.
I don't expect anyone to be forced to get the vaccine, but there's no need to ridicule those of us who would do it.
Quote from: dublin7 on November 09, 2020, 01:25:41 PM
The pharma companies will have tested and trialed the drug before making it available to the general public. They're not stupid. The law suits they could potentially face if they haven't covered all their bases could bankrupt them.
I don't expect anyone to be forced to get the vaccine, but there's no need to ridicule those of us who would do it.
They rush-released the Swine flu vaccine on the basis that governments would indemnify them for the consequences. That's why it's the government that has been sued by the narcolepsy victims.
Potentially billions of vaccine sales. Pharmaceutical companies won't give feck how many people sue them for potential side effects, as this will make them trillions of pounds profit.
Like politicians and governments, I wouldn't trust the pharmaceutical companies are far as I could throw them.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 09, 2020, 01:51:58 PM
Potentially billions of vaccine sales. Pharmaceutical companies won't give feck how many people sue them for potential side effects, as this will make them trillions of pounds profit.
Like politicians and governments, I wouldn't trust the pharmaceutical companies are far as I could throw them.
Precisely.
Billion dollar pharma companies only care about their bottom line.
Quote from: Angelo on November 09, 2020, 01:55:48 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on November 09, 2020, 01:51:58 PM
Potentially billions of vaccine sales. Pharmaceutical companies won't give feck how many people sue them for potential side effects, as this will make them trillions of pounds profit.
Like politicians and governments, I wouldn't trust the pharmaceutical companies are far as I could throw them.
Precisely.
Billion dollar pharma companies only care about their bottom line.
You could say the same about pretty much every company in the world. Every well run business from a small one man operation to a large multi national company has to focus on their bottom line.
Quote from: Franko on November 09, 2020, 01:18:14 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 11:36:06 AM
Interesting read for those pinning their hopes on a vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/07/could-a-covid-vaccine-bring-back-normality (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/07/could-a-covid-vaccine-bring-back-normality)
Only a generation to wait!
Moreover, warns Peter Hotez of Baylor College of Medicine in Texas, the first vaccines might stop vaccinated people getting sick, but not prevent them catching and transmitting the virus. "In that case we'll still require masks and social distancing, until better vaccines come along," he says.
Some immunologists think that is not all bad. If young children – who do not usually get so sick from Covid as adults – start catching the virus every winter we may develop enough immunity, if not to stop the virus circulating then at least to limit its impact. In a generation, everyone will have had it as children, and Covid will be mild. That may be what happened with the four coronaviruses that now cause common colds in winter. Genetic analysis shows one, OC43, left cattle and entered humans around 1890. It may be what really caused a pandemic that year of what we thought was severe flu, says Nicholas Christakis of Yale University, but which we now realise had Covid-like symptoms.
Given the announcement today, I'd say (very tentatively) that this is not overly relevant any more.
On the other hand, it's not a great article for those who like to put forward the argument that Covid is basically the same as the flu.
Thank goodness for you that you didn't do that - or you'd be looking a bit silly right now.
I didn't so I am grand.
Quote from: dublin7 on November 09, 2020, 01:25:41 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:10:52 PM
A great day.
Saw it on Twitter and the first dozen replies were from anti-vax knobheads, so numerous battles lie ahead.
Get the sleeve rolled up! You could be lying on a beach by July! If one is cautious about administering an expediently developed vaccine are they also knobheads? I have had every vaccination it is recommended to take as had all my children, has one the option to be cautious on this one and wait or is the toxic language from folk like yourself meant to bully folk and their families into getting it.
The pharma companies will have tested and trialed the drug before making it available to the general public. They're not stupid. The law suits they could potentially face if they haven't covered all their bases could bankrupt them.
I don't expect anyone to be forced to get the vaccine, but there's no need to ridicule those of us who would do it.
Nor ridicule those who are cautious.
Quote from: BennyCake on November 09, 2020, 01:51:58 PM
Potentially billions of vaccine sales. Pharmaceutical companies won't give feck how many people sue them for potential side effects, as this will make them trillions of pounds profit.
Like politicians and governments, I wouldn't trust the pharmaceutical companies are far as I could throw them.
Plus any lawsuits will be decades off.
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 01:11:01 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 12:56:06 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:39:43 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:10:52 PM
A great day.
Saw it on Twitter and the first dozen replies were from anti-vax knobheads, so numerous battles lie ahead.
Get the sleeve rolled up! You could be lying on a beach by July! If one is cautious about administering an expediently developed vaccine are they also knobheads? I have had every vaccination it is recommended to take as had all my children, has one the option to be cautious on this one and wait or is the toxic language from folk like yourself meant to bully folk and their families into getting it.
The replies I read on Twitter were all replies to Piers Morgan who had quote tweeted Pfizer, so I can assure you Knobhead was very appropriate. Also, I don't care what you do chief. I learned a long time ago all you can do is look after yourself & your own - and I'll take a Government approved Vaccine without a 2nd thought.
Good man, thankfully we have a government that is immune to mistakes, so you have every right to place your health in their hands.
Dunno how the UK Government is gonna mess it up ??? it's a German/US vaccine with no UK Government involvement.
One minute your taking a government approved vaccine, next thing it has nothing to do with the government, so why do you care if its government approved!
Quote from: BennyCake on November 09, 2020, 01:51:58 PM
Potentially billions of vaccine sales. Pharmaceutical companies won't give feck how many people sue them for potential side effects, as this will make them trillions of pounds profit.
Like politicians and governments, I wouldn't trust the pharmaceutical companies are far as I could throw them.
So you take no medicines? God forbid if you get a life threatening illness are you gonna tell them to keep their drugs?
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 03:35:44 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 09, 2020, 01:25:41 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 12:21:31 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on November 09, 2020, 12:10:52 PM
A great day.
Saw it on Twitter and the first dozen replies were from anti-vax knobheads, so numerous battles lie ahead.
Get the sleeve rolled up! You could be lying on a beach by July! If one is cautious about administering an expediently developed vaccine are they also knobheads? I have had every vaccination it is recommended to take as had all my children, has one the option to be cautious on this one and wait or is the toxic language from folk like yourself meant to bully folk and their families into getting it.
The pharma companies will have tested and trialed the drug before making it available to the general public. They're not stupid. The law suits they could potentially face if they haven't covered all their bases could bankrupt them.
I don't expect anyone to be forced to get the vaccine, but there's no need to ridicule those of us who would do it.
Nor ridicule those who are cautious.
Do you use cars, planes, electrical appliances? These all also are required to pass safety standards before being released for use to the public.
That frankly is a ridiculous comparison.
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 04:40:14 PM
That frankly is a ridiculous comparison.
Hardly as ridiculous as your argument,
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 04:40:14 PM
That frankly is a ridiculous comparison.
Airplanes for example (before Covid) flew millions of people around the world. The vast majority of people aren't afraid to fly because they trust the airplanes safety record. Airplanes have health and safety standards to pass to get and keep their planes in the air.
The same principle applies to pharmaceutical companies. If their products aren't safe they'll be pulled and see how that affects their share price and bottom line. Do thw same people think the medical professionals are going to put their name to a vaccine approval without checking it's safe to do so and risk their reputation and careers?
Some people have been watching too many hollywood movies during lockdown
I've yet to hear any "not getting it" tell me which stage of development or testing that hasn't been used that they would like used, not one.
Yeah because we are all biochemists and chemical engineers. I would like to wait for more data from clinical trials, how long has the 43,000 been monitored for, what is the length of immunity, researchers say that protection is achieved 28 days after the initiation of the vaccination, which consists of two doses, what does this mean, can you still become infected within the 28 days, and if immunity is only a few months what then?
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 08:47:59 AM
Yeah because we are all biochemists and chemical engineers. I would like to wait for more data from clinical trials, how long has the 43,000 been monitored for, what is the length of immunity, researchers say that protection is achieved 28 days after the initiation of the vaccination, which consists of two doses, what does this mean, can you still become infected within the 28 days, and if immunity is only a few months what then?
I would say that if you can get a few months then take it again? Providing it passes the stringent safety tests of course.. Looking at the safety data would be paramount, this was done in July I think so three months in already and still counting..
I'd assume these people will still be monitored? Two doses would one be a booster?
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 03:34:51 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 09, 2020, 01:18:14 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 09, 2020, 11:36:06 AM
Interesting read for those pinning their hopes on a vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/07/could-a-covid-vaccine-bring-back-normality (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/07/could-a-covid-vaccine-bring-back-normality)
Only a generation to wait!
Moreover, warns Peter Hotez of Baylor College of Medicine in Texas, the first vaccines might stop vaccinated people getting sick, but not prevent them catching and transmitting the virus. "In that case we'll still require masks and social distancing, until better vaccines come along," he says.
Some immunologists think that is not all bad. If young children – who do not usually get so sick from Covid as adults – start catching the virus every winter we may develop enough immunity, if not to stop the virus circulating then at least to limit its impact. In a generation, everyone will have had it as children, and Covid will be mild. That may be what happened with the four coronaviruses that now cause common colds in winter. Genetic analysis shows one, OC43, left cattle and entered humans around 1890. It may be what really caused a pandemic that year of what we thought was severe flu, says Nicholas Christakis of Yale University, but which we now realise had Covid-like symptoms.
Given the announcement today, I'd say (very tentatively) that this is not overly relevant any more.
On the other hand, it's not a great article for those who like to put forward the argument that Covid is basically the same as the flu.
Thank goodness for you that you didn't do that - or you'd be looking a bit silly right now.
I didn't so I am grand.
Must have been the other balloon.
It's difficult to distinguish at times.
Don't let facts get in the way of your bile and insults.
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 04:51:50 PM
Don't let facts get in the way of your bile and insults.
Lol.
Irony's not really your thing is it?
No smiley face? Another warrior over egging his contribution. Just keep spouting lies.
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 08:47:59 AM
Yeah because we are all biochemists and chemical engineers. I would like to wait for more data from clinical trials, how long has the 43,000 been monitored for, what is the length of immunity, researchers say that protection is achieved 28 days after the initiation of the vaccination, which consists of two doses, what does this mean, can you still become infected within the 28 days, and if immunity is only a few months what then?
What answers to each of those questions would satisfy you?
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
Ah - "according to a mate..."
In real news, a real life expert was on the news discussing how Oxford are doing very well with it
Quote from: Chief on November 10, 2020, 10:00:00 PM
Ah - "according to a mate..."
PhD in chemical engineering, former employee and currently at the coal face, what's your qualifications?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 10, 2020, 10:08:23 PM
In real news, a real life expert was on the news discussing how Oxford are doing very well with it
Redner still there?
Was taking to a client today at work who had Covid, spent six days in hospital, thought he was going to die, whole family contracted it..
Was a non believer of how bad it was, never knew anyone that had it until it came to his door, was very emotional talking today.
The sooner a safe vaccine comes the better
Everyone looking for a safe vaccine, strange in a pandemic they where a non believer. Would you take this vaccine tomorrow? Or will you answer with a question?
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
What has this chemical engineer got to do with vaccines?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 10, 2020, 11:02:59 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
What has this chemical engineer got to do with vaccines?
He's a scientist, surely if we have learned anything from these threads is scientists know fcuk all and should not be trusted.
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 10:29:29 PM
Everyone looking for a safe vaccine, strange in a pandemic they where a non believer. Would you take this vaccine tomorrow? Or will you answer with a question?
If the Pfizer vaccine is approved and passed by medical experts I'd have no problem taking it.
A relation of mine in the UK got Covid a few months ago and she spent a few weeks in bed unable to do anything. Still hasn't got her sense of smell or taste back yet.
She assured me it was a hell of a lot worse then getting the flu that alot of the anti mask/Covid nut jobs keep comparing it to
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
Jesus. The lads at Pfizer must be pretty dam clever then.
All the more reason to trust what they are giving out.
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
Does the MMR vaccine not guarantee protection for 99% of people who take it against measles and just under 90% for mumps?
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 10:18:01 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 10, 2020, 10:00:00 PM
Ah - "according to a mate..."
PhD in chemical engineering, former employee and currently at the coal face, what's your qualifications?
Still just a unnamed mate I'm afraid. Even if it is true - which I'm on the fence about - unless you name your source this anecdote is just a exactly that, a nice little open ended story
Quote from: dublin7 on November 10, 2020, 11:14:42 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
Does the MMR vaccine not guarantee protection for 99% of people who take it against measles and just under 90% for mumps?
The MMR vaccine is generally well over 90% effective, but it varies according to the disease.
Clearly the only bit of chemical engineering Seaney's mate ever did was adding coke to vodka.
Some great entertainment here ;D
Quote from: dublin7 on November 10, 2020, 11:14:42 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
Does the MMR vaccine not guarantee protection for 99% of people who take it against measles and just under 90% for mumps?
Is that currently in clinical trials?
Quote from: Franko on November 10, 2020, 11:21:43 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 10, 2020, 11:14:42 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
Does the MMR vaccine not guarantee protection for 99% of people who take it against measles and just under 90% for mumps?
The MMR vaccine is generally well over 90% effective, but it varies according to the disease.
Clearly the only bit of chemical engineering Seaney's mate ever did was adding coke to vodka.
Again is the MMR in clinical trials?
Quote from: Chief on November 10, 2020, 11:17:05 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 10:18:01 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 10, 2020, 10:00:00 PM
Ah - "according to a mate..."
PhD in chemical engineering, former employee and currently at the coal face, what's your qualifications?
Still just a unnamed mate I'm afraid. Even if it is true - which I'm on the fence about - unless you name your source this anecdote is just a exactly that, a nice little open ended story
Chief the second, that make it better, you are an unnamed contributor as are all on here, next time anyone says anything unless they supply their full name dismiss the lot, that it?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 10, 2020, 11:02:59 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
What has this chemical engineer got to do with vaccines?
A bizarre statement, what have you got to do with vaccines? Have you to be working on one now to comment?
Quote from: thebigfella on November 10, 2020, 11:05:55 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 10, 2020, 11:02:59 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
What has this chemical engineer got to do with vaccines?
He's a scientist, surely if we have learned anything from these threads is scientists know fcuk all and should not be trusted.
The scientists are the foot soldiers, Pfizer share price going well now.
Quote from: dublin7 on November 10, 2020, 11:07:35 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 10:29:29 PM
Everyone looking for a safe vaccine, strange in a pandemic they where a non believer. Would you take this vaccine tomorrow? Or will you answer with a question?
If the Pfizer vaccine is approved and passed by medical experts I'd have no problem taking it.
A relation of mine in the UK got Covid a few months ago and she spent a few weeks in bed unable to do anything. Still hasn't got her sense of smell or taste back yet.
She assured me it was a hell of a lot worse then getting the flu that alot of the anti mask/Covid nut jobs keep comparing it to
Quote from: Chief on November 10, 2020, 11:17:05 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 10:18:01 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 10, 2020, 10:00:00 PM
Ah - "according to a mate..."
PhD in chemical engineering, former employee and currently at the coal face, what's your qualifications?
Still just a unnamed mate I'm afraid. Even if it is true - which I'm on the fence about - unless you name your source this anecdote is just a exactly that, a nice little open ended story
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 10, 2020, 10:24:36 PM
Was taking to a client today at work who had Covid, spent six days in hospital, thought he was going to die, whole family contracted it..
Was a non believer of how bad it was, never knew anyone that had it until it came to his door, was very emotional talking today.
The sooner a safe vaccine comes the better
Quote from: Chief on November 10, 2020, 11:17:05 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 10:18:01 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 10, 2020, 10:00:00 PM
Ah - "according to a mate..."
PhD in chemical engineering, former employee and currently at the coal face, what's your qualifications?
Still just a unnamed mate I'm afraid. Even if it is true - which I'm on the fence about - unless you name your source this anecdote is just a exactly that, a nice little open ended story
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 07:29:34 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 10, 2020, 11:21:43 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 10, 2020, 11:14:42 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
Does the MMR vaccine not guarantee protection for 99% of people who take it against measles and just under 90% for mumps?
The MMR vaccine is generally well over 90% effective, but it varies according to the disease.
Clearly the only bit of chemical engineering Seaney's mate ever did was adding coke to vodka.
Again is the MMR in clinical trials?
Do you really need me to tell you that?
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:15:01 AM
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
I'm comparing the effectiveness of todays MMR vaccine with the clinical trials of the Covid vaccine.
Surely you are not suggesting the with unlimited cash, 50 years of scientific improvements, and the fact that they are different diseases/vaccines, the initial clinical trial results should be the same?
Apologies I assumed most would know that the new vaccine was only in clinical trials as it's only the biggest story in the world. Ill add that bit as folk on here really just want to mock and think they are winning something rather than debate, but whatever floats your boat.
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close. (In clinical trials)
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:15:01 AM
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
I'm comparing the effectiveness of todays MMR vaccine with the clinical trials of the Covid vaccine.
Surely you are not suggesting the with unlimited cash, 50 years of scientific improvements, and the fact that they are different diseases/vaccines, the initial clinical trial results should be the same?
Where did I say that - please let me know - I never mentioned MMR it was you and someone else brought it up!
And lets face it - it was brought up to ridicule - but looks like more than one taking a redner this morning.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:58:58 AM
And lets face it - it was brought up to ridicule - but looks like more than one taking a redner this morning.
You and who?
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:15:01 AM
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
I'm comparing the effectiveness of todays MMR vaccine with the clinical trials of the Covid vaccine.
Surely you are not suggesting the with unlimited cash, 50 years of scientific improvements, and the fact that they are different diseases/vaccines, the initial clinical trial results should be the same?
Where did I say that - please let me know - I never mentioned MMR it was you and someone else brought it up!
What is your 'chemical engineer's' point then?
What is the relevance of this figure?
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 07:32:15 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 10, 2020, 11:17:05 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 10:18:01 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 10, 2020, 10:00:00 PM
Ah - "according to a mate..."
PhD in chemical engineering, former employee and currently at the coal face, what's your qualifications?
Still just a unnamed mate I'm afraid. Even if it is true - which I'm on the fence about - unless you name your source this anecdote is just a exactly that, a nice little open ended story
Chief the second, that make it better, you are an unnamed contributor as are all on here, next time anyone says anything unless they supply their full name dismiss the lot, that it?
Yeah we are all spoofers on here. Totally accepted.
Differences is I'm not spoofing about a PhD in chemical engineering, and spinning a story as science.
It's all on spectrum Seany
I don't have said PhD, I really couldn't care what you believe kid.
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 09:02:33 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:15:01 AM
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
I'm comparing the effectiveness of todays MMR vaccine with the clinical trials of the Covid vaccine.
Surely you are not suggesting the with unlimited cash, 50 years of scientific improvements, and the fact that they are different diseases/vaccines, the initial clinical trial results should be the same?
Where did I say that - please let me know - I never mentioned MMR it was you and someone else brought it up!
What is your 'chemical engineer's' point then?
What is the relevance of this figure?
I'll let you work it.
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 09:01:18 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:58:58 AM
And lets face it - it was brought up to ridicule - but looks like more than one taking a redner this morning.
You and who?
I am fast concluding you are very young, either that or not the sharpest tool in the box.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 10:35:07 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 09:02:33 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:15:01 AM
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
I'm comparing the effectiveness of todays MMR vaccine with the clinical trials of the Covid vaccine.
Surely you are not suggesting the with unlimited cash, 50 years of scientific improvements, and the fact that they are different diseases/vaccines, the initial clinical trial results should be the same?
Where did I say that - please let me know - I never mentioned MMR it was you and someone else brought it up!
What is your 'chemical engineer's' point then?
What is the relevance of this figure?
I'll let you work it.
So nothing then.
I'm seeing a pattern here. If you've no case to make, you'd be better saying nothing.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 10:36:35 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 09:01:18 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:58:58 AM
And lets face it - it was brought up to ridicule - but looks like more than one taking a redner this morning.
You and who?
I am fast concluding you are very young, either that or not the sharpest tool in the box.
;D
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 10:40:53 AM
So nothing then.
I'm seeing a pattern here. If you've no case to make, you'd be better saying nothing.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:15:01 AM
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
I'm comparing the effectiveness of todays MMR vaccine with the clinical trials of the Covid vaccine.
Surely you are not suggesting the with unlimited cash, 50 years of scientific improvements, and the fact that they are different diseases/vaccines, the initial clinical trial results should be the same?
Where did I say that - please let me know - I never mentioned MMR it was you and someone else brought it up!
So nothing there, I am beginning to see a pattern!
Ah the smiley face, was only a matter of time, must be a thing when you think you have made some amazing smart contribution to an anonymous discussion board with about 20 active members!
And yet you still haven't made your point.
James OBrien on LBC atm talking about the vaccine and conspiracy theories.. Worth a listen
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 11:03:47 AM
And yet you still haven't made your point.
If you can't understand the point, that's not my issue. You are first in the queue with the family so any point will be irrelevant to you.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 11:38:34 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 11:03:47 AM
And yet you still haven't made your point.
If you can't understand the point, that's not my issue. You are first in the queue with the family so any point will be irrelevant to you.
Another post. No points made.
Looks like you have made 2000+ pointless posts.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 12:07:39 PM
Looks like you have made 2000+ pointless posts.
And another one.
You are embarrassing yourself at this stage kid, it's quite sad. Please reply and another one!
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 12:12:58 PM
You are embarrassing yourself at this stage kid, it's quite sad. Please reply and another one!
You are on a roll here.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:15:01 AM
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
I'm comparing the effectiveness of todays MMR vaccine with the clinical trials of the Covid vaccine.
Surely you are not suggesting the with unlimited cash, 50 years of scientific improvements, and the fact that they are different diseases/vaccines, the initial clinical trial results should be the same?
Where did I say that - please let me know - I never mentioned MMR it was you and someone else brought it up!
I brought up MMR because while I have don't have any experience or knowledge when it comes to creating vaccines I am aware how successful and important the MMR vaccine is and I wondered how your chemical engineer friend could have forgotten that when he claimed no vaccine is close to 90% successful
I also looked up the original trials for testing measles vaccinations and in the early 60s they introduced the first vaccine after a 95% success rate in trials. You might want to check that with your chemical engineer friend the next time your talking to him (or her)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4007870/
Quote from: dublin7 on November 11, 2020, 12:21:32 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:15:01 AM
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
I'm comparing the effectiveness of todays MMR vaccine with the clinical trials of the Covid vaccine.
Surely you are not suggesting the with unlimited cash, 50 years of scientific improvements, and the fact that they are different diseases/vaccines, the initial clinical trial results should be the same?
Where did I say that - please let me know - I never mentioned MMR it was you and someone else brought it up!
I brought up MMR because while I have don't have any experience or knowledge when it comes to creating vaccines I am aware how successful and important the MMR vaccine is and I wondered how your chemical engineer friend could have forgotten that when he claimed no vaccine is close to 90% successful
I also looked up the original trials for testing measles vaccinations and in the early 60s they introduced the first vaccine after a 95% success rate in trials. You might want to check that with your chemical engineer friend the next time your talking to him (or her)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4007870/
He didn't say that nor did I post that but lets not allow facts to cloud your lies there. As for your article why not cut and paste the evidence of the clinical trials before the vaccine went live for the 95% success for it.
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 12:19:53 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 12:12:58 PM
You are embarrassing yourself at this stage kid, it's quite sad. Please reply and another one!
You are on a roll here.
Complete redner - you should be totally embarrassed, maybe go for a walk.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 01:06:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 11, 2020, 12:21:32 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:15:01 AM
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
I'm comparing the effectiveness of todays MMR vaccine with the clinical trials of the Covid vaccine.
Surely you are not suggesting the with unlimited cash, 50 years of scientific improvements, and the fact that they are different diseases/vaccines, the initial clinical trial results should be the same?
Where did I say that - please let me know - I never mentioned MMR it was you and someone else brought it up!
I brought up MMR because while I have don't have any experience or knowledge when it comes to creating vaccines I am aware how successful and important the MMR vaccine is and I wondered how your chemical engineer friend could have forgotten that when he claimed no vaccine is close to 90% successful
I also looked up the original trials for testing measles vaccinations and in the early 60s they introduced the first vaccine after a 95% success rate in trials. You might want to check that with your chemical engineer friend the next time your talking to him (or her)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4007870/
He didn't say that nor did I post that but lets not allow facts to cloud your lies there. As for your article why not cut and paste the evidence of the clinical trials before the vaccine went live for the 95% success for it.
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.As I said previously I don't know alot about medicines/vaccines, but I can read at a decent level and I'm quite good with numbers. The problem with bullsh**ing is it gets very hard to remember what you said/posted previously.
Seaney - help me out here.
Do you think that an unsafe vaccine will be rolled out?
If so what is your basis?
In what circumstances would you take a vaccine?
What is your appetite for risk in this regard?
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 01:06:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 11, 2020, 12:21:32 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:15:01 AM
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
I'm comparing the effectiveness of todays MMR vaccine with the clinical trials of the Covid vaccine.
Surely you are not suggesting the with unlimited cash, 50 years of scientific improvements, and the fact that they are different diseases/vaccines, the initial clinical trial results should be the same?
Where did I say that - please let me know - I never mentioned MMR it was you and someone else brought it up!
I brought up MMR because while I have don't have any experience or knowledge when it comes to creating vaccines I am aware how successful and important the MMR vaccine is and I wondered how your chemical engineer friend could have forgotten that when he claimed no vaccine is close to 90% successful
I also looked up the original trials for testing measles vaccinations and in the early 60s they introduced the first vaccine after a 95% success rate in trials. You might want to check that with your chemical engineer friend the next time your talking to him (or her)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4007870/
He didn't say that nor did I post that but lets not allow facts to cloud your lies there. As for your article why not cut and paste the evidence of the clinical trials before the vaccine went live for the 95% success for it.
So not only are you unwilling to make an actual point, you are now denying the half story that you DID tell.
Redner indeed.
Quote from: dublin7 on November 11, 2020, 01:13:15 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 01:06:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 11, 2020, 12:21:32 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:15:01 AM
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
I'm comparing the effectiveness of todays MMR vaccine with the clinical trials of the Covid vaccine.
Surely you are not suggesting the with unlimited cash, 50 years of scientific improvements, and the fact that they are different diseases/vaccines, the initial clinical trial results should be the same?
Where did I say that - please let me know - I never mentioned MMR it was you and someone else brought it up!
I brought up MMR because while I have don't have any experience or knowledge when it comes to creating vaccines I am aware how successful and important the MMR vaccine is and I wondered how your chemical engineer friend could have forgotten that when he claimed no vaccine is close to 90% successful
I also looked up the original trials for testing measles vaccinations and in the early 60s they introduced the first vaccine after a 95% success rate in trials. You might want to check that with your chemical engineer friend the next time your talking to him (or her)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4007870/
He didn't say that nor did I post that but lets not allow facts to cloud your lies there. As for your article why not cut and paste the evidence of the clinical trials before the vaccine went live for the 95% success for it.
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
As I said previously I don't know alot about medicines/vaccines, but I can read at a decent level and I'm quite good with numbers. The problem with bullsh**ing is it gets very hard to remember what you said/posted previously.
It is like talking to a child trying to do their homework!
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:52:23 AM
Apologies I assumed most would know that the new vaccine was only in clinical trials as it's only the biggest story in the world. Ill add that bit as folk on here really just want to mock and think they are winning something rather than debate, but whatever floats your boat.
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close. (In clinical trials)
Happy?
The vaccine is not live yet - do you now get it? Penny dropping at all?
Quote from: LCohen on November 11, 2020, 01:15:53 PM
Seaney - help me out here.
Do you think that an unsafe vaccine will be rolled out?
If so what is your basis?
In what circumstances would you take a vaccine?
What is your appetite for risk in this regard?
I think the world wants to get back to normal, understandingly. There is a huge global appetite for a vaccine, just looks at stock markets sore when the results of some clinical trials were announced. Is the vaccine unsafe, I don't know, I hope not, I hope it works and we can all have full lives again, you only get one.
Will I take this vaccine or another within the coming year or 18 months, no I won't, I would like to see more data, how long is immunity, are their any short term effects, any reactions, how many has one to take. Researchers state one is immune after 28 days, what happens in the interim, swine flu vaccination has been in the news lately and the whole world didn't receive that jab. I would like to be cautious, if you want to take it that is fine, if I don't want to take it should that not be fine also?
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 01:41:29 PM
So not only are you unwilling to make an actual point, you are now denying the half story that you DID tell.
Redner indeed.
Seriously are you just very uneducated, point that post out please or do us all a favour and get back to your skielectrics.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 02:07:33 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 11, 2020, 01:15:53 PM
Seaney - help me out here.
Do you think that an unsafe vaccine will be rolled out?
If so what is your basis?
In what circumstances would you take a vaccine?
What is your appetite for risk in this regard?
I think the world wants to get back to normal, understandingly. There is a huge global appetite for a vaccine, just looks at stock markets sore when the results of some clinical trials were announced. Is the vaccine unsafe, I don't know, I hope not, I hope it works and we can all have full lives again, you only get one.
Will I take this vaccine or another within the coming year or 18 months, no I won't, I would like to see more data, how long is immunity, are their any short term effects, any reactions, how many has one to take. Researchers state one is immune after 28 days, what happens in the interim, swine flu vaccination has been in the news lately and the whole world didn't receive that jab. I would like to be cautious, if you want to take it that is fine, if I don't want to take it should that not be fine also?
Well isn't all that very interesting. But here are my questions again.
Quote from: LCohen on November 11, 2020, 01:15:53 PM
Seaney - help me out here.
Do you think that an unsafe vaccine will be rolled out?
If so what is your basis?
In what circumstances would you take a vaccine?
What is your appetite for risk in this regard?
Have another go.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 02:10:46 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 01:41:29 PM
So not only are you unwilling to make an actual point, you are now denying the half story that you DID tell.
Redner indeed.
Seriously are you just very uneducated, point that post out please or do us all a favour and get back to your skielectrics.
Beautiful, absolutely beautiful. ;D
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 02:00:51 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 11, 2020, 01:13:15 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 01:06:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 11, 2020, 12:21:32 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:15:01 AM
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
I'm comparing the effectiveness of todays MMR vaccine with the clinical trials of the Covid vaccine.
Surely you are not suggesting the with unlimited cash, 50 years of scientific improvements, and the fact that they are different diseases/vaccines, the initial clinical trial results should be the same?
Where did I say that - please let me know - I never mentioned MMR it was you and someone else brought it up!
I brought up MMR because while I have don't have any experience or knowledge when it comes to creating vaccines I am aware how successful and important the MMR vaccine is and I wondered how your chemical engineer friend could have forgotten that when he claimed no vaccine is close to 90% successful
I also looked up the original trials for testing measles vaccinations and in the early 60s they introduced the first vaccine after a 95% success rate in trials. You might want to check that with your chemical engineer friend the next time your talking to him (or her)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4007870/
He didn't say that nor did I post that but lets not allow facts to cloud your lies there. As for your article why not cut and paste the evidence of the clinical trials before the vaccine went live for the 95% success for it.
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
As I said previously I don't know alot about medicines/vaccines, but I can read at a decent level and I'm quite good with numbers. The problem with bullsh**ing is it gets very hard to remember what you said/posted previously.
It is like talking to a child trying to do their homework!
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:52:23 AM
Apologies I assumed most would know that the new vaccine was only in clinical trials as it's only the biggest story in the world. Ill add that bit as folk on here really just want to mock and think they are winning something rather than debate, but whatever floats your boat.
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close. (In clinical trials)
Happy?
I'm not the one who can't remember what he posted and calling people liars for quoting what you wrote. I was curious about your friend's claim that vaccine trials never get near 90% and having done a basic google search during my lunch hour and read a few papers from the US National Library of medicine your "chemical engineer friend" is the one lying. I found several trials in just a few minutes with success rates at or above 90%.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 02:10:46 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 01:41:29 PM
So not only are you unwilling to make an actual point, you are now denying the half story that you DID tell.
Redner indeed.
Seriously are you just very uneducated, point that post out please or do us all a favour and get back to your skielectrics.
You said your 'chemical engineer' had mentioned that "the 90% apparently has never been achieved in history".
You then clarified that you meant that a 90% efficiacy had never been achieved by any vaccine in clinical trials before. (I think?)
So without even doing any research into whether or not this is true, (dublin7 seems to have covered this angle) I will ask you again... have you some sort of point to make about this, or were you just telling us a nice wee story about how you were talking to someone who tricked you into believing they were clever?
Just to finally put this one to bed.
Did about 15 minutes research and found that plenty of vaccines that achieved over 90% efficiacy in the clinical trial phase.
Here are examples of 2 that you can give to your pal. It might stop him from making a tool out of someone else.
It's too late for you unfortunately.
https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hep.1840010502
https://journals.lww.com/jhypertension/Abstract/2007/01000/A_vaccine_for_hypertension_based_on_virus_like.11.aspx
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 02:13:49 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 02:10:46 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 01:41:29 PM
So not only are you unwilling to make an actual point, you are now denying the half story that you DID tell.
Redner indeed.
Seriously are you just very uneducated, point that post out please or do us all a favour and get back to your skielectrics.
Beautiful, absolutely beautiful. ;D
Who my phone must do better. ::)
Quote from: LCohen on November 11, 2020, 02:11:57 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 02:07:33 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 11, 2020, 01:15:53 PM
Seaney - help me out here.
Do you think that an unsafe vaccine will be rolled out?
If so what is your basis?
In what circumstances would you take a vaccine?
What is your appetite for risk in this regard?
I think the world wants to get back to normal, understandingly. There is a huge global appetite for a vaccine, just looks at stock markets sore when the results of some clinical trials were announced. Is the vaccine unsafe, I don't know, I hope not, I hope it works and we can all have full lives again, you only get one.
Will I take this vaccine or another within the coming year or 18 months, no I won't, I would like to see more data, how long is immunity, are their any short term effects, any reactions, how many has one to take. Researchers state one is immune after 28 days, what happens in the interim, swine flu vaccination has been in the news lately and the whole world didn't receive that jab. I would like to be cautious, if you want to take it that is fine, if I don't want to take it should that not be fine also?
Well isn't all that very interesting. But here are my questions again.
Quote from: LCohen on November 11, 2020, 01:15:53 PM
Seaney - help me out here.
Do you think that an unsafe vaccine will be rolled out?
If so what is your basis?
In what circumstances would you take a vaccine?
What is your appetite for risk in this regard?
Have another go.
Ill only go the once ta.
Quote from: dublin7 on November 11, 2020, 02:18:44 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 02:00:51 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 11, 2020, 01:13:15 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 01:06:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 11, 2020, 12:21:32 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:53:32 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 08:49:43 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:15:01 AM
So why are you comparing the results of clinical trials for a new vaccine with something that has been around for 50 years?
I'm comparing the effectiveness of todays MMR vaccine with the clinical trials of the Covid vaccine.
Surely you are not suggesting the with unlimited cash, 50 years of scientific improvements, and the fact that they are different diseases/vaccines, the initial clinical trial results should be the same?
Where did I say that - please let me know - I never mentioned MMR it was you and someone else brought it up!
I brought up MMR because while I have don't have any experience or knowledge when it comes to creating vaccines I am aware how successful and important the MMR vaccine is and I wondered how your chemical engineer friend could have forgotten that when he claimed no vaccine is close to 90% successful
I also looked up the original trials for testing measles vaccinations and in the early 60s they introduced the first vaccine after a 95% success rate in trials. You might want to check that with your chemical engineer friend the next time your talking to him (or her)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4007870/
He didn't say that nor did I post that but lets not allow facts to cloud your lies there. As for your article why not cut and paste the evidence of the clinical trials before the vaccine went live for the 95% success for it.
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
As I said previously I don't know alot about medicines/vaccines, but I can read at a decent level and I'm quite good with numbers. The problem with bullsh**ing is it gets very hard to remember what you said/posted previously.
It is like talking to a child trying to do their homework!
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 08:52:23 AM
Apologies I assumed most would know that the new vaccine was only in clinical trials as it's only the biggest story in the world. Ill add that bit as folk on here really just want to mock and think they are winning something rather than debate, but whatever floats your boat.
Quote from: Seaney on November 10, 2020, 09:56:41 PM
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close. (In clinical trials)
Happy?
I'm not the one who can't remember what he posted and calling people liars for quoting what you wrote. I was curious about your friend's claim that vaccine trials never get near 90% and having done a basic google search during my lunch hour and read a few papers from the US National Library of medicine your "chemical engineer friend" is the one lying. I found several trials in just a few minutes with success rates at or above 90%.
You still don't get it seriously what bit do you not get, he was talking about clinical trials, are all schools off today, post away your clinical trials at or above 90%.
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 02:27:09 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 02:10:46 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 01:41:29 PM
So not only are you unwilling to make an actual point, you are now denying the half story that you DID tell.
Redner indeed.
Seriously are you just very uneducated, point that post out please or do us all a favour and get back to your skielectrics.
You said your 'chemical engineer' had mentioned that "the 90% apparently has never been achieved in history".
You then clarified that you meant that a 90% efficiacy had never been achieved by any vaccine in clinical trials before. (I think?)
So without even doing any research into whether or not this is true, (dublin7 seems to have covered this angle) I will ask you again... have you some sort of point to make about this, or were you just telling us a nice wee story about how you were talking to someone who tricked you into believing they were clever?
The vaccine is only at clinical trials, what else could he have been talking about - 43000 people have been given it, it is NOT live- I give up, I don't mean to be rude but you are as thick as shite.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:02:30 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 02:27:09 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 02:10:46 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 01:41:29 PM
So not only are you unwilling to make an actual point, you are now denying the half story that you DID tell.
Redner indeed.
Seriously are you just very uneducated, point that post out please or do us all a favour and get back to your skielectrics.
You said your 'chemical engineer' had mentioned that "the 90% apparently has never been achieved in history".
You then clarified that you meant that a 90% efficiacy had never been achieved by any vaccine in clinical trials before. (I think?)
So without even doing any research into whether or not this is true, (dublin7 seems to have covered this angle) I will ask you again... have you some sort of point to make about this, or were you just telling us a nice wee story about how you were talking to someone who tricked you into believing they were clever?
The vaccine is only at clinical trials, what else could he have been talking about - 43000 people have been given it, it is NOT live- I give up, I don't mean to be rude but you are as thick as shite.
And?
You seriously came on here to tell us a lovely story about how you were talking to a 'chemical engineer' who told you that the Covid vaccine was at clinical trial stage? Sorry pal, but if that's the point you were making, discussion boards are not your thing.
The point is there, if you can't grasp it, and I am beginning to realise why you can't, that's your issue.
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 03:07:07 PM
discussion boards are not your thing.
If all your posts are like the last embarrassing few pages maybe you should give them a wide berth.
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 02:54:00 PM
Just to finally put this one to bed.
Did about 15 minutes research and found that plenty of vaccines that achieved over 90% efficiacy in the clinical trial phase.
Here are examples of 2 that you can give to your pal. It might stop him from making a tool out of someone else.
It's too late for you unfortunately.
https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hep.1840010502
https://journals.lww.com/jhypertension/Abstract/2007/01000/A_vaccine_for_hypertension_based_on_virus_like.11.aspx
Did you miss this one?
No my life isn't that sad that I would trawl the interweb to try and disprove an anonymous poster's even more anonymous source. When I see him next I'll ask him - he might be mortified or he might think what you have posted is bollocks, Ill ask.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:22:32 PM
No my life isn't that sad that I would trawl the interweb to try and disprove an anonymous poster's even more anonymous source. When I see him next I'll ask him - he might be mortified or he might think what you have posted is bollocks, Ill ask.
Took me about 15 minutes.
Probably best for you and your friend that this remains anonymous.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:22:32 PM
No my life isn't that sad that I would trawl the interweb to try and disprove an anonymous poster's even more anonymous source. When I see him next I'll ask him - he might be mortified or he might think what you have posted is bollocks, Ill ask.
The source isn't anonymous
Do you know him?
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:31:09 PM
Do you know him?
I don't know anyone on here. The trials in those 2 links aren't anonymous.
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 03:28:12 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:22:32 PM
No my life isn't that sad that I would trawl the interweb to try and disprove an anonymous poster's even more anonymous source. When I see him next I'll ask him - he might be mortified or he might think what you have posted is bollocks, Ill ask.
Took me about 15 minutes.
Probably best for you and your friend that this remains anonymous.
Took you all day lets be fair, as I said next time I meet him I will tell him how he transfixed a few folk for a whole day to abandon their daily duties, if they have any, maybe you are on furlough from the civil service or some equally important role, and scour the interweb to trash his assertions - if nothing it will give him a laugh. Is it this one? ;D
Quote from: blasmere on November 11, 2020, 03:32:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:31:09 PM
Do you know him?
I don't know anyone on here. The trials in those 2 links aren't anonymous.
Seriously there should be an IQ test before one can join these boards!
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:35:36 PM
Quote from: blasmere on November 11, 2020, 03:32:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:31:09 PM
Do you know him?
I don't know anyone on here. The trials in those 2 links aren't anonymous.
Seriously there should be an IQ test before one can join these boards!
You wouldn't have made it would you!!
How's puberty going?
Oh dear, touched a nerve.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:34:53 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 03:28:12 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:22:32 PM
No my life isn't that sad that I would trawl the interweb to try and disprove an anonymous poster's even more anonymous source. When I see him next I'll ask him - he might be mortified or he might think what you have posted is bollocks, Ill ask.
Took me about 15 minutes.
Probably best for you and your friend that this remains anonymous.
Took you all day lets be fair, as I said next time I meet him I will tell him how he transfixed a few folk for a whole day to abandon their daily duties, if they have any, maybe you are on furlough from the civil service or some equally important role, and scour the interweb to trash his assertions - if nothing it will give him a laugh. Is it this one? ;D
I can see how someone of your ability would think it would take all day.
And this is an interesting sentiment coming from someone who has racked up almost 300 posts in less than a month.
Interweb is amazing, you should know, googling all day, you know you can access it and continue to work.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:34:53 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 03:28:12 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:22:32 PM
No my life isn't that sad that I would trawl the interweb to try and disprove an anonymous poster's even more anonymous source. When I see him next I'll ask him - he might be mortified or he might think what you have posted is bollocks, Ill ask.
Took me about 15 minutes.
Probably best for you and your friend that this remains anonymous.
Took you all day lets be fair, as I said next time I meet him I will tell him how he transfixed a few folk for a whole day to abandon their daily duties, if they have any, maybe you are on furlough from the civil service or some equally important role, and scour the interweb to trash his assertions - if nothing it will give him a laugh. Is it this one? ;D
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:42:27 PM
Interweb is amazing, you should know, googling all day, you know you can access it and continue to work.
Less than 10 minutes apart. ;D ;D
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 03:02:30 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 02:27:09 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 02:10:46 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 01:41:29 PM
So not only are you unwilling to make an actual point, you are now denying the half story that you DID tell.
Redner indeed.
Seriously are you just very uneducated, point that post out please or do us all a favour and get back to your skielectrics.
You said your 'chemical engineer' had mentioned that "the 90% apparently has never been achieved in history".
You then clarified that you meant that a 90% efficiacy had never been achieved by any vaccine in clinical trials before. (I think?)
So without even doing any research into whether or not this is true, (dublin7 seems to have covered this angle) I will ask you again... have you some sort of point to make about this, or were you just telling us a nice wee story about how you were talking to someone who tricked you into believing they were clever?
The vaccine is only at clinical trials, what else could he have been talking about - 43000 people have been given it, it is NOT live- I give up, I don't mean to be rude but you are as thick as shite.
I cant speak for Franko, but at this stage I'm very confused as you keep changing the facts as to what your chemical engineer told you. Now while I don't know you and don't know if this person exists or not I think it's clear from what I've found on the web and what Franko found on the web in a short time that his knowledge in the field of vaccines isn't very good.
If your using his opinion as a reason not to get a potential vaccine then I'd recommend you get a 2nd opinion from an actual expert in the field or talk to a medical professional if I was you
The Chemical Engineer is probably sitting in some draughty shed washing diesel and posting here passes the time.
Quote from: Franko on November 11, 2020, 02:54:00 PM
Just to finally put this one to bed.
Did about 15 minutes research and found that plenty of vaccines that achieved over 90% efficiacy in the clinical trial phase.
Here are examples of 2 that you can give to your pal. It might stop him from making a tool out of someone else.
It's too late for you unfortunately.
https://aasldpubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/hep.1840010502
https://journals.lww.com/jhypertension/Abstract/2007/01000/A_vaccine_for_hypertension_based_on_virus_like.11.aspx
See Seaney, according to peer reviewed sources, not "according to a mate"
During clinical trials and everything.
Maybe you need to clarify this again. Ask your mate sure.
The temptation to leave a smiley face is so strong...
I will as I said he has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and over 20 years in the industry, you know everyone has mates. I would still trust him over a lad who spent a full day digging out 2 articles.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 05:51:17 PM
I will as I said he has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and over 20 years in the industry, you know everyone has mates. I would still trust him over a lad who spent a full day digging out 2 articles.
In the "Chemical Engineering" industry?! You do know what Chemical Engineering is? They don't develop vaccines.
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 05:51:17 PM
I will as I said he has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and over 20 years in the industry, you know everyone has mates. I would still trust him over a lad who spent a full day digging out 2 articles.
Does this "chemical engineer" run a crystal meth lab, by any chance?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 11, 2020, 06:44:39 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 05:51:17 PM
I will as I said he has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and over 20 years in the industry, you know everyone has mates. I would still trust him over a lad who spent a full day digging out 2 articles.
In the "Chemical Engineering" industry?! You do know what Chemical Engineering is? They don't develop vaccines.
Referees dont play football but they all know the rules.
Quote from: sid waddell on November 11, 2020, 07:44:07 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 11, 2020, 05:51:17 PM
I will as I said he has a PhD in Chemical Engineering, and over 20 years in the industry, you know everyone has mates. I would still trust him over a lad who spent a full day digging out 2 articles.
Does this "chemical engineer" run a crystal meth lab, by any chance?
No.
Research Chemicals, Viagra Boys.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opFwj4dTtBc&list=PL91JF1tG7gf5-v1rnTFVmmn5JT3hK65ZQ&index=5 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opFwj4dTtBc&list=PL91JF1tG7gf5-v1rnTFVmmn5JT3hK65ZQ&index=5)
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
Either he has zero confidence in the product or he just wants an easy life from here on.
Doesnt look great
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
Smart man/woman.
Quote from: Taylor on November 12, 2020, 09:54:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
Either he has zero confidence in the product or he just wants an easy life from here on.
Doesnt look great
Is there a link to that?
Quote from: Taylor on November 12, 2020, 09:54:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
Either he has zero confidence in the product or he just wants an easy life from here on.
Doesnt look great
That is the stock market. Buy low, sell high.
Now if Pfizer have announced a miracle cure that's passed all these trials etc, then the product fails to get a license on the basis of fake news. This gentleman will be going to jail.
Just looks like a very smart man, cashing out. Presumably, without knowing, Pfizer stocks at the moment must be at their highest peak ever right now.
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
What you left out there was this was done as he had arranged a deal with his broker months ago that he was to sell a percentage of his shares if the share price reached a certain price.
This is what happened this week. While the optics of it certainly aren't good his remaining shares are worth 9 times his annual salary and it's not like he sold his entire holding.
The US stock exchange would be all over this if they suspected insider trading and you can do jail time for that in the US.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 12, 2020, 10:43:23 AM
Quote from: Taylor on November 12, 2020, 09:54:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
Either he has zero confidence in the product or he just wants an easy life from here on.
Doesnt look great
Is there a link to that?
A nothing story really, was agreed months ago:
https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/pfizer-ceo-sold-stock-day-covid-19-vaccine-results-unveiled-2020-11-1029790705
"Through our stock plan administrator, Dr. Bourla authorized the sale of these shares on August 19, 2020, provided the stock was at least at a certain price," a Pfizer spokesperson told Business Insider.
Jonathan Van Tam (now back in favour after ripping Cummins to shreds for the trip to Barnard Castle) reckons that if this vaccine meets the efficacy and safety standards MHRA set out he'd recommend his mum gets it as soon as it becomes available to her.
Quote from: Taylor on November 12, 2020, 09:54:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
Either he has zero confidence in the product or he just wants an easy life from here on.
Doesnt look great
Complete over reaction.
As it transpires it was booked in ages ago. Also Pfizer's vaccine isn't over the line yet and even if gets over the line as the first vaccine it might not be the best or go to vaccine for very long. There is a long way to go on this one
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
Another weird correlation in the whole Covid debate.
Those who complain most about 'fearmongering' in relation to the disease are the worst proponents of it when it comes to the vaccine.
No doubt you didn't mean to do this Angelo and the ....... after your sentence was meant to read
"in a deal that was initially pre-arranged in February and extended again in August"
Quote from: Franko on November 12, 2020, 05:32:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
Another weird correlation in the whole Covid debate.
Those who complain most about 'fearmongering' in relation to the disease are the worst proponents of it when it comes to the vaccine.
No doubt you didn't mean to do this Angelo and the ....... after your sentence was meant to read "in a deal that was initially pre-arranged in February and extended again in August"
Quite. They downplay the disease that has killed 1.3m people, while fearmongering about the vaccine that has been delveoped to the highest medical standard, tested on tens of thousands of people and approved by independent experts. That's logical.
Quote from: dublin7 on November 12, 2020, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
What you left out there was this was done as he had arranged a deal with his broker months ago that he was to sell a percentage of his shares if the share price reached a certain price.
This is what happened this week. While the optics of it certainly aren't good his remaining shares are worth 9 times his annual salary and it's not like he sold his entire holding.
The US stock exchange would be all over this if they suspected insider trading and you can do jail time for that in the US.
How does that change things?
You seem to have great faith in the ethics of the US stock exchange and billion dollar pharma.....
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 10:39:02 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 12, 2020, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
What you left out there was this was done as he had arranged a deal with his broker months ago that he was to sell a percentage of his shares if the share price reached a certain price.
This is what happened this week. While the optics of it certainly aren't good his remaining shares are worth 9 times his annual salary and it's not like he sold his entire holding.
The US stock exchange would be all over this if they suspected insider trading and you can do jail time for that in the US.
How does that change things?
You seem to have great faith in the ethics of the US stock exchange and billion dollar pharma.....
The CEO of Pfizer must be very well qualified and intelligent to even get appointed in the first place, but I doubt fortune telling or ability to tell the future is on his CV or a factor for him being appointed.
August 19th Mr. Borla signed a contract to sell a portion of his shares if they reached a certain price. He can't set the price of the shares on the stock market. That's set based on all manner of factors such as company performance, dividends, projections for example. He's been with the company in one role or another for the last 25 years, has an annual salary of $17m and this deal followed all rules and regulations for insider trading.
Every major pharmaceutical company in the world is working on a vaccine at the moment. There is no way back in August he could have known Pfizer would be the first to company to announce they have a potential vaccine.
If someone who had shares then sells shares after the public announcement then there is nothing untoward about that. What would be suspicious would be buying shares last week in order to sell them this week.
Meanwhile the Russians have said that their vaccine is also effective and Moderna will shortly be announcing similar success to Pfizer.
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 11:14:39 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 10:39:02 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 12, 2020, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
What you left out there was this was done as he had arranged a deal with his broker months ago that he was to sell a percentage of his shares if the share price reached a certain price.
This is what happened this week. While the optics of it certainly aren't good his remaining shares are worth 9 times his annual salary and it's not like he sold his entire holding.
The US stock exchange would be all over this if they suspected insider trading and you can do jail time for that in the US.
How does that change things?
You seem to have great faith in the ethics of the US stock exchange and billion dollar pharma.....
The CEO of Pfizer must be very well qualified and intelligent to even get appointed in the first place, but I doubt fortune telling or ability to tell the future is on his CV or a factor for him being appointed.
August 19th Mr. Borla signed a contract to sell a portion of his shares if they reached a certain price. He can't set the price of the shares on the stock market. That's set based on all manner of factors such as company performance, dividends, projections for example. He's been with the company in one role or another for the last 25 years, has an annual salary of $17m and this deal followed all rules and regulations for insider trading.
Every major pharmaceutical company in the world is working on a vaccine at the moment. There is no way back in August he could have known Pfizer would be the first to company to announce they have a potential vaccine.
He signed that contract three months ago. Why do you think they reached that price?
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 10:39:02 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 12, 2020, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
What you left out there was this was done as he had arranged a deal with his broker months ago that he was to sell a percentage of his shares if the share price reached a certain price.
This is what happened this week. While the optics of it certainly aren't good his remaining shares are worth 9 times his annual salary and it's not like he sold his entire holding.
The US stock exchange would be all over this if they suspected insider trading and you can do jail time for that in the US.
How does that change things?
You seem to have great faith in the ethics of the US stock exchange and billion dollar pharma.....
You have an interesting relationship with facts
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 11:14:39 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 10:39:02 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 12, 2020, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
What you left out there was this was done as he had arranged a deal with his broker months ago that he was to sell a percentage of his shares if the share price reached a certain price.
This is what happened this week. While the optics of it certainly aren't good his remaining shares are worth 9 times his annual salary and it's not like he sold his entire holding.
The US stock exchange would be all over this if they suspected insider trading and you can do jail time for that in the US.
How does that change things?
You seem to have great faith in the ethics of the US stock exchange and billion dollar pharma.....
The CEO of Pfizer must be very well qualified and intelligent to even get appointed in the first place, but I doubt fortune telling or ability to tell the future is on his CV or a factor for him being appointed.
August 19th Mr. Borla signed a contract to sell a portion of his shares if they reached a certain price. He can't set the price of the shares on the stock market. That's set based on all manner of factors such as company performance, dividends, projections for example. He's been with the company in one role or another for the last 25 years, has an annual salary of $17m and this deal followed all rules and regulations for insider trading.
Every major pharmaceutical company in the world is working on a vaccine at the moment. There is no way back in August he could have known Pfizer would be the first to company to announce they have a potential vaccine.
He signed that contract three months ago. Why do you think they reached that price?
If you've a point to make in relation to this, then you should probably make it.
'Back yourself' as you might say.
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Yes
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
A bit early for the EU to be ordering 300m doses so?
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
Modern stock market as we know it......
I'm assuming it's formality for approval since we have various people saying publicly saying they would have no problem injecting their relatives with it etc
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-professor-jonathan-van-tam-uses-mum-test-to-reassure-britons-over-vaccine-safety-12129815
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
Modern stock market as we know it......
I'm assuming it's formality for approval since we have various people saying publicly saying they would have no problem injecting their relatives with it etc
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-professor-jonathan-van-tam-uses-mum-test-to-reassure-britons-over-vaccine-safety-12129815
You obviously haven't read or understood this article.
He said he would have no problem with this
subject to it being approved.
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 03:40:12 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
A bit early for the EU to be ordering 300m doses so?
Nah, not really.
Quote from: Franko on November 13, 2020, 03:59:02 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
Modern stock market as we know it......
I'm assuming it's formality for approval since we have various people saying publicly saying they would have no problem injecting their relatives with it etc
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-professor-jonathan-van-tam-uses-mum-test-to-reassure-britons-over-vaccine-safety-12129815
You obviously haven't read or understood this article.
He said he would have no problem with this subject to it being approved.
Phrases in the article include -
"I would be first in line if that's what people want but I don't want to go to the front of the queue. I will take my place like everybody else,"
"But I would also do anything I can to encourage as many people as possible to have the vaccine because I think it is really important that everybody does have the vaccine."
"If I could, rightly and morally, be at the very front of the queue then I would do so. Because I absolutely trust the judgement of the MHRA on safety and efficacy"
Not exactly casting doubt on approval.
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 04:06:51 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 13, 2020, 03:59:02 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
Modern stock market as we know it......
I'm assuming it's formality for approval since we have various people saying publicly saying they would have no problem injecting their relatives with it etc
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-professor-jonathan-van-tam-uses-mum-test-to-reassure-britons-over-vaccine-safety-12129815
You obviously haven't read or understood this article.
He said he would have no problem with this subject to it being approved.
Phrases in the article include -
"I would be first in line if that's what people want but I don't want to go to the front of the queue. I will take my place like everybody else,"
"But I would also do anything I can to encourage as many people as possible to have the vaccine because I think it is really important that everybody does have the vaccine."
"If I could, rightly and morally, be at the very front of the queue then I would do so. Because I absolutely trust the judgement of the MHRA on safety and efficacy"
Not exactly casting doubt on approval.
Lol. You do realise that it's the MHRA who approve it?
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 03:40:12 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
A bit early for the EU to be ordering 300m doses so?
Too early to say. Lots of countries/blocs have preordered lots of different vaccines. They want to be at the front of the queue for the ones they can use. I guess you knew that?
Preordered doesn't mean pre-paid for and doesn't even mean must be paid unconditionally be paid for
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
Modern stock market as we know it......
I'm assuming it's formality for approval since we have various people saying publicly saying they would have no problem injecting their relatives with it etc
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-professor-jonathan-van-tam-uses-mum-test-to-reassure-britons-over-vaccine-safety-12129815
Unaware of anyone saying they will use the vaccine absolutely even if it doesn't get the required approvals.
Also what part of the stock market are pointing to as not being around in the 19th century?
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 04:06:51 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 13, 2020, 03:59:02 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
Modern stock market as we know it......
I'm assuming it's formality for approval since we have various people saying publicly saying they would have no problem injecting their relatives with it etc
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-professor-jonathan-van-tam-uses-mum-test-to-reassure-britons-over-vaccine-safety-12129815
You obviously haven't read or understood this article.
He said he would have no problem with this subject to it being approved.
Phrases in the article include -
"I would be first in line if that's what people want but I don't want to go to the front of the queue. I will take my place like everybody else,"
"But I would also do anything I can to encourage as many people as possible to have the vaccine because I think it is really important that everybody does have the vaccine."
"If I could, rightly and morally, be at the very front of the queue then I would do so. Because I absolutely trust the judgement of the MHRA on safety and efficacy"
Not exactly casting doubt on approval.
Not commenting on approval
Do you have grounds to suggest the deputy chief medical officer is suggesting we use unapproved vaccines?
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 04:22:12 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 04:06:51 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 13, 2020, 03:59:02 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
Modern stock market as we know it......
I'm assuming it's formality for approval since we have various people saying publicly saying they would have no problem injecting their relatives with it etc
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-professor-jonathan-van-tam-uses-mum-test-to-reassure-britons-over-vaccine-safety-12129815
You obviously haven't read or understood this article.
He said he would have no problem with this subject to it being approved.
Phrases in the article include -
"I would be first in line if that's what people want but I don't want to go to the front of the queue. I will take my place like everybody else,"
"But I would also do anything I can to encourage as many people as possible to have the vaccine because I think it is really important that everybody does have the vaccine."
"If I could, rightly and morally, be at the very front of the queue then I would do so. Because I absolutely trust the judgement of the MHRA on safety and efficacy"
Not exactly casting doubt on approval.
Not commenting on approval
Do you have grounds to suggest the deputy chief medical officer is suggesting we use unapproved vaccines?
I hate this multi quoting...it just clogs up space over forms of words.
I've made no such suggestion about vaccines or D.C Medical Officers. I simply quoted a few phrases in an article that seems to suggest all looks good (in my opinion). No nonsense about unapproved vaccines or the use of them.
My point initially was regarding the stock price boom the announcement has created (not only in the Pharma area) and the fact that it may have been the major driver (again, in my opinon) on why someone would want to create the first "approved" vaccine. Yes I understand it needs to be approved, I did say that it seems like that will be the case and that was entirely my own thoughts considering the sounds that seems to be coming out regarding it from a few sources (again, another opinion).
Your more than welcome to disagree with the opinions but there is no suggestion on my part that D.C Medical officer, or anyone is suggesting to stick yourself with the vaccine now.
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 04:16:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 03:40:12 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
A bit early for the EU to be ordering 300m doses so?
Too early to say. Lots of countries/blocs have preordered lots of different vaccines. They want to be at the front of the queue for the ones they can use. I guess you knew that?
Preordered doesn't mean pre-paid for and doesn't even mean must be paid unconditionally be paid for
You seem to have contradicted yourself.
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 11:14:39 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 10:39:02 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 12, 2020, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
What you left out there was this was done as he had arranged a deal with his broker months ago that he was to sell a percentage of his shares if the share price reached a certain price.
This is what happened this week. While the optics of it certainly aren't good his remaining shares are worth 9 times his annual salary and it's not like he sold his entire holding.
The US stock exchange would be all over this if they suspected insider trading and you can do jail time for that in the US.
How does that change things?
You seem to have great faith in the ethics of the US stock exchange and billion dollar pharma.....
The CEO of Pfizer must be very well qualified and intelligent to even get appointed in the first place, but I doubt fortune telling or ability to tell the future is on his CV or a factor for him being appointed.
August 19th Mr. Borla signed a contract to sell a portion of his shares if they reached a certain price. He can't set the price of the shares on the stock market. That's set based on all manner of factors such as company performance, dividends, projections for example. He's been with the company in one role or another for the last 25 years, has an annual salary of $17m and this deal followed all rules and regulations for insider trading.
Every major pharmaceutical company in the world is working on a vaccine at the moment. There is no way back in August he could have known Pfizer would be the first to company to announce they have a potential vaccine.
He signed that contract three months ago. Why do you think they reached that price?
What exactly do you think pharmaceutical companies have been working on for the last 9 months or so? You don't need to be a genius to figure out they're all trying to find Covid-19 vaccines.
Mr. Borla couldn't make the shares reach a certain price but I imagine he quite reasonably believed that if the company could come up with a vaccine then the share price would increase.
It's likely there has been a lot of people investing in pharma companies over the last 9 months or so in that hope that company is first out with
a medically approved vaccine so they would make a killing
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 04:34:42 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 04:22:12 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 04:06:51 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 13, 2020, 03:59:02 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:43:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
Modern stock market as we know it......
I'm assuming it's formality for approval since we have various people saying publicly saying they would have no problem injecting their relatives with it etc
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-professor-jonathan-van-tam-uses-mum-test-to-reassure-britons-over-vaccine-safety-12129815
You obviously haven't read or understood this article.
He said he would have no problem with this subject to it being approved.
Phrases in the article include -
"I would be first in line if that's what people want but I don't want to go to the front of the queue. I will take my place like everybody else,"
"But I would also do anything I can to encourage as many people as possible to have the vaccine because I think it is really important that everybody does have the vaccine."
"If I could, rightly and morally, be at the very front of the queue then I would do so. Because I absolutely trust the judgement of the MHRA on safety and efficacy"
Not exactly casting doubt on approval.
Not commenting on approval
Do you have grounds to suggest the deputy chief medical officer is suggesting we use unapproved vaccines?
I hate this multi quoting...it just clogs up space over forms of words.
I've made no such suggestion about vaccines or D.C Medical Officers. I simply quoted a few phrases in an article that seems to suggest all looks good (in my opinion). No nonsense about unapproved vaccines or the use of them.
My point initially was regarding the stock price boom the announcement has created (not only in the Pharma area) and the fact that it may have been the major driver (again, in my opinon) on why someone would want to create the first "approved" vaccine. Yes I understand it needs to be approved, I did say that it seems like that will be the case and that was entirely my own thoughts considering the sounds that seems to be coming out regarding it from a few sources (again, another opinion).
Your more than welcome to disagree with the opinions but there is no suggestion on my part that D.C Medical officer, or anyone is suggesting to stick yourself with the vaccine now.
Possibly some of the reaction has come about due to some very stupid things that Angelo rather yourself has posted.
Stock market is less than scientific. Very possible that it overreacted and treated the vaccine news as if it amounted to approval and lasting market leadership
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 04:37:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 11:14:39 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 10:39:02 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 12, 2020, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
What you left out there was this was done as he had arranged a deal with his broker months ago that he was to sell a percentage of his shares if the share price reached a certain price.
This is what happened this week. While the optics of it certainly aren't good his remaining shares are worth 9 times his annual salary and it's not like he sold his entire holding.
The US stock exchange would be all over this if they suspected insider trading and you can do jail time for that in the US.
How does that change things?
You seem to have great faith in the ethics of the US stock exchange and billion dollar pharma.....
The CEO of Pfizer must be very well qualified and intelligent to even get appointed in the first place, but I doubt fortune telling or ability to tell the future is on his CV or a factor for him being appointed.
August 19th Mr. Borla signed a contract to sell a portion of his shares if they reached a certain price. He can't set the price of the shares on the stock market. That's set based on all manner of factors such as company performance, dividends, projections for example. He's been with the company in one role or another for the last 25 years, has an annual salary of $17m and this deal followed all rules and regulations for insider trading.
Every major pharmaceutical company in the world is working on a vaccine at the moment. There is no way back in August he could have known Pfizer would be the first to company to announce they have a potential vaccine.
He signed that contract three months ago. Why do you think they reached that price?
What exactly do you think pharmaceutical companies have been working on for the last 9 months or so? You don't need to be a genius to figure out they're all trying to find Covid-19 vaccines.
Mr. Borla couldn't make the shares reach a certain price but I imagine he quite reasonably believed that if the company could come up with a vaccine then the share price would increase.
It's likely there has been a lot of people investing in pharma companies over the last 9 months or so in that hope that company is first out with a medically approved vaccine so they would make a killing
I think executive decisions are more motivated in economics that humanitarianism.
You seem to be doing a lot of speculating there. The optics are very poor in any case.
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 04:36:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 04:16:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 03:40:12 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 13, 2020, 03:28:00 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 03:13:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 13, 2020, 02:54:30 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 13, 2020, 02:20:38 PM
The question I have here is, did any of you think that these people raced to get this vaccine over the line for anything other than the cash reward?
Cash helps but the likes of Louis Pasteur developed vaccines because they wanted to help people
There was no stock market in those days though. First past the post in this race paid big.
No stock market?? When exactly do you think Louis Pasteur was around??
Also a bit early to say the big reward is for the first vaccine to be approved. It's not even approved yet
A bit early for the EU to be ordering 300m doses so?
Too early to say. Lots of countries/blocs have preordered lots of different vaccines. They want to be at the front of the queue for the ones they can use. I guess you knew that?
Preordered doesn't mean pre-paid for and doesn't even mean must be paid unconditionally be paid for
You seem to have contradicted yourself.
Please explain?
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 04:58:19 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 04:37:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 11:14:39 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 10:39:02 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 12, 2020, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
What you left out there was this was done as he had arranged a deal with his broker months ago that he was to sell a percentage of his shares if the share price reached a certain price.
This is what happened this week. While the optics of it certainly aren't good his remaining shares are worth 9 times his annual salary and it's not like he sold his entire holding.
The US stock exchange would be all over this if they suspected insider trading and you can do jail time for that in the US.
How does that change things?
You seem to have great faith in the ethics of the US stock exchange and billion dollar pharma.....
The CEO of Pfizer must be very well qualified and intelligent to even get appointed in the first place, but I doubt fortune telling or ability to tell the future is on his CV or a factor for him being appointed.
August 19th Mr. Borla signed a contract to sell a portion of his shares if they reached a certain price. He can't set the price of the shares on the stock market. That's set based on all manner of factors such as company performance, dividends, projections for example. He's been with the company in one role or another for the last 25 years, has an annual salary of $17m and this deal followed all rules and regulations for insider trading.
Every major pharmaceutical company in the world is working on a vaccine at the moment. There is no way back in August he could have known Pfizer would be the first to company to announce they have a potential vaccine.
He signed that contract three months ago. Why do you think they reached that price?
What exactly do you think pharmaceutical companies have been working on for the last 9 months or so? You don't need to be a genius to figure out they're all trying to find Covid-19 vaccines.
Mr. Borla couldn't make the shares reach a certain price but I imagine he quite reasonably believed that if the company could come up with a vaccine then the share price would increase.
It's likely there has been a lot of people investing in pharma companies over the last 9 months or so in that hope that company is first out with a medically approved vaccine so they would make a killing
I think executive decisions are more motivated in economics that humanitarianism.
You seem to be doing a lot of speculating there. The optics are very poor in any case.
All you do is speculate. You tried to claim Pfizer CEO was committing fraud, but you were found out. You also tried to claim suicides were up 200% in lockdown, but you got called out on that as well.
Very first post on this thread you claimed a vaccine was being pushed through without proper testing and shock horror you don't offer anything to back up your speculation
You don't offer any facts and when pushed for answers offer nothing.
I see Labour in UK pushing for anti-vac censorship law to stop idiots posting misinformation. Interesting.
Quote from: Ronnie on November 15, 2020, 08:02:25 AM
I see Labour in UK pushing for anti-vac censorship law to stop idiots posting misinformation. Interesting.
Wouldn't that actually further these peoples thinking though?
Quote from: Ronnie on November 15, 2020, 08:02:25 AM
I see Labour in UK pushing for anti-vac censorship law to stop idiots posting misinformation. Interesting.
always get very uncomfortable with the word censorship
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 09:41:58 AM
Quote from: Ronnie on November 15, 2020, 08:02:25 AM
I see Labour in UK pushing for anti-vac censorship law to stop idiots posting misinformation. Interesting.
always get very uncomfortable with the word censorship
Nothing to be uncomfortable with here though?
If it were proposed that newspaper publishers could not be prosecuted if they knowingly printed material that made false claims about a vaccine presumably you would have a problem with that?
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 01:48:30 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 09:41:58 AM
Quote from: Ronnie on November 15, 2020, 08:02:25 AM
I see Labour in UK pushing for anti-vac censorship law to stop idiots posting misinformation. Interesting.
always get very uncomfortable with the word censorship
Nothing to be uncomfortable with here though?
If it were proposed that newspaper publishers could not be prosecuted if they knowingly printed material that made false claims about a vaccine presumably you would have a problem with that?
The difficulty is that Anne McCloskey for example stood in Derry(and a lot of others) few months back saying that the information on death certs was misleading and being distorted ie the 28 days metric.
People were calling for that argument to be censored then, it has now been openly accepted as true.
We dont know enough about the vaccine, until we do people should be allowed to voice their concerns
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 01:48:30 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 09:41:58 AM
Quote from: Ronnie on November 15, 2020, 08:02:25 AM
I see Labour in UK pushing for anti-vac censorship law to stop idiots posting misinformation. Interesting.
always get very uncomfortable with the word censorship
Nothing to be uncomfortable with here though?
If it were proposed that newspaper publishers could not be prosecuted if they knowingly printed material that made false claims about a vaccine presumably you would have a problem with that?
The difficulty is that Anne McCloskey for example stood in Derry(and a lot of others) few months back saying that the information on death certs was misleading and being distorted ie the 28 days metric.
People were calling for that argument to be censored then, it has now been openly accepted as true.
We dont know enough about the vaccine, until we do people should be allowed to voice their concerns
Where did you hear that people would not be able to voice their concerns?
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 01:48:30 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 09:41:58 AM
Quote from: Ronnie on November 15, 2020, 08:02:25 AM
I see Labour in UK pushing for anti-vac censorship law to stop idiots posting misinformation. Interesting.
always get very uncomfortable with the word censorship
Nothing to be uncomfortable with here though?
If it were proposed that newspaper publishers could not be prosecuted if they knowingly printed material that made false claims about a vaccine presumably you would have a problem with that?
The difficulty is that Anne McCloskey for example stood in Derry(and a lot of others) few months back saying that the information on death certs was misleading and being distorted ie the 28 days metric.
People were calling for that argument to be censored then, it has now been openly accepted as true.
We dont know enough about the vaccine, until we do people should be allowed to voice their concerns
Where did you hear that people would not be able to voice their concerns?
here-censorship is that is it not?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:48:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 01:48:30 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 09:41:58 AM
Quote from: Ronnie on November 15, 2020, 08:02:25 AM
I see Labour in UK pushing for anti-vac censorship law to stop idiots posting misinformation. Interesting.
always get very uncomfortable with the word censorship
Nothing to be uncomfortable with here though?
If it were proposed that newspaper publishers could not be prosecuted if they knowingly printed material that made false claims about a vaccine presumably you would have a problem with that?
The difficulty is that Anne McCloskey for example stood in Derry(and a lot of others) few months back saying that the information on death certs was misleading and being distorted ie the 28 days metric.
People were calling for that argument to be censored then, it has now been openly accepted as true.
We dont know enough about the vaccine, until we do people should be allowed to voice their concerns
Where did you hear that people would not be able to voice their concerns?
here-censorship is that is it not?
There is nothing in the Labour proposal that would stop you expressing your genuine concern unless the social media platform could prove what you were saying was false in which the social media platform (effectively the publisher) would be bound by the same law as print and broadcast media.
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 08:53:28 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:48:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 01:48:30 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 09:41:58 AM
Quote from: Ronnie on November 15, 2020, 08:02:25 AM
I see Labour in UK pushing for anti-vac censorship law to stop idiots posting misinformation. Interesting.
always get very uncomfortable with the word censorship
Nothing to be uncomfortable with here though?
If it were proposed that newspaper publishers could not be prosecuted if they knowingly printed material that made false claims about a vaccine presumably you would have a problem with that?
The difficulty is that Anne McCloskey for example stood in Derry(and a lot of others) few months back saying that the information on death certs was misleading and being distorted ie the 28 days metric.
People were calling for that argument to be censored then, it has now been openly accepted as true.
We dont know enough about the vaccine, until we do people should be allowed to voice their concerns
Where did you hear that people would not be able to voice their concerns?
here-censorship is that is it not?
There is nothing in the Labour proposal that would stop you expressing your genuine concern unless the social media platform could prove what you were saying was false in which the social media platform (effectively the publisher) would be bound by the same law as print and broadcast media.
Thats the problem, as I have said, what we were told was false 3 months ago is now true.
Censorship is something we should all be wary of, especially in this country
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:56:13 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 08:53:28 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:48:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 01:48:30 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 09:41:58 AM
Quote from: Ronnie on November 15, 2020, 08:02:25 AM
I see Labour in UK pushing for anti-vac censorship law to stop idiots posting misinformation. Interesting.
always get very uncomfortable with the word censorship
Nothing to be uncomfortable with here though?
If it were proposed that newspaper publishers could not be prosecuted if they knowingly printed material that made false claims about a vaccine presumably you would have a problem with that?
The difficulty is that Anne McCloskey for example stood in Derry(and a lot of others) few months back saying that the information on death certs was misleading and being distorted ie the 28 days metric.
People were calling for that argument to be censored then, it has now been openly accepted as true.
We dont know enough about the vaccine, until we do people should be allowed to voice their concerns
Where did you hear that people would not be able to voice their concerns?
here-censorship is that is it not?
There is nothing in the Labour proposal that would stop you expressing your genuine concern unless the social media platform could prove what you were saying was false in which the social media platform (effectively the publisher) would be bound by the same law as print and broadcast media.
Thats the problem, as I have said, what we were told was false 3 months ago is now true.
Censorship is something we should all be wary of, especially in this country
I know nothing about the example you cite. Perhaps more detail?
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 08:59:49 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:56:13 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 08:53:28 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:48:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 01:48:30 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 09:41:58 AM
Quote from: Ronnie on November 15, 2020, 08:02:25 AM
I see Labour in UK pushing for anti-vac censorship law to stop idiots posting misinformation. Interesting.
always get very uncomfortable with the word censorship
Nothing to be uncomfortable with here though?
If it were proposed that newspaper publishers could not be prosecuted if they knowingly printed material that made false claims about a vaccine presumably you would have a problem with that?
The difficulty is that Anne McCloskey for example stood in Derry(and a lot of others) few months back saying that the information on death certs was misleading and being distorted ie the 28 days metric.
People were calling for that argument to be censored then, it has now been openly accepted as true.
We dont know enough about the vaccine, until we do people should be allowed to voice their concerns
Where did you hear that people would not be able to voice their concerns?
here-censorship is that is it not?
There is nothing in the Labour proposal that would stop you expressing your genuine concern unless the social media platform could prove what you were saying was false in which the social media platform (effectively the publisher) would be bound by the same law as print and broadcast media.
Thats the problem, as I have said, what we were told was false 3 months ago is now true.
Censorship is something we should all be wary of, especially in this country
I know nothing about the example you cite. Perhaps more detail?
The 28 days?
"the 28 day metric" as you call it wasn't false or a lie. The public's perception was "distorted" as you say. Not a good example at all. Censorship is a different argument. Self censorship/state censorship/censorship by public pressure etc etc. Can of worms going back to day dot irrespective of Tiktok, Insta etc etc
Quote from: Ronnie on November 15, 2020, 09:18:51 PM
"the 28 day metric" as you call it wasn't false or a lie. The public's perception was "distorted" as you say. Not a good example at all. Censorship is a different argument. Self censorship/state censorship/censorship by public pressure etc etc. Can of worms going back to day dot irrespective of Tiktok, Insta etc etc
Not sure I follow.
Anne McCloskey and others stated that if we died of a car crash within 28 days of positive covid result our death would go down as covid. There was a rush to defend the PHS death figures and then a quiet reluctance to admit it was true and that and our figures are statisically skewed.
It is only an example about how we should tread carefully in a very fluid situation. I cant find any reason to support censorship. But im open to persausion.
The metric NEVER changed. Your (and much of the public's) did. Very important to read facts before commenting. There's a reason behind the metric. For example I might drive my car head first into a wall because I caught COVID 19 and don't want to infect my daughter who will die if she catches it. Sorry to be blunt and dramatic but the misinformation pedalled scares the bejaysus out of me.
Quote from: Ronnie on November 15, 2020, 09:40:58 PM
The metric NEVER changed. Your (and much of the public's) did. Very important to read facts before commenting. There's a reason behind the metric. For example I might drive my car head first into a wall because I caught COVID 19 and don't want to infect my daughter who will die if she catches it. Sorry to be blunt and dramatic but the misinformation pedalled scares the bejaysus out of me.
ok
Rogie knows!!
https://twitter.com/xtinedorrian/status/1328092798021668864?s=21
Quote from: screenexile on November 15, 2020, 10:19:03 PM
Rogie knows!!
https://twitter.com/xtinedorrian/status/1328092798021668864?s=21
Blocked by the sounds of it
Quote from: Kidder81 on November 15, 2020, 10:39:53 PM
Quote from: screenexile on November 15, 2020, 10:19:03 PM
Rogie knows!!
https://twitter.com/xtinedorrian/status/1328092798021668864?s=21
Blocked by the sounds of it
From what I've seen of him round Belfast he enjoys a pint.
Quote from: Franko on November 13, 2020, 02:16:36 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 11:14:39 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 10:39:02 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 12, 2020, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
What you left out there was this was done as he had arranged a deal with his broker months ago that he was to sell a percentage of his shares if the share price reached a certain price.
This is what happened this week. While the optics of it certainly aren't good his remaining shares are worth 9 times his annual salary and it's not like he sold his entire holding.
The US stock exchange would be all over this if they suspected insider trading and you can do jail time for that in the US.
How does that change things?
You seem to have great faith in the ethics of the US stock exchange and billion dollar pharma.....
The CEO of Pfizer must be very well qualified and intelligent to even get appointed in the first place, but I doubt fortune telling or ability to tell the future is on his CV or a factor for him being appointed.
August 19th Mr. Borla signed a contract to sell a portion of his shares if they reached a certain price. He can't set the price of the shares on the stock market. That's set based on all manner of factors such as company performance, dividends, projections for example. He's been with the company in one role or another for the last 25 years, has an annual salary of $17m and this deal followed all rules and regulations for insider trading.
Every major pharmaceutical company in the world is working on a vaccine at the moment. There is no way back in August he could have known Pfizer would be the first to company to announce they have a potential vaccine.
He signed that contract three months ago. Why do you think they reached that price?
If you've a point to make in relation to this, then you should probably make it.
'Back yourself' as you might say.
Nothing offered other than hot air.
As expected.
Wonder if Seaney got speaking to his pal yet?
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 09:09:17 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 08:59:49 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:56:13 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 08:53:28 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:48:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 08:43:20 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 08:33:03 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 15, 2020, 01:48:30 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on November 15, 2020, 09:41:58 AM
Quote from: Ronnie on November 15, 2020, 08:02:25 AM
I see Labour in UK pushing for anti-vac censorship law to stop idiots posting misinformation. Interesting.
always get very uncomfortable with the word censorship
Nothing to be uncomfortable with here though?
If it were proposed that newspaper publishers could not be prosecuted if they knowingly printed material that made false claims about a vaccine presumably you would have a problem with that?
The difficulty is that Anne McCloskey for example stood in Derry(and a lot of others) few months back saying that the information on death certs was misleading and being distorted ie the 28 days metric.
People were calling for that argument to be censored then, it has now been openly accepted as true.
We dont know enough about the vaccine, until we do people should be allowed to voice their concerns
Where did you hear that people would not be able to voice their concerns?
here-censorship is that is it not?
There is nothing in the Labour proposal that would stop you expressing your genuine concern unless the social media platform could prove what you were saying was false in which the social media platform (effectively the publisher) would be bound by the same law as print and broadcast media.
Thats the problem, as I have said, what we were told was false 3 months ago is now true.
Censorship is something we should all be wary of, especially in this country
I know nothing about the example you cite. Perhaps more detail?
The 28 days?
Yeah. I don't know what you are driving at. More details please. Presumably she posted something that you think she wouldn't be allowed to under the Labour policy or she said something that was ruled to be incorrect at the time but is now established as being true? I have googled her and can't find anything that fits into either category.
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 08:11:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 04:58:19 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 04:37:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 11:14:39 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 10:39:02 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 12, 2020, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
What you left out there was this was done as he had arranged a deal with his broker months ago that he was to sell a percentage of his shares if the share price reached a certain price.
This is what happened this week. While the optics of it certainly aren't good his remaining shares are worth 9 times his annual salary and it's not like he sold his entire holding.
The US stock exchange would be all over this if they suspected insider trading and you can do jail time for that in the US.
How does that change things?
You seem to have great faith in the ethics of the US stock exchange and billion dollar pharma.....
The CEO of Pfizer must be very well qualified and intelligent to even get appointed in the first place, but I doubt fortune telling or ability to tell the future is on his CV or a factor for him being appointed.
August 19th Mr. Borla signed a contract to sell a portion of his shares if they reached a certain price. He can't set the price of the shares on the stock market. That's set based on all manner of factors such as company performance, dividends, projections for example. He's been with the company in one role or another for the last 25 years, has an annual salary of $17m and this deal followed all rules and regulations for insider trading.
Every major pharmaceutical company in the world is working on a vaccine at the moment. There is no way back in August he could have known Pfizer would be the first to company to announce they have a potential vaccine.
He signed that contract three months ago. Why do you think they reached that price?
What exactly do you think pharmaceutical companies have been working on for the last 9 months or so? You don't need to be a genius to figure out they're all trying to find Covid-19 vaccines.
Mr. Borla couldn't make the shares reach a certain price but I imagine he quite reasonably believed that if the company could come up with a vaccine then the share price would increase.
It's likely there has been a lot of people investing in pharma companies over the last 9 months or so in that hope that company is first out with a medically approved vaccine so they would make a killing
I think executive decisions are more motivated in economics that humanitarianism.
You seem to be doing a lot of speculating there. The optics are very poor in any case.
All you do is speculate. You tried to claim Pfizer CEO was committing fraud, but you were found out. You also tried to claim suicides were up 200% in lockdown, but you got called out on that as well.
Very first post on this thread you claimed a vaccine was being pushed through without proper testing and shock horror you don't offer anything to back up your speculation
You don't offer any facts and when pushed for answers offer nothing.
I didn't try to claim anything. I stated facts that the Pfizer executives are compromised in rushing through vaccines by personal gain and the optics of it are terrible.
A vaccine in being rushed through, what is happening here in these timescales is utterly unprecedented and big pharma is a billion dollar business.
I'm the one offering facts, you're the one choosing to ignore them.
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:00:55 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 08:11:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 04:58:19 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 04:37:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 11:14:39 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 10:39:02 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 12, 2020, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
What you left out there was this was done as he had arranged a deal with his broker months ago that he was to sell a percentage of his shares if the share price reached a certain price.
This is what happened this week. While the optics of it certainly aren't good his remaining shares are worth 9 times his annual salary and it's not like he sold his entire holding.
The US stock exchange would be all over this if they suspected insider trading and you can do jail time for that in the US.
How does that change things?
You seem to have great faith in the ethics of the US stock exchange and billion dollar pharma.....
The CEO of Pfizer must be very well qualified and intelligent to even get appointed in the first place, but I doubt fortune telling or ability to tell the future is on his CV or a factor for him being appointed.
August 19th Mr. Borla signed a contract to sell a portion of his shares if they reached a certain price. He can't set the price of the shares on the stock market. That's set based on all manner of factors such as company performance, dividends, projections for example. He's been with the company in one role or another for the last 25 years, has an annual salary of $17m and this deal followed all rules and regulations for insider trading.
Every major pharmaceutical company in the world is working on a vaccine at the moment. There is no way back in August he could have known Pfizer would be the first to company to announce they have a potential vaccine.
He signed that contract three months ago. Why do you think they reached that price?
What exactly do you think pharmaceutical companies have been working on for the last 9 months or so? You don't need to be a genius to figure out they're all trying to find Covid-19 vaccines.
Mr. Borla couldn't make the shares reach a certain price but I imagine he quite reasonably believed that if the company could come up with a vaccine then the share price would increase.
It's likely there has been a lot of people investing in pharma companies over the last 9 months or so in that hope that company is first out with a medically approved vaccine so they would make a killing
I think executive decisions are more motivated in economics that humanitarianism.
You seem to be doing a lot of speculating there. The optics are very poor in any case.
All you do is speculate. You tried to claim Pfizer CEO was committing fraud, but you were found out. You also tried to claim suicides were up 200% in lockdown, but you got called out on that as well.
Very first post on this thread you claimed a vaccine was being pushed through without proper testing and shock horror you don't offer anything to back up your speculation
You don't offer any facts and when pushed for answers offer nothing.
I didn't try to claim anything. I stated facts that the Pfizer executives are compromised in rushing through vaccines by personal gain and the optics of it are terrible.
A vaccine in being rushed through, what is happening here in these timescales is utterly unprecedented and big pharma is a billion dollar business.
I'm the one offering facts, you're the one choosing to ignore them.
Offering facts??
Ok. You claim that a vaccine is being rushed through. So list the factual things that should have happened by not with this vaccine that have not factually happened?
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:14:24 PM
Offering facts??
Ok. You claim that a vaccine is being rushed through. So list the factual things that should have happened by not with this vaccine that have not factually happened?
You're conflating things as usual.
The vaccine has been rushed through - fact
It is unprecedented to have a vaccine in this timeframe - fact
Pfizer CEO did have personal gains in getting the vaccine approved to market - fact
The optics of which are not good - fact
And that's why I've arrived at my position, if you want to ignore that then fire ahead.
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:14:24 PM
Offering facts??
Ok. You claim that a vaccine is being rushed through. So list the factual things that should have happened by not with this vaccine that have not factually happened?
You're conflating things as usual.
The vaccine has been rushed through - fact
It is unprecedented to have a vaccine in this timeframe - fact
Pfizer CEO did have personal gains in getting the vaccine approved to market - fact
The optics of which are not good - fact
And that's why I've arrived at my position, if you want to ignore that then fire ahead.
Conflating nothing. I am getting you the opportunity to set out any defects in the process. Are you aware of any defects in the process. The answer to that is Yes or No. I would be grateful if you would answer it
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:37:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:14:24 PM
Offering facts??
Ok. You claim that a vaccine is being rushed through. So list the factual things that should have happened by not with this vaccine that have not factually happened?
You're conflating things as usual.
The vaccine has been rushed through - fact
It is unprecedented to have a vaccine in this timeframe - fact
Pfizer CEO did have personal gains in getting the vaccine approved to market - fact
The optics of which are not good - fact
And that's why I've arrived at my position, if you want to ignore that then fire ahead.
Conflating nothing. I am getting you the opportunity to set out any defects in the process. Are you aware of any defects in the process. The answer to that is Yes or No. I would be grateful if you would answer it
You're framing an argument I'm not having and I think your motivation for such is bizarre
I don't know whether there are defects or whether there are not.
I would have genuine worries about the potential of side effects and defects from the virus due to the facts outlined above.
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:15:43 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:37:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:14:24 PM
Offering facts??
Ok. You claim that a vaccine is being rushed through. So list the factual things that should have happened by not with this vaccine that have not factually happened?
You're conflating things as usual.
The vaccine has been rushed through - fact
It is unprecedented to have a vaccine in this timeframe - fact
Pfizer CEO did have personal gains in getting the vaccine approved to market - fact
The optics of which are not good - fact
And that's why I've arrived at my position, if you want to ignore that then fire ahead.
Conflating nothing. I am getting you the opportunity to set out any defects in the process. Are you aware of any defects in the process. The answer to that is Yes or No. I would be grateful if you would answer it
You're framing an argument I'm not having and I think your motivation for such is bizarre
I don't know whether there are defects or whether there are not.
I would have genuine worries about the potential of side effects and defects from the virus due to the facts outlined above.
You say you have worries due to it being rushed. My question is - is it being rushed? What has not been done than is giving rise to your worries? The answers lie with you. Please illuminate
Quote from: Angelo on October 22, 2020, 10:36:07 AM
It's a simple no for me.
A vaccine is trying to be rushed through, it is not going through the proper testing and approval measures it normally would.
The virus on the other hand is being shown to have a extremely remote fatality rate, an extremely low hospitalisation rate, for people in my demograph.
Your very first post on this thread. Simple questions:
What procedures have been ignored for this vaccine?
What approval measures have been ignored?
As you are so certain of these "facts" can you post the evidence or a link to a qualified medical expert/virologist who has proved the trials of this vaccine are unsafe and unreliable
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
The vaccine has been rushed through - fact
Which required bits of the process are left out?
QuoteIt is unprecedented to have a vaccine in this timeframe - fact
Necessity is the mother of invention.
QuotePfizer CEO did have personal gains in getting the vaccine approved to market - fact
Probably everyone who works for Pfizer benefits from this. They have created something of real value to the world and fair play to them.
QuoteThe optics of which are not good - fact
The optics of this are fine, it is the distortions people are applying because of their own limitations that create problems.
QuoteAnd that's why I've arrived at my position, if you want to ignore that then fire ahead.
We will. The point is though that the likes of you cannot be allow continue to around spreading Covid because you want to be "different".
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:00:55 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 08:11:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 04:58:19 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 04:37:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 12:12:33 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 13, 2020, 11:14:39 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 13, 2020, 10:39:02 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 12, 2020, 11:20:02 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 12, 2020, 09:20:52 AM
So the Pfizer CEO sold $5.5m worth of shares on the day the vaccine was announced.......
What you left out there was this was done as he had arranged a deal with his broker months ago that he was to sell a percentage of his shares if the share price reached a certain price.
This is what happened this week. While the optics of it certainly aren't good his remaining shares are worth 9 times his annual salary and it's not like he sold his entire holding.
The US stock exchange would be all over this if they suspected insider trading and you can do jail time for that in the US.
How does that change things?
You seem to have great faith in the ethics of the US stock exchange and billion dollar pharma.....
The CEO of Pfizer must be very well qualified and intelligent to even get appointed in the first place, but I doubt fortune telling or ability to tell the future is on his CV or a factor for him being appointed.
August 19th Mr. Borla signed a contract to sell a portion of his shares if they reached a certain price. He can't set the price of the shares on the stock market. That's set based on all manner of factors such as company performance, dividends, projections for example. He's been with the company in one role or another for the last 25 years, has an annual salary of $17m and this deal followed all rules and regulations for insider trading.
Every major pharmaceutical company in the world is working on a vaccine at the moment. There is no way back in August he could have known Pfizer would be the first to company to announce they have a potential vaccine.
He signed that contract three months ago. Why do you think they reached that price?
What exactly do you think pharmaceutical companies have been working on for the last 9 months or so? You don't need to be a genius to figure out they're all trying to find Covid-19 vaccines.
Mr. Borla couldn't make the shares reach a certain price but I imagine he quite reasonably believed that if the company could come up with a vaccine then the share price would increase.
It's likely there has been a lot of people investing in pharma companies over the last 9 months or so in that hope that company is first out with a medically approved vaccine so they would make a killing
I think executive decisions are more motivated in economics that humanitarianism.
You seem to be doing a lot of speculating there. The optics are very poor in any case.
All you do is speculate. You tried to claim Pfizer CEO was committing fraud, but you were found out. You also tried to claim suicides were up 200% in lockdown, but you got called out on that as well.
Very first post on this thread you claimed a vaccine was being pushed through without proper testing and shock horror you don't offer anything to back up your speculation
You don't offer any facts and when pushed for answers offer nothing.
I didn't try to claim anything. I stated facts that the Pfizer executives are compromised in rushing through vaccines by personal gain and the optics of it are terrible.
A vaccine in being rushed through, what is happening here in these timescales is utterly unprecedented and big pharma is a billion dollar business.
I'm the one offering facts, you're the one choosing to ignore them.
Definitely not a fact.
More unsubstantiated guff.
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:23:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:15:43 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:37:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:14:24 PM
Offering facts??
Ok. You claim that a vaccine is being rushed through. So list the factual things that should have happened by not with this vaccine that have not factually happened?
You're conflating things as usual.
The vaccine has been rushed through - fact
It is unprecedented to have a vaccine in this timeframe - fact
Pfizer CEO did have personal gains in getting the vaccine approved to market - fact
The optics of which are not good - fact
And that's why I've arrived at my position, if you want to ignore that then fire ahead.
Conflating nothing. I am getting you the opportunity to set out any defects in the process. Are you aware of any defects in the process. The answer to that is Yes or No. I would be grateful if you would answer it
You're framing an argument I'm not having and I think your motivation for such is bizarre
I don't know whether there are defects or whether there are not.
I would have genuine worries about the potential of side effects and defects from the virus due to the facts outlined above.
You say you have worries due to it being rushed. My question is - is it being rushed? What has not been done than is giving rise to your worries? The answers lie with you. Please illuminate
I've already answered that.
Of course it's been rushed, it's unprecedented to ever have a vaccine in this length of time, that's a fact. The answer was already there for you is you bothered to look.
Quote from: armaghniac on November 16, 2020, 04:24:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
The vaccine has been rushed through - fact
Which required bits of the process are left out?
QuoteIt is unprecedented to have a vaccine in this timeframe - fact
Necessity is the mother of invention.
QuotePfizer CEO did have personal gains in getting the vaccine approved to market - fact
Probably everyone who works for Pfizer benefits from this. They have created something of real value to the world and fair play to them.
QuoteThe optics of which are not good - fact
The optics of this are fine, it is the distortions people are applying because of their own limitations that create problems.
QuoteAnd that's why I've arrived at my position, if you want to ignore that then fire ahead.
We will. The point is though that the likes of you cannot be allow continue to around spreading Covid because you want to be "different".
I haven't got Covid because I follow all the guidelines I'm required to. I don't want to be different, I just value my health first and foremost and I don't want to jeopardise my health by having my body injected with something that could have serious consequences because it makes you feel at ease.
The optics of it are not fine. Billion dollar pharma exec becomes enriched as vaccine gets rushed through, the optics of it are terrible. Optics are how things look and that's how it looks.
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:50:58 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:23:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:15:43 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:37:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:14:24 PM
Offering facts??
Ok. You claim that a vaccine is being rushed through. So list the factual things that should have happened by not with this vaccine that have not factually happened?
You're conflating things as usual.
The vaccine has been rushed through - fact
It is unprecedented to have a vaccine in this timeframe - fact
Pfizer CEO did have personal gains in getting the vaccine approved to market - fact
The optics of which are not good - fact
And that's why I've arrived at my position, if you want to ignore that then fire ahead.
Conflating nothing. I am getting you the opportunity to set out any defects in the process. Are you aware of any defects in the process. The answer to that is Yes or No. I would be grateful if you would answer it
You're framing an argument I'm not having and I think your motivation for such is bizarre
I don't know whether there are defects or whether there are not.
I would have genuine worries about the potential of side effects and defects from the virus due to the facts outlined above.
You say you have worries due to it being rushed. My question is - is it being rushed? What has not been done than is giving rise to your worries? The answers lie with you. Please illuminate
I've already answered that.
Of course it's been rushed, it's unprecedented to ever have a vaccine in this length of time, that's a fact. The answer was already there for you is you bothered to look.
It's being prioritised, there is a difference between that and bypassing process
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 16, 2020, 04:24:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
The vaccine has been rushed through - fact
Which required bits of the process are left out?
QuoteIt is unprecedented to have a vaccine in this timeframe - fact
Necessity is the mother of invention.
QuotePfizer CEO did have personal gains in getting the vaccine approved to market - fact
Probably everyone who works for Pfizer benefits from this. They have created something of real value to the world and fair play to them.
QuoteThe optics of which are not good - fact
The optics of this are fine, it is the distortions people are applying because of their own limitations that create problems.
QuoteAnd that's why I've arrived at my position, if you want to ignore that then fire ahead.
We will. The point is though that the likes of you cannot be allow continue to around spreading Covid because you want to be "different".
I haven't got Covid because I follow all the guidelines I'm required to. I don't want to be different, I just value my health first and foremost and I don't want to jeopardise my health by having my body injected with something that could have serious consequences because it makes you feel at ease.
The optics of it are not fine. Billion dollar pharma exec becomes enriched as vaccine gets rushed through, the optics of it are terrible. Optics are how things look and that's how it looks.
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
I'll be alright for an oul jab now
https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2020/1116/1178526-eu-vaccine-dea
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
I don't see the problem here, Angelo doesn't take the vaccine is a win.
The problem isn't with 1 fool. It's the poll at the top of the page. If Angelo wants to argue ethics with Plato that's up to him. I say censor away western democratic regimes...
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:50:58 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:23:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:15:43 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:37:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:14:24 PM
Offering facts??
Ok. You claim that a vaccine is being rushed through. So list the factual things that should have happened by not with this vaccine that have not factually happened?
You're conflating things as usual.
The vaccine has been rushed through - fact
It is unprecedented to have a vaccine in this timeframe - fact
Pfizer CEO did have personal gains in getting the vaccine approved to market - fact
The optics of which are not good - fact
And that's why I've arrived at my position, if you want to ignore that then fire ahead.
Conflating nothing. I am getting you the opportunity to set out any defects in the process. Are you aware of any defects in the process. The answer to that is Yes or No. I would be grateful if you would answer it
You're framing an argument I'm not having and I think your motivation for such is bizarre
I don't know whether there are defects or whether there are not.
I would have genuine worries about the potential of side effects and defects from the virus due to the facts outlined above.
You say you have worries due to it being rushed. My question is - is it being rushed? What has not been done than is giving rise to your worries? The answers lie with you. Please illuminate
I've already answered that.
Of course it's been rushed, it's unprecedented to ever have a vaccine in this length of time, that's a fact. The answer was already there for you is you bothered to look.
Repeating that it is being rushed because you say it is being rushed is not in any meaningful sense answering the questions. Things can be done quickly by throwing more resources at it or you can just lucky with the first batch. Meaningfully being rushed, if were to induce a risk, which seems to be your point, must necessarily something not being done so as to cut a corner. So what it is that is creating the risk that makes you fearful?
Just answer that question
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:53:54 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 16, 2020, 04:24:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
The vaccine has been rushed through - fact
Which required bits of the process are left out?
QuoteIt is unprecedented to have a vaccine in this timeframe - fact
Necessity is the mother of invention.
QuotePfizer CEO did have personal gains in getting the vaccine approved to market - fact
Probably everyone who works for Pfizer benefits from this. They have created something of real value to the world and fair play to them.
QuoteThe optics of which are not good - fact
The optics of this are fine, it is the distortions people are applying because of their own limitations that create problems.
QuoteAnd that's why I've arrived at my position, if you want to ignore that then fire ahead.
We will. The point is though that the likes of you cannot be allow continue to around spreading Covid because you want to be "different".
I haven't got Covid because I follow all the guidelines I'm required to. I don't want to be different, I just value my health first and foremost and I don't want to jeopardise my health by having my body injected with something that could have serious consequences because it makes you feel at ease.
The optics of it are not fine. Billion dollar pharma exec becomes enriched as vaccine gets rushed through, the optics of it are terrible. Optics are how things look and that's how it looks.
Back it up? What is it that makes you worried? Point it out or acknowledge that you have nothing to back it up
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
You keep getting caught out on thread after thread. Questions get posed and you leg it. Some one to lecture on integrity
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 16, 2020, 05:33:56 PM
I don't see the problem here, Angelo doesn't take the vaccine is a win.
No it isn't. We all need people, even the assholes to take a the vaccine if and when it becomes available
There is a definite correlation between intelligence and anti-maskers/vaxxers.
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 07:00:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 16, 2020, 05:33:56 PM
I don't see the problem here, Angelo doesn't take the vaccine is a win.
No it isn't. We all need people, even the assholes to take a the vaccine if and when it becomes available
Well if he's following procedures he's fine as everyone else. He's following the science for one thing and not the other.
What will happen to people who don't take the vaccine or don't have access to it ,Will they be ostracized from the community .
Will people who have taken the vaccine have a card or some sort of certification to say they are vaccinated. The administration of the vaccine and the problems it going to raise should be examined closely before its rolled out , there will be huge problems especially at the start .
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 06:56:09 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:50:58 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:23:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:15:43 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:37:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:14:24 PM
Offering facts??
Ok. You claim that a vaccine is being rushed through. So list the factual things that should have happened by not with this vaccine that have not factually happened?
You're conflating things as usual.
The vaccine has been rushed through - fact
It is unprecedented to have a vaccine in this timeframe - fact
Pfizer CEO did have personal gains in getting the vaccine approved to market - fact
The optics of which are not good - fact
And that's why I've arrived at my position, if you want to ignore that then fire ahead.
Conflating nothing. I am getting you the opportunity to set out any defects in the process. Are you aware of any defects in the process. The answer to that is Yes or No. I would be grateful if you would answer it
You're framing an argument I'm not having and I think your motivation for such is bizarre
I don't know whether there are defects or whether there are not.
I would have genuine worries about the potential of side effects and defects from the virus due to the facts outlined above.
You say you have worries due to it being rushed. My question is - is it being rushed? What has not been done than is giving rise to your worries? The answers lie with you. Please illuminate
I've already answered that.
Of course it's been rushed, it's unprecedented to ever have a vaccine in this length of time, that's a fact. The answer was already there for you is you bothered to look.
Repeating that it is being rushed because you say it is being rushed is not in any meaningful sense answering the questions. Things can be done quickly by throwing more resources at it or you can just lucky with the first batch. Meaningfully being rushed, if were to induce a risk, which seems to be your point, must necessarily something not being done so as to cut a corner. So what it is that is creating the risk that makes you fearful?
Just answer that question
I've already answered the question.
You have just taken the choice to ignore matters of fact so I think that says it all. I let the facts influence my opinions and views and you ignore them to arrive at yours. Can't put it any simpler than that.
Quote from: Gmac on November 16, 2020, 07:27:55 PM
What will happen to people who don't take the vaccine or don't have access to it ,Will they be ostracized from the community .
Will people who have taken the vaccine have a card or some sort of certification to say they are vaccinated. The administration of the vaccine and the problems it going to raise should be examined closely before its rolled out , there will be huge problems especially at the start .
Countries may want a certificate to show you've taken it so that you're not bringing it into their country ... Covid passport
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 07:29:02 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 06:56:09 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:50:58 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 04:23:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 04:15:43 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:37:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 03:30:52 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 03:14:24 PM
Offering facts??
Ok. You claim that a vaccine is being rushed through. So list the factual things that should have happened by not with this vaccine that have not factually happened?
You're conflating things as usual.
The vaccine has been rushed through - fact
It is unprecedented to have a vaccine in this timeframe - fact
Pfizer CEO did have personal gains in getting the vaccine approved to market - fact
The optics of which are not good - fact
And that's why I've arrived at my position, if you want to ignore that then fire ahead.
Conflating nothing. I am getting you the opportunity to set out any defects in the process. Are you aware of any defects in the process. The answer to that is Yes or No. I would be grateful if you would answer it
You're framing an argument I'm not having and I think your motivation for such is bizarre
I don't know whether there are defects or whether there are not.
I would have genuine worries about the potential of side effects and defects from the virus due to the facts outlined above.
You say you have worries due to it being rushed. My question is - is it being rushed? What has not been done than is giving rise to your worries? The answers lie with you. Please illuminate
I've already answered that.
Of course it's been rushed, it's unprecedented to ever have a vaccine in this length of time, that's a fact. The answer was already there for you is you bothered to look.
Repeating that it is being rushed because you say it is being rushed is not in any meaningful sense answering the questions. Things can be done quickly by throwing more resources at it or you can just lucky with the first batch. Meaningfully being rushed, if were to induce a risk, which seems to be your point, must necessarily something not being done so as to cut a corner. So what it is that is creating the risk that makes you fearful?
Just answer that question
I've already answered the question.
You have just taken the choice to ignore matters of fact so I think that says it all. I let the facts influence my opinions and views and you ignore them to arrive at yours. Can't put it any simpler than that.
You haven't answered the question. Your failure to answer it could be described as complete and absolute. Answer it now. State the part of the vaccine development process that has been left out? Should be easy to answer given you Calum to already have done so.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 16, 2020, 07:30:22 PM
Quote from: Gmac on November 16, 2020, 07:27:55 PM
What will happen to people who don't take the vaccine or don't have access to it ,Will they be ostracized from the community .
Will people who have taken the vaccine have a card or some sort of certification to say they are vaccinated. The administration of the vaccine and the problems it going to raise should be examined closely before its rolled out , there will be huge problems especially at the start .
Countries may want a certificate to show you've taken it so that you're not bringing it into their country ... Covid passport
A very good point.
Quote from: Gmac on November 16, 2020, 07:27:55 PM
What will happen to people who don't take the vaccine or don't have access to it ,Will they be ostracized from the community .
Will people who have taken the vaccine have a card or some sort of certification to say they are vaccinated. The administration of the vaccine and the problems it going to raise should be examined closely before its rolled out , there will be huge problems especially at the start .
As pointed out elsewhere there may be a role for cards internationally. Also commercially. But I don't think you will need one to walk the streets.
Important that vaccines, even when approved and rolled out, are a long way from a relaxation of social distancing measures.
I'm nearly sure that the roll out of the vaccine will be examined. What makes you think it might not?
Are problems not avoidable with the right planning and buy in?
Buy in is critical. We are all reliant on people not being dicks
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 08:32:51 PM
Quote from: Gmac on November 16, 2020, 07:27:55 PM
What will happen to people who don't take the vaccine or don't have access to it ,Will they be ostracized from the community .
Will people who have taken the vaccine have a card or some sort of certification to say they are vaccinated. The administration of the vaccine and the problems it going to raise should be examined closely before its rolled out , there will be huge problems especially at the start .
As pointed out elsewhere there may be a role for cards internationally. Also commercially. But I don't think you will need one to walk the streets.
Important that vaccines, even when approved and rolled out, are a long way from a relaxation of social distancing measures.
I'm nearly sure that the roll out of the vaccine will be examined. What makes you think it might not?
Are problems not avoidable with the right planning and buy in?
Buy in is critical. We are all reliant on people not being dicks
unless it goes away there are going to be a lot of situations where regular everyday people are going to be deciding entry for people like pubs , restaurants , sporting events, shops in the us for example it would be end of 2022 before everyone is vaccinated at 15 m people a month . Maybe we have to stay masked up and at 25% capacity for a a year or so .
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Quote from: Gmac on November 16, 2020, 07:27:55 PM
What will happen to people who don't take the vaccine or don't have access to it ,Will they be ostracized from the community .
Will people who have taken the vaccine have a card or some sort of certification to say they are vaccinated. The administration of the vaccine and the problems it going to raise should be examined closely before its rolled out , there will be huge problems especially at the start .
It needs to be recorded against your passport, so that people without vaccines are not allowed fly or enter the country. It is perhaps harder to track down people using buses etc, but the effort has to be made.
Quote from: Gmac on November 16, 2020, 08:53:45 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 08:32:51 PM
Quote from: Gmac on November 16, 2020, 07:27:55 PM
What will happen to people who don't take the vaccine or don't have access to it ,Will they be ostracized from the community .
Will people who have taken the vaccine have a card or some sort of certification to say they are vaccinated. The administration of the vaccine and the problems it going to raise should be examined closely before its rolled out , there will be huge problems especially at the start .
As pointed out elsewhere there may be a role for cards internationally. Also commercially. But I don't think you will need one to walk the streets.
Important that vaccines, even when approved and rolled out, are a long way from a relaxation of social distancing measures.
I'm nearly sure that the roll out of the vaccine will be examined. What makes you think it might not?
Are problems not avoidable with the right planning and buy in?
Buy in is critical. We are all reliant on people not being dicks
unless it goes away there are going to be a lot of situations where regular everyday people are going to be deciding entry for people like pubs , restaurants , sporting events, shops in the us for example it would be end of 2022 before everyone is vaccinated at 15 m people a month . Maybe we have to stay masked up and at 25% capacity for a a year or so .
Also as it stands the same individual will need multiple vaccinations. 2 injections to get immunity and 2 more each time it wears off.
Also the big issue that not suffering from COVID and not passing it on are 2 different things. The efficacy discussed to date related to the former. But the latter. Masks and social distancing for a long time yet
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?
I must check our Optics Policy tomorrow.
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?
Solicitors and Accountants
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?
Solicitors and Accountants
Post a link
Must be looking at this after doing the optics in the pub!
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
We can all see how it looked. And this is exactly my point. The Sun readers stop there and blow about it on Facebook. Others may look for more. You clearly belong in group 1.
And we all know that "billion dollar pharma" (the latest catchphrase, it would seem) is not exactly awash with charitable people. Hence asking you to provide some evidence, or make some sort of case. Anything of substance at all. But, as expected, you've produced nothing but (very earnest) bluster and repetition of stupid, learned phrases.
I saw Kelvin McKenzie interviewed on some show the other day. You and he come across as kindred spirits.
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 08:32:51 PM
Quote from: Gmac on November 16, 2020, 07:27:55 PM
What will happen to people who don't take the vaccine or don't have access to it ,Will they be ostracized from the community .
Will people who have taken the vaccine have a card or some sort of certification to say they are vaccinated. The administration of the vaccine and the problems it going to raise should be examined closely before its rolled out , there will be huge problems especially at the start .
As pointed out elsewhere there may be a role for cards internationally. Also commercially. But I don't think you will need one to walk the streets.
Important that vaccines, even when approved and rolled out, are a long way from a relaxation of social distancing measures.
I'm nearly sure that the roll out of the vaccine will be examined. What makes you think it might not?
Are problems not avoidable with the right planning and buy in?
Buy in is critical. We are all reliant on people not being dicks
So how long do you believe social distancing will be here for ?
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?
Solicitors and Accountants
Post a link
Here's an example.
https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf
4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis,
can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be,
or seen to be compromised
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:25:21 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?
Solicitors and Accountants
Post a link
Here's an example.
https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf
4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised
Reaching there
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:25:21 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?
Solicitors and Accountants
Post a link
Here's an example.
https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf
4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised
As someone who worked in finance that has no correlation or comparison with the Pfizer CEO. For your example to work the CEO, in house broker and investment company would have all had to have worked together to fix the share price to get it to the level they wanted so the chairman could sell his shares and the investment company get paid their fee and commission
Your obsession with "optics" as you put it only shows how close minded you are. If you looked past the lazy headlines of the sale of the shares you'd see the company and CEO did nothing illegal or wrong.
You occasionally see park rangers killing deer in the phoenix park and the "optics" of that are very bad. However if you look into why they do it you'll see it's to protect other species in the park and ensure the deer population doesn't get out of control.
Quote from: thebigfella on November 16, 2020, 10:39:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:25:21 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?
Solicitors and Accountants
Post a link
Here's an example.
https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf
4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised
Reaching there
If you have a tenuous grasp of the English language I can see how you'd arrive at that conclusion. Otherwise you wouldn't be debating it.
Professional bodies have ethical guidelines that actively try to stop their members actions being open to scrutiny.
Optics
(typically in a political context) the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public.
4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis,
can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be,
or seen to be compromisedA CEO of a billion dollar pharma company signing a contract that allows him to sell his shares once they reach a certain price
in the middle of a pandemic when they are developing a vaccine gives a serious conflict of interest and the optics of it are utterly terrible.
As far as industries go as well, few are as dirty as big pharma.
For those reasons I'd be very wary.
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:12:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:25:21 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?
Solicitors and Accountants
Post a link
Here's an example.
https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf
4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised
As someone who worked in finance that has no correlation or comparison with the Pfizer CEO. For your example to work the CEO, in house broker and investment company would have all had to have worked together to fix the share price to get it to the level they wanted so the chairman could sell his shares and the investment company get paid their fee and commission
It's a question of questions which I think you failed to grasp.
A CEO stands to benefit to great financial effect from the approval of a vaccine. The contract he signed allowing him to do so was done both
in the middle of the pandemic and when the vaccine was being developed. The optics of such are terrible and that is why the story has gained a significant amount of traction.
Big pharma is a very, very dirty industry.
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 11:21:57 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:12:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:25:21 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?
Solicitors and Accountants
Post a link
Here's an example.
https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf
4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised
As someone who worked in finance that has no correlation or comparison with the Pfizer CEO. For your example to work the CEO, in house broker and investment company would have all had to have worked together to fix the share price to get it to the level they wanted so the chairman could sell his shares and the investment company get paid their fee and commission
It's a question of questions which I think you failed to grasp.
A CEO stands to benefit to great financial effect from the approval of a vaccine. The contract he signed allowing him to do so was done both in the middle of the pandemic and when the vaccine was being developed. The optics of such are terrible and that is why the story has gained a significant amount of traction.
Big pharma is a very, very dirty industry.
The story hasn't gained traction. It was a tabloid headline for one day and then pretty much disappeared after the details of the transaction were revealed. Only conspiracy nuts like yourself are trying to make it into something it's not.
Do you know how the stock market works? People invest in companies in the hopes of making money. Big Pharma is a potential gold mine with all the companies working on vaccines.
The share price has gone down since the original press release. People jumped on the shares when the original announcement was made but when they realised a vaccine hadn't been actually approved but was still in trial stages the demand and share price dropped. People buying shares hoping for a dramatic increase in their value realised that wasn't going to happen got impatient and started selling their shares.
Should the CEO be blamed for the optics of the Pfizer share price now dropping?
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:37:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 11:21:57 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:12:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:25:21 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?
Solicitors and Accountants
Post a link
Here's an example.
https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf
4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised
As someone who worked in finance that has no correlation or comparison with the Pfizer CEO. For your example to work the CEO, in house broker and investment company would have all had to have worked together to fix the share price to get it to the level they wanted so the chairman could sell his shares and the investment company get paid their fee and commission
It's a question of questions which I think you failed to grasp.
A CEO stands to benefit to great financial effect from the approval of a vaccine. The contract he signed allowing him to do so was done both in the middle of the pandemic and when the vaccine was being developed. The optics of such are terrible and that is why the story has gained a significant amount of traction.
Big pharma is a very, very dirty industry.
The story hasn't gained traction. It was a tabloid headline for one day and then pretty much disappeared after the details of the transaction were revealed. Only conspiracy nuts like yourself are trying to make it into something it's not.
Do you know how the stock market works? People invest in companies in the hopes of making money. Big Pharma is a potential gold mine with all the companies working on vaccines.
The share price has gone down since the original press release. People jumped on the shares when the original announcement was made but when they realised a vaccine hadn't been actually approved but was still in trial stages the demand and share price dropped. People buying shares hoping for a dramatic increase in their value realised that wasn't going to happen got impatient and started selling their shares.
Should the CEO be blamed for the optics of the Pfizer share price now dropping?
It wasn't a tabloid headline. It wasn't tabloids that reported on it.
You shouldn't be asking me if I know how things work, you should be questioning your own knowledge and naivety.
It absolutely reeks of terrible corporate governance, the board would have signed off on that contract and I will repeat again. A contract signed in the middle of a pandemic where a vaccine is currently being developed that enriches the CEO if it's approved. And you can't see the conflict of interest in getting this to market in record time? You're telling me you can't see anything wrong with that. Anything that could compromise or conflict any judgement calls.
The optics of it are terrible.
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
So fecking what!!
As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up
You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
So fecking what!!
As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up
You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.
I said no because I would be very sceptical that it isn't safe. What proof have you it is safe? None.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
Or he understands that no vaccine has had the same resources pumped into it as this one. Unless there's steps that were omitted on this process that your aware of? If so which steps? If not, then your making an assumption on no basis.
Also you do realise the Pharma companies don't get to just sign off their own vaccines independently? They are regulated.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
Or he understands that no vaccine has had the same resources pumped into it as this one. Unless there's steps that were omitted on this process that your aware of? If so which steps? If not, then your making an assumption on no basis.
Also you do realise the Pharma companies don't get to just sign off their own vaccines independently? They are regulated.
Can you be sure that steps weren't missed? Because unless you can, that counterpoint is absolutely preposterous. This kind of turnaround is unprecedented for a vaccine, we are told vaccines takes around 4-5 years to develop. So I would be worried, I would be sceptical.
If you want to go in to a clinic willy nilly and not question anything then that's your prerogative, I have my reasons for not wanting to take the vaccine and they revolve around me not wanting to compromise my health.
You do realise Big Pharma is an extremely seedy business? Maybe you'd like to read a little bit about Pfizer......
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
1. Pfizer produce/manufacture the vaccine. They don't certify the vaccine for use. So unless you want to call into question the MHRA also, then there will be no vaccine without somebody checking Pfizer's work.
2. Nobody is working on blind faith - everyone is happy to question this if there's even the slightest evidence of wrongdoing. But if the only thing that you can produce by way of evidence is 'optics', then you belong in the category with Sun readers and the Karens on Facebook - another internet windbag.
3. So what if the guy made money from this? If I'm the CEO of the company which discovered a vaccine which is worth literally trillions to the worlds economies, I'd be very disappointed if I didn't make some money from doing it.
Quote from: Franko on November 17, 2020, 09:40:31 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
1. Pfizer produce/manufacture the vaccine. They don't certify the vaccine for use. So unless you want to call into question the MHRA also, then there will be no vaccine without somebody checking Pfizer's work.
2. Nobody is working on blind faith - everyone is happy to question this if there's even the slightest evidence of wrongdoing. But if the only thing that you can produce by way of evidence is 'optics', then you belong in the category with Sun readers and the Karens on Facebook - another internet windbag.
3. So what if the guy made money from this? If I'm the CEO of the company which discovered a vaccine which is worth literally trillions to the worlds economies, I'd be very disappointed if I didn't make some money from doing it.
You are working off blind faith, you seem to be some sort of vaccine fascist that wants everyone to take the vaccine. There are massive question marks over it. Only last week or the week before we have a a Big Pharma company settling over side effects of a Swine Flu vaccine. I'm wary and sceptical of this and would not be willing to take this vaccine on the grounds that it was rushed through in an unprecedented timeline. That should prompt concerns in any rational-minded thinker.
So what if a guy made money from this? Eh, self-interest. He signed a contract DURING the pandemic that would have allowed him to profit heavily from the vaccine hitting the market first and you can't see how it could compromise decision making? Pfizer have a very unscrupulous past. There's an article above from 2009 where they were hit with a record $2bn fine for mispromoting a drug they made and paying kickbacks to doctors so the company in question don't merely have issues in the optics of this, they also have issues in their past transgressions.
Big Pharma is about as seedy an industry as you can find.
Why are people like you, who know absolutley nothing about the vaccine and its potential consequences, so adamant that people risk their health and go and get it.
https://youtu.be/4FQUmw5QljM
There is enough rationality on the other side of the debate for it not to be dismissed out of hand.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
So fecking what!!
As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up
You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.
This.
Lock the thread.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:01:08 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 17, 2020, 09:40:31 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
1. Pfizer produce/manufacture the vaccine. They don't certify the vaccine for use. So unless you want to call into question the MHRA also, then there will be no vaccine without somebody checking Pfizer's work.
2. Nobody is working on blind faith - everyone is happy to question this if there's even the slightest evidence of wrongdoing. But if the only thing that you can produce by way of evidence is 'optics', then you belong in the category with Sun readers and the Karens on Facebook - another internet windbag.
3. So what if the guy made money from this? If I'm the CEO of the company which discovered a vaccine which is worth literally trillions to the worlds economies, I'd be very disappointed if I didn't make some money from doing it.
You are working off blind faith, you seem to be some sort of vaccine fascist that wants everyone to take the vaccine. There are massive question marks over it. Only last week or the week before we have a a Big Pharma company settling over side effects of a Swine Flu vaccine. I'm wary and sceptical of this and would not be willing to take this vaccine on the grounds that it was rushed through in an unprecedented timeline. That should prompt concerns in any rational-minded thinker.
So what if a guy made money from this? Eh, self-interest. He signed a contract DURING the pandemic that would have allowed him to profit heavily from the vaccine hitting the market first and you can't see how it could compromise decision making? Pfizer have a very unscrupulous past. There's an article above from 2009 where they were hit with a record $2bn fine for mispromoting a drug they made and paying kickbacks to doctors so the company in question don't merely have issues in the optics of this, they also have issues in their past transgressions.
Big Pharma is about as seedy an industry as you can find.
Why are people like you, who know absolutley nothing about the vaccine and its potential consequences, so adamant that people risk their health and go and get it.
Lots of words, and yet again, no substance. You are the definition of an internet windbag.
And of course it's self interest? Self interest is why any private company exists. Can't you understand that? The same 'conflict' exists in
any company who manufacture
any item. Do it quicker/cheaper and we make more money.
But because of that, like in countless other regulated industries, someone checks their homework.
And in this one, the cost of getting it wrong would be terminal for the company, given the 2bn fine you have talked about earlier.
With eyes of the entire world on this one, I think they'd struggle to half-ass it.
But I'll say it again. If you have some sort of evidence of wrong-doing, produce it. I, and I'm sure many others, would be genuinely keen to hear it.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
So fecking what!!
As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up
You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.
I said no because I would be very sceptical that it isn't safe. What proof have you it is safe? None.
Medical experts at the minute will monitor the results and from the current tests they have carried out decide if its safe to run out! What proof have you that it's not safe?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
Or he understands that no vaccine has had the same resources pumped into it as this one. Unless there's steps that were omitted on this process that your aware of? If so which steps? If not, then your making an assumption on no basis.
Also you do realise the Pharma companies don't get to just sign off their own vaccines independently? They are regulated.
Can you be sure that steps weren't missed? Because unless you can, that counterpoint is absolutely preposterous. This kind of turnaround is unprecedented for a vaccine, we are told vaccines takes around 4-5 years to develop. So I would be worried, I would be sceptical.
If you want to go in to a clinic willy nilly and not question anything then that's your prerogative, I have my reasons for not wanting to take the vaccine and they revolve around me not wanting to compromise my health.
You do realise Big Pharma is an extremely seedy business? Maybe you'd like to read a little bit about Pfizer......
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine
No one can be 100% sure on anything. However people tend to make judgement calls on what is the most likely scenario.
It's been explained that no other vaccine processed has had the resources thrown at it that Covid has. Also it's a Coronavirus which meant stage 2 trials were much quicker. 6 months instead of 2 years due to previous research. Previous work on SARS allowed them to avoid stumbling blocks. The virus itself creates a natural immune reaction in most people who get the virus, therefore was easier to recreate unlike the likes of HIV. This information is all out there.
You can be skeptical absolutely, but it needs to be based on something more than it's happened too quickly.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 10:29:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
So fecking what!!
As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up
You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.
I said no because I would be very sceptical that it isn't safe. What proof have you it is safe? None.
Medical experts at the minute will monitor the results and from the current tests they have carried out decide if its safe to run out! What proof have you that it's not safe?
You seem to confusing what I'm saying.
I'm very sceptical and wary and therefore would be very cautious about the vaccine, go ahead and find out what those words mean if you're confused.
What proof have you that the vaccine is ok?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 10:53:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
Or he understands that no vaccine has had the same resources pumped into it as this one. Unless there's steps that were omitted on this process that your aware of? If so which steps? If not, then your making an assumption on no basis.
Also you do realise the Pharma companies don't get to just sign off their own vaccines independently? They are regulated.
Can you be sure that steps weren't missed? Because unless you can, that counterpoint is absolutely preposterous. This kind of turnaround is unprecedented for a vaccine, we are told vaccines takes around 4-5 years to develop. So I would be worried, I would be sceptical.
If you want to go in to a clinic willy nilly and not question anything then that's your prerogative, I have my reasons for not wanting to take the vaccine and they revolve around me not wanting to compromise my health.
You do realise Big Pharma is an extremely seedy business? Maybe you'd like to read a little bit about Pfizer......
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine
No one can be 100% sure on anything. However people tend to make judgement calls on what is the most likely scenario.
It's been explained that no other vaccine processed has had the resources thrown at it that Covid has. Also it's a Coronavirus which meant stage 2 trials were much quicker. 6 months instead of 2 years due to previous research. Previous work on SARS allowed them to avoid stumbling blocks. The virus itself creates a natural immune reaction in most people who get the virus, therefore was easier to recreate unlike the likes of HIV. This information is all out there.
You can be skeptical absolutely, but it needs to be based on something more than it's happened too quickly.
The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first
Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:56:45 AM
The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first
Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
There's explanations for the timeline. I've mentioned a few of the bigger ones above.
With regards to the rest, are you saying you would never take another new vaccine again because Pharma is a dirty industry? Therefore any vaccine could be as a result of a self serving pharma company?
Maybe Angelo could try this😄
https://www.irishexaminer.com/world/arid-40083662.html
Quote from: larryin89 on November 16, 2020, 10:11:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 08:32:51 PM
Quote from: Gmac on November 16, 2020, 07:27:55 PM
What will happen to people who don't take the vaccine or don't have access to it ,Will they be ostracized from the community .
Will people who have taken the vaccine have a card or some sort of certification to say they are vaccinated. The administration of the vaccine and the problems it going to raise should be examined closely before its rolled out , there will be huge problems especially at the start .
As pointed out elsewhere there may be a role for cards internationally. Also commercially. But I don't think you will need one to walk the streets.
Important that vaccines, even when approved and rolled out, are a long way from a relaxation of social distancing measures.
I'm nearly sure that the roll out of the vaccine will be examined. What makes you think it might not?
Are problems not avoidable with the right planning and buy in?
Buy in is critical. We are all reliant on people not being dicks
So how long do you believe social distancing will be here for ?
The easy bit of that to answer is the next 5-6 months. Given the winter pressures and absence of a vaccine social distancing will definitely be here. Beyond that there is more guesswork.
You would have to speculate on the sign off of the vaccines, the time it will take to roll them out and the order in which they will be rolled out. The west will buy up a lot and will also be pressurised to allow a proportion to go to the developing world. Within the West we will have to decide on the relative priority of those most likely to suffer from the virus and those most likely to spread it. That will likely depend on the further tests on the vaccine.
Social distancing is there to plug the gap in our defence against this. The longer a gap exists the longer social distancing rules are maintained. Treatments and Test, track and trace can also help close the gap
It's actually getting to be quite impressive how Angelo can be bothered with all these rows on different threads on an internet forum. He is going to need to give a man a start or employ a secretary to keep up with it all. Serious effort.
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:12:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:25:21 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?
Solicitors and Accountants
Post a link
Here's an example.
https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf
4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised
As someone who worked in finance that has no correlation or comparison with the Pfizer CEO. For your example to work the CEO, in house broker and investment company would have all had to have worked together to fix the share price to get it to the level they wanted so the chairman could sell his shares and the investment company get paid their fee and commission
Your obsession with "optics" as you put it only shows how close minded you are. If you looked past the lazy headlines of the sale of the shares you'd see the company and CEO did nothing illegal or wrong.
You occasionally see park rangers killing deer in the phoenix park and the "optics" of that are very bad. However if you look into why they do it you'll see it's to protect other species in the park and ensure the deer population doesn't get out of control.
To be fair to Angelo he has at least tried to answer the question. Which is a significant improvement.
The example covers the situation where an audit firm needs to take steps to ensure providing non audit services to a entity couldn't be done in a way in which would compromise its ability to conduct audit activity for the same entity. But Angelo would be wrong to conclude that it amounts to a ban on providing non audit services. If the position came be explained it can be done. As the Pfizer guy has done
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 11:19:09 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on November 16, 2020, 10:39:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:25:21 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 10:05:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 10:03:53 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 16, 2020, 09:48:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 09:24:11 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 09:12:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 16, 2020, 05:28:26 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 16, 2020, 05:22:27 PM
Optics are for Sun readers.
Nobody with a functioning frontal lobe would base a decision on the optics of anything.
Maybe this is the problem.
Not true, optics are for integrity, they are an ethical issue.
So when you compare an ethical an issue with The Sun in one sentence then I think we can assess the lack of intelligence in your point.
Billion dollar pharma has had plenty of disgraces in the past. The very company whose CEO benefits with that bonus from the vaccine making it to market had to settle a lawsuit for $2bn in recent years. Do I trust the ethical values of Pfizer? I do in my hoop.
Lol at that first sentence.
Your behaviour is exactly that of a tabloid. Big headline but no substance. Ignore facts, repeat propaganda, throw out selective quotes with no context, run for cover when pressed for evidence. Someone who behaves in such a manner has no place mentioning the word ethics.
The thing is, I think the tabloids choose to do this. You on the other hand are constrained by the unfortunate hand you were dealt.
The only one being tabloidy is you where billion dollar pharma is not to be questioned.
If you can't see how it looks bad for a CEO of a billion dollar pharma company who have had to settle multiple lawsuits in the past to offload a load of shares on the day they announce a vaccine rushed through in under a year then you must be lacking any semblance on intelligence.
Most professional bodies will have codes of conduct and ethical guidelines on the optics of things. The optics of this are absolutely appalling and anyone who has a brain in their head can see this. That must be why you are struggling.
Which professional body has a code of conduct on how things look rather than how things are?
Solicitors and Accountants
Post a link
Here's an example.
https://www.frc.org.uk/getattachment/601c8b09-2c0a-4a6c-8080-30f63e50b4a2/Revised-Ethical-Standards-2019-Updated-With-Covers.pdf
4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised
Reaching there
If you have a tenuous grasp of the English language I can see how you'd arrive at that conclusion. Otherwise you wouldn't be debating it.
Professional bodies have ethical guidelines that actively try to stop their members actions being open to scrutiny.
Optics
(typically in a political context) the way in which an event or course of action is perceived by the public.
4.10 The firm and any of its network firms shall not provide any non-audit /
additional services, to or in respect of an entity relevant to an
engagement, wholly or partly on a contingent fee basis. Providing nonaudit/ additional services on a contingent fee basis, can give rise to a
perception that the firm's interests are so closely aligned with the entity that
the integrity, objectivity and independence of the firm and covered persons
could be, or seen to be compromised
A CEO of a billion dollar pharma company signing a contract that allows him to sell his shares once they reach a certain price in the middle of a pandemic when they are developing a vaccine gives a serious conflict of interest and the optics of it are utterly terrible.
As far as industries go as well, few are as dirty as big pharma.
For those reasons I'd be very wary.
Do you think big Pharma have done anything good?
Did you or your kids ever get immunised?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
Is it in any way possible that the search for this vaccine is more resources or better coordinated?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:53:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 10:29:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
So fecking what!!
As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up
You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.
I said no because I would be very sceptical that it isn't safe. What proof have you it is safe? None.
Medical experts at the minute will monitor the results and from the current tests they have carried out decide if its safe to run out! What proof have you that it's not safe?
You seem to confusing what I'm saying.
I'm very sceptical and wary and therefore would be very cautious about the vaccine, go ahead and find out what those words mean if you're confused.
What proof have you that the vaccine is ok?
I've no proof that it'll work 100%, there is studies currently that show that its 90%
So I've answered you.
Have you proof that the vaccine is not ok?
Please just answer the last bit in bold and don't confuse yourself and others with a daft answer
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
So fecking what!!
As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up
You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.
I said no because I would be very sceptical that it isn't safe. What proof have you it is safe? None.
Nobody has any evidence that it is safe. But they are not taking the vaccine yet are they?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
Or he understands that no vaccine has had the same resources pumped into it as this one. Unless there's steps that were omitted on this process that your aware of? If so which steps? If not, then your making an assumption on no basis.
Also you do realise the Pharma companies don't get to just sign off their own vaccines independently? They are regulated.
Can you be sure that steps weren't missed? Because unless you can, that counterpoint is absolutely preposterous. This kind of turnaround is unprecedented for a vaccine, we are told vaccines takes around 4-5 years to develop. So I would be worried, I would be sceptical.
If you want to go in to a clinic willy nilly and not question anything then that's your prerogative, I have my reasons for not wanting to take the vaccine and they revolve around me not wanting to compromise my health.
You do realise Big Pharma is an extremely seedy business? Maybe you'd like to read a little bit about Pfizer......
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine
When you next buy a car how can you be sure corners have not been cut in its safety controls? Do you not rely on industry standards and audit?
You have raised concerns that the vaccine has been rushed. You have failed to point out a single thing that has been omitted in this "rush". Your reaction to then ask others how they can be sure that something has not been omitted is pure childish Trump/Alex Jones/Qanon nonsense
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:01:08 AM
Quote from: Franko on November 17, 2020, 09:40:31 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
1. Pfizer produce/manufacture the vaccine. They don't certify the vaccine for use. So unless you want to call into question the MHRA also, then there will be no vaccine without somebody checking Pfizer's work.
2. Nobody is working on blind faith - everyone is happy to question this if there's even the slightest evidence of wrongdoing. But if the only thing that you can produce by way of evidence is 'optics', then you belong in the category with Sun readers and the Karens on Facebook - another internet windbag.
3. So what if the guy made money from this? If I'm the CEO of the company which discovered a vaccine which is worth literally trillions to the worlds economies, I'd be very disappointed if I didn't make some money from doing it.
You are working off blind faith, you seem to be some sort of vaccine fascist that wants everyone to take the vaccine. There are massive question marks over it. Only last week or the week before we have a a Big Pharma company settling over side effects of a Swine Flu vaccine. I'm wary and sceptical of this and would not be willing to take this vaccine on the grounds that it was rushed through in an unprecedented timeline. That should prompt concerns in any rational-minded thinker.
So what if a guy made money from this? Eh, self-interest. He signed a contract DURING the pandemic that would have allowed him to profit heavily from the vaccine hitting the market first and you can't see how it could compromise decision making? Pfizer have a very unscrupulous past. There's an article above from 2009 where they were hit with a record $2bn fine for mispromoting a drug they made and paying kickbacks to doctors so the company in question don't merely have issues in the optics of this, they also have issues in their past transgressions.
Big Pharma is about as seedy an industry as you can find.
Why are people like you, who know absolutley nothing about the vaccine and its potential consequences, so adamant that people risk their health and go and get it.
If and when this vaccine is signed off what will your problems with it be?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:53:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 10:29:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
So fecking what!!
As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up
You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.
I said no because I would be very sceptical that it isn't safe. What proof have you it is safe? None.
Medical experts at the minute will monitor the results and from the current tests they have carried out decide if its safe to run out! What proof have you that it's not safe?
You seem to confusing what I'm saying.
I'm very sceptical and wary and therefore would be very cautious about the vaccine, go ahead and find out what those words mean if you're confused.
What proof have you that the vaccine is ok?
None of us have any proof that the vaccine is ok. That is why we are not taking it yet
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:56:45 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 10:53:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
Or he understands that no vaccine has had the same resources pumped into it as this one. Unless there's steps that were omitted on this process that your aware of? If so which steps? If not, then your making an assumption on no basis.
Also you do realise the Pharma companies don't get to just sign off their own vaccines independently? They are regulated.
Can you be sure that steps weren't missed? Because unless you can, that counterpoint is absolutely preposterous. This kind of turnaround is unprecedented for a vaccine, we are told vaccines takes around 4-5 years to develop. So I would be worried, I would be sceptical.
If you want to go in to a clinic willy nilly and not question anything then that's your prerogative, I have my reasons for not wanting to take the vaccine and they revolve around me not wanting to compromise my health.
You do realise Big Pharma is an extremely seedy business? Maybe you'd like to read a little bit about Pfizer......
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine
No one can be 100% sure on anything. However people tend to make judgement calls on what is the most likely scenario.
It's been explained that no other vaccine processed has had the resources thrown at it that Covid has. Also it's a Coronavirus which meant stage 2 trials were much quicker. 6 months instead of 2 years due to previous research. Previous work on SARS allowed them to avoid stumbling blocks. The virus itself creates a natural immune reaction in most people who get the virus, therefore was easier to recreate unlike the likes of HIV. This information is all out there.
You can be skeptical absolutely, but it needs to be based on something more than it's happened too quickly.
The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first
Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
Do you accept that pharmaceuticals get a lot right?
Do you understand that it might be possible to accelerate prorgress in an issue if more resources are applied to it and they are better coordinated?
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:25:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:53:51 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 10:29:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:26:50 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 08:58:37 AM
So fecking what!!
As long as the flipping thing works and we can all go back to having a normal life again, Gates has made millions off a system that nearly everyone uses, cornered the market on it, Amazon are a monster organization and continue to grow and make one person, and his ex wife billionaires, Facebook and the rest of these platforms make billions too, most people don't care and still use all of the above, as will everyone else if these vaccines work, someone was always going to clean up
You seem to be missing the point of this thread, if there is a safe and properly tested regulated vaccine available will you take it? You've said no because you think its rushed but have no proof of this, just a idea. Well you couldn't have as you've not been working on this vaccine nor have the background in this area other than goggle.
I said no because I would be very sceptical that it isn't safe. What proof have you it is safe? None.
Medical experts at the minute will monitor the results and from the current tests they have carried out decide if its safe to run out! What proof have you that it's not safe?
You seem to confusing what I'm saying.
I'm very sceptical and wary and therefore would be very cautious about the vaccine, go ahead and find out what those words mean if you're confused.
What proof have you that the vaccine is ok?
None of us have any proof that the vaccine is ok. That is why we are not taking it yet
Exactly. As Pfizer have said, these results are preliminary. Promising, but preliminary.
They have also full details of everything there are doing on their website
https://www.pfizer.com/science/coronavirus
They have stated "We have made the protocol for our COVID-19 vaccine study available to reinforce our longstanding commitment to scientific and regulatory rigor that benefits patients." They will be subject to full peer review like all the other companies trying to come up with a vaccine. Then they will be subject to regulatory review and approval.
"Blind faith" will not be required.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:56:45 AM
The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first
Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
There's explanations for the timeline. I've mentioned a few of the bigger ones above.
With regards to the rest, are you saying you would never take another new vaccine again because Pharma is a dirty industry? Therefore any vaccine could be as a result of a self serving pharma company?
You can choose to believe those explanations without question, I will choose to be sceptical.
And that's what it comes down to, I would be very suspicious of Big Pharma, their motivations to rush through a vaccine and precedent of side effects with vaccines. Given the public will for a vaccine and financial gains of producing one, there is more motivation than ever to rush one through.
And that's what shapes my outlook.
As regard to your second question, the fact is none of us know anything about this vaccine. It hasn't even hit the market yet so for me I question things, I'm going to queue up will my shoulder sleeve rolled without weighing everything up, it you want to embark down that route then that's your choice. I'm not telling you what to do, maybe you should stop trying to dictate to me.
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:27:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:56:45 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 10:53:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
Or he understands that no vaccine has had the same resources pumped into it as this one. Unless there's steps that were omitted on this process that your aware of? If so which steps? If not, then your making an assumption on no basis.
Also you do realise the Pharma companies don't get to just sign off their own vaccines independently? They are regulated.
Can you be sure that steps weren't missed? Because unless you can, that counterpoint is absolutely preposterous. This kind of turnaround is unprecedented for a vaccine, we are told vaccines takes around 4-5 years to develop. So I would be worried, I would be sceptical.
If you want to go in to a clinic willy nilly and not question anything then that's your prerogative, I have my reasons for not wanting to take the vaccine and they revolve around me not wanting to compromise my health.
You do realise Big Pharma is an extremely seedy business? Maybe you'd like to read a little bit about Pfizer......
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine
No one can be 100% sure on anything. However people tend to make judgement calls on what is the most likely scenario.
It's been explained that no other vaccine processed has had the resources thrown at it that Covid has. Also it's a Coronavirus which meant stage 2 trials were much quicker. 6 months instead of 2 years due to previous research. Previous work on SARS allowed them to avoid stumbling blocks. The virus itself creates a natural immune reaction in most people who get the virus, therefore was easier to recreate unlike the likes of HIV. This information is all out there.
You can be skeptical absolutely, but it needs to be based on something more than it's happened too quickly.
The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first
Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
Do you accept that pharmaceuticals get a lot right?
Do you understand that it might be possible to accelerate prorgress in an issue if more resources are applied to it and they are better coordinated?
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no. Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people to go against what they have valid grounds as concerns to their health, that you should accept their views are valid and they are entitled to put their own health concerns first?
Or maybe we should blindly trust everything Big Pharma tells us without question.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:14:56 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:56:45 AM
The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first
Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
There's explanations for the timeline. I've mentioned a few of the bigger ones above.
With regards to the rest, are you saying you would never take another new vaccine again because Pharma is a dirty industry? Therefore any vaccine could be as a result of a self serving pharma company?
You can choose to believe those explanations without question, I will choose to be sceptical.
And that's what it comes down to, I would be very suspicious of Big Pharma, their motivations to rush through a vaccine and precedent of side effects with vaccines. Given the public will for a vaccine and financial gains of producing one, there is more motivation than ever to rush one through.
And that's what shapes my outlook.
As regard to your second question, the fact is none of us know anything about this vaccine. It hasn't even hit the market yet so for me I question things, I'm going to queue up will my shoulder sleeve rolled without weighing everything up, it you want to embark down that route then that's your choice. I'm not telling you what to do, maybe you should stop trying to dictate to me.
Where did I dictate that you had to take it? Don't take it. I've no issue with that. (I do have a slight one with regards to how it impacts the rest of us but not enough to force you to take a vaccine that you seem to be so passionately against).
But I will continue to challenge your view that people are naive for taking the vaccine. That's just nonsense.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:27:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:56:45 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 10:53:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
Or he understands that no vaccine has had the same resources pumped into it as this one. Unless there's steps that were omitted on this process that your aware of? If so which steps? If not, then your making an assumption on no basis.
Also you do realise the Pharma companies don't get to just sign off their own vaccines independently? They are regulated.
Can you be sure that steps weren't missed? Because unless you can, that counterpoint is absolutely preposterous. This kind of turnaround is unprecedented for a vaccine, we are told vaccines takes around 4-5 years to develop. So I would be worried, I would be sceptical.
If you want to go in to a clinic willy nilly and not question anything then that's your prerogative, I have my reasons for not wanting to take the vaccine and they revolve around me not wanting to compromise my health.
You do realise Big Pharma is an extremely seedy business? Maybe you'd like to read a little bit about Pfizer......
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine
No one can be 100% sure on anything. However people tend to make judgement calls on what is the most likely scenario.
It's been explained that no other vaccine processed has had the resources thrown at it that Covid has. Also it's a Coronavirus which meant stage 2 trials were much quicker. 6 months instead of 2 years due to previous research. Previous work on SARS allowed them to avoid stumbling blocks. The virus itself creates a natural immune reaction in most people who get the virus, therefore was easier to recreate unlike the likes of HIV. This information is all out there.
You can be skeptical absolutely, but it needs to be based on something more than it's happened too quickly.
The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first
Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
Do you accept that pharmaceuticals get a lot right?
Do you understand that it might be possible to accelerate prorgress in an issue if more resources are applied to it and they are better coordinated?
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no. Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people to go against what they have valid grounds as concerns to their health, that you should accept their views are valid and they are entitled to put their own health concerns first?
Or maybe we should blindly trust everything Big Pharma tells us without question.
You again have missed the point, no one is blindly trusting the "Big Pharma" ::) They are trusting the "independent" scientific peer reviews and regulatory bodies.
Quote from: JimStynes on November 17, 2020, 01:08:03 PM
It's actually getting to be quite impressive how Angelo can be bothered with all these rows on different threads on an internet forum. He is going to need to give a man a start or employ a secretary to keep up with it all. Serious effort.
It looks that way at first.
Then you realise that every post on a topic is just a clone of the previous one - Big Pharma! Big Pharma! Big Pharma!
Sometimes it seems like a standard trolling exercise, other times you'd worry about him.
Well done Dolly.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/amphtml/saint-dolly-parton-part-funded-102423789.html?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 02:53:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:14:56 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:56:45 AM
The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first
Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
There's explanations for the timeline. I've mentioned a few of the bigger ones above.
With regards to the rest, are you saying you would never take another new vaccine again because Pharma is a dirty industry? Therefore any vaccine could be as a result of a self serving pharma company?
You can choose to believe those explanations without question, I will choose to be sceptical.
And that's what it comes down to, I would be very suspicious of Big Pharma, their motivations to rush through a vaccine and precedent of side effects with vaccines. Given the public will for a vaccine and financial gains of producing one, there is more motivation than ever to rush one through.
And that's what shapes my outlook.
As regard to your second question, the fact is none of us know anything about this vaccine. It hasn't even hit the market yet so for me I question things, I'm going to queue up will my shoulder sleeve rolled without weighing everything up, it you want to embark down that route then that's your choice. I'm not telling you what to do, maybe you should stop trying to dictate to me.
Where did I dictate that you had to take it? Don't take it. I've no issue with that. (I do have a slight one with regards to how it impacts the rest of us but not enough to force you to take a vaccine that you seem to be so passionately against).
But I will continue to challenge your view that people are naive for taking the vaccine. That's just nonsense.
That's my viewpoint, my viewpoint is the on that is being attacked here in case you didn't notice. I have valid reasons for not wanting to take it but of course some people can't accept that.
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on November 17, 2020, 03:14:11 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on November 17, 2020, 01:08:03 PM
It's actually getting to be quite impressive how Angelo can be bothered with all these rows on different threads on an internet forum. He is going to need to give a man a start or employ a secretary to keep up with it all. Serious effort.
It looks that way at first.
Then you realise that every post on a topic is just a clone of the previous one - Big Pharma! Big Pharma! Big Pharma!
Sometimes it seems like a standard trolling exercise, other times you'd worry about him.
He has a point though - some serious profiteering going on here. Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder on the Andrew Marr show had no answer to how long immunity would last, or if it would stop transmission yet we have lads on here queuing up to get it. One question no one is answering (maybe they did but I can't be arsed reading back through the pages I have missed) is surely it is against the human rights of Care Home residents to have this forced upon them especially as the usual 10 year vaccine has been rushed through in 10 months, and if there is side effects and these poor souls die would anyone care, they seem to be collateral damage.
Quote from: thebigfella on November 17, 2020, 02:56:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 17, 2020, 01:27:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:56:45 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 10:53:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 09:36:46 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 09:31:05 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 08:51:20 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 16, 2020, 11:41:31 PM
Also Angelo for someone obsessed with optics it doesn't look good that you never answered the question from your very first post on this thread what procedures are being skipped and/or not followed to get a vaccine on the market
How would I know this? How would you know this? You're taking massive leaps of faith here.
I do know it was done in record time. I do know the timeline was unprecedented. I decide to be sceptical with this and you can decide to be naive and dismiss all the alarm bells that should be ringing. The bottom line is while you might disagree with me, you have nothing substantive whatsoever to dissipate my concerns.
You operating in complete blind faith and deciding not to question anything. You told me you work in finance right? I wouldn't like you doing my books.
Or he understands that no vaccine has had the same resources pumped into it as this one. Unless there's steps that were omitted on this process that your aware of? If so which steps? If not, then your making an assumption on no basis.
Also you do realise the Pharma companies don't get to just sign off their own vaccines independently? They are regulated.
Can you be sure that steps weren't missed? Because unless you can, that counterpoint is absolutely preposterous. This kind of turnaround is unprecedented for a vaccine, we are told vaccines takes around 4-5 years to develop. So I would be worried, I would be sceptical.
If you want to go in to a clinic willy nilly and not question anything then that's your prerogative, I have my reasons for not wanting to take the vaccine and they revolve around me not wanting to compromise my health.
You do realise Big Pharma is an extremely seedy business? Maybe you'd like to read a little bit about Pfizer......
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2009/sep/02/pfizer-drugs-us-criminal-fine
No one can be 100% sure on anything. However people tend to make judgement calls on what is the most likely scenario.
It's been explained that no other vaccine processed has had the resources thrown at it that Covid has. Also it's a Coronavirus which meant stage 2 trials were much quicker. 6 months instead of 2 years due to previous research. Previous work on SARS allowed them to avoid stumbling blocks. The virus itself creates a natural immune reaction in most people who get the virus, therefore was easier to recreate unlike the likes of HIV. This information is all out there.
You can be skeptical absolutely, but it needs to be based on something more than it's happened too quickly.
The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first
Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
Do you accept that pharmaceuticals get a lot right?
Do you understand that it might be possible to accelerate prorgress in an issue if more resources are applied to it and they are better coordinated?
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no. Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people to go against what they have valid grounds as concerns to their health, that you should accept their views are valid and they are entitled to put their own health concerns first?
Or maybe we should blindly trust everything Big Pharma tells us without question.
You again have missed the point, no one is blindly trusting the "Big Pharma" ::) They are trusting the "independent" scientific peer reviews and regulatory bodies.
The regulatory bodies in big pharma also have huge questions to answer. If Big Pharma is dirty, a lot of it has to do with their regulation.
And we know Pfizer have a history of kickbacks.
So I think it's probably you who is missing the point.
Have a read of this:
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/07/hidden-conflicts-pharma-payments-fda-advisers-after-drug-approvals-spark-ethical
Quote from: Captain Obvious on November 17, 2020, 03:30:31 PM
Well done Dolly.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/amphtml/saint-dolly-parton-part-funded-102423789.html?
Maybe she just wants to get back working 9 to 5, what is partly funded, I have donated to many charities, am I partly funding them!
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 03:33:48 PM
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on November 17, 2020, 03:14:11 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on November 17, 2020, 01:08:03 PM
It's actually getting to be quite impressive how Angelo can be bothered with all these rows on different threads on an internet forum. He is going to need to give a man a start or employ a secretary to keep up with it all. Serious effort.
It looks that way at first.
Then you realise that every post on a topic is just a clone of the previous one - Big Pharma! Big Pharma! Big Pharma!
Sometimes it seems like a standard trolling exercise, other times you'd worry about him.
He has a point though - some serious profiteering going on here. Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder on the Andrew Marr show had no answer to how long immunity would last, or if it would stop transmission yet we have lads on here queuing up to get it. One question no one is answering (maybe they did but I can't be arsed reading back through the pages I have missed) is surely it is against the human rights of Care Home residents to have this forced upon them especially as the usual 10 year vaccine has been rushed through in 10 months, and if there is side effects and these poor souls die would anyone care, they seem to be collateral damage.
In the initial stages of the Pandemic the UK government saw them as collateral damage so I dobnt it would be any different
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 03:36:58 PM
Quote from: Captain Obvious on November 17, 2020, 03:30:31 PM
Well done Dolly.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/amphtml/saint-dolly-parton-part-funded-102423789.html?
Maybe she just wants to get back working 9 to 5, what is partly funded, I have donated to many charities, am I partly funding them!
You are indeed.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 03:32:17 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 02:53:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:14:56 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:56:45 AM
The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first
Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
There's explanations for the timeline. I've mentioned a few of the bigger ones above.
With regards to the rest, are you saying you would never take another new vaccine again because Pharma is a dirty industry? Therefore any vaccine could be as a result of a self serving pharma company?
You can choose to believe those explanations without question, I will choose to be sceptical.
And that's what it comes down to, I would be very suspicious of Big Pharma, their motivations to rush through a vaccine and precedent of side effects with vaccines. Given the public will for a vaccine and financial gains of producing one, there is more motivation than ever to rush one through.
And that's what shapes my outlook.
As regard to your second question, the fact is none of us know anything about this vaccine. It hasn't even hit the market yet so for me I question things, I'm going to queue up will my shoulder sleeve rolled without weighing everything up, it you want to embark down that route then that's your choice. I'm not telling you what to do, maybe you should stop trying to dictate to me.
Where did I dictate that you had to take it? Don't take it. I've no issue with that. (I do have a slight one with regards to how it impacts the rest of us but not enough to force you to take a vaccine that you seem to be so passionately against).
But I will continue to challenge your view that people are naive for taking the vaccine. That's just nonsense.
That's my viewpoint, my viewpoint is the on that is being attacked here in case you didn't notice. I have valid reasons for not wanting to take it but of course some people can't accept that.
Attacking your view point? Bit dramatic do you not think? It's a discussion board. Of course people will disagree with you over the likes of this. Your views are controversial so will be questioned. Same as you have queried the time frame of the trials.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 04:56:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 03:32:17 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 02:53:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:14:56 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:56:45 AM
The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first
Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
There's explanations for the timeline. I've mentioned a few of the bigger ones above.
With regards to the rest, are you saying you would never take another new vaccine again because Pharma is a dirty industry? Therefore any vaccine could be as a result of a self serving pharma company?
You can choose to believe those explanations without question, I will choose to be sceptical.
And that's what it comes down to, I would be very suspicious of Big Pharma, their motivations to rush through a vaccine and precedent of side effects with vaccines. Given the public will for a vaccine and financial gains of producing one, there is more motivation than ever to rush one through.
And that's what shapes my outlook.
As regard to your second question, the fact is none of us know anything about this vaccine. It hasn't even hit the market yet so for me I question things, I'm going to queue up will my shoulder sleeve rolled without weighing everything up, it you want to embark down that route then that's your choice. I'm not telling you what to do, maybe you should stop trying to dictate to me.
Where did I dictate that you had to take it? Don't take it. I've no issue with that. (I do have a slight one with regards to how it impacts the rest of us but not enough to force you to take a vaccine that you seem to be so passionately against).
But I will continue to challenge your view that people are naive for taking the vaccine. That's just nonsense.
That's my viewpoint, my viewpoint is the on that is being attacked here in case you didn't notice. I have valid reasons for not wanting to take it but of course some people can't accept that.
Attacking your view point? Bit dramatic do you not think? It's a discussion board. Of course people will disagree with you over the likes of this. Your views are controversial so will be questioned. Same as you have queried the time frame of the trials.
It's my viewpoint that's been attacked.
If you want to get the vaccine then that's your choice. I've laid out my reasonings for not and I'm being attacked for them. It's a personal choice at the end of the day and I'm having defend my incessantly despite my reasoning being completely valid and rational.
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 03:33:48 PM
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on November 17, 2020, 03:14:11 PM
Quote from: JimStynes on November 17, 2020, 01:08:03 PM
It's actually getting to be quite impressive how Angelo can be bothered with all these rows on different threads on an internet forum. He is going to need to give a man a start or employ a secretary to keep up with it all. Serious effort.
It looks that way at first.
Then you realise that every post on a topic is just a clone of the previous one - Big Pharma! Big Pharma! Big Pharma!
Sometimes it seems like a standard trolling exercise, other times you'd worry about him.
He has a point though - some serious profiteering going on here. Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder on the Andrew Marr show had no answer to how long immunity would last, or if it would stop transmission yet we have lads on here queuing up to get it. One question no one is answering (maybe they did but I can't be arsed reading back through the pages I have missed) is surely it is against the human rights of Care Home residents to have this forced upon them especially as the usual 10 year vaccine has been rushed through in 10 months, and if there is side effects and these poor souls die would anyone care, they seem to be collateral damage.
The reason there is rush is because it is impacting the world's economy at billion dollar levels and killing people at levels of millions.
Therefore there is money to be made. So this is why is worthwhile for companies to put the investment in to take a chance on a new kind of vaccine (mRNA). This allows for the faster development.
https://www.wired.com/story/why-its-a-big-deal-if-the-first-covid-vaccine-is-genetic/
"Since small companies like BioNTech, Moderna, and Inovio began developing genetic vaccines about 10 years ago, that speed has always been the brightest of its promises. The faster you can make and test vaccines, the faster you can respond to outbreaks of new diseases. But with any novel approach comes risk—risks that the vaccine won't work well or, worse, that it harms someone, and millions of dollars will be wasted on a technology that turns out to be a flop. Until this year, major vaccine developers had shied away from genetic vaccines. Before 2020, only 12 mRNA vaccines ever made it to human trials. None were approved. Then came the coronavirus.
"Before the pandemic, there weren't the financial incentives or the opportunities for the big pharmaceutical companies to get involved," says Peter Hotez, a vaccine researcher and dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine.
Now you have 2 different companies posting similar results with a similar method - that at least demonstrates repeatability.
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 03:36:58 PM
Quote from: Captain Obvious on November 17, 2020, 03:30:31 PM
Well done Dolly.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/amphtml/saint-dolly-parton-part-funded-102423789.html?
Maybe she just wants to get back working 9 to 5, what is partly funded, I have donated to many charities, am I partly funding them!
Partly funded in this case is a million dollar donation. But I'm sure your donations are welcome and of course you are indeed partly funding those charities.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 06:02:11 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 04:56:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 03:32:17 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 02:53:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:14:56 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:56:45 AM
The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first
Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
There's explanations for the timeline. I've mentioned a few of the bigger ones above.
With regards to the rest, are you saying you would never take another new vaccine again because Pharma is a dirty industry? Therefore any vaccine could be as a result of a self serving pharma company?
You can choose to believe those explanations without question, I will choose to be sceptical.
And that's what it comes down to, I would be very suspicious of Big Pharma, their motivations to rush through a vaccine and precedent of side effects with vaccines. Given the public will for a vaccine and financial gains of producing one, there is more motivation than ever to rush one through.
And that's what shapes my outlook.
As regard to your second question, the fact is none of us know anything about this vaccine. It hasn't even hit the market yet so for me I question things, I'm going to queue up will my shoulder sleeve rolled without weighing everything up, it you want to embark down that route then that's your choice. I'm not telling you what to do, maybe you should stop trying to dictate to me.
Where did I dictate that you had to take it? Don't take it. I've no issue with that. (I do have a slight one with regards to how it impacts the rest of us but not enough to force you to take a vaccine that you seem to be so passionately against).
But I will continue to challenge your view that people are naive for taking the vaccine. That's just nonsense.
That's my viewpoint, my viewpoint is the on that is being attacked here in case you didn't notice. I have valid reasons for not wanting to take it but of course some people can't accept that.
Attacking your view point? Bit dramatic do you not think? It's a discussion board. Of course people will disagree with you over the likes of this. Your views are controversial so will be questioned. Same as you have queried the time frame of the trials.
It's my viewpoint that's been attacked.
If you want to get the vaccine then that's your choice. I've laid out my reasonings for not and I'm being attacked for them. It's a personal choice at the end of the day and I'm having defend my incessantly despite my reasoning being completely valid and rational.
How is 'valid and rational' to totally reject something that isn't even available yet because the work is not complete?
What if in 6 month regulatory bodies all across the world have independently stated a vaccine (or more than one) is effective and safe?
Quote from: tyssam5 on November 17, 2020, 07:02:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 06:02:11 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 04:56:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 03:32:17 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 02:53:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:14:56 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on November 17, 2020, 11:35:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 10:56:45 AM
The timeline is a massive worry
Previous vaccines and their side effects
The fact that big pharma is a dirty industry
The self-interest of those trying to get to market first
Listen you can choose to believe everything reported willy nilly. I think when it comes to my health and wellbeing, it's very important to not be naive.
There's explanations for the timeline. I've mentioned a few of the bigger ones above.
With regards to the rest, are you saying you would never take another new vaccine again because Pharma is a dirty industry? Therefore any vaccine could be as a result of a self serving pharma company?
You can choose to believe those explanations without question, I will choose to be sceptical.
And that's what it comes down to, I would be very suspicious of Big Pharma, their motivations to rush through a vaccine and precedent of side effects with vaccines. Given the public will for a vaccine and financial gains of producing one, there is more motivation than ever to rush one through.
And that's what shapes my outlook.
As regard to your second question, the fact is none of us know anything about this vaccine. It hasn't even hit the market yet so for me I question things, I'm going to queue up will my shoulder sleeve rolled without weighing everything up, it you want to embark down that route then that's your choice. I'm not telling you what to do, maybe you should stop trying to dictate to me.
Where did I dictate that you had to take it? Don't take it. I've no issue with that. (I do have a slight one with regards to how it impacts the rest of us but not enough to force you to take a vaccine that you seem to be so passionately against).
But I will continue to challenge your view that people are naive for taking the vaccine. That's just nonsense.
That's my viewpoint, my viewpoint is the on that is being attacked here in case you didn't notice. I have valid reasons for not wanting to take it but of course some people can't accept that.
Attacking your view point? Bit dramatic do you not think? It's a discussion board. Of course people will disagree with you over the likes of this. Your views are controversial so will be questioned. Same as you have queried the time frame of the trials.
It's my viewpoint that's been attacked.
If you want to get the vaccine then that's your choice. I've laid out my reasonings for not and I'm being attacked for them. It's a personal choice at the end of the day and I'm having defend my incessantly despite my reasoning being completely valid and rational.
How is 'valid and rational' to totally reject something that isn't even available yet because the work is not complete?
What if in 6 month regulatory bodies all across the world have independently stated a vaccine (or more than one) is effective and safe?
I still would be against getting it. You are asking me to park all my genuine concerns and trust big pharma explicitly with a rushed through vaccine.
There have been many vaccines in the past stated effective and safe that have caused serious side effects. In this situation we are looking at a vaccine being produced and approved in record times which should cause any rational thinking person more concerns than normal.
Can we close the thread please?
Some are not going to take and most are. Some want to continue wearing masks and sanitise all day and most want back their lives with loved ones, family Christmas and holidays, some don't have family they like so it suits them
Good article today on RTE
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1117/1178758-race-for-a-vaccine/
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 07:18:50 PM
Can we close the thread please?
Some are not going to take and most are. Some want to continue wearing masks and sanitise all day and most want back their lives with loved ones, family Christmas and holidays, some don't have family they like so it suits them
You aren't going get it, you are going let everyone else and not bother, least some of us are honest.
Quote from: tyssam5 on November 17, 2020, 06:43:03 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 03:36:58 PM
Quote from: Captain Obvious on November 17, 2020, 03:30:31 PM
Well done Dolly.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/amphtml/saint-dolly-parton-part-funded-102423789.html?
Maybe she just wants to get back working 9 to 5, what is partly funded, I have donated to many charities, am I partly funding them!
Partly funded in this case is a million dollar donation. But I'm sure your donations are welcome and of course you are indeed partly funding those charities.
Bless a million dollars.
So you are going to take a vaccine in which no one knows if it prevents covid spreading, no one knows how long it will give you immunity, and the 90percent was quoted on Andrew Marr as about 30 percent in older people.
And no one knows the side effects.
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 09:04:35 PM
So you are going to take a vaccine in which no one knows if it prevents covid spreading, no one knows how long it will give you immunity, and the 90percent was quoted on Andrew Marr as about 30 percent in older people.
Did you look all that up yourself or did your "chemical engineer friend" tell you that?
Pathetic for a debate, least you have twigged I am not said Chemical engineer. Funny was speaking to him tonight, did you see the about 30 percent in last post for older folk, the science behind the 43000, half placebos half vaccine and the percentage determined by who got it and who didn't and the methodology behind that was what he questioned, but I don't see him often so have other things to chat about.
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 09:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 07:18:50 PM
Can we close the thread please?
Some are not going to take and most are. Some want to continue wearing masks and sanitise all day and most want back their lives with loved ones, family Christmas and holidays, some don't have family they like so it suits them
You aren't going get it, you are going let everyone else and not bother, least some of us are honest.
You're honest? Who told you that? The chemistry teachers assistant who's been advising you on vaccines?
Oh dear, you truly are pathetic, so what year if ever are you getting the magic vaccine?
Poor Milhouse, he wants to pretend he is a man of humanity but he doesn't want to commit to a vaccine in case it may adversely impact him, so happy for all the vulnerable and elderly get it and let them take the hit, bless Mother Teresa of the board.
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 10:23:40 PM
Poor Milhouse, he wants to pretend he is a man of humanity but he doesn't want to commit to a vaccine in case it may adversely impact him, so happy for all the vulnerable and elderly get it and let them take the hit, bless Mother Teresa of the board.
No you're right how stupid of me, the fit and healthy should get it first!
The gift that keeps giving, I'm not sure whether you're better at being Seaney syferus Or Angelo
So so pathetic, did you watch your saviour on the Andrew Marr show? All ifs and maybe and I don't knows!
30 percent in the elderly so open up care homes let them die, save 780 a week per inmate.
Milhouse the Trump of the board, lies lies and more lies.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 10:32:04 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 10:23:40 PM
Poor Milhouse, he wants to pretend he is a man of humanity but he doesn't want to commit to a vaccine in case it may adversely impact him, so happy for all the vulnerable and elderly get it and let them take the hit, bless Mother Teresa of the board.
No you're right how stupid of me, the fit and healthy should get it first!
The gift that keeps giving, I'm not sure whether you're better at being Seaney syferus Or Angelo
As long as you are at the back of the queue what do you care.
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 10:57:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 10:32:04 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 10:23:40 PM
Poor Milhouse, he wants to pretend he is a man of humanity but he doesn't want to commit to a vaccine in case it may adversely impact him, so happy for all the vulnerable and elderly get it and let them take the hit, bless Mother Teresa of the board.
No you're right how stupid of me, the fit and healthy should get it first!
The gift that keeps giving, I'm not sure whether you're better at being Seaney syferus Or Angelo
As long as you are at the back of the queue what do you care.
As long as you ain't at the queue we'll be grand
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 11:01:01 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 10:57:58 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 10:32:04 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 10:23:40 PM
Poor Milhouse, he wants to pretend he is a man of humanity but he doesn't want to commit to a vaccine in case it may adversely impact him, so happy for all the vulnerable and elderly get it and let them take the hit, bless Mother Teresa of the board.
No you're right how stupid of me, the fit and healthy should get it first!
The gift that keeps giving, I'm not sure whether you're better at being Seaney syferus Or Angelo
As long as you are at the back of the queue what do you care.
As long as you ain't at the queue we'll be grand
This is man who pretends to care about humanity but time and time again shows himself to be a selfish,callous individual, so what year if ever do you intend rolling your sleeve up?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 17, 2020, 10:32:04 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 10:23:40 PM
Poor Milhouse, he wants to pretend he is a man of humanity but he doesn't want to commit to a vaccine in case it may adversely impact him, so happy for all the vulnerable and elderly get it and let them take the hit, bless Mother Teresa of the board.
No you're right how stupid of me, the fit and healthy should get it first!
The gift that keeps giving, I'm not sure whether you're better at being Seaney syferus Or Angelo
It is a vaccine so you give it to folk who haven't got covid, Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder says he thinks it's about 30% effective in the elderly population, so if you believe in it so much why don't you get it first, it is after all 90% effective for everyone else, well if you exclude elderly and probably other variables but there or there abouts 90%!
The latest one is 95%, wonder if the Russian one can top that, I am predicting a domestos 99.99% one here!
I will imagine he'll at least wait until a vaccine has been approved for use by the medical experts and regulators. Then the most at risk (elderly, hospital doctors,nurses) will be the first to access it and hopefully some stage early into 2021 it will be available to the general public avail of.
Even your alleged chemical engineer pal who's knowledge in this area is pretty much nil shouldn't have a problem with that logic
Ok I was wrong only 92%, so we have 4 now 90%+, 90%, 92% and 95%, we know one they are going roll out is about 30% for the elderly but the government has them on the list to get it first, sure if they die they die!!!!! Milhouse is expecting his when Antrim win the All-Ireland!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-54982910 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-54982910)
Quote from: dublin7 on November 18, 2020, 07:07:50 AM
I will imagine he'll at least wait until a vaccine has been approved for use by the medical experts and regulators. Then the most at risk (elderly, hospital doctors,nurses) will be the first to access it and hopefully some stage early into 2021 it will be available to the general public avail of.
Even your alleged chemical engineer pal who's knowledge in this area is pretty much nil shouldn't have a problem with that logic
Bless is this going be your soundbite from now on, what age are you? You ok about the elderly getting the hit, if your mum or dad was in a home you be happy with them being the first to be used as guinea pigs, 43000 over a few weeks is a sufficient analysis for you?
Quote from: dublin7 on November 18, 2020, 07:07:50 AM
I will imagine he'll at least wait until a vaccine has been approved for use by the medical experts and regulators. Then the most at risk (elderly, hospital doctors,nurses) will be the first to access it and hopefully some stage early into 2021 it will be available to the general public avail of.
Even your alleged chemical engineer pal who's knowledge in this area is pretty much nil shouldn't have a problem with that logic
At least you have twigged I am not a chemical engineer - I'll go slower for you in the future so you can keep up.
Why do you care any ways? You have made your point, you won't be taking the vaccine regardless!
Just keep washing your hands and wear the mask. Hopefully you'll not poison anyone with you logic that'll end up hurting someone
Men, you have to stop replying. Posters who start their daily grind in here repeating the same nonsense are windups. Best ignored as this thread, which should be a fountain for updates etc has descended into a farce
Close this thread please
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 07:47:36 AM
Why do you care any ways? You have made your point, you won't be taking the vaccine regardless!
Just keep washing your hands and wear the mask. Hopefully you'll not poison anyone with you logic that'll end up hurting someone
Folk on here seem to care calling those who are cautious cowards and slinging other such insults, so why do you care if folk want to wait?
Quote from: JoG2 on November 18, 2020, 08:08:28 AM
Men, you have to stop replying. Posters who start their daily grind in here repeating the same nonsense are windups. Best ignored as this thread, which should be a fountain for updates etc has descended into a farce
That made me laugh.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 07:47:36 AM
Why do you care any ways? You have made your point, you won't be taking the vaccine regardless!
Just keep washing your hands and wear the mask. Hopefully you'll not poison anyone with you logic that'll end up hurting someone
More lies!!! Only to be expected!
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 09:17:30 PM
And no one knows the side effects.
What are you talking about. Of course they know them. Its been tested on 40k+ people, how many would you like them to test it on before you're satisfied?
43000 took part in the test 43000 were not given the vaccine, side effects can become prevalent long after the vaccine, what is the study up to now 6 weeks, a few months.
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 10:54:59 PM
30 percent in the elderly so open up care homes let them die, save 780 a week per inmate.
It would be best for you if this was a deliberate lie.
Otherwise
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
What part is a lie?
From Pfizers own press release
Pfizer and BioNTech are continuing to accumulate safety data and currently estimate that a median of two months of safety data following the second (and final) dose of the vaccine candidate – the amount of safety data specified by the FDA in its guidance for potential Emergency Use Authorization – will be available by the third week of November. Additionally, participants will continue to be monitored for long-term protection and safety for an additional two years after their second dose.
Yet they are going produce a billion or more and roll it out without knowing the long term effects?
Quote from: Franko on November 18, 2020, 10:25:35 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 10:54:59 PM
30 percent in the elderly so open up care homes let them die, save 780 a week per inmate.
It would be best for you if this was a deliberate lie.
Otherwise
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
I am beginning to think you have underlying issues.
What part is a lie - or has you trying to be a smart arse not worked!
Quote from: Seaney on November 18, 2020, 10:34:30 AM
What part is a lie - or has you trying to be a smart arse not worked!
Alright, I'll help you out.
Start with the 30%
And it is a lie - how?
Quote from: Seaney on November 18, 2020, 10:36:11 AM
And it is a lie - how?
I didn't say it was a lie - I said it would be better for you if it was.
Because the alternative is not good for you
You are boring everyone - least you have accepted it's far from 90% across the board.
Quote from: Seaney on November 18, 2020, 10:39:32 AM
You are boring everyone - least you have accepted it's far from 90% across the board.
Nope, certainly haven't. Why would I do that, unless the data gets updated?
Left foot, right foot with this.
Where did you get the 30% figure at?
I made it up. ::)
Quote from: Seaney on November 18, 2020, 10:43:59 AM
I made it up. ::)
That's good.
Cos here was me thinking you got it from that Marr interview.
Cos, ya know, if you did, that would make you pretty stoopid.
The one where Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder says that its around 35% effective in elderly people, and in which he expects it to be effective in elderly people but at the moment he can't say it is, I know i'd be a fool to myself.
Quote from: Seaney on November 18, 2020, 10:49:11 AM
The one where Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder says that its around 35% effective in elderly people, and in which he expects it to be effective in elderly people but at the moment he can't say it is, I know i'd be a fool to myself.
Thought as much.
Things might have been a bit hazy on Sunday.
Have a re-watch on the iPlayer sure and see what you come back with.
Just one point for anyone who's concerned about the rapid approval of these vaccines - the prevelance of the virus in the community has meant that the trials have hit their target infection numbers much quicker than you would with a vaccine for something that's less prevelant
Pfizer vaccine actually better than they thought.
That's promising.
https://www.ft.com/content/cd7973f0-3f06-4a54-a79e-1f705a80fc2d
The truth to Seany it seems is whatever he wants it to be. Me being a bigger fool did a google search to see what the professor has been saying and to see were Seany was getting the figures for the elderly. I've linked some of them here (including a piece from the BBC based on his Andrew Marr interview.)
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54949799?fbclid=IwAR3Xmm2FZvUsjEI00YYgmwP5raarc9aH2P-0_kSMwhprGCGsccPWGdhU4NM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/10/ugur-sahin-and-ozlem-tureci-german-dream-team-behind-vaccine
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-found-to-be-90-effective-in-great-day-for-science-and-humanity-12128452
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/09/covid-19-vaccine-candidate-effective-pfizer-biontech
There is no mention of it not working on the elderly and the only figures anything close to 35% mentioned i have copied and pasted below:
There have been concerns that black and minority ethnic populations are particularly vulnerable to Covid. Approximately 42% of global participants and 30% of US participants in the trials have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds and appear to have been as well-protected as everyone else, the company says. But one important unanswered question is how long the vaccine will last.
Quote from: Seaney on November 18, 2020, 10:49:11 AM
The one where Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder says that its around 35% effective in elderly people, and in which he expects it to be effective in elderly people but at the moment he can't say it is, I know i'd be a fool to myself.
Utter bullshit. I watched the same interview and nothing of the sort was mentioned. Just been announced that the Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective in adults aged over 65.
Quote from: macdanger2 on November 18, 2020, 11:47:23 AM
Just one point for anyone who's concerned about the rapid approval of these vaccines - the prevelance of the virus in the community has meant that the trials have hit their target infection numbers much quicker than you would with a vaccine for something that's less prevelant
Stop with the science and logic please. But what about Big Pharma ;)
Quote from: dublin7 on November 18, 2020, 11:56:55 AM
The truth to Seany it seems is whatever he wants it to be. Me being a bigger fool did a google search to see what the professor has been saying and to see were Seany was getting the figures for the elderly. I've linked some of them here (including a piece from the BBC based on his Andrew Marr interview.)
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-54949799?fbclid=IwAR3Xmm2FZvUsjEI00YYgmwP5raarc9aH2P-0_kSMwhprGCGsccPWGdhU4NM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/10/ugur-sahin-and-ozlem-tureci-german-dream-team-behind-vaccine
https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-pfizer-vaccine-found-to-be-90-effective-in-great-day-for-science-and-humanity-12128452
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/09/covid-19-vaccine-candidate-effective-pfizer-biontech
There is no mention of it not working on the elderly and the only figures anything close to 35% mentioned i have copied and pasted below:
There have been concerns that black and minority ethnic populations are particularly vulnerable to Covid. Approximately 42% of global participants and 30% of US participants in the trials have racially and ethnically diverse backgrounds and appear to have been as well-protected as everyone else, the company says. But one important unanswered question is how long the vaccine will last.
That is the part thats the most concern and indeed only time will tell but even if it's only a year then that's workable IMO. A month or two and you'd think that we'll need something else long term.
Quote from: mackers on November 18, 2020, 11:58:00 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 18, 2020, 10:49:11 AM
The one where Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder says that its around 35% effective in elderly people, and in which he expects it to be effective in elderly people but at the moment he can't say it is, I know i'd be a fool to myself.
Utter bullshit. I watched the same interview and nothing of the sort was mentioned. Just been announced that the Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective in adults aged over 65.
But what does Professor Jim Corr have to say?
Quote from: mackers on November 18, 2020, 11:58:00 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 18, 2020, 10:49:11 AM
The one where Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder says that its around 35% effective in elderly people, and in which he expects it to be effective in elderly people but at the moment he can't say it is, I know i'd be a fool to myself.
Utter bullshit. I watched the same interview and nothing of the sort was mentioned. Just been announced that the Pfizer vaccine is 94% effective in adults aged over 65.
What the guy said in the interview was that 35-40% of the people involved in the trial were elderly.
Then, after getting it completely wrong, the chemical engineer's buddy thought he'd revise the figure down a bit for extra effect.
Fool is an understatement.
Pity you can't vaccinate against stupidity.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 03:33:48 PM
He has a point though - some serious profiteering going on here.
Who has profiteered?
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 03:33:48 PM
Prof Ugur Sahin, BioNTech co-founder on the Andrew Marr show had no answer to how long immunity would last, or if it would stop transmission
Those are legitimate answers to legitimate questions. Its impossible to know know long immunity will last for. The longer the better or you will have to re-vaccinate more regularly (as is done elsewhere). Or a differenet vaccine that lasts longer gets used.
Some vaccines stop you suffering but dont stop you spreading. More tests needed. More tests being done. No big news here
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 03:33:48 PM
is surely it is against the human rights of Care Home residents to have this forced upon them
Post a link to who is going to force them.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 06:02:11 PM
I've laid out my reasonings for not and I'm being attacked for them. It's a personal choice at the end of the day and I'm having defend my incessantly despite my reasoning being completely valid and rational.
Tell me the problem with the vaccines and we can judge if they are indeed completely valid or rational
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 09:04:35 PM
So you are going to take a vaccine in which no one knows if it prevents covid spreading, no one knows how long it will give you immunity, and the 90percent was quoted on Andrew Marr as about 30 percent in older people.
A vaccine that stops suffering but not spreading is better than no vaccine and is likely to be given to the most vulnerable. You get the logic of that?
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 09:17:30 PM
And no one knows the side effects.
I am reliably informed that side effects are one of the things that they look at in clinical trials and regulatory approval. This is one of the reasons why we don't have the vaccine in circulation today.
We also look at the effects of there not being a vaccine.
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.
Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.
All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.
I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.
Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.
All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?
Do you intend to never get this vaccination?
If not, how long would you let others get vaccinated for, before you were happy that it would be safe enough for you to get?
Quote from: Franko on November 18, 2020, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.
I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.
Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.
All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?
Do you intend to never get this vaccination?
If not, how long would you let others get vaccinated for, before you were happy that it would be safe enough for you to get?
When I'm satisfied it is safe and works and the benefits of it outweigh potential consequnces then I would get it. But it will take years to find that out.
I've never got a flu vaccine. The majority of people I know in my demograph with no underlying health conditions don't either that I'm aware of.
When will you know? Do you know any chemical engineers?
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 05:29:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 18, 2020, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.
I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.
Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.
All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?
Do you intend to never get this vaccination?
If not, how long would you let others get vaccinated for, before you were happy that it would be safe enough for you to get?
When I'm satisfied it is safe and works and the benefits of it outweigh potential consequnces then I would get it. But it will take years to find that out.
I've never got a flu vaccine. The majority of people I know in my demograph with no underlying health conditions don't either that I'm aware of.
Happy enough for others to get it but not me. Figures.
As for the second part. Good for you. Irrelevant though.
On a side note. I see Seaney's gone into hibernation again, after making a tit of himself for the umpteenth time.
There'll be a new username soon.
Do the 2 balloons hate their parents for getting them all those baby/childhood vaccinations?
Do they get upset or feel deprived because they can't get polio, diphtheria and the rest?
Quote from: Franko on November 18, 2020, 05:38:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 05:29:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 18, 2020, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.
I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.
Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.
All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?
Do you intend to never get this vaccination?
If not, how long would you let others get vaccinated for, before you were happy that it would be safe enough for you to get?
When I'm satisfied it is safe and works and the benefits of it outweigh potential consequnces then I would get it. But it will take years to find that out.
I've never got a flu vaccine. The majority of people I know in my demograph with no underlying health conditions don't either that I'm aware of.
Happy enough for others to get it but not me. Figures.
As for the second part. Good for you. Irrelevant though.
If people want to get it then that's not my call. You seem to be now chastising me for not trying to force my views onto others? Are you a closet Nazi or something?
If you want to get the vaccine, go ahead. If you like me you have worries, then don't.
I think that post above typifies the the nasty and intolerant undercurrent from posters like you which has been apparent all throughout this thread.
Angelo do you think that if you get Covid that you'll be fine?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 06:57:19 PM
Angelo do you think that if you get Covid that you'll be fine?
Don't intend on getting it but my demograph doesn't seem to be impact greatly by it.
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 06:57:19 PM
Angelo do you think that if you get Covid that you'll be fine?
Don't intend on getting it but my demograph doesn't seem to be impact greatly by it.
So you either a dog or under 18, I know what I edging towards
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 06:57:19 PM
Angelo do you think that if you get Covid that you'll be fine?
Don't intend on getting it but my demograph doesn't seem to be impact greatly by it.
Perhaps you have missed the research, that survivors of COVID-19 appear to be at increased risk of psychiatric sequelae, and a psychiatric diagnosis might be an independent risk factor for COVID-19
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30462-4/fulltext
Quote from: armaghniac on November 18, 2020, 07:39:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 06:57:19 PM
Angelo do you think that if you get Covid that you'll be fine?
Don't intend on getting it but my demograph doesn't seem to be impact greatly by it.
Perhaps you have missed the research, that survivors of COVID-19 appear to be at increased risk of psychiatric sequelae, and a psychiatric diagnosis might be an independent risk factor for COVID-19
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(20)30462-4/fulltext
Appear to be, might be.
Very conclusive that. As I said, I don't intend on getting it.
Quote from: Seaney on November 17, 2020, 10:53:53 PM
So so pathetic, did you watch your saviour on the Andrew Marr show? All ifs and maybe and I don't knows!
Sounds like a proper scientist then.
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 05:59:12 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 18, 2020, 05:38:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 05:29:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 18, 2020, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.
I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.
Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.
All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?
Do you intend to never get this vaccination?
If not, how long would you let others get vaccinated for, before you were happy that it would be safe enough for you to get?
When I'm satisfied it is safe and works and the benefits of it outweigh potential consequnces then I would get it. But it will take years to find that out.
I've never got a flu vaccine. The majority of people I know in my demograph with no underlying health conditions don't either that I'm aware of.
Happy enough for others to get it but not me. Figures.
As for the second part. Good for you. Irrelevant though.
If people want to get it then that's not my call. You seem to be now chastising me for not trying to force my views onto others? Are you a closet Nazi or something?
If you want to get the vaccine, go ahead. If you like me you have worries, then don't.
I think that post above typifies the the nasty and intolerant undercurrent from posters like you which has been apparent all throughout this thread.
Lol, some faux victimhood, a poor me routine, AND a token Nazi reference. Lot of boxes ticked there.
I could post a list of insults you have thrown at other posters here over the past few weeks if you'd like?
Look the way I see it, the world is pretty much in crisis. This is the biggest single event of any of our lifetimes in terms of negative worldwide impact.
These vaccines seem like the best way out of it, so all those people you cared so deeply about when railing against the lockdown measures can regain normality, without having to accept the premature deaths of thousands of people who may harbour a slight vulnerability to the disease.
It is a fact that these vaccines have been developed quickly and we don't know the long term consequences of taking them. But we don't know the long term consequences of getting the disease yet either (indeed, there is some evidence that it is not good in a few cases) and there is no regulator which will stop you from getting the disease if it turns out it's pretty bad. There is a CHANCE that this vaccine could cause problems in later life. That cannot be denied. However, unlimited cash and the focus of the entire world have surely reduced this chance to a tiny one.
So with that said, given that 7/10 of us will either have to get the disease or a vaccine to end this nonsense, I think it places a moral responsibility on those of us who are relatively healthy to step up, so-to-speak. Take that tiny chance, so that more vulnerable folks don't have to take a much bigger one.
You have freely admitted that you are fit and healthy. Yet you will refuse to take the chance. So you're happy to place that responsibility onto someone else.
That could hardly be described as a morally responsible or courageous position to take?
The ironic thing with you (given your other posts on this board) is that you'll no doubt admire and wax lyrical in company about plenty of genuinely brave Irish men. Men (and women) who took much bigger risks than this for the good of their fellow man in this country.
It can't be much comfort for you to know that, transported back to that time, you would not have been one of them.
PS.
I don't for a second think you should be forced to take it, so don't let notions of that feed your desire to feel oppressed by the 'nasty' people
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 05:36:05 PM
When will you know? Do you know any chemical engineers?
I have a degree in Chemical Engineering and a postgrad in Polymer Science and Engineering. Unfortunately I never used them and retrained as a social researcher/statistician!
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on November 19, 2020, 09:36:49 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 05:36:05 PM
When will you know? Do you know any chemical engineers?
I have a degree in Chemical Engineering and a postgrad in Polymer Science and Engineering. Unfortunately I never used them and retrained as a social researcher/statistician!
Are you Seaney's mate?
I think not, I have an understanding of science, statistics and clinical trials. As an aside, I was working for Pfizer in Sandwich in Kent in the summer of 1993 when they were getting some strange side effects reported for a new drug they were trialling!
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on November 19, 2020, 09:49:52 AM
I think not, I have an understanding of science, statistics and clinical trials. As an aside, I was working for Pfizer in Sandwich in Kent in the summer of 1993 when they were getting some strange side effects reported for a new drug they were trialling!
And is that new drug being used by the general public?
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on November 19, 2020, 09:49:52 AM
I think not, I have an understanding of science, statistics and clinical trials. As an aside, I was working for Pfizer in Sandwich in Kent in the summer of 1993 when they were getting some strange side effects reported for a new drug they were trialling!
That's why they trial drugs before releasing them and/or submitting it for approval to the regulators. Is this drug on the market today?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 19, 2020, 09:53:45 AM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on November 19, 2020, 09:49:52 AM
I think not, I have an understanding of science, statistics and clinical trials. As an aside, I was working for Pfizer in Sandwich in Kent in the summer of 1993 when they were getting some strange side effects reported for a new drug they were trialling!
And is that new drug being used by the general public?
It has helped 'stiffen' the resolve in some members!
I see the initial results in the Oxford AstraZeneca trials appear positive.
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on November 19, 2020, 10:29:47 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 19, 2020, 09:53:45 AM
Quote from: Harold Disgracey on November 19, 2020, 09:49:52 AM
I think not, I have an understanding of science, statistics and clinical trials. As an aside, I was working for Pfizer in Sandwich in Kent in the summer of 1993 when they were getting some strange side effects reported for a new drug they were trialling!
And is that new drug being used by the general public?
It has helped 'stiffen' the resolve in some members!
I see the initial results in the Oxford AstraZeneca trials appear positive.
Yes the little blue pill, I'd have loved to have been a medical sales man at the start of that journey !!
I see Oxfords tests trials are cheaper and work better with the older ones, only stage 2 I see so a bit to go yet!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 19, 2020, 10:49:28 AM
I see Oxfords tests trials are cheaper and work better with the older ones, only stage 2 I see so a bit to go yet!
Yes, but this a peer reviewed publication resulting from stage 2. These stage 2 results have been around in outline for a couple of months and stage 3 is well under away.
It is all rather encouraging. What excuse are the "live iife" crowd going to use now, they used say that there may never be a vaccine, but it is now very likely that there will be.
Quote from: armaghniac on November 19, 2020, 11:26:33 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 19, 2020, 10:49:28 AM
I see Oxfords tests trials are cheaper and work better with the older ones, only stage 2 I see so a bit to go yet!
Yes, but this a peer reviewed publication resulting from stage 2. These stage 2 results have been around in outline for a couple of months and stage 3 is well under away.
It is all rather encouraging. What excuse are the "live iife" crowd going to use now, they used say that there may never be a vaccine, but it is now very likely that there will be.
Do you reckon the average man will ever see the vaccine?
What could be the 'exit'. Mass vaccination of over 60s to first save on dosage / get the most vulnerable protected once it's cleared then....we return to somewhat normal with Covid 19 being something that is always there (perhaps reducing over time with increased vaccine effectiveness).
Health services staff will be first I'd expect.
Over 65s and people with underlying conditions next.
Also people whose work entails a lot of human contact?
Then mass immunisations of the rest as supplies come to hand.
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 19, 2020, 11:40:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 19, 2020, 11:26:33 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 19, 2020, 10:49:28 AM
I see Oxfords tests trials are cheaper and work better with the older ones, only stage 2 I see so a bit to go yet!
Yes, but this a peer reviewed publication resulting from stage 2. These stage 2 results have been around in outline for a couple of months and stage 3 is well under away.
It is all rather encouraging. What excuse are the "live iife" crowd going to use now, they used say that there may never be a vaccine, but it is now very likely that there will be.
Do you reckon the average man will ever see the vaccine?
What could be the 'exit'. Mass vaccination of over 60s to first save on dosage / get the most vulnerable protected once it's cleared then....we return to somewhat normal with Covid 19 being something that is always there (perhaps reducing over time with increased vaccine effectiveness).
I know the term "game changer" has been used a lot over the last couple of weeks but I think if the Oxford vaccine gets the green light it will be absolutely massive for us northerners. BoJo has backed that horse hard. One source I read predicted that herd immunity in the US will come in July 21 with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines authorised. If the Oxford vaccine gets authorised it will be April 21. I'd imagine the effect of the Oxford Vaccine would be even more pronounced in the UK.
Quote from: mackers on November 19, 2020, 12:31:45 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on November 19, 2020, 11:40:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 19, 2020, 11:26:33 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 19, 2020, 10:49:28 AM
I see Oxfords tests trials are cheaper and work better with the older ones, only stage 2 I see so a bit to go yet!
Yes, but this a peer reviewed publication resulting from stage 2. These stage 2 results have been around in outline for a couple of months and stage 3 is well under away.
It is all rather encouraging. What excuse are the "live iife" crowd going to use now, they used say that there may never be a vaccine, but it is now very likely that there will be.
Do you reckon the average man will ever see the vaccine?
What could be the 'exit'. Mass vaccination of over 60s to first save on dosage / get the most vulnerable protected once it's cleared then....we return to somewhat normal with Covid 19 being something that is always there (perhaps reducing over time with increased vaccine effectiveness).
I know the term "game changer" has been used a lot over the last couple of weeks but I think if the Oxford vaccine gets the green light it will be absolutely massive for us northerners. BoJo has backed that horse hard. One source I read predicted that herd immunity in the US will come in July 21 with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines authorised. If the Oxford vaccine gets authorised it will be April 21. I'd imagine the effect of the Oxford Vaccine would be even more pronounced in the UK.
I can get behind this type of postiivity.
Quote from: mackers on November 19, 2020, 12:31:45 PM
I know the term "game changer" has been used a lot over the last couple of weeks but I think if the Oxford vaccine gets the green light it will be absolutely massive for us northerners. BoJo has backed that horse hard. One source I read predicted that herd immunity in the US will come in July 21 with the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines authorised. If the Oxford vaccine gets authorised it will be April 21. I'd imagine the effect of the Oxford Vaccine would be even more pronounced in the UK.
It would, because it will be April before the UK gets the Moderna vaccine as they haven't even started to do a deal with them.
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.
I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.
Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.
All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?
But what are your specific concerns?
You keep saying have outlined them and that they are valid but without outlining anything other than the process has been "rushed". This isn't really an issue unless you can point to something that has been left undone in the rush.
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 05:29:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 18, 2020, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.
I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.
Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.
All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?
Do you intend to never get this vaccination?
If not, how long would you let others get vaccinated for, before you were happy that it would be safe enough for you to get?
When I'm satisfied it is safe and works and the benefits of it outweigh potential consequnces then I would get it. But it will take years to find that out.
I've never got a flu vaccine. The majority of people I know in my demograph with no underlying health conditions don't either that I'm aware of.
What is it that will give you assurance that it is safe? What level of risk are you prepared to take?
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 02:52:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.
I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.
Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.
All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?
But what are your specific concerns?
You keep saying have outlined them and that they are valid but without outlining anything other than the process has been "rushed". This isn't really an issue unless you can point to something that has been left undone in the rush.
My concerns don't have to specific. I've outlined them multiple times for you.
You're asking me prove something that you can't disprove, this highlights the idiocy of your argument. You can get the vaccine if you want. I don't care what you do or don't do but you seem to trying to harangue me into doing something that I have valid concerns over not doing. It's a bizarre stance you are taking on this, are you normally this naive on everything?
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 02:54:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 05:29:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 18, 2020, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.
I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.
Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.
All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?
Do you intend to never get this vaccination?
If not, how long would you let others get vaccinated for, before you were happy that it would be safe enough for you to get?
When I'm satisfied it is safe and works and the benefits of it outweigh potential consequnces then I would get it. But it will take years to find that out.
I've never got a flu vaccine. The majority of people I know in my demograph with no underlying health conditions don't either that I'm aware of.
What is it that will give you assurance that it is safe? What level of risk are you prepared to take?
Time.
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 05:59:12 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 18, 2020, 05:38:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 05:29:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 18, 2020, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.
I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.
Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.
All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?
Do you intend to never get this vaccination?
If not, how long would you let others get vaccinated for, before you were happy that it would be safe enough for you to get?
When I'm satisfied it is safe and works and the benefits of it outweigh potential consequnces then I would get it. But it will take years to find that out.
I've never got a flu vaccine. The majority of people I know in my demograph with no underlying health conditions don't either that I'm aware of.
Happy enough for others to get it but not me. Figures.
As for the second part. Good for you. Irrelevant though.
If people want to get it then that's not my call. You seem to be now chastising me for not trying to force my views onto others? Are you a closet Nazi or something?
If you want to get the vaccine, go ahead. If you like me you have worries, then don't.
I think that post above typifies the the nasty and intolerant undercurrent from posters like you which has been apparent all throughout this thread.
Highly likely that the vaccine will be voluntary.
On a global scale there may well be opportunities that are only open to those with up to date vaccinations but we are not there yet.
However societies could be faced with a real problem with low take up and some spurious reasons for not getting it. It's important that people outline the specifics of why they would not take the vaccine. The higher the take up the better
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 06:57:19 PM
Angelo do you think that if you get Covid that you'll be fine?
Don't intend on getting it but my demograph doesn't seem to be impact greatly by it.
And that is how it works.
What about anyone you pass it on to. Should they get a vaccine?
It will be very interesting when Vaccines are rolled out. Furlough schemes will disappear in an instant, doors of Jobs & Benefit Offices will fully open with claimants expected to return to pre covid terms asap, HMRC's softly softly approach will also disappear, numerous other factors will come into play that will force people to return to normal whether they like it or not – it will be up to them to deal with the potential dangers of circulating in normal society - if they ultimately refuse to take a vaccine.
Quote from: Angelo on November 19, 2020, 02:57:45 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 02:52:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.
I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.
Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.
All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?
But what are your specific concerns?
You keep saying have outlined them and that they are valid but without outlining anything other than the process has been "rushed". This isn't really an issue unless you can point to something that has been left undone in the rush.
My concerns don't have to specific. I've outlined them multiple times for you.
You're asking me prove something that you can't disprove, this highlights the idiocy of your argument. You can get the vaccine if you want. I don't care what you do or don't do but you seem to trying to harangue me into doing something that I have valid concerns over not doing. It's a bizarre stance you are taking on this, are you normally this naive on everything?
All you have to do is type the specifics of your concern. Couldn't be easier
Quote from: Angelo on November 19, 2020, 02:58:31 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 02:54:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 05:29:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on November 18, 2020, 04:52:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 01:58:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 18, 2020, 01:37:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Getting a lot right doesn't mean you can't be wrong a lot or a lesser amount either.
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
There are genuine health concerns for people here and that's why one around 1 in 3 people who voted on this poll have said no.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
Quote from: Angelo on November 17, 2020, 02:18:05 PM
Maybe rather than trying to dictate to people
Be specific. Who have I dictated to and what I have dictated that they should do?
This is a good start. They can and do get things right. So its its rather stupid to start from the perspective that because they are pharma that they are automatically wrong. You need to point to specifics. Something you are not yet doing.
I haven't said they can't. I have said they can and have got things wrong in the past. And for a vaccine that would has been rushed through in an unprecedented timeline then I'd be extra cautious.
So you are now speaking for others. So speaking for those others spell out the genuine health concerns?
I'm speaking for myself but there is a poll up there that says 30%+ of respondents won't get the vaccine next year if its available. You'd have to ask everyone of them why but I've outlined my reasons which are rational and valid so I don't see the need for you to try and badger me into blindly taking something I believe may well have consequences on my health. You are a very narrowminded person who can't tolerate other people and their viewpoints.
Across a number of threads you have been extremely disingenuous and misleading. You have been caught red handed already making a number of claims that you cannot validate.
All I have done is outline my concerns in this thread, they are valid and they are based on precedent and concerns with the uncertainty of the vaccine. You have merely sought to badger me into voluntarily taking something could actually turn out to be quite harmful. The question you really need to ask is why are you doing this?
Do you intend to never get this vaccination?
If not, how long would you let others get vaccinated for, before you were happy that it would be safe enough for you to get?
When I'm satisfied it is safe and works and the benefits of it outweigh potential consequnces then I would get it. But it will take years to find that out.
I've never got a flu vaccine. The majority of people I know in my demograph with no underlying health conditions don't either that I'm aware of.
What is it that will give you assurance that it is safe? What level of risk are you prepared to take?
Time.
So you will accept clinical trials conducted by "big pharma" and sign off by medical authorities but only after the virus is given a head start?
To ask you favourite question - how many deaths would you think could be tolerated in that approach?
Quote from: bennydorano on November 19, 2020, 03:09:40 PM
It will be very interesting when Vaccines are rolled out. Furlough schemes will disappear in an instant, doors of Jobs & Benefit Offices will fully open with claimants expected to return to pre covid terms asap, HMRC's softly softly approach will also disappear, numerous other factors will come into play that will force people to return to normal whether they like it or not – it will be up to them to deal with the potential dangers of circulating in normal society - if they ultimately refuse to take a vaccine.
Would share some of those concerns but vaccine availability is far from the end of this thing. Social distancing and the economic consequences are here for a while yet
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 03:04:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 06:57:19 PM
Angelo do you think that if you get Covid that you'll be fine?
Don't intend on getting it but my demograph doesn't seem to be impact greatly by it.
And that is how it works.
What about anyone you pass it on to. Should they get a vaccine?
I don't intend on getting Covid.
People should make their own conscionable choice on whether they get the vaccine or not.
Quote from: Angelo on November 19, 2020, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 03:04:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 06:57:19 PM
Angelo do you think that if you get Covid that you'll be fine?
Don't intend on getting it but my demograph doesn't seem to be impact greatly by it.
And that is how it works.
What about anyone you pass it on to. Should they get a vaccine?
I don't intend on getting Covid.
People should make their own conscionable choice on whether they get the vaccine or not.
No one intends to get get Covid. It's not like anyone who got infected chose to get Covid 19. If only things were that simple
Quote from: dublin7 on November 19, 2020, 05:26:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 19, 2020, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 03:04:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 06:57:19 PM
Angelo do you think that if you get Covid that you'll be fine?
Don't intend on getting it but my demograph doesn't seem to be impact greatly by it.
And that is how it works.
What about anyone you pass it on to. Should they get a vaccine?
I don't intend on getting Covid.
People should make their own conscionable choice on whether they get the vaccine or not.
No one intends to get get Covid. It's not like anyone who got infected chose to get Covid 19. If only things were that simple
No, but lots of people are behaving recklessly and stupidly, and they will be more likely to get it, and spread it.
People are acting carelessly. There is no way the numbers of new cases in the 6 counties in the north should be higher than for the 26 for example, yet they consistently are.
The only way you can really guarantee you are not going to get Covid is if you stay on your own in your own home and never leave the house, ever, until a vaccine comes that you take. There's not many people who can do that. I'm all for the power of positive thinking, but I don't believe the medical experts would recommend that as a full proof way to avoid Covid
Quote from: Angelo on November 19, 2020, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 03:04:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 06:57:19 PM
Angelo do you think that if you get Covid that you'll be fine?
Don't intend on getting it but my demograph doesn't seem to be impact greatly by it.
And that is how it works.
What about anyone you pass it on to. Should they get a vaccine?
I don't intend on getting Covid.
People should make their own conscionable choice on whether they get the vaccine or not.
Just 1 question:
Which schools were responsible for your formal education?
Just answer that one question and I will take it from there
Quote from: Angelo on November 19, 2020, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 03:04:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 06:57:19 PM
Angelo do you think that if you get Covid that you'll be fine?
Don't intend on getting it but my demograph doesn't seem to be impact greatly by it.
And that is how it works.
What about anyone you pass it on to. Should they get a vaccine?
I don't intend on getting Covid.
People should make their own conscionable choice on whether they get the vaccine or not.
Angelo lives in a wacko jacko bubble
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aavnWd5dh0U
Quote from: Angelo on November 19, 2020, 05:00:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 19, 2020, 03:04:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 18, 2020, 07:18:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 18, 2020, 06:57:19 PM
Angelo do you think that if you get Covid that you'll be fine?
Don't intend on getting it but my demograph doesn't seem to be impact greatly by it.
And that is how it works.
What about anyone you pass it on to. Should they get a vaccine?
I don't intend on getting Covid.
People should make their own conscionable choice on whether they get the vaccine or not.
Who the hell does? And yet we have 1000 a day (that we know of) in the North alone.
I see Angelo hasn't bothered to answer any questions?
His natural bed fellows appear to be in GOP and Downing Street.
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 08:45:52 AM
I see Angelo hasn't bothered to answer any questions?
His natural bed fellows appear to be in GOP and Downing Street.
It was obvious to me 20 years ago that what what lay underneath the rhetoric of the Tories in Britain and the Republicans in the US was nothing more than sheer nihilism - total craziness, total contempt for the lives of ordinary people and the natural world
Time has proven that view to be absolutely correct
In a similar manner, it was obvious to me seven months ago that what lay behind the rhetoric of the self styled "Covid sceptics" was exactly the same thing
A puritanical form of individualism and total disdain for the idea of any sort of social solidarity - which adopts the fake clothes of concern for others as a shameless, cynical strategy to push that puritanical individualism
So called "Covid scepticism" can't even be remotely honest about what it is because the reality of what it is is far too grotesque
Quote from: sid waddell on November 21, 2020, 11:55:01 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 08:45:52 AM
I see Angelo hasn't bothered to answer any questions?
His natural bed fellows appear to be in GOP and Downing Street.
It was obvious to me 20 years ago that what what lay underneath the rhetoric of the Tories in Britain and the Republicans in the US was nothing more than sheer nihilism - total craziness, total contempt for the lives of ordinary people and the natural world
Time has proven that view to be absolutely correct
In a similar manner, it was obvious to me seven months ago that what lay behind the rhetoric of the self styled "Covid sceptics" was exactly the same thing
A puritanical form of individualism and total disdain for the idea of any sort of social solidarity - which adopts the fake clothes of concern for others as a shameless, cynical strategy to push that puritanical individualism
So called "Covid scepticism" can't even be remotely honest about what it is because the reality of what it is is far too grotesque
I think some of the posters here do not genuinely hold the views they post. They think they are being hilarious. I think they are being reckless
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 05:46:41 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on November 21, 2020, 11:55:01 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 21, 2020, 08:45:52 AM
I see Angelo hasn't bothered to answer any questions?
His natural bed fellows appear to be in GOP and Downing Street.
It was obvious to me 20 years ago that what what lay underneath the rhetoric of the Tories in Britain and the Republicans in the US was nothing more than sheer nihilism - total craziness, total contempt for the lives of ordinary people and the natural world
Time has proven that view to be absolutely correct
In a similar manner, it was obvious to me seven months ago that what lay behind the rhetoric of the self styled "Covid sceptics" was exactly the same thing
A puritanical form of individualism and total disdain for the idea of any sort of social solidarity - which adopts the fake clothes of concern for others as a shameless, cynical strategy to push that puritanical individualism
So called "Covid scepticism" can't even be remotely honest about what it is because the reality of what it is is far too grotesque
I think some of the posters here do not genuinely hold the views they post. They think they are being hilarious. I think they are being reckless
I think they do genuinely hold these views because they don't think like a reasonable person, they only think in terms of getting their way
I do think there is a large body of media commentary from the self styled right wing where these commentators cannot possibly believe what they are saying - that's pure cyncism, pure grifting
Although after a while you do begin to wonder whether these commentators have genuinely suckered themselves into believing their own nonsense
But on a forum like this, at a level like this, I think there's much more of an element of genuine brainwashing among people who write such opinions
I'm reminded of what Michael Moore said about Trump being "always lying and always telling the truth" - telling the truth about what he is
This applies to his supporters and those who have bought into that sort of rabid football supporter ideology
To that I would add "they're always joking and yet always serious"
But none of the jokes are funny, and pretty much none of the opinions can be taken seriously by anybody outside the bubble
Such opinions are exhausting, exasperating, draining - especially to argue against - and they're meant to be
Which is why when you get one or two posters who have such ultra-confident, baseless views, they tend to end up cannibalising threads - they genuinely believe that they are unique in seeing things others cannot see, that everybody else has scales on their eyes
Angelo, Seaney, whitey and Foxcommander are examples of this
Trying to equate Tories stances of 20 years ago with the Tories of today is frankly ludicrous, they've always been a 'broad church' to use their own parlance, the nasty pieces of work have always been there but they've generally been pissing into the wind until Brexit brought them to preminence. Social media has aided them unbelievably in the post truth world.
How's things going now? Seems to be going too quick ;D
Easter time, those with the Vaccine will be able to travel
Quote from: bennydorano on November 21, 2020, 07:21:43 PM
Trying to equate Tories stances of 20 years ago with the Tories of today is frankly ludicrous, they've always been a 'broad church' to use their own parlance, the nasty pieces of work have always been there but they've generally been pissing into the wind until Brexit brought them to preminence. Social media has aided them unbelievably in the post truth world.
I don't think it is, even the more moderate Tories believed in a worldview that brought us the great financial crash, the Iraq War, privatisation of public services, de-unionisation, low wages, wide scale austerity and cuts, stupid "law and order" policies, the "hostile environment", massive house price inflation, basically they believed in all the stuff that led the world to 2016 and the rise of fascism in the west - which they were completely cannibalised by
In the same way that the Republicans' road to Trump started in the 1960s, the Tories' road to the fantasy land of Brexit started in the 1970s
Major was and is a decent enough person, but I'm not sure you can say that about many other Tory leaders since Heath
The Tories veered way right after 1997 - even Portillo was considered too "moderate" in the 2001 leadership election - and Cameron bringing them slightly back towards the centre was really only an election ploy
The toxicity had been building since Thatcher's time and it was the failure of and enabling by the so called Tory moderate wing that brought it out into its full rotten bloom
That is some reach Sid and I don't think you even believe it, it's really weak. The Tories have been a pretty standard centre-right parliamentary party, with standard centre-right policies enacted worldwide, until Brexit. I also think you're mixing long held Tory delusions of grandeur about just pretty much everything ever with the specific issue of Europe.
Also, half of the stuff you list, happened (or also happened)under Labour's watch. Cameron was Tory leader for 11 years, was as centrist as they come and a Blairite in all but name.
There is a curious phenomena that I've noticed more in recent times. Especially in the US, but not only in the US.
- People on the far right are very quick to paint everyone on the left as being on the far left.
- People on the far left are very quick to paint everyone on the right as being on the far right.
This very much so. It's even apparent on this board too.
There seems to be no middle ground any more. One extreme or the other.
Quote from: Hound on November 24, 2020, 01:15:01 PM
There is a curious phenomena that I've noticed more in recent times. Especially in the US, but not only in the US.
- People on the far right are very quick to paint everyone on the left as being on the far left.
- People on the far left are very quick to paint everyone on the right as being on the far right.
Association fallacy.
It's difficult to deliver zingers to moderate, nuanced arguments, especially within twitter's 280 character limit.
Much easier to pretend that everyone represents the most extreme, and most easily refuted, version of their arguments and to plan your attacks from that perspective.
Quote from: Ed Ricketts on November 24, 2020, 02:09:48 PM
Much easier to pretend that everyone represents the most extreme, and most easily refuted, version of their arguments and to plan your attacks from that perspective.
NI politics in a nutshell
Was standing outside a takeaway Saturday night, talking to a fella beside me and the conversation turned to Covid. This guy seemed normal, down to earth. He told me quite matte-of-factly that the "vaccine alters human DNA, all you have to do is google and you'll see for yourself". It was a bit of a conversation stopper to be honest.
All of this craic reminds me of my school lessons on Edward Jenner and how some of the public responded to the administration of the Cowpox vaccine, perhaps one of the greatest innovations in the history of medicine. I remember at the time thinking how irresponsible were the magazines that published images such as that below and how stupid were people to be sucked into it.
Is it really any different today? People not accepting science and evidence and willing to believe any kind of crap they read on social media. Media publishing just about any kind of shite to attract readership or to serve some other agenda.
(https://www.economist.com/img/b/1000/563/90/1843magazine.com/sites/default/files/styles/il_manual_crop_16_9/public/GettyImages-629557509-NEW.jpg)
The Tories have always been a broad church and that broad church has always included individuals on the "hard right". Far right gives connotations of racism, militarism and uniforms. I'm sure there are a few skeletons in the closet but not a movement within the party. The hard right in terms of economics and libertarianism has always been there. Migration, nationalism/separatism has buoyed it and given it a more powerful voice right now. There has always been some very unpleasant people in the Tory party but they now have a bit of sway
My chemical engineering friend telling me tonight that within the industry all these firms are applying for indemnities in Europe against side effects, get the sleeves rolled up folks.
Quote from: Seaney on November 24, 2020, 08:32:53 PM
My chemical engineering friend telling me tonight that within the industry all these firms are applying for indemnities in Europe against side effects, get the sleeves rolled up folks.
He's a lawyer also? Some boyo!!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 24, 2020, 09:12:59 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 24, 2020, 08:32:53 PM
My chemical engineering friend telling me tonight that within the industry all these firms are applying for indemnities in Europe against side effects, get the sleeves rolled up folks.
He's a lawyer also? Some boyo!!
You aren't getting one so hardly matters to you.
Quote from: Seaney on November 24, 2020, 09:17:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 24, 2020, 09:12:59 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 24, 2020, 08:32:53 PM
My chemical engineering friend telling me tonight that within the industry all these firms are applying for indemnities in Europe against side effects, get the sleeves rolled up folks.
He's a lawyer also? Some boyo!!
You aren't getting one so hardly matters to you.
There's that many coming out I'll be getting one quicker than I thought!
You just keep that mask on, definitely an improvement
Bless Milhouse can hug now over crimbo and get the vaccine in 2029
Quote from: bennydorano on November 24, 2020, 12:31:40 PM
That is some reach Sid and I don't think you even believe it, it's really weak. The Tories have been a pretty standard centre-right parliamentary party, with standard centre-right policies enacted worldwide, until Brexit. I also think you're mixing long held Tory delusions of grandeur about just pretty much everything ever with the specific issue of Europe.
Also, half of the stuff you list, happened (or also happened)under Labour's watch. Cameron was Tory leader for 11 years, was as centrist as they come and a Blairite in all but name.
Believe what?
It's what happened
Not sure how you think Cameron was centrist, his party implemented massive austerity, but maybe he said it with a smile on his face, so that makes him centrist?
This is the sort of politics that drives massive wealth inequality and massive anger - the sort of thing that led to Brexit and Trump - and literally everybody in the Tory party was on board with it
And then Cameron surrendered to the really extreme loons - and there were a lot more of them than was thought, it was in their DNA - they believed in fantasy - but after decades of Murdoch media, well, that should not have been a surprise
20 years ago the Tories had already been been captured by the hard right of their party - the same Eurosceptic, hang 'em high loons who made life hell for Major - that's why William Hague and then Iain Duncan Smith were elected as leaders
40 years ago the Tories were trying to implement monetarism - an extreme hard right economic ideology which desired mass unemployment as a sort of Darwinian economic experiment that paid no heed to the real effects of this
The vicious wolf was never far away in that party, it occasionally dressed up in sheep's clothes
As Labour leader, Blair's number one objective was to get Murdoch media onside
You could argue it was a smart move to win elections but if you believe in politics as a force for diving positive change, not so much, because you're in hock to lunatics
Nevertheless, even the worst Labour government imaginable, and Blair's was pretty much it - is still always better than even the mildest Tory government - had the Tories been in power in the 2000s, the support for the Iraq War would have been even more slavish, and the financial even crash deeper than it was
Murdoch media has been the driver of the lunatics for decades
Quote from: Hound on November 24, 2020, 01:15:01 PM
There is a curious phenomena that I've noticed more in recent times. Especially in the US, but not only in the US.
- People on the far right are very quick to paint everyone on the left as being on the far left.
- People on the far left are very quick to paint everyone on the right as being on the far right.
I don't think you see the irony of your post, but it should be obvious
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 24, 2020, 02:02:09 PM
This very much so. It's even apparent on this board too.
There seems to be no middle ground any more. One extreme or the other.
The middle ground between truth and lies, or sense and craziness, is not a good place to be at all
The so called "middle ground" is by itself a vacuous canard - it rejects evaluating things on their merits or demerits in favour of a vacuous and false framing of polar extremes, and then saying that "the truth must be somewhere in the middle"
It rejects critical thought
Like, what's the middle ground between anti-vaxxers and those who believe in science - and is it where you want to be? No, I don't think you want to be there
Anti-vaxxers are extreme, those who believe in science are not
I don't mean with anti vaxxers. Anti vaxxers tend to be just full of it(if this thread is anything to go by).When you're talking about big pharma, money being made, process not being followed etc and you have no idea what you are talking about that is different from middle ground.
Beliefs in lockdown, corona virus itself, american politics views etc etc . Things like SDLP threads. All illustrative.
Maybe wrong thread to put that comment in mind you lol.
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 25, 2020, 01:08:14 PM
I don't mean with anti vaxxers. Anti vaxxers tend to be just full of it(if this thread is anything to go by).When you're talking about big pharma, money being made, process not being followed etc and you have no idea what you are talking about that is different from middle ground.
Beliefs in lockdown, corona virus itself, american politics views etc etc . Things like SDLP threads. All illustrative.
Maybe wrong thread to put that comment in mind you lol.
Would there not be a fair difference between dyed in the wool anti-vaxers* and covid anti-vaxers?
* will be absolutely against the Covid vaccine too, goes without saying. They'll want the rest of us to protect them as per usual
I personally know 2 old school anti-vaxers, and by christ its one topic you wouldn't dare bring up, just not worth the stress and has been known to ruin an evening ;D
Covid-only anti-vaxers are a completely different breed, lead not by science but the medical experts in their WhatsApp groups and contacts on social media etc. That BBC link someone put up re the Oxford vaccine and the professors who have developed it is definitely worth a read for those who haven't yet.. Scientists have played an absolute blinder imo.
You could be right but tbh I don't know an awful pile of them lol. The covid thing is just because it's topical - I don't know the views on MMR etc of these people. It's probably best we don't lol. They may or may not correlate.
Anything on social media I see which maybe would point towards covid anti vaxxers and anti vaxxers being different seems to correlate with a "reset" of society though thankfully I haven't seen anything as bad as that here. That is maybe the difference if there is one.
Saw a great description of them on Twitter, sheep following a different shepherd.
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 25, 2020, 01:08:14 PM
I don't mean with anti vaxxers. Anti vaxxers tend to be just full of it(if this thread is anything to go by).When you're talking about big pharma, money being made, process not being followed etc and you have no idea what you are talking about that is different from middle ground.
Beliefs in lockdown, corona virus itself, american politics views etc etc . Things like SDLP threads. All illustrative.
Maybe wrong thread to put that comment in mind you lol.
I'm not sure what you mean when you say:
"belief in lockdown" - I think literally nobody wants lockdown because they like lockdowns - or even because they think lockdown is the best way, by itself, to deal with the threat of Covid
People who think lockdowns are necessary, as I do, almost universally do so because they're the only remaining tool left in the absence of policy decisions which might have enabled a more sustainable way of coping with Covid
"belief in Coronavirus itself" - well, science tells us it is real and very dangerous - I'm not sure what the half way point is between those who "believe in Coronavirus" and those who "do not believe in Coronavirus", but whatever that half way point is, that "middle ground" is, it's obviously wrong, because this Coronavirus, this Covid-19, exists, and it is a very serious problem for humanity that it does
"belief in American politics" - well, people can believe what they want to believe about American politics, but five years of candidate/president Trump tells us that anybody who believes Trump or believes in Trump is either a gullible fool or has abhorrent views
There isn't really a middle ground as regards Trump because to occupy a "middle ground" requires accepting racism, bigotry, rejection of science and rejection of truth - well, perhaps only half the time
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 25, 2020, 02:17:51 PM
You could be right but tbh I don't know an awful pile of them lol. The covid thing is just because it's topical - I don't know the views on MMR etc of these people. It's probably best we don't lol. They may or may not correlate.
Anything on social media I see which maybe would point towards covid anti vaxxers and anti vaxxers being different seems to correlate with a "reset" of society though thankfully I haven't seen anything as bad as that here. That is maybe the difference if there is one.
There used to be a poster "Seamus" who would post periodically and had some seriously crazy views, like Jim Corr on steroids
Another US based poster "Baile an Tuathaigh" had some hardcore anti-Semitic views if I remember rightly
"Iceman" was fairly out there too
Then there's the usual suspects, the Trumpists in the US politics thread
There's no need to be politically correct about them - they are racists, bigots and fantasists
Quote from: sid waddell on November 25, 2020, 03:20:18 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 25, 2020, 02:17:51 PM
You could be right but tbh I don't know an awful pile of them lol. The covid thing is just because it's topical - I don't know the views on MMR etc of these people. It's probably best we don't lol. They may or may not correlate.
Anything on social media I see which maybe would point towards covid anti vaxxers and anti vaxxers being different seems to correlate with a "reset" of society though thankfully I haven't seen anything as bad as that here. That is maybe the difference if there is one.
There used to be a poster "Seamus" who would post periodically and had some seriously crazy views, like Jim Corr on steroids
Another US based poster "Baile an Tuathaigh" had some hardcore anti-Semitic views if I remember rightly
"Iceman" was fairly out there too
Then there's the usual suspects, the Trumpists in the US politics thread
There's no need to be politically correct about them - they are racists, bigots and fantasists
Sid, I notice you are still talking shite after all those years. Seeing that you are such a self proclaimed genius the following should come very easy to you.
A group of people came to John Jay Singleton and offered a $2,000,000 reward in gold for any person or any group that can prove that this COVID-19 was purified and isolated. The criteria is set forth on his website (hint: just because Fauci and Dr. Bill Gates says so does not count). Up since April 4th with no takers.
http://www.aceofcoins.com/corona-virus-gold-bounty/ (http://www.aceofcoins.com/corona-virus-gold-bounty/)
So knock yourself out, get back to me when you have claimed your 2MM, otherwise STFU.
Quote from: Seamus on November 26, 2020, 08:09:45 PM
A group of people came to John Jay Singleton and offered a $2,000,000 reward in gold for any person or any group that can prove that this COVID-19 was purified and isolated. The criteria is set forth on his website (hint: just because Fauci and Dr. Bill Gates says so does not count). Up since April 4th with no takers.
http://www.aceofcoins.com/corona-virus-gold-bounty/ (http://www.aceofcoins.com/corona-virus-gold-bounty/)
So knock yourself out, get back to me when you have claimed your 2MM, otherwise STFU.
This is a steaming load of elephant manure even by the standards of such things.
Perhaps someone would explain why some of the highest rates of Covid19 have been in places like Peru, which do not have 5G?
Quote from: Seamus on November 26, 2020, 08:09:45 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on November 25, 2020, 03:20:18 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 25, 2020, 02:17:51 PM
You could be right but tbh I don't know an awful pile of them lol. The covid thing is just because it's topical - I don't know the views on MMR etc of these people. It's probably best we don't lol. They may or may not correlate.
Anything on social media I see which maybe would point towards covid anti vaxxers and anti vaxxers being different seems to correlate with a "reset" of society though thankfully I haven't seen anything as bad as that here. That is maybe the difference if there is one.
There used to be a poster "Seamus" who would post periodically and had some seriously crazy views, like Jim Corr on steroids
Another US based poster "Baile an Tuathaigh" had some hardcore anti-Semitic views if I remember rightly
"Iceman" was fairly out there too
Then there's the usual suspects, the Trumpists in the US politics thread
There's no need to be politically correct about them - they are racists, bigots and fantasists
Sid, I notice you are still talking shite after all those years. Seeing that you are such a self proclaimed genius the following should come very easy to you.
A group of people came to John Jay Singleton and offered a $2,000,000 reward in gold for any person or any group that can prove that this COVID-19 was purified and isolated. The criteria is set forth on his website (hint: just because Fauci and Dr. Bill Gates says so does not count). Up since April 4th with no takers.
http://www.aceofcoins.com/corona-virus-gold-bounty/ (http://www.aceofcoins.com/corona-virus-gold-bounty/)
So knock yourself out, get back to me when you have claimed your 2MM, otherwise STFU.
;D
Where have I proclaimed myself a genius? I'm far from it! But thanks for your confidence in me
Very aggressive tone by the way, not very nice
So the north is being lined up to be the brits guinea pig for the vaccine, you can just hear ole Boris muttering the words "sure test it on the Irish, they are good for nothing else"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961)
They have their candidates here, milhouse, sid and frankie up first.
Quote from: Hereiam on November 26, 2020, 10:15:44 PM
So the north is being lined up to be the brits guinea pig for the vaccine, you can just hear ole Boris muttering the words "sure test it on the Irish, they are good for nothing else"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961)
No harm to you but where are you getting the idea that NI is being used as a guinea pig?
I'm no fan of Boris but that Boris quote only exists in your head
Looking good for the Oxford Vaccine - Milhouse and frankie still queuing with the sleeves rolled up? Anyone who thinks that a vaccine that normally takes 5 to 10 years to produce safely can be produced in 10 months with all the same safety standards is deluded, but the narrative that they are out to save humanity on a anonymous forum with about 20 active members won't stop them from calling cautious folk cowards and trying to berate them. I wonder would they all be advocating their elderly parents be first in the queue, because after all the believers here are way at the back of the queue!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/scrutiny-grows-over-oxford-universityastrazeneca-vaccine (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/scrutiny-grows-over-oxford-universityastrazeneca-vaccine)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55086927 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55086927)
Quoteanonymous forum with about 20 active members
You do realise you're an active member on that anonymous forum with about twenty active members ;D
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 27, 2020, 08:40:05 AM
Quoteanonymous forum with about 20 active members
You do realise you're an active member on that anonymous forum with about twenty active members ;D
To be fair if you include his previous incarnations n the board he could prob double that figure.
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 08:14:07 AM
Looking good for the Oxford Vaccine - Milhouse and frankie still queuing with the sleeves rolled up? Anyone who thinks that a vaccine that normally takes 5 to 10 years to produce safely can be produced in 10 months with all the same safety standards is deluded, but the narrative that they are out to save humanity on a anonymous forum with about 20 active members won't stop them from calling cautious folk cowards and trying to berate them. I wonder would they all be advocating their elderly parents be first in the queue, because after all the believers here are way at the back of the queue!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/scrutiny-grows-over-oxford-universityastrazeneca-vaccine (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/scrutiny-grows-over-oxford-universityastrazeneca-vaccine)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55086927 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55086927)
Yeah I'll get it as soon as it is possible to do so, even if I have to pay. And yes I will be encouraging loved ones to do likewise.
Seaney - you deserve to have your opinions berated.
Just because you're entitled to have an opinion doesn't mean others are obliged to respect it.
The difference between your opinions and the findings of these vaccination trials is that yours are based on conversations with your mates and google searches.
Theirs are based on tens of thousands of trials, by multiple different companies, in multiple different ways, across multiple demographics, across multiple countries, assessed by hundreds of qualified professionals, then published for review and criticism by peers. Even after all that do they still have to go through national approval forums.
If I have to take medical advice from anyone it'll be the latter group.
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 08:14:07 AM
Looking good for the Oxford Vaccine - Milhouse and frankie still queuing with the sleeves rolled up? Anyone who thinks that a vaccine that normally takes 5 to 10 years to produce safely can be produced in 10 months with all the same safety standards is deluded, but the narrative that they are out to save humanity on a anonymous forum with about 20 active members won't stop them from calling cautious folk cowards and trying to berate them. I wonder would they all be advocating their elderly parents be first in the queue, because after all the believers here are way at the back of the queue!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/scrutiny-grows-over-oxford-universityastrazeneca-vaccine (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/scrutiny-grows-over-oxford-universityastrazeneca-vaccine)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55086927 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55086927)
WTF are you talking about?
Quote from: imtommygunn on November 27, 2020, 08:40:05 AM
Quoteanonymous forum with about 20 active members
You do realise you're an active member on that anonymous forum with about twenty active members ;D
Yeah - but I don't pretend it matters!
Quote from: Chief on November 27, 2020, 09:03:18 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 08:14:07 AM
Looking good for the Oxford Vaccine - Milhouse and frankie still queuing with the sleeves rolled up? Anyone who thinks that a vaccine that normally takes 5 to 10 years to produce safely can be produced in 10 months with all the same safety standards is deluded, but the narrative that they are out to save humanity on a anonymous forum with about 20 active members won't stop them from calling cautious folk cowards and trying to berate them. I wonder would they all be advocating their elderly parents be first in the queue, because after all the believers here are way at the back of the queue!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/scrutiny-grows-over-oxford-universityastrazeneca-vaccine (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/scrutiny-grows-over-oxford-universityastrazeneca-vaccine)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55086927 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55086927)
Yeah I'll get it as soon as it is possible to do so, even if I have to pay. And yes I will be encouraging loved ones to do likewise.
Seaney - you deserve to have your opinions berated.
Just because you're entitled to have an opinion doesn't mean others are obliged to respect it.
The difference between your opinions and the findings of these vaccination trials is that yours are based on conversations with your mates and google searches.
Theirs are based on tens of thousands of trials, by multiple different companies, in multiple different ways, across multiple demographics, across multiple countries, assessed by hundreds of qualified professionals, then published for review and criticism by peers. Even after all that do they still have to go through national approval forums.
If I have to take medical advice from anyone it'll be the latter group.
Google searches? Folk on here spend hours trying to get stats of Google ffs you could prove or disprove anything on google, I posted articles from the BBC and the Guardian.
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 09:09:23 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 08:14:07 AM
Looking good for the Oxford Vaccine - Milhouse and frankie still queuing with the sleeves rolled up? Anyone who thinks that a vaccine that normally takes 5 to 10 years to produce safely can be produced in 10 months with all the same safety standards is deluded, but the narrative that they are out to save humanity on a anonymous forum with about 20 active members won't stop them from calling cautious folk cowards and trying to berate them. I wonder would they all be advocating their elderly parents be first in the queue, because after all the believers here are way at the back of the queue!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/scrutiny-grows-over-oxford-universityastrazeneca-vaccine (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/scrutiny-grows-over-oxford-universityastrazeneca-vaccine)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55086927 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55086927)
WTF are you talking about?
These lads purport that they will be first in queue but can't be as there millions ahead of them so best wait a few years for some better statistics on side effects.
What's the chances of our local politicians and the Tory government actually showing some organisational skills for once to get the vaccines rolled out efficiently!
Quote from: LCohen on November 26, 2020, 10:43:52 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on November 26, 2020, 10:15:44 PM
So the north is being lined up to be the brits guinea pig for the vaccine, you can just hear ole Boris muttering the words "sure test it on the Irish, they are good for nothing else"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961)
No harm to you but where are you getting the idea that NI is being used as a guinea pig?
I'm no fan of Boris but that Boris quote only exists in your head
Indeed Leonard. This roll out is being driven by the PHA etc in the North
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 10:27:44 AM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 09:09:23 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 08:14:07 AM
Looking good for the Oxford Vaccine - Milhouse and frankie still queuing with the sleeves rolled up? Anyone who thinks that a vaccine that normally takes 5 to 10 years to produce safely can be produced in 10 months with all the same safety standards is deluded, but the narrative that they are out to save humanity on a anonymous forum with about 20 active members won't stop them from calling cautious folk cowards and trying to berate them. I wonder would they all be advocating their elderly parents be first in the queue, because after all the believers here are way at the back of the queue!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/scrutiny-grows-over-oxford-universityastrazeneca-vaccine (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/26/scrutiny-grows-over-oxford-universityastrazeneca-vaccine)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55086927 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55086927)
WTF are you talking about?
These lads purport that they will be first in queue but can't be as there millions ahead of them so best wait a few years for some better statistics on side effects.
Millions
will be ahead of them, assuming they are under 50 years old and in reasonable health.
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about
public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
Public health is about protecting health on a mass basis and protecting the systems and services that deliver healthcare. For vaccines to work effectively with a disease like this, it requires widespread adoption.
If the world was full of people like you, and there is an increasing number who gets their information from the internet and does not respect expertise, we could still be living with smallpox.
The Oxford vaccine has to go for another human trial as it wasn't tested on enough on those in the over 55 age bracket. Am I reading this correctly?
Quote from: LCohen on November 26, 2020, 10:43:52 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on November 26, 2020, 10:15:44 PM
So the north is being lined up to be the brits guinea pig for the vaccine, you can just hear ole Boris muttering the words "sure test it on the Irish, they are good for nothing else"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961)
No harm to you but where are you getting the idea that NI is being used as a guinea pig?
I'm no fan of Boris but that Boris quote only exists in your head
Well the north is usually the last to see any new developments made by Britain be it new infrastructure, health treatments etc, but all of a sudden we are the first being given this new vaccine and you think to yourself why are people in England not getting it first? Surly the British government would but the lives of their own front an foremost.
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on November 27, 2020, 11:58:22 AM
The Oxford vaccine has to go for another human trial as it wasn't tested on enough on those in the over 55 age bracket. Am I reading this correctly?
Strictly speaking, the low dose followed by high dose variant that proved most successful was only tried on a small number of people (because it was an accident ) and not enough older folks. With all these loonies around it is a bit disappointed that these people cannot run their clinical trials properly.
Quote from: Hereiam on November 27, 2020, 12:26:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 26, 2020, 10:43:52 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on November 26, 2020, 10:15:44 PM
So the north is being lined up to be the brits guinea pig for the vaccine, you can just hear ole Boris muttering the words "sure test it on the Irish, they are good for nothing else"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961)
No harm to you but where are you getting the idea that NI is being used as a guinea pig?
I'm no fan of Boris but that Boris quote only exists in your head
Well the north is usually the last to see any new developments made by Britain be it new infrastructure, health treatments etc, but all of a sudden we are the first being given this new vaccine and you think to yourself why are people in England not getting it first? Surly the British government would but the lives of their own front an foremost.
I don't think there is any evidence of the 6 counties getting it first. Each part of the UK has their own plan and they'll get proportionate amounts to distribute. As someone noted though, they really need the Oxford one to come on board to have big volumes and it will likely be held up a bit because they cocked up their clinical trails.
Quote from: armaghniac on November 27, 2020, 12:50:35 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on November 27, 2020, 11:58:22 AM
The Oxford vaccine has to go for another human trial as it wasn't tested on enough on those in the over 55 age bracket. Am I reading this correctly?
Strictly speaking, the low dose followed by high dose variant that proved most successful was only tried on a small number of people (because it was an accident ) and not enough older folks. With all these loonies around it is a bit disappointed that these people cannot run their clinical trials properly.
Quote from: Hereiam on November 27, 2020, 12:26:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 26, 2020, 10:43:52 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on November 26, 2020, 10:15:44 PM
So the north is being lined up to be the brits guinea pig for the vaccine, you can just hear ole Boris muttering the words "sure test it on the Irish, they are good for nothing else"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961)
No harm to you but where are you getting the idea that NI is being used as a guinea pig?
I'm no fan of Boris but that Boris quote only exists in your head
Well the north is usually the last to see any new developments made by Britain be it new infrastructure, health treatments etc, but all of a sudden we are the first being given this new vaccine and you think to yourself why are people in England not getting it first? Surly the British government would but the lives of their own front an foremost.
I don't think there is any evidence of the 6 counties getting it first. Each part of the UK has their own plan and they'll get proportionate amounts to distribute. As someone noted though, they really need the Oxford one to come on board to have big volumes and it will likely be held up a bit because they cocked up their clinical trails.
FFS this is a new vaccine with unknown long term issues - and you say its
disappointing they can't run clinical trials properly!!!
Quote from: Hereiam on November 27, 2020, 12:26:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 26, 2020, 10:43:52 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on November 26, 2020, 10:15:44 PM
So the north is being lined up to be the brits guinea pig for the vaccine, you can just hear ole Boris muttering the words "sure test it on the Irish, they are good for nothing else"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961)
No harm to you but where are you getting the idea that NI is being used as a guinea pig?
I'm no fan of Boris but that Boris quote only exists in your head
Well the north is usually the last to see any new developments made by Britain be it new infrastructure, health treatments etc, but all of a sudden we are the first being given this new vaccine and you think to yourself why are people in England not getting it first? Surly the British government would but the lives of their own front an foremost.
Stop you sound like a looney!!
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
If the world was full of people like you, and there is an increasing number who gets their information from the internet and does not respect expertise, we could still be living with smallpox.
Sorry where have I got my information of he internet, you do realise you are online when posting, I have the same information as you and am cautious about a vaccine that has been developed so fast, as mentioned before I have all my vaccinations as have all my kids, I am not anti-vax but am very dubious about this especially on the older generation where any deaths as a result will in my opinion be covered up.
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
And those are the ones you should be taking it for. That is what herd immunity is about, eliminating the transmission paths to those who are vulnerable.
You on the other hand are hand wringing about them but arenot prepared to take a small risk for the greater good.
Quote from: Chief on November 27, 2020, 09:03:18 AM
Yeah I'll get it as soon as it is possible to do so, even if I have to pay. And yes I will be encouraging loved ones to do likewise.
Where you getting it Chief, you can't buy it!
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:17:04 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
If the world was full of people like you, and there is an increasing number who gets their information from the internet and does not respect expertise, we could still be living with smallpox.
Sorry where have I got my information of he internet, you do realise you are online when posting, I have the same information as you and am cautious about a vaccine that has been developed so fast, as mentioned before I have all my vaccinations as have all my kids, I am not anti-vax but am very dubious about this especially on the older generation where any deaths as a result will in my opinion be covered up.
You've quoted your chemical engineer friend a few times here with his/your "info" and it didn't inspire confidence. Yourself and Angelo are the same. You both claim to have no faith in the potential vaccines, but can't point out any actual issues with them, only conspiracy theories around money, big pharma, trials etc.
While governments around the world are not going to make taking a vaccine mandatory life will become very difficult for anyone who refuses to take one. Once vaccines are available to the public it will only be a matter of time before airlines make having had one mandatory before getting on a flight for example
Quote from: LeoMc on November 27, 2020, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
And those are the ones you should be taking it for. That is what herd immunity is about, eliminating the transmission paths to those who are vulnerable.
You on the other hand are not prepared to take a small risk for the greater good.
How do you know it is small, what statistical data are you using, the oxford one is under the spotlight, imagine the carnage if it is forced on poor residents in care homes and something goes astray a few months down the line - you prepared to accept that risk or are they collateral damage for the greater good, in which case why have they all been locked up all year.
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
So your logic is to open up so that those in isolation, those suffering abuse, poor mental health will get Covid on top of their problems? Or would it be better to take the vaccine so that we can improve the problems you've highlighted?
You're a odd person
Quote from: dublin7 on November 27, 2020, 01:24:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:17:04 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
If the world was full of people like you, and there is an increasing number who gets their information from the internet and does not respect expertise, we could still be living with smallpox.
Sorry where have I got my information of he internet, you do realise you are online when posting, I have the same information as you and am cautious about a vaccine that has been developed so fast, as mentioned before I have all my vaccinations as have all my kids, I am not anti-vax but am very dubious about this especially on the older generation where any deaths as a result will in my opinion be covered up.
You've quoted your chemical engineer friend a few times here with his/your "info" and it didn't inspire confidence. Yourself and Angelo are the same. You both claim to have no faith in the potential vaccines, but can't point out any actual issues with them, only conspiracy theories around money, big pharma, trials etc.
While governments around the world are not going to make taking a vaccine mandatory life will become very difficult for anyone who refuses to take one. Once vaccines are available to the public it will only be a matter of time before airlines make having had one mandatory before getting on a flight for example
How would I cope, I like my country and holiday there every year. I would rather believe a professional with no agenda giving advice rather than following the narrative.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 27, 2020, 01:26:24 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
So your logic is to open up so that those in isolation, those suffering abuse, poor mental health will get Covid on top of their problems? Or would it be better to take the vaccine so that we can improve the problems you've highlighted?
You're a odd person
And you can't read, I would prefer that more statistical data was available for the vaccines before using the most vulnerable as guinea pigs, you certainly won't be getting a vaccine until al least 2022 so you are ok, but you know that and you couldn't give a flying one about anyone but yourself!
So you'd rather have the lockdowns so the economy can go to the wall m, then create more hardship on the people you've mentioned?
Which is it you want? Five year trials with constant lockdowns creating all the shit that goes with it
Or safe vaccines that will be approved by independent scientists (not your mate) where money was no option in terms of the technology put into finding it?
Again I'm not sure of your logic, very odd and strange
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:29:35 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 27, 2020, 01:24:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:17:04 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
If the world was full of people like you, and there is an increasing number who gets their information from the internet and does not respect expertise, we could still be living with smallpox.
Sorry where have I got my information of he internet, you do realise you are online when posting, I have the same information as you and am cautious about a vaccine that has been developed so fast, as mentioned before I have all my vaccinations as have all my kids, I am not anti-vax but am very dubious about this especially on the older generation where any deaths as a result will in my opinion be covered up.
You've quoted your chemical engineer friend a few times here with his/your "info" and it didn't inspire confidence. Yourself and Angelo are the same. You both claim to have no faith in the potential vaccines, but can't point out any actual issues with them, only conspiracy theories around money, big pharma, trials etc.
While governments around the world are not going to make taking a vaccine mandatory life will become very difficult for anyone who refuses to take one. Once vaccines are available to the public it will only be a matter of time before airlines make having had one mandatory before getting on a flight for example
How would I cope, I like my country and holiday there every year. I would rather believe a professional with no agenda giving advice rather than following the narrative.
When I said one example I meant air travel was one of many possible issues, not the only one. If you are going to attend any event with any reasonable sized crowd gatherings not having taken a vaccine will be an issue.
No professional has said take the vaccine at the moment as they haven't been approved. In fact the professionals who have been reviewing the Oxford trials have raised issue with it and they are having to look at it again. If anything that should please you rather than anger you as it disproves the theory that rushed, unsafe and untested vaccines will be released to the general public just so some people can make a few quid.
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:25:17 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 27, 2020, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
And those are the ones you should be taking it for. That is what herd immunity is about, eliminating the transmission paths to those who are vulnerable.
You on the other hand are not prepared to take a small risk for the greater good.
How do you know it is small, what statistical data are you using, the oxford one is under the spotlight, imagine the carnage if it is forced on poor residents in care homes and something goes astray a few months down the line - you prepared to accept that risk or are they collateral damage for the greater good, in which case why have they all been locked up all year.
So we are not to trust the MHRA and other global approval bodies. We keep everything locked down until there is more data? How much do you need, or rather how much more do you need than the MHRA, FDA, etc require?
I'm hearing, from a usually very reliable source, that some NHS staff in the UK will start getting a vaccine by end of next week.
Can't say I understand it being available so fast, and I'm extremely sceptical, but throwing this up here anyway!
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
We have seen how the general public rank public health in terms of importance against their need to go shopping at Primark or go drinking in Temple Bar. The public can't or won't take the kind of precautions necessary to protect public health to allow us to live with Covid.
It is not about whether I can go to a football match nor is it about about individual risks versus individual benefits. Vaccination is about what works at population level for the greater good of public health, the health service and economy also. It's not self-righteous, it's common sense.
If it wasn't for the successive lockdowns, social distancing etc the NHS would be overrun. Despite best efforts, major unseen damage is actually being done to public health systems and the NHS by Covid. The longer this goes on the greater the risks to other areas of health at a population level, including cancer, mental health services or social care. The system doesn't have capacity to cope with increased incidence of mental illness, or of large numbers of delayed cancer diagnoses.
The vaccine will be most effective if it is taken on a widespread basis across the population. The benefits to public health of a vaccine are enormous and the risks are tiny.
The problem is that the success of the vaccine is undermined if large swathes of people choose not to take it due to some perceived risk to their own health. They might calculate that Covid will do them very little harm if they get it and that they would prefer to take the risk of catching Covid than taking the vaccine. The problem is however, that if this reservoir of people is big enough (because they believe everything they read online or hear from their esteemed Engineering PHd friend), it will mean that the disease will continue to thrive and mutate in the human population, ultimately undermining the effectiveness both the vaccine programme and the vaccine itself.
Covid really has brought out the worst in many people and a lot of what we see is pure selfishness and a large dollop of gullibility. I think if you surveyed the anti-vaxxers, the anti-maskers, the covid deniers and the covidiots you would find a lot of narcissism, selfishness and a fair few mental health issues also.
Quote from: Hereiam on November 27, 2020, 12:26:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 26, 2020, 10:43:52 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on November 26, 2020, 10:15:44 PM
So the north is being lined up to be the brits guinea pig for the vaccine, you can just hear ole Boris muttering the words "sure test it on the Irish, they are good for nothing else"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961)
No harm to you but where are you getting the idea that NI is being used as a guinea pig?
I'm no fan of Boris but that Boris quote only exists in your head
Well the north is usually the last to see any new developments made by Britain be it new infrastructure, health treatments etc, but all of a sudden we are the first being given this new vaccine and you think to yourself why are people in England not getting it first? Surly the British government would but the lives of their own front an foremost.
Where are you getting the idea that the vaccine is being rolled out in NI ahead of GB?
Quote from: Hound on November 27, 2020, 03:16:38 PM
I'm hearing, from a usually very reliable source, that some NHS staff in the UK will start getting a vaccine by end of next week.
Can't say I understand it being available so fast, and I'm extremely sceptical, but throwing this up here anyway!
If it is approved then Pfizer has already been making it for a couple of months in anticipation of its being approved, so it will be ready to go.
Hospitals likely already have the storage requirements and the competence to deliver the vaccine. Approval will not be long delayed, Pfizer were already sharing the data with the regulators even before the public. And healthy health care staff who are in daily contact with people with the vaccine is a good place to continue testing it.
Quote from: armaghniac on November 27, 2020, 05:08:48 PM
Quote from: Hound on November 27, 2020, 03:16:38 PM
I'm hearing, from a usually very reliable source, that some NHS staff in the UK will start getting a vaccine by end of next week.
Can't say I understand it being available so fast, and I'm extremely sceptical, but throwing this up here anyway!
If it is approved then Pfizer has already been making it for a couple of months in anticipation of its being approved, so it will be ready to go.
Hospitals likely already have the storage requirements and the competence to deliver the vaccine. Approval will not be long delayed, Pfizer were already sharing the data with the regulators even before the public. And healthy health care staff who are in daily contact with people with the vaccine is a good place to continue testing it.
And it is the Pfizer one they're telling me. I slightly misunderstood the timing earlier. They're supposedly aiming for a start date of Monday week, 7 December. Carehomes first, then NHS staff.
Quote from: Hound on November 27, 2020, 03:16:38 PM
I'm hearing, from a usually very reliable source, that some NHS staff in the UK will start getting a vaccine by end of next week.
Can't say I understand it being available so fast, and I'm extremely sceptical, but throwing this up here anyway!
They said weeks ago that NHS would be getting it in December all being well with the trials, so sounds plausible what you are hearing.
I think if this process starts and begins to have any effect on the numbers, then people will see an end to the tunnel. This should make restrictions easier and hopefully people will turn on those that would keep us in a pandemic.
Quote from: armaghniac on November 27, 2020, 07:53:58 PM
I think if this process starts and begins to have any effect on the numbers, then people will see an end to the tunnel. This should make restrictions easier and hopefully people will turn on those that would keep us in a pandemic.
I'm hoping Seaney's mate gives it the go ahead.
:D ;D
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:22:49 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 27, 2020, 09:03:18 AM
Yeah I'll get it as soon as it is possible to do so, even if I have to pay. And yes I will be encouraging loved ones to do likewise.
Where you getting it Chief, you can't buy it!
A corrupt CEO from a big pharma company is going to sell it to me in return for not exposing him as a high ranking member of the Illuminati.
I have a chemical engineer mate who is going to tell when it's safe to take it as well.
Quote from: Chief on November 27, 2020, 09:13:56 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:22:49 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 27, 2020, 09:03:18 AM
Yeah I'll get it as soon as it is possible to do so, even if I have to pay. And yes I will be encouraging loved ones to do likewise.
Where you getting it Chief, you can't buy it!
A corrupt CEO from a big pharma company is going to sell it to me in return for not exposing him as a high ranking member of the Illuminati.
I have a chemical engineer mate who is going to tell when it's safe to take it as well.
I know a few experienced Chemical Engineers if we need a casting vote.
The Vaccine Safety Project
"Del Bigtree presents the facts about Vaccine Safety and Policy in America- giving you the facts you need to make the right choice for you or your child."
https://www.bitchute.com/video/31L6IlsOoIOc/ (https://www.bitchute.com/video/31L6IlsOoIOc/)
It's advisable for everyone to view the entire video but I fully understand with whom I'm dealing with here. For those with a small attention span skip ahead to about the 32.45 min mark and get proof of How Vaccines Are Approved which includes CDC video evidence at their ACIP hearing.
The vaccine looking for approval in this instance is the Dynavax Hepatitis B vaccine. Just to note, in clinical trials 14 healthy people got heart attacks. As Del says regarding the ACIP hearing "some great questions and terrible answers" It then went to vote. The outcome is shocking which was then followed by a couple of more questions.
In 1986 the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) act was introduced.
In 2018 VAERS received 62,803 reports with only 1% reporting including
533 Deaths,
1,438 Permanent Disabilities
5,108 Hospitalizations and
5,588 Emergency Room Visits
Image if 100% reported. He explains why there is not proper reporting in the video.
Anyone blindly accepting CDC and FDA recommendations on "COVID -19" vaccines and then having their kids vaccinated after watching this will need their heads examined.
The "experts" are already talking about the next certain pandemic. Easily known where that is going to come from and who is going to get the blame.
If you want to change your vote after watching this video please post here. If you continue blindly may God help you and especially your children.
"Facts" provided by Del Matthew Bigtree enough said ;D
Quote from: Seamus on November 29, 2020, 04:02:52 AM
The Vaccine Safety Project
"Del Bigtree presents the facts about Vaccine Safety and Policy in America- giving you the facts you need to make the right choice for you or your child."
https://www.bitchute.com/video/31L6IlsOoIOc/ (https://www.bitchute.com/video/31L6IlsOoIOc/)
It's advisable for everyone to view the entire video but I fully understand with whom I'm dealing with here. For those with a small attention span skip ahead to about the 32.45 min mark and get proof of How Vaccines Are Approved which includes CDC video evidence at their ACIP hearing.
The vaccine looking for approval in this instance is the Dynavax Hepatitis B vaccine. Just to note, in clinical trials 14 healthy people got heart attacks. As Del says regarding the ACIP hearing "some great questions and terrible answers" It then went to vote. The outcome is shocking which was then followed by a couple of more questions.
In 1986 the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) act was introduced.
In 2018 VAERS received 62,803 reports with only 1% reporting including
533 Deaths,
1,438 Permanent Disabilities
5,108 Hospitalizations and
5,588 Emergency Room Visits
Image if 100% reported. He explains why there is not proper reporting in the video.
Anyone blindly accepting CDC and FDA recommendations on "COVID -19" vaccines and then having their kids vaccinated after watching this will need their heads examined.
The "experts" are already talking about the next certain pandemic. Easily known where that is going to come from and who is going to get the blame.
If you want to change your vote after watching this video please post here. If you continue blindly may God help you and especially your children.
Why would you use Del Bigtree as a source given his record on the issue?
Quote from: LeoMc on November 27, 2020, 02:40:43 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:25:17 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 27, 2020, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
And those are the ones you should be taking it for. That is what herd immunity is about, eliminating the transmission paths to those who are vulnerable.
You on the other hand are not prepared to take a small risk for the greater good.
How do you know it is small, what statistical data are you using, the oxford one is under the spotlight, imagine the carnage if it is forced on poor residents in care homes and something goes astray a few months down the line - you prepared to accept that risk or are they collateral damage for the greater good, in which case why have they all been locked up all year.
So we are not to trust the MHRA and other global approval bodies. We keep everything locked down until there is more data? How much do you need, or rather how much more do you need than the MHRA, FDA, etc require?
Do you not understand the concept of long term side effects?
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 03:28:24 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
We have seen how the general public rank public health in terms of importance against their need to go shopping at Primark or go drinking in Temple Bar. The public can't or won't take the kind of precautions necessary to protect public health to allow us to live with Covid.
It is not about whether I can go to a football match nor is it about about individual risks versus individual benefits. Vaccination is about what works at population level for the greater good of public health, the health service and economy also. It's not self-righteous, it's common sense.
If it wasn't for the successive lockdowns, social distancing etc the NHS would be overrun. Despite best efforts, major unseen damage is actually being done to public health systems and the NHS by Covid. The longer this goes on the greater the risks to other areas of health at a population level, including cancer, mental health services or social care. The system doesn't have capacity to cope with increased incidence of mental illness, or of large numbers of delayed cancer diagnoses.
The vaccine will be most effective if it is taken on a widespread basis across the population. The benefits to public health of a vaccine are enormous and the risks are tiny.
The problem is that the success of the vaccine is undermined if large swathes of people choose not to take it due to some perceived risk to their own health. They might calculate that Covid will do them very little harm if they get it and that they would prefer to take the risk of catching Covid than taking the vaccine. The problem is however, that if this reservoir of people is big enough (because they believe everything they read online or hear from their esteemed Engineering PHd friend), it will mean that the disease will continue to thrive and mutate in the human population, ultimately undermining the effectiveness both the vaccine programme and the vaccine itself.
Covid really has brought out the worst in many people and a lot of what we see is pure selfishness and a large dollop of gullibility. I think if you surveyed the anti-vaxxers, the anti-maskers, the covid deniers and the covidiots you would find a lot of narcissism, selfishness and a fair few mental health issues also.
Its amazing how society has changed with those hiding behind a keyboard, nowadays if one doesn't agree with the narrative they are berated, dehumanised, accused is self arrogance, selfishness etc. and that is accepted by the self righteous. Back in the day if this was being debated in a pub I seriously doubt you would question the mental health of anyone with a cautious approach to a expediently created vaccine, but whatever rocks your boat.
Quote from: Seaney on November 29, 2020, 11:19:41 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 27, 2020, 02:40:43 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:25:17 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 27, 2020, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
And those are the ones you should be taking it for. That is what herd immunity is about, eliminating the transmission paths to those who are vulnerable.
You on the other hand are not prepared to take a small risk for the greater good.
How do you know it is small, what statistical data are you using, the oxford one is under the spotlight, imagine the carnage if it is forced on poor residents in care homes and something goes astray a few months down the line - you prepared to accept that risk or are they collateral damage for the greater good, in which case why have they all been locked up all year.
So we are not to trust the MHRA and other global approval bodies. We keep everything locked down until there is more data? How much do you need, or rather how much more do you need than the MHRA, FDA, etc require?
Do you not understand the concept of long term side effects?
How many vaccines have serious adverse effects? Vaccines have been on the go for >200 years. Do you hanker for the good old days of polio, small pox and rubella?
Quote from: Seaney on November 29, 2020, 11:43:59 AM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 03:28:24 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
We have seen how the general public rank public health in terms of importance against their need to go shopping at Primark or go drinking in Temple Bar. The public can't or won't take the kind of precautions necessary to protect public health to allow us to live with Covid.
It is not about whether I can go to a football match nor is it about about individual risks versus individual benefits. Vaccination is about what works at population level for the greater good of public health, the health service and economy also. It's not self-righteous, it's common sense.
If it wasn't for the successive lockdowns, social distancing etc the NHS would be overrun. Despite best efforts, major unseen damage is actually being done to public health systems and the NHS by Covid. The longer this goes on the greater the risks to other areas of health at a population level, including cancer, mental health services or social care. The system doesn't have capacity to cope with increased incidence of mental illness, or of large numbers of delayed cancer diagnoses.
The vaccine will be most effective if it is taken on a widespread basis across the population. The benefits to public health of a vaccine are enormous and the risks are tiny.
The problem is that the success of the vaccine is undermined if large swathes of people choose not to take it due to some perceived risk to their own health. They might calculate that Covid will do them very little harm if they get it and that they would prefer to take the risk of catching Covid than taking the vaccine. The problem is however, that if this reservoir of people is big enough (because they believe everything they read online or hear from their esteemed Engineering PHd friend), it will mean that the disease will continue to thrive and mutate in the human population, ultimately undermining the effectiveness both the vaccine programme and the vaccine itself.
Covid really has brought out the worst in many people and a lot of what we see is pure selfishness and a large dollop of gullibility. I think if you surveyed the anti-vaxxers, the anti-maskers, the covid deniers and the covidiots you would find a lot of narcissism, selfishness and a fair few mental health issues also.
Its amazing how society has changed with those hiding behind a keyboard, nowadays if one doesn't agree with the narrative they are berated, dehumanised, accused is self arrogance, selfishness etc. and that is accepted by the self righteous. Back in the day if this was being debated in a pub I seriously doubt you would question the mental health of anyone with a cautious approach to a expediently created vaccine, but whatever rocks your boat.
Back in the day before the Internet, clowns like you would only have the pub to debate in and the rest of the sane world would put their faith in people who have spent their life gaining the qualifications and experience to make decisions on medicine, epidemiology, the economy and a million other subjects you haven't a clue about.
There's a poll in the Daily Mail today that says 70% of people surveyed would take the vaccine if it was available.
What they also found was that levels of education affected peoples decision. People with college degrees had the highest level of yes votes and people who didn't complete the leaving cert had the highest number of no votes for the vaccine.
Sinn Fein's support is the most anti-vaccine - a new poll shows only 55% of SF supporters would take a Covid vaccine
That compares to 91% of Green Party supporters, 89% of Labour supporters, 83% of Fianna Fail supporters
Even the flat earthers of Aontu on 64% were ahead
I found that quite interesting
Sinn Fein really do have a large subset of supporters with very strange views
Quote from: sid waddell on November 29, 2020, 01:40:54 PM
Sinn Fein's support is the most anti-vaccine - a new poll shows only 55% of SF supporters would take a Covid vaccine
That compares to 91% of Green Party supporters, 89% of Labour supporters, 83% of Fianna Fail supporters
Even the flat earthers of Aontu on 64% were ahead
I found that quite interesting
Sinn Fein really do have a large subset of supporters with very strange views
Hardly surprising. We can see the pro-vaccers on here have an awful lot in common with fascists.
People are entitled to have concerns over the vaccine and big pharma in general.
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 02:05:14 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on November 29, 2020, 01:40:54 PM
Sinn Fein's support is the most anti-vaccine - a new poll shows only 55% of SF supporters would take a Covid vaccine
That compares to 91% of Green Party supporters, 89% of Labour supporters, 83% of Fianna Fail supporters
Even the flat earthers of Aontu on 64% were ahead
I found that quite interesting
Sinn Fein really do have a large subset of supporters with very strange views
Hardly surprising. We can see the pro-vaccers on here have an awful lot in common with fascists.
People are entitled to have concerns over the vaccine and big pharma in general.
;D
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Would you get a tetanus shot Angelo if a doctor told you that you needed one?
Before you suggest you don't intend to get bitten by an animal or getting your skin cut in an accident these are not events you can guarantee won't happen
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
So you're just going to remove the fact that an approved vaccine paralysed people for life?
Of course vaccines can help but they can also cause serious consequences, what is disappointing is that we have a group of vaccine fascists on here who are very dogmatic with people who are quite right to have concerns about the vaccines introduced here.
Quote from: dublin7 on November 29, 2020, 03:43:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Would you get a tetanus shot Angelo if a doctor told you that you needed one?
Before you suggest you don't intend to get bitten by an animal or getting your skin cut in an accident these are not events you can guarantee won't happen
I'm not anti-vaccine.
I just happen to have concerns about the speed about Covid vaccines and how quickly they have been brought to market. They should be natural concerns for any sound-thinking individual.
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
So you're just going to remove the fact that an approved vaccine paralysed people for life?
Of course vaccines can help but they can also cause serious consequences, what is disappointing is that we have a group of vaccine fascists on here who are very dogmatic with people who are quite right to have concerns about the vaccines introduced here.
Discount? No
Put them in the larger context of the thousands of lives that have been saved? Yes.
Listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about in relation to these things? Yes
Berate people who are not experts but contradict qualified experts? Yes - their opinions deserve it
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
There were 350000 polio cases in 1988. There are approx 50 per year nowadays.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 29, 2020, 04:05:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
There were 350000 polio cases in 1988. There are approx 50 per year nowadays.
Don't try to bamboozle some of the covidiots on here with facts.
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
So you're just going to remove the fact that an approved vaccine paralysed people for life?
Of course vaccines can help but they can also cause serious consequences, what is disappointing is that we have a group of vaccine fascists on here who are very dogmatic with people who are quite right to have concerns about the vaccines introduced here.
Discount? No
Put them in the larger context of the thousands of lives that have been saved? Yes.
Listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about in relation to these things? Yes
Berate people who are not experts but contradict qualified experts? Yes - their opinions deserve it
You're a prime example of the type of people I'm on about and you're making contradictory points.
I'm not criticising or telling anyone what to do. I am having to defend my own views and my right to make a choice on my health from fascists like you who are clearly very dogmatic against those who disagree with you.
The experts can't even find agreement with yourself so maybe you should be a bit more tolerant to the views of others and stop trying to force your ideology on others.
This is where Angelo sets out his master plan together with analysis of intended and unintended consequences.
If he has specific concerns on this virus what are they and what would make them go away?
What measures should society take in the interim?
What will the impact on the economy be?
What level of economic damage would be an acceptable price for that?
What would be the acceptable level of Covid deaths whilst the reassurance comes?
Before Angelo says he has answered this already he should probably reread this and related threads.
Before Angelo labels anyone a nazi he should reflect that asking questions does not a nazi make
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 04:21:21 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
So you're just going to remove the fact that an approved vaccine paralysed people for life?
Of course vaccines can help but they can also cause serious consequences, what is disappointing is that we have a group of vaccine fascists on here who are very dogmatic with people who are quite right to have concerns about the vaccines introduced here.
Discount? No
Put them in the larger context of the thousands of lives that have been saved? Yes.
Listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about in relation to these things? Yes
Berate people who are not experts but contradict qualified experts? Yes - their opinions deserve it
You're a prime example of the type of people I'm on about and you're making contradictory points.
I'm not criticising or telling anyone what to do. I am having to defend my own views and my right to make a choice on my health from fascists like you who are clearly very dogmatic against those who disagree with you.
The experts can't even find agreement with yourself so maybe you should be a bit more tolerant to the views of others and stop trying to force your ideology on others.
Yes they can, they have found 3 vaccines.
It also appears you don't understand the different between nuance & balance, and contradiction. There is zero contradiction between having sympathy with those who suffered adverse reactions to vaccines yet also allowing your arguments to have the nuance and balance of accepting that by preventing hundreds of thousands of deaths that vaccines are far and away a force for good.
You can do what you like regards a vaccine, that's your own business. But if you come on here and post your views you can fully expect them to be ridiculed - as they deserve to be.
You should also learn the difference between fascism/nazism and groups of people, often large groups of people, laughing at you for having idiotic opinions on a matter you gave no demonstrable knowledge in.
Quote from: smelmoth on November 29, 2020, 04:27:40 PM
This is where Angelo sets out his master plan together with analysis of intended and unintended consequences.
If he has specific concerns on this virus what are they and what would make them go away?
What measures should society take in the interim?
What will the impact on the economy be?
What level of economic damage would be an acceptable price for that?
What would be the acceptable level of Covid deaths whilst the reassurance comes?
Before Angelo says he has answered this already he should probably reread this and related threads.
Before Angelo labels anyone a nazi he should reflect that asking questions does not a nazi make
I have answered these questions already.
There's a difference between asking questions and making allegations and insults toward people because they are quite rightly sceptical toward the vaccine.
Maybe you should practice what you preach and be a little more tolerant to others views and rather than question them. Maybe you should be less dogmatic of others and actually question yourself a little more but I suppose that's not how fascism works and therein lies the answer.
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:48:51 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on November 29, 2020, 03:43:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Would you get a tetanus shot Angelo if a doctor told you that you needed one?
Before you suggest you don't intend to get bitten by an animal or getting your skin cut in an accident these are not events you can guarantee won't happen
I'm not anti-vaccine.
I just happen to have concerns about the speed about Covid vaccines and how quickly they have been brought to market. They should be natural concerns for any sound-thinking individual.
How long do you think it will be before you will be comfortable with a vaccine approved in 2020/2021 and rolled out in 2021?
Quote from: sid waddell on November 29, 2020, 01:40:54 PM
Sinn Fein's support is the most anti-vaccine - a new poll shows only 55% of SF supporters would take a Covid vaccine
That compares to 91% of Green Party supporters, 89% of Labour supporters, 83% of Fianna Fail supporters
Even the flat earthers of Aontu on 64% were ahead
I found that quite interesting
Sinn Fein really do have a large subset of supporters with very strange views
Big opportunity for leadership for Mary Lou here
Quote from: dublin7 on November 29, 2020, 03:43:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Would you get a tetanus shot Angelo if a doctor told you that you needed one?
Before you suggest you don't intend to get bitten by an animal or getting your skin cut in an accident these are not events you can guarantee won't happen
I would guess if he needed a tetanus jab that Angelo would only take one if the Doc could get a Jab from the pre 1940 stock. Any of the ones done since might be better but wouldn't have 80 years analysis of long term side effects
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 04:53:02 PM
Quote from: smelmoth on November 29, 2020, 04:27:40 PM
This is where Angelo sets out his master plan together with analysis of intended and unintended consequences.
If he has specific concerns on this virus what are they and what would make them go away?
What measures should society take in the interim?
What will the impact on the economy be?
What level of economic damage would be an acceptable price for that?
What would be the acceptable level of Covid deaths whilst the reassurance comes?
Before Angelo says he has answered this already he should probably reread this and related threads.
Before Angelo labels anyone a nazi he should reflect that asking questions does not a nazi make
I have answered these questions already.
There's a difference between asking questions and making allegations and insults toward people because they are quite rightly sceptical toward the vaccine.
Maybe you should practice what you preach and be a little more tolerant to others views and rather than question them. Maybe you should be less dogmatic of others and actually question yourself a little more but I suppose that's not how fascism works and therein lies the answer.
Classic Angelo there. Pretend to have answered the questions already and get a nazi reference in even though he was warned on both beforehand.
I bet if he was asked to produce the quotes of him having answered the questions he could do it. He hasn't answered the questions. The quotes don't exist.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 29, 2020, 11:54:49 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 29, 2020, 11:19:41 AM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 27, 2020, 02:40:43 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:25:17 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on November 27, 2020, 01:22:35 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
And those are the ones you should be taking it for. That is what herd immunity is about, eliminating the transmission paths to those who are vulnerable.
You on the other hand are not prepared to take a small risk for the greater good.
How do you know it is small, what statistical data are you using, the oxford one is under the spotlight, imagine the carnage if it is forced on poor residents in care homes and something goes astray a few months down the line - you prepared to accept that risk or are they collateral damage for the greater good, in which case why have they all been locked up all year.
So we are not to trust the MHRA and other global approval bodies. We keep everything locked down until there is more data? How much do you need, or rather how much more do you need than the MHRA, FDA, etc require?
Do you not understand the concept of long term side effects?
How many vaccines have serious adverse effects? Vaccines have been on the go for >200 years. Do you hanker for the good old days of polio, small pox and rubella?
How many were developed for mass human vaccination in 10 months, if you supply a list that would be helpful ta.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 29, 2020, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 29, 2020, 11:43:59 AM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 03:28:24 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
We have seen how the general public rank public health in terms of importance against their need to go shopping at Primark or go drinking in Temple Bar. The public can't or won't take the kind of precautions necessary to protect public health to allow us to live with Covid.
It is not about whether I can go to a football match nor is it about about individual risks versus individual benefits. Vaccination is about what works at population level for the greater good of public health, the health service and economy also. It's not self-righteous, it's common sense.
If it wasn't for the successive lockdowns, social distancing etc the NHS would be overrun. Despite best efforts, major unseen damage is actually being done to public health systems and the NHS by Covid. The longer this goes on the greater the risks to other areas of health at a population level, including cancer, mental health services or social care. The system doesn't have capacity to cope with increased incidence of mental illness, or of large numbers of delayed cancer diagnoses.
The vaccine will be most effective if it is taken on a widespread basis across the population. The benefits to public health of a vaccine are enormous and the risks are tiny.
The problem is that the success of the vaccine is undermined if large swathes of people choose not to take it due to some perceived risk to their own health. They might calculate that Covid will do them very little harm if they get it and that they would prefer to take the risk of catching Covid than taking the vaccine. The problem is however, that if this reservoir of people is big enough (because they believe everything they read online or hear from their esteemed Engineering PHd friend), it will mean that the disease will continue to thrive and mutate in the human population, ultimately undermining the effectiveness both the vaccine programme and the vaccine itself.
Covid really has brought out the worst in many people and a lot of what we see is pure selfishness and a large dollop of gullibility. I think if you surveyed the anti-vaxxers, the anti-maskers, the covid deniers and the covidiots you would find a lot of narcissism, selfishness and a fair few mental health issues also.
Its amazing how society has changed with those hiding behind a keyboard, nowadays if one doesn't agree with the narrative they are berated, dehumanised, accused is self arrogance, selfishness etc. and that is accepted by the self righteous. Back in the day if this was being debated in a pub I seriously doubt you would question the mental health of anyone with a cautious approach to a expediently created vaccine, but whatever rocks your boat.
Back in the day before the Internet, clowns like you would only have the pub to debate in and the rest of the sane world would put their faith in people who have spent their life gaining the qualifications and experience to make decisions on medicine, epidemiology, the economy and a million other subjects you haven't a clue about.
I just read clown and ignored the rest, bet you are the guy who wins the argument by shouting and screaming the loudest.
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
So you're just going to remove the fact that an approved vaccine paralysed people for life?
Of course vaccines can help but they can also cause serious consequences, what is disappointing is that we have a group of vaccine fascists on here who are very dogmatic with people who are quite right to have concerns about the vaccines introduced here.
Discount? No
Put them in the larger context of the thousands of lives that have been saved? Yes.
Listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about in relation to these things? Yes
Berate people who are not experts but contradict qualified experts? Yes - their opinions deserve it
Are these the experts who's predictions to date and who's rules to date have been well, bollock.
Quote from: Seaney on November 29, 2020, 07:04:18 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
So you're just going to remove the fact that an approved vaccine paralysed people for life?
Of course vaccines can help but they can also cause serious consequences, what is disappointing is that we have a group of vaccine fascists on here who are very dogmatic with people who are quite right to have concerns about the vaccines introduced here.
Discount? No
Put them in the larger context of the thousands of lives that have been saved? Yes.
Listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about in relation to these things? Yes
Berate people who are not experts but contradict qualified experts? Yes - their opinions deserve it
Are these the experts who's predictions to date and who's rules to date have been well, bollock.
No.
Thee vaccination experts neither made the lockdown rules nor made predictions about the potency of the virus. The former was politicians, the latter a mixture of epidemiologists and behavioural scientists for the most part.
The vaccinations experts are the same genre who have rid the world of several lethal diseases over the course of the last century or so, and helped vastly reduce the effects of many others.
I'm not surprised you hadn't clocked the difference. Your chemical engineer mate will probably be able to explain it to you though.
Quote from: Seaney on November 29, 2020, 07:04:18 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
So you're just going to remove the fact that an approved vaccine paralysed people for life?
Of course vaccines can help but they can also cause serious consequences, what is disappointing is that we have a group of vaccine fascists on here who are very dogmatic with people who are quite right to have concerns about the vaccines introduced here.
Discount? No
Put them in the larger context of the thousands of lives that have been saved? Yes.
Listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about in relation to these things? Yes
Berate people who are not experts but contradict qualified experts? Yes - their opinions deserve it
Are these the experts who's predictions to date and who's rules to date have been well, bollock.
Struggling to remember a more inane post on any thread, ever.
Utterly embarrassing.
Of the 70% or so of yes voters how many of ye are for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination?
How many would agree that children 11 years old and upwards can consent to all vaccinations without their parents knowledge?
"The District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a vaccine. The "Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019," states, "this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established."
According to The Vaccine Reaction, "The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents' knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated."
The report clarifies, "If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents' back."
The crimes against humanity continues.
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 05:13:39 AM
Of the 70% or so of yes voters how many of ye are for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination?
How many would agree that children 11 years old and upwards can consent to all vaccinations without their parents knowledge?
"The District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a vaccine. The "Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019," states, "this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established."
According to The Vaccine Reaction, "The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents' knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated."
The report clarifies, "If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents' back."
The crimes against humanity journalism continues.
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 07:51:09 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 29, 2020, 07:04:18 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
So you're just going to remove the fact that an approved vaccine paralysed people for life?
Of course vaccines can help but they can also cause serious consequences, what is disappointing is that we have a group of vaccine fascists on here who are very dogmatic with people who are quite right to have concerns about the vaccines introduced here.
Discount? No
Put them in the larger context of the thousands of lives that have been saved? Yes.
Listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about in relation to these things? Yes
Berate people who are not experts but contradict qualified experts? Yes - their opinions deserve it
Are these the experts who's predictions to date and who's rules to date have been well, bollock.
No.
Thee vaccination experts neither made the lockdown rules nor made predictions about the potency of the virus. The former was politicians, the latter a mixture of epidemiologists and behavioural scientists for the most part.
The vaccinations experts are the same genre who have rid the world of several lethal diseases over the course of the last century or so, and helped vastly reduce the effects of many others.
I'm not surprised you hadn't clocked the difference. Your chemical engineer mate will probably be able to explain it to you though.
Once the vaccine is widely available it's important that there's a good take up so we can end the lockdowns. I wouldn't make the vaccine compulsory but it should be linked to accessing large crowds like sporting events, concerts and going through airports. That way we can eradicate the virus from society.
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 07:51:09 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 29, 2020, 07:04:18 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
So you're just going to remove the fact that an approved vaccine paralysed people for life?
Of course vaccines can help but they can also cause serious consequences, what is disappointing is that we have a group of vaccine fascists on here who are very dogmatic with people who are quite right to have concerns about the vaccines introduced here.
Discount? No
Put them in the larger context of the thousands of lives that have been saved? Yes.
Listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about in relation to these things? Yes
Berate people who are not experts but contradict qualified experts? Yes - their opinions deserve it
Are these the experts who's predictions to date and who's rules to date have been well, bollock.
No.
Thee vaccination experts neither made the lockdown rules nor made predictions about the potency of the virus. The former was politicians, the latter a mixture of epidemiologists and behavioural scientists for the most part.
The vaccinations experts are the same genre who have rid the world of several lethal diseases over the course of the last century or so, and helped vastly reduce the effects of many others.
I'm not surprised you hadn't clocked the difference. Your chemical engineer mate will probably be able to explain it to you though.
Again how many of the vaccinations experts have produced a mass rollout vaccination in 10 months, as I asked the other guy post a list can you ta.
Quote from: LCohen on November 29, 2020, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 29, 2020, 07:04:18 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
So you're just going to remove the fact that an approved vaccine paralysed people for life?
Of course vaccines can help but they can also cause serious consequences, what is disappointing is that we have a group of vaccine fascists on here who are very dogmatic with people who are quite right to have concerns about the vaccines introduced here.
Discount? No
Put them in the larger context of the thousands of lives that have been saved? Yes.
Listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about in relation to these things? Yes
Berate people who are not experts but contradict qualified experts? Yes - their opinions deserve it
Are these the experts who's predictions to date and who's rules to date have been well, bollock.
Struggling to remember a more inane post on any thread, ever.
Utterly embarrassing.
You are some saviour of humanity, another nobody on an anonymous platform who thinks they have an opinion that matters.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 29, 2020, 11:58:09 AM
Quote from: Seaney on November 29, 2020, 11:43:59 AM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 03:28:24 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 27, 2020, 01:19:37 PM
Quote from: APM on November 27, 2020, 11:37:57 AM
But if you were 85 years of age, in good health and were sick of living in isolation, you might look at it very differently and see it as a minor risk worth taking. The problem is that it is not just about individual health; it is about public health and as far as I can see, the kind of people that are opposed to vaccinations, do not understand or support public health. Moreover, they just don't care.
The way I see it, taking the vaccine is a minor risk for the benefit of public health. There is a big picture: on balance of risk, what is the greater threat to worldwide health systems and the economy - vaccination or uncontrolled spread of Covid 19. Clearly the latter.
That's some self righteous shite right there, so folk should accept health risks taking a vaccine so you can get to a football match or a concert, the NHS appear to be coping ok, who aren't coping are the cancer patients, those in isolation, the abused, the mental well being of everyone.
We have seen how the general public rank public health in terms of importance against their need to go shopping at Primark or go drinking in Temple Bar. The public can't or won't take the kind of precautions necessary to protect public health to allow us to live with Covid.
It is not about whether I can go to a football match nor is it about about individual risks versus individual benefits. Vaccination is about what works at population level for the greater good of public health, the health service and economy also. It's not self-righteous, it's common sense.
If it wasn't for the successive lockdowns, social distancing etc the NHS would be overrun. Despite best efforts, major unseen damage is actually being done to public health systems and the NHS by Covid. The longer this goes on the greater the risks to other areas of health at a population level, including cancer, mental health services or social care. The system doesn't have capacity to cope with increased incidence of mental illness, or of large numbers of delayed cancer diagnoses.
The vaccine will be most effective if it is taken on a widespread basis across the population. The benefits to public health of a vaccine are enormous and the risks are tiny.
The problem is that the success of the vaccine is undermined if large swathes of people choose not to take it due to some perceived risk to their own health. They might calculate that Covid will do them very little harm if they get it and that they would prefer to take the risk of catching Covid than taking the vaccine. The problem is however, that if this reservoir of people is big enough (because they believe everything they read online or hear from their esteemed Engineering PHd friend), it will mean that the disease will continue to thrive and mutate in the human population, ultimately undermining the effectiveness both the vaccine programme and the vaccine itself.
Covid really has brought out the worst in many people and a lot of what we see is pure selfishness and a large dollop of gullibility. I think if you surveyed the anti-vaxxers, the anti-maskers, the covid deniers and the covidiots you would find a lot of narcissism, selfishness and a fair few mental health issues also.
Its amazing how society has changed with those hiding behind a keyboard, nowadays if one doesn't agree with the narrative they are berated, dehumanised, accused is self arrogance, selfishness etc. and that is accepted by the self righteous. Back in the day if this was being debated in a pub I seriously doubt you would question the mental health of anyone with a cautious approach to a expediently created vaccine, but whatever rocks your boat.
Back in the day before the Internet, clowns like you would only have the pub to debate in and the rest of the sane world would put their faith in people who have spent their life gaining the qualifications and experience to make decisions on medicine, epidemiology, the economy and a million other subjects you haven't a clue about.
Agreed Tony and back in the day you would have been told that you're away in the head if you started with this kind of nonsense in the pub. Your approach is more than just cautious by the way.
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:09:58 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 07:51:09 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 29, 2020, 07:04:18 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
So you're just going to remove the fact that an approved vaccine paralysed people for life?
Of course vaccines can help but they can also cause serious consequences, what is disappointing is that we have a group of vaccine fascists on here who are very dogmatic with people who are quite right to have concerns about the vaccines introduced here.
Discount? No
Put them in the larger context of the thousands of lives that have been saved? Yes.
Listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about in relation to these things? Yes
Berate people who are not experts but contradict qualified experts? Yes - their opinions deserve it
Are these the experts who's predictions to date and who's rules to date have been well, bollock.
No.
Thee vaccination experts neither made the lockdown rules nor made predictions about the potency of the virus. The former was politicians, the latter a mixture of epidemiologists and behavioural scientists for the most part.
The vaccinations experts are the same genre who have rid the world of several lethal diseases over the course of the last century or so, and helped vastly reduce the effects of many others.
I'm not surprised you hadn't clocked the difference. Your chemical engineer mate will probably be able to explain it to you though.
Again how many of the vaccinations experts have produced a mass rollout vaccination in 10 months, as I asked the other guy post a list can you ta.
So you concede vaccination experts haven't been talking "bollock" then? That's a start at least.
What is your obsession with the time frame? 10 months is acceptable if the testing is done over tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people in different countries, by different firms, across different demographics, with unlimited budget and when results are being published, peer reviewed, and run through several national approval processes.
We can't wait for decades to see "long term" issues as half of us will be dead by then - if not by Covid but by the passage of time. That surely is obvious...
"I wouldn't put that stuff into my body", says Seanie McShoutface, on his 10th pint
Quote from: JoG2 on November 30, 2020, 06:51:05 AM
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 05:13:39 AM
Of the 70% or so of yes voters how many of ye are for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination?
How many would agree that children 11 years old and upwards can consent to all vaccinations without their parents knowledge?
"The District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a vaccine. The "Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019," states, "this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established."
According to The Vaccine Reaction, "The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents' knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated."
The report clarifies, "If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents' back."
The crimes against humanity journalism continues.
How about answering the two questions. What has journalism got to do with a draconian Bill?
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 12:29:56 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on November 30, 2020, 06:51:05 AM
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 05:13:39 AM
Of the 70% or so of yes voters how many of ye are for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination?
How many would agree that children 11 years old and upwards can consent to all vaccinations without their parents knowledge?
"The District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a vaccine. The "Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019," states, "this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established."
According to The Vaccine Reaction, "The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents' knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated."
The report clarifies, "If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents' back."
The crimes against humanity journalism continues.
How about answering the two questions. What has journalism got to do with a draconian Bill?
Had a look at the source ie The Vaccine Reaction, that was enough for me
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 05:13:39 AM
Of the 70% or so of yes voters how many of ye are for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination?
How many would agree that children 11 years old and upwards can consent to all vaccinations without their parents knowledge?
"The District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a vaccine. The "Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019," states, "this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established."
According to The Vaccine Reaction, "The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents' knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated."
The report clarifies, "If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents' back."
The crimes against humanity continues.
What is the source for this story? Is it true?
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:09:58 AM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 07:51:09 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 29, 2020, 07:04:18 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
So you're just going to remove the fact that an approved vaccine paralysed people for life?
Of course vaccines can help but they can also cause serious consequences, what is disappointing is that we have a group of vaccine fascists on here who are very dogmatic with people who are quite right to have concerns about the vaccines introduced here.
Discount? No
Put them in the larger context of the thousands of lives that have been saved? Yes.
Listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about in relation to these things? Yes
Berate people who are not experts but contradict qualified experts? Yes - their opinions deserve it
Are these the experts who's predictions to date and who's rules to date have been well, bollock.
No.
Thee vaccination experts neither made the lockdown rules nor made predictions about the potency of the virus. The former was politicians, the latter a mixture of epidemiologists and behavioural scientists for the most part.
The vaccinations experts are the same genre who have rid the world of several lethal diseases over the course of the last century or so, and helped vastly reduce the effects of many others.
I'm not surprised you hadn't clocked the difference. Your chemical engineer mate will probably be able to explain it to you though.
Again how many of the vaccinations experts have produced a mass rollout vaccination in 10 months, as I asked the other guy post a list can you ta.
What is your issue with time?
Surely the important issues that all the required steps are taken not the length of time it takes?
As has been pointed out several times it's an issue of resources. If you have 100 times the resource and take 100th of the time then surely that would be about right?
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:12:12 AM
Quote from: LCohen on November 29, 2020, 08:57:36 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 29, 2020, 07:04:18 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:50:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:47:07 PM
Quote from: Chief on November 29, 2020, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
Did you hear about or remember about all the people Polio killed before a vaccine stopped that?
I really pity the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question or debate on here:
- The effectiveness of vaccines in improving mortality rates in the vast majority of cases
- The primacy of scientific process over amateurs with egos
So you're just going to remove the fact that an approved vaccine paralysed people for life?
Of course vaccines can help but they can also cause serious consequences, what is disappointing is that we have a group of vaccine fascists on here who are very dogmatic with people who are quite right to have concerns about the vaccines introduced here.
Discount? No
Put them in the larger context of the thousands of lives that have been saved? Yes.
Listen to the people who actually know what they are talking about in relation to these things? Yes
Berate people who are not experts but contradict qualified experts? Yes - their opinions deserve it
Are these the experts who's predictions to date and who's rules to date have been well, bollock.
Struggling to remember a more inane post on any thread, ever.
Utterly embarrassing.
You are some saviour of humanity, another nobody on an anonymous platform who thinks they have an opinion that matters.
I merely pointed out that your point that seemed to hinge on a link between the experts developing the vaccines and the experts conducting modelling or advising government policy was inane. I think if asked humanity could stand over my point
I found the Red C poll at the weekend interesting. It was also interesting to see who would take the vaccine and their party support.
https://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Business-Post-RED-C-Opinion-Poll-Report-Nov-2020.pdf (https://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Business-Post-RED-C-Opinion-Poll-Report-Nov-2020.pdf)
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
I found the Red C poll at the weekend interesting. It was also interesting to see who would take the vaccine and their party support.
https://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Business-Post-RED-C-Opinion-Poll-Report-Nov-2020.pdf (https://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Business-Post-RED-C-Opinion-Poll-Report-Nov-2020.pdf)
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
Totally agree with this. No one should be made to take the vaccine but your interactions with other people should then be limited. It's like smoking, you can still smoke but don't do it where you can cause harm to others.
In-laws going on holiday next week, must have a negative test certificate to get in.
It's currently happening anyways and no one is complaining.
Why would a country jeopardise an outbreak when a simple test (In this case) or a vaccine going forward would prevent further cases or possible deaths ?
Moderna vaccine now 100% at preventing severe Covid cases and 94% at preventing the disease more broadly!
GET IT IN MY VEINS ASAP!!!
Quote from: lenny on November 30, 2020, 05:21:12 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
I found the Red C poll at the weekend interesting. It was also interesting to see who would take the vaccine and their party support.
https://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Business-Post-RED-C-Opinion-Poll-Report-Nov-2020.pdf (https://redcresearch.ie/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Business-Post-RED-C-Opinion-Poll-Report-Nov-2020.pdf)
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
Totally agree with this. No one should be made to take the vaccine but your interactions with other people should then be limited. It's like smoking, you can still smoke but don't do it where you can cause harm to others.
No, this suggestion is far more wideranging than a ban on smoking. It would be like saying that smokers shouldn't be allowed freely mix with other people.
Wouldn't be too many complaining about that one!
Does anyone miss a smoker blowing that shit in your space?
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
Can't drive a car without a licence. You can't travel to lots of countries without the necessary vaccinations. There's loads of precedent for this.
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
I presume you'll need to be vaccinated to post on GAAboard.
Would get rid of a few nuisances ;D
Just wondering, if you are Vaccinated, can you get infected with the virus from someone who is not vaccinated?
Asking for a friend. ;)
Quote from: Rossfan on November 30, 2020, 06:28:34 PM
I presume you'll need to be vaccinated to post on GAAboard.
Would get rid of a few nuisances ;D
Best idea I've seen on here in a good while.
stay away from the shinners according to red c poll ;D
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 30, 2020, 06:37:14 PM
Just wondering, if you are Vaccinated, can you get infected with the virus from someone who is not vaccinated?
Asking for a friend. ;)
No one knows, literally no one.
Quote from: Rossfan on November 30, 2020, 06:28:34 PM
I presume you'll need to be vaccinated to post on GAAboard.
Would get rid of a few nuisances ;D
Milhouse be gone for a start.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on November 30, 2020, 05:46:46 PM
Wouldn't be too many complaining about that one!
Does anyone miss a smoker blowing that shit in your space?
What were you smoking, or was that just you talking diarrhoea.
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 30, 2020, 06:37:14 PM
Just wondering, if you are Vaccinated, can you get infected with the virus from someone who is not vaccinated?
Asking for a friend. ;)
No, you wouldn't be able to be infected. Unknown how long that may last for though
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
Quote from: macdanger2 on November 30, 2020, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 30, 2020, 06:37:14 PM
Just wondering, if you are Vaccinated, can you get infected with the virus from someone who is not vaccinated?
Asking for a friend. ;)
No, you wouldn't be able to be infected. Unknown how long that may last for though
So for those who want to take the Vaccine that's the bizz, they won't have to depend on the people who don't take one!
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 30, 2020, 10:37:55 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on November 30, 2020, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 30, 2020, 06:37:14 PM
Just wondering, if you are Vaccinated, can you get infected with the virus from someone who is not vaccinated?
Asking for a friend. ;)
No, you wouldn't be able to be infected. Unknown how long that may last for though
So for those who want to take the Vaccine that's the bizz, they won't have to depend on the people who don't take one!
Not great though for people who may not be able to take a vaccine but are vulnerable (e.g. Cystic fibrosis) - they will rely on everyone else to take it to protect them
Quote from: macdanger2 on November 30, 2020, 10:52:54 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 30, 2020, 10:37:55 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on November 30, 2020, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 30, 2020, 06:37:14 PM
Just wondering, if you are Vaccinated, can you get infected with the virus from someone who is not vaccinated?
Asking for a friend. ;)
No, you wouldn't be able to be infected. Unknown how long that may last for though
So for those who want to take the Vaccine that's the bizz, they won't have to depend on the people who don't take one!
Not great though for people who may not be able to take a vaccine but are vulnerable (e.g. Cystic fibrosis) - they will rely on everyone else to take it to protect them
There are some people here who do not give a damn about them.
If you watched the famine programme on RTÉ tonight, they quoted a 19th century guy whose views reflected British government policy, "no man is responsible for anyone else".
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 11:20:54 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on November 30, 2020, 10:52:54 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 30, 2020, 10:37:55 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on November 30, 2020, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 30, 2020, 06:37:14 PM
Just wondering, if you are Vaccinated, can you get infected with the virus from someone who is not vaccinated?
Asking for a friend. ;)
No, you wouldn't be able to be infected. Unknown how long that may last for though
So for those who want to take the Vaccine that's the bizz, they won't have to depend on the people who don't take one!
Not great though for people who may not be able to take a vaccine but are vulnerable (e.g. Cystic fibrosis) - they will rely on everyone else to take it to protect them
There are some people here who do not give a damn about them.
If you watched the famine programme on RTÉ tonight, they quoted a 19th century guy whose views reflected British government policy, "no man is responsible for anyone else".
Problem is if your sense of responsibility is detrimental to your own well being.
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 30, 2020, 11:37:27 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 11:20:54 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on November 30, 2020, 10:52:54 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 30, 2020, 10:37:55 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on November 30, 2020, 10:05:57 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on November 30, 2020, 06:37:14 PM
Just wondering, if you are Vaccinated, can you get infected with the virus from someone who is not vaccinated?
Asking for a friend. ;)
No, you wouldn't be able to be infected. Unknown how long that may last for though
So for those who want to take the Vaccine that's the bizz, they won't have to depend on the people who don't take one!
Not great though for people who may not be able to take a vaccine but are vulnerable (e.g. Cystic fibrosis) - they will rely on everyone else to take it to protect them
There are some people here who do not give a damn about them.
If you watched the famine programme on RTÉ tonight, they quoted a 19th century guy whose views reflected British government policy, "no man is responsible for anyone else".
Problem is if your sense of responsibility is detrimental to your own well being.
It always is, responsibility always takes some time, some money etc. I pay taxes towards drug addicts although I am not a drug addict.
The risk of vaccines is small and previous examples not necessarily helpful as medical science has learned from these cases and made things safer as a result. It is right and proper for people to demand proper testing and proper provision of data and its examination by independent experts (not Karen from Facebook). But it is not right to then exaggerate small risks because somebody tested something on Negroes in the 1930s.
Quote from: JoG2 on November 30, 2020, 12:53:26 PM
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 12:29:56 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on November 30, 2020, 06:51:05 AM
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 05:13:39 AM
Of the 70% or so of yes voters how many of ye are for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination?
How many would agree that children 11 years old and upwards can consent to all vaccinations without their parents knowledge?
"The District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a vaccine. The "Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019," states, "this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established."
According to The Vaccine Reaction, "The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents' knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated."
The report clarifies, "If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents' back."
The crimes against humanity journalism continues.
How about answering the two questions. What has journalism got to do with a draconian Bill?
Had a look at the source ie The Vaccine Reaction, that was enough for me
That is exactly the response I expected.
You did a search on the "messenger" instead of doing a search on the actual Bill which is just as easy to find, thinking "if this is not on MSM then it cannot be true" when the exact opposite is the case. You then went on your merry way convinced you are right without doing any proper research..
I also knew what you meant when you crossed out "humanity" and replaced it with "journalism". The journalists you are referring to are the criminals, they will never report on Bills such as this nor anything truthful. It is 99% lies 24/7. The Irish media have become masters at this which is fully reflected on this forum. It is wall to wall "COVID -19" fear mongering since last March and is working a treat. It really is time to turn of the televisions and radio stations throughout the country and of course in the States also.
At least LCohen asked a very reasonable question even though he probably expects that I will be unable to come up with the proof. I will give him the benefit of the doubt in that he is sincerely of the opinion that this Bill may indeed exist. He also asked a question about Del Bigtree in an earlier post which I did not get around to answering. Captain Obvious again typically attacked the "messenger". As far as I can recall he comes across very sound on GAA matters but he has left himself down badly here. It is obvious at least none of the 70% watched even a second of the video, if they did they would be in uproar with how vaccines are approved by the FDA and CDC, including video evidence with regard the CDC and really start to question the upcoming vaccines. LCohen watch the video, you will get your answer.
So now onto the documented proof regarding Bill# B23-0171
Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019
Here you will see the name of the sponsor, what voting took place, results and at what stage it is at. It is about to be introduced to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for approval. If the Democrats do happen to win the House and the Senate it is expected to sail right through. May also happen with a Republican Senate but it will be a bigger struggle. They are both different sides of the same evil coin.
https://openstates.org/dc/bills/23/B23-0171/ (https://openstates.org/dc/bills/23/B23-0171/)
There are a number of PDF documents included for your review, please do read them.
Remember this Bill started in early 2019 with "COVID -19" in mind. This coincides with Event 201 carried out on October 2019 which "simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms" by the same bad actors that are controlling the "COVID-19" narrative. Coincidence or not? Most certainly not.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html (https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html)
Please look at the videos, you will witness a near replica of what is happening over the last 10 months or so.
Quote from: Seamus on December 01, 2020, 03:08:00 AM
Quote from: JoG2 on November 30, 2020, 12:53:26 PM
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 12:29:56 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on November 30, 2020, 06:51:05 AM
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 05:13:39 AM
Of the 70% or so of yes voters how many of ye are for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination?
How many would agree that children 11 years old and upwards can consent to all vaccinations without their parents knowledge?
"The District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a vaccine. The "Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019," states, "this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established."
According to The Vaccine Reaction, "The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents' knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated."
The report clarifies, "If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents' back."
The crimes against humanity journalism continues.
How about answering the two questions. What has journalism got to do with a draconian Bill?
Had a look at the source ie The Vaccine Reaction, that was enough for me
That is exactly the response I expected.
You did a search on the "messenger" instead of doing a search on the actual Bill which is just as easy to find, thinking "if this is not on MSM then it cannot be true" when the exact opposite is the case. You then went on your merry way convinced you are right without doing any proper research..
I also knew what you meant when you crossed out "humanity" and replaced it with "journalism". The journalists you are referring to are the criminals, they will never report on Bills such as this nor anything truthful. It is 99% lies 24/7. The Irish media have become masters at this which is fully reflected on this forum. It is wall to wall "COVID -19" fear mongering since last March and is working a treat. It really is time to turn of the televisions and radio stations throughout the country and of course in the States also.
At least LCohen asked a very reasonable question even though he probably expects that I will be unable to come up with the proof. I will give him the benefit of the doubt in that he is sincerely of the opinion that this Bill may indeed exist. He also asked a question about Del Bigtree in an earlier post which I did not get around to answering. Captain Obvious again typically attacked the "messenger". As far as I can recall he comes across very sound on GAA matters but he has left himself down badly here. It is obvious at least none of the 70% watched even a second of the video, if they did they would be in uproar with how vaccines are approved by the FDA and CDC, including video evidence with regard the CDC and really start to question the upcoming vaccines. LCohen watch the video, you will get your answer.
So now onto the documented proof regarding Bill# B23-0171
Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019
Here you will see the name of the sponsor, what voting took place, results and at what stage it is at. It is about to be introduced to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for approval. If the Democrats do happen to win the House and the Senate it is expected to sail right through. May also happen with a Republican Senate but it will be a bigger struggle. They are both different sides of the same evil coin.
https://openstates.org/dc/bills/23/B23-0171/ (https://openstates.org/dc/bills/23/B23-0171/)
There are a number of PDF documents included for your review, please do read them.
Remember this Bill started in early 2019 with "COVID -19" in mind. This coincides with Event 201 carried out on October 2019 which "simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms" by the same bad actors that are controlling the "COVID-19" narrative. Coincidence or not? Most certainly not.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html (https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html)
Please look at the videos, you will witness a near replica of what is happening over the last 10 months or so.
Quite a lot to unpick here. Can I ask, are you saying that the US government have "invented coronavirus" in order to vaccinate the population? If so why would they do that?
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
A classic libertarian stance would actually say that businesses and other entities should be free to refuse entry to anybody who refuses the vaccine
Libertarianism is generally nuts but in this case libertarian thought would be correct
However the problem with libertarianism is that it relies on perfect information - but the people who staff businesses and other entities generally will not be able to know whether random people have been vaccinated or not
The future prosperity of the human species depends on a successful worldwide vaccination programme
It should be drilled home at every opportunity that those who oppose this vaccination programme are opposing humanity
Failure is unthinkable
Quote from: Seamus on December 01, 2020, 03:08:00 AM
Quote from: JoG2 on November 30, 2020, 12:53:26 PM
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 12:29:56 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on November 30, 2020, 06:51:05 AM
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 05:13:39 AM
Of the 70% or so of yes voters how many of ye are for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination?
How many would agree that children 11 years old and upwards can consent to all vaccinations without their parents knowledge?
"The District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a vaccine. The "Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019," states, "this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established."
According to The Vaccine Reaction, "The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents' knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated."
The report clarifies, "If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents' back."
The crimes against humanity journalism continues.
How about answering the two questions. What has journalism got to do with a draconian Bill?
Had a look at the source ie The Vaccine Reaction, that was enough for me
That is exactly the response I expected.
You did a search on the "messenger" instead of doing a search on the actual Bill which is just as easy to find, thinking "if this is not on MSM then it cannot be true" when the exact opposite is the case. You then went on your merry way convinced you are right without doing any proper research..
I also knew what you meant when you crossed out "humanity" and replaced it with "journalism". The journalists you are referring to are the criminals, they will never report on Bills such as this nor anything truthful. It is 99% lies 24/7. The Irish media have become masters at this which is fully reflected on this forum. It is wall to wall "COVID -19" fear mongering since last March and is working a treat. It really is time to turn of the televisions and radio stations throughout the country and of course in the States also.
At least LCohen asked a very reasonable question even though he probably expects that I will be unable to come up with the proof. I will give him the benefit of the doubt in that he is sincerely of the opinion that this Bill may indeed exist. He also asked a question about Del Bigtree in an earlier post which I did not get around to answering. Captain Obvious again typically attacked the "messenger". As far as I can recall he comes across very sound on GAA matters but he has left himself down badly here. It is obvious at least none of the 70% watched even a second of the video, if they did they would be in uproar with how vaccines are approved by the FDA and CDC, including video evidence with regard the CDC and really start to question the upcoming vaccines. LCohen watch the video, you will get your answer.
So now onto the documented proof regarding Bill# B23-0171
Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019
Here you will see the name of the sponsor, what voting took place, results and at what stage it is at. It is about to be introduced to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for approval. If the Democrats do happen to win the House and the Senate it is expected to sail right through. May also happen with a Republican Senate but it will be a bigger struggle. They are both different sides of the same evil coin.
https://openstates.org/dc/bills/23/B23-0171/ (https://openstates.org/dc/bills/23/B23-0171/)
There are a number of PDF documents included for your review, please do read them.
Remember this Bill started in early 2019 with "COVID -19" in mind. This coincides with Event 201 carried out on October 2019 which "simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms" by the same bad actors that are controlling the "COVID-19" narrative. Coincidence or not? Most certainly not.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html (https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html)
Please look at the videos, you will witness a near replica of what is happening over the last 10 months or so.
Seamus I would question what you choose to post here.
There are some seriously dangerous views circulating out there.
Firstly on the bill in DC. The original article may or may not have been correct when it was originally published but it is certainly out of date now. It is no longer correct to say this applies to children of any age. It is also potentially disingenuous to post this article in a n argument about making a vaccine mandatory. There is no question of making it mandatory in DC. The question there is who gives the consent.
Your original post goes on to state that the report goes on to clarify that kids would be at risk of coercion. Why does it say "clarifies" rather than "claims".
At that stage it very much does warrant the messenger to be questioned.
Going on to your second post I would suggest that there elements of it that give the strong impression of you being dangerously unhinged.
I don't doubt OpenStates when the publish voting records etc. Those would be provable facts. I would have the gravest doubts about OpenStates in every other respect. Dangerous views and hidden funding. Extremely worrying.
I think you should be explicitly clear what you are claiming about Event 201 and the people behind it.
Quote from: LCohen on December 01, 2020, 03:36:37 PM
Quote from: Seamus on December 01, 2020, 03:08:00 AM
Quote from: JoG2 on November 30, 2020, 12:53:26 PM
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 12:29:56 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on November 30, 2020, 06:51:05 AM
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 05:13:39 AM
Of the 70% or so of yes voters how many of ye are for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination?
How many would agree that children 11 years old and upwards can consent to all vaccinations without their parents knowledge?
"The District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a vaccine. The "Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019," states, "this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established."
According to The Vaccine Reaction, "The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents' knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated."
The report clarifies, "If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents' back."
The crimes against humanity journalism continues.
How about answering the two questions. What has journalism got to do with a draconian Bill?
Had a look at the source ie The Vaccine Reaction, that was enough for me
That is exactly the response I expected.
You did a search on the "messenger" instead of doing a search on the actual Bill which is just as easy to find, thinking "if this is not on MSM then it cannot be true" when the exact opposite is the case. You then went on your merry way convinced you are right without doing any proper research..
I also knew what you meant when you crossed out "humanity" and replaced it with "journalism". The journalists you are referring to are the criminals, they will never report on Bills such as this nor anything truthful. It is 99% lies 24/7. The Irish media have become masters at this which is fully reflected on this forum. It is wall to wall "COVID -19" fear mongering since last March and is working a treat. It really is time to turn of the televisions and radio stations throughout the country and of course in the States also.
At least LCohen asked a very reasonable question even though he probably expects that I will be unable to come up with the proof. I will give him the benefit of the doubt in that he is sincerely of the opinion that this Bill may indeed exist. He also asked a question about Del Bigtree in an earlier post which I did not get around to answering. Captain Obvious again typically attacked the "messenger". As far as I can recall he comes across very sound on GAA matters but he has left himself down badly here. It is obvious at least none of the 70% watched even a second of the video, if they did they would be in uproar with how vaccines are approved by the FDA and CDC, including video evidence with regard the CDC and really start to question the upcoming vaccines. LCohen watch the video, you will get your answer.
So now onto the documented proof regarding Bill# B23-0171
Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019
Here you will see the name of the sponsor, what voting took place, results and at what stage it is at. It is about to be introduced to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for approval. If the Democrats do happen to win the House and the Senate it is expected to sail right through. May also happen with a Republican Senate but it will be a bigger struggle. They are both different sides of the same evil coin.
https://openstates.org/dc/bills/23/B23-0171/ (https://openstates.org/dc/bills/23/B23-0171/)
There are a number of PDF documents included for your review, please do read them.
Remember this Bill started in early 2019 with "COVID -19" in mind. This coincides with Event 201 carried out on October 2019 which "simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms" by the same bad actors that are controlling the "COVID-19" narrative. Coincidence or not? Most certainly not.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html (https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html)
Please look at the videos, you will witness a near replica of what is happening over the last 10 months or so.
Seamus I would question what you choose to post here.
There are some seriously dangerous views circulating out there.
Firstly on the bill in DC. The original article may or may not have been correct when it was originally published but it is certainly out of date now. It is no longer correct to say this applies to children of any age. It is also potentially disingenuous to post this article in a n argument about making a vaccine mandatory. There is no question of making it mandatory in DC. The question there is who gives the consent.
Your original post goes on to state that the report goes on to clarify that kids would be at risk of coercion. Why does it say "clarifies" rather than "claims".
At that stage it very much does warrant the messenger to be questioned.
Going on to your second post I would suggest that there elements of it that give the strong impression of you being dangerously unhinged.
I don't doubt OpenStates when the publish voting records etc. Those would be provable facts. I would have the gravest doubts about OpenStates in every other respect. Dangerous views and hidden funding. Extremely worrying.
I think you should be explicitly clear what you are claiming about Event 201 and the people behind it.
I will keep this short. I gave you the benefit of the doubt as any sane person would. Now your true colors are really shinning through. You have an extremely low level of consciousness as evident by some of your posts that I have reviewed. All you are doing is parroting what you are been spoon fed without the slightest ability to think for yourself. Zero critical thinking skills which is a sure sign of indoctrination and brainwashing. Do you not consider for one second that it is you that may have some dangerous views?
B23-0171 is plain for all to see yet you will not condemn it which must only imply that you are in agreement. Instead you try to pick holes on outside sources that want to warn the world on the possibility of this treacherous Bill becoming law.
It is well know that millions of children have never been vaccinated due to parents not consenting.
This Bill is an attempt by the Medical Mafia to address this issue.
Are you for B23-0171 becoming law? If yes give your reasons.
Are you for mandatory "COVID-19" vaccinations. If yes give your reasons.
My earlier post also asked both questions, what gives you the right to say I should be confined to only discuss mandatory vaccinations? They are totally separate questions.
Not surprising that you are unable to detect any alarm bells regarding Event 201.
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
There you go lads - don't get killed in the rush. Covid Pfizer vaccine approved for use next week in UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55145696 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55145696)
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
What to you think will happen, honestly?
mRNA vaccines have been around a while and have proven to be completely safe.
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:51:50 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
Can't drive a car without a licence. You can't travel to lots of countries without the necessary vaccinations. There's loads of precedent for this.
Was thinking this myself. Its exactly the same as Yellow fever. I've never heard anyone complain about their human rights being infringed upon because they can't enter Uganda without a Yellow Fever cert.
People in the western world have been living in a bubble.
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 07:53:31 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
What to you think will happen, honestly?
mRNA vaccines have been around a while and have proven to be completely safe.
Hopefully nothing, hopefully it works, hopefully this time next year we won't be discussing thousands with side effects, if you think this is not all rushed you are deluded, but then again you will be way back in the queue.
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:46:30 AM
There you go lads - don't get killed in the rush. Covid Pfizer vaccine approved for use next week in UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55145696 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55145696)
Great news isn't it.
I'll get it just the very second I can.
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
Is the Pfizer vaccine the main one you boys in the south will be getting if wanted?
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on December 02, 2020, 09:28:50 AM
Is the Pfizer vaccine the main one you boys in the south will be getting if wanted?
So it would appear going by press reports this morning.
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 08:02:37 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 07:53:31 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
What to you think will happen, honestly?
mRNA vaccines have been around a while and have proven to be completely safe.
Hopefully nothing, hopefully it works, hopefully this time next year we won't be discussing thousands with side effects, if you think this is not all rushed you are deluded, but then again you will be way back in the queue.
Nope, NHS worker here. I'm getting it in the next fortnight.
I haven't really posted in this thread, but I've been reading it.
Seems like some people want the vaccine to have side effects? I can't understand that? Anything that gets the whole thing back to normal surely must be a thing of hope and positivity?
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 08:41:15 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:46:30 AM
There you go lads - don't get killed in the rush. Covid Pfizer vaccine approved for use next week in UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55145696 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55145696)
Great news isn't it.
I'll get it just the very second I can.
Good man 2022 so, easy to be self righteous when you know you have th cop out you are no where near the front of the queue, oh forgot you are paying for it!!!
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on December 02, 2020, 10:25:55 AM
I haven't really posted in this thread, but I've been reading it.
Seems like some people want the vaccine to have side effects? I can't understand that? Anything that gets the whole thing back to normal surely must be a thing of hope and positivity?
I think folk are worried about side effects and being pack berated by the moral guardians of humanity, I hope it all works we all have suffered over last year, but I would be cautious! Seems the Brits want to be first - real political statement - will hopefully detract from the f**king mess they made of the whole thing.
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:37:17 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?
Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on December 02, 2020, 10:25:55 AM
I haven't really posted in this thread, but I've been reading it.
Seems like some people want the vaccine to have side effects? I can't understand that? Anything that gets the whole thing back to normal surely must be a thing of hope and positivity?
I haven't read the thread in its entirety but the vibe I get from talking to people against the vaccine is the same. It's almost an attempt to justify their anti bad stance.
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 10:21:06 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 08:02:37 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 07:53:31 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
What to you think will happen, honestly?
mRNA vaccines have been around a while and have proven to be completely safe.
Hopefully nothing, hopefully it works, hopefully this time next year we won't be discussing thousands with side effects, if you think this is not all rushed you are deluded, but then again you will be way back in the queue.
Nope, NHS worker here. I'm getting it in the next fortnight.
Best of luck - know plenty who won't be.
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:37:17 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?
Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?
So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:38:23 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on December 02, 2020, 10:25:55 AM
I haven't really posted in this thread, but I've been reading it.
Seems like some people want the vaccine to have side effects? I can't understand that? Anything that gets the whole thing back to normal surely must be a thing of hope and positivity?
I think folk are worried about side effects and being pack berated by the moral guardians of humanity, I hope it all works we all have suffered over last year, but I would be cautious! Seems the Brits want to be first - real political statement - will hopefully detract from the f**king mess they made of the whole thing.
I'd be worried....I'd be very worried.... if there was
any actual evidence to suggest I should be worried.
Quote from: square_ball on December 02, 2020, 10:40:02 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on December 02, 2020, 10:25:55 AM
I haven't really posted in this thread, but I've been reading it.
Seems like some people want the vaccine to have side effects? I can't understand that? Anything that gets the whole thing back to normal surely must be a thing of hope and positivity?
I haven't read the thread in its entirety but the vibe I get from talking to people against the vaccine is the same. It's almost an attempt to justify their anti bad stance.
I have read it to and its a matter of bring it on, but won't be with me for a year or so therefore why worry, but question it and you are antivax. If this thread proves anything is that there is some bullshitters within the 20 strong GAABOARD community, but anything to make them feel better, there is a growing trend on facebook for people to post all these uplifting posts about care and love, in my opinion its mostly sociopaths posting them - there is an element of that here, no one on here advocating this vaccine cannot tell me they have some sort of reservations!
Quote from: Cobra on December 02, 2020, 10:42:56 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:38:23 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on December 02, 2020, 10:25:55 AM
I haven't really posted in this thread, but I've been reading it.
Seems like some people want the vaccine to have side effects? I can't understand that? Anything that gets the whole thing back to normal surely must be a thing of hope and positivity?
I think folk are worried about side effects and being pack berated by the moral guardians of humanity, I hope it all works we all have suffered over last year, but I would be cautious! Seems the Brits want to be first - real political statement - will hopefully detract from the f**king mess they made of the whole thing.
I'd be worried....I'd be very worried.... if there was any actual evidence to suggest I should be worried.
Go get it then what's the problem, if you have no reservations go for it.
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:37:17 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?
Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?
So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?
And you don't if anyone will not be.
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:37:17 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?
Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?
So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?
And you don't if anyone will not be.
You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.
No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Do they not have to get family consent?
Quote from: Seamus on December 02, 2020, 04:53:18 AM
Quote from: LCohen on December 01, 2020, 03:36:37 PM
Quote from: Seamus on December 01, 2020, 03:08:00 AM
Quote from: JoG2 on November 30, 2020, 12:53:26 PM
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 12:29:56 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on November 30, 2020, 06:51:05 AM
Quote from: Seamus on November 30, 2020, 05:13:39 AM
Of the 70% or so of yes voters how many of ye are for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination?
How many would agree that children 11 years old and upwards can consent to all vaccinations without their parents knowledge?
"The District of Columbia (DC) is advancing a bill which circumvents parental consent when it comes to their minor children being given a vaccine. The "Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019," states, "this bill permits a minor of any age to consent to receive a vaccine where the vaccination is recommended by the United States Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It also establishes that if a minor is able to comprehend the need for, the nature of, and any significant risks inherent in the medical care then informed consent is established."
According to The Vaccine Reaction, "The bill would not only permit children aged 11 years and older to give consent for doctors and other vaccine administrators to give them vaccines without their parents' knowledge or consent, but would also require insurance companies, vaccine administrators and schools to conceal from parents that the child has been vaccinated."
The report clarifies, "If this bill passes, it is clear that minor children will be at risk of being pressured and coerced into getting a COVID-19 vaccine behind their parents' back."
The crimes against humanity journalism continues.
How about answering the two questions. What has journalism got to do with a draconian Bill?
Had a look at the source ie The Vaccine Reaction, that was enough for me
That is exactly the response I expected.
You did a search on the "messenger" instead of doing a search on the actual Bill which is just as easy to find, thinking "if this is not on MSM then it cannot be true" when the exact opposite is the case. You then went on your merry way convinced you are right without doing any proper research..
I also knew what you meant when you crossed out "humanity" and replaced it with "journalism". The journalists you are referring to are the criminals, they will never report on Bills such as this nor anything truthful. It is 99% lies 24/7. The Irish media have become masters at this which is fully reflected on this forum. It is wall to wall "COVID -19" fear mongering since last March and is working a treat. It really is time to turn of the televisions and radio stations throughout the country and of course in the States also.
At least LCohen asked a very reasonable question even though he probably expects that I will be unable to come up with the proof. I will give him the benefit of the doubt in that he is sincerely of the opinion that this Bill may indeed exist. He also asked a question about Del Bigtree in an earlier post which I did not get around to answering. Captain Obvious again typically attacked the "messenger". As far as I can recall he comes across very sound on GAA matters but he has left himself down badly here. It is obvious at least none of the 70% watched even a second of the video, if they did they would be in uproar with how vaccines are approved by the FDA and CDC, including video evidence with regard the CDC and really start to question the upcoming vaccines. LCohen watch the video, you will get your answer.
So now onto the documented proof regarding Bill# B23-0171
Minor Consent for Vaccinations Amendment Act of 2019
Here you will see the name of the sponsor, what voting took place, results and at what stage it is at. It is about to be introduced to the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate for approval. If the Democrats do happen to win the House and the Senate it is expected to sail right through. May also happen with a Republican Senate but it will be a bigger struggle. They are both different sides of the same evil coin.
https://openstates.org/dc/bills/23/B23-0171/ (https://openstates.org/dc/bills/23/B23-0171/)
There are a number of PDF documents included for your review, please do read them.
Remember this Bill started in early 2019 with "COVID -19" in mind. This coincides with Event 201 carried out on October 2019 which "simulates an outbreak of a novel zoonotic coronavirus transmitted from bats to pigs to people that eventually becomes efficiently transmissible from person to person, leading to a severe pandemic. The pathogen and the disease it causes are modeled largely on SARS, but it is more transmissible in the community setting by people with mild symptoms" by the same bad actors that are controlling the "COVID-19" narrative. Coincidence or not? Most certainly not.
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html (https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/scenario.html)
Please look at the videos, you will witness a near replica of what is happening over the last 10 months or so.
Seamus I would question what you choose to post here.
There are some seriously dangerous views circulating out there.
Firstly on the bill in DC. The original article may or may not have been correct when it was originally published but it is certainly out of date now. It is no longer correct to say this applies to children of any age. It is also potentially disingenuous to post this article in a n argument about making a vaccine mandatory. There is no question of making it mandatory in DC. The question there is who gives the consent.
Your original post goes on to state that the report goes on to clarify that kids would be at risk of coercion. Why does it say "clarifies" rather than "claims".
At that stage it very much does warrant the messenger to be questioned.
Going on to your second post I would suggest that there elements of it that give the strong impression of you being dangerously unhinged.
I don't doubt OpenStates when the publish voting records etc. Those would be provable facts. I would have the gravest doubts about OpenStates in every other respect. Dangerous views and hidden funding. Extremely worrying.
I think you should be explicitly clear what you are claiming about Event 201 and the people behind it.
I will keep this short. I gave you the benefit of the doubt as any sane person would. Now your true colors are really shinning through. You have an extremely low level of consciousness as evident by some of your posts that I have reviewed. All you are doing is parroting what you are been spoon fed without the slightest ability to think for yourself. Zero critical thinking skills which is a sure sign of indoctrination and brainwashing. Do you not consider for one second that it is you that may have some dangerous views?
B23-0171 is plain for all to see yet you will not condemn it which must only imply that you are in agreement. Instead you try to pick holes on outside sources that want to warn the world on the possibility of this treacherous Bill becoming law.
It is well know that millions of children have never been vaccinated due to parents not consenting.
This Bill is an attempt by the Medical Mafia to address this issue.
Are you for B23-0171 becoming law? If yes give your reasons.
Are you for mandatory "COVID-19" vaccinations. If yes give your reasons.
My earlier post also asked both questions, what gives you the right to say I should be confined to only discuss mandatory vaccinations? They are totally separate questions.
Not surprising that you are unable to detect any alarm bells regarding Event 201.
I will also keep this short also:
Outline your concerns on the vaccine and the evidence to support that concern?
Simple question. It's been asked of others and to a man they have failed to answer. Over to you.
On your points.
My views have the least the benefit of being buttressed by a broad base of informed and qualified scientists. And as we are mid flow with many of the vaccines my views are conditional upon further tests being done I wouldn't take a vaccine before it was approved but would take that exact vaccine after it was approved.
I am not condemning the DC Act. I think vaccination is key to combatting many diseases of which CV19 is one. Mandatory vaccination is not normally the first port of call. It might be in some instances if take up is dangerously low. I'm unaware of the specific state of play in DC or other parts of USA.
On Event 201 just highlight your specific concerns and I will respond.
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 10:21:06 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 08:02:37 AM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 07:53:31 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
What to you think will happen, honestly?
mRNA vaccines have been around a while and have proven to be completely safe.
Hopefully nothing, hopefully it works, hopefully this time next year we won't be discussing thousands with side effects, if you think this is not all rushed you are deluded, but then again you will be way back in the queue.
Nope, NHS worker here. I'm getting it in the next fortnight.
Same here by the looks of it.
Seany, take a breath. You start your working week / day in this thread . It's tiring surely you're tired posting it? Creating phoney arguments about people pushing for the vaccine and then going to the back of the queue...mind numbing stuff
Re the vaccine. It's been worked on, or a variation of a corona virus vaccine for 5+ years. They have the template, they've added the Covid 19 spike protein. This is coming from professors in Oxford, people who have spent their adult life trying to save lives. I trust them. They share the same planet, they have families etc.
I also trust my colleagues in the Health sector, I trust the PHA who I work very closely with.
No harm, but I don't trust you, I don't trust your chemical engineer friend, Anne McCloskey and the medical experts on social media.
This is great news at the end of a very tough year. I've had it good, I've continued to work and have my health. Many many others aren't as lucky. This is the silver bullet for them and many more like them across this planet.
Science has got this Seany
But Karen says it's not safe.......
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 08:02:37 AM
Hopefully nothing, hopefully it works, hopefully this time next year we won't be discussing thousands with side effects, if you think this is not all rushed you are deluded, but then again you will be way back in the queue.
Why do you assume that any side effects will be negative? Sure maybe you'll get x-Ray vision or superhuman strength as a side effect
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 11:22:02 AM
On Event 201 just highlight your specific concerns and I will respond.
All emergency planning is a sinister illuminati plot, surely everybody knows that
Seamus will have to confirm for us if he believes "the Jews" are involved in this "plot" too
Quote from: JoG2 on December 02, 2020, 11:27:39 AM
Re the vaccine. It's been worked on, or a variation of a corona virus vaccine for 5+ years. They have the template, they've added the Covid 19 spike protein. This is coming from professors in Oxford, people who have spent their adult life trying to save lives. I trust them. They share the same planet, they have families etc.
I also trust my colleagues in the Health sector, I trust the PHA who I work very closely with.
No harm, but I don't trust you, I don't trust your chemical engineer friend, Anne McCloskey and the medical experts on social media.
This is great news at the end of a very tough year. I've had it good, I've continued to work and have my health. Many many others aren't as lucky. This is the silver bullet for them and many more like them across this planet.
Science has got this Seany
Absolutely.
There was scientist on Dunphy's podcast saying the Chinese need to take a lot of credit too. While they certainly didn't help (to put it mildly) in the way they initially under-reported case numbers and severity, their scientists mapped the genome in record breaking time and made it freely available. This gave the Pfizers et all a big head start, to go along with the fact that a lot of good work had already been done on corona virus vaccines.
Plus Pfizer and Moderna have full details on their websites of every step they took and are being as transparent as possible. And it was good news that Oxford's error was called out so quickly - even if it was more a reporting / PR error than anything.
Science has definitely got this.
But of course we do have to remain wary of when politicians get involved, and it will be interesting to hear over the coming days as to why UK has seemingly moved ahead of the EU and US. (And as I mentioned in an earlier post, it seems that last week they knew they were going to ratify it this week).
I actually think it's as simple as the UK needing a 'win' in being the first to do something (or be seen to do something), some positive publicity. The Oxford Vaccine coming in 3rd was a bit of a blow for a mental case Government that wants to be seen as a world leader post Brexit.
So in short....
COVID-19 - well established potentially serious side effects.
Vaccine - no established side effects, safety certified in widespread clinical trials involving 10ks of volunteers.
Why would anyone say they don't want the vaccine?
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 12:55:59 PM
So in short....
COVID-19 - well established potentially serious side effects.
Vaccine - no established side effects, safety certified in widespread clinical trials involving 10ks of volunteers.
Why would anyone say they don't want the vaccine?
According to twitter Bill gates is behind these vaccines and he wants to track everyone on earth. The irony being they are posting these messsages on their smartphones so are already being tracked. As I said here before if you want the vaccine then get it if not don't. Just dont be a di*ck about it whatever way your swayed.
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:48:49 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:37:17 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?
Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?
So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?
And you don't if anyone will not be.
You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.
No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?
No I am a bit thick - but you are obviously a highly educated individual with a moral superiority above all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953)
Elderly people in care homes and care home staff have been placed top of the priority list, followed by the over-80s and health and care staff
So is it being forced upon folk with complex health issues, no doubt it has been fully tested to take these illnesses into account!
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Do they not have to get family consent?
No idea yet to see the policy except patients in care homes are priority, what of ones who have no family, I can't see it being anything other than mandatory in care homes, but hey out of sight out of mind eh!
Quote from: Rossfan on December 02, 2020, 11:34:41 AM
But Karen says it's not safe.......
Do you actually smile when you post that, but of course you do.
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:20:02 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:48:49 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:37:17 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?
Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?
So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?
And you don't if anyone will not be.
You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.
No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?
No I am a bit thick - but you are obviously a highly educated individual with a moral superiority above all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953)
Elderly people in care homes and care home staff have been placed top of the priority list, followed by the over-80s and health and care staff
So is it being forced upon folk with complex health issues, no doubt it has been fully tested to take these illnesses into account!
No one said you were thick or claimed a moral superiority.
Given you said folk in care homes have no choice but to be collateral damage I questioned if you knew what collateral damage was given there is no evidence whatsoever to prove this is the case.
You simply made up they would be collateral damage because you dont agree with the vaccine or you dont understand what collateral damage means?
It has to be one or the other unless you have evidence to prove otherwise?
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 12:55:59 PM
So in short....
COVID-19 - well established potentially serious side effects.
Vaccine - no established side effects, safety certified in widespread clinical trials involving 10ks of volunteers.
Why would anyone say they don't want the vaccine?
Covid-19 98% not an issue for the majority of the population
Vaccine, untested over long period of time or with people with serious health conditions, but let it rip - isn't that your phrase!
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 01:24:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:20:02 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:48:49 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:37:17 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?
Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?
So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?
And you don't if anyone will not be.
You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.
No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?
No I am a bit thick - but you are obviously a highly educated individual with a moral superiority above all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953)
Elderly people in care homes and care home staff have been placed top of the priority list, followed by the over-80s and health and care staff
So is it being forced upon folk with complex health issues, no doubt it has been fully tested to take these illnesses into account!
No one said you were thick or claimed a moral superiority.
Given you said folk in care homes have no choice but to be collateral damage I questioned if you knew what collateral damage was given there is no evidence whatsoever to prove this is the case.
You simply made up they would be collateral damage because you dont agree with the vaccine or you dont understand what collateral damage means?
It has to be one or the other unless you have evidence to prove otherwise?
Most folk are in a care home for a reason, they have serious complicated health issues, if any have complications as a result of this vaccine I am sure their will be outrage!
Quote from: bennydorano on December 02, 2020, 12:41:09 PM
I actually think it's as simple as the UK needing a 'win' in being the first to do something (or be seen to do something), some positive publicity. The Oxford Vaccine coming in 3rd was a bit of a blow for a mental case Government that wants to be seen as a world leader post Brexit.
While I have pretty much no doubt the vaccine/s will be entirely safe, the UK Government is so discredited and so untrustworthy in general that it's unfortunate they were the first ones to ratify this Pfizer one
Their association with anything is toxic and could lead to at least a degree of what is almostly certainly unwarranted scepticism among otherwise sensible people
Hopefully the EU ratifies it soon
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:22:31 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Do they not have to get family consent?
No idea yet to see the policy except patients in care homes are priority, what of ones who have no family, I can't see it being anything other than mandatory in care homes, but hey out of sight out of mind eh!
It's not. Family consent is required. If in the case of no family, if a care home patient has sound mind they make the decision themselves. If not, as per the Mental capacity act the decision will be made for them in their best interests.
Hope that puts your mind at ease.
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:28:17 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 01:24:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:20:02 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:48:49 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:37:17 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?
Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?
So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?
And you don't if anyone will not be.
You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.
No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?
No I am a bit thick - but you are obviously a highly educated individual with a moral superiority above all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953)
Elderly people in care homes and care home staff have been placed top of the priority list, followed by the over-80s and health and care staff
So is it being forced upon folk with complex health issues, no doubt it has been fully tested to take these illnesses into account!
No one said you were thick or claimed a moral superiority.
Given you said folk in care homes have no choice but to be collateral damage I questioned if you knew what collateral damage was given there is no evidence whatsoever to prove this is the case.
You simply made up they would be collateral damage because you dont agree with the vaccine or you dont understand what collateral damage means?
It has to be one or the other unless you have evidence to prove otherwise?
Most folk are in a care home for a reason, they have serious complicated health issues, if any have complications as a result of this vaccine I am sure their will be outrage!
Well done on avoiding the question.
So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:20:02 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:48:49 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:37:17 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?
Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?
So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?
And you don't if anyone will not be.
You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.
No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?
No I am a bit thick - but you are obviously a highly educated individual with a moral superiority above all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953)
Elderly people in care homes and care home staff have been placed top of the priority list, followed by the over-80s and health and care staff
So is it being forced upon folk with complex health issues, no doubt it has been fully tested to take these illnesses into account!
Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.
You can sleep easy now.
You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.
The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1202/1181886-coronavirus-vaccine-eu/ (https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2020/1202/1181886-coronavirus-vaccine-eu/)
Brits going for a political statement ahead of anything!
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.
You can sleep easy now.
You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.
The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.
Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 01:47:29 PM
Well done on avoiding the question.
So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.
It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 01:30:11 PM
It's not. Family consent is required. If in the case of no family, if a care home patient has sound mind they make the decision themselves. If not, as per the Mental capacity act the decision will be made for them in their best interests.
Hope that puts your mind at ease.
It does if correct, didn't see this guidance, so in the case of no consent will they be allowed to remain in the care home, the bit in bold means mandatory vaccines in reality.
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 01:47:29 PM
Well done on avoiding the question.
So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.
It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.
It isnt - you said folk in care homes are collateral damage.
You have not provided any evidence of the sort.
Fair enough if you are anti vaccine - but pointless throwing out comments with absolutely no factual basis.
I am going with what the Health Secretary, Medical Regulator & numerous prominent epidemiologists & immunologists are saying.
Who are you going with?
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 03:21:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 01:47:29 PM
Well done on avoiding the question.
So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.
It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.
It isnt - you said folk in care homes are collateral damage.
You have not provided any evidence of the sort.
Fair enough if you are anti vaccine - but pointless throwing out comments with absolutely no factual basis.
I am going with what the Health Secretary, Medical Regulator & numerous prominent epidemiologists & immunologists are saying.
Who are you going with?
I'll tell you who he's following.
Jim Corr, Gemma "Gemtrails" O'Doherty and some Ohio soccer mom on Facebook who shared a debunked pseudoscientific "research paper."
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.
You can sleep easy now.
You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.
The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.
Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.
In our discussions we've established:
1) The vaccine is effective;
2) The vast scientific majority think it is safe;
3) These experts were not the same experts who modelled infection rates or developed lockdown measures
4) That it won't be mandatory;
5) People like me that would have been happy to have paid for it will not be allowed to do so;
6) Anybody that wants it should have it within a couple of months - again nobody will be forced.
7) That you know little to nothing about the laws surrounding Director Dealing(s) and when CEO's can and cannot sell shares.
Your last stand here seems to be though inventing hypothetical scenarios about vulnerable old people being head locked and hood winked into getting it.
You are clutching at straws big time.
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 03:25:50 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 03:21:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 01:47:29 PM
Well done on avoiding the question.
So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.
It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.
It isnt - you said folk in care homes are collateral damage.
You have not provided any evidence of the sort.
Fair enough if you are anti vaccine - but pointless throwing out comments with absolutely no factual basis.
I am going with what the Health Secretary, Medical Regulator & numerous prominent epidemiologists & immunologists are saying.
Who are you going with?
I'll tell you who he's following.
Jim Corr, Gemma "Gemtrails" O'Doherty and some Ohio soccer mom on Facebook who shared a debunked pseudoscientific "research paper."
Lol, don't forget David icke. He's made a big comeback with the science deniers.
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:20:02 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:48:49 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:37:17 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?
Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?
So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?
And you don't if anyone will not be.
You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.
No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?
No I am a bit thick - but you are obviously a highly educated individual with a moral superiority above all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953)
Elderly people in care homes and care home staff have been placed top of the priority list, followed by the over-80s and health and care staff
So is it being forced upon folk with complex health issues, no doubt it has been fully tested to take these illnesses into account!
You have chosen to use the word "forced" and it is key to the point you are trying to make. What is your evidence for anyone being forced ?
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:22:31 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 10:59:24 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Do they not have to get family consent?
No idea yet to see the policy except patients in care homes are priority, what of ones who have no family, I can't see it being anything other than mandatory in care homes, but hey out of sight out of mind eh!
So you are outraged at people being forced to take a vaccine but you evidence that people will be forced to take is your own assumption that in the future people will be forced to take it.
Looks you have decided to be outraged and then filled in the blanks with shite to justify the outrage
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 12:55:59 PM
So in short....
COVID-19 - well established potentially serious side effects.
Vaccine - no established side effects, safety certified in widespread clinical trials involving 10ks of volunteers.
Why would anyone say they don't want the vaccine?
Covid-19 98% not an issue for the majority of the population
Vaccine, untested over long period of time or with people with serious health conditions, but let it rip - isn't that your phrase!
What is your alternative to vaccination. Feel free to consult with Angelo, Hereiam and Seamus. A lot of like minds there
Quote from: sid waddell on December 02, 2020, 01:28:34 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 02, 2020, 12:41:09 PM
I actually think it's as simple as the UK needing a 'win' in being the first to do something (or be seen to do something), some positive publicity. The Oxford Vaccine coming in 3rd was a bit of a blow for a mental case Government that wants to be seen as a world leader post Brexit.
While I have pretty much no doubt the vaccine/s will be entirely safe, the UK Government is so discredited and so untrustworthy in general that it's unfortunate they were the first ones to ratify this Pfizer one
Their association with anything is toxic and could lead to at least a degree of what is almostly certainly unwarranted scepticism among otherwise sensible people
Hopefully the EU ratifies it soon
But it wasn't the government who approved it.
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.
You can sleep easy now.
You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.
The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.
Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.
Point to the evidence that makes you "sure"
Seaney must be laughing his head off at the bites he's getting !!
The biggest WUM on board.
Doesn't give a shit about the elderly, it's just the last straw in a daft wind up. He'll be front and centre at the clinic when it's handed out.
He's arguing against the leading virologists in the world and quoting his mate in the pub!
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.
You can sleep easy now.
You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.
The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.
Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.
Point to the evidence that makes you "sure"
the non vaccinated will be able to go to pubs aswell
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:15:04 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 01:30:11 PM
It's not. Family consent is required. If in the case of no family, if a care home patient has sound mind they make the decision themselves. If not, as per the Mental capacity act the decision will be made for them in their best interests.
Hope that puts your mind at ease.
It does if correct, didn't see this guidance, so in the case of no consent will they be allowed to remain in the care home, the bit in bold means mandatory vaccines in reality.
The alternative is to not give them a vaccine that has been agreed as the best possible course of action by medical bodies and to leave them at risk of Covid just because there was no one to give consent. I'm sure you'll agree that would be fairly absurd path to take.
Where do I sign up? Could get skiing yet this season ;D
Boris goes a few weeks ahead of 'the Europeans' - he's probably reading this thread and thinking this would be his best path to have even more shite talked.
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:25:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 02, 2020, 01:28:34 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 02, 2020, 12:41:09 PM
I actually think it's as simple as the UK needing a 'win' in being the first to do something (or be seen to do something), some positive publicity. The Oxford Vaccine coming in 3rd was a bit of a blow for a mental case Government that wants to be seen as a world leader post Brexit.
While I have pretty much no doubt the vaccine/s will be entirely safe, the UK Government is so discredited and so untrustworthy in general that it's unfortunate they were the first ones to ratify this Pfizer one
Their association with anything is toxic and could lead to at least a degree of what is almostly certainly unwarranted scepticism among otherwise sensible people
Hopefully the EU ratifies it soon
But it wasn't the government who approved it.
Makes it even Lamer, a 'British' 1st. But the MHRA is funded by the Department for Health i see.
Did anyone see Bojo's Downing Street briefing today, the last 'questions was from the Sun. Can't remember the Journo's name but his Question/Statement was - "did being free from Brussels red tape make it easier to speed through the approval process" (said with a Brexit, back slapping guffaw). I could have vomited.
Quote from: tyssam5 on December 02, 2020, 09:12:40 PM
Boris goes a few weeks ahead of 'the Europeans' - he's probably reading this thread and thinking this would be his best path to have even more shite talked.
Rees-Mogg tweeted about how good it was to be free from EU bureaucracy and be able to approve this. But sure the Russians approved their jab in August.
And of course Michelle O'Neill welcomed it, when she should have said that it not be used in any part of Ireland until the EMA approved it.
Quote from: armaghniac on December 02, 2020, 10:01:25 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on December 02, 2020, 09:12:40 PM
Boris goes a few weeks ahead of 'the Europeans' - he's probably reading this thread and thinking this would be his best path to have even more shite talked.
Rees-Mogg tweeted about how good it was to be free from EU bureaucracy and be able to approve this. But sure the Russians approved their jab in August.
Rees-Mogg probably does have the intellect to recognise that nothing that happened today could not have happened whilst inside the EU. In fact Britain is technically still within the EU regulatory framework.
Quote from: bennydorano on December 02, 2020, 09:24:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:25:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 02, 2020, 01:28:34 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 02, 2020, 12:41:09 PM
I actually think it's as simple as the UK needing a 'win' in being the first to do something (or be seen to do something), some positive publicity. The Oxford Vaccine coming in 3rd was a bit of a blow for a mental case Government that wants to be seen as a world leader post Brexit.
While I have pretty much no doubt the vaccine/s will be entirely safe, the UK Government is so discredited and so untrustworthy in general that it's unfortunate they were the first ones to ratify this Pfizer one
Their association with anything is toxic and could lead to at least a degree of what is almostly certainly unwarranted scepticism among otherwise sensible people
Hopefully the EU ratifies it soon
But it wasn't the government who approved it.
Makes it even Lamer, a 'British' 1st. But the MHRA is funded by the Department for Health i see.
Did anyone see Bojo's Downing Street briefing today, the last 'questions was from the Sun. Can't remember the Journo's name but his Question/Statement was - "did being free from Brussels red tape make it easier to speed through the approval process" (said with a Brexit, back slapping guffaw). I could have vomited.
Looks like Britain did do something right in its approach to interim and parallel approvals (a bit like the scientist's approach to clinical trials). So fair play. But it wasn't the government and it wasn't because of Brexit.
Alok Sharma tweet
The UK was the first country to sign a deal with Pfizer/BioNTech - now we will be the first to deploy their vaccine
To everyone involved in this breakthrough: thank you
In years to come, we will remember this moment as the day the UK led humanity's charge against this disease
Not to go all seaney but the brits look like they're doing a political stunt out of this. I am sure it is fine but this shouting from the rafters makes me uncomfortable.
On the mogg eu statement apparently he is half right. So you couldn't approve that quick with being completely in eu , apparently, however there are distribution things you couldn't do if you were out of the eu so couldn't have happened without eu. Basically if a Tory said that you know it is either a blatant lie or some kind of obfuscation of the full truth >:(
Quote from: armaghniac on December 02, 2020, 10:01:25 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on December 02, 2020, 09:12:40 PM
Boris goes a few weeks ahead of 'the Europeans' - he's probably reading this thread and thinking this would be his best path to have even more shite talked.
Rees-Mogg tweeted about how good it was to be free from EU bureaucracy and be able to approve this. But sure the Russians approved their jab in August.
And of course Michelle O'Neill welcomed it, when she should have said that it not be used in any part of Ireland until the EMA approved it.
That of course, is not her call. It also would have been politically disastrous as the majority of the population are delighted its been approved.
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 03, 2020, 07:43:59 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 02, 2020, 10:01:25 PM
Quote from: tyssam5 on December 02, 2020, 09:12:40 PM
Boris goes a few weeks ahead of 'the Europeans' - he's probably reading this thread and thinking this would be his best path to have even more shite talked.
Rees-Mogg tweeted about how good it was to be free from EU bureaucracy and be able to approve this. But sure the Russians approved their jab in August.
And of course Michelle O'Neill welcomed it, when she should have said that it not be used in any part of Ireland until the EMA approved it.
That of course, is not her call. It also would have been politically disastrous as the majority of the population are delighted its been approved.
That's the whole point, isn't it. Nationalist, unless it doesn't suit.
Quote from: lenny on December 02, 2020, 05:17:43 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 03:25:50 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 03:21:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 01:47:29 PM
Well done on avoiding the question.
So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.
It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.
It isnt - you said folk in care homes are collateral damage.
You have not provided any evidence of the sort.
Fair enough if you are anti vaccine - but pointless throwing out comments with absolutely no factual basis.
I am going with what the Health Secretary, Medical Regulator & numerous prominent epidemiologists & immunologists are saying.
Who are you going with?
I'll tell you who he's following.
Jim Corr, Gemma "Gemtrails" O'Doherty and some Ohio soccer mom on Facebook who shared a debunked pseudoscientific "research paper."
Lol, don't forget David icke. He's made a big comeback with the science deniers.
Yeah the discussion board pack - bet you were all lovely at school as well. ::)
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 04:19:50 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.
You can sleep easy now.
You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.
The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.
Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.
In our discussions we've established:
1) The vaccine is effective
2) The vast scientific majority think it is safe;
3) These experts were not the same experts who modelled infection rates or developed lockdown measures
4) That it won't be mandatory;
5) People like me that would have been happy to have paid for it will not be allowed to do so;
6) Anybody that wants it should have it within a couple of months - again nobody will be forced.
7) That you know little to nothing about the laws surrounding Director Dealing(s) and when CEO's can and cannot sell shares.
Your last stand here seems to be though inventing hypothetical scenarios about vulnerable old people being head locked and hood winked into getting it.
You are clutching at straws big time.
Wtf are you talking about! Good that the vast majority think it's safe. I am sold.
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:19:46 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:20:02 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:48:49 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:37:17 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?
Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?
So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?
And you don't if anyone will not be.
You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.
No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?
No I am a bit thick - but you are obviously a highly educated individual with a moral superiority above all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953)
Elderly people in care homes and care home staff have been placed top of the priority list, followed by the over-80s and health and care staff
So is it being forced upon folk with complex health issues, no doubt it has been fully tested to take these illnesses into account!
You have chosen to use the word "forced" and it is key to the point you are trying to make. What is your evidence for anyone being forced ?
Anyone without family consent with dementia say in a care home will be directed to have this by the relevant authorities, fact!
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:25:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 02, 2020, 01:28:34 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 02, 2020, 12:41:09 PM
I actually think it's as simple as the UK needing a 'win' in being the first to do something (or be seen to do something), some positive publicity. The Oxford Vaccine coming in 3rd was a bit of a blow for a mental case Government that wants to be seen as a world leader post Brexit.
While I have pretty much no doubt the vaccine/s will be entirely safe, the UK Government is so discredited and so untrustworthy in general that it's unfortunate they were the first ones to ratify this Pfizer one
Their association with anything is toxic and could lead to at least a degree of what is almostly certainly unwarranted scepticism among otherwise sensible people
Hopefully the EU ratifies it soon
But it wasn't the government who approved it.
Of course it wasn't!
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.
You can sleep easy now.
You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.
The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.
Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.
Point to the evidence that makes you "sure"
Point to the evidence that make you so sure to the contrary.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 02, 2020, 07:42:28 PM
Seaney must be laughing his head off at the bites he's getting !!
The biggest WUM on board.
Doesn't give a shit about the elderly, it's just the last straw in a daft wind up. He'll be front and centre at the clinic when it's handed out.
He's arguing against the leading virologists in the world and quoting his mate in the pub!
I haven't been in a pub this year, maybe you get all your information when half canned, looking at your posts I would believe it.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:15:04 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 01:30:11 PM
It's not. Family consent is required. If in the case of no family, if a care home patient has sound mind they make the decision themselves. If not, as per the Mental capacity act the decision will be made for them in their best interests.
Hope that puts your mind at ease.
It does if correct, didn't see this guidance, so in the case of no consent will they be allowed to remain in the care home, the bit in bold means mandatory vaccines in reality.
The alternative is to not give them a vaccine that has been agreed as the best possible course of action by medical bodies and to leave them at risk of Covid just because there was no one to give consent. I'm sure you'll agree that would be fairly absurd path to take.
As opposed to the absurd situation to give them a vaccine with no evidence how it will affect them in the long term, it really is win win, if they have some reaction who is there to care!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 02, 2020, 07:42:28 PM
Seaney must be laughing his head off at the bites he's getting !!
The biggest WUM on board.
Doesn't give a shit about the elderly, it's just the last straw in a daft wind up. He'll be front and centre at the clinic when it's handed out.
He's arguing against the leading virologists in the world and quoting his mate in the pub!
He's the pied piper in this thread no doubt.
There are some other decent WUMs on the GAA Board though.
Quote from: Seaney on December 03, 2020, 12:55:12 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 08:44:18 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:15:04 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 01:30:11 PM
It's not. Family consent is required. If in the case of no family, if a care home patient has sound mind they make the decision themselves. If not, as per the Mental capacity act the decision will be made for them in their best interests.
Hope that puts your mind at ease.
It does if correct, didn't see this guidance, so in the case of no consent will they be allowed to remain in the care home, the bit in bold means mandatory vaccines in reality.
The alternative is to not give them a vaccine that has been agreed as the best possible course of action by medical bodies and to leave them at risk of Covid just because there was no one to give consent. I'm sure you'll agree that would be fairly absurd path to take.
As opposed to the absurd situation to give them a vaccine with no evidence how it will affect them in the long term, it really is win win, if they have some reaction who is there to care!
That's not absurd. Medical professionals following medical practices. Standard. As I said, it would be absurd if medical professionals decided with no logical reason to not follow medical policy.
Its on its way through the channel tunnel this evening boys. Get her out quick go go go.
Quote from: Seaney on December 03, 2020, 12:48:28 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:19:46 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:20:02 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:48:49 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:46:50 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:41:35 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:39:49 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 10:37:17 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 10:36:01 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 02, 2020, 09:03:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 07:44:34 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 10:27:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on November 30, 2020, 09:59:34 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on November 30, 2020, 06:04:20 PM
Quote from: five points on November 30, 2020, 05:20:45 PM
Quote from: Cobra on November 30, 2020, 05:10:31 PM
My own view people should be free to refuse the vaccine, but they should be prepared to be refused entry to pubs, restaurants, sporting events, schools, universities, creches, airports, basically anywhere that you freely mix with other people. If you're not willing to protect society then society should keep you in a semi permanent lockdown.
You really mean that people shouldn't be free to refuse the vaccine.
No, they shouldn't be free to go around infecting other people. The vaccine is one way of not doing that.
No it isn't, there is no evidence it stops the spread.
There isn't yet. I expect there soon will be. It seems extremely likely that it reduces transmission even if it does not stop it.
FFS, so you getting the first jab, oh no, you will be in a queue behind millions of vulnerable folk as will all those promoting it!
The posters don't have a choice in that. It's outside their control. However they do have a choice on taking the vaccine when it's offered to them. That is inside their control.
But the folk in care homes have no choice, they have to be the collateral damage!
Who said by taking the vaccine it will cause damage?
Who knows it won't, what is the long term scientific evidence on people with complicated health issues, the old, the very young etc?
So you dont know if anyone has to be collateral damage?
And you don't if anyone will not be.
You are the one saying folk in care homes are collateral damage.
No evidence whatsoever - you do know what collateral damage means right?
No I am a bit thick - but you are obviously a highly educated individual with a moral superiority above all.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-55155953)
Elderly people in care homes and care home staff have been placed top of the priority list, followed by the over-80s and health and care staff
So is it being forced upon folk with complex health issues, no doubt it has been fully tested to take these illnesses into account!
You have chosen to use the word "forced" and it is key to the point you are trying to make. What is your evidence for anyone being forced ?
Anyone without family consent with dementia say in a care home will be directed to have this by the relevant authorities, fact!
If that's the fact then you will have no difficulty posting a link to something official then. Please post it at your earliest convenience
Quote from: Seaney on December 03, 2020, 12:50:31 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:25:32 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 02, 2020, 01:28:34 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on December 02, 2020, 12:41:09 PM
I actually think it's as simple as the UK needing a 'win' in being the first to do something (or be seen to do something), some positive publicity. The Oxford Vaccine coming in 3rd was a bit of a blow for a mental case Government that wants to be seen as a world leader post Brexit.
While I have pretty much no doubt the vaccine/s will be entirely safe, the UK Government is so discredited and so untrustworthy in general that it's unfortunate they were the first ones to ratify this Pfizer one
Their association with anything is toxic and could lead to at least a degree of what is almostly certainly unwarranted scepticism among otherwise sensible people
Hopefully the EU ratifies it soon
But it wasn't the government who approved it.
Of course it wasn't!
Well we are in agreement on that. An independent regulator approved it. If they government could have influenced the timing of the approval for political reasons then the political motivation would have been to do it the previous day.
The government interference is a complete red herring. Only crackpots are pushing that line
Quote from: Seaney on December 03, 2020, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.
You can sleep easy now.
You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.
The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.
Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.
Point to the evidence that makes you "sure"
Point to the evidence that make you so sure to the contrary.
That is not how society or debate works. You say you are sure of something. I merely ask you what makes you so sure. Reasonable question. Please answer
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:24:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 12:55:59 PM
So in short....
COVID-19 - well established potentially serious side effects.
Vaccine - no established side effects, safety certified in widespread clinical trials involving 10ks of volunteers.
Why would anyone say they don't want the vaccine?
Covid-19 98% not an issue for the majority of the population
Vaccine, untested over long period of time or with people with serious health conditions, but let it rip - isn't that your phrase!
What is your alternative to vaccination. Feel free to consult with Angelo, Hereiam and Seamus. A lot of like minds there
Seaney
You posted replies but not answers to my questions.
This one you didn't bother to reply to at all.
I'll not ask you why but I repeat the original question. What is your alternative to vaccination?
You must have something
Quote from: LCohen on November 29, 2020, 04:58:47 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on November 29, 2020, 01:40:54 PM
Sinn Fein's support is the most anti-vaccine - a new poll shows only 55% of SF supporters would take a Covid vaccine
That compares to 91% of Green Party supporters, 89% of Labour supporters, 83% of Fianna Fail supporters
Even the flat earthers of Aontu on 64% were ahead
I found that quite interesting
Sinn Fein really do have a large subset of supporters with very strange views
Big opportunity for leadership for Mary Lou here
Any sign of Mary Lou or Sinn Fein stepping up to the plate here?
Quote from: LCohen on November 27, 2020, 04:13:21 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on November 27, 2020, 12:26:32 PM
Quote from: LCohen on November 26, 2020, 10:43:52 PM
Quote from: Hereiam on November 26, 2020, 10:15:44 PM
So the north is being lined up to be the brits guinea pig for the vaccine, you can just hear ole Boris muttering the words "sure test it on the Irish, they are good for nothing else"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-55087961)
No harm to you but where are you getting the idea that NI is being used as a guinea pig?
I'm no fan of Boris but that Boris quote only exists in your head
Well the north is usually the last to see any new developments made by Britain be it new infrastructure, health treatments etc, but all of a sudden we are the first being given this new vaccine and you think to yourself why are people in England not getting it first? Surly the British government would but the lives of their own front an foremost.
Where are you getting the idea that the vaccine is being rolled out in NI ahead of GB?
We never got to the bottom of that one
Quote from: LCohen on December 04, 2020, 02:27:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:24:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 12:55:59 PM
So in short....
COVID-19 - well established potentially serious side effects.
Vaccine - no established side effects, safety certified in widespread clinical trials involving 10ks of volunteers.
Why would anyone say they don't want the vaccine?
Covid-19 98% not an issue for the majority of the population
Vaccine, untested over long period of time or with people with serious health conditions, but let it rip - isn't that your phrase!
What is your alternative to vaccination. Feel free to consult with Angelo, Hereiam and Seamus. A lot of like minds there
Seaney
You posted replies but not answers to my questions.
This one you didn't bother to reply to at all.
I'll not ask you why but I repeat the original question. What is your alternative to vaccination?
You must have something
I'm guessing homeopathy?? Or maybe Reiki!!
Quote from: screenexile on December 05, 2020, 12:13:44 AM
Quote from: LCohen on December 04, 2020, 02:27:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:24:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 12:55:59 PM
So in short....
COVID-19 - well established potentially serious side effects.
Vaccine - no established side effects, safety certified in widespread clinical trials involving 10ks of volunteers.
Why would anyone say they don't want the vaccine?
Covid-19 98% not an issue for the majority of the population
Vaccine, untested over long period of time or with people with serious health conditions, but let it rip - isn't that your phrase!
What is your alternative to vaccination. Feel free to consult with Angelo, Hereiam and Seamus. A lot of like minds there
Seaney
You posted replies but not answers to my questions.
This one you didn't bother to reply to at all.
I'll not ask you why but I repeat the original question. What is your alternative to vaccination?
You must have something
I'm guessing homeopathy?? Or maybe Reiki!!
They will probably feature somewhere but only because his response will be so comprehensive.
Trebor Extra Strong Mints will be in there along with pebble-dashing the home outdoors AND indoors.
So, its been explained to me that the vaccine is (i)not an inactive virus, and (ii)only presents the spike protein as a foreign invader for the immune system to target.
Which means its intrinsically safe. Any side effects will be the body's own immune system ramping up to right off an infection - even if the infection is actually a fake harmless one.
I know I said way earlier in the thread I had some vague concerns, now I'm happy with it and happy to get it.
Quote from: LCohen on December 05, 2020, 08:06:57 AM
Quote from: screenexile on December 05, 2020, 12:13:44 AM
Quote from: LCohen on December 04, 2020, 02:27:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:24:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 12:55:59 PM
So in short....
COVID-19 - well established potentially serious side effects.
Vaccine - no established side effects, safety certified in widespread clinical trials involving 10ks of volunteers.
Why would anyone say they don't want the vaccine?
Covid-19 98% not an issue for the majority of the population
Vaccine, untested over long period of time or with people with serious health conditions, but let it rip - isn't that your phrase!
What is your alternative to vaccination. Feel free to consult with Angelo, Hereiam and Seamus. A lot of like minds there
Seaney
You posted replies but not answers to my questions.
This one you didn't bother to reply to at all.
I'll not ask you why but I repeat the original question. What is your alternative to vaccination?
You must have something
I'm guessing homeopathy?? Or maybe Reiki!!
They will probably feature somewhere but only because his response will be so comprehensive.
Trebor Extra Strong Mints will be in there along with pebble-dashing the home outdoors AND indoors.
Bizarre I never mentioned anything against the vaccination, I did say I hope it worked and I hope it achieved a normalisation of society, but had concerns over the expediency of it, but you all make up your own lies there.
Quote from: LCohen on December 04, 2020, 02:24:21 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 03, 2020, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.
You can sleep easy now.
You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.
The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.
Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.
Point to the evidence that makes you "sure"
Point to the evidence that make you so sure to the contrary.
That is not how society or debate works. You say you are sure of something. I merely ask you what makes you so sure. Reasonable question. Please answer
And I asked you for your evidence it is not. You can't debate from the premise you are right and I have to prove you are wrong, you prove to me you are correct and we will take it from there.
Quote from: Seaney on December 05, 2020, 07:34:19 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 04, 2020, 02:24:21 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 03, 2020, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.
You can sleep easy now.
You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.
The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.
Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.
Point to the evidence that makes you "sure"
Point to the evidence that make you so sure to the contrary.
That is not how society or debate works. You say you are sure of something. I merely ask you what makes you so sure. Reasonable question. Please answer
And I asked you for your evidence it is not. You can't debate from the premise you are right and I have to prove you are wrong, you prove to me you are correct and we will take it from there.
Seany you and Angelo are typical of the idiotic anti vaccine conspiracy nuts in the world today. The medical professionals and industry regulators are approving the vaccine.
Everyone else is asking the likes of yourself and Angelo to point out the issues with a potential vaccine, but you can't do it except claim it's some rushed conspiracy by "Big Pharma"
I can only hope you don't have kids so they don't suffer from your idiocy in the long run
Quote from: Seaney on December 05, 2020, 07:31:40 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 05, 2020, 08:06:57 AM
Quote from: screenexile on December 05, 2020, 12:13:44 AM
Quote from: LCohen on December 04, 2020, 02:27:29 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:24:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 01:26:01 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 02, 2020, 12:55:59 PM
So in short....
COVID-19 - well established potentially serious side effects.
Vaccine - no established side effects, safety certified in widespread clinical trials involving 10ks of volunteers.
Why would anyone say they don't want the vaccine?
Covid-19 98% not an issue for the majority of the population
Vaccine, untested over long period of time or with people with serious health conditions, but let it rip - isn't that your phrase!
What is your alternative to vaccination. Feel free to consult with Angelo, Hereiam and Seamus. A lot of like minds there
Seaney
You posted replies but not answers to my questions.
This one you didn't bother to reply to at all.
I'll not ask you why but I repeat the original question. What is your alternative to vaccination?
You must have something
I'm guessing homeopathy?? Or maybe Reiki!!
They will probably feature somewhere but only because his response will be so comprehensive.
Trebor Extra Strong Mints will be in there along with pebble-dashing the home outdoors AND indoors.
Bizarre I never mentioned anything against the vaccination, I did say I hope it worked and I hope it achieved a normalisation of society, but had concerns over the expediency of it, but you all make up your own lies there.
Fears over expediency. They have been answered time and time again. You just don't want to listen. The speed of delivery has been fully explained.
You reference long term side effects and the need to wait to see those. That's a big window so it still needs you to explain your alternative
Quote from: Seaney on December 05, 2020, 07:34:19 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 04, 2020, 02:24:21 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 03, 2020, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.
You can sleep easy now.
You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.
The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.
Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.
Point to the evidence that makes you "sure"
Point to the evidence that make you so sure to the contrary.
That is not how society or debate works. You say you are sure of something. I merely ask you what makes you so sure. Reasonable question. Please answer
And I asked you for your evidence it is not. You can't debate from the premise you are right and I have to prove you are wrong, you prove to me you are correct and we will take it from there.
Is this a new trick from the WUM playbook?
You made the statement that you were "sure".
I made no equivalent statement.
I ask you for your supporting evidence. You appear to be trying to getting away without providing such evidence by instead asking me the evidence I have to support a claim I have not made. People wonder how Farage/Boris/The Donald get elected? Just read Seaney's posts
The Queen and Bob Geldof are going get it, time to close the thread surely.
Quote from: LCohen on December 06, 2020, 08:45:10 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 05, 2020, 07:34:19 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 04, 2020, 02:24:21 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 03, 2020, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.
You can sleep easy now.
You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.
The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.
Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.
Point to the evidence that makes you "sure"
Point to the evidence that make you so sure to the contrary.
That is not how society or debate works. You say you are sure of something. I merely ask you what makes you so sure. Reasonable question. Please answer
And I asked you for your evidence it is not. You can't debate from the premise you are right and I have to prove you are wrong, you prove to me you are correct and we will take it from there.
Is this a new trick from the WUM playbook?
You made the statement that you were "sure".
I made no equivalent statement.
I ask you for your supporting evidence. You appear to be trying to getting away without providing such evidence by instead asking me the evidence I have to support a claim I have not made. People wonder how Farage/Boris/The Donald get elected? Just read Seaney's posts
I was thinking that.
I just made some shit up so it is up to you to disprove it not to me to prove it is some strategy haha.
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 06, 2020, 03:32:37 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 06, 2020, 08:45:10 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 05, 2020, 07:34:19 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 04, 2020, 02:24:21 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 03, 2020, 12:52:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 02, 2020, 07:27:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 02, 2020, 02:40:31 PM
Boris just said it's not mandatory Seaney.
You can sleep easy now.
You can stay in lockdown or maintain social distancing or whatever.
The rest of who are taking the vaccine will just get on with our normal lives as best we can and be able to go to football matches, pubs airplanes etc as before.
Boris says a lot of things, not surprised you would believe them, I am sure vulnerable folk in a care home will have no say whatsoever, and as no one is allowed in to see them, who's going look after their interests.
Point to the evidence that makes you "sure"
Point to the evidence that make you so sure to the contrary.
That is not how society or debate works. You say you are sure of something. I merely ask you what makes you so sure. Reasonable question. Please answer
And I asked you for your evidence it is not. You can't debate from the premise you are right and I have to prove you are wrong, you prove to me you are correct and we will take it from there.
Is this a new trick from the WUM playbook?
You made the statement that you were "sure".
I made no equivalent statement.
I ask you for your supporting evidence. You appear to be trying to getting away without providing such evidence by instead asking me the evidence I have to support a claim I have not made. People wonder how Farage/Boris/The Donald get elected? Just read Seaney's posts
I was thinking that.
I just made some shit up so it is up to you to disprove it not to me to prove it is some strategy haha.
Crazy stuff. This should be an informative thread (and it definitely can be) , but you have to read through some turgid stuff to get to the good bits. Just shows when someone goes down a rabbit hole it's hard to do a 180. Easier to double-down on the lunacy
Quote from: lenny on November 29, 2020, 04:16:20 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 29, 2020, 04:05:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
There were 350000 polio cases in 1988. There are approx 50 per year nowadays.
Don't try to bamboozle some of the covidiots on here with facts.
Conveniently the criteria for polio diagnosis has changed. I'm expecting the real idiots to come up with some lame excuse in order to keep their belief systems intact. Covidiots, how Orwellian.
Polio now hides behind these names: acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), Transverse Myelitis, Viral or aseptic Meningitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Chinese Paralytic syndrome, Cronic Fatigue Syndrome, epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal meningitis, spinal apoplexy, inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever, bilious remittent fever, ergotism, ME, post-polio syndrome, Synonyms for GBS].
Hiding Polio: The Diagnosis Lie
"Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral and aseptic meningitis. According to one of the 1997 issues of MMWR, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis per year in the United States alone. That is where all those cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination"
Viera Scheibner, Ph.D (2002)
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html (http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html)
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 05, 2020, 12:01:14 PM
So, its been explained to me that the vaccine is (i)not an inactive virus, and (ii)only presents the spike protein as a foreign invader for the immune system to target.
Which means its intrinsically safe. Any side effects will be the body's own immune system ramping up to right off an infection - even if the infection is actually a fake harmless one.
I know I said way earlier in the thread I had some vague concerns, now I'm happy with it and happy to get it.
I'd advise you to do some more research. Below is a small sample of the many issues regarding the approved vaccines.
"The formation of so-called "non neutralizing antibodies" can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real "wild" virus after vaccination. This so called anti-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus".
" The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contains polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people developed antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccine".
"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS_CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
"The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless BioNTech/Pfizer submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020, (which has now been granted)".
mRNA technology have never been used in vaccines production before this crazy leap of faith, ignoring years of animal studies which has proven the risk of vaccine enhancement where the subject is not protected but the vaccine can make the disease worse when the new flu season comes along. This is a big danger to the unvaccinated if their immune system is not optimal due to viral shedding. This may well lead us the introduction of COVID-21.
Quote from: Seamus on December 07, 2020, 02:33:53 AM
Quote from: lenny on November 29, 2020, 04:16:20 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 29, 2020, 04:05:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
There were 350000 polio cases in 1988. There are approx 50 per year nowadays.
Don't try to bamboozle some of the covidiots on here with facts.
Conveniently the criteria for polio diagnosis has changed. I'm expecting the real idiots to come up with some lame excuse in order to keep their belief systems intact. Covidiots, how Orwellian.
Polio now hides behind these names: acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), Transverse Myelitis, Viral or aseptic Meningitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Chinese Paralytic syndrome, Cronic Fatigue Syndrome, epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal meningitis, spinal apoplexy, inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever, bilious remittent fever, ergotism, ME, post-polio syndrome, Synonyms for GBS].
Hiding Polio: The Diagnosis Lie
"Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral and aseptic meningitis. According to one of the 1997 issues of MMWR, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis per year in the United States alone. That is where all those cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination"
Viera Scheibner, Ph.D (2002)
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html (http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html)
Seamus- as a contribution to the debate that is dreadful.
Whilst Ms Scheibner is a scientist you will be the first to admit that he field of science is geology. Post retirement she has entered the vaccination debate where she has been accused variously of being a pseudoscientist and deliberately peddling misinformation with no scientific basis.
As a source she is discredited. Wholly discredited. She has literally been thrown out of court for her lack of credibility. She is a Rudi Guiliani type figure.
As for the polio points.
You need to clear. If you are suggesting that that diagnosis are being given to suppress polio stats then be specific.
Secondly the global prevaccination levels of polio are unknown. Many of the cases were in the developing world. Only severe cases were recorded. When we hear of 300-400k cases per year these are severe cases.
The diseases you mention don't come close to those numbers and your list includes viral meningitis where the numbers are overwhelmingly at the milder end of the spectrum (I.e. full recovery within a week).
Your article is based upon this selective use of sources. It is absolute horseshit
Quote from: Seamus on December 07, 2020, 02:49:34 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 05, 2020, 12:01:14 PM
So, its been explained to me that the vaccine is (i)not an inactive virus, and (ii)only presents the spike protein as a foreign invader for the immune system to target.
Which means its intrinsically safe. Any side effects will be the body's own immune system ramping up to right off an infection - even if the infection is actually a fake harmless one.
I know I said way earlier in the thread I had some vague concerns, now I'm happy with it and happy to get it.
I'd advise you to do some more research. Below is a small sample of the many issues regarding the approved vaccines.
"The formation of so-called "non neutralizing antibodies" can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real "wild" virus after vaccination. This so called anti-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus".
" The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contains polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people developed antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccine".
"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS_CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
"The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless BioNTech/Pfizer submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020, (which has now been granted)".
mRNA technology have never been used in vaccines production before this crazy leap of faith, ignoring years of animal studies which has proven the risk of vaccine enhancement where the subject is not protected but the vaccine can make the disease worse when the new flu season comes along. This is a big danger to the unvaccinated if their immune system is not optimal due to viral shedding. This may well lead us the introduction of COVID-21.
What is the source there?
I like to read the full article and any reviews
Quote from: LCohen on December 07, 2020, 07:44:52 AM
Quote from: Seamus on December 07, 2020, 02:49:34 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 05, 2020, 12:01:14 PM
So, its been explained to me that the vaccine is (i)not an inactive virus, and (ii)only presents the spike protein as a foreign invader for the immune system to target.
Which means its intrinsically safe. Any side effects will be the body's own immune system ramping up to right off an infection - even if the infection is actually a fake harmless one.
I know I said way earlier in the thread I had some vague concerns, now I'm happy with it and happy to get it.
I'd advise you to do some more research. Below is a small sample of the many issues regarding the approved vaccines.
"The formation of so-called "non neutralizing antibodies" can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real "wild" virus after vaccination. This so called anti-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus".
" The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contains polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people developed antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccine".
"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS_CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
"The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless BioNTech/Pfizer submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020, (which has now been granted)".
mRNA technology have never been used in vaccines production before this crazy leap of faith, ignoring years of animal studies which has proven the risk of vaccine enhancement where the subject is not protected but the vaccine can make the disease worse when the new flu season comes along. This is a big danger to the unvaccinated if their immune system is not optimal due to viral shedding. This may well lead us the introduction of COVID-21.
What is the source there?
I like to read the full article and any reviews
Based on his previous sources I would guess someone with a MA (Hons) in Liberal Arts.
Quote from: Seaney on December 06, 2020, 09:38:04 AM
The Queen and Bob Geldof are going get it, time to close the thread surely.
It gives us in the South a chance to observe any adverse reactions to the virus in advance of our roll-out. Just for clarity though: the protestants had horns before they took it?
/Jim.
Quote from: Seamus on December 07, 2020, 02:49:34 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 05, 2020, 12:01:14 PM
So, its been explained to me that the vaccine is (i)not an inactive virus, and (ii)only presents the spike protein as a foreign invader for the immune system to target.
Which means its intrinsically safe. Any side effects will be the body's own immune system ramping up to right off an infection - even if the infection is actually a fake harmless one.
I know I said way earlier in the thread I had some vague concerns, now I'm happy with it and happy to get it.
I'd advise you to do some more research. Below is a small sample of the many issues regarding the approved vaccines.
"The formation of so-called "non neutralizing antibodies" can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real "wild" virus after vaccination. This so called anti-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus".
" The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contains polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people developed antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccine".
"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS_CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
"The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless BioNTech/Pfizer submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020, (which has now been granted)".
mRNA technology have never been used in vaccines production before this crazy leap of faith, ignoring years of animal studies which has proven the risk of vaccine enhancement where the subject is not protected but the vaccine can make the disease worse when the new flu season comes along. This is a big danger to the unvaccinated if their immune system is not optimal due to viral shedding. This may well lead us the introduction of COVID-21.
What am I supposed to do with these?
Copy and paste them into google to see if they came from a peer-reviewed journal or facebook? :o
https://twitter.com/ScientistSwanda/status/1335988328362090500 (https://twitter.com/ScientistSwanda/status/1335988328362090500)
simple explanation of how these vaccines are meant to work.
Some headbangers on that twitter feed! Social obligation to take it or risk ostracism from society. ::) Should anyone not vaccinated wear a bell?
BTW Hancock is the smuggest person on the planet now as the Brits score a political coup getting the vaccine approved first, should we all forget the shambles of track and trace now and the social, physical and mental injustices of failed lockdowns.
I can agree on that Seaney. He has always been one of the smuggest on the planet despite the fact he has about zero competence and the brits would not be crying out for the vaccine as much as they are had they handled the thing better in the first place. They see it as triumph which is perverse.
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 08, 2020, 12:09:40 PM
I can agree on that Seaney. He has always been one of the smuggest on the planet despite the fact he has about zero competence and the brits would not be crying out for the vaccine as much as they are had they handled the thing better in the first place. They see it as triumph which is perverse.
It's that Dunkirk spirit of trying to spin a positive when getting your arse handed to you.
Fúck sake, his attempts at emotion on GMB were laughable.
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 12:04:53 PM
Some headbangers on that twitter feed! Social obligation to take it or risk ostracism from society. ::) Should anyone not vaccinated wear a bell?
Headbangers abound.
There are boyos out there with madcap views and absolutely refuse to engage in meaningful debate.
Anybody read up on it much? Was it tested on diabetics, asthmatics etc? In a standard clinical trial, how long are subjects monitored after each stage for side-effects?
Is it not a bit strange that the posters who are "uneasy" about the vaccine seem to share common traits around answering questions, quoting discredited sources, making claims about the vaccine being forced etc?
Far be from me to suggest that they are one person, in cahoots or gaslit by a common source
And headbangers who as a collective think they can bully, berate and try to intimidate folk with reasonable health care concerns about a vaccine ten months in the making and only being administrated currently in a country run by liars and swindlers to achieve nothing but political gain.
Quote from: LCohen on December 08, 2020, 01:39:02 PM
Is it not a bit strange that the posters who are "uneasy" about the vaccine seem to share common traits around answering questions, quoting discredited sources, making claims about the vaccine being forced etc?
Far be from me to suggest that they are one person, in cahoots or gaslit by a common source
Lets see how the care homes pan out, I am next of kin for my parent in care, Ill let you know if and when I am contacted for approval but as of yet no one has mentioned the vaccine to me.
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 08, 2020, 01:38:56 PM
Anybody read up on it much? Was it tested on diabetics, asthmatics etc? In a standard clinical trial, how long are subjects monitored after each stage for side-effects?
LCohen has all the stats, him and Milhouse and Franko.
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 08, 2020, 01:38:56 PM
Anybody read up on it much? Was it tested on diabetics, asthmatics etc? In a standard clinical trial, how long are subjects monitored after each stage for side-effects?
LCohen has all the stats, him and Milhouse and Franko.
I thought you had all the stats?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 01:49:16 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 08, 2020, 01:38:56 PM
Anybody read up on it much? Was it tested on diabetics, asthmatics etc? In a standard clinical trial, how long are subjects monitored after each stage for side-effects?
LCohen has all the stats, him and Milhouse and Franko.
I thought you had all the stats?
No I have been asking questions and raising concerns, will you furnish nrico with your findings - thanks from him in advance.
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:45:27 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 08, 2020, 01:39:02 PM
Is it not a bit strange that the posters who are "uneasy" about the vaccine seem to share common traits around answering questions, quoting discredited sources, making claims about the vaccine being forced etc?
Far be from me to suggest that they are one person, in cahoots or gaslit by a common source
Lets see how the care homes pan out, I am next of kin for my parent in care, Ill let you know if and when I am contacted for approval but as of yet no one has mentioned the vaccine to me.
Make sure you sue their ass if they force it on your parent...
No one should be getting it if they don't want it, nobody forced the polio vaccine on us or the BCG or the other vaccines...
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:51:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 01:49:16 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 08, 2020, 01:38:56 PM
Anybody read up on it much? Was it tested on diabetics, asthmatics etc? In a standard clinical trial, how long are subjects monitored after each stage for side-effects?
LCohen has all the stats, him and Milhouse and Franko.
I thought you had all the stats?
No I have been asking questions and raising concerns, will you furnish nrico with your findings - thanks from him in advance.
No? So just basing it on Facebook and your Phd mate?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 01:55:13 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:51:43 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 01:49:16 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:46:06 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 08, 2020, 01:38:56 PM
Anybody read up on it much? Was it tested on diabetics, asthmatics etc? In a standard clinical trial, how long are subjects monitored after each stage for side-effects?
LCohen has all the stats, him and Milhouse and Franko.
I thought you had all the stats?
No I have been asking questions and raising concerns, will you furnish nrico with your findings - thanks from him in advance.
No? So just basing it on Facebook and your Phd mate?
Bizarre I am not on facebook, never have never will, especially if you are the type on it. My mate has been a chemical engineer for 20+ years he raised concerns which I posted here, you are obviously better qualified than him so I can't comment anymore only that I know him and trust his concerns. The poster asked specific questions, I don't have those answers but you seem to be more clued in to all the research and that there is no side effects so could put his concerns at ease and share your findings, thanks again.
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:41:09 PM
And headbangers who as a collective think they can bully, berate and try to intimidate folk with reasonable health care concerns about a vaccine ten months in the making and only being administrated currently in a country run by liars and swindlers to achieve nothing but political gain.
Seany, you're your own worst enemy. You're a broken record on here. You start your week / day in this thread repeating the same aggressive nonsense. ie, you've done an 'Angelo'. To have such a staunch position, surely you have all the stats to hand? Getting your undercrackers in a twist is of no benefit to anyone. Links from BBC interviewing professors who have explained how they've been working on this type of vaccine for almost 6 years etc have all been posted on here. The vaccine template they've developed has had the Covid 19 spike protein added and the risks are miniscule. Go read them. How 10 years work has been done in months etc
Today is a great day, the beginning of the end for this scurge. I should hopefully have my vaccine before the end of the year. I'll let you know if I grow a third eye
Quote from: JoG2 on December 08, 2020, 02:08:40 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:41:09 PM
And headbangers who as a collective think they can bully, berate and try to intimidate folk with reasonable health care concerns about a vaccine ten months in the making and only being administrated currently in a country run by liars and swindlers to achieve nothing but political gain.
Seany, you're your own worst enemy. You're a broken record on here. You start your week / day in this thread repeating the same aggressive nonsense. ie, you've done an 'Angelo'. To have such a staunch position, surely you have all the stats to hand? Getting your undercrackers in a twist is of no benefit to anyone. Links from BBC interviewing professors who have explained how they've been working on this type of vaccine for almost 6 years etc have all been posted on here. The vaccine template they've developed has had the Covid 19 spike protein added and the risks are miniscule. Go read them. How 10 years work has been done in months etc
Today is a great day, the beginning of the end for this scurge. I should hopefully have my vaccine before the end of the year. I'll let you know if I grow a third eye
The irony, how many times have you quoted that!!
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 02:10:49 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on December 08, 2020, 02:08:40 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:41:09 PM
And headbangers who as a collective think they can bully, berate and try to intimidate folk with reasonable health care concerns about a vaccine ten months in the making and only being administrated currently in a country run by liars and swindlers to achieve nothing but political gain.
Seany, you're your own worst enemy. You're a broken record on here. You start your week / day in this thread repeating the same aggressive nonsense. ie, you've done an 'Angelo'. To have such a staunch position, surely you have all the stats to hand? Getting your undercrackers in a twist is of no benefit to anyone. Links from BBC interviewing professors who have explained how they've been working on this type of vaccine for almost 6 years etc have all been posted on here. The vaccine template they've developed has had the Covid 19 spike protein added and the risks are miniscule. Go read them. How 10 years work has been done in months etc
Today is a great day, the beginning of the end for this scurge. I should hopefully have my vaccine before the end of the year. I'll let you know if I grow a third eye
The irony, how many times have you quoted that!!
Twice. For your well being Seany, it was hopefully worth pointing out again
Quote from: JoG2 on December 08, 2020, 02:08:40 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:41:09 PM
And headbangers who as a collective think they can bully, berate and try to intimidate folk with reasonable health care concerns about a vaccine ten months in the making and only being administrated currently in a country run by liars and swindlers to achieve nothing but political gain.
Seany, you're your own worst enemy. You're a broken record on here. You start your week / day in this thread repeating the same aggressive nonsense. ie, you've done an 'Angelo'. To have such a staunch position, surely you have all the stats to hand? Getting your undercrackers in a twist is of no benefit to anyone. Links from BBC interviewing professors who have explained how they've been working on this type of vaccine for almost 6 years etc have all been posted on here. The vaccine template they've developed has had the Covid 19 spike protein added and the risks are miniscule. Go read them. How 10 years work has been done in months etc
Today is a great day, the beginning of the end for this scurge. I should hopefully have my vaccine before the end of the year. I'll let you know if I grow a third eye
Fair play to you J70.
Hopefully all goes well and you can return to a 'normal' way of life
Quote from: JoG2 on December 08, 2020, 02:08:40 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:41:09 PM
And headbangers who as a collective think they can bully, berate and try to intimidate folk with reasonable health care concerns about a vaccine ten months in the making and only being administrated currently in a country run by liars and swindlers to achieve nothing but political gain.
Seany, you're your own worst enemy. You're a broken record on here. You start your week / day in this thread repeating the same aggressive nonsense. ie, you've done an 'Angelo'. To have such a staunch position, surely you have all the stats to hand? Getting your undercrackers in a twist is of no benefit to anyone. Links from BBC interviewing professors who have explained how they've been working on this type of vaccine for almost 6 years etc have all been posted on here. The vaccine template they've developed has had the Covid 19 spike protein added and the risks are miniscule. Go read them. How 10 years work has been done in months etc
Today is a great day, the beginning of the end for this scurge. I should hopefully have my vaccine before the end of the year. I'll let you know if I grow a third eye
It's as clear as day that when "Seaney" talks about "my mate the chemical engineer", he's talking about that internet grifter Ivor Cummins, who is part of the Jim Corr conspiracy theory set
There should be a special place in hell for such self promoting snake oil salesmen
You back to tell more lies, care to go back to the Dublin Cavan thread and quote me - you complete snake of a man.
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 03:36:46 PM
You back to tell more lies, care to go back to the Dublin Cavan thread and quote me - you complete snake of a man.
Thanks for the personal abuse, it's very persuasive
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 03:21:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 01:47:29 PM
Well done on avoiding the question.
So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.
It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.
It isnt - you said folk in care homes are collateral damage.
You have not provided any evidence of the sort.
Fair enough if you are anti vaccine - but pointless throwing out comments with absolutely no factual basis.
I am going with what the Health Secretary, Medical Regulator & numerous prominent epidemiologists & immunologists are saying.
Who are you going with?
Seany - Im still waiting for your evidence that care homes are collateral damage.
Did you find any evidence or have you moved on?
Quote from: sid waddell on December 08, 2020, 04:41:00 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 03:36:46 PM
You back to tell more lies, care to go back to the Dublin Cavan thread and quote me - you complete snake of a man.
Thanks for the personal abuse, it's very persuasive
As is yours, you left the Dublin Cavan thread?
Quote from: Taylor on December 08, 2020, 05:27:04 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 03:21:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 01:47:29 PM
Well done on avoiding the question.
So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.
It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.
It isnt - you said folk in care homes are collateral damage.
You have not provided any evidence of the sort.
Fair enough if you are anti vaccine - but pointless throwing out comments with absolutely no factual basis.
I am going with what the Health Secretary, Medical Regulator & numerous prominent epidemiologists & immunologists are saying.
Who are you going with?
Seany - Im still waiting for your evidence that care homes are collateral damage.
Did you find any evidence or have you moved on?
I have answered this, you should read back.
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 05:59:16 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 08, 2020, 05:27:04 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 03:21:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 01:47:29 PM
Well done on avoiding the question.
So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.
It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.
It isnt - you said folk in care homes are collateral damage.
You have not provided any evidence of the sort.
Fair enough if you are anti vaccine - but pointless throwing out comments with absolutely no factual basis.
I am going with what the Health Secretary, Medical Regulator & numerous prominent epidemiologists & immunologists are saying.
Who are you going with?
Seany - Im still waiting for your evidence that care homes are collateral damage.
Did you find any evidence or have you moved on?
I have answered this, you should read back.
You have evidence that care homes are collateral damage.
It would have been headline news in all main stream media?
I doubt you have evidence Seany
Next of kin to a parent in care, yet to be contacted re: vaccine consent.
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 09:50:03 PM
Next of kin to a parent in care, yet to be contacted re: vaccine consent.
You've mentioned that already, dementia kicking in, you'll be in a care home soon enough
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 09:56:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 09:50:03 PM
Next of kin to a parent in care, yet to be contacted re: vaccine consent.
You've mentioned that already, dementia kicking in, you'll be in a care home soon enough
Taylor would not read back apologies and my parent has dementia amongst other care needs but you score points slagging those who can't speak for themselves, I'll try to protect them.
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 09:50:03 PM
Next of kin to a parent in care, yet to be contacted re: vaccine consent.
My mum was contacted to request consent for my aunty. No date yet for when she will receive unfortunately.
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 10:04:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 09:56:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 09:50:03 PM
Next of kin to a parent in care, yet to be contacted re: vaccine consent.
You've mentioned that already, dementia kicking in, you'll be in a care home soon enough
Taylor would not read back apologies and my parent has dementia amongst other care needs but you score points slagging those who can't speak for themselves, I'll try to protect them.
Like I said
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 10:22:17 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 10:04:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 09:56:31 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 09:50:03 PM
Next of kin to a parent in care, yet to be contacted re: vaccine consent.
You've mentioned that already, dementia kicking in, you'll be in a care home soon enough
Taylor would not read back apologies and my parent has dementia amongst other care needs but you score points slagging those who can't speak for themselves, I'll try to protect them.
Like I said
Care to elaborate or like I said to hell with vulnerable folk.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 08, 2020, 10:18:48 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 09:50:03 PM
Next of kin to a parent in care, yet to be contacted re: vaccine consent.
My mum was contacted to request consent for my aunty. No date yet for when she will receive unfortunately.
Norn Ireland care home? I rang today no one was available except very polite nice care assistants.
Yes. Omagh.
Fair play hope I get call, of course I'll say yes but one needs consent, milhouse playing a blinder as always hes ok to hell with rest.
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Fair play hope I get call, of course I'll say yes but one needs consent, milhouse playing a blinder as always hes ok to hell with rest.
You are a clown.... you'll say yes?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 10:55:54 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Fair play hope I get call, of course I'll say yes but one needs consent, milhouse playing a blinder as always hes ok to hell with rest.
You are a clown.... you'll say yes?
You have to be the most self centred ballbag on this board. We have 5 family members, we get 30 minutes once a week for one person to see a parent with complicated medical needs, if we as a family say no it will continue, I have yet to set foot inside said care home we are not allowed all window visits or outside visits in the summer you are a hateful selfish individual who cares about no one but your status on a discussion board,.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 10:55:54 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Fair play hope I get call, of course I'll say yes but one needs consent, milhouse playing a blinder as always hes ok to hell with rest.
You are a clown.... you'll say yes?
By the way Milhouse quote where I said I am adverse to a vaccine.
You can say whatever you want, I don't know you from Adam, you've made up some stupid comments why should I believe an anonymous poster on a discussion board?
You calling me a ballbag sums up you completely.
You claim that this virus is not safe, your phd mucker told you. But happy for people to get it in a care home?
Very strange behaviour
Quote from: Seaney on October 23, 2020, 09:46:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on October 23, 2020, 09:43:06 AM
So if you are looking for some sort of a defence of that, you may look elsewhere.
I am not looking for anything, certainly not for the queue for the vaccine.
Quote from: Seaney on November 05, 2020, 10:37:50 AM
Lots of risks in life, crossing the road is dangerous don't you think? Driving with ejits on the road is dangerous don't you think? Not wanting to administer a new vaccine into one's body without knowing the long term effects is one of the more cautious approaches, you not think so?
But happy to put your family at the front of the queue
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 11:05:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 10:55:54 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Fair play hope I get call, of course I'll say yes but one needs consent, milhouse playing a blinder as always hes ok to hell with rest.
You are a clown.... you'll say yes?
You have to be the most self centred ballbag on this board. We have 5 family members, we get 30 minutes once a week for one person to see a parent with complicated medical needs, if we as a family say no it will continue, I have yet to set foot inside said care home we are not allowed all window visits or outside visits in the summer you are a hateful selfish individual who cares about no one but your status on a discussion board,.
Hang on, are you saying you won't get it personally but will consent to its administration a family member, even though you have all sorts of concerns about it?
I might be missing any intended sarcasm or irony...
Quote from: LeoMc on December 07, 2020, 11:53:39 AM
Quote from: LCohen on December 07, 2020, 07:44:52 AM
Quote from: Seamus on December 07, 2020, 02:49:34 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 05, 2020, 12:01:14 PM
So, its been explained to me that the vaccine is (i)not an inactive virus, and (ii)only presents the spike protein as a foreign invader for the immune system to target.
Which means its intrinsically safe. Any side effects will be the body's own immune system ramping up to right off an infection - even if the infection is actually a fake harmless one.
I know I said way earlier in the thread I had some vague concerns, now I'm happy with it and happy to get it.
I'd advise you to do some more research. Below is a small sample of the many issues regarding the approved vaccines.
"The formation of so-called "non neutralizing antibodies" can lead to an exaggerated immune reaction, especially when the test person is confronted with the real "wild" virus after vaccination. This so called anti-dependent amplification, ADE, has long been known from experiments with corona vaccines in cats, for example. In the course of these studies all cats that initially tolerated the vaccination well died after catching the wild virus".
" The mRNA vaccines from BioNTech/Pfizer contains polyethylene glycol (PEG). 70% of people developed antibodies against this substance – this means that many people can develop allergic, potentially fatal reactions to the vaccine".
"The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS_CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
"The much too short duration of the study does not allow a realistic estimation of the late effects. As in narcolepsy cases after the swine flu vaccination, millions of healthy people would be exposed to an unacceptable risk if an emergency approval were to be granted and the possibility of observing late effects of the vaccination were to follow. Nevertheless BioNTech/Pfizer submitted an application for emergency approval on December 1, 2020, (which has now been granted)".
mRNA technology have never been used in vaccines production before this crazy leap of faith, ignoring years of animal studies which has proven the risk of vaccine enhancement where the subject is not protected but the vaccine can make the disease worse when the new flu season comes along. This is a big danger to the unvaccinated if their immune system is not optimal due to viral shedding. This may well lead us the introduction of COVID-21.
What is the source there?
I like to read the full article and any reviews
Based on his previous sources I would guess someone with a MA (Hons) in Liberal Arts.
Dr. Michael Yeadon, former Pfizer head of respiratory research along with Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, lung specialist and former head of the public health department. Both have far greater credentials than you two and eugenicist Bill Gates. They also have integrity which cannot be said of Gates and Fauci whom the lying media claims to be "the most trusted person in America".
Quote from: LCohen on December 07, 2020, 07:41:40 AM
Quote from: Seamus on December 07, 2020, 02:33:53 AM
Quote from: lenny on November 29, 2020, 04:16:20 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 29, 2020, 04:05:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
There were 350000 polio cases in 1988. There are approx 50 per year nowadays.
Don't try to bamboozle some of the covidiots on here with facts.
Conveniently the criteria for polio diagnosis has changed. I'm expecting the real idiots to come up with some lame excuse in order to keep their belief systems intact. Covidiots, how Orwellian.
Polio now hides behind these names: acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), Transverse Myelitis, Viral or aseptic Meningitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Chinese Paralytic syndrome, Cronic Fatigue Syndrome, epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal meningitis, spinal apoplexy, inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever, bilious remittent fever, ergotism, ME, post-polio syndrome, Synonyms for GBS].
Hiding Polio: The Diagnosis Lie
"Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral and aseptic meningitis. According to one of the 1997 issues of MMWR, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis per year in the United States alone. That is where all those cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination"
Viera Scheibner, Ph.D (2002)
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html (http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html)
Seamus- as a contribution to the debate that is dreadful.
Whilst Ms Scheibner is a scientist you will be the first to admit that he field of science is geology. Post retirement she has entered the vaccination debate where she has been accused variously of being a pseudoscientist and deliberately peddling misinformation with no scientific basis.
As a source she is discredited. Wholly discredited. She has literally been thrown out of court for her lack of credibility. She is a Rudi Guiliani type figure.
As for the polio points.
You need to clear. If you are suggesting that that diagnosis are being given to suppress polio stats then be specific.
Secondly the global prevaccination levels of polio are unknown. Many of the cases were in the developing world. Only severe cases were recorded. When we hear of 300-400k cases per year these are severe cases.
The diseases you mention don't come close to those numbers and your list includes viral meningitis where the numbers are overwhelmingly at the milder end of the spectrum (I.e. full recovery within a week).
Your article is based upon this selective use of sources. It is absolute horseshit
"Horseshit" coming from a person who agrees that vaccines should be given to 11 year old children without parental consent and knowledge!
Better sanitation, housing and nutrition are the number one reasons in the decline of polio. What has Viera Scheibner, Ph.D got to do with disguising polio under 20 different names? Being discredited by Big Pharma and main stream media is a badge of honor, they just hate the truth. You never even heard of her until a few days ago when you did your Google search.
My sources are not selective, I have done extensive research on vaccines, thousands upon thousands of health experts are in agreement.
Even your lying media and WHO occasionally do tell the truth
More polio cases now caused by vaccine than by wild virus
https://news.yahoo.com/more-polio-cases-now-caused-112118039.html
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 11:10:21 PM
You can say whatever you want, I don't know you from Adam, you've made up some stupid comments why should I believe an anonymous poster on a discussion board?
You calling me a ballbag sums up you completely.
You claim that this virus is not safe, your phd mucker told you. But happy for people to get it in a care home?
Very strange behaviour
I claim the virus is not safe!!!! You read our families situation, ballbag is too good a word to describe a parasite like you.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 11:10:56 PM
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 12:54:32 PM
No nor will any of my family.
My family is my wife and kids how would I have control over my siblings, a parent in a care home my cousins, my nephews etc, you are making a tool out of yourself.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 11:22:40 PM
But happy to put your family at the front of the queue
No I am not the system is, what is our alternative if we refuse, I will ask that if I am contacted but have my doubts that I will be, you show time and time again the only thing that matters to you is point scoring on an anonymous board, you really are a snake of a human being.
Quote from: Chief on December 08, 2020, 11:27:16 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 11:05:19 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 10:55:54 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Fair play hope I get call, of course I'll say yes but one needs consent, milhouse playing a blinder as always hes ok to hell with rest.
You are a clown.... you'll say yes?
You have to be the most self centred ballbag on this board. We have 5 family members, we get 30 minutes once a week for one person to see a parent with complicated medical needs, if we as a family say no it will continue, I have yet to set foot inside said care home we are not allowed all window visits or outside visits in the summer you are a hateful selfish individual who cares about no one but your status on a discussion board,.
Hang on, are you saying you won't get it personally but will consent to its administration a family member, even though you have all sorts of concerns about it?
I might be missing any intended sarcasm or irony...
Read my posts kid.
Quote from: JoG2 on December 08, 2020, 02:35:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 02:10:49 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on December 08, 2020, 02:08:40 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:41:09 PM
And headbangers who as a collective think they can bully, berate and try to intimidate folk with reasonable health care concerns about a vaccine ten months in the making and only being administrated currently in a country run by liars and swindlers to achieve nothing but political gain.
Seany, you're your own worst enemy. You're a broken record on here. You start your week / day in this thread repeating the same aggressive nonsense. ie, you've done an 'Angelo'. To have such a staunch position, surely you have all the stats to hand? Getting your undercrackers in a twist is of no benefit to anyone. Links from BBC interviewing professors who have explained how they've been working on this type of vaccine for almost 6 years etc have all been posted on here. The vaccine template they've developed has had the Covid 19 spike protein added and the risks are miniscule. Go read them. How 10 years work has been done in months etc
Today is a great day, the beginning of the end for this scurge. I should hopefully have my vaccine before the end of the year. I'll let you know if I grow a third eye
The irony, how many times have you quoted that!!
Twice. For your well being Seany, it was hopefully worth pointing out again
Just for info up since 4 start work very early. ;)
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Fair play hope I get call, of course I'll say yes but one needs consent, milhouse playing a blinder as always hes ok to hell with rest.
Sorry Im confused Seany.
Are you saying you are going to say yes for the vaccine for your parent but that care homes are collateral damage?
Hopefully yesterday allayed your fears with the vaccine
Quote from: Taylor on December 09, 2020, 08:44:34 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Fair play hope I get call, of course I'll say yes but one needs consent, milhouse playing a blinder as always hes ok to hell with rest.
Sorry Im confused Seany.
Are you saying you are going to say yes for the vaccine for your parent but that care homes are collateral damage?
Hopefully yesterday allayed your fears with the vaccine
You strike me as being confused, I outlined the situation we as a family as all families are in with parents in care homes, we cannot see them, phone and zoom doesn't work I have seen my parent 4 times since March, I get the feeling if I am contacted, which I don't believe I will, we will have no option but to say yes, to try and get a more meaningful visit before the end. Hope that clarifies things for you, and to be clear again, I have never been anti vax, I always answered the title of the thread, but Milhouse and his ilk just want to score points and have no compassion for anyone, he and his are ok f**k the rest.
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 09:29:36 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 09, 2020, 08:44:34 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Fair play hope I get call, of course I'll say yes but one needs consent, milhouse playing a blinder as always hes ok to hell with rest.
Sorry Im confused Seany.
Are you saying you are going to say yes for the vaccine for your parent but that care homes are collateral damage?
Hopefully yesterday allayed your fears with the vaccine
You strike me as being confused, I outlined the situation we as a family as all families are in with parents in care homes, we cannot see them, phone and zoom doesn't work I have seen my parent 4 times since March, I get the feeling if I am contacted, which I don't believe I will, we will have no option but to say yes, to try and get a more meaningful visit before the end. Hope that clarifies things for you, and to be clear again, I have never been anti vax, I always answered the title of the thread, but Milhouse and his ilk just want to score points and have no compassion for anyone, he and his are ok f**k the rest.
You are anti this particular vax that is being rolled out - thats for sure.
Im not confused about that
I am cautious of the expediency of it's origination, so you are very confused.
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
Yeah I read it.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said the advice applies to anyone who has had significant reactions to medicines, food or vaccines.
As I mentioned as UK is effectively a live clinical trial one wonders what other side effects, this was day one, you really should maybe start to think for yourself instead of following a scripted narrative.
Quote from: dublin7 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
Oh dear....
Quote from: dublin7 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
Fact is no one knew of this reaction until live use on the general population - do you not understand that or are you so intransigent with your position you simple don't care.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:16:54 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
Oh dear....
Here's wisdom, as long as he's ok the rest of the population could drop dead!
Quote from: dublin7 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
So now we are into conspiracy theories as proper due diligence may have been rushed!
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:18:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:16:54 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
Oh dear....
Here's wisdom, as long as he's ok the rest of the population could drop dead!
It is understood that both the staff members had a
significant history of allergic reactions - to the extent where they need to c
arry an adrenaline auto injector with them.
They developed symptoms of "anaphylactoid reaction" shortly after receiving the vaccine and both have recovered after the appropriate treatment.
It think its clear enough, Seaney seen two people and multiplied that by the entire population of earth!
Wise up
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:18:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:16:54 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
Oh dear....
Here's wisdom, as long as he's ok the rest of the population could drop dead!
It is understood that both the staff members had a significant history of allergic reactions - to the extent where they need to carry an adrenaline auto injector with them.
They developed symptoms of "anaphylactoid reaction" shortly after receiving the vaccine and both have recovered after the appropriate treatment.
It think its clear enough, Seaney seen two people and multiplied that by the entire population of earth!
Wise up
You are ignoring that this was only uncovered when the UK Population was being used as a live clinical trial - but that suits your narrative, one would wonder who else shouldn't be getting it or will we find out in day 3 or 23 when a more serious reaction occurs?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:18:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:16:54 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
Oh dear....
Here's wisdom, as long as he's ok the rest of the population could drop dead!
It is understood that both the staff members had a significant history of allergic reactions - to the extent where they need to carry an adrenaline auto injector with them.
They developed symptoms of "anaphylactoid reaction" shortly after receiving the vaccine and both have recovered after the appropriate treatment.
It think its clear enough, Seaney seen two people and multiplied that by the entire population of earth!
Wise up
Only UK is using this vaccine, you really can't keep up - oh by the way where did I say this virus was not safe!!!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 11:10:21 PM
You claim that this virus is not safe, your phd mucker told you. But happy for people to get it in a care home?
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:24:55 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:18:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:16:54 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
Oh dear....
Here's wisdom, as long as he's ok the rest of the population could drop dead!
It is understood that both the staff members had a significant history of allergic reactions - to the extent where they need to carry an adrenaline auto injector with them.
They developed symptoms of "anaphylactoid reaction" shortly after receiving the vaccine and both have recovered after the appropriate treatment.
It think its clear enough, Seaney seen two people and multiplied that by the entire population of earth!
Wise up
You are ignoring that this was only uncovered when the UK Population was being used as a live clinical trial - but that suits your narrative, one would wonder who else shouldn't be getting it or will we find out in day 3 or 23 when a more serious reaction occurs?
I think your live clinical trial is silly, Its been tried on 44,000 people so far and 42,000 have already taken the second dose..
I think what this has shown is that people who need injector pens for allergies must not take this vaccine, there may be other vaccines that they may be able to take.
That's it head in sand that will do it every time. You are a master of ignoring anything that doesn't suit your narrative, Milhouse the master of the gaaboard!
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:24:55 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:18:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:16:54 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
Oh dear....
Here's wisdom, as long as he's ok the rest of the population could drop dead!
It is understood that both the staff members had a significant history of allergic reactions - to the extent where they need to carry an adrenaline auto injector with them.
They developed symptoms of "anaphylactoid reaction" shortly after receiving the vaccine and both have recovered after the appropriate treatment.
It think its clear enough, Seaney seen two people and multiplied that by the entire population of earth!
Wise up
You are ignoring that this was only uncovered when the UK Population was being used as a live clinical trial - but that suits your narrative, one would wonder who else shouldn't be getting it or will we find out in day 3 or 23 when a more serious reaction occurs?
Not true.
QuoteThe patient information leaflet with the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine says it should not be given to people allergic to any substance in the vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/09/pfizer-covid-vaccine-nhs-extreme-allergy-sufferers-regulators-reaction
This is pathetic - they are being told NOW as there was reactions, keep the head in the sand lads.
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:36:26 PM
This is pathetic - they are being told NOW as there was reactions, keep the head in the sand lads.
The patient information leaflet was pretty clear. Fairly incompetent from the NHS not to read it properly
Which appears to be released yesterday - was that after the reactions?
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:42:10 PM
Which appears to be released yesterday - was that after the reactions?
The patient information leaflet is supplied with every dose - it's the piece of paper that comes in the box with every medicine that most people just throw away without reading. You'd expect it to be read in detail for a new medicine though
Only UK is using this vaccine, you really can't keep up - oh by the way where did I say this virus was not safe!!!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 11:10:21 PM
You claim that this virus is not safe, your phd mucker told you. But happy for people to get it in a care home?
[/quote]
some of your quotes:
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
Bless is this going be your soundbite from now on, what age are you? You ok about the elderly getting the hit, if your mum or dad was in a home you be happy with them being the first to be used as guinea pigs, 43000 over a few weeks is a sufficient analysis for you?
Looking good for the Oxford Vaccine - Milhouse and frankie still queuing with the sleeves rolled up? Anyone who thinks that a vaccine that normally takes 5 to 10 years to
produce safely can be produced in 10 months with all the same safety standards is
deluded
I read a good article that suggested that that the for your average 10 year clinical trial period, the majority of that period is ate up by red tape and documentation. The article went on to state that if the correct resources were utilised and paperwork etc. was turned around promptly, as opposed to taking many months per document, then its perfectly feasible for a trial to be concluded in less than a year.
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 09, 2020, 02:00:49 PM
I read a good article that suggested that that the for your average 10 year clinical trial period, the majority of that period is ate up by red tape and documentation. The article went on to state that if the correct resources were utilised and paperwork etc. was turned around promptly, as opposed to taking many months per document, then its perfectly feasible for a trial to be concluded in less than a year.
That's true regarding the red tape etc. Although some would say the red tape is there to avoid incidences like the morning sickness drug given to pregnant women that caused limb growth issues.
I wonder would anyone on here know if you can do accelerated ageing tests on potential issues, say in 2 years time on the vaccine. I dont see how you could but I know feck all about vaccines.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:56:27 PM
Only UK is using this vaccine, you really can't keep up - oh by the way where did I say this virus was not safe!!!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 11:10:21 PM
You claim that this virus is not safe, your phd mucker told you. But happy for people to get it in a care home?
some of your quotes:
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
Bless is this going be your soundbite from now on, what age are you? You ok about the elderly getting the hit, if your mum or dad was in a home you be happy with them being the first to be used as guinea pigs, 43000 over a few weeks is a sufficient analysis for you?
Looking good for the Oxford Vaccine - Milhouse and frankie still queuing with the sleeves rolled up? Anyone who thinks that a vaccine that normally takes 5 to 10 years to
produce safely can be produced in 10 months with all the same safety standards is
deluded[/quote]
Are you drunk at 2pm?
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 06:28:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:56:27 PM
Only UK is using this vaccine, you really can't keep up - oh by the way where did I say this virus was not safe!!!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 11:10:21 PM
You claim that this virus is not safe, your phd mucker told you. But happy for people to get it in a care home?
some of your quotes:
You do understand by taking a rushed through vaccine, you leave yourself open to potential adverse reactions in later life, you are taking something without knowing the long term effects?
Talking to a chemical engineer tonight, none. The 90% apparently has never been achieved in history not even close.
Bless is this going be your soundbite from now on, what age are you? You ok about the elderly getting the hit, if your mum or dad was in a home you be happy with them being the first to be used as guinea pigs, 43000 over a few weeks is a sufficient analysis for you?
Looking good for the Oxford Vaccine - Milhouse and frankie still queuing with the sleeves rolled up? Anyone who thinks that a vaccine that normally takes 5 to 10 years to produce safely can be produced in 10 months with all the same safety standards is deluded
Are you drunk at 2pm?
[/quote]
Did someone mention bullying on this thread in the last few days? Tut tut
Quote from: Rudi on December 09, 2020, 02:18:16 PM
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 09, 2020, 02:00:49 PM
I read a good article that suggested that that the for your average 10 year clinical trial period, the majority of that period is ate up by red tape and documentation. The article went on to state that if the correct resources were utilised and paperwork etc. was turned around promptly, as opposed to taking many months per document, then its perfectly feasible for a trial to be concluded in less than a year.
That's true regarding the red tape etc. Although some would say the red tape is there to avoid incidences like the morning sickness drug given to pregnant women that caused limb growth issues.
I wonder would anyone on here know if you can do accelerated ageing tests on potential issues, say in 2 years time on the vaccine. I dont see how you could but I know feck all about vaccines.
Checked in to see if there was any rational chat. Two normal responses in a row might be a record.
Quote from: Seamus on December 09, 2020, 04:05:53 AM
Quote from: LCohen on December 07, 2020, 07:41:40 AM
Quote from: Seamus on December 07, 2020, 02:33:53 AM
Quote from: lenny on November 29, 2020, 04:16:20 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 29, 2020, 04:05:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
There were 350000 polio cases in 1988. There are approx 50 per year nowadays.
Don't try to bamboozle some of the covidiots on here with facts.
Conveniently the criteria for polio diagnosis has changed. I'm expecting the real idiots to come up with some lame excuse in order to keep their belief systems intact. Covidiots, how Orwellian.
Polio now hides behind these names: acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), Transverse Myelitis, Viral or aseptic Meningitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Chinese Paralytic syndrome, Cronic Fatigue Syndrome, epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal meningitis, spinal apoplexy, inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever, bilious remittent fever, ergotism, ME, post-polio syndrome, Synonyms for GBS].
Hiding Polio: The Diagnosis Lie
"Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral and aseptic meningitis. According to one of the 1997 issues of MMWR, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis per year in the United States alone. That is where all those cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination"
Viera Scheibner, Ph.D (2002)
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html (http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html)
Seamus- as a contribution to the debate that is dreadful.
Whilst Ms Scheibner is a scientist you will be the first to admit that he field of science is geology. Post retirement she has entered the vaccination debate where she has been accused variously of being a pseudoscientist and deliberately peddling misinformation with no scientific basis.
As a source she is discredited. Wholly discredited. She has literally been thrown out of court for her lack of credibility. She is a Rudi Guiliani type figure.
As for the polio points.
You need to clear. If you are suggesting that that diagnosis are being given to suppress polio stats then be specific.
Secondly the global prevaccination levels of polio are unknown. Many of the cases were in the developing world. Only severe cases were recorded. When we hear of 300-400k cases per year these are severe cases.
The diseases you mention don't come close to those numbers and your list includes viral meningitis where the numbers are overwhelmingly at the milder end of the spectrum (I.e. full recovery within a week).
Your article is based upon this selective use of sources. It is absolute horseshit
"Horseshit" coming from a person who agrees that vaccines should be given to 11 year old children without parental consent and knowledge!
Better sanitation, housing and nutrition are the number one reasons in the decline of polio. What has Viera Scheibner, Ph.D got to do with disguising polio under 20 different names? Being discredited by Big Pharma and main stream media is a badge of honor, they just hate the truth. You never even heard of her until a few days ago when you did your Google search.
My sources are not selective, I have done extensive research on vaccines, thousands upon thousands of health experts are in agreement.
Even your lying media and WHO occasionally do tell the truth
More polio cases now caused by vaccine than by wild virus
https://news.yahoo.com/more-polio-cases-now-caused-112118039.html
That's a lie. The US went polio free in 1979. I'm pretty sure they invented the public sewer and had cleared the slums long before then.
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 09:29:36 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 09, 2020, 08:44:34 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 10:46:48 PM
Fair play hope I get call, of course I'll say yes but one needs consent, milhouse playing a blinder as always hes ok to hell with rest.
Sorry Im confused Seany.
Are you saying you are going to say yes for the vaccine for your parent but that care homes are collateral damage?
Hopefully yesterday allayed your fears with the vaccine
You strike me as being confused, I outlined the situation we as a family as all families are in with parents in care homes, we cannot see them, phone and zoom doesn't work I have seen my parent 4 times since March, I get the feeling if I am contacted, which I don't believe I will, we will have no option but to say yes, to try and get a more meaningful visit before the end. Hope that clarifies things for you, and to be clear again, I have never been anti vax, I always answered the title of the thread, but Milhouse and his ilk just want to score points and have no compassion for anyone, he and his are ok f**k the rest.
Yeah, right. Antivaxxers have started prefacing their BS with the "I'm not an antivaxxer but..." preamble.
And those who just follow the narrative like sheep call anyone who questions it antivax.
The conspiracy theorists would suggest that it doesnt seem right that a vaccine could be created so quickly, but from what I believe, there was loads of development/progress already completed on coronavirus vaccines and although COVID-19 was a different variation, the vaccine developers weren't starting from scratch.
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 10, 2020, 08:32:37 AM
The conspiracy theorists would suggest that it doesnt seem right that a vaccine could be created so quickly, but from what I believe, there was loads of development/progress already completed on coronavirus vaccines and although COVID-19 was a different variation, the vaccine developers weren't starting from scratch.
In addition the red tape that holds all vaccines up was removed and there was limitless funds which is normally another blocker.
Quote from: nrico2006 on December 10, 2020, 08:32:37 AM
The conspiracy theorists would suggest that it doesnt seem right that a vaccine could be created so quickly, but from what I believe, there was loads of development/progress already completed on coronavirus vaccines and although COVID-19 was a different variation, the vaccine developers weren't starting from scratch.
Indeed. For years, since Ebola, Sars, Mers, this vaccine template has been developed and tested throughly. Covid-19 spike protein to create this vaccine seems to be the only added ingredient.
These lunatics know all this but it's hard to admit or about turn once down the rabbit hole. Angelo 'science has failed us' silence is deafening.
They don't know all this at all. They've read a few headlines lol.
What you hear more and more about the vaccine would make you more uneasy about getting.
The controversy on the Oxford vaccine, Pfizer CEO offloading shares once it gets approval and then yesterday people having a severe allergic reaction who were administered it.
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 01:28:36 PM
What you hear more and more about the vaccine would make you more uneasy about getting.
The controversy on the Oxford vaccine, Pfizer CEO offloading shares once it gets approval and then yesterday people having a severe allergic reaction who were administered it.
I thought it was only 2 people?
How many have been vaccinated?
Both had allergic reactions prior to the vaccine.
Quote from: Taylor on December 10, 2020, 01:41:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 01:28:36 PM
What you hear more and more about the vaccine would make you more uneasy about getting.
The controversy on the Oxford vaccine, Pfizer CEO offloading shares once it gets approval and then yesterday people having a severe allergic reaction who were administered it.
I thought it was only 2 people?
How many have been vaccinated?
Both had allergic reactions prior to the vaccine.
The fact that we are now being told that anyone liable to allergies should now not get the vaccine would suspect there's more to it than that.
We also don't know if the vaccine stops people getting infected or merely just quells the impact of being infected.
Of course allergic reactions should be investigated, and the advisory to those with histories of allergies to avoid it for now while its looked into are correct.
But brace yourselves for it.
They're rolling out the vaccine first for old people. A lot of those old people are already infirm and sick. Some of them are, with or without the vaccine, going to get sick and/or die. Simple background illness and death, statistically speaking.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Those with the allergic reaction were health care staff. But it seems probable that perhaps health care staff were not as closely screened as compared to patients whose medical records are on hand.
Allergies can be trigged by the delivery mechanism of the vaccine, as distinct from the core content, so they will probably be able to devise an alternative version of delivery, but this is not a priority at present.
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
I think you might be on to something here Angelo, too many sheeple in here not willing to listen to you though. You need to get on twitter and get your message out there before it's too late
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.
I stand by that comment.
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
Yes, it turns out that way.
If you're young and healthy you should be fine anyway if you get the virus. It's probably targeted more for those at a higher risk of getting sick eg older people.
Are they going to develop a vaccine that will eradicate it altogether or what?
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.
Thanks. Someone said I was a mentalist for suggesting it doesn't definitely prevent you from getting it.
Generally a vaccine does prevent you from getting something but this one doesn't ;D
Turns out its not all it was built up to be.
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:38:51 PM
Thanks. Someone said I was a mentalist for suggesting it doesn't definitely prevent you from getting it.
People seem to know a lot about immunology these days.
It wouldn't be that simple, the different vaccines may perform differently in this respect and there are several more to come and they are now trying a combination Pfizer/Oxford approach, one jab of each and who knows if that may be the magic combination.
I'd say you could come to situation where it seems to stop spread but that they can't prove it and of course that will be picked up by people with other agendas.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 07:17:51 PM
Generally a vaccine does prevent you from getting something but this one doesn't ;D
Turns out its not all it was built up to be.
Bollix, a vaccine is something that improves your prospects, as these ones clearly do.
To look at it positively, does the current vaccine, if accurate to its description, reduce Covid to a normal flu in terms of potential to be fatal?
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
The vaccine (like most vaccines) trains your body to fight the virus. If you get covid, your body will be able to respond immediately and kill it - as such, you'll have it in much lower quantities and for less time than you would if you were unvaccinated and had to learn to fight it
after getting it
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.
Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 07:32:02 PM
To look at it positively, does the current vaccine, if accurate to its description, reduce Covid to a normal flu in terms of potential to be fatal?
The clinical trial data suggested that the vaccines triggered an immune response significant enough to give Covid a kicking. That response will inevitably be different per person depending on what your baseline is, but if it gives the most vulnerable a fighting chance it's worth a shot.
Quote from: armaghniac on December 10, 2020, 07:20:46 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:38:51 PM
Thanks. Someone said I was a mentalist for suggesting it doesn't definitely prevent you from getting it.
People seem to know a lot about immunology these days.
It wouldn't be that simple, the different vaccines may perform differently in this respect and there are several more to come and they are now trying a combination Pfizer/Oxford approach, one jab of each and who knows if that may be the magic combination.
I'd say you could come to situation where it seems to stop spread but that they can't prove it and of course that will be picked up by people with other agendas.
Quote from: GiveItToTheShooters on December 10, 2020, 07:17:51 PM
Generally a vaccine does prevent you from getting something but this one doesn't ;D
Turns out its not all it was built up to be.
Bollix, a vaccine is something that improves your prospects, as these ones clearly do.
Clearly you know f**k all about immunology.
QuoteI'd say you could come to situation where it seems to stop spread but that they can't prove it
It either prevents clinical infection in the majority of cases or it doesn't. There'll be no doctor putting his hands up saying "well it's working but we don't know how" in 6 months time. It's very easy to vaccinate someone, challenge them with the virus, see if they develop clinical signs and finally see if they become shedders or not.
"where it seems to work but can't be proven". f**k me that's homeopathy 101.
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
Can someone provide a more official source for that claim? More official tham people talking on a message board.
Quote from: Capt Pat on December 10, 2020, 10:57:45 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
Can someone provide a more official source for that claim? More official tham people talking on a message board.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/tv/gmbs-dr-hilary-jones-issues-19417593
Will definitely be getting the vaccine, being asthmatic I am high risk, but there are other issues with COVID. I know people who got it and overcame it but now have some lung, heart or other issues since. There seems to be a lot more to this virus and people are very blasé about it just because the chances of them dying are slim.
Hilary Jones the famous virologist ;D
Met Hilary once, lovely fella, took a class I attended. As a GP he's brilliant
Quote from: trileacman on December 10, 2020, 10:50:16 PM
Clearly you know f**k all about immunology.
Which thing I said shows this? What are your confidence limits?
QuoteIt either prevents clinical infection in the majority of cases or it doesn't. There'll be no doctor putting his hands up saying "well it's working but we don't know how" in 6 months time. It's very easy to vaccinate someone, challenge them with the virus, see if they develop clinical signs and finally see if they become shedders or not.
A challenge test would short circuit the data collection. However, challenge tests are somewhat artificial, for ethical reasons you generally wouldn't perform a challenge test in any person who would be likely to get a severe case of Covid.
Quote"where it seems to work but can't be proven". f**k me that's homeopathy 101.
People will get Covid and it will be hard to prove where exactly they got it.
Quote from: armaghniac on December 10, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.
Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 10, 2020, 08:57:49 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 07:32:02 PM
To look at it positively, does the current vaccine, if accurate to its description, reduce Covid to a normal flu in terms of potential to be fatal?
The clinical trial data suggested that the vaccines triggered an immune response significant enough to give Covid a kicking. That response will inevitably be different per person depending on what your baseline is, but if it gives the most vulnerable a fighting chance it's worth a shot.
Again I will rephrase, we will know more when the live clinical trail going on in the UK has more information, I note the other countries rushing the start it around the world.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 10, 2020, 08:35:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.
Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.
Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 10:36:51 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 10, 2020, 08:35:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.
Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.
Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.
You don't seem to know how big pharma, corporate CEO's and the stock market operate either so I wouldn't go throwing stones in glass houses
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 09:51:14 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 10, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.
Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.
This is true. However what they do know to date is the vaccine efficiency rate is around 90%. A fairly welcome stat.
Quote from: dublin7 on December 11, 2020, 11:26:18 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 10:36:51 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 10, 2020, 08:35:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.
Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.
Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.
You don't seem to know how big pharma, corporate CEO's and the stock market operate either so I wouldn't go throwing stones in glass houses
I've already schooled you on this.
Ethics is important for me, not for you.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 10:36:51 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 10, 2020, 08:35:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.
Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.
Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.
So you believe you are OK to challenge anyone who is positive about the vaccine because of the unknown long term effects, of which there may be none as being sheep who follow big pharma. But if someone challenges your "big pharma" claims because there's no proof of anything in these processes then you get all snowflakely and cry about these comments don't help, stifling people who have genuine concerns etc.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 11:43:57 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 10:36:51 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 10, 2020, 08:35:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.
Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.
Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.
So you believe you are OK to challenge anyone who is positive about the vaccine because of the unknown long term effects, of which there may be none as being sheep who follow big pharma. But if someone challenges your "big pharma" claims because there's no proof of anything in these processes then you get all snowflakely and cry about these comments don't help, stifling people who have genuine concerns etc.
People can believe what they wish to. I only responded to defend my opinions on the optics that a Pfizer CEO offloading his shares on the day it was approved was appalling. dublin7 then goes on an attack against because I called out how this is very, very bad look for the industry and I have given a number of examples of the culture of sleaze and greed in which big pharma conduct their business. If people want to ignore the factual evidence of misconduct and reckless behaviour of Big Pharma then that's up to them but it sure does make them look silly.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 11:57:04 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 11:43:57 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 10:36:51 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 10, 2020, 08:35:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.
Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.
Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.
So you believe you are OK to challenge anyone who is positive about the vaccine because of the unknown long term effects, of which there may be none as being sheep who follow big pharma. But if someone challenges your "big pharma" claims because there's no proof of anything in these processes then you get all snowflakely and cry about these comments don't help, stifling people who have genuine concerns etc.
People can believe what they wish to. I only responded to defend my opinions on the optics that a Pfizer CEO offloading his shares on the day it was approved was appalling. dublin7 then goes on an attack against because I called out how this is very, very bad look for the industry and I have given a number of examples of the culture of sleaze and greed in which big pharma conduct their business. If people want to ignore the factual evidence of misconduct and reckless behaviour of Big Pharma then that's up to them but it sure does make them look silly.
You do know the sale was planned and agreed many months ago.
Quote from: LeoMc on December 11, 2020, 12:05:49 PM
You do know the sale was planned and agreed many months ago.
You do know the contract was signed in August, in the middle of the pandemic, just a couple of months before the announcement was made?
This wasn't some pre-existing contract from before the pandemic, this was something agreed on in the middle of it. It represents a huge conflict of interests and Pfizer have a history of really poor unethical practices.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 11:57:04 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 11:43:57 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 10:36:51 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 10, 2020, 08:35:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.
Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.
Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.
So you believe you are OK to challenge anyone who is positive about the vaccine because of the unknown long term effects, of which there may be none as being sheep who follow big pharma. But if someone challenges your "big pharma" claims because there's no proof of anything in these processes then you get all snowflakely and cry about these comments don't help, stifling people who have genuine concerns etc.
People can believe what they wish to. I only responded to defend my opinions on the optics that a Pfizer CEO offloading his shares on the day it was approved was appalling. dublin7 then goes on an attack against because I called out how this is very, very bad look for the industry and I have given a number of examples of the culture of sleaze and greed in which big pharma conduct their business. If people want to ignore the factual evidence of misconduct and reckless behaviour of Big Pharma then that's up to them but it sure does make them look silly.
I'm not going back down that rabbit hole. It was pointed out that the shares were set to sell when they reached a certain price. A standard process in the purchase and sell of shares. You were trying to spin it as something more. This has been roundly rubbished, hence the lack of interest in the story in the media. Providing facts on other processes doesn't automatically mean there was issues with this. If you believe there was misconduct on this process explain why? show what it's based on? You can't claim something happened just because there's precedence. There has to be a bit more to it than that I'm afraid or you will quite rightly be challenged on your opinions.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 12:19:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 11:57:04 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 11:43:57 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 10:36:51 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 10, 2020, 08:35:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.
Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.
Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.
So you believe you are OK to challenge anyone who is positive about the vaccine because of the unknown long term effects, of which there may be none as being sheep who follow big pharma. But if someone challenges your "big pharma" claims because there's no proof of anything in these processes then you get all snowflakely and cry about these comments don't help, stifling people who have genuine concerns etc.
People can believe what they wish to. I only responded to defend my opinions on the optics that a Pfizer CEO offloading his shares on the day it was approved was appalling. dublin7 then goes on an attack against because I called out how this is very, very bad look for the industry and I have given a number of examples of the culture of sleaze and greed in which big pharma conduct their business. If people want to ignore the factual evidence of misconduct and reckless behaviour of Big Pharma then that's up to them but it sure does make them look silly.
I'm not going back down that rabbit hole. It was pointed out that the shares were set to sell when they reached a certain price. A standard process in the purchase and sell of shares. You were trying to spin it as something more. This has been roundly rubbished, hence the lack of interest in the story in the media. Providing facts on other processes doesn't automatically mean there was issues with this. If you believe there was misconduct on this process explain why? show what it's based on? You can't claim something happened just because there's precedence. There has to be a bit more to it than that I'm afraid or you will quite rightly be challenged on your opinions.
Signed in the middle of a pandemic.
You don't see how this could be:
a) A conflict of interest in cutting corners to get the vaccine to market
b) Perceived to be the above
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 12:24:14 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 12:19:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 11:57:04 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 11:43:57 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 10:36:51 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 10, 2020, 08:35:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.
Neither does throw away comments about big pharma in that case.
Throwaway comments? You don't seem to know much about how big pharma operate.
So you believe you are OK to challenge anyone who is positive about the vaccine because of the unknown long term effects, of which there may be none as being sheep who follow big pharma. But if someone challenges your "big pharma" claims because there's no proof of anything in these processes then you get all snowflakely and cry about these comments don't help, stifling people who have genuine concerns etc.
People can believe what they wish to. I only responded to defend my opinions on the optics that a Pfizer CEO offloading his shares on the day it was approved was appalling. dublin7 then goes on an attack against because I called out how this is very, very bad look for the industry and I have given a number of examples of the culture of sleaze and greed in which big pharma conduct their business. If people want to ignore the factual evidence of misconduct and reckless behaviour of Big Pharma then that's up to them but it sure does make them look silly.
I'm not going back down that rabbit hole. It was pointed out that the shares were set to sell when they reached a certain price. A standard process in the purchase and sell of shares. You were trying to spin it as something more. This has been roundly rubbished, hence the lack of interest in the story in the media. Providing facts on other processes doesn't automatically mean there was issues with this. If you believe there was misconduct on this process explain why? show what it's based on? You can't claim something happened just because there's precedence. There has to be a bit more to it than that I'm afraid or you will quite rightly be challenged on your opinions.
Signed in the middle of a pandemic.
You don't see how this could be:
a) A conflict of interest in cutting corners to get the vaccine to market
b) Perceived to be the above
I don't believe a man who's earnings were around $18M a year between shares, salary and bonus would go to that lengths and risk his entire career and reputation for a personal gain of around 1/3 of his annual salary (It's actually far less that 1/3 as the shares had value prior to the agreement). In fact I would seriously question either the motivations or intelligence of someone who believes that. If i'm honest.
https://www.ft.com/content/b7b5da3f-f863-4cf2-bd0d-2694dfe6ae1e
The race for a Covid-19 vaccine was hit by twin setbacks as Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline delayed the rollout of their jab until the end of next year and Australia abandoned a shot that produced "false positives" for HIV.
France's Sanofi and GSK of the UK said on Friday their vaccine had failed to produce a strong immune response in the elderly as they explained the delay until at least the last quarter of 2021.
Quote from: seafoid on December 11, 2020, 12:36:45 PM
https://www.ft.com/content/b7b5da3f-f863-4cf2-bd0d-2694dfe6ae1e
The race for a Covid-19 vaccine was hit by twin setbacks as Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline delayed the rollout of their jab until the end of next year and Australia abandoned a shot that produced "false positives" for HIV.
France's Sanofi and GSK of the UK said on Friday their vaccine had failed to produce a strong immune response in the elderly as they explained the delay until at least the last quarter of 2021.
That's odd, you'd expect the scientists working for big pharma to just ignore the results and rush to get the vaccine released anyway so that the share price would go up
Quote from: macdanger2 on December 11, 2020, 12:43:27 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 11, 2020, 12:36:45 PM
https://www.ft.com/content/b7b5da3f-f863-4cf2-bd0d-2694dfe6ae1e
The race for a Covid-19 vaccine was hit by twin setbacks as Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline delayed the rollout of their jab until the end of next year and Australia abandoned a shot that produced "false positives" for HIV.
France's Sanofi and GSK of the UK said on Friday their vaccine had failed to produce a strong immune response in the elderly as they explained the delay until at least the last quarter of 2021.
That's odd, you'd expect the scientists working for big pharma to just ignore the results and rush to get the vaccine released anyway so that the share price would go up
You don't think it happens?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 12:35:12 PM
I don't believe a man who's earnings were around $18M a year between shares, salary and bonus would go to that lengths and risk his entire career and reputation for a personal gain of around 1/3 of his annual salary (It's actually far less that 1/3 as the shares had value prior to the agreement). In fact I would seriously question either the motivations or intelligence of someone who believes that. If i'm honest.
You must not know how billionaires and major corporate CEOs operate. They are repulsive, amoral individuals in the main.
https://www.ft.com/content/ef3449eb-084b-4192-ab95-91a715317ad0
Soon after Britain became the first country to approve the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, several prominent French doctors said it was too early to declare the mRNA-based shot safe and effective. Alain Fischer, the government's top vaccine adviser, called for time to allow European and French regulators to complete their assessment. "We only have two to three months of perspective on the safety and efficacy data of these vaccines," he said on television. "The data is not yet complete either to know if they protect against transmitting the virus." "There is still a lot we don't know about the virus . . . And we do not obviously know everything about the vaccines that are coming," French president Emmanuel Macron said on 4 December.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 12:44:45 PM
Quote from: macdanger2 on December 11, 2020, 12:43:27 PM
Quote from: seafoid on December 11, 2020, 12:36:45 PM
https://www.ft.com/content/b7b5da3f-f863-4cf2-bd0d-2694dfe6ae1e
The race for a Covid-19 vaccine was hit by twin setbacks as Sanofi and GlaxoSmithKline delayed the rollout of their jab until the end of next year and Australia abandoned a shot that produced "false positives" for HIV.
France's Sanofi and GSK of the UK said on Friday their vaccine had failed to produce a strong immune response in the elderly as they explained the delay until at least the last quarter of 2021.
That's odd, you'd expect the scientists working for big pharma to just ignore the results and rush to get the vaccine released anyway so that the share price would go up
You don't think it happens?
I KNOW it happens, only the sheeple would believe otherwise. I'm just surprised that it didn't happen in this case, it's very peculiar
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 12:35:12 PM
I don't believe a man who's earnings were around $18M a year between shares, salary and bonus would go to that lengths and risk his entire career and reputation for a personal gain of around 1/3 of his annual salary (It's actually far less that 1/3 as the shares had value prior to the agreement). In fact I would seriously question either the motivations or intelligence of someone who believes that. If i'm honest.
You must not know how billionaires and major corporate CEOs operate. They are repulsive, amoral individuals in the main.
No doubt. But let's at least be fair to them, and point to the evidence of wrong doing here and they we can all group together in our condemnation of what he has done. Should be fairly straightforward.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 12:50:38 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 12:35:12 PM
I don't believe a man who's earnings were around $18M a year between shares, salary and bonus would go to that lengths and risk his entire career and reputation for a personal gain of around 1/3 of his annual salary (It's actually far less that 1/3 as the shares had value prior to the agreement). In fact I would seriously question either the motivations or intelligence of someone who believes that. If i'm honest.
You must not know how billionaires and major corporate CEOs operate. They are repulsive, amoral individuals in the main.
No doubt. But let's at least be fair to them, and point to the evidence of wrong doing here and they we can all group together in our condemnation of what he has done. Should be fairly straightforward.
But it's the optics of it. Big Pharma is a shady industry, when you have the CEO signing agreements to profit from a vaccine that is rushed through in unprecedented circumstances it does unquestionably raise a huge conflicts of interests. He has a massive self-interest in getting this to market and for the outside looking in, these sort of issues only serve to discourage already skeptical people further.
As far as industries go, big pharma are as shady as it gets. We've seen countless examples of record corporate fines, FDA board members being bribed or induced to approve drugs. Money takes precedent over the health of the world with these people, white collar criminals have an uncanny knack of breaking laws to enrich themselves and getting away with it.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 01:28:01 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 12:50:38 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 12:46:43 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 12:35:12 PM
I don't believe a man who's earnings were around $18M a year between shares, salary and bonus would go to that lengths and risk his entire career and reputation for a personal gain of around 1/3 of his annual salary (It's actually far less that 1/3 as the shares had value prior to the agreement). In fact I would seriously question either the motivations or intelligence of someone who believes that. If i'm honest.
You must not know how billionaires and major corporate CEOs operate. They are repulsive, amoral individuals in the main.
No doubt. But let's at least be fair to them, and point to the evidence of wrong doing here and they we can all group together in our condemnation of what he has done. Should be fairly straightforward.
But it's the optics of it. Big Pharma is a shady industry, when you have the CEO signing agreements to profit from a vaccine that is rushed through in unprecedented circumstances it does unquestionably raise a huge conflicts of interests. He has a massive self-interest in getting this to market and for the outside looking in, these sort of issues only serve to discourage already skeptical people further.
As far as industries go, big pharma are as shady as it gets. We've seen countless examples of record corporate fines, FDA board members being bribed or induced to approve drugs. Money takes precedent over the health of the world with these people, white collar criminals have an uncanny knack of breaking laws to enrich themselves and getting away with it.
Naw sorry, going to need a bit more than that. The rushed stages have been explained so that's a none runner. CEO's of all businesses have obviously got self interest in the business preforming well. That's a given, but alas not proof of wrong doing.
With regards to the optics, people are obviously welcome to make decisions based on what's out there. But again, going on what's out there, I'd seriously question people's intelligence or motivation if they are trying to use this as a reason to discredit the vaccine.
Trueblue I think he should give his profits to charity and then that would appease the whole thing ;D
I can just see the headline now. "Man makes money from job." It's an outrage.
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 01:41:57 PM
Trueblue I think he should give his profits to charity and then that would appease the whole thing ;D
I can just see the headline now. "Man makes money from job." It's an outrage.
Or the actual headline which reports on reality:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/pfizer-ceo-sold-stock-worth-5-6-million-same-day-n1247398
So long as we're clear that Big Pharma is primarily concerned about making billions of profits rather than the safety and wellbeing of the population.
Was that not agreed months before it though?
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 01:48:31 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 01:41:57 PM
Trueblue I think he should give his profits to charity and then that would appease the whole thing ;D
I can just see the headline now. "Man makes money from job." It's an outrage.
Or the actual headline which reports on reality:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/pfizer-ceo-sold-stock-worth-5-6-million-same-day-n1247398
So long as we're clear that Big Pharma is primarily concerned about making billions of profits rather than the safety and wellbeing of the population.
And I was going to give you a couple of million, but seems it would be wasted on you...
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 01:52:19 PM
Was that not agreed months before it though?
Nope.
It was agreed in August, right in the middle of the pandemic and just a couple of months before approval was granted. It's a clear conflict of interest.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 11:29:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 09:51:14 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 10, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.
Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.
This is true. However what they do know to date is the vaccine efficiency rate is around 90%. A fairly welcome stat.
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 01:53:31 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 01:52:19 PM
Was that not agreed months before it though?
Nope.
It was agreed in August, right in the middle of the pandemic and just a couple of months before approval was granted. It's a clear conflict of interest.
So in the middle but not when it was certain that it would be approved? Seems a big enough gamble, but if you're loaded taking those gambles is easy
Quote from: seafoid on December 11, 2020, 12:49:25 PM
https://www.ft.com/content/ef3449eb-084b-4192-ab95-91a715317ad0
Soon after Britain became the first country to approve the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine, several prominent French doctors said it was too early to declare the mRNA-based shot safe and effective. Alain Fischer, the government's top vaccine adviser, called for time to allow European and French regulators to complete their assessment. "We only have two to three months of perspective on the safety and efficacy data of these vaccines," he said on television. "The data is not yet complete either to know if they protect against transmitting the virus." "There is still a lot we don't know about the virus . . . And we do not obviously know everything about the vaccines that are coming," French president Emmanuel Macron said on 4 December.
You will be on the hit list with such sensible posts.
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 11:29:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 09:51:14 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 10, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.
Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.
This is true. However what they do know to date is the vaccine efficiency rate is around 90%. A fairly welcome stat.
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
So if by spring all the vulnerable are vaccinated and the UK opens up only to find in summer it only offered 6 months protection, that be some mess!
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 01:48:31 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 01:41:57 PM
Trueblue I think he should give his profits to charity and then that would appease the whole thing ;D
I can just see the headline now. "Man makes money from job." It's an outrage.
Or the actual headline which reports on reality:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/pfizer-ceo-sold-stock-worth-5-6-million-same-day-n1247398
So long as we're clear that Big Pharma is primarily concerned about making billions of profits rather than the safety and wellbeing of the population.
That just reports on the facts. No one is denying he sold the shares. Or that he had an agreement to sell shares when they hit a certain value. He used a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan. All standard.
So again, unless I'm missing something this is a nothing story, unless you want it to be.
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:59:43 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 11:29:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 09:51:14 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 10, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.
Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.
This is true. However what they do know to date is the vaccine efficiency rate is around 90%. A fairly welcome stat.
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
So if by spring all the vulnerable are vaccinated and the UK opens up only to find in summer it only offered 6 months protection, that be some mess!
Or if they find out that it lasts a lifetime then all will be right with the world. I'm sure they are tracking the levels of protection from the trials so we will hear if the protection starts to diminish. But we'd be no worth off than not having got the vaccine in the first place.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 11, 2020, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 01:53:31 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 01:52:19 PM
Was that not agreed months before it though?
Nope.
It was agreed in August, right in the middle of the pandemic and just a couple of months before approval was granted. It's a clear conflict of interest.
So in the middle but not when it was certain that it would be approved? Seems a big enough gamble, but if you're loaded taking those gambles is easy
Yeah so he didn't just sell them on the day of it being approved. He had prior agreement. aka my point.
So what will we say now? He had incentive to get it approved? It was self interest?
A CEO making money from the vaccine is a non story. If any other company had got this approved first their CEO would have stood to make significant money. If this is a success it is a game changer for the world. How in any way would someone not make money from that??
5-6 million for someone like that, as has been stated, is nothing.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:14:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 01:48:31 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 01:41:57 PM
Trueblue I think he should give his profits to charity and then that would appease the whole thing ;D
I can just see the headline now. "Man makes money from job." It's an outrage.
Or the actual headline which reports on reality:
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/pfizer-ceo-sold-stock-worth-5-6-million-same-day-n1247398
So long as we're clear that Big Pharma is primarily concerned about making billions of profits rather than the safety and wellbeing of the population.
That just reports on the facts. No one is denying he sold the shares. Or that he had an agreement to sell shares when they hit a certain value. He used a Rule 10b5-1 trading plan. All standard.
So again, unless I'm missing something this is a nothing story, unless you want it to be.
You are clearly missing the conflict of interest.
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 02:19:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 11, 2020, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 01:53:31 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 01:52:19 PM
Was that not agreed months before it though?
Nope.
It was agreed in August, right in the middle of the pandemic and just a couple of months before approval was granted. It's a clear conflict of interest.
So in the middle but not when it was certain that it would be approved? Seems a big enough gamble, but if you're loaded taking those gambles is easy
Yeah so he didn't just sell them on the day of it being approved. He had prior agreement. aka my point.
So what will we say now? He had incentive to get it approved? It was self interest?
A CEO making money from the vaccine is a non story. If any other company had got this approved first their CEO would have stood to make significant money. If this is a success it is a game changer for the world. How in any way would someone not make money from that??
5-6 million for someone like that, as has been stated, is nothing.
5-6m for anyone is huge money.
He had an incentive and a self-interest to get that vaccine to market, that simply should not have been the case. Full stop. It further erodes whatever confidence in big pharma.
It's actually around $700,000. The increase was around 15%. The shares weren't zero prior to the vaccine.
I think we can all agree this would not amount to much to the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly anyone who things this amount would be worthwhile taking the risks Angelo is suggesting is either lacking the intelligence to have worked out the full story or using it as a tool to push a separate agenda.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:26:45 PM
It's actually around $700,000. The increase was around 15%. The shares weren't zero prior to the vaccine.
I think we can all agree this would not amount to much to the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly anyone who things this amount would be worthwhile taking the risks Angelo is suggesting is either lacking the intelligence to have worked out the full story or using it as a tool to push a separate agenda.
5-6m amounts to a lot for anyone, it's a third of his salary, that's significant. I think you struggle to comprehend the way capitalist pigs operate. You act like he is a compassionate man who cares what people think, that's not the way these people work. They don't care about these things as long as they get away with it, look at all the tax loopholes billionaires cheat the taxpayer out of every year, they don't care as long as they get away with it.
Why did corporate bankers take all those risks in the financial crash?
There's so many studies done about the sociopathic nature of major corporate executives. These are not ordinary thinkers you are talking about, these are callous and driven people who care only about how much money they make and that greed is what can do for them in the end.
Sean Quinn is a classic example, why did the richest man in Ireland want more and more and more?
This thread reminds me of moon landing conspiracy theorists. No matter what theory is debunked, they cannot help themselves.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:26:45 PM
It's actually around $700,000. The increase was around 15%. The shares weren't zero prior to the vaccine.
I think we can all agree this would not amount to much to the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly anyone who things this amount would be worthwhile taking the risks Angelo is suggesting is either lacking the intelligence to have worked out the full story or using it as a tool to push a separate agenda.
5-6m amounts to a lot for anyone, it's a third of his salary, that's significant. I think you struggle to comprehend the way capitalist pigs operate. You act like he is a compassionate man who cares what people think, that's not the way these people work. They don't care about these things as long as they get away with it, look at all the tax loopholes billionaires cheat the taxpayer out of every year, they don't care as long as they get away with it.
Why did corporate bankers take all those risks in the financial crash?
There's so many studies done about the sociopathic nature of major corporate executives. These are not ordinary thinkers you are talking about, these are callous and driven people who care only about how much money they make and that greed is what can do for them in the end.
Sean Quinn is a classic example, why did the richest man in Ireland want more and more and more?
Yeah but as i mentioned $700K isn't that much for the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly not enough to jeopardize a $18M a year package.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:39:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:26:45 PM
It's actually around $700,000. The increase was around 15%. The shares weren't zero prior to the vaccine.
I think we can all agree this would not amount to much to the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly anyone who things this amount would be worthwhile taking the risks Angelo is suggesting is either lacking the intelligence to have worked out the full story or using it as a tool to push a separate agenda.
5-6m amounts to a lot for anyone, it's a third of his salary, that's significant. I think you struggle to comprehend the way capitalist pigs operate. You act like he is a compassionate man who cares what people think, that's not the way these people work. They don't care about these things as long as they get away with it, look at all the tax loopholes billionaires cheat the taxpayer out of every year, they don't care as long as they get away with it.
Why did corporate bankers take all those risks in the financial crash?
There's so many studies done about the sociopathic nature of major corporate executives. These are not ordinary thinkers you are talking about, these are callous and driven people who care only about how much money they make and that greed is what can do for them in the end.
Sean Quinn is a classic example, why did the richest man in Ireland want more and more and more?
Yeah but as i mentioned $700K isn't that much for the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly not enough to jeopardize a $18M a year package.
Jeopardise?
You see there's an arrogance with these people. They think they will get it away with and they are generally right. So how is he jeopardising this. The optics of it are terrible and the bottom line is that people who are hesitant about the safety of this vaccine then see that the CEO of Pfizer stands to profit from rushing this vaccine through. That only serves to erode trust.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:39:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:26:45 PM
It's actually around $700,000. The increase was around 15%. The shares weren't zero prior to the vaccine.
I think we can all agree this would not amount to much to the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly anyone who things this amount would be worthwhile taking the risks Angelo is suggesting is either lacking the intelligence to have worked out the full story or using it as a tool to push a separate agenda.
5-6m amounts to a lot for anyone, it's a third of his salary, that's significant. I think you struggle to comprehend the way capitalist pigs operate. You act like he is a compassionate man who cares what people think, that's not the way these people work. They don't care about these things as long as they get away with it, look at all the tax loopholes billionaires cheat the taxpayer out of every year, they don't care as long as they get away with it.
Why did corporate bankers take all those risks in the financial crash?
There's so many studies done about the sociopathic nature of major corporate executives. These are not ordinary thinkers you are talking about, these are callous and driven people who care only about how much money they make and that greed is what can do for them in the end.
Sean Quinn is a classic example, why did the richest man in Ireland want more and more and more?
Yeah but as i mentioned $700K isn't that much for the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly not enough to jeopardize a $18M a year package.
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
As I said earlier, I'm happy to get behind you on the hating of these people. I just need something to hang my hat on. Other than a general "I hate big Pharma" splurge.
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:39:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:26:45 PM
It's actually around $700,000. The increase was around 15%. The shares weren't zero prior to the vaccine.
I think we can all agree this would not amount to much to the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly anyone who things this amount would be worthwhile taking the risks Angelo is suggesting is either lacking the intelligence to have worked out the full story or using it as a tool to push a separate agenda.
5-6m amounts to a lot for anyone, it's a third of his salary, that's significant. I think you struggle to comprehend the way capitalist pigs operate. You act like he is a compassionate man who cares what people think, that's not the way these people work. They don't care about these things as long as they get away with it, look at all the tax loopholes billionaires cheat the taxpayer out of every year, they don't care as long as they get away with it.
Why did corporate bankers take all those risks in the financial crash?
There's so many studies done about the sociopathic nature of major corporate executives. These are not ordinary thinkers you are talking about, these are callous and driven people who care only about how much money they make and that greed is what can do for them in the end.
Sean Quinn is a classic example, why did the richest man in Ireland want more and more and more?
Yeah but as i mentioned $700K isn't that much for the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly not enough to jeopardize a $18M a year package.
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
The issues was it was agreed in the middle of a pandemic, two months before the announcement. He had a self-interest in getting the vaccine to market first. His decision making was certainly compromised or could easily be perceived to be. So was he putting his own interests first? That is a question we should not be asking but we now are.
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:39:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:26:45 PM
It's actually around $700,000. The increase was around 15%. The shares weren't zero prior to the vaccine.
I think we can all agree this would not amount to much to the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly anyone who things this amount would be worthwhile taking the risks Angelo is suggesting is either lacking the intelligence to have worked out the full story or using it as a tool to push a separate agenda.
5-6m amounts to a lot for anyone, it's a third of his salary, that's significant. I think you struggle to comprehend the way capitalist pigs operate. You act like he is a compassionate man who cares what people think, that's not the way these people work. They don't care about these things as long as they get away with it, look at all the tax loopholes billionaires cheat the taxpayer out of every year, they don't care as long as they get away with it.
Why did corporate bankers take all those risks in the financial crash?
There's so many studies done about the sociopathic nature of major corporate executives. These are not ordinary thinkers you are talking about, these are callous and driven people who care only about how much money they make and that greed is what can do for them in the end.
Sean Quinn is a classic example, why did the richest man in Ireland want more and more and more?
Yeah but as i mentioned $700K isn't that much for the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly not enough to jeopardize a $18M a year package.
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:51:50 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:39:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:26:45 PM
It's actually around $700,000. The increase was around 15%. The shares weren't zero prior to the vaccine.
I think we can all agree this would not amount to much to the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly anyone who things this amount would be worthwhile taking the risks Angelo is suggesting is either lacking the intelligence to have worked out the full story or using it as a tool to push a separate agenda.
5-6m amounts to a lot for anyone, it's a third of his salary, that's significant. I think you struggle to comprehend the way capitalist pigs operate. You act like he is a compassionate man who cares what people think, that's not the way these people work. They don't care about these things as long as they get away with it, look at all the tax loopholes billionaires cheat the taxpayer out of every year, they don't care as long as they get away with it.
Why did corporate bankers take all those risks in the financial crash?
There's so many studies done about the sociopathic nature of major corporate executives. These are not ordinary thinkers you are talking about, these are callous and driven people who care only about how much money they make and that greed is what can do for them in the end.
Sean Quinn is a classic example, why did the richest man in Ireland want more and more and more?
Yeah but as i mentioned $700K isn't that much for the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly not enough to jeopardize a $18M a year package.
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
The issues was it was agreed in the middle of a pandemic, two months before the announcement. He had a self-interest in getting the vaccine to market first. His decision making was certainly compromised or could easily be perceived to be. So was he putting his own interests first? That is a question we should not be asking but we now are.
I think you know this is a lost cause Angelo.......
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.
In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.
The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:18:51 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:59:43 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 11:29:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 09:51:14 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 10, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.
Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.
This is true. However what they do know to date is the vaccine efficiency rate is around 90%. A fairly welcome stat.
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
So if by spring all the vulnerable are vaccinated and the UK opens up only to find in summer it only offered 6 months protection, that be some mess!
Or if they find out that it lasts a lifetime then all will be right with the world. I'm sure they are tracking the levels of protection from the trials so we will hear if the protection starts to diminish. But we'd be no worth off than not having got the vaccine in the first place.
Crazy statement, really is head in the sand, so if everyone is allowed to hug their granny and turns out granny isn't protected, granny will be worse off, but it galls you to say maybe this has been rushed, EU don't seem to be rushing it!
Quote from: thebigfella on December 11, 2020, 02:37:29 PM
This thread reminds me of moon landing conspiracy theorists. No matter what theory is debunked, they cannot help themselves.
Except no one is debunking Covid, or the vaccination process, just have concerns about the expedient rollout of such a vaccine with so many unknowns. Some moonmen on this thread though I concur with that!
5-6 million in the grand scheme of things for a boy leading the development of a vaccine which could put the world back on the right track is pittence.
You had so many angles you could have taken and you take this one.
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 03:00:27 PM
5-6 million in the grand scheme of things for a boy leading the development of a vaccine which could put the world back on the right track is pittence.
You had so many angles you could have taken and you take this one.
I'm afraid you are very naive to how sleazy big pharma is and how sociopathic major corporate executives are.
He had a self interest to enrich himself and the optics of it only serve to undermine the goals of the vaccine.
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
Sure tell you what we'll do.
We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.
In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.
How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 11, 2020, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
Sure tell you what we'll do.
We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.
In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.
How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?
Millions are dying anyway.
Why have we never had this sort of a drive to stop cancer which takes the lives of young, fit and healthy people and reduces them to years of pain and suffering?
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:06:01 PM
Why have we never had this sort of a drive to stop cancer which takes the lives of young, fit and healthy people and reduces them to years of pain and suffering?
Because a virus is significantly easier to isolate and produce solutions to.
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 02:57:41 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:18:51 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:59:43 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 11:29:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 09:51:14 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 10, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.
Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.
This is true. However what they do know to date is the vaccine efficiency rate is around 90%. A fairly welcome stat.
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
So if by spring all the vulnerable are vaccinated and the UK opens up only to find in summer it only offered 6 months protection, that be some mess!
Or if they find out that it lasts a lifetime then all will be right with the world. I'm sure they are tracking the levels of protection from the trials so we will hear if the protection starts to diminish. But we'd be no worth off than not having got the vaccine in the first place.
Crazy statement, really is head in the sand, so if everyone is allowed to hug their granny and turns out granny isn't protected, granny will be worse off, but it galls you to say maybe this has been rushed, EU don't seem to be rushing it!
No it's not. As I said they will be monitoring if the impact of the vaccine diminishes. The people from the clinical trials will show if it does diminish before everyone else. If it does then a booster may be needed. This has already been mentioned. It's not a hit and hope no matter how much you would like it to be. The only alternative would be to wait years to see if it had side effects/ lasting immunity, by which time who knows how many would have dies or businesses destroyed.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.
In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.
The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.
But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.
In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.
The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.
But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......
Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.
They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.
In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.
The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.
But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......
Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.
They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.
We aren't. You are. There's a very distinct difference.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 03:20:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.
In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.
The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.
But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......
Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.
They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.
We aren't. You are. There's a very distinct difference.
Many people are. It made the news of that very basis.
If you want to ignore the shady culture in big pharma that is your prerogative but for people who were skeptical about the vaccine and the way it was rushed through it further erodes confidence and most medical experts and governments will tell the vaccine needs mass buy in.
The optics of CEOs signing contracts that benefits themselves financially and gives them a self-interest to rush it through and the history of big phara combined with that will further erode trust and further damage uptake.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 11, 2020, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
Sure tell you what we'll do.
We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.
In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.
How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?
Oh dear the personal abuse, how many have died from covid, one doesn't know as the figures are skewed, all the predictions have been well, horseshite, but you are correct monitor the live clinical trial in the UK, you need to start taking more tablets those you are on aren't working.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.
In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.
The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.
But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......
Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.
They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.
Two things.
First they always have an incentive to get to market first, that's the nature of business. So as I said, to not try to get this out first would be detrimental to all shareholders.
Secondly, my reading of this, and I might be wrong, was that he was not awarded shares in August. He simply set the price he was happy a portion of his stock at. Are you saying he should not be allowed to sell shares because his pharma company was trying to bring a product to market?
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:24:31 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 03:20:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.
In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.
The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.
But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......
Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.
They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.
We aren't. You are. There's a very distinct difference.
Many people are. It made the news of that very basis.
If you want to ignore the shady culture in big pharma that is your prerogative but for people who were skeptical about the vaccine and the way it was rushed through it further erodes confidence and most medical experts and governments will tell the vaccine needs mass buy in.
The optics of CEOs signing contracts that benefits themselves financially and gives them a self-interest to rush it through and the history of big phara combined with that will further erode trust and further damage uptake.
It made the news, and then the full story came out and there hardly anything about it since. If you think there was actually something in it, it would be one of the main news stories. But we all know, it's not.
The bit in bold you should just cut and paste. When the rest of your points get debunked (And they have been, no matter how many times you keep posting them). You seem to fall back into re-posting this general statement and trying to get the same argument going again all over again. It's you technique on all threads. Argue, then when you get stripped back on your points, post a general post similar to the one you first posted, ignoring all that has went on in-between and reset the argument. Just so you can have it all over again.
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 03:33:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.
In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.
The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.
But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......
Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.
They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.
Two things.
First they always have an incentive to get to market first, that's the nature of business. So as I said, to not try to get this out first would be detrimental to all shareholders.
Secondly, my reading of this, and I might be wrong, was that he was not awarded shares in August. He simply set the price he was happy a portion of his stock at. Are you saying he should not be allowed to sell shares because his pharma company was trying to bring a product to market?
He set an automatic cashout price in August, knowing that they were getting ready to seek approval. On the day the announcement was made, his shares hit that price and he cashed out. Chaching, he had every self-serving incentive to get the vaccine out there, ready or not.
I'm saying that in these circumstances he should not have been allowed to offload his shares in the manner he did. I think rather than allowing him to cash out, there should actually have been a barring order on him offloading his shares until a defined period after the vaccine is approved. His own interests were rewarded by getting the vaccine to market, ready or not.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:02:44 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 03:00:27 PM
5-6 million in the grand scheme of things for a boy leading the development of a vaccine which could put the world back on the right track is pittence.
You had so many angles you could have taken and you take this one.
I'm afraid you are very naive to how sleazy big pharma is and how sociopathic major corporate executives are.
He had a self interest to enrich himself and the optics of it only serve to undermine the goals of the vaccine.
"Optics" "enrich"
You use lots of fancy words most of which are nonsense.
It doesn't matter how this particular guy work or collectively how they work. Anyone would have made money from this vaccine when it was successful. Anyone.
By your line of argument only a charity would pass the criteria you're measuring them against.
You have a narrative and you'll use whatever to fit that narrative.
If it's CEO x you'll use it, CEO y you'll use it, CEO z etc. It's a nonsense and there's a reason why this story hasn't been fixated on.
You have potentially a pile of material to use here and you choose money. An angle pretty much any human being in the world would make whether they be good, bad or indifferent.
Wait what big pharma this , big pharma that, blah blah blah. Nonsense.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:51:40 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 03:33:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.
In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.
The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.
But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......
Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.
They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.
Two things.
First they always have an incentive to get to market first, that's the nature of business. So as I said, to not try to get this out first would be detrimental to all shareholders.
Secondly, my reading of this, and I might be wrong, was that he was not awarded shares in August. He simply set the price he was happy a portion of his stock at. Are you saying he should not be allowed to sell shares because his pharma company was trying to bring a product to market?
He set an automatic cashout price in August, knowing that they were getting ready to seek approval. On the day the announcement was made, his shares hit that price and he cashed out. Chaching, he had every self-serving incentive to get the vaccine out there, ready or not.
I'm saying that in these circumstances he should not have been allowed to offload his shares in the manner he did. I think rather than allowing him to cash out, there should actually have been a barring order on him offloading his shares until a defined period after the vaccine is approved. His own interests were rewarded by getting the vaccine to market, ready or not.
Do you think the CEO of Pzfier, with a package of around $18M a year, took risks with a vaccine to rush it out just so that he could make $700K (Note not $5-6 million, he always had the value of the shares at the time so it's only the 15% increase we are talking about).
Yes or no answer. Forget about the optics, Big Pharma etc ect. Do you actually believe he took any actions/ shortcuts based solely on the fact of him selling these shares just for the sake of roughly half a month's income?
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:51:40 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 03:33:47 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:17:32 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 03:10:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:56:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:54:52 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
I think so. But I think Angelo is about to spill the beans.
In the middle of a pandemic, two months before an announcement is made where they are first to market.
The optics of it are terrible. The vested interest is very transparent and it stinks.
But this was going to happen whenever the vaccine was announced i.e. the share price would spike and trigger the payment? I actually think this is more transparent, he set a price he was happy to sell the shares at in advance and the decision around timing was out of his hands and subject only to the market forces? What is his alternative, deliberately hold back on announcing the vaccine so it would not trigger his trade even though it had met all regulatory requirements? I suspect other shareholders might have an issue with that approach......
Exactly, the key is it was signed in August, just a few months before the announcement was made, slap bang in the middle of the pandemic.
They gave themselves an incentive to get to market first. Was the CEO blinded by his own self-interest? That's a question that is now out there. We shouldn't be asking that question but due to the poor corporate governance at Pfizer we are. Would it not have been better to sign an agreement barring him from selling his shares until 6 months after the vaccine was developed? It absolutely would but that would not have been in his interests.
Two things.
First they always have an incentive to get to market first, that's the nature of business. So as I said, to not try to get this out first would be detrimental to all shareholders.
Secondly, my reading of this, and I might be wrong, was that he was not awarded shares in August. He simply set the price he was happy a portion of his stock at. Are you saying he should not be allowed to sell shares because his pharma company was trying to bring a product to market?
He set an automatic cashout price in August, knowing that they were getting ready to seek approval. On the day the announcement was made, his shares hit that price and he cashed out. Chaching, he had every self-serving incentive to get the vaccine out there, ready or not.
I'm saying that in these circumstances he should not have been allowed to offload his shares in the manner he did. I think rather than allowing him to cash out, there should actually have been a barring order on him offloading his shares until a defined period after the vaccine is approved. His own interests were rewarded by getting the vaccine to market, ready or not.
So you dont want a CEO of a pharma company to be allowed to sell shares while they have pharma products in development. Even though all regulatory approvals were met. So he would never be able to sell his shares given how R&D focussed they are.
Who gets to decide when he can sell his shares? You?
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 03:31:11 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 11, 2020, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
Sure tell you what we'll do.
We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.
In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.
How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?
Oh dear the personal abuse, how many have died from covid, one doesn't know as the figures are skewed, all the predictions have been well, horseshite, but you are correct monitor the live clinical trial in the UK, you need to start taking more tablets those you are on aren't working.
Oh dear, a tinfoil hat clown objects to being called out.
It's not too hard to get a rough idea how many have died as a result of covid [note - this is distinct from how many have died from covid]. Factored excess deaths above the average tend to indicate reasonably well.
If you want an accurate number down to tens, or even hundreds then you are right, no one knows - but an accuracy of hundreds is irrelevant when tens of thousands are dying as a result of covid. Indeed, statisticians would argue an accuracy of thousands is irrelevant when many tens of thousands are dying as a result of it.
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 03:58:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:02:44 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 03:00:27 PM
5-6 million in the grand scheme of things for a boy leading the development of a vaccine which could put the world back on the right track is pittence.
You had so many angles you could have taken and you take this one.
I'm afraid you are very naive to how sleazy big pharma is and how sociopathic major corporate executives are.
He had a self interest to enrich himself and the optics of it only serve to undermine the goals of the vaccine.
"Optics" "enrich"
You use lots of fancy words most of which are nonsense.
It doesn't matter how this particular guy work or collectively how they work. Anyone would have made money from this vaccine when it was successful. Anyone.
By your line of argument only a charity would pass the criteria you're measuring them against.
You have a narrative and you'll use whatever to fit that narrative.
If it's CEO x you'll use it, CEO y you'll use it, CEO z etc. It's a nonsense and there's a reason why this story hasn't been fixated on.
You have potentially a pile of material to use here and you choose money. An angle pretty much any human being in the world would make whether they be good, bad or indifferent.
Wait what big pharma this , big pharma that, blah blah blah. Nonsense.
It's not nonsense.
Optics are what it looks like.
It looks like the CEO had a vested interest in getting the vaccine to market. He had a reason to cut corner and take risks with its production and disclosures and the motivation was to enrich himself.
For people who are skeptical about the vaccine and harbour genuine concerns about the speed at which it was produced, this only adds fuel to the fire. It paints Big Pharma in a very bad light. Pfizer were fined a record corporate fine over a decade ago of over $2bn for giving kickbacks to doctors to endorse one of their drugs.
Then we had this a few years back.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-pfizer-settlement-idUSKCN1IP2CZ
They are a company with abhorrent corporate governance practices but most of Big Pharma do. I would be very cynical of anything they say.
Man has interest in money.
That's the headline.
What could that guy have done to appease you? Not sold his shares? He would still be a CEO for "big pharma" and would still have the human characteristics of the average CEO(not just "big pharma" CEOs are like that you know). So there would still be your "optics" - just different ones!!
Nothing that could have been done here would have won you over because you have a narrative. Your narrative would be better fueled by allergic reactions etc etc but no your strong argument is CEO of a "big pharma" company behaves like a CEO and wants to make money. That's it.
You have loads of other angles and you choose that one.
Nonsense.
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 04:23:34 PM
Man has interest in money.
That's the headline.
What could that guy have done to appease you? Not sold his shares? He would still be a CEO for "big pharma" and would still have the human characteristics of the average CEO(not just "big pharma" CEOs are like that you know). So there would still be your "optics" - just different ones!!
Nothing that could have been done here would have won you over because you have a narrative. Your narrative would be better fueled by allergic reactions etc etc but no your strong argument is CEO of a "big pharma" company behaves like a CEO and wants to make money. That's it.
You have loads of other angles and you choose that one.
Nonsense.
I think I am checking out on this one. Angelo's issue appears to be that a CEO at a Pharma company is seeking to bring pharma products to market for sale. Its like having an issue with BWW for launching a new car.
Shady automotive industry and all that.... ::)
Yeah me too.
See you on the other side :D
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 04:23:34 PM
Man has interest in money.
That's the headline.
What could that guy have done to appease you? Not sold his shares? He would still be a CEO for "big pharma" and would still have the human characteristics of the average CEO(not just "big pharma" CEOs are like that you know). So there would still be your "optics" - just different ones!!
Nothing that could have been done here would have won you over because you have a narrative. Your narrative would be better fueled by allergic reactions etc etc but no your strong argument is CEO of a "big pharma" company behaves like a CEO and wants to make money. That's it.
You have loads of other angles and you choose that one.
Nonsense.
It's the board who signed off on it.
What should have been done was that request should have been rejected and in fact any executive members of the management team should have been prohibited from divesting their shares until a defined period of time after the vaccine had been approved.
There's a way of doing things and when Pfizer conduct business as they do then they undermine the vaccine process.
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:41:09 PM
And headbangers who as a collective think they can bully, berate and try to intimidate folk with reasonable health care concerns about a vaccine ten months in the making and only being administrated currently in a country run by liars and swindlers to achieve nothing but political gain.
I think that when people ask you questions or don't believe your lies when claim to have already answered the questions you think they are bullying you.
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 04:29:04 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 11, 2020, 04:23:34 PM
Man has interest in money.
That's the headline.
What could that guy have done to appease you? Not sold his shares? He would still be a CEO for "big pharma" and would still have the human characteristics of the average CEO(not just "big pharma" CEOs are like that you know). So there would still be your "optics" - just different ones!!
Nothing that could have been done here would have won you over because you have a narrative. Your narrative would be better fueled by allergic reactions etc etc but no your strong argument is CEO of a "big pharma" company behaves like a CEO and wants to make money. That's it.
You have loads of other angles and you choose that one.
Nonsense.
I think I am checking out on this one. Angelo's issue appears to be that a CEO at a Pharma company is seeking to bring pharma products to market for sale. Its like having an issue with BWW for launching a new car.
Shady automotive industry and all that.... ::)
I have an issue with the business practices of Big Pharmas which includes kickbacks to nurses/doctors/hospitals to endorse and prescribe their drugs and to offer kickbacks and inducements to drug approval authorities to approve their drugs. It's racketeering and they have been found guilty of endangering the health of people in the past to make millions. If you want to ignore the truth and continue to be naive about this then that's your choice.
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:45:27 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 08, 2020, 01:39:02 PM
Is it not a bit strange that the posters who are "uneasy" about the vaccine seem to share common traits around answering questions, quoting discredited sources, making claims about the vaccine being forced etc?
Far be from me to suggest that they are one person, in cahoots or gaslit by a common source
Lets see how the care homes pan out, I am next of kin for my parent in care, Ill let you know if and when I am contacted for approval but as of yet no one has mentioned the vaccine to me.
Well don't you get agitated until there is something to get agitated about
I asked earlier but you've avoided answering. Do you genuinely believe the CEO took shortcuts in order to improve his share values by $700K? As I said, forget about optics etc. Do you actually believe this?
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 03:36:46 PM
You back to tell more lies, care to go back to the Dublin Cavan thread and quote me - you complete snake of a man.
The similarity with Angelo's debating technique is uncanny
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 05:59:16 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 08, 2020, 05:27:04 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 03:21:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 01:47:29 PM
Well done on avoiding the question.
So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.
It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.
It isnt - you said folk in care homes are collateral damage.
You have not provided any evidence of the sort.
Fair enough if you are anti vaccine - but pointless throwing out comments with absolutely no factual basis.
I am going with what the Health Secretary, Medical Regulator & numerous prominent epidemiologists & immunologists are saying.
Who are you going with?
Seany - Im still waiting for your evidence that care homes are collateral damage.
Did you find any evidence or have you moved on?
I have answered this, you should read back.
So what was the evidence provided in the earlier answer?
It seems to have been wiped from the internet
When told to turn over your exam paper did you just write "I've already answered these questions" against each question?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 04:39:21 PM
I asked earlier but you've avoided answering. Do you genuinely believe the CEO took shortcuts in order to improve his share values by $700K? As I said, forget about optics etc. Do you actually believe this?
I can't tell you the motivations of other people but did he have incentive? Absolutely. Would it be in line with the culture of Pfizer and Big Pharma? Absolutely.
So now this question exists where it should not have been allowed to exits. Big Pharma is an absolutely rotten industry and we have seen these companies have shown little regard to potential side effects of their drugs in the past and have actively bribed/induced promotion of drugs they have known there problems with? To what end? To make money.
Quote from: Seamus on December 09, 2020, 04:05:53 AM
Quote from: LCohen on December 07, 2020, 07:41:40 AM
Quote from: Seamus on December 07, 2020, 02:33:53 AM
Quote from: lenny on November 29, 2020, 04:16:20 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on November 29, 2020, 04:05:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on November 29, 2020, 03:17:53 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on November 29, 2020, 03:05:13 PM
If only we could get polio, small pox etc etc back..... ::)
Polio?
You're bringing Polio into it? Did you hear about or remember the Polio vaccine that paralysed people for life?
I really pit the stupidity of some of you on here.
A list of the things we simply cannot question on here:
Neil Lennon
Vaccines and Big Pharma
There were 350000 polio cases in 1988. There are approx 50 per year nowadays.
Don't try to bamboozle some of the covidiots on here with facts.
Conveniently the criteria for polio diagnosis has changed. I'm expecting the real idiots to come up with some lame excuse in order to keep their belief systems intact. Covidiots, how Orwellian.
Polio now hides behind these names: acute flaccid paralysis (AFP), Transverse Myelitis, Viral or aseptic Meningitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, Chinese Paralytic syndrome, Cronic Fatigue Syndrome, epidemic cholera, cholera morbus, spinal meningitis, spinal apoplexy, inhibitory palsy, intermittent fever, famine fever, worm fever, bilious remittent fever, ergotism, ME, post-polio syndrome, Synonyms for GBS].
Hiding Polio: The Diagnosis Lie
"Polio has not been eradicated by vaccination, it is lurking behind a redefinition and new diagnostic names like viral and aseptic meningitis. According to one of the 1997 issues of MMWR, there are some 30,000 to 50,000 cases of viral meningitis per year in the United States alone. That is where all those cases of polio disappeared after the introduction of mass vaccination"
Viera Scheibner, Ph.D (2002)
http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html (http://www.whale.to/vaccine/polio1.html)
Seamus- as a contribution to the debate that is dreadful.
Whilst Ms Scheibner is a scientist you will be the first to admit that he field of science is geology. Post retirement she has entered the vaccination debate where she has been accused variously of being a pseudoscientist and deliberately peddling misinformation with no scientific basis.
As a source she is discredited. Wholly discredited. She has literally been thrown out of court for her lack of credibility. She is a Rudi Guiliani type figure.
As for the polio points.
You need to clear. If you are suggesting that that diagnosis are being given to suppress polio stats then be specific.
Secondly the global prevaccination levels of polio are unknown. Many of the cases were in the developing world. Only severe cases were recorded. When we hear of 300-400k cases per year these are severe cases.
The diseases you mention don't come close to those numbers and your list includes viral meningitis where the numbers are overwhelmingly at the milder end of the spectrum (I.e. full recovery within a week).
Your article is based upon this selective use of sources. It is absolute horseshit
"Horseshit" coming from a person who agrees that vaccines should be given to 11 year old children without parental consent and knowledge!
Better sanitation, housing and nutrition are the number one reasons in the decline of polio. What has Viera Scheibner, Ph.D got to do with disguising polio under 20 different names? Being discredited by Big Pharma and main stream media is a badge of honor, they just hate the truth. You never even heard of her until a few days ago when you did your Google search.
My sources are not selective, I have done extensive research on vaccines, thousands upon thousands of health experts are in agreement.
Even your lying media and WHO occasionally do tell the truth
More polio cases now caused by vaccine than by wild virus
https://news.yahoo.com/more-polio-cases-now-caused-112118039.html
You might well ask what has Viera Scheibner got to do with this debate but are the one who brought her and her wacky views into it.
Your sources are selective. Scheibner is selective. She sees one thing she likes and plucks it from available data and explanations and presents it without that context. Her standing in the vaccination field is completely discredited and it is discredited for doing exactly this
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 06:53:06 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 11:10:21 PM
You can say whatever you want, I don't know you from Adam, you've made up some stupid comments why should I believe an anonymous poster on a discussion board?
You calling me a ballbag sums up you completely.
You claim that this virus is not safe, your phd mucker told you. But happy for people to get it in a care home?
Very strange behaviour
I claim the virus is not safe!!!! You read our families situation, ballbag is too good a word to describe a parasite like you.
Just to be clear here Seaney - do you believe the vaccine to be safe or not?
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 04:44:42 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 05:59:16 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 08, 2020, 05:27:04 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 03:21:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 02, 2020, 03:11:24 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 02, 2020, 01:47:29 PM
Well done on avoiding the question.
So now it is 'if any have complications' rather than your initial statement that folk in care homes are collateral damage.
It is one in the same, as mentioned who will be looking after their interests, no one is allowed into a care home.
It isnt - you said folk in care homes are collateral damage.
You have not provided any evidence of the sort.
Fair enough if you are anti vaccine - but pointless throwing out comments with absolutely no factual basis.
I am going with what the Health Secretary, Medical Regulator & numerous prominent epidemiologists & immunologists are saying.
Who are you going with?
Seany - Im still waiting for your evidence that care homes are collateral damage.
Did you find any evidence or have you moved on?
I have answered this, you should read back.
So what was the evidence provided in the earlier answer?
It seems to have been wiped from the internet
When told to turn over your exam paper did you just write "I've already answered these questions" against each question?
You have more time than me LCohen - I couldnt be arsed reading back.
BUT if he still hasnt provided evidence then Im back in.
Hand on heart I cannot believe the care homes are collateral damage
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:22:00 AM
I am cautious of the expediency of it's origination, so you are very confused.
What part of the origination process do you think has been left out?
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Wasn't a big issue was it? And it proved that all the measures that were to kick in, did in fact kick in.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 04:44:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 04:39:21 PM
I asked earlier but you've avoided answering. Do you genuinely believe the CEO took shortcuts in order to improve his share values by $700K? As I said, forget about optics etc. Do you actually believe this?
I can't tell you the motivations of other people but did he have incentive? Absolutely. Would it be in line with the culture of Pfizer and Big Pharma? Absolutely.
So now this question exists where it should not have been allowed to exits. Big Pharma is an absolutely rotten industry and we have seen these companies have shown little regard to potential side effects of their drugs in the past and have actively bribed/induced promotion of drugs they have known there problems with? To what end? To make money.
As I said before, for most people that question doesn't exist. If you want to believe that this was an issue then tear on. Nothing anyone says or does is going to change your mind.
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 04:57:26 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:22:00 AM
I am cautious of the expediency of it's origination, so you are very confused.
What part of the origination process do you think has been left out?
Why do you keep asking questions nobody knows the answer to? It's fair to have worries about it and you can't prove those worries are founded or unfounded. You merely ask us to have blind faith is an industry renowned for knowingly putting people's health at risk to make millions.
It's the argument of an idiot.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 05:00:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 04:44:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 04:39:21 PM
I asked earlier but you've avoided answering. Do you genuinely believe the CEO took shortcuts in order to improve his share values by $700K? As I said, forget about optics etc. Do you actually believe this?
I can't tell you the motivations of other people but did he have incentive? Absolutely. Would it be in line with the culture of Pfizer and Big Pharma? Absolutely.
So now this question exists where it should not have been allowed to exits. Big Pharma is an absolutely rotten industry and we have seen these companies have shown little regard to potential side effects of their drugs in the past and have actively bribed/induced promotion of drugs they have known there problems with? To what end? To make money.
As I said before, for most people that question doesn't exist. If you want to believe that this was an issue then tear on. Nothing anyone says or does is going to change your mind.
For people who are already unsure about the vaccine or have doubts to then see the cynical way in which the Pfizer CEO managed to profiteer out if adds further doubts and reservations.
So it is unquestionably damaging. If you want to defend the dodgy practices of big pharma blindly then you tear on. I've just voiced my concerns.
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:15:25 PM
Yeah I read it.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said the advice applies to anyone who has had significant reactions to medicines, food or vaccines.
As I mentioned as UK is effectively a live clinical trial one wonders what other side effects, this was day one, you really should maybe start to think for yourself instead of following a scripted narrative.
How is it a live clinical trial?
It was known that people with strong allergic reactions might react strongly to the vaccine.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 05:01:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 04:57:26 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:22:00 AM
I am cautious of the expediency of it's origination, so you are very confused.
What part of the origination process do you think has been left out?
Why do you keep asking questions nobody knows the answer to? It's fair to have worries about it and you can't prove those worries are founded or unfounded. You merely ask us to have blind faith is an industry renowned for knowingly putting people's health at risk to make millions.
It's the argument of an idiot.
What would you like Sinn Fein's official policy on the vaccine to be?
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:17:34 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
Fact is no one knew of this reaction until live use on the general population - do you not understand that or are you so intransigent with your position you simple don't care.
Not true
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 05:04:59 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:15:25 PM
Yeah I read it.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said the advice applies to anyone who has had significant reactions to medicines, food or vaccines.
As I mentioned as UK is effectively a live clinical trial one wonders what other side effects, this was day one, you really should maybe start to think for yourself instead of following a scripted narrative.
How is it a live clinical trial?
It was known that people with strong allergic reactions might react strongly to the vaccine.
And dummies on internet message boards - and they don't even have to receive it!
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:21:59 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
So now we are into conspiracy theories as proper due diligence may have been rushed!
What part of the due diligence process was rushed?
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:24:55 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:22:08 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:18:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 09, 2020, 01:16:54 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
Oh dear....
Here's wisdom, as long as he's ok the rest of the population could drop dead!
It is understood that both the staff members had a significant history of allergic reactions - to the extent where they need to carry an adrenaline auto injector with them.
They developed symptoms of "anaphylactoid reaction" shortly after receiving the vaccine and both have recovered after the appropriate treatment.
It think its clear enough, Seaney seen two people and multiplied that by the entire population of earth!
Wise up
You are ignoring that this was only uncovered when the UK Population was being used as a live clinical trial - but that suits your narrative, one would wonder who else shouldn't be getting it or will we find out in day 3 or 23 when a more serious reaction occurs?
Again not true
Quote from: Seaney on December 10, 2020, 07:20:08 AM
And those who just follow the narrative like sheep call anyone who questions it antivax.
I'm not calling you out for asking questions.
You're failure to answer questions that is your big problem. It busts any vague interest you might have in credibility
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 01:28:36 PM
What you hear more and more about the vaccine would make you more uneasy about getting.
The controversy on the Oxford vaccine, Pfizer CEO offloading shares once it gets approval and then yesterday people having a severe allergic reaction who were administered it.
Those 2 people both have underlying allergy issues. They both had their epipens with them
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 01:45:18 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 10, 2020, 01:41:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 01:28:36 PM
What you hear more and more about the vaccine would make you more uneasy about getting.
The controversy on the Oxford vaccine, Pfizer CEO offloading shares once it gets approval and then yesterday people having a severe allergic reaction who were administered it.
I thought it was only 2 people?
How many have been vaccinated?
Both had allergic reactions prior to the vaccine.
The fact that we are now being told that anyone liable to allergies should now not get the vaccine would suspect there's more to it than that.
It's anyone with "significant" allergic reactions. It's a very small number
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 11, 2020, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 03:31:11 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 11, 2020, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
Sure tell you what we'll do.
We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.
In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.
How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?
Oh dear the personal abuse, how many have died from covid, one doesn't know as the figures are skewed, all the predictions have been well, horseshite, but you are correct monitor the live clinical trial in the UK, you need to start taking more tablets those you are on aren't working.
Oh dear, a tinfoil hat clown objects to being called out.
It's not too hard to get a rough idea how many have died as a result of covid [note - this is distinct from how many have died from covid]. Factored excess deaths above the average tend to indicate reasonably well.
If you want an accurate number down to tens, or even hundreds then you are right, no one knows - but an accuracy of hundreds is irrelevant when tens of thousands are dying as a result of covid. Indeed, statisticians would argue an accuracy of thousands is irrelevant when many tens of thousands are dying as a result of it.
Oh dear a lot of waffle, are you a politician?
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 03:22:25 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 03:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:46:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 02:37:53 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 10, 2020, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: J70 on December 10, 2020, 01:49:58 PM
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
Plenty of agendas out there.
The real agendas seem to be people willing to dismiss any rational concern as being anti-vax. People are right to have worries and concerns regarding this vaccine and it doesn't help that some people want to tar them as cranks when they express them.
In fact, it is brazenly hypocritical.
The "real agendas"??
Ok Angelo, whatever gets you through the night.
You're the one calling out agendas against people who have genuine concerns about the virus. Why are you doing that?
Seems to be a lot people out there whose sole agenda is to tell people to shut and trust Big Pharma, the bastions of morality.
Where did I call out people with genuine concerns?
I said the response to the allergic reactions was absolutely appropriate. Did you miss that part of my post which you left out in your quote?
I'm talking about the anti-vaccine, pseudoscientific, conspiracy movement who will hype every illness and death to come in those who have received the vaccine. Doesn't matter what the stats or studies say. Everything that doesn't jibe with their preconceived conclusions will be dismissed as propaganda and bought-off scientists. These types of people are not looking to have their "genuine concerns" allayed.
But those with an agenda are going to hype up every single one as somehow indicative of the the danger of the vaccine.
These sort of comments don't help, there are genuine concerns re the vaccine and a lot of the rhetoric on this thread when someone voices them is damning.
Do you have any explanation why the posters with concerns over the vaccine each seem to share a common inability to write down what their concerns are?
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 05:04:59 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:15:25 PM
Yeah I read it.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said the advice applies to anyone who has had significant reactions to medicines, food or vaccines.
As I mentioned as UK is effectively a live clinical trial one wonders what other side effects, this was day one, you really should maybe start to think for yourself instead of following a scripted narrative.
How is it a live clinical trial?
It was known that people with strong allergic reactions might react strongly to the vaccine.
What about folk with complicated medical needs, wait and see? Bizarre the reaction story made all the headlines when it was known well in advance, was it the small clinical trial showed this up?
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 04:38:59 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:45:27 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 08, 2020, 01:39:02 PM
Is it not a bit strange that the posters who are "uneasy" about the vaccine seem to share common traits around answering questions, quoting discredited sources, making claims about the vaccine being forced etc?
Far be from me to suggest that they are one person, in cahoots or gaslit by a common source
Lets see how the care homes pan out, I am next of kin for my parent in care, Ill let you know if and when I am contacted for approval but as of yet no one has mentioned the vaccine to me.
Well don't you get agitated until there is something to get agitated about
You do well to sit with no reason to care, good for yourself.
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 09:51:14 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 10, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.
Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.
What is you issue about the duration of the immunity? Why would it be a bad thing if people needed revaccinated?
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 04:37:32 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:41:09 PM
And headbangers who as a collective think they can bully, berate and try to intimidate folk with reasonable health care concerns about a vaccine ten months in the making and only being administrated currently in a country run by liars and swindlers to achieve nothing but political gain.
I think that when people ask you questions or don't believe your lies when claim to have already answered the questions you think they are bullying you.
Na I was thinking how the saviours of the board collectively direct personal abuse against those who disagree or question the narrative and belittle ones sense of duty to protect those who raised them. Again you do well not to have such worries, good for yourself.
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 04:41:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 03:36:46 PM
You back to tell more lies, care to go back to the Dublin Cavan thread and quote me - you complete snake of a man.
The similarity with Angelo's debating technique is uncanny
Calling out liars?
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 04:54:38 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 06:53:06 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 11:10:21 PM
You can say whatever you want, I don't know you from Adam, you've made up some stupid comments why should I believe an anonymous poster on a discussion board?
You calling me a ballbag sums up you completely.
You claim that this virus is not safe, your phd mucker told you. But happy for people to get it in a care home?
Very strange behaviour
I claim the virus is not safe!!!! You read our families situation, ballbag is too good a word to describe a parasite like you.
Just to be clear here Seaney - do you believe the vaccine to be safe or not?
Why do you care, I have answered this question many times.
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 05:05:36 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:17:34 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 09, 2020, 01:11:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:33:45 AM
Covid-19 vaccine: Allergy warning over new jab.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55244122)
As UK is essentially a live clinical trial wonder what else might be down the line.
Did you read the piece or just the headline?
Two people who have a history of adverse reactions to medications had issues with the vaccine. Not exactly an earth shattering conspiracy theory/cover up by Pfizer, Big Pharma or whoever you think is only in this for the money at the world's expense.
Fact is no one knew of this reaction until live use on the general population - do you not understand that or are you so intransigent with your position you simple don't care.
Not true
So was main news story for nothing.
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 05:11:49 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 10, 2020, 07:20:08 AM
And those who just follow the narrative like sheep call anyone who questions it antivax.
I'm not calling you out for asking questions.
You're failure to answer questions that is your big problem. It busts any vague interest you might have in credibility
Unlike your own ability to cut and paste internet articles.
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 11:29:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 09:51:14 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 10, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.
Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.
This is true. However what they do know to date is the vaccine efficiency rate is around 90%. A fairly welcome stat.
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
Why is that a big issue for you? Do you think people will refuse to be revaccinated?
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 05:22:33 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 09:51:14 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 10, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.
Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.
What is you issue about the duration of the immunity? Why would it be a bad thing if people needed revaccinated?
Be nice to know when do you not think, otherwise granny will remain locked up forever.
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:59:43 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 11:29:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 09:51:14 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 10, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.
Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.
This is true. However what they do know to date is the vaccine efficiency rate is around 90%. A fairly welcome stat.
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
So if by spring all the vulnerable are vaccinated and the UK opens up only to find in summer it only offered 6 months protection, that be some mess!
Would it not be a case of revaccinating with the same or possibly a longer lasting one if it's available?
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 05:28:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 11:29:14 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 09:51:14 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 10, 2020, 05:35:20 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 10, 2020, 05:17:32 PM
Am I correct in understanding that the vaccine doesn't stop you from getting Covid or transmitting it, but will stop you from getting very sick from it?
No. There simply isn't data on this yet. It may stop, or greatly reduce, transmission, but the Jury is still out on this.
It likely does reduce transmission, but by how much will take a several months of data.
Ill rephrase that for you - no one knows, no one has a scooby doo, no one knows what other side effects are down the line, no one knows if you need this vaccine every 6 months, every year, every two years, it has been rushed out hence the data is as flaky as hell.
This is true. However what they do know to date is the vaccine efficiency rate is around 90%. A fairly welcome stat.
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
Why is that a big issue for you? Do you think people will refuse to be revaccinated?
I have answered this, read back.
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:51:50 PM
Quote from: TabClear on December 11, 2020, 02:46:05 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:39:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 02:33:12 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 11, 2020, 02:26:45 PM
It's actually around $700,000. The increase was around 15%. The shares weren't zero prior to the vaccine.
I think we can all agree this would not amount to much to the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly anyone who things this amount would be worthwhile taking the risks Angelo is suggesting is either lacking the intelligence to have worked out the full story or using it as a tool to push a separate agenda.
5-6m amounts to a lot for anyone, it's a third of his salary, that's significant. I think you struggle to comprehend the way capitalist pigs operate. You act like he is a compassionate man who cares what people think, that's not the way these people work. They don't care about these things as long as they get away with it, look at all the tax loopholes billionaires cheat the taxpayer out of every year, they don't care as long as they get away with it.
Why did corporate bankers take all those risks in the financial crash?
There's so many studies done about the sociopathic nature of major corporate executives. These are not ordinary thinkers you are talking about, these are callous and driven people who care only about how much money they make and that greed is what can do for them in the end.
Sean Quinn is a classic example, why did the richest man in Ireland want more and more and more?
Yeah but as i mentioned $700K isn't that much for the CEO of Pfizer. And certainly not enough to jeopardize a $18M a year package.
Am I missing something here. My reading of this is that the CEO had shares in his company as as normal. In August he set limits in his portfolio that said sell x shares when the price hits Y. I can do something similar on my shareholding platform so what is the issue? Naturally enough when the vaccine was announced the share price rose and triggered the threshold? He had no way of knowing what the market reaction would be? He has a duty to the other shareholders to maximise the share price so whats the problem?
The issues was it was agreed in the middle of a pandemic, two months before the announcement. He had a self-interest in getting the vaccine to market first. His decision making was certainly compromised or could easily be perceived to be. So was he putting his own interests first? That is a question we should not be asking but we now are.
Wonderfully vague.
There is a commercial incentive in developing a vaccine. It's not the sole interest
Developing the first one isn't necessarily where the commercial advantage will last.
If company A develops its first but company B develops it's the next day but it's more efficacious, cheaper, safer and easier to use who gets the commercial benefit?
Also the firms developing the vaccine do not get to approve them. You can only "rush" so much
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:06:01 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 11, 2020, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
Sure tell you what we'll do.
We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.
In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.
How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?
Millions are dying anyway.
Why have we never had this sort of a drive to stop cancer which takes the lives of young, fit and healthy people and reduces them to years of pain and suffering?
We have
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 03:31:11 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 11, 2020, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
Sure tell you what we'll do.
We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.
In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.
How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?
Oh dear the personal abuse, how many have died from covid, one doesn't know as the figures are skewed, all the predictions have been well, horseshite, but you are correct monitor the live clinical trial in the UK, you need to start taking more tablets those you are on aren't working.
Seaney is that you drawing a line in the sand? There will be no personal abuse forthcoming form the Seaney account?
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 05:01:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 04:57:26 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 11:22:00 AM
I am cautious of the expediency of it's origination, so you are very confused.
What part of the origination process do you think has been left out?
Why do you keep asking questions nobody knows the answer to? It's fair to have worries about it and you can't prove those worries are founded or unfounded. You merely ask us to have blind faith is an industry renowned for knowingly putting people's health at risk to make millions.
It's the argument of an idiot.
The vaccines will only be used when approved. If you have a problem with the pace of the development and approval you must have a concern that something has been left out. So what bit?
You can't just say it's quicker than before as that has been explained time and time again ( the benefit of earlier research, the level of resource, the simultaneous running of processes etc etc)
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 05:19:30 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 05:04:59 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 01:15:25 PM
Yeah I read it.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) said the advice applies to anyone who has had significant reactions to medicines, food or vaccines.
As I mentioned as UK is effectively a live clinical trial one wonders what other side effects, this was day one, you really should maybe start to think for yourself instead of following a scripted narrative.
How is it a live clinical trial?
It was known that people with strong allergic reactions might react strongly to the vaccine.
What about folk with complicated medical needs, wait and see? Bizarre the reaction story made all the headlines when it was known well in advance, was it the small clinical trial showed this up?
Bizarre or not would not change the fact that it was known in advance though would it?
The facts here that this was a known issue and only impacts on those who experience significant allergic reactions. When they had this vaccine they had a reaction that would not be expected in others and they were 100% within a couple of hours. All the things that were supposed to happen, did happen and the media were fully informed.
Text book
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 05:38:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 11, 2020, 03:06:01 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 11, 2020, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
Sure tell you what we'll do.
We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.
In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.
How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?
Millions are dying anyway.
Why have we never had this sort of a drive to stop cancer which takes the lives of young, fit and healthy people and reduces them to years of pain and suffering?
We have
Plus cancer isn't contagious; there are a multitude of environmental and genetic causes, many of which are barely understood after years of research; many of them don't reveal themselves for years or even decades, by which time its too late.
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 05:21:30 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 04:38:59 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:45:27 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 08, 2020, 01:39:02 PM
Is it not a bit strange that the posters who are "uneasy" about the vaccine seem to share common traits around answering questions, quoting discredited sources, making claims about the vaccine being forced etc?
Far be from me to suggest that they are one person, in cahoots or gaslit by a common source
Lets see how the care homes pan out, I am next of kin for my parent in care, Ill let you know if and when I am contacted for approval but as of yet no one has mentioned the vaccine to me.
Well don't you get agitated until there is something to get agitated about
You do well to sit with no reason to care, good for yourself.
We all have skin in this game.
I would question why someone would get agitated because they have not been asked to give their consent to a process that has not happened?
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 05:24:34 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 04:37:32 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 01:41:09 PM
And headbangers who as a collective think they can bully, berate and try to intimidate folk with reasonable health care concerns about a vaccine ten months in the making and only being administrated currently in a country run by liars and swindlers to achieve nothing but political gain.
I think that when people ask you questions or don't believe your lies when claim to have already answered the questions you think they are bullying you.
Na I was thinking how the saviours of the board collectively direct personal abuse against those who disagree or question the narrative and belittle ones sense of duty to protect those who raised them. Again you do well not to have such worries, good for yourself.
Is inventing the personal biogs of other posters a past time of yours?
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 05:25:10 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 04:41:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 08, 2020, 03:36:46 PM
You back to tell more lies, care to go back to the Dublin Cavan thread and quote me - you complete snake of a man.
The similarity with Angelo's debating technique is uncanny
Calling out liars?
I was thinking more of refusing to answer questions, doling out abuse whilst simultaneously claiming to be offended by people doling out personal abuse. Uncanny
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 05:25:55 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 04:54:38 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 06:53:06 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 11:10:21 PM
You can say whatever you want, I don't know you from Adam, you've made up some stupid comments why should I believe an anonymous poster on a discussion board?
You calling me a ballbag sums up you completely.
You claim that this virus is not safe, your phd mucker told you. But happy for people to get it in a care home?
Very strange behaviour
I claim the virus is not safe!!!! You read our families situation, ballbag is too good a word to describe a parasite like you.
Just to be clear here Seaney - do you believe the vaccine to be safe or not?
Why do you care, I have answered this question many times.
No you haven't but yes you will make this claim many times (if past performance is to be relied upon)
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 05:58:12 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 05:25:55 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 11, 2020, 04:54:38 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 09, 2020, 06:53:06 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 08, 2020, 11:10:21 PM
You can say whatever you want, I don't know you from Adam, you've made up some stupid comments why should I believe an anonymous poster on a discussion board?
You calling me a ballbag sums up you completely.
You claim that this virus is not safe, your phd mucker told you. But happy for people to get it in a care home?
Very strange behaviour
I claim the virus is not safe!!!! You read our families situation, ballbag is too good a word to describe a parasite like you.
Just to be clear here Seaney - do you believe the vaccine to be safe or not?
Why do you care, I have answered this question many times.
No you haven't but yes you will make this claim many times (if past performance is to be relied upon)
Seany/Angelo anti vaccers are all the same. When you ask them to point out why the vaccine is unsafe they demand you show them it is safe to use. They waffle on with innuendo, rumours and try to twist the situation around to there way of thinking.
Many posters have asked for simple answers from them both multiple times, but they can't provide any. Their beliefs seem to be based on paranoia or in Angelo's cases too many hollywood movies, were big bad pharma/pharmaceutical companies/CEOs will do anything to make money with all medical/legal rules and regulations ignored in the race to make as much money as quickly as possible
I checked out of this discussion a long time ago and drop back in, only to find the same individuals talking the same nonsense.
This is like a cult and if you were to draw a venn diagram, you would find that a lot of the Anti-Vax people would buy into lots of other conspiracy style theories and controversial belief systems.
When people come out of a cult, they can be de-programmed. What do you do when a whole swathe of the population need de-programmed?
Beyond the Gemtrails/Jimtrails set, people like Paddy Cosgrave and Ewan MacKenna are actively contributing to this online
Look at any Irish discussion forum and it's filled with their Breitbart style disciples
Expect the Irish media griftosphere to get ever larger
Honestly interested in evidence provided:
Does the vaccine prevent you from getting it?
Does the vaccine prevent you from spreading it?
Quote from: ONeill on December 11, 2020, 11:08:09 PM
Honestly interested in evidence provided:
Does the vaccine prevent you from getting it?
Does the vaccine prevent you from spreading it?
Absolutely no one knows, not a scooby doo.
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 11, 2020, 11:08:09 PM
Honestly interested in evidence provided:
Does the vaccine prevent you from getting it?
Does the vaccine prevent you from spreading it?
Absolutely no one knows, not a scooby doo.
Lol you really do talk some dung.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w)
Quote from: sid waddell on December 11, 2020, 08:19:25 PM
Beyond the Gemtrails/Jimtrails set, people like Paddy Cosgrave and Ewan MacKenna are actively contributing to this online
Look at any Irish discussion forum and it's filled with their Breitbart style disciples
Expect the Irish media griftosphere to get ever larger
But they don't see the bigger picture. Gates and Soros would never put the microchip in this first vaccine, nor the next one. Too soon. This is just a test run to condition the Sheeple. When the CIA and the Chinese release the next virus it will be more contagious and deadly and only the Gullible sheeple (those with COVID passports) will get the next vaccine. The independent thinkers will be denied it to encourage the others and to kill them off to stop them thwarting the NWA with their research and ability to join the dots and see patterns.
The microchips will be in wave 3.
I'm on to them. I am calling their bluff and getting the vaccine. ;)
Or something.
You really need to get a tin foil hat because Leo Varadkar is going to replace the Irish people with Indians and Africans.
However if you wear the tinfoil hat he'll stay away from you.
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 12, 2020, 12:48:03 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 11, 2020, 11:08:09 PM
Honestly interested in evidence provided:
Does the vaccine prevent you from getting it?
Does the vaccine prevent you from spreading it?
Absolutely no one knows, not a scooby doo.
Lol you really do talk some dung.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w)
Thanks for that. This article was interesting... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03441-8
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 12, 2020, 12:48:03 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 11, 2020, 11:08:09 PM
Honestly interested in evidence provided:
Does the vaccine prevent you from getting it?
Does the vaccine prevent you from spreading it?
Absolutely no one knows, not a scooby doo.
Lol you really do talk some dung.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w)
Ah the internet the fact is no one knows no one. Plenty of guessing thought, 4 months brill 60 million get it every 4 to 6 months?
Quote from: ONeill on December 12, 2020, 05:53:14 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 12, 2020, 12:48:03 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 11, 2020, 11:08:09 PM
Honestly interested in evidence provided:
Does the vaccine prevent you from getting it?
Does the vaccine prevent you from spreading it?
Absolutely no one knows, not a scooby doo.
Lol you really do talk some dung.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w)
Thanks for that. This article was interesting... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03441-8
Its amazing they believe doctors, scientists, articles that suit the narrative the rest is rubbish. ::)
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 07:07:43 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 12, 2020, 05:53:14 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 12, 2020, 12:48:03 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 11, 2020, 11:08:09 PM
Honestly interested in evidence provided:
Does the vaccine prevent you from getting it?
Does the vaccine prevent you from spreading it?
Absolutely no one knows, not a scooby doo.
Lol you really do talk some dung.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w)
Thanks for that. This article was interesting... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03441-8
Its amazing they believe doctors, scientists, articles that suit the narrative the rest is rubbish. ::)
When your mate throws up a written piece on the subject and puts his name to it (as if) then people will read it and judge for themselves
Are you a troll or do you just completely lack any self awareness?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 12, 2020, 07:36:33 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 07:07:43 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 12, 2020, 05:53:14 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 12, 2020, 12:48:03 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 11, 2020, 11:08:09 PM
Honestly interested in evidence provided:
Does the vaccine prevent you from getting it?
Does the vaccine prevent you from spreading it?
Absolutely no one knows, not a scooby doo.
Lol you really do talk some dung.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w)
Thanks for that. This article was interesting... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03441-8
Its amazing they believe doctors, scientists, articles that suit the narrative the rest is rubbish. ::)
When your mate throws up a written piece on the subject and puts his name to it (as if) then people will read it and judge for themselves
Lmao but a posters doctors mate is legit, dry your eyes Milhouse.
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 12, 2020, 07:58:09 PM
Are you a troll or do you just completely lack any self awareness?
I assume that's directed at Milhouse, very well called out.
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 07:07:43 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 12, 2020, 05:53:14 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 12, 2020, 12:48:03 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 11, 2020, 11:08:09 PM
Honestly interested in evidence provided:
Does the vaccine prevent you from getting it?
Does the vaccine prevent you from spreading it?
Absolutely no one knows, not a scooby doo.
Lol you really do talk some dung.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w)
Thanks for that. This article was interesting... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03441-8
Its amazing they believe doctors, scientists, articles that suit the narrative the rest is rubbish. ::)
Yeah, people are sick of experts unless they are Geologists or Chemical Engineers.
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 08:15:53 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 12, 2020, 07:36:33 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 07:07:43 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 12, 2020, 05:53:14 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on December 12, 2020, 12:48:03 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 12:44:14 PM
Quote from: ONeill on December 11, 2020, 11:08:09 PM
Honestly interested in evidence provided:
Does the vaccine prevent you from getting it?
Does the vaccine prevent you from spreading it?
Absolutely no one knows, not a scooby doo.
Lol you really do talk some dung.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-00502-w)
Thanks for that. This article was interesting... https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03441-8
Its amazing they believe doctors, scientists, articles that suit the narrative the rest is rubbish. ::)
When your mate throws up a written piece on the subject and puts his name to it (as if) then people will read it and judge for themselves
Lmao but a posters doctors mate is legit, dry your eyes Milhouse.
Show me where I said he was legit? Hopefully you'll keep posting as you're great value
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 08:16:41 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 12, 2020, 07:58:09 PM
Are you a troll or do you just completely lack any self awareness?
I assume that's directed at Milhouse, very well called out.
;D Question answered.
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 12, 2020, 08:26:38 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 12, 2020, 08:16:41 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 12, 2020, 07:58:09 PM
Are you a troll or do you just completely lack any self awareness?
I assume that's directed at Milhouse, very well called out.
;D Question answered.
Think your awareness is questionable 8)
Keep you quiet millhouse lol.
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 12, 2020, 08:53:38 PM
Keep you quiet millhouse lol.
I'm getting confused now
Who's Mill House and who's Arkle?
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 05:16:52 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 11, 2020, 04:03:27 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 03:31:11 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 11, 2020, 03:04:15 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 11, 2020, 01:55:40 PM
90% protection for what, a week, a month, a year?
Sure tell you what we'll do.
We'll just monitor those in the trial for the next 10 years to see long term effects.
In the meantime hundreds of thousands, if not millions, will die - but sure its OK 'cos we can estimate with a better degree of accuracy how long protection lasts.
How do you politely call someone a fukkwit?
Oh dear the personal abuse, how many have died from covid, one doesn't know as the figures are skewed, all the predictions have been well, horseshite, but you are correct monitor the live clinical trial in the UK, you need to start taking more tablets those you are on aren't working.
Oh dear, a tinfoil hat clown objects to being called out.
It's not too hard to get a rough idea how many have died as a result of covid [note - this is distinct from how many have died from covid]. Factored excess deaths above the average tend to indicate reasonably well.
If you want an accurate number down to tens, or even hundreds then you are right, no one knows - but an accuracy of hundreds is irrelevant when tens of thousands are dying as a result of covid. Indeed, statisticians would argue an accuracy of thousands is irrelevant when many tens of thousands are dying as a result of it.
Oh dear a lot of waffle, are you a politician?
A substantive response there all right.
So can I assume you have no real answer other than burying your head in the sand and ignoring reality?
What's that, the reality that a vaccine may or may not stop the spread, may or may not last months or years, the reality that no one knows the truth about folk with complex medical conditions but sure if they die they were going to die I suppose collateral damage for the rest.
What do you think we should do then Seaney? Scrap the vaccine...Let's say we do that. What happens then?
Panorama is a good eye opener...
Plenty of chemical engineers
Quote from: Seaney on December 13, 2020, 06:57:40 PM
What's that, the reality that a vaccine may or may not stop the spread,
If it doesn't stop it, it'll reduce it to levels that aren't drowning the NHS. Which
is drowning right now. Systems inside the hospitals for keeping wards clear of COVID are failing left, right and centre.
Quote from: Seaney on December 13, 2020, 06:57:40 PM
may or may not last months or years,
Only way to find that out takes time. Would you condemn thousands to death while we wait to find out?
Quote from: Seaney on December 13, 2020, 06:57:40 PM
the reality that no one knows the truth about folk with complex medical conditions
What is that supposed to even mean?!?
Quote from: Seaney on December 13, 2020, 06:57:40 PM
but sure if they die they were going to die I suppose collateral damage for the rest.
So you'd rather withhold a vaccine to what end?
Oh dear thousands of deaths, have you the figures of those who actually died of Covid?
Quote from: Seaney on December 14, 2020, 10:30:06 PM
Oh dear thousands of deaths, have you the figures of those who actually died of Covid?
Oh dear.
Seay,
What do you propose we do now if you were running the show?
You were over it all
Genuine question
Why have country leaders not scrambling to have this vaccine? Would they not do it live on air to instil a bit of trust among the populations. Now I know you can say it only right for the most venerable to get it first but surly these important people, who lets be honest are no spring chickens would be first in line to get it.
Quote from: Hereiam on December 15, 2020, 10:33:58 AM
Genuine question
Why have country leaders not scrambling to have this vaccine? Would they not do it live on air to instil a bit of trust among the populations. Now I know you can say it only right for the most venerable to get it first but surly these important people, who lets be honest are no spring chickens would be first in line to get it.
Have most of them not caught it already?
Quote from: Hereiam on December 15, 2020, 10:33:58 AM
Genuine question
Why have country leaders not scrambling to have this vaccine? Would they not do it live on air to instil a bit of trust among the populations. Now I know you can say it only right for the most venerable to get it first but surly these important people, who lets be honest are no spring chickens would be first in line to get it.
Didnt Obama, Clinton & Bush say they would take it on air?
Quote from: Hereiam on December 15, 2020, 10:33:58 AM
Genuine question
Why have country leaders not scrambling to have this vaccine? Would they not do it live on air to instil a bit of trust among the populations. Now I know you can say it only right for the most venerable to get it first but surly these important people, who lets be honest are no spring chickens would be first in line to get it.
Alot of them have said that, but obviously the other side is, if they took it before the elderly they would be the worst in the world, political rivals would have an open goal.
I suspect privately most world leaders have had the jab or certainly been offered it.
It is completely right the Health Care and Elderly get it first however, I am very much against restrictions (when half assed like ours have been), the reason we do that is to protect the health service and the elderly. Once we get them largely sorted with the vaccine I'm very keen to get life back to 'normal' ASAP. Obviously a story aside here and there, this thing is largely purging the very eldest generations.
Covid is never going to go away. I suppose the best we can hope for is a relative 'herd immunity' once enough of the population have been vaccinated.
The vaccine hopefully will largely help those who die 'from' Covid, as opposed to those who die 'with' Covid and relieve the stress on the Care workers.
Quote from: Taylor on December 15, 2020, 08:07:06 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 14, 2020, 10:30:06 PM
Oh dear thousands of deaths, have you the figures of those who actually died of Covid?
Oh dear.
Seay,
What do you propose we do now if you were running the show?
You were over it all
Sorry I can't see your answer, is it in hidden, do I have to do ctrl, alt, num lock, insert, delete to see?
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 12:13:34 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 15, 2020, 08:07:06 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 14, 2020, 10:30:06 PM
Oh dear thousands of deaths, have you the figures of those who actually died of Covid?
Oh dear.
Seay,
What do you propose we do now if you were running the show?
You were over it all
Sorry I can't see your answer, is it in hidden, do I have to do ctrl, alt, num lock, insert, delete to see?
2,126 is the official figure for the number of deaths due to Covid in the ROI. There could be people in this figure who may have died from underlying health conditions but who had covid when they died, but it's impossible for someone to check without studying each case in detail
Will you now say what you would do if you were in charge?
Without a vaccine things we can't allow groups of people to gather in one place so the country can't get anywhere close to back to normal. Sweden has shown that the herd immunity approach doesn't work either and the country is in crisis. I really don't see any other option so please enlighten me?
I would love you to quote to say where I am anti vax, if you do that it would be great ta.
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Ok thanks.
You havent provided evidence of the collateral damage in care homes yet?
Could you tell me what you would do if you were in charge?
Because I cannot see anything you are in favour of
Edwin Poots contracted the virus. 8)
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Fine it's pie in the sky.
What would you do if you were in charge on dealing with Covid? You clearly don't believe in the vaccines, so please tell what other solutions are available to get the country/economy back to some sort of normality in 2021?
Quote from: Taylor on December 15, 2020, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Ok thanks.
You havent provided evidence of the collateral damage in care homes yet?
Could you tell me what you would do if you were in charge?
Because I cannot see anything you are in favour of
I am not in charge so it is a mute point.
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Fine it's pie in the sky.
What would you do if you were in charge on dealing with Covid? You clearly don't believe in the vaccines, so please tell what other solutions are available to get the country/economy back to some sort of normality in 2021?
Again if you quote where I said that it would be great ta, and as mentioned I am not in charge, but what hasn't helped the country is failed lockdowns and the resultant missed medical appointments, missed cancer diagnosis, mental health issues, abuse, isolation, unemployment etc. to save a health care where all the predictions were horseshite and where nightingale hospitals lay empty along with covid wards.
Quote from: Seaney on December 14, 2020, 10:30:06 PM
Oh dear thousands of deaths, have you the figures of those who actually died of Covid?
The official figures - which are not accurate for a number of reasons - quote 64,402 currently across the UK as having died
of covid.
Their inaccuracy has both positive and negative bias on the numbers, so who knows where the exact figure lies. Although its certainly in the multiple tens of thousands.
However, which is really the thing that undermines your argument - pathetic such as it is - a vaccine doesn't merely help those that would die
of covid, it also helps those that would die
as a result of covid [for example, the NHS being under less pressure means cancer diagnoses and treatments can get back on track]. So, considering that, are you still in favour of not distributing the vaccine while you wait for a 10 year effectiveness study to complete?
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
Again if you quote where I said that it would be great ta, and as mentioned I am not in charge, but what hasn't helped the country is failed lockdowns and the resultant
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
missed medical appointments,
Appointments are being put off because the health service is creaking under covid pressure. Not because of lockdowns.
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
missed cancer diagnosis,
Appointments are being put off because the health service is creaking under covid pressure. Not because of lockdowns.
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
mental health issues,
Because not locking down and having people lose several members of their family within weeks of each other would not cause any mental trauma.
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
abuse,
Point. Although the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
isolation,
Isolation is a regular occurrence for too many across society in normal times anyway. Not much is done about it then and folks like you certainly didn't crow about it before covid either.
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PMunemployment etc.
Mass unemployment would have happened anyway.
What you fail to appreciate is that if no lockdowns had occurred, the mass deaths that would have resulted would have ended up in people holing up in their houses anyway and a general collapse in economic activity - this would have then seen mass unemployment.
So you'd have had the unemployment along with a horrendous death toll.
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PMto save a health care where all the predictions were horseshite and where nightingale hospitals lay empty along with covid wards.
Covid is now rife across the normal wards of the hospitals. The internal procedures for ensuring isolation of areas have completely failed. The system is collapsing right now.
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Fine it's pie in the sky.
What would you do if you were in charge on dealing with Covid? You clearly don't believe in the vaccines, so please tell what other solutions are available to get the country/economy back to some sort of normality in 2021?
Again if you quote where I said that it would be great ta, and as mentioned I am not in charge, but what hasn't helped the country is failed lockdowns and the resultant missed medical appointments, missed cancer diagnosis, mental health issues, abuse, isolation, unemployment etc. to save a health care where all the predictions were horseshite and where nightingale hospitals lay empty along with covid wards.
Hence the hypothetical point - IF you were in charge.
You are able to criticise what has been done - what would you have done differently?
Still waiting on that evidence of care homes being collateral damage as well?
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Fine it's pie in the sky.
What would you do if you were in charge on dealing with Covid? You clearly don't believe in the vaccines, so please tell what other solutions are available to get the country/economy back to some sort of normality in 2021?
Again if you quote where I said that it would be great ta, and as mentioned I am not in charge, but what hasn't helped the country is failed lockdowns and the resultant missed medical appointments, missed cancer diagnosis, mental health issues, abuse, isolation, unemployment etc. to save a health care where all the predictions were horseshite and where nightingale hospitals lay empty along with covid wards.
More nonsense as usual. Did your chemical engineer friend tell you the hospitals are empty? That's the kind of ridiculous fake facts he and you seem to specialise in
There are patients being treated in the car park of Antrim hospital tonight because the hospital is full.
Your ignorance isn't funny, it's actually dangerous. People who are unsure about the vaccine hear the paranoia and nonsense from people like yourself in the media and they start to doubt themselves. Fighting the disinformation from the anti vaccine loons will be a major issue for all governments to deal with.
Apart from the speed the vaccine was developed, which the medical experts have answered you can't offer any reasonable explanation why not to take the vaccine. You also offer no alternative to not taking it so what exactly do you want to happen in 2021?
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 07:39:51 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Fine it's pie in the sky.
What would you do if you were in charge on dealing with Covid? You clearly don't believe in the vaccines, so please tell what other solutions are available to get the country/economy back to some sort of normality in 2021?
Again if you quote where I said that it would be great ta, and as mentioned I am not in charge, but what hasn't helped the country is failed lockdowns and the resultant missed medical appointments, missed cancer diagnosis, mental health issues, abuse, isolation, unemployment etc. to save a health care where all the predictions were horseshite and where nightingale hospitals lay empty along with covid wards.
More nonsense as usual. Did your chemical engineer friend tell you the hospitals are empty? That's the kind of ridiculous fake facts he and you seem to specialise in
There are patients being treated in the car park of Antrim hospital tonight because the hospital is full.
Your ignorance isn't funny, it's actually dangerous. People who are unsure about the vaccine hear the paranoia and nonsense from people like yourself in the media and they start to doubt themselves. Fighting the disinformation from the anti vaccine loons will be a major issue for all governments to deal with.
Apart from the speed the vaccine was developed, which the medical experts have answered you can't offer any reasonable explanation why not to take the vaccine. You also offer no alternative to not taking it so what exactly do you want to happen in 2021?
No my doctor friend if you care to look back told me that at the start for the first months she went to an empty covid ward once a week and did nothing, so who covered her patients appointments then? I also said nightingale hospitals, but you make up your own lies. So have we a situation now where covid patients irrespective of what their condition is take full precedence over every other medical condition - maybe if they triaged them a bit better, there were less than 10 in ICU so if you have a cough do you get a bed ahead of everyone else?
I don't see the 10pm news every evening telling how many daily deaths there were due to cancer, or how many new diagnosis of cancer or other illnesses, it's a covid state. I also don't see any news outlet mention that the hospitals were a shambles before covid due to no executive for 3 years and no investment.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:17:41 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 07:39:51 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Fine it's pie in the sky.
What would you do if you were in charge on dealing with Covid? You clearly don't believe in the vaccines, so please tell what other solutions are available to get the country/economy back to some sort of normality in 2021?
Again if you quote where I said that it would be great ta, and as mentioned I am not in charge, but what hasn't helped the country is failed lockdowns and the resultant missed medical appointments, missed cancer diagnosis, mental health issues, abuse, isolation, unemployment etc. to save a health care where all the predictions were horseshite and where nightingale hospitals lay empty along with covid wards.
More nonsense as usual. Did your chemical engineer friend tell you the hospitals are empty? That's the kind of ridiculous fake facts he and you seem to specialise in
There are patients being treated in the car park of Antrim hospital tonight because the hospital is full.
Your ignorance isn't funny, it's actually dangerous. People who are unsure about the vaccine hear the paranoia and nonsense from people like yourself in the media and they start to doubt themselves. Fighting the disinformation from the anti vaccine loons will be a major issue for all governments to deal with.
Apart from the speed the vaccine was developed, which the medical experts have answered you can't offer any reasonable explanation why not to take the vaccine. You also offer no alternative to not taking it so what exactly do you want to happen in 2021?
No my doctor friend if you care to look back told me that at the start for the first months she went to an empty covid ward once a week and did nothing, so who covered her patients appointments then? I also said nightingale hospitals, but you make up your own lies. So have we a situation now where covid patients irrespective of what their condition is take full precedence over every other medical condition - maybe if they triaged them a bit better, there were less than 10 in ICU so if you have a cough do you get a bed ahead of everyone else?
I don't see the 10pm news every evening telling how many daily deaths there were due to cancer, or how many new diagnosis of cancer or other illnesses, it's a covid state. I also don't see any news outlet mention that the hospitals were a shambles before covid due to no executive for 3 years and no investment.
Again - what do you suggest is done Seany
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I've no problem with that..
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
Treatment being in 99% of cases take it easy for a few weeks at home.
Quote from: Taylor on December 16, 2020, 08:30:25 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:17:41 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 07:39:51 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Fine it's pie in the sky.
What would you do if you were in charge on dealing with Covid? You clearly don't believe in the vaccines, so please tell what other solutions are available to get the country/economy back to some sort of normality in 2021?
Again if you quote where I said that it would be great ta, and as mentioned I am not in charge, but what hasn't helped the country is failed lockdowns and the resultant missed medical appointments, missed cancer diagnosis, mental health issues, abuse, isolation, unemployment etc. to save a health care where all the predictions were horseshite and where nightingale hospitals lay empty along with covid wards.
More nonsense as usual. Did your chemical engineer friend tell you the hospitals are empty? That's the kind of ridiculous fake facts he and you seem to specialise in
There are patients being treated in the car park of Antrim hospital tonight because the hospital is full.
Your ignorance isn't funny, it's actually dangerous. People who are unsure about the vaccine hear the paranoia and nonsense from people like yourself in the media and they start to doubt themselves. Fighting the disinformation from the anti vaccine loons will be a major issue for all governments to deal with.
Apart from the speed the vaccine was developed, which the medical experts have answered you can't offer any reasonable explanation why not to take the vaccine. You also offer no alternative to not taking it so what exactly do you want to happen in 2021?
No my doctor friend if you care to look back told me that at the start for the first months she went to an empty covid ward once a week and did nothing, so who covered her patients appointments then? I also said nightingale hospitals, but you make up your own lies. So have we a situation now where covid patients irrespective of what their condition is take full precedence over every other medical condition - maybe if they triaged them a bit better, there were less than 10 in ICU so if you have a cough do you get a bed ahead of everyone else?
I don't see the 10pm news every evening telling how many daily deaths there were due to cancer, or how many new diagnosis of cancer or other illnesses, it's a covid state. I also don't see any news outlet mention that the hospitals were a shambles before covid due to no executive for 3 years and no investment.
Again - what do you suggest is done Seany
I mentioned previously I am not in charge, I have not sought to be in charge, I do not get paid ridiculous money to be in charge, so the point is mute.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I've no problem with that..
Sure you don't - but you look like the moral guardian again in your wee domain! So what treatment do you think should be "free at point of entry" even know we all pay our national insurance, on the NHS - can you give a list?
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I wouldn't like to see the privatisation of the NHS but it is model that is unsustainable when the general public expect to live how the see fit and then expect to be at the front of the queue for expensive treatment. Billions are spent every year due to "lifestyle" choices.
Again you have missed the point re. the vaccine. Loads of people will he unaffected but the NHS can't cope with the number of people who are affected and as you have mentioned many times this will impact on people with cancer and other serious illnesses. So for you and others who are slow of thinking, yes Covid may not impact you directly, but it could easily affect you indirectly. So in the meantime wear a f**king mask and get the vaccine when available so we can ALL get back to normal operation.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:17:41 AMSo have we a situation now where covid patients irrespective of what their condition is take full precedence over every other medical condition - maybe if they triaged them a bit better, there were less than 10 in ICU so if you have a cough do you get a bed ahead of everyone else?
We have a situation now where patients with every other medical condition are being infected with COVID on the wards because the system has collapsed under pressure.
Pressure which has come about because the government was far too reticent in implementing and enforcing clear lockdowns.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 09:03:28 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I wouldn't like to see the privatisation of the NHS but it is model that is unsustainable when the general public expect to live how the see fit and then expect to be at the front of the queue for expensive treatment. Billions are spent every year due to "lifestyle" choices.
Again you have missed the point re. the vaccine. Loads of people will he unaffected but the NHS can't cope with the number of people who are affected and as you have mentioned many times this will impact on people with cancer and other serious illnesses. So for you and others who are slow of thinking, yes Covid may not impact you directly, but it could easily affect you indirectly. So in the meantime wear a f**king mask and get the vaccine when available so we can ALL get back to normal operation.
I do wear a mask and I would say based on the list of those getting a vaccine I will not be eligible until maybe next summer or autumn at the very least, at least by then with the live clinical trial going on in the UK I will have better stats for the vaccine, so dry your f**king eyes kid. The NHS or the government has chosen to put covid front and centre everyone else is being failed.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:17:41 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 07:39:51 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Fine it's pie in the sky.
What would you do if you were in charge on dealing with Covid? You clearly don't believe in the vaccines, so please tell what other solutions are available to get the country/economy back to some sort of normality in 2021?
Again if you quote where I said that it would be great ta, and as mentioned I am not in charge, but what hasn't helped the country is failed lockdowns and the resultant missed medical appointments, missed cancer diagnosis, mental health issues, abuse, isolation, unemployment etc. to save a health care where all the predictions were horseshite and where nightingale hospitals lay empty along with covid wards.
More nonsense as usual. Did your chemical engineer friend tell you the hospitals are empty? That's the kind of ridiculous fake facts he and you seem to specialise in
There are patients being treated in the car park of Antrim hospital tonight because the hospital is full.
Your ignorance isn't funny, it's actually dangerous. People who are unsure about the vaccine hear the paranoia and nonsense from people like yourself in the media and they start to doubt themselves. Fighting the disinformation from the anti vaccine loons will be a major issue for all governments to deal with.
Apart from the speed the vaccine was developed, which the medical experts have answered you can't offer any reasonable explanation why not to take the vaccine. You also offer no alternative to not taking it so what exactly do you want to happen in 2021?
No my doctor friend if you care to look back told me that at the start for the first months she went to an empty covid ward once a week and did nothing, so who covered her patients appointments then? I also said nightingale hospitals, but you make up your own lies. So have we a situation now where covid patients irrespective of what their condition is take full precedence over every other medical condition - maybe if they triaged them a bit better, there were less than 10 in ICU so if you have a cough do you get a bed ahead of everyone else?
I don't see the 10pm news every evening telling how many daily deaths there were due to cancer, or how many new diagnosis of cancer or other illnesses, it's a covid state. I also don't see any news outlet mention that the hospitals were a shambles before covid due to no executive for 3 years and no investment.
The hospitals are full now with Covid patients and are at breaking point. Ask your doctor/chemical engineer friend why they think it's bad idea to keep people with low immune systems away from a building full of people with a highly contagious and life threatening disease? A number of people who died from covid have had underlying medical conditions which made puts anyone in this category at higher risk.
Also if an individual has cancer he can't go home and infect anyone else. If he/she goes to a hospital and picks up covid they can bring it home and pass it on to an infinite amount of people.
You also never answered what you think will happen in 2021. You claim you are not anti vaccine, but insist the chemical companies are using people to trial the vaccine and clearly don't believe in it so what do you think the government should do in 2021. Surely you have an opinion on that.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 09:08:39 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:17:41 AMSo have we a situation now where covid patients irrespective of what their condition is take full precedence over every other medical condition - maybe if they triaged them a bit better, there were less than 10 in ICU so if you have a cough do you get a bed ahead of everyone else?
We have a situation now where patients with every other medical condition are being infected with COVID on the wards because the system has collapsed under pressure.
Pressure which has come about because the government was far too reticent in implementing and enforcing clear lockdowns.
Alternatively pressure has come about because the health system has been ignored for decades, brexit didn't help chasing foreign staff away, the first lockdown was bought in by everyone, nothing was achieved in this period as the government did feck all during these months, track and trace has been a shambles, eat out to help out was a disaster, telling everyone to get back to the office was a disaster, covid is a scourge but the bigger scourge is how the politicians handled it and that wider impact on society. Everyone is talking about the vulnerable as being those over 80 in a care home, what about those with disabilities, those in abusive relationships, those committing suicide because they have lost their jobs, those who are in isolation for months and months.
Quote from: dublin7 on December 16, 2020, 09:15:54 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:17:41 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 07:39:51 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Fine it's pie in the sky.
What would you do if you were in charge on dealing with Covid? You clearly don't believe in the vaccines, so please tell what other solutions are available to get the country/economy back to some sort of normality in 2021?
Again if you quote where I said that it would be great ta, and as mentioned I am not in charge, but what hasn't helped the country is failed lockdowns and the resultant missed medical appointments, missed cancer diagnosis, mental health issues, abuse, isolation, unemployment etc. to save a health care where all the predictions were horseshite and where nightingale hospitals lay empty along with covid wards.
More nonsense as usual. Did your chemical engineer friend tell you the hospitals are empty? That's the kind of ridiculous fake facts he and you seem to specialise in
There are patients being treated in the car park of Antrim hospital tonight because the hospital is full.
Your ignorance isn't funny, it's actually dangerous. People who are unsure about the vaccine hear the paranoia and nonsense from people like yourself in the media and they start to doubt themselves. Fighting the disinformation from the anti vaccine loons will be a major issue for all governments to deal with.
Apart from the speed the vaccine was developed, which the medical experts have answered you can't offer any reasonable explanation why not to take the vaccine. You also offer no alternative to not taking it so what exactly do you want to happen in 2021?
No my doctor friend if you care to look back told me that at the start for the first months she went to an empty covid ward once a week and did nothing, so who covered her patients appointments then? I also said nightingale hospitals, but you make up your own lies. So have we a situation now where covid patients irrespective of what their condition is take full precedence over every other medical condition - maybe if they triaged them a bit better, there were less than 10 in ICU so if you have a cough do you get a bed ahead of everyone else?
I don't see the 10pm news every evening telling how many daily deaths there were due to cancer, or how many new diagnosis of cancer or other illnesses, it's a covid state. I also don't see any news outlet mention that the hospitals were a shambles before covid due to no executive for 3 years and no investment.
The hospitals are full now with Covid patients and are at breaking point. Ask your doctor/chemical engineer friend why they think it's bad idea to keep people with low immune systems away from a building full of people with a highly contagious and life threatening disease? A number of people who died from covid have had underlying medical conditions which made puts anyone in this category at higher risk.
Also if an individual has cancer he can't go home and infect anyone else. If he/she goes to a hospital and picks up covid they can bring it home and pass it on to an infinite amount of people.
You also never answered what you think will happen in 2021. You claim you are not anti vaccine, but insist the chemical companies are using people to trial the vaccine and clearly don't believe in it so what do you think the government should do in 2021. Surely you have an opinion on that.
No he can just f**k off and die at home. Covid has you warped.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
Alternatively pressure has come about because the health system has been ignored for decades, brexit didn't help chasing foreign staff away,
All true - but ultimately irrelevant to charting a path out of where we are right now.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
the first lockdown was bought in by everyone, nothing was achieved in this period as the government did feck all during these months, track and trace has been a shambles, eat out to help out was a disaster, telling everyone to get back to the office was a disaster, covid is a scourge but the bigger scourge is how the politicians handled it
Agree on everything there - go back to around page 20 of the coronavirus thread to see where I was on the matter back then.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
and that wider impact on society. Everyone is talking about the vulnerable as being those over 80 in a care home, what about those with disabilities, those in abusive relationships, those committing suicide because they have lost their jobs, those who are in isolation for months and months.
Everyone is vulnerable if the healthcare system completely breaks down. Not just the over 80s.
We have an icy snap, you fall and break a hip - but there is no capacity for an operation as all beds are full with people dying of pneumonia. What do you do then?
The system is already in the middle of collapsing.
I agree that its sh*t all round for many people. But you don't seem to grasp we'd be in much the same boat but with a much higher death toll if significant interventions were not taken (I would strongly argue the interventions have not been taken early enough, drastic enough and not for long enough).
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 09:28:19 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
Alternatively pressure has come about because the health system has been ignored for decades, brexit didn't help chasing foreign staff away,
All true - but ultimately irrelevant to charting a path out of where we are right now.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
the first lockdown was bought in by everyone, nothing was achieved in this period as the government did feck all during these months, track and trace has been a shambles, eat out to help out was a disaster, telling everyone to get back to the office was a disaster, covid is a scourge but the bigger scourge is how the politicians handled it
Agree on everything there - go back to around page 20 of the coronavirus thread to see where I was on the matter back then.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
and that wider impact on society. Everyone is talking about the vulnerable as being those over 80 in a care home, what about those with disabilities, those in abusive relationships, those committing suicide because they have lost their jobs, those who are in isolation for months and months.
Everyone is vulnerable if the healthcare system completely breaks down. Not just the over 80s.
We have an icy snap, you fall and break a hip - but there is no capacity for an operation as all beds are full with people dying of pneumonia. What do you do then?
The system is already in the middle of collapsing.
I agree that its sh*t all round for many people. But you don't seem to grasp we'd be in much the same boat but with a much higher death toll if significant interventions were not taken (I would strongly argue the interventions have not been taken early enough, drastic enough and not for long enough).
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding, the health system was at bursting point and has been for decades, covid made the health care workers untouchable, there was a GP in Armagh doing a piece justifying her 6 figure salary except she was my GP you couldn't get to see her for love nor money, I had one anti inflammatory and a course of antibiotics prescribed over the phone with no consultation, this is happening all over - so much you don't need a pill for every ill.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I've no problem with that..
Sure you don't - but you look like the moral guardian again in your wee domain! So what treatment do you think should be "free at point of entry" even know we all pay our national insurance, on the NHS - can you give a list?
Prescriptions shouldn't be free for starters, if you're employed.
£50 fee for seeing the doctor, again, if employed.
Incentives or payments towards going private for the likes of non emergency treatments, so for instances free glasses and hearing aids, in the South they give, for hearing up to £1000 off providing they have PRSI
Private health care should be built into jobs..
We are not helping ourselves with obesity and smoking and poor general health, fast foods and sugar filled food isn't helping
I'm going for my first doctors appointment in nearly 30 years, it took three hours to get through on the phone, then the doctor (trainee GP) asked what was wrong and then gave me an appointment. My point is, I was working out of a doctors surgery for 3 years, every Friday, the same people were queued up the street in all weathers at 8am waiting to be seen by the doctors when they opened up at 9am.. How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that? The system needs looking at, its broken.
That's not a government problem essentially, that's generations of people not looking after themselves.
I've daughter that wasn't well, usual stuff from doctors was do this and try that, ended up went private, the specialist was able to sort everything out and arrange a set of treatment to help. This was after being fobbed off by the GP, in fairness to the GP they only have 15 minutes and have no specialised facilities to see what's wrong, just a referral, that will take up to a year, if your lucky.
I'm lucky that I am able to afford private care, if needed. If we want good health care then we as employed people have to pay more into it, and if we have better employment then more money would be invested into it
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:19:07 AM
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding,
Unfortunately your ignorance is even more astounding than my patronising.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I've no problem with that..
Sure you don't - but you look like the moral guardian again in your wee domain! So what treatment do you think should be "free at point of entry" even know we all pay our national insurance, on the NHS - can you give a list?
Prescriptions shouldn't be free for starters, if you're employed.
£50 fee for seeing the doctor, again, if employed.
Incentives or payments towards going private for the likes of non emergency treatments, so for instances free glasses and hearing aids, in the South they give, for hearing up to £1000 off providing they have PRSI
Private health care should be built into jobs..
We are not helping ourselves with obesity and smoking and poor general health, fast foods and sugar filled food isn't helping
I'm going for my first doctors appointment in nearly 30 years, it took three hours to get through on the phone, then the doctor (trainee GP) asked what was wrong and then gave me an appointment. My point is, I was working out of a doctors surgery for 3 years, every Friday, the same people were queued up the street in all weathers at 8am waiting to be seen by the doctors when they opened up at 9am.. How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that? The system needs looking at, its broken.
That's not a government problem essentially, that's generations of people not looking after themselves.
I've daughter that wasn't well, usual stuff from doctors was do this and try that, ended up went private, the specialist was able to sort everything out and arrange a set of treatment to help. This was after being fobbed off by the GP, in fairness to the GP they only have 15 minutes and have no specialised facilities to see what's wrong, just a referral, that will take up to a year, if your lucky.
I'm lucky that I am able to afford private care, if needed. If we want good health care then we as employed people have to pay more into it, and if we have better employment then more money would be invested into it
So are you going scrap national insurance?
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:19:07 AM
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding,
Unfortunately your ignorance is even more astounding than my patronising.
A humble patronising keyboard warrior - who would have thought.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I've no problem with that..
Sure you don't - but you look like the moral guardian again in your wee domain! So what treatment do you think should be "free at point of entry" even know we all pay our national insurance, on the NHS - can you give a list?
Prescriptions shouldn't be free for starters, if you're employed.
£50 fee for seeing the doctor, again, if employed.
Incentives or payments towards going private for the likes of non emergency treatments, so for instances free glasses and hearing aids, in the South they give, for hearing up to £1000 off providing they have PRSI
Private health care should be built into jobs..
We are not helping ourselves with obesity and smoking and poor general health, fast foods and sugar filled food isn't helping
I'm going for my first doctors appointment in nearly 30 years, it took three hours to get through on the phone, then the doctor (trainee GP) asked what was wrong and then gave me an appointment. My point is, I was working out of a doctors surgery for 3 years, every Friday, the same people were queued up the street in all weathers at 8am waiting to be seen by the doctors when they opened up at 9am.. How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that? The system needs looking at, its broken.
That's not a government problem essentially, that's generations of people not looking after themselves.
I've daughter that wasn't well, usual stuff from doctors was do this and try that, ended up went private, the specialist was able to sort everything out and arrange a set of treatment to help. This was after being fobbed off by the GP, in fairness to the GP they only have 15 minutes and have no specialised facilities to see what's wrong, just a referral, that will take up to a year, if your lucky.
I'm lucky that I am able to afford private care, if needed. If we want good health care then we as employed people have to pay more into it, and if we have better employment then more money would be invested into it
In fairness to the Governments and NHS they have warned about these things for years. People didn't give a toss, yet interestingly, they are the people who seem to bang the drum loudest about Covid these days.
Now there is a virus that ruthlessly exposes any weakness in the body caused by years of bad diet, smoking or other habits.....Oh Christ we have to lock it up forever.....
There are a lot of people out there at the moment regretting their years of mistreating the body, yet failing to acknowledge that those same years were entirely their own choices.
We've had every link under the sun, genetics, lack of vitamin D, is it a winter or summer virus.....Nobody has really said here, is this taking out people who smoked for 30+ years?
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 11:51:27 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I've no problem with that..
Sure you don't - but you look like the moral guardian again in your wee domain! So what treatment do you think should be "free at point of entry" even know we all pay our national insurance, on the NHS - can you give a list?
Prescriptions shouldn't be free for starters, if you're employed.
£50 fee for seeing the doctor, again, if employed.
Incentives or payments towards going private for the likes of non emergency treatments, so for instances free glasses and hearing aids, in the South they give, for hearing up to £1000 off providing they have PRSI
Private health care should be built into jobs..
We are not helping ourselves with obesity and smoking and poor general health, fast foods and sugar filled food isn't helping
I'm going for my first doctors appointment in nearly 30 years, it took three hours to get through on the phone, then the doctor (trainee GP) asked what was wrong and then gave me an appointment. My point is, I was working out of a doctors surgery for 3 years, every Friday, the same people were queued up the street in all weathers at 8am waiting to be seen by the doctors when they opened up at 9am.. How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that? The system needs looking at, its broken.
That's not a government problem essentially, that's generations of people not looking after themselves.
I've daughter that wasn't well, usual stuff from doctors was do this and try that, ended up went private, the specialist was able to sort everything out and arrange a set of treatment to help. This was after being fobbed off by the GP, in fairness to the GP they only have 15 minutes and have no specialised facilities to see what's wrong, just a referral, that will take up to a year, if your lucky.
I'm lucky that I am able to afford private care, if needed. If we want good health care then we as employed people have to pay more into it, and if we have better employment then more money would be invested into it
So are you going scrap national insurance?
Scrap it? Paying for prescriptions and doctors appointments will increase revenue with the health sector and maybe improve the standard and speed of diagnosis of a patient
I think we should be increasing it and encouraging people that have jobs to lobby employers to help with work health plans.
Do you think there is enough money going into health care in the NHS?
We all pay NI, the more your earn the more you pay, will you have a cap like 50K or something you have to be earning before you pay to see a doctor, might it not put folk off who are ill forking out 50 quid for a doctors appointment and cause longer harm? Just because you can afford it doesn't mean all workers could, I remember where prescriptions were 5.50 or something I had no issue paying once a year or whenever I needed something, others are on daily medication, will everyone working pay?
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 11:53:12 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:19:07 AM
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding,
Unfortunately your ignorance is even more astounding than my patronising.
A humble patronising keyboard warrior - who would have thought.
I'll leave you to grab the last word as I'm sure in your head it'll somehow validate your "argument".
Anyway. In summary:
- vaccine is fundamentally safe unless you have an allergy to any of the carrier chemicals.
- vaccine is required to protect not only people from covid, but people from other ailments as they will get treated quicker, better and not have to run the gauntlet of getting covid in hospital with an already compromised immune system.
- vaccine is required to get the economy up and running, as a drastic spike in cases and sickness will only see further economic contractions and job losses.
- vaccine is required to protect people from the mental anguish of losing loved ones, especially those that are carers for others.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 12:40:36 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 11:53:12 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:19:07 AM
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding,
Unfortunately your ignorance is even more astounding than my patronising.
A humble patronising keyboard warrior - who would have thought.
I'll leave you to grab the last word as I'm sure in your head it'll somehow validate your "argument".
Anyway. In summary:
- vaccine is fundamentally safe unless you have an allergy to any of the carrier chemicals.
- vaccine is required to protect not only people from covid, but people from other ailments as they will get treated quicker, better and not have to run the gauntlet of getting covid in hospital with an already compromised immune system.
- vaccine is required to get the economy up and running, as a drastic spike in cases and sickness will only see further economic contractions and job losses.
- vaccine is required to protect people from the mental anguish of losing loved ones, especially those that are carers for others.
And Ill leave you to quote where I have voiced anti-vax sentiments as opposed to a cautious approach to an expediently developed vaccine, but don't let truth get in the way of your narrative.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 12:40:36 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 11:53:12 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:19:07 AM
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding,
Unfortunately your ignorance is even more astounding than my patronising.
A humble patronising keyboard warrior - who would have thought.
I'll leave you to grab the last word as I'm sure in your head it'll somehow validate your "argument".
Anyway. In summary:
- vaccine is fundamentally safe unless you have an allergy to any of the carrier chemicals.
- vaccine is required to protect not only people from covid, but people from other ailments as they will get treated quicker, better and not have to run the gauntlet of getting covid in hospital with an already compromised immune system.
- vaccine is required to get the economy up and running, as a drastic spike in cases and sickness will only see further economic contractions and job losses.
- vaccine is required to protect people from the mental anguish of losing loved ones, especially those that are carers for others.
And Ill leave you to quote where I have voiced anti-vax sentiments as opposed to a cautious approach to an expediently developed vaccine, but don't let truth get in the way of your narrative.
Your chemical engineer friend who you like to quote doesn't let the truth or facts get in the way of his/her opinions either. Next time he/she tries to give you any information/stats for vaccines or covid issues have a word.
Quote from: Hereiam on December 15, 2020, 10:33:58 AM
Genuine question
Why have country leaders not scrambling to have this vaccine? Would they not do it live on air to instil a bit of trust among the populations. Now I know you can say it only right for the most venerable to get it first but surly these important people, who lets be honest are no spring chickens would be first in line to get it.
You were saying earlier that NI was being used by Uk as a guinea pig. What was your evidence for that?
Country leaders might well get the vaccine early but only after it has been approved in their respective countries.
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 12:13:34 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 15, 2020, 08:07:06 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 14, 2020, 10:30:06 PM
Oh dear thousands of deaths, have you the figures of those who actually died of Covid?
Oh dear.
Seay,
What do you propose we do now if you were running the show?
You were over it all
Sorry I can't see your answer, is it in hidden, do I have to do ctrl, alt, num lock, insert, delete to see?
Seaney
Do you object to posters not answering questions?
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:43:29 PM
I would love you to quote to say where I am anti vax, if you do that it would be great ta.
Well you have said you won't get but haven't given a clear supported reason why not.
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:23:40 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 15, 2020, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Ok thanks.
You havent provided evidence of the collateral damage in care homes yet?
Could you tell me what you would do if you were in charge?
Because I cannot see anything you are in favour of
I am not in charge so it is a mute point.
What is a mute point?
You are on a discussion forum. When you argue for/against something just saying that you are not in charge and therefore don't need evidence or alternatives just makes you a rubbish poster.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
In the long run I would not be surprised if you were billed for those.
But they are not comparable with a sage vaccine being available for free for a contagious disease. When we get to a capability of 100% coverage on the vaccine then yes there may be consequences for those who don't get vaccinated. It will be a couple of years before we are at 100% coverage though. Even if we tried
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:52:10 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 16, 2020, 08:30:25 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:17:41 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 07:39:51 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Fine it's pie in the sky.
What would you do if you were in charge on dealing with Covid? You clearly don't believe in the vaccines, so please tell what other solutions are available to get the country/economy back to some sort of normality in 2021?
Again if you quote where I said that it would be great ta, and as mentioned I am not in charge, but what hasn't helped the country is failed lockdowns and the resultant missed medical appointments, missed cancer diagnosis, mental health issues, abuse, isolation, unemployment etc. to save a health care where all the predictions were horseshite and where nightingale hospitals lay empty along with covid wards.
More nonsense as usual. Did your chemical engineer friend tell you the hospitals are empty? That's the kind of ridiculous fake facts he and you seem to specialise in
There are patients being treated in the car park of Antrim hospital tonight because the hospital is full.
Your ignorance isn't funny, it's actually dangerous. People who are unsure about the vaccine hear the paranoia and nonsense from people like yourself in the media and they start to doubt themselves. Fighting the disinformation from the anti vaccine loons will be a major issue for all governments to deal with.
Apart from the speed the vaccine was developed, which the medical experts have answered you can't offer any reasonable explanation why not to take the vaccine. You also offer no alternative to not taking it so what exactly do you want to happen in 2021?
No my doctor friend if you care to look back told me that at the start for the first months she went to an empty covid ward once a week and did nothing, so who covered her patients appointments then? I also said nightingale hospitals, but you make up your own lies. So have we a situation now where covid patients irrespective of what their condition is take full precedence over every other medical condition - maybe if they triaged them a bit better, there were less than 10 in ICU so if you have a cough do you get a bed ahead of everyone else?
I don't see the 10pm news every evening telling how many daily deaths there were due to cancer, or how many new diagnosis of cancer or other illnesses, it's a covid state. I also don't see any news outlet mention that the hospitals were a shambles before covid due to no executive for 3 years and no investment.
Again - what do you suggest is done Seany
I mentioned previously I am not in charge, I have not sought to be in charge, I do not get paid ridiculous money to be in charge, so the point is mute.
If I described you as clueless presumably you would concur?
Another one of you "mute points". Please explain?
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I've no problem with that..
Sure you don't - but you look like the moral guardian again in your wee domain! So what treatment do you think should be "free at point of entry" even know we all pay our national insurance, on the NHS - can you give a list?
What has national insurance got to do with things?
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on December 16, 2020, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I've no problem with that..
Sure you don't - but you look like the moral guardian again in your wee domain! So what treatment do you think should be "free at point of entry" even know we all pay our national insurance, on the NHS - can you give a list?
Prescriptions shouldn't be free for starters, if you're employed.
£50 fee for seeing the doctor, again, if employed.
Incentives or payments towards going private for the likes of non emergency treatments, so for instances free glasses and hearing aids, in the South they give, for hearing up to £1000 off providing they have PRSI
Private health care should be built into jobs..
We are not helping ourselves with obesity and smoking and poor general health, fast foods and sugar filled food isn't helping
I'm going for my first doctors appointment in nearly 30 years, it took three hours to get through on the phone, then the doctor (trainee GP) asked what was wrong and then gave me an appointment. My point is, I was working out of a doctors surgery for 3 years, every Friday, the same people were queued up the street in all weathers at 8am waiting to be seen by the doctors when they opened up at 9am.. How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that? The system needs looking at, its broken.
That's not a government problem essentially, that's generations of people not looking after themselves.
I've daughter that wasn't well, usual stuff from doctors was do this and try that, ended up went private, the specialist was able to sort everything out and arrange a set of treatment to help. This was after being fobbed off by the GP, in fairness to the GP they only have 15 minutes and have no specialised facilities to see what's wrong, just a referral, that will take up to a year, if your lucky.
I'm lucky that I am able to afford private care, if needed. If we want good health care then we as employed people have to pay more into it, and if we have better employment then more money would be invested into it
In fairness to the Governments and NHS they have warned about these things for years. People didn't give a toss, yet interestingly, they are the people who seem to bang the drum loudest about Covid these days.
Now there is a virus that ruthlessly exposes any weakness in the body caused by years of bad diet, smoking or other habits.....Oh Christ we have to lock it up forever.....
There are a lot of people out there at the moment regretting their years of mistreating the body, yet failing to acknowledge that those same years were entirely their own choices.
We've had every link under the sun, genetics, lack of vitamin D, is it a winter or summer virus.....Nobody has really said here, is this taking out people who smoked for 30+ years?
Like most things related to Covid 19 the research is incomplete. But your quite right, common sense would tell you smoking is linked to a whole host of pathological conditions that would definitely increase mortality rates in covid 19 infections.
However, Wierdly there was some limited evidence that smoking may have had given some sort of protection against covid-19 infection the so called smoker's paradox.
A quick google will throw up some links .
From a general public health perspective it would be great if this led to a reduction in the numbers quitting smoking. Perhaps a small positive from this awful pandemic?
Quote from: dublin7 on December 16, 2020, 01:13:10 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 12:40:36 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 11:53:12 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:19:07 AM
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding,
Unfortunately your ignorance is even more astounding than my patronising.
A humble patronising keyboard warrior - who would have thought.
I'll leave you to grab the last word as I'm sure in your head it'll somehow validate your "argument".
Anyway. In summary:
- vaccine is fundamentally safe unless you have an allergy to any of the carrier chemicals.
- vaccine is required to protect not only people from covid, but people from other ailments as they will get treated quicker, better and not have to run the gauntlet of getting covid in hospital with an already compromised immune system.
- vaccine is required to get the economy up and running, as a drastic spike in cases and sickness will only see further economic contractions and job losses.
- vaccine is required to protect people from the mental anguish of losing loved ones, especially those that are carers for others.
And Ill leave you to quote where I have voiced anti-vax sentiments as opposed to a cautious approach to an expediently developed vaccine, but don't let truth get in the way of your narrative.
Your chemical engineer friend who you like to quote doesn't let the truth or facts get in the way of his/her opinions either. Next time he/she tries to give you any information/stats for vaccines or covid issues have a word.
You are really hung up on someone you know nothing about, his advice is sound.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 09:08:39 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:17:41 AMSo have we a situation now where covid patients irrespective of what their condition is take full precedence over every other medical condition - maybe if they triaged them a bit better, there were less than 10 in ICU so if you have a cough do you get a bed ahead of everyone else?
We have a situation now where patients with every other medical condition are being infected with COVID on the wards because the system has collapsed under pressure.
Pressure which has come about because the government was far too reticent in implementing and enforcing clear lockdowns.
Alternatively pressure has come about because the health system has been ignored for decades, brexit didn't help chasing foreign staff away, the first lockdown was bought in by everyone, nothing was achieved in this period as the government did feck all during these months, track and trace has been a shambles, eat out to help out was a disaster, telling everyone to get back to the office was a disaster, covid is a scourge but the bigger scourge is how the politicians handled it and that wider impact on society. Everyone is talking about the vulnerable as being those over 80 in a care home, what about those with disabilities, those in abusive relationships, those committing suicide because they have lost their jobs, those who are in isolation for months and months.
Christ there are bits in there that I actually agree with.
What steps, had they been taken, would have made you think the pandemic had been well handled?
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:21:38 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 12:13:34 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 15, 2020, 08:07:06 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 14, 2020, 10:30:06 PM
Oh dear thousands of deaths, have you the figures of those who actually died of Covid?
Oh dear.
Seay,
What do you propose we do now if you were running the show?
You were over it all
Sorry I can't see your answer, is it in hidden, do I have to do ctrl, alt, num lock, insert, delete to see?
Seaney
Do you object to posters not answering questions?
I couldn't care less.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 11:51:27 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I've no problem with that..
Sure you don't - but you look like the moral guardian again in your wee domain! So what treatment do you think should be "free at point of entry" even know we all pay our national insurance, on the NHS - can you give a list?
Prescriptions shouldn't be free for starters, if you're employed.
£50 fee for seeing the doctor, again, if employed.
Incentives or payments towards going private for the likes of non emergency treatments, so for instances free glasses and hearing aids, in the South they give, for hearing up to £1000 off providing they have PRSI
Private health care should be built into jobs..
We are not helping ourselves with obesity and smoking and poor general health, fast foods and sugar filled food isn't helping
I'm going for my first doctors appointment in nearly 30 years, it took three hours to get through on the phone, then the doctor (trainee GP) asked what was wrong and then gave me an appointment. My point is, I was working out of a doctors surgery for 3 years, every Friday, the same people were queued up the street in all weathers at 8am waiting to be seen by the doctors when they opened up at 9am.. How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that? The system needs looking at, its broken.
That's not a government problem essentially, that's generations of people not looking after themselves.
I've daughter that wasn't well, usual stuff from doctors was do this and try that, ended up went private, the specialist was able to sort everything out and arrange a set of treatment to help. This was after being fobbed off by the GP, in fairness to the GP they only have 15 minutes and have no specialised facilities to see what's wrong, just a referral, that will take up to a year, if your lucky.
I'm lucky that I am able to afford private care, if needed. If we want good health care then we as employed people have to pay more into it, and if we have better employment then more money would be invested into it
So are you going scrap national insurance?
What is your fascination with National Insurance?
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:22:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:43:29 PM
I would love you to quote to say where I am anti vax, if you do that it would be great ta.
Well you have said you won't get but haven't given a clear supported reason why not.
I answered the thread title, as mentioned at this stage given my age and health, if I was to be in line I still mightn't get it next year, and knowing the executive nor in 2022!
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:23:40 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 15, 2020, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Ok thanks.
You havent provided evidence of the collateral damage in care homes yet?
Could you tell me what you would do if you were in charge?
Because I cannot see anything you are in favour of
I am not in charge so it is a mute point.
What is a mute point?
You are on a discussion forum. When you argue for/against something just saying that you are not in charge and therefore don't need evidence or alternatives just makes you a rubbish poster.
As opposed to the virologists on the board following the narrative.
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:33:51 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:52:10 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 16, 2020, 08:30:25 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:17:41 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 07:39:51 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Fine it's pie in the sky.
What would you do if you were in charge on dealing with Covid? You clearly don't believe in the vaccines, so please tell what other solutions are available to get the country/economy back to some sort of normality in 2021?
Again if you quote where I said that it would be great ta, and as mentioned I am not in charge, but what hasn't helped the country is failed lockdowns and the resultant missed medical appointments, missed cancer diagnosis, mental health issues, abuse, isolation, unemployment etc. to save a health care where all the predictions were horseshite and where nightingale hospitals lay empty along with covid wards.
More nonsense as usual. Did your chemical engineer friend tell you the hospitals are empty? That's the kind of ridiculous fake facts he and you seem to specialise in
There are patients being treated in the car park of Antrim hospital tonight because the hospital is full.
Your ignorance isn't funny, it's actually dangerous. People who are unsure about the vaccine hear the paranoia and nonsense from people like yourself in the media and they start to doubt themselves. Fighting the disinformation from the anti vaccine loons will be a major issue for all governments to deal with.
Apart from the speed the vaccine was developed, which the medical experts have answered you can't offer any reasonable explanation why not to take the vaccine. You also offer no alternative to not taking it so what exactly do you want to happen in 2021?
No my doctor friend if you care to look back told me that at the start for the first months she went to an empty covid ward once a week and did nothing, so who covered her patients appointments then? I also said nightingale hospitals, but you make up your own lies. So have we a situation now where covid patients irrespective of what their condition is take full precedence over every other medical condition - maybe if they triaged them a bit better, there were less than 10 in ICU so if you have a cough do you get a bed ahead of everyone else?
I don't see the 10pm news every evening telling how many daily deaths there were due to cancer, or how many new diagnosis of cancer or other illnesses, it's a covid state. I also don't see any news outlet mention that the hospitals were a shambles before covid due to no executive for 3 years and no investment.
Again - what do you suggest is done Seany
I mentioned previously I am not in charge, I have not sought to be in charge, I do not get paid ridiculous money to be in charge, so the point is mute.
If I described you as clueless presumably you would concur?
Another one of you "mute points". Please explain?
I would conclude you are akin to Milhouse who feels they are somehow morally, intellectually or educationally superior that the other 18 active members on this small irrelevant board, but sure you all can't meet in the pub I suppose so knock yourself out, whatever turns you on.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:40:35 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:21:38 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 12:13:34 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 15, 2020, 08:07:06 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 14, 2020, 10:30:06 PM
Oh dear thousands of deaths, have you the figures of those who actually died of Covid?
Oh dear.
Seay,
What do you propose we do now if you were running the show?
You were over it all
Sorry I can't see your answer, is it in hidden, do I have to do ctrl, alt, num lock, insert, delete to see?
Seaney
Do you object to posters not answering questions?
I couldn't care less.
And yet you post on it??
Makes you look a fraud.
Also complaining about an offence of which you are the number 1 offender (well admittedly the Angelo account also has a problem with it) also makes you look fraudulent
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:19:07 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 09:28:19 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
Alternatively pressure has come about because the health system has been ignored for decades, brexit didn't help chasing foreign staff away,
All true - but ultimately irrelevant to charting a path out of where we are right now.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
the first lockdown was bought in by everyone, nothing was achieved in this period as the government did feck all during these months, track and trace has been a shambles, eat out to help out was a disaster, telling everyone to get back to the office was a disaster, covid is a scourge but the bigger scourge is how the politicians handled it
Agree on everything there - go back to around page 20 of the coronavirus thread to see where I was on the matter back then.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
and that wider impact on society. Everyone is talking about the vulnerable as being those over 80 in a care home, what about those with disabilities, those in abusive relationships, those committing suicide because they have lost their jobs, those who are in isolation for months and months.
Everyone is vulnerable if the healthcare system completely breaks down. Not just the over 80s.
We have an icy snap, you fall and break a hip - but there is no capacity for an operation as all beds are full with people dying of pneumonia. What do you do then?
The system is already in the middle of collapsing.
I agree that its sh*t all round for many people. But you don't seem to grasp we'd be in much the same boat but with a much higher death toll if significant interventions were not taken (I would strongly argue the interventions have not been taken early enough, drastic enough and not for long enough).
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding, the health system was at bursting point and has been for decades, covid made the health care workers untouchable, there was a GP in Armagh doing a piece justifying her 6 figure salary except she was my GP you couldn't get to see her for love nor money, I had one anti inflammatory and a course of antibiotics prescribed over the phone with no consultation, this is happening all over - so much you don't need a pill for every ill.
So you asked for pills and got them prescribed without any consultation? Really? That would be medical negligence Seany. You could live like that GP for a year or 2
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:22:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:43:29 PM
I would love you to quote to say where I am anti vax, if you do that it would be great ta.
Well you have said you won't get but haven't given a clear supported reason why not.
I answered the thread title, as mentioned at this stage given my age and health, if I was to be in line I still mightn't get it next year, and knowing the executive nor in 2022!
But you haven't given a good reason for not getting it.
And now you seem to be grumbling that you are going to have to wait to get the thing you don't want to get. You are a diner who complains that the food is inedible AND the portions are too small.
There just doesn't seem to be any logic to your posts
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:42:46 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:23:40 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 15, 2020, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Ok thanks.
You havent provided evidence of the collateral damage in care homes yet?
Could you tell me what you would do if you were in charge?
Because I cannot see anything you are in favour of
I am not in charge so it is a mute point.
What is a mute point?
You are on a discussion forum. When you argue for/against something just saying that you are not in charge and therefore don't need evidence or alternatives just makes you a rubbish poster.
As opposed to the virologists on the board following the narrative.
They are not virologists. Just posters with reliable sources.
What is a mute point though?
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 12:39:25 PM
We all pay NI, the more your earn the more you pay, will you have a cap like 50K or something you have to be earning before you pay to see a doctor, might it not put folk off who are ill forking out 50 quid for a doctors appointment and cause longer harm? Just because you can afford it doesn't mean all workers could, I remember where prescriptions were 5.50 or something I had no issue paying once a year or whenever I needed something, others are on daily medication, will everyone working pay?
Anyone working should pay for prescriptions, I don't see the issue here, why should you get it for free, standard fee across the board.
If you are unwell and need to see the doctor why wouldn't you go? So £50 would stop a working person from seeing the doctor? Knowing that the money will be used to improve the services they are getting then I can't see the problem.
I've not had a prescription in god know how long, I got tablets from the hospital one day I went when the gout kicked in
Do you think the NHS can continue to give out free prescriptions? How long will that last?
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:45:16 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:33:51 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:52:10 AM
Quote from: Taylor on December 16, 2020, 08:30:25 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:17:41 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 07:39:51 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:26:38 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 15, 2020, 02:53:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Fine it's pie in the sky.
What would you do if you were in charge on dealing with Covid? You clearly don't believe in the vaccines, so please tell what other solutions are available to get the country/economy back to some sort of normality in 2021?
Again if you quote where I said that it would be great ta, and as mentioned I am not in charge, but what hasn't helped the country is failed lockdowns and the resultant missed medical appointments, missed cancer diagnosis, mental health issues, abuse, isolation, unemployment etc. to save a health care where all the predictions were horseshite and where nightingale hospitals lay empty along with covid wards.
More nonsense as usual. Did your chemical engineer friend tell you the hospitals are empty? That's the kind of ridiculous fake facts he and you seem to specialise in
There are patients being treated in the car park of Antrim hospital tonight because the hospital is full.
Your ignorance isn't funny, it's actually dangerous. People who are unsure about the vaccine hear the paranoia and nonsense from people like yourself in the media and they start to doubt themselves. Fighting the disinformation from the anti vaccine loons will be a major issue for all governments to deal with.
Apart from the speed the vaccine was developed, which the medical experts have answered you can't offer any reasonable explanation why not to take the vaccine. You also offer no alternative to not taking it so what exactly do you want to happen in 2021?
No my doctor friend if you care to look back told me that at the start for the first months she went to an empty covid ward once a week and did nothing, so who covered her patients appointments then? I also said nightingale hospitals, but you make up your own lies. So have we a situation now where covid patients irrespective of what their condition is take full precedence over every other medical condition - maybe if they triaged them a bit better, there were less than 10 in ICU so if you have a cough do you get a bed ahead of everyone else?
I don't see the 10pm news every evening telling how many daily deaths there were due to cancer, or how many new diagnosis of cancer or other illnesses, it's a covid state. I also don't see any news outlet mention that the hospitals were a shambles before covid due to no executive for 3 years and no investment.
Again - what do you suggest is done Seany
I mentioned previously I am not in charge, I have not sought to be in charge, I do not get paid ridiculous money to be in charge, so the point is mute.
If I described you as clueless presumably you would concur?
Another one of you "mute points". Please explain?
I would conclude you are akin to Milhouse who feels they are somehow morally, intellectually or educationally superior that the other 18 active members on this small irrelevant board, but sure you all can't meet in the pub I suppose so knock yourself out, whatever turns you on.
Surely it is possible for you to engage meaningfully in this debate?
It would be fair to say that you have very little to contribute and none of it cogent?
Similarly you struggle with logic and it leads you to make a long sequence of wrong turns and bad decisions?
I'm happy to consider any evidence to the contrary but that involves you posting evidence to a discussion board. Sure give it your best chance? Take the Christmas period
Quote from: grounded on December 16, 2020, 01:39:09 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on December 16, 2020, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I've no problem with that..
Sure you don't - but you look like the moral guardian again in your wee domain! So what treatment do you think should be "free at point of entry" even know we all pay our national insurance, on the NHS - can you give a list?
Prescriptions shouldn't be free for starters, if you're employed.
£50 fee for seeing the doctor, again, if employed.
Incentives or payments towards going private for the likes of non emergency treatments, so for instances free glasses and hearing aids, in the South they give, for hearing up to £1000 off providing they have PRSI
Private health care should be built into jobs..
We are not helping ourselves with obesity and smoking and poor general health, fast foods and sugar filled food isn't helping
I'm going for my first doctors appointment in nearly 30 years, it took three hours to get through on the phone, then the doctor (trainee GP) asked what was wrong and then gave me an appointment. My point is, I was working out of a doctors surgery for 3 years, every Friday, the same people were queued up the street in all weathers at 8am waiting to be seen by the doctors when they opened up at 9am.. How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that? The system needs looking at, its broken.
That's not a government problem essentially, that's generations of people not looking after themselves.
I've daughter that wasn't well, usual stuff from doctors was do this and try that, ended up went private, the specialist was able to sort everything out and arrange a set of treatment to help. This was after being fobbed off by the GP, in fairness to the GP they only have 15 minutes and have no specialised facilities to see what's wrong, just a referral, that will take up to a year, if your lucky.
I'm lucky that I am able to afford private care, if needed. If we want good health care then we as employed people have to pay more into it, and if we have better employment then more money would be invested into it
In fairness to the Governments and NHS they have warned about these things for years. People didn't give a toss, yet interestingly, they are the people who seem to bang the drum loudest about Covid these days.
Now there is a virus that ruthlessly exposes any weakness in the body caused by years of bad diet, smoking or other habits.....Oh Christ we have to lock it up forever.....
There are a lot of people out there at the moment regretting their years of mistreating the body, yet failing to acknowledge that those same years were entirely their own choices.
We've had every link under the sun, genetics, lack of vitamin D, is it a winter or summer virus.....Nobody has really said here, is this taking out people who smoked for 30+ years?
Like most things related to Covid 19 the research is incomplete. But your quite right, common sense would tell you smoking is linked to a whole host of pathological conditions that would definitely increase mortality rates in covid 19 infections.
However, Wierdly there was some limited evidence that smoking may have had given some sort of protection against covid-19 infection the so called smoker's paradox.
A quick google will throw up some links .
From a general public health perspective it would be great if this led to a reduction in the numbers quitting smoking. Perhaps a small positive from this awful pandemic?
Sorry, hate these chunky quotes that clog up forums but I certainly agree with you. Lets hope the lasting effect of this pandemic is that people do try and make the effort to lead a more active and healthy lifestyle.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:45:16 PM
I would conclude you are akin to Milhouse who feels they are somehow morally, intellectually or educationally superior that the other 18 active members on this small irrelevant board, but sure you all can't meet in the pub I suppose so knock yourself out, whatever turns you on.
So if it is irrelevant, why do you keep reincarnating yourself everytime you get banned?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 12:39:25 PM
We all pay NI, the more your earn the more you pay, will you have a cap like 50K or something you have to be earning before you pay to see a doctor, might it not put folk off who are ill forking out 50 quid for a doctors appointment and cause longer harm? Just because you can afford it doesn't mean all workers could, I remember where prescriptions were 5.50 or something I had no issue paying once a year or whenever I needed something, others are on daily medication, will everyone working pay?
Anyone working should pay for prescriptions, I don't see the issue here, why should you get it for free, standard fee across the board.
If you are unwell and need to see the doctor why wouldn't you go? So £50 would stop a working person from seeing the doctor? Knowing that the money will be used to improve the services they are getting then I can't see the problem.
I've not had a prescription in god know how long, I got tablets from the hospital one day I went when the gout kicked in
Do you think the NHS can continue to give out free prescriptions? How long will that last?
You wouldn't you would assume I am ok feck the rest as you have shown time and time again.
Quote from: JoG2 on December 16, 2020, 01:48:58 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:19:07 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 09:28:19 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
Alternatively pressure has come about because the health system has been ignored for decades, brexit didn't help chasing foreign staff away,
All true - but ultimately irrelevant to charting a path out of where we are right now.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
the first lockdown was bought in by everyone, nothing was achieved in this period as the government did feck all during these months, track and trace has been a shambles, eat out to help out was a disaster, telling everyone to get back to the office was a disaster, covid is a scourge but the bigger scourge is how the politicians handled it
Agree on everything there - go back to around page 20 of the coronavirus thread to see where I was on the matter back then.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
and that wider impact on society. Everyone is talking about the vulnerable as being those over 80 in a care home, what about those with disabilities, those in abusive relationships, those committing suicide because they have lost their jobs, those who are in isolation for months and months.
Everyone is vulnerable if the healthcare system completely breaks down. Not just the over 80s.
We have an icy snap, you fall and break a hip - but there is no capacity for an operation as all beds are full with people dying of pneumonia. What do you do then?
The system is already in the middle of collapsing.
I agree that its sh*t all round for many people. But you don't seem to grasp we'd be in much the same boat but with a much higher death toll if significant interventions were not taken (I would strongly argue the interventions have not been taken early enough, drastic enough and not for long enough).
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding, the health system was at bursting point and has been for decades, covid made the health care workers untouchable, there was a GP in Armagh doing a piece justifying her 6 figure salary except she was my GP you couldn't get to see her for love nor money, I had one anti inflammatory and a course of antibiotics prescribed over the phone with no consultation, this is happening all over - so much you don't need a pill for every ill.
So you asked for pills and got them prescribed without any consultation? Really? That would be medical negligence Seany. You could live like that GP for a year or 2
A nurse rang me back asked me my symptoms and what I thought it was and a prescription was left over, presumably signed by the doctor. I waited a few days and didn't use the antibiotic.
Quote from: thebigfella on December 16, 2020, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:45:16 PM
I would conclude you are akin to Milhouse who feels they are somehow morally, intellectually or educationally superior that the other 18 active members on this small irrelevant board, but sure you all can't meet in the pub I suppose so knock yourself out, whatever turns you on.
So if it is irrelevant, why do you keep reincarnating yourself everytime you get banned?
I find this hilarious. You 18 know it alls on this small irrelevant board I spend loads of time on ;D (I clicked your name just to check... you're a hero member of this small irrelevant board ;D)
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:50:01 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:22:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:43:29 PM
I would love you to quote to say where I am anti vax, if you do that it would be great ta.
Well you have said you won't get but haven't given a clear supported reason why not.
I answered the thread title, as mentioned at this stage given my age and health, if I was to be in line I still mightn't get it next year, and knowing the executive nor in 2022!
But you haven't given a good reason for not getting it.
And now you seem to be grumbling that you are going to have to wait to get the thing you don't want to get. You are a diner who complains that the food is inedible AND the portions are too small.
There just doesn't seem to be any logic to your posts
It isn't compulsory - I give my reasons for reluctance - read back. As for the bit underlined - that you trying to be a good wordsmith?
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:51:18 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:42:46 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:23:40 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 15, 2020, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Ok thanks.
You havent provided evidence of the collateral damage in care homes yet?
Could you tell me what you would do if you were in charge?
Because I cannot see anything you are in favour of
I am not in charge so it is a mute point.
What is a mute point?
You are on a discussion forum. When you argue for/against something just saying that you are not in charge and therefore don't need evidence or alternatives just makes you a rubbish poster.
As opposed to the virologists on the board following the narrative.
They are not virologists. Just posters with reliable sources.
What is a mute point though?
Google?
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 16, 2020, 03:35:39 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on December 16, 2020, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:45:16 PM
I would conclude you are akin to Milhouse who feels they are somehow morally, intellectually or educationally superior that the other 18 active members on this small irrelevant board, but sure you all can't meet in the pub I suppose so knock yourself out, whatever turns you on.
So if it is irrelevant, why do you keep reincarnating yourself everytime you get banned?
I find this hilarious. You 18 know it alls on this small irrelevant board I spend loads of time on ;D (I clicked your name just to check... you're a hero member of this small irrelevant board ;D)
You do know that is a counter based on posts and I am not really a hero?
Ah you're too modest.
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 16, 2020, 03:35:39 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on December 16, 2020, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:45:16 PM
I would conclude you are akin to Milhouse who feels they are somehow morally, intellectually or educationally superior that the other 18 active members on this small irrelevant board, but sure you all can't meet in the pub I suppose so knock yourself out, whatever turns you on.
So if it is irrelevant, why do you keep reincarnating yourself everytime you get banned?
I find this hilarious. You 18 know it alls on this small irrelevant board I spend loads of time on ;D (I clicked your name just to check... you're a hero member of this small irrelevant board ;D)
You do also know that is not my name?
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:32:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 12:39:25 PM
We all pay NI, the more your earn the more you pay, will you have a cap like 50K or something you have to be earning before you pay to see a doctor, might it not put folk off who are ill forking out 50 quid for a doctors appointment and cause longer harm? Just because you can afford it doesn't mean all workers could, I remember where prescriptions were 5.50 or something I had no issue paying once a year or whenever I needed something, others are on daily medication, will everyone working pay?
Anyone working should pay for prescriptions, I don't see the issue here, why should you get it for free, standard fee across the board.
If you are unwell and need to see the doctor why wouldn't you go? So £50 would stop a working person from seeing the doctor? Knowing that the money will be used to improve the services they are getting then I can't see the problem.
I've not had a prescription in god know how long, I got tablets from the hospital one day I went when the gout kicked in
Do you think the NHS can continue to give out free prescriptions? How long will that last?
You wouldn't you would assume I am ok feck the rest as you have shown time and time again.
Bit early for the glue?
I wouldn't assume anything about you, you could be some vagrant for all I know, my point is that we should be paying for prescriptions if we are working, if you think we should have a better NHS then we either pay higher taxes/NI or we pay for the services I've mentioned..
Anyone that isn't working can avail of what we currently have. Now is there another way you'd like that put?
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:44:36 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on December 16, 2020, 03:35:39 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on December 16, 2020, 02:21:14 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:45:16 PM
I would conclude you are akin to Milhouse who feels they are somehow morally, intellectually or educationally superior that the other 18 active members on this small irrelevant board, but sure you all can't meet in the pub I suppose so knock yourself out, whatever turns you on.
So if it is irrelevant, why do you keep reincarnating yourself everytime you get banned?
I find this hilarious. You 18 know it alls on this small irrelevant board I spend loads of time on ;D (I clicked your name just to check... you're a hero member of this small irrelevant board ;D)
You do also know that is not my name?
What?? ;D
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 03:44:49 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:32:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 12:39:25 PM
We all pay NI, the more your earn the more you pay, will you have a cap like 50K or something you have to be earning before you pay to see a doctor, might it not put folk off who are ill forking out 50 quid for a doctors appointment and cause longer harm? Just because you can afford it doesn't mean all workers could, I remember where prescriptions were 5.50 or something I had no issue paying once a year or whenever I needed something, others are on daily medication, will everyone working pay?
Anyone working should pay for prescriptions, I don't see the issue here, why should you get it for free, standard fee across the board.
If you are unwell and need to see the doctor why wouldn't you go? So £50 would stop a working person from seeing the doctor? Knowing that the money will be used to improve the services they are getting then I can't see the problem.
I've not had a prescription in god know how long, I got tablets from the hospital one day I went when the gout kicked in
Do you think the NHS can continue to give out free prescriptions? How long will that last?
You wouldn't you would assume I am ok feck the rest as you have shown time and time again.
Bit early for the glue?
I wouldn't assume anything about you, you could be some vagrant for all I know, my point is that we should be paying for prescriptions if we are working, if you think we should have a better NHS then we either pay higher taxes/NI or we pay for the services I've mentioned..
Anyone that isn't working can avail of what we currently have. Now is there another way you'd like that put?
So everyone working - no cap on salary should pay to see a doctor because you think so and you are the authority of everything, apologies if I mistyped there is so much to answer no wonder I am at hero status.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:34:55 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on December 16, 2020, 01:48:58 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:19:07 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 09:28:19 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
Alternatively pressure has come about because the health system has been ignored for decades, brexit didn't help chasing foreign staff away,
All true - but ultimately irrelevant to charting a path out of where we are right now.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
the first lockdown was bought in by everyone, nothing was achieved in this period as the government did feck all during these months, track and trace has been a shambles, eat out to help out was a disaster, telling everyone to get back to the office was a disaster, covid is a scourge but the bigger scourge is how the politicians handled it
Agree on everything there - go back to around page 20 of the coronavirus thread to see where I was on the matter back then.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:20:12 AM
and that wider impact on society. Everyone is talking about the vulnerable as being those over 80 in a care home, what about those with disabilities, those in abusive relationships, those committing suicide because they have lost their jobs, those who are in isolation for months and months.
Everyone is vulnerable if the healthcare system completely breaks down. Not just the over 80s.
We have an icy snap, you fall and break a hip - but there is no capacity for an operation as all beds are full with people dying of pneumonia. What do you do then?
The system is already in the middle of collapsing.
I agree that its sh*t all round for many people. But you don't seem to grasp we'd be in much the same boat but with a much higher death toll if significant interventions were not taken (I would strongly argue the interventions have not been taken early enough, drastic enough and not for long enough).
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding, the health system was at bursting point and has been for decades, covid made the health care workers untouchable, there was a GP in Armagh doing a piece justifying her 6 figure salary except she was my GP you couldn't get to see her for love nor money, I had one anti inflammatory and a course of antibiotics prescribed over the phone with no consultation, this is happening all over - so much you don't need a pill for every ill.
So you asked for pills and got them prescribed without any consultation? Really? That would be medical negligence Seany. You could live like that GP for a year or 2
A nurse rang me back asked me my symptoms and what I thought it was and a prescription was left over, presumably signed by the doctor. I waited a few days and didn't use the antibiotic.
That will have been the nurse practitioner, so you did have a consultation re your symptons and were prescribed relevant medication.
Whom prescribed an antibiotic which in the end wasn't needed.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:49:31 PM
Whom prescribed an antibiotic which in the end wasn't needed.
Which they are trained to do once they have consulted with a patient. What was your issue with this? Did you collect the medication and not use them?
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:46:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 03:44:49 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:32:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 12:39:25 PM
We all pay NI, the more your earn the more you pay, will you have a cap like 50K or something you have to be earning before you pay to see a doctor, might it not put folk off who are ill forking out 50 quid for a doctors appointment and cause longer harm? Just because you can afford it doesn't mean all workers could, I remember where prescriptions were 5.50 or something I had no issue paying once a year or whenever I needed something, others are on daily medication, will everyone working pay?
Anyone working should pay for prescriptions, I don't see the issue here, why should you get it for free, standard fee across the board.
If you are unwell and need to see the doctor why wouldn't you go? So £50 would stop a working person from seeing the doctor? Knowing that the money will be used to improve the services they are getting then I can't see the problem.
I've not had a prescription in god know how long, I got tablets from the hospital one day I went when the gout kicked in
Do you think the NHS can continue to give out free prescriptions? How long will that last?
You wouldn't you would assume I am ok feck the rest as you have shown time and time again.
Bit early for the glue?
I wouldn't assume anything about you, you could be some vagrant for all I know, my point is that we should be paying for prescriptions if we are working, if you think we should have a better NHS then we either pay higher taxes/NI or we pay for the services I've mentioned..
Anyone that isn't working can avail of what we currently have. Now is there another way you'd like that put?
So everyone working - no cap on salary should pay to see a doctor because you think so and you are the authority of everything, apologies if I mistyped there is so much to answer no wonder I am at hero status.
Jesus!
Where did I say I'm the authority of everything? Amazing! Mistyped ? I think miss read. This is an opinion.
I'll say it again just incase those drugs you got over the counter are not working...
Anyone that has a job, (the key thing in my post is job) should be paying for their prescriptions and doctors appointments.. What that fee is I don't know, I mentioned £50 for doctors and whatever the prescription fee was before..
Or alternatively we pay more taxes/NI
If you would like this written in crayon let me know
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:37:00 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:50:01 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:22:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:43:29 PM
I would love you to quote to say where I am anti vax, if you do that it would be great ta.
Well you have said you won't get but haven't given a clear supported reason why not.
I answered the thread title, as mentioned at this stage given my age and health, if I was to be in line I still mightn't get it next year, and knowing the executive nor in 2022!
But you haven't given a good reason for not getting it.
And now you seem to be grumbling that you are going to have to wait to get the thing you don't want to get. You are a diner who complains that the food is inedible AND the portions are too small.
There just doesn't seem to be any logic to your posts
It isn't compulsory - I give my reasons for reluctance - read back. As for the bit underlined - that you trying to be a good wordsmith?
Nobody said it was compulsory.
To claim that you have given your reasons is an outright lie. The only reason you have given (that it has been "rushed") had been definitively exploded as a reason. You have nothing to back it up and other other reason to give.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:37:33 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:51:18 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:42:46 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 04:23:40 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 15, 2020, 01:53:46 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:44:45 PM
The Covid figure in UK is pie in the sky, is what I was alluding to.
Ok thanks.
You havent provided evidence of the collateral damage in care homes yet?
Could you tell me what you would do if you were in charge?
Because I cannot see anything you are in favour of
I am not in charge so it is a mute point.
What is a mute point?
You are on a discussion forum. When you argue for/against something just saying that you are not in charge and therefore don't need evidence or alternatives just makes you a rubbish poster.
As opposed to the virologists on the board following the narrative.
They are not virologists. Just posters with reliable sources.
What is a mute point though?
Google?
Google isn't a source.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 16, 2020, 01:13:10 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 12:40:36 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 11:53:12 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:19:07 AM
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding,
Unfortunately your ignorance is even more astounding than my patronising.
A humble patronising keyboard warrior - who would have thought.
I'll leave you to grab the last word as I'm sure in your head it'll somehow validate your "argument".
Anyway. In summary:
- vaccine is fundamentally safe unless you have an allergy to any of the carrier chemicals.
- vaccine is required to protect not only people from covid, but people from other ailments as they will get treated quicker, better and not have to run the gauntlet of getting covid in hospital with an already compromised immune system.
- vaccine is required to get the economy up and running, as a drastic spike in cases and sickness will only see further economic contractions and job losses.
- vaccine is required to protect people from the mental anguish of losing loved ones, especially those that are carers for others.
And Ill leave you to quote where I have voiced anti-vax sentiments as opposed to a cautious approach to an expediently developed vaccine, but don't let truth get in the way of your narrative.
Your chemical engineer friend who you like to quote doesn't let the truth or facts get in the way of his/her opinions either. Next time he/she tries to give you any information/stats for vaccines or covid issues have a word.
You are really hung up on someone you know nothing about, his advice is sound.
His stats aren't sound so I wouldn't believe anything he says. I have't seen any chemical engineers cited in any of the Pfizer documents for their work on the vaccine for example or on the news advising people on how to deal with Covid. Have you? It seems you like seeing and hearing what you like and ignore everything else.
You say his advice is sound but despite numerous requests from multiple posters you can't give us a reasonable reason or his his advice as why not to get vaccinated for Covid.
You also keep saying look back in the thread, but as pointed out by everyone else you've never answered it and it's been your standard go to excuse in the whole thread. It's a simple question, but you can't answer it for some unknown reason
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 04:09:02 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:37:00 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:50:01 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:22:47 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 15, 2020, 01:43:29 PM
I would love you to quote to say where I am anti vax, if you do that it would be great ta.
Well you have said you won't get but haven't given a clear supported reason why not.
I answered the thread title, as mentioned at this stage given my age and health, if I was to be in line I still mightn't get it next year, and knowing the executive nor in 2022!
But you haven't given a good reason for not getting it.
And now you seem to be grumbling that you are going to have to wait to get the thing you don't want to get. You are a diner who complains that the food is inedible AND the portions are too small.
There just doesn't seem to be any logic to your posts
It isn't compulsory - I give my reasons for reluctance - read back. As for the bit underlined - that you trying to be a good wordsmith?
Nobody said it was compulsory.
To claim that you have given your reasons is an outright lie. The only reason you have given (that it has been "rushed") had been definitively exploded as a reason. You have nothing to back it up and other other reason to give.
Is that not a reason, politics live today it was suggested 40 percent if medical workers wont get it.
Quote from: dublin7 on December 16, 2020, 05:12:27 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 16, 2020, 01:13:10 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 12:40:36 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 11:53:12 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:19:07 AM
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding,
Unfortunately your ignorance is even more astounding than my patronising.
A humble patronising keyboard warrior - who would have thought.
I'll leave you to grab the last word as I'm sure in your head it'll somehow validate your "argument".
Anyway. In summary:
- vaccine is fundamentally safe unless you have an allergy to any of the carrier chemicals.
- vaccine is required to protect not only people from covid, but people from other ailments as they will get treated quicker, better and not have to run the gauntlet of getting covid in hospital with an already compromised immune system.
- vaccine is required to get the economy up and running, as a drastic spike in cases and sickness will only see further economic contractions and job losses.
- vaccine is required to protect people from the mental anguish of losing loved ones, especially those that are carers for others.
And Ill leave you to quote where I have voiced anti-vax sentiments as opposed to a cautious approach to an expediently developed vaccine, but don't let truth get in the way of your narrative.
Your chemical engineer friend who you like to quote doesn't let the truth or facts get in the way of his/her opinions either. Next time he/she tries to give you any information/stats for vaccines or covid issues have a word.
You are really hung up on someone you know nothing about, his advice is sound.
His stats aren't sound so I wouldn't believe anything he says. I have't seen any chemical engineers cited in any of the Pfizer documents for their work on the vaccine for example or on the news advising people on how to deal with Covid. Have you? It seems you like seeing and hearing what you like and ignore everything else.
You say his advice is sound but despite numerous requests from multiple posters you can't give us a reasonable reason or his his advice as why not to get vaccinated for Covid.
You also keep saying look back in the thread, but as pointed out by everyone else you've never answered it and it's been your standard go to excuse in the whole thread. It's a simple question, but you can't answer it for some unknown reason
You are obsessed with a man who has never read this board.
Quote from: JoG2 on December 16, 2020, 03:52:29 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:49:31 PM
Whom prescribed an antibiotic which in the end wasn't needed.
Which they are trained to do once they have consulted with a patient. What was your issue with this? Did you collect the medication and not use them?
Yes and brought them back to pharmacist.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 03:58:42 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:46:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 03:44:49 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:32:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 12:39:25 PM
We all pay NI, the more your earn the more you pay, will you have a cap like 50K or something you have to be earning before you pay to see a doctor, might it not put folk off who are ill forking out 50 quid for a doctors appointment and cause longer harm? Just because you can afford it doesn't mean all workers could, I remember where prescriptions were 5.50 or something I had no issue paying once a year or whenever I needed something, others are on daily medication, will everyone working pay?
Anyone working should pay for prescriptions, I don't see the issue here, why should you get it for free, standard fee across the board.
If you are unwell and need to see the doctor why wouldn't you go? So £50 would stop a working person from seeing the doctor? Knowing that the money will be used to improve the services they are getting then I can't see the problem.
I've not had a prescription in god know how long, I got tablets from the hospital one day I went when the gout kicked in
Do you think the NHS can continue to give out free prescriptions? How long will that last?
You wouldn't you would assume I am ok feck the rest as you have shown time and time again.
Bit early for the glue?
I wouldn't assume anything about you, you could be some vagrant for all I know, my point is that we should be paying for prescriptions if we are working, if you think we should have a better NHS then we either pay higher taxes/NI or we pay for the services I've mentioned..
Anyone that isn't working can avail of what we currently have. Now is there another way you'd like that put?
So everyone working - no cap on salary should pay to see a doctor because you think so and you are the authority of everything, apologies if I mistyped there is so much to answer no wonder I am at hero status.
Jesus!
Where did I say I'm the authority of everything? Amazing! Mistyped ? I think miss read. This is an opinion.
I'll say it again just incase those drugs you got over the counter are not working...
Anyone that has a job, (the key thing in my post is job) should be paying for their prescriptions and doctors appointments.. What that fee is I don't know, I mentioned £50 for doctors and whatever the prescription fee was before..
Or alternatively we pay more taxes/NI
If you would like this written in crayon let me know
Any job? So if you are in employment? Is this so you and yours can jump the queue of plebs?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 11:03:10 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I've no problem with that..
Sure you don't - but you look like the moral guardian again in your wee domain! So what treatment do you think should be "free at point of entry" even know we all pay our national insurance, on the NHS - can you give a list?
Prescriptions shouldn't be free for starters, if you're employed.
£50 fee for seeing the doctor, again, if employed.
Incentives or payments towards going private for the likes of non emergency treatments, so for instances free glasses and hearing aids, in the South they give, for hearing up to £1000 off providing they have PRSI
Private health care should be built into jobs..
We are not helping ourselves with obesity and smoking and poor general health, fast foods and sugar filled food isn't helping
I'm going for my first doctors appointment in nearly 30 years, it took three hours to get through on the phone, then the doctor (trainee GP) asked what was wrong and then gave me an appointment. My point is, I was working out of a doctors surgery for 3 years, every Friday, the same people were queued up the street in all weathers at 8am waiting to be seen by the doctors when they opened up at 9am.. How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that? The system needs looking at, its broken.
That's not a government problem essentially, that's generations of people not looking after themselves.
I've daughter that wasn't well, usual stuff from doctors was do this and try that, ended up went private, the specialist was able to sort everything out and arrange a set of treatment to help. This was after being fobbed off by the GP, in fairness to the GP they only have 15 minutes and have no specialised facilities to see what's wrong, just a referral, that will take up to a year, if your lucky.
I'm lucky that I am able to afford private care, if needed. If we want good health care then we as employed people have to pay more into it, and if we have better employment then more money would be invested into it
Are you in the medical profession? How did you determine these folk didn't need to see a doctor?
The comedy continues
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 09:50:38 PM
The comedy continues
Oh dear but the answers dry up, are you a politician, obviously wannabe one, who the f**k would vote for you, maybe the gaaboard is your parliament. ;D
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 09:50:38 PM
The comedy continues
Oh dear but the answers dry up, are you a politician, obviously wannabe one, who the f**k would vote for you, maybe the gaaboard is your parliament. ;D
The gift that keeps giving.
You've not answered a single question on any of your posts.
So let's play your WUM games
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:32:29 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 16, 2020, 05:12:27 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 16, 2020, 01:13:10 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 12:40:36 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 11:53:12 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:19:07 AM
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding,
Unfortunately your ignorance is even more astounding than my patronising.
A humble patronising keyboard warrior - who would have thought.
I'll leave you to grab the last word as I'm sure in your head it'll somehow validate your "argument".
Anyway. In summary:
- vaccine is fundamentally safe unless you have an allergy to any of the carrier chemicals.
- vaccine is required to protect not only people from covid, but people from other ailments as they will get treated quicker, better and not have to run the gauntlet of getting covid in hospital with an already compromised immune system.
- vaccine is required to get the economy up and running, as a drastic spike in cases and sickness will only see further economic contractions and job losses.
- vaccine is required to protect people from the mental anguish of losing loved ones, especially those that are carers for others.
And Ill leave you to quote where I have voiced anti-vax sentiments as opposed to a cautious approach to an expediently developed vaccine, but don't let truth get in the way of your narrative.
Your chemical engineer friend who you like to quote doesn't let the truth or facts get in the way of his/her opinions either. Next time he/she tries to give you any information/stats for vaccines or covid issues have a word.
You are really hung up on someone you know nothing about, his advice is sound.
His stats aren't sound so I wouldn't believe anything he says. I have't seen any chemical engineers cited in any of the Pfizer documents for their work on the vaccine for example or on the news advising people on how to deal with Covid. Have you? It seems you like seeing and hearing what you like and ignore everything else.
You say his advice is sound but despite numerous requests from multiple posters you can't give us a reasonable reason or his his advice as why not to get vaccinated for Covid.
You also keep saying look back in the thread, but as pointed out by everyone else you've never answered it and it's been your standard go to excuse in the whole thread. It's a simple question, but you can't answer it for some unknown reason
You are obsessed with a man who has never read this board.
I see you replied to my 1st paragraph but in typical Seany/Angelo style you ignore and refuse to answer the simple question that followed. Why is that? Please don't keep insisting you've answered already as we both know that's not true
Let's try again. Why are you so against the vaccine and do not want to take it? It's a simple, reasonable question yet you refuse to answer it
Dublin7 there is no point. It's just wind at this point.
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:36:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 03:58:42 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:46:35 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 03:44:49 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 03:32:52 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 01:51:35 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 12:39:25 PM
We all pay NI, the more your earn the more you pay, will you have a cap like 50K or something you have to be earning before you pay to see a doctor, might it not put folk off who are ill forking out 50 quid for a doctors appointment and cause longer harm? Just because you can afford it doesn't mean all workers could, I remember where prescriptions were 5.50 or something I had no issue paying once a year or whenever I needed something, others are on daily medication, will everyone working pay?
Anyone working should pay for prescriptions, I don't see the issue here, why should you get it for free, standard fee across the board.
If you are unwell and need to see the doctor why wouldn't you go? So £50 would stop a working person from seeing the doctor? Knowing that the money will be used to improve the services they are getting then I can't see the problem.
I've not had a prescription in god know how long, I got tablets from the hospital one day I went when the gout kicked in
Do you think the NHS can continue to give out free prescriptions? How long will that last?
You wouldn't you would assume I am ok feck the rest as you have shown time and time again.
Bit early for the glue?
I wouldn't assume anything about you, you could be some vagrant for all I know, my point is that we should be paying for prescriptions if we are working, if you think we should have a better NHS then we either pay higher taxes/NI or we pay for the services I've mentioned..
Anyone that isn't working can avail of what we currently have. Now is there another way you'd like that put?
So everyone working - no cap on salary should pay to see a doctor because you think so and you are the authority of everything, apologies if I mistyped there is so much to answer no wonder I am at hero status.
Jesus!
Where did I say I'm the authority of everything? Amazing! Mistyped ? I think miss read. This is an opinion.
I'll say it again just incase those drugs you got over the counter are not working...
Anyone that has a job, (the key thing in my post is job) should be paying for their prescriptions and doctors appointments.. What that fee is I don't know, I mentioned £50 for doctors and whatever the prescription fee was before..
Or alternatively we pay more taxes/NI
If you would like this written in crayon let me know
Any job? So if you are in employment? Is this so you and yours can jump the queue of plebs?
Watch you don't put your back out with that reach,
Quote from: dublin7 on December 16, 2020, 11:05:32 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 09:32:29 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 16, 2020, 05:12:27 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 16, 2020, 01:13:10 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 01:00:45 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 12:40:36 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 11:53:12 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 16, 2020, 11:26:21 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:19:07 AM
Isn't it great to have you around to ensure I grasp things correctly, your patronisation is astounding,
Unfortunately your ignorance is even more astounding than my patronising.
A humble patronising keyboard warrior - who would have thought.
I'll leave you to grab the last word as I'm sure in your head it'll somehow validate your "argument".
Anyway. In summary:
- vaccine is fundamentally safe unless you have an allergy to any of the carrier chemicals.
- vaccine is required to protect not only people from covid, but people from other ailments as they will get treated quicker, better and not have to run the gauntlet of getting covid in hospital with an already compromised immune system.
- vaccine is required to get the economy up and running, as a drastic spike in cases and sickness will only see further economic contractions and job losses.
- vaccine is required to protect people from the mental anguish of losing loved ones, especially those that are carers for others.
And Ill leave you to quote where I have voiced anti-vax sentiments as opposed to a cautious approach to an expediently developed vaccine, but don't let truth get in the way of your narrative.
Your chemical engineer friend who you like to quote doesn't let the truth or facts get in the way of his/her opinions either. Next time he/she tries to give you any information/stats for vaccines or covid issues have a word.
You are really hung up on someone you know nothing about, his advice is sound.
His stats aren't sound so I wouldn't believe anything he says. I have't seen any chemical engineers cited in any of the Pfizer documents for their work on the vaccine for example or on the news advising people on how to deal with Covid. Have you? It seems you like seeing and hearing what you like and ignore everything else.
You say his advice is sound but despite numerous requests from multiple posters you can't give us a reasonable reason or his his advice as why not to get vaccinated for Covid.
You also keep saying look back in the thread, but as pointed out by everyone else you've never answered it and it's been your standard go to excuse in the whole thread. It's a simple question, but you can't answer it for some unknown reason
You are obsessed with a man who has never read this board.
I see you replied to my 1st paragraph but in typical Seany/Angelo style you ignore and refuse to answer the simple question that followed. Why is that? Please don't keep insisting you've answered already as we both know that's not true
Let's try again. Why are you so against the vaccine and do not want to take it? It's a simple, reasonable question yet you refuse to answer it
Ok you find me a quote where I said that, more lies as usual.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 09:50:38 PM
The comedy continues
Oh dear but the answers dry up, are you a politician, obviously wannabe one, who the f**k would vote for you, maybe the gaaboard is your parliament. ;D
The gift that keeps giving.
You've not answered a single question on any of your posts.
So let's play your WUM games
So are you like magic or mystic to determine someone in a doctors surgery doesn't need to see a doctor, or were they all tatty looking and you were raging such plebs got an appointment before the great and powerful Milhouse?
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 01:16:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 09:50:38 PM
The comedy continues
Oh dear but the answers dry up, are you a politician, obviously wannabe one, who the f**k would vote for you, maybe the gaaboard is your parliament. ;D
The gift that keeps giving.
You've not answered a single question on any of your posts.
So let's play your WUM games
So are you like magic or mystic to determine someone in a doctors surgery doesn't need to see a doctor, or were they all tatty looking and you were raging such plebs got an appointment before the great and powerful Milhouse?
No they were obviously in need of a doctor every week, they were there from 8am in the morning, outside, in all weathers waiting on their 15 minutes with the doctor. Where in my post did I say they didn't?
My point was, if you can read the post again, I've highlighted the bit I put in the post, just in case you've misread it, again
How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 01:16:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 09:50:38 PM
The comedy continues
Oh dear but the answers dry up, are you a politician, obviously wannabe one, who the f**k would vote for you, maybe the gaaboard is your parliament. ;D
The gift that keeps giving.
You've not answered a single question on any of your posts.
So let's play your WUM games
So are you like magic or mystic to determine someone in a doctors surgery doesn't need to see a doctor, or were they all tatty looking and you were raging such plebs got an appointment before the great and powerful Milhouse?
No they were obviously in need of a doctor every week, they were there from 8am in the morning, outside, in all weathers waiting on their 15 minutes with the doctor. Where in my post did I say they didn't?
My point was, if you can read the post again, I've highlighted the bit I put in the post, just in case you've misread it, again
How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that?
There is 1.8 million of us and quick google, there are 336 GP Practices in Northern Ireland. A total 1722 GPs are registered on the performers list. Do you only want doctors to take appointments from you are yours - wind your f**king neck in, you continual make a tool of yourself with your sense of entitlement and to hell with the rest.
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 01:16:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 09:50:38 PM
The comedy continues
Oh dear but the answers dry up, are you a politician, obviously wannabe one, who the f**k would vote for you, maybe the gaaboard is your parliament. ;D
The gift that keeps giving.
You've not answered a single question on any of your posts.
So let's play your WUM games
So are you like magic or mystic to determine someone in a doctors surgery doesn't need to see a doctor, or were they all tatty looking and you were raging such plebs got an appointment before the great and powerful Milhouse?
No they were obviously in need of a doctor every week, they were there from 8am in the morning, outside, in all weathers waiting on their 15 minutes with the doctor. Where in my post did I say they didn't?
My point was, if you can read the post again, I've highlighted the bit I put in the post, just in case you've misread it, again
How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that?
There is 1.8 million of us and quick google, there are 336 GP Practices in Northern Ireland. A total 1722 GPs are registered on the performers list. Do you only want doctors to take appointments from you are yours - wind your f**king neck in, you continual make a tool of yourself with your sense of entitlement and to hell with the rest.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/929481680926269443/JR1hw-9n_400x400.jpg)
321 GP practices. Seany, you said yesterday you got meds without any consultation. That's a: a serious allegation and b: was untrue. Your believability rating took another battering
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 01:16:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 09:50:38 PM
The comedy continues
Oh dear but the answers dry up, are you a politician, obviously wannabe one, who the f**k would vote for you, maybe the gaaboard is your parliament. ;D
The gift that keeps giving.
You've not answered a single question on any of your posts.
So let's play your WUM games
So are you like magic or mystic to determine someone in a doctors surgery doesn't need to see a doctor, or were they all tatty looking and you were raging such plebs got an appointment before the great and powerful Milhouse?
No they were obviously in need of a doctor every week, they were there from 8am in the morning, outside, in all weathers waiting on their 15 minutes with the doctor. Where in my post did I say they didn't?
My point was, if you can read the post again, I've highlighted the bit I put in the post, just in case you've misread it, again
How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that?
There is 1.8 million of us and quick google, there are 336 GP Practices in Northern Ireland. A total 1722 GPs are registered on the performers list. Do you only want doctors to take appointments from you are yours - wind your f**king neck in, you continual make a tool of yourself with your sense of entitlement and to hell with the rest.
What are you on? Are you addressing my post or still on the Meh? What does this mean?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 03:03:08 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 01:16:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 09:50:38 PM
The comedy continues
Oh dear but the answers dry up, are you a politician, obviously wannabe one, who the f**k would vote for you, maybe the gaaboard is your parliament. ;D
The gift that keeps giving.
You've not answered a single question on any of your posts.
So let's play your WUM games
So are you like magic or mystic to determine someone in a doctors surgery doesn't need to see a doctor, or were they all tatty looking and you were raging such plebs got an appointment before the great and powerful Milhouse?
No they were obviously in need of a doctor every week, they were there from 8am in the morning, outside, in all weathers waiting on their 15 minutes with the doctor. Where in my post did I say they didn't?
My point was, if you can read the post again, I've highlighted the bit I put in the post, just in case you've misread it, again
How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that?
There is 1.8 million of us and quick google, there are 336 GP Practices in Northern Ireland. A total 1722 GPs are registered on the performers list. Do you only want doctors to take appointments from you are yours - wind your f**king neck in, you continual make a tool of yourself with your sense of entitlement and to hell with the rest.
What are you on? Are you addressing my post or still on the Meh? What does this mean?
Do you only want doctors to take appointments from you
and yours? Sorry about predictive text - care to answer?
Quote from: JoG2 on December 17, 2020, 02:46:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 01:16:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 09:50:38 PM
The comedy continues
Oh dear but the answers dry up, are you a politician, obviously wannabe one, who the f**k would vote for you, maybe the gaaboard is your parliament. ;D
The gift that keeps giving.
You've not answered a single question on any of your posts.
So let's play your WUM games
So are you like magic or mystic to determine someone in a doctors surgery doesn't need to see a doctor, or were they all tatty looking and you were raging such plebs got an appointment before the great and powerful Milhouse?
No they were obviously in need of a doctor every week, they were there from 8am in the morning, outside, in all weathers waiting on their 15 minutes with the doctor. Where in my post did I say they didn't?
My point was, if you can read the post again, I've highlighted the bit I put in the post, just in case you've misread it, again
How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that?
There is 1.8 million of us and quick google, there are 336 GP Practices in Northern Ireland. A total 1722 GPs are registered on the performers list. Do you only want doctors to take appointments from you are yours - wind your f**king neck in, you continual make a tool of yourself with your sense of entitlement and to hell with the rest.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/929481680926269443/JR1hw-9n_400x400.jpg)
321 GP practices. Seany, you said yesterday you got meds without any consultation. That's a: a serious allegation and b: was untrue. Your believability rating took another battering
I got an antibiotic without speaking to a doctor yes that is true, the said prescription was signed by the doctor I didn't speak to that is also true. You can post all your wee cartoons you want maybe thats all you understand - have you ask for more crayons this christmas.
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 03:16:42 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on December 17, 2020, 02:46:45 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 01:16:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 09:50:38 PM
The comedy continues
Oh dear but the answers dry up, are you a politician, obviously wannabe one, who the f**k would vote for you, maybe the gaaboard is your parliament. ;D
The gift that keeps giving.
You've not answered a single question on any of your posts.
So let's play your WUM games
So are you like magic or mystic to determine someone in a doctors surgery doesn't need to see a doctor, or were they all tatty looking and you were raging such plebs got an appointment before the great and powerful Milhouse?
No they were obviously in need of a doctor every week, they were there from 8am in the morning, outside, in all weathers waiting on their 15 minutes with the doctor. Where in my post did I say they didn't?
My point was, if you can read the post again, I've highlighted the bit I put in the post, just in case you've misread it, again
How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that?
There is 1.8 million of us and quick google, there are 336 GP Practices in Northern Ireland. A total 1722 GPs are registered on the performers list. Do you only want doctors to take appointments from you are yours - wind your f**king neck in, you continual make a tool of yourself with your sense of entitlement and to hell with the rest.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/929481680926269443/JR1hw-9n_400x400.jpg)
321 GP practices. Seany, you said yesterday you got meds without any consultation. That's a: a serious allegation and b: was untrue. Your believability rating took another battering
I got an antibiotic without speaking to a doctor yes that is true, the said prescription was signed by the doctor I didn't speak to that is also true. You can post all your wee cartoons you want maybe thats all you understand - have you ask for more crayons this christmas.
You lied about not getting a consultation.
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 03:14:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 03:03:08 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 02:09:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 01:26:19 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 01:16:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 10:31:23 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 10:25:13 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 09:50:38 PM
The comedy continues
Oh dear but the answers dry up, are you a politician, obviously wannabe one, who the f**k would vote for you, maybe the gaaboard is your parliament. ;D
The gift that keeps giving.
You've not answered a single question on any of your posts.
So let's play your WUM games
So are you like magic or mystic to determine someone in a doctors surgery doesn't need to see a doctor, or were they all tatty looking and you were raging such plebs got an appointment before the great and powerful Milhouse?
No they were obviously in need of a doctor every week, they were there from 8am in the morning, outside, in all weathers waiting on their 15 minutes with the doctor. Where in my post did I say they didn't?
My point was, if you can read the post again, I've highlighted the bit I put in the post, just in case you've misread it, again
How sick are we as a country that surgeries are completely bunged like that?
There is 1.8 million of us and quick google, there are 336 GP Practices in Northern Ireland. A total 1722 GPs are registered on the performers list. Do you only want doctors to take appointments from you are yours - wind your f**king neck in, you continual make a tool of yourself with your sense of entitlement and to hell with the rest.
What are you on? Are you addressing my post or still on the Meh? What does this mean?
Do you only want doctors to take appointments from you and yours? Sorry about predictive text - care to answer?
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Baby number 2 on now!! like flipping twins
I'm only going to say this once, I'll be taking the vaccine once its available to me, I'm in the last group of people that get it, that's due to age, health and no other conditions due to work and so on....
That may be in 2021 or after, that doesn't depend on me, just those that are dishing it out.
If its required to allow me into a country I'll get it also, I've had vaccines before the internet and google
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Will you get the vaccine in 2021? If you are not willing are you willing to accept any conditions or bans placed on you attending events or places were large crowds will be present?
I will once I'm allowed. There's no point asking Seany as he refuses to answer
Quote from: dublin7 on December 17, 2020, 04:44:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Will you get the vaccine in 2021? If you are not willing are you willing to accept any conditions or bans placed on you attending events or places were large crowds will be present?
I will once I'm allowed. There's no point asking Seany as he refuses to answer
I've said no already.
Nothing has changed in my mind about it, the reservations I harbour have not been put to bed. If you will then that's up to you but Milltown has been very evasive on whether he will or not, citing he'd let the must vulnerable first while criticising others.
It looks like he'll be able to get his vaccine in 2021 now, so he should clarify this.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Baby number 2 on now!! like flipping twins
I'm only going to say this once, I'll be taking the vaccine once its available to me, I'm in the last group of people that get it, that's due to age, health and no other conditions due to work and so on....
That may be in 2021 or after, that doesn't depend on me, just those that are dishing it out.
If its required to allow me into a country I'll get it also, I've had vaccines before the internet and google
Not to speak on his behalf, but could you outline which bit of this is not clear to you?
Quote from: Franko on December 17, 2020, 05:08:39 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Baby number 2 on now!! like flipping twins
I'm only going to say this once, I'll be taking the vaccine once its available to me, I'm in the last group of people that get it, that's due to age, health and no other conditions due to work and so on....
That may be in 2021 or after, that doesn't depend on me, just those that are dishing it out.
If its required to allow me into a country I'll get it also, I've had vaccines before the internet and google
Not to speak on his behalf, but could you outline which bit of this is not clear to you?
Waldorf and Statler have been making things up to have arguments. Any chance they are the same person? It has been alluded to, but who would Seanys previous incarnations be?
Not sure what previous accounts have been used but given the views, the crassness, the style, the struggles with fact and logic it would easy to believe that the Seaney and Angelo accounts are operated by Sir Desmond Swayne.
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 17, 2020, 04:44:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Will you get the vaccine in 2021? If you are not willing are you willing to accept any conditions or bans placed on you attending events or places were large crowds will be present?
I will once I'm allowed. There's no point asking Seany as he refuses to answer
I've said no already.
Nothing has changed in my mind about it, the reservations I harbour have not been put to bed. If you will then that's up to you but Milltown has been very evasive on whether he will or not, citing he'd let the must vulnerable first while criticising others.
It looks like he'll be able to get his vaccine in 2021 now, so he should clarify this.
The reservations that you "harbour" but struggle to state, explain or evidence.
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 07:30:25 PM
Not sure what previous accounts have been used but given the views, the crassness, the style, the struggles with fact and logic it would easy to believe that the Seaney and Angelo accounts are operated by Sir Desmond Swayne.
I have already asked you the following question which has gone unanswered.
Are you for the "Covid-19 " vaccine becoming mandatory?
A few more while I have got your attention:
Do you agree that those who choose to not take the vaccine should have their civil liberties further eroded, basically becoming a prisoner in their own homes?
If so explain why?
Are you confident that the RT-PCR test can detect SARS-CoV-2?
If so explain and give documented proof.
Have you seen documentation that SARS-CoV-2 was purified and isolated?
If so please furnish. If not why do you follow blindly?
Quote from: Seamus on December 17, 2020, 08:00:09 PM
Are you for the "Covid-19 " vaccine becoming mandatory?
All responsible people are, in due course when any issues have been identified.
Quote from: armaghniac on December 17, 2020, 08:00:56 PM
Quote from: Seamus on December 17, 2020, 08:00:09 PM
Are you for the "Covid-19 " vaccine becoming mandatory?
All responsible people are, in due course when any issues have been identified.
Explain
Quote from: armaghniac on December 17, 2020, 08:00:56 PM
Quote from: Seamus on December 17, 2020, 08:00:09 PM
Are you for the "Covid-19 " vaccine becoming mandatory?
All responsible people are, in due course when any issues have been identified.
Are you also for 11 year old children getting vaccinated without the consent and knowledge of their parents?
Seamus you are wasting your time, they hunt in packs here. These gutless keyboard warriors if they met any man in a pub asked them would they take the vaccine and he said he had concerns, they would maybe at most say they have none and accept his concerns. But hiding in their bedrooms they will try to berate, bully and abuse one over and over who don't follow the narrative, all big men, some think they are wordsmith, its very entertaining to watch. Milhouse cares not a jot about society just himself, he puts himself last on the list to get a vaccine but berates those who cautiously do the same, they love this board they think they are kings. ;D
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 08:42:50 PM
Seamus you are wasting your time, they hunt in packs here. These gutless keyboard warriors if they met any man in a pub asked them would they take the vaccine and he said he had concerns, they would maybe at most say they have none and accept his concerns. But hiding in their bedrooms they will try to berate, bully and abuse one over and over who don't follow the narrative, all big men, some think they are wordsmith, its very entertaining to watch. Milhouse cares not a jot about society just himself, he puts himself last on the list to get a vaccine but berates those who cautiously do the same, they love this board they think they are kings. ;D
Stew is now e-fellating the giant lizard guy ;D
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 08:42:50 PM
Seamus you are wasting your time, they hunt in packs here. These gutless keyboard warriors if they met any man in a pub asked them would they take the vaccine and he said he had concerns, they would maybe at most say they have none and accept his concerns. But hiding in their bedrooms they will try to berate, bully and abuse one over and over who don't follow the narrative, all big men, some think they are wordsmith, its very entertaining to watch. Milhouse cares not a jot about society just himself, he puts himself last on the list to get a vaccine but berates those who cautiously do the same, they love this board they think they are kings. ;D
Seaney you'd have no friends in the pub to talk to, you're that guy that everyone nods too but says "there's that fuckwit Seaney, talks the biggest load of bollox "
You've been on this board as much as everyone else, gets barred and comes back on, the masks slips, gets banned again as the intelligence slips and loses the plot.
But you're consistent, consistently comic gold
Quote from: Seamus on December 17, 2020, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 07:30:25 PM
Not sure what previous accounts have been used but given the views, the crassness, the style, the struggles with fact and logic it would easy to believe that the Seaney and Angelo accounts are operated by Sir Desmond Swayne.
I have already asked you the following question which has gone unanswered.
Are you for the "Covid-19 " vaccine becoming mandatory?
A few more while I have got your attention:
Do you agree that those who choose to not take the vaccine should have their civil liberties further eroded, basically becoming a prisoner in their own homes?
If so explain why?
Are you confident that the RT-PCR test can detect SARS-CoV-2?
If so explain and give documented proof.
Have you seen documentation that SARS-CoV-2 was purified and isolated?
If so please furnish. If not why do you follow blindly?
Questions are asked of the Seaney Account and the Angelo Account and it's the Seamus account that seems to take it personally. Freudian??
Anyway Desmond to deal with the points you raise:
I have actually responded to your mandatory vaccination point.
Here is the response verbatim
"I am not condemning the DC Act. I think vaccination is key to combatting many diseases of which CV19 is one. Mandatory vaccination is not normally the first port of call. It might be in some instances if take up is dangerously low. I'm unaware of the specific state of play in DC or other parts of USA."
That quotes goes on to ask you to spell out your concerns on event 201. How did you get on with that?
Then there are your new points:
Those who are do not get vaccinated are likely to face restrictions. Those restrictions are most likely to be drafted and enforced by commercial organisations rather than a matter of law. But yes if the unvaccinated present a risk to the common good the law makers will have to repeat those rules for some publicly owned/controlled spaces. Smoking as an analogy will assist in grasping the import of this.
On Sars Cov 2 I need more information. I have not posted anything on it here yet and in that sense your question is weird.
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 08:42:50 PM
Seamus you are wasting your time, they hunt in packs here. These gutless keyboard warriors if they met any man in a pub asked them would they take the vaccine and he said he had concerns, they would maybe at most say they have none and accept his concerns. But hiding in their bedrooms they will try to berate, bully and abuse one over and over who don't follow the narrative, all big men, some think they are wordsmith, its very entertaining to watch. Milhouse cares not a jot about society just himself, he puts himself last on the list to get a vaccine but berates those who cautiously do the same, they love this board they think they are kings. ;D
Dessie
Imagine some bluffer came in into the local and made his outlandish claims and when asked to evidence them all he could he say was he provided that evidence a different day and that was the end of the matter. Sure he would be laughed out of town
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 09:43:33 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 08:42:50 PM
Seamus you are wasting your time, they hunt in packs here. These gutless keyboard warriors if they met any man in a pub asked them would they take the vaccine and he said he had concerns, they would maybe at most say they have none and accept his concerns. But hiding in their bedrooms they will try to berate, bully and abuse one over and over who don't follow the narrative, all big men, some think they are wordsmith, its very entertaining to watch. Milhouse cares not a jot about society just himself, he puts himself last on the list to get a vaccine but berates those who cautiously do the same, they love this board they think they are kings. ;D
Dessie
Imagine some bluffer came in into the local and made his outlandish claims and when asked to evidence them all he could he say was he provided that evidence a different day and that was the end of the matter. Sure he would be laughed out of town
Or imagine he said a chemical engineer told him the vaccine was rubbish and left it at that. You'd be ridiculed and rightly so.
The only reasons the likes of yourself and Angelo have offered against getting the vaccine are some Hollywood conspiracies of evil big pharma/pharmaceutical companies and their CEOs breaking any and all rules to make money.
Ill be doing my patriotic duty and taking the vaccine when it comes.
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 07:32:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 17, 2020, 04:44:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Will you get the vaccine in 2021? If you are not willing are you willing to accept any conditions or bans placed on you attending events or places were large crowds will be present?
I will once I'm allowed. There's no point asking Seany as he refuses to answer
I've said no already.
Nothing has changed in my mind about it, the reservations I harbour have not been put to bed. If you will then that's up to you but Milltown has been very evasive on whether he will or not, citing he'd let the must vulnerable first while criticising others.
It looks like he'll be able to get his vaccine in 2021 now, so he should clarify this.
The reservations that you "harbour" but struggle to state, explain or evidence.
I have stated them before, do you ever read anything?
You are some fool to be looking for evidence when it neither exists to support or disprove anything so I'm going to take the cautious route and not take a vaccine with big question marks over it. You can choose to believe a shady industry blindly if you want.
What we've discovered is that Milltown can't answer a simple question.
It's incredibly likely the vaccine will be available to everyone who wants one in 2021 but he can't commit to saying he will get one. Why? And if that's the case what gives him the right to have a pop at people with reservations.
LCohen can't answer a question himself, but will go around hounding people for questions they have answered on numerous occasions, ignoring anything that he may have to explain himself.
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 09:44:23 AM
What we've discovered is that Milltown can't answer a simple question.
It's incredibly likely the vaccine will be available to everyone who wants one in 2021 but he can't commit to saying he will get one. Why? And if that's the case what gives him the right to have a pop at people with reservations.
LCohen can't answer a question himself, but will go around hounding people for questions they have answered on numerous occasions, ignoring anything that he may have to explain himself.
Angelo/Seany (whichever username you like) just stop. You won't or can't say what legitimate issues you have with the vaccine. Vague references to big pharma and CEOs is just paranoia based on nothing but your own conspiracy theories. Milltown like the majority of people is willing to get the vaccine but he can't say when as the government hasn't said when it will be made available to the general population.
As you said yourself you don't intend to get Covid so hopefully for you if vaccines become mandatory in future for flights/large gatherings etc you can apply for a special exemption
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 09:44:23 AM
What we've discovered is that Milltown can't answer a simple question.
It's incredibly likely the vaccine will be available to everyone who wants one in 2021 but he can't commit to saying he will get one. Why? And if that's the case what gives him the right to have a pop at people with reservations.
LCohen can't answer a question himself, but will go around hounding people for questions they have answered on numerous occasions, ignoring anything that he may have to explain himself.
Again, I'd ask you to point out what part of his answer wasn't clear to you?
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 07:32:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 17, 2020, 04:44:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Will you get the vaccine in 2021? If you are not willing are you willing to accept any conditions or bans placed on you attending events or places were large crowds will be present?
I will once I'm allowed. There's no point asking Seany as he refuses to answer
I've said no already.
Nothing has changed in my mind about it, the reservations I harbour have not been put to bed. If you will then that's up to you but Milltown has been very evasive on whether he will or not, citing he'd let the must vulnerable first while criticising others.
It looks like he'll be able to get his vaccine in 2021 now, so he should clarify this.
The reservations that you "harbour" but struggle to state, explain or evidence.
I have stated them before, do you ever read anything?
You are some fool to be looking for evidence when it neither exists to support or disprove anything so I'm going to take the cautious route and not take a vaccine with big question marks over it. You can choose to believe a shady industry blindly if you want.
Des
This ongoing tactic of not setting out a position, it's basis and supporting evidence just makes you look a fraud.
I'm offering you a clean slate. You can resile from anything you now don't want to stand over. You can pick up your argument from here, select your strongest points and the ones you move made well or have the best supporting evidence for you. I literally could not be making it easier for you. So show us what you have got?
But try to stay away from silly things like being cautious (cautious of what? What is the specific concern and why? What is the potential consequences of your course of action?) or guff like "believing a shady industry" (you know as well as I do that the industry doesn't get to mark its own homework).
So no time pressure. Take the Xmas period. Set out your points. I really am making this easy for you. You can have no possible excuse for ducking it
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 09:44:23 AM
What we've discovered is that Milltown can't answer a simple question.
It's incredibly likely the vaccine will be available to everyone who wants one in 2021 but he can't commit to saying he will get one. Why? And if that's the case what gives him the right to have a pop at people with reservations.
LCohen can't answer a question himself, but will go around hounding people for questions they have answered on numerous occasions, ignoring anything that he may have to explain himself.
List the question that I have not answered?
List the points that I have made but refused to explain?
Repost the answers that you claim to have already provided.
This will be good.
Quote from: LCohen on December 18, 2020, 01:14:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 07:32:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 17, 2020, 04:44:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Will you get the vaccine in 2021? If you are not willing are you willing to accept any conditions or bans placed on you attending events or places were large crowds will be present?
I will once I'm allowed. There's no point asking Seany as he refuses to answer
I've said no already.
Nothing has changed in my mind about it, the reservations I harbour have not been put to bed. If you will then that's up to you but Milltown has been very evasive on whether he will or not, citing he'd let the must vulnerable first while criticising others.
It looks like he'll be able to get his vaccine in 2021 now, so he should clarify this.
The reservations that you "harbour" but struggle to state, explain or evidence.
I have stated them before, do you ever read anything?
You are some fool to be looking for evidence when it neither exists to support or disprove anything so I'm going to take the cautious route and not take a vaccine with big question marks over it. You can choose to believe a shady industry blindly if you want.
Des
This ongoing tactic of not setting out a position, it's basis and supporting evidence just makes you look a fraud.
I'm offering you a clean slate. You can resile from anything you now don't want to stand over. You can pick up your argument from here, select your strongest points and the ones you move made well or have the best supporting evidence for you. I literally could not be making it easier for you. So show us what you have got?
But try to stay away from silly things like being cautious (cautious of what? What is the specific concern and why? What is the potential consequences of your course of action?) or guff like "believing a shady industry" (you know as well as I do that the industry doesn't get to mark its own homework).
So no time pressure. Take the Xmas period. Set out your points. I really am making this easy for you. You can have no possible excuse for ducking it
Resile. Good word.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 18, 2020, 01:43:07 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 18, 2020, 01:14:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 07:32:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 17, 2020, 04:44:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Will you get the vaccine in 2021? If you are not willing are you willing to accept any conditions or bans placed on you attending events or places were large crowds will be present?
I will once I'm allowed. There's no point asking Seany as he refuses to answer
I've said no already.
Nothing has changed in my mind about it, the reservations I harbour have not been put to bed. If you will then that's up to you but Milltown has been very evasive on whether he will or not, citing he'd let the must vulnerable first while criticising others.
It looks like he'll be able to get his vaccine in 2021 now, so he should clarify this.
The reservations that you "harbour" but struggle to state, explain or evidence.
I have stated them before, do you ever read anything?
You are some fool to be looking for evidence when it neither exists to support or disprove anything so I'm going to take the cautious route and not take a vaccine with big question marks over it. You can choose to believe a shady industry blindly if you want.
Des
This ongoing tactic of not setting out a position, it's basis and supporting evidence just makes you look a fraud.
I'm offering you a clean slate. You can resile from anything you now don't want to stand over. You can pick up your argument from here, select your strongest points and the ones you move made well or have the best supporting evidence for you. I literally could not be making it easier for you. So show us what you have got?
But try to stay away from silly things like being cautious (cautious of what? What is the specific concern and why? What is the potential consequences of your course of action?) or guff like "believing a shady industry" (you know as well as I do that the industry doesn't get to mark its own homework).
So no time pressure. Take the Xmas period. Set out your points. I really am making this easy for you. You can have no possible excuse for ducking it
Resile. Good word.
Fantastic word, I initially thought it was a typo
Yeah had to get the dictionary out. Filed for future use.
This quote from Angelo On the COC thread
When people who are wrong admit they are wrong.
This totally sums him up, refusing to believe other views and won't give up, even when given evidence and actual posts to prove him wrong!
He's obviously sat with him mum one night and watched Erin Brockovich, this has been a big influence on his views regarding the likes of big pharmaceutical companies.
The fact that he's involved in so many threads arguing against the grain (I like a good argument too but taking the biscuit is High on his list) highlights a need for attention, obviously never managed to get any, so either the middle child of 12 or an only child that's been a spoilt brat and craves for bad attention!
Either way he's good value to the board a Tony Ferron syferus poster that's defo needed.
His knowledge on the third best tennis player in fairness is second to none!
Quote from: LCohen on December 18, 2020, 01:14:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 07:32:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 17, 2020, 04:44:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Will you get the vaccine in 2021? If you are not willing are you willing to accept any conditions or bans placed on you attending events or places were large crowds will be present?
I will once I'm allowed. There's no point asking Seany as he refuses to answer
I've said no already.
Nothing has changed in my mind about it, the reservations I harbour have not been put to bed. If you will then that's up to you but Milltown has been very evasive on whether he will or not, citing he'd let the must vulnerable first while criticising others.
It looks like he'll be able to get his vaccine in 2021 now, so he should clarify this.
The reservations that you "harbour" but struggle to state, explain or evidence.
I have stated them before, do you ever read anything?
You are some fool to be looking for evidence when it neither exists to support or disprove anything so I'm going to take the cautious route and not take a vaccine with big question marks over it. You can choose to believe a shady industry blindly if you want.
Des
This ongoing tactic of not setting out a position, it's basis and supporting evidence just makes you look a fraud.
I'm offering you a clean slate. You can resile from anything you now don't want to stand over. You can pick up your argument from here, select your strongest points and the ones you move made well or have the best supporting evidence for you. I literally could not be making it easier for you. So show us what you have got?
But try to stay away from silly things like being cautious (cautious of what? What is the specific concern and why? What is the potential consequences of your course of action?) or guff like "believing a shady industry" (you know as well as I do that the industry doesn't get to mark its own homework).
So no time pressure. Take the Xmas period. Set out your points. I really am making this easy for you. You can have no possible excuse for ducking it
You're after asking a load of questions again without dealing with any posed to.
I preempted it and true to form, you don't diasppoint.
I'm on record of answering all these questions before. You just dodge answering any yourself.
Quote from: LCohen on December 18, 2020, 01:16:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 09:44:23 AM
What we've discovered is that Milltown can't answer a simple question.
It's incredibly likely the vaccine will be available to everyone who wants one in 2021 but he can't commit to saying he will get one. Why? And if that's the case what gives him the right to have a pop at people with reservations.
LCohen can't answer a question himself, but will go around hounding people for questions they have answered on numerous occasions, ignoring anything that he may have to explain himself.
List the question that I have not answered?
List the points that I have made but refused to explain?
Repost the answers that you claim to have already provided.
This will be good.
And more questions.
How about you answer what is put to you next time rather than respond with questions of your own.
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:36:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I've no problem with that..
Sure you don't - but you look like the moral guardian again in your wee domain! So what treatment do you think should be "free at point of entry" even know we all pay our national insurance, on the NHS - can you give a list?
What has national insurance got to do with things?
Question asked.
No answer.
Question given in return.
The LCohen way.
Has Milltown said whether he'll get the vaccine in 2021?
It's almost certainly going to be available. So it's a yes or no. Not a conditional answer.
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 09:38:33 PM
Quote from: Seamus on December 17, 2020, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 07:30:25 PM
Not sure what previous accounts have been used but given the views, the crassness, the style, the struggles with fact and logic it would easy to believe that the Seaney and Angelo accounts are operated by Sir Desmond Swayne.
I have already asked you the following question which has gone unanswered.
Are you for the "Covid-19 " vaccine becoming mandatory?
A few more while I have got your attention:
Do you agree that those who choose to not take the vaccine should have their civil liberties further eroded, basically becoming a prisoner in their own homes?
If so explain why?
Are you confident that the RT-PCR test can detect SARS-CoV-2?
If so explain and give documented proof.
Have you seen documentation that SARS-CoV-2 was purified and isolated?
If so please furnish. If not why do you follow blindly?
Questions are asked of the Seaney Account and the Angelo Account and it's the Seamus account that seems to take it personally. Freudian??
Anyway Desmond to deal with the points you raise:
I have actually responded to your mandatory vaccination point.
Here is the response verbatim
"I am not condemning the DC Act. I think vaccination is key to combatting many diseases of which CV19 is one. Mandatory vaccination is not normally the first port of call. It might be in some instances if take up is dangerously low. I'm unaware of the specific state of play in DC or other parts of USA."
That quotes goes on to ask you to spell out your concerns on event 201. How did you get on with that?
Then there are your new points:
Those who are do not get vaccinated are likely to face restrictions. Those restrictions are most likely to be drafted and enforced by commercial organisations rather than a matter of law. But yes if the unvaccinated present a risk to the common good the law makers will have to repeat those rules for some publicly owned/controlled spaces. Smoking as an analogy will assist in grasping the import of this.
On Sars Cov 2 I need more information. I have not posted anything on it here yet and in that sense your question is weird.
Why can't you answer the questions rather than respond with questions?
What makes you so special that you should not be questioned before everyone else should?
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 03:33:16 PM
Has Milltown said whether he'll get the vaccine in 2021?
It's almost certainly going to be available. So it's a yes or no. Not a conditional answer.
He has, yes.
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 03:33:16 PM
Has Milltown said whether he'll get the vaccine in 2021?
It's almost certainly going to be available. So it's a yes or no. Not a conditional answer.
He has.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Baby number 2 on now!! like flipping twins
I'm only going to say this once, I'll be taking the vaccine once its available to me, I'm in the last group of people that get it, that's due to age, health and no other conditions due to work and so on....
That may be in 2021 or after, that doesn't depend on me, just those that are dishing it out.
If its required to allow me into a country I'll get it also, I've had vaccines before the internet and google
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 03:32:14 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 16, 2020, 01:36:11 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:54:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 16, 2020, 08:45:03 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 16, 2020, 08:13:09 AM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 16, 2020, 12:29:30 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on December 16, 2020, 12:01:12 AM
More good news from the US FDA on the Moderna vaccine, which seems to perform in a similar way to the Pfizer one, and so it will be approved in a few days. It will likely be approved in Europe shortly after the Pfizer one. The Irish government has approved purchase of 875,000 doses of Moderna vaccine. The 6 counties should be getting 225,000 or so, Moderna has less orders from London than Pfizer of Oxford.
After both jabs, the vaccine was 94.1 per cent effective in a trial of about 30,000 participants. The vaccine was less effective in people over the age of 65, with an efficacy rate of 86.4 per cent. There were 30 severe cases of Covid-19 in the placebo group but none in the vaccinated group.
That is good news. If you refuse a vaccine and end up in hospital with Covid symptoms can we start issuing a bill to these people, or preferably pay prior to treatment.
If you smoke and end up in hospital with lung cancer, should you be billed, if you do extreme sports and end up in hospital because of an injury, should you be billed, if you drink and end up in hospital because of liver failure should you be billed, if you are obese and end up in hospital should you be billed, if you are in a car accident because of carless driving and end up in hospital, should you be billed - etc. etc. etc.
I've no problem with that..
Sure you don't - but you look like the moral guardian again in your wee domain! So what treatment do you think should be "free at point of entry" even know we all pay our national insurance, on the NHS - can you give a list?
What has national insurance got to do with things?
Question asked.
No answer.
Question given in return.
The LCohen way.
You are now embarrassing yourself.
It appears that you are trying to make the point that the Angelo account answers questions when asked but that I don't.
Your evidence in support of this is this chain of posts above. May I point out that in that chain I ask a question of you and you fail to answer it AND there is no incidence of me failing to answer a question because no question is asked of me!!!
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 03:26:02 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 18, 2020, 01:14:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 09:40:58 AM
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 07:32:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 17, 2020, 04:44:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Will you get the vaccine in 2021? If you are not willing are you willing to accept any conditions or bans placed on you attending events or places were large crowds will be present?
I will once I'm allowed. There's no point asking Seany as he refuses to answer
I've said no already.
Nothing has changed in my mind about it, the reservations I harbour have not been put to bed. If you will then that's up to you but Milltown has been very evasive on whether he will or not, citing he'd let the must vulnerable first while criticising others.
It looks like he'll be able to get his vaccine in 2021 now, so he should clarify this.
The reservations that you "harbour" but struggle to state, explain or evidence.
I have stated them before, do you ever read anything?
You are some fool to be looking for evidence when it neither exists to support or disprove anything so I'm going to take the cautious route and not take a vaccine with big question marks over it. You can choose to believe a shady industry blindly if you want.
Des
This ongoing tactic of not setting out a position, it's basis and supporting evidence just makes you look a fraud.
I'm offering you a clean slate. You can resile from anything you now don't want to stand over. You can pick up your argument from here, select your strongest points and the ones you move made well or have the best supporting evidence for you. I literally could not be making it easier for you. So show us what you have got?
But try to stay away from silly things like being cautious (cautious of what? What is the specific concern and why? What is the potential consequences of your course of action?) or guff like "believing a shady industry" (you know as well as I do that the industry doesn't get to mark its own homework).
So no time pressure. Take the Xmas period. Set out your points. I really am making this easy for you. You can have no possible excuse for ducking it
You're after asking a load of questions again without dealing with any posed to.
I preempted it and true to form, you don't diasppoint.
I'm on record of answering all these questions before. You just dodge answering any yourself.
I am actually worried about you.
I have made it easy for you. And you just don't have anything to offer.
You may consider yourself exploded.
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 03:30:08 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 18, 2020, 01:16:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 09:44:23 AM
What we've discovered is that Milltown can't answer a simple question.
It's incredibly likely the vaccine will be available to everyone who wants one in 2021 but he can't commit to saying he will get one. Why? And if that's the case what gives him the right to have a pop at people with reservations.
LCohen can't answer a question himself, but will go around hounding people for questions they have answered on numerous occasions, ignoring anything that he may have to explain himself.
List the question that I have not answered?
List the points that I have made but refused to explain?
Repost the answers that you claim to have already provided.
This will be good.
And more questions.
How about you answer what is put to you next time rather than respond with questions of your own.
I think I have dealt with this. I asked for an example of me not answering a question and the only thing you could come up with was evidence of you not answering a question put to you.
It's been a tough year Desmond. Maybe too tough. Have a wee break. Maybe outsource the thinking tasks
LCohen has taken the fifth.
He doesn't want to answer questions.
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 03:35:04 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 09:38:33 PM
Quote from: Seamus on December 17, 2020, 08:00:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 07:30:25 PM
Not sure what previous accounts have been used but given the views, the crassness, the style, the struggles with fact and logic it would easy to believe that the Seaney and Angelo accounts are operated by Sir Desmond Swayne.
I have already asked you the following question which has gone unanswered.
Are you for the "Covid-19 " vaccine becoming mandatory?
A few more while I have got your attention:
Do you agree that those who choose to not take the vaccine should have their civil liberties further eroded, basically becoming a prisoner in their own homes?
If so explain why?
Are you confident that the RT-PCR test can detect SARS-CoV-2?
If so explain and give documented proof.
Have you seen documentation that SARS-CoV-2 was purified and isolated?
If so please furnish. If not why do you follow blindly?
Questions are asked of the Seaney Account and the Angelo Account and it's the Seamus account that seems to take it personally. Freudian??
Anyway Desmond to deal with the points you raise:
I have actually responded to your mandatory vaccination point.
Here is the response verbatim
"I am not condemning the DC Act. I think vaccination is key to combatting many diseases of which CV19 is one. Mandatory vaccination is not normally the first port of call. It might be in some instances if take up is dangerously low. I'm unaware of the specific state of play in DC or other parts of USA."
That quotes goes on to ask you to spell out your concerns on event 201. How did you get on with that?
Then there are your new points:
Those who are do not get vaccinated are likely to face restrictions. Those restrictions are most likely to be drafted and enforced by commercial organisations rather than a matter of law. But yes if the unvaccinated present a risk to the common good the law makers will have to repeat those rules for some publicly owned/controlled spaces. Smoking as an analogy will assist in grasping the import of this.
On Sars Cov 2 I need more information. I have not posted anything on it here yet and in that sense your question is weird.
Why can't you answer the questions rather than respond with questions?
What makes you so special that you should not be questioned before everyone else should?
Nothing special about me. I'm just exposing the fraud of the Angelo account and your confreres in the Hard of Thinking Brigade
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:11:40 PM
LCohen has taken the fifth.
He doesn't want to answer questions.
Au contraire I have committed to answering the question. You just can't find the question. Have another go. I'm making it easy for you
Quote from: LCohen on December 18, 2020, 04:12:19 PM
Nothing special about me. I'm just exposing the fraud of the Angelo account and your confreres in the Hard of Thinking Brigade
The audit trail calls you a liar.
Time and time again you have ignored questions and then responded with a load of questions which have been comprehensively addressed before.
Plenty of questions for you to deal with so maybe grow a pair of balls and a few brain cells and answer them.
Quote from: LeoMc on December 18, 2020, 03:55:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 03:33:16 PM
Has Milltown said whether he'll get the vaccine in 2021?
It's almost certainly going to be available. So it's a yes or no. Not a conditional answer.
He has.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Baby number 2 on now!! like flipping twins
I'm only going to say this once, I'll be taking the vaccine once its available to me, I'm in the last group of people that get it, that's due to age, health and no other conditions due to work and so on....
That may be in 2021 or after, that doesn't depend on me, just those that are dishing it out.
If its required to allow me into a country I'll get it also, I've had vaccines before the internet and google
That's a conditional answer.
Yes or no.
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:20:12 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on December 18, 2020, 03:55:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 03:33:16 PM
Has Milltown said whether he'll get the vaccine in 2021?
It's almost certainly going to be available. So it's a yes or no. Not a conditional answer.
He has.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Baby number 2 on now!! like flipping twins
I'm only going to say this once, I'll be taking the vaccine once its available to me, I'm in the last group of people that get it, that's due to age, health and no other conditions due to work and so on....
That may be in 2021 or after, that doesn't depend on me, just those that are dishing it out.
If its required to allow me into a country I'll get it also, I've had vaccines before the internet and google
That's a conditional answer.
Yes or no.
Even for someone as obtuse as you Angelo.......and not to speak for Millhouse ;D but he has said he will take it in 2021 once it is available to him.
He cant decide to get it in 2021
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:18:57 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 18, 2020, 04:12:19 PM
Nothing special about me. I'm just exposing the fraud of the Angelo account and your confreres in the Hard of Thinking Brigade
The audit trail calls you a liar.
Time and time again you have ignored questions and then responded with a load of questions which have been comprehensively addressed before.
Plenty of questions for you to deal with so maybe grow a pair of balls and a few brain cells and answer them.
So point out the question. It's so easy for you.
People will be starting to wonder why you are withholding these dynamite quotes.
I know the first attempt didn't pan out the way you had planned but have another go. Just because the first attempt blew up in you face doesn't mean the next one will. Have a go.
You're just taking the piss now Angelo.
No one can say when they will get the vaccine as it's not available at the moment.
You on the other hand refuse to answer any questions put to you and only offer vague paranoid unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that make no sense to anyone but you
Quote from: dublin7 on December 18, 2020, 04:27:10 PM
You're just taking the piss now Angelo.
No one can say when they will get the vaccine as it's not available at the moment.
You on the other hand refuse to answer any questions put to you and only offer vague paranoid unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that make no sense to anyone but you
US, UK and EU governments are all very confident of mass roll out of the vaccine this summer so it's a straightforward yes or no answer.
I've comprehensively answered any question put to me. So please stop pedaling lies.
LCohen on the other hand asks for answers to be repeated while ignoring dealing with any question himself.
Quote from: Taylor on December 18, 2020, 04:23:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:20:12 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on December 18, 2020, 03:55:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 03:33:16 PM
Has Milltown said whether he'll get the vaccine in 2021?
It's almost certainly going to be available. So it's a yes or no. Not a conditional answer.
He has.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Baby number 2 on now!! like flipping twins
I'm only going to say this once, I'll be taking the vaccine once its available to me, I'm in the last group of people that get it, that's due to age, health and no other conditions due to work and so on....
That may be in 2021 or after, that doesn't depend on me, just those that are dishing it out.
If its required to allow me into a country I'll get it also, I've had vaccines before the internet and google
That's a conditional answer.
Yes or no.
Even for someone as obtuse as you Angelo.......and not to speak for Millhouse ;D but he has said he will take it in 2021 once it is available to him.
He cant decide to get it in 2021
I asked for a non-conditional answer.
I don't think you should refer to other people as obtuse when you fail to understand a basic nuance.
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:34:01 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 18, 2020, 04:23:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:20:12 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on December 18, 2020, 03:55:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 03:33:16 PM
Has Milltown said whether he'll get the vaccine in 2021?
It's almost certainly going to be available. So it's a yes or no. Not a conditional answer.
He has.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Baby number 2 on now!! like flipping twins
I'm only going to say this once, I'll be taking the vaccine once its available to me, I'm in the last group of people that get it, that's due to age, health and no other conditions due to work and so on....
That may be in 2021 or after, that doesn't depend on me, just those that are dishing it out.
If its required to allow me into a country I'll get it also, I've had vaccines before the internet and google
That's a conditional answer.
Yes or no.
Even for someone as obtuse as you Angelo.......and not to speak for Millhouse ;D but he has said he will take it in 2021 once it is available to him.
He cant decide to get it in 2021
I asked for a non-conditional answer.
I don't think you should refer to other people as obtuse when you fail to understand a basic nuance.
"I'll take the vaccine once it's available to me".
There's nothing conditional about it.
This is basic comprehension.
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:31:37 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 18, 2020, 04:27:10 PM
You're just taking the piss now Angelo.
No one can say when they will get the vaccine as it's not available at the moment.
You on the other hand refuse to answer any questions put to you and only offer vague paranoid unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that make no sense to anyone but you
US, UK and EU governments are all very confident of mass roll out of the vaccine this summer so it's a straightforward yes or no answer.
I've comprehensively answered any question put to me. So please stop pedaling lies.
LCohen on the other hand asks for answers to be repeated while ignoring dealing with any question himself.
So if he said he is confident of getting the vaccine in 2021 would that make you happy?
Considering you are happy to say the Governments are confident of rolling it out
Quote from: Taylor on December 18, 2020, 04:43:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:31:37 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 18, 2020, 04:27:10 PM
You're just taking the piss now Angelo.
No one can say when they will get the vaccine as it's not available at the moment.
You on the other hand refuse to answer any questions put to you and only offer vague paranoid unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that make no sense to anyone but you
US, UK and EU governments are all very confident of mass roll out of the vaccine this summer so it's a straightforward yes or no answer.
I've comprehensively answered any question put to me. So please stop pedaling lies.
LCohen on the other hand asks for answers to be repeated while ignoring dealing with any question himself.
So if he said he is confident of getting the vaccine in 2021 would that make you happy?
Considering you are happy to say the Governments are confident of rolling it out
Thread title:
Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:20:12 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on December 18, 2020, 03:55:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 03:33:16 PM
Has Milltown said whether he'll get the vaccine in 2021?
It's almost certainly going to be available. So it's a yes or no. Not a conditional answer.
He has.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Baby number 2 on now!! like flipping twins
I'm only going to say this once, I'll be taking the vaccine once its available to me, I'm in the last group of people that get it, that's due to age, health and no other conditions due to work and so on....
That may be in 2021 or after, that doesn't depend on me, just those that are dishing it out.
If its required to allow me into a country I'll get it also, I've had vaccines before the internet and google
That's a conditional answer.
Yes or no.
Can you unconditionally state that he will be offered it?
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:44:02 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 18, 2020, 04:43:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:31:37 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 18, 2020, 04:27:10 PM
You're just taking the piss now Angelo.
No one can say when they will get the vaccine as it's not available at the moment.
You on the other hand refuse to answer any questions put to you and only offer vague paranoid unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that make no sense to anyone but you
US, UK and EU governments are all very confident of mass roll out of the vaccine this summer so it's a straightforward yes or no answer.
I've comprehensively answered any question put to me. So please stop pedaling lies.
LCohen on the other hand asks for answers to be repeated while ignoring dealing with any question himself.
So if he said he is confident of getting the vaccine in 2021 would that make you happy?
Considering you are happy to say the Governments are confident of rolling it out
Thread title: Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?
When and where will it be available to the general population?
If you're so convinced Angelo that it will be available and everyone else is refusing to give a straight answer please explain how the vaccination process will work and when it will start?
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:44:02 PM
Quote from: Taylor on December 18, 2020, 04:43:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:31:37 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 18, 2020, 04:27:10 PM
You're just taking the piss now Angelo.
No one can say when they will get the vaccine as it's not available at the moment.
You on the other hand refuse to answer any questions put to you and only offer vague paranoid unsubstantiated conspiracy theories that make no sense to anyone but you
US, UK and EU governments are all very confident of mass roll out of the vaccine this summer so it's a straightforward yes or no answer.
I've comprehensively answered any question put to me. So please stop pedaling lies.
LCohen on the other hand asks for answers to be repeated while ignoring dealing with any question himself.
So if he said he is confident of getting the vaccine in 2021 would that make you happy?
Considering you are happy to say the Governments are confident of rolling it out
Thread title: Will you get a Covid vaccine if one becomes available in 2021?
The vaccine became available in 2020? Do we need to start the thread again?
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:18:57 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 18, 2020, 04:12:19 PM
Nothing special about me. I'm just exposing the fraud of the Angelo account and your confreres in the Hard of Thinking Brigade
The audit trail calls you a liar.
Time and time again you have ignored questions and then responded with a load of questions which have been comprehensively addressed before.
Plenty of questions for you to deal with so maybe grow a pair of balls and a few brain cells and answer them.
Go on,throw up an example. According to you there are plenty so it shouldn't be too hard.
the EU has ordered 80m more of the Moderna vaccine, to a total of 160m doses. They have also ordered 300m of Pfizer and 400m of Oxford, so that's about every adult in the EU covered if they can get them delivered.
The EU has also secured vaccines have been approved for use yet, 405 million doses from the German biotech Curevac; up to 400 million from American pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson; up to 200 million from US company Novovax; and up to 300 million from British and French companies GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi.
Curevac is also RNA based, so likely as effective as Moderna and Pfizer, but it is cheaper and easier to distribute, so if they don't need it when it is ready it would be suitable for Third World countries. Of course, some combination of these might be the thing to drive off this virus altogether.
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 04:20:12 PM
Quote from: LeoMc on December 18, 2020, 03:55:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 18, 2020, 03:33:16 PM
Has Milltown said whether he'll get the vaccine in 2021?
It's almost certainly going to be available. So it's a yes or no. Not a conditional answer.
He has.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:09:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 17, 2020, 04:05:16 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 04:03:49 PM
Why would I want the doctors to only take appointments from a surgery that I worked in?
I'm concerned that the country has people lined up the street every week to get seen by a doctor, why is this place so unhealthy was my point, I'm not going over this again, its like speaking to baby
Are you getting the vaccine in 2021 now?
Baby number 2 on now!! like flipping twins
I'm only going to say this once, I'll be taking the vaccine once its available to me, I'm in the last group of people that get it, that's due to age, health and no other conditions due to work and so on....
That may be in 2021 or after, that doesn't depend on me, just those that are dishing it out.
If its required to allow me into a country I'll get it also, I've had vaccines before the internet and google
That's a conditional answer.
Yes or no.
This sums up why it's pointless debating with Angelo.
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 08:54:04 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 08:42:50 PM
Seamus you are wasting your time, they hunt in packs here. These gutless keyboard warriors if they met any man in a pub asked them would they take the vaccine and he said he had concerns, they would maybe at most say they have none and accept his concerns. But hiding in their bedrooms they will try to berate, bully and abuse one over and over who don't follow the narrative, all big men, some think they are wordsmith, its very entertaining to watch. Milhouse cares not a jot about society just himself, he puts himself last on the list to get a vaccine but berates those who cautiously do the same, they love this board they think they are kings. ;D
Seaney you'd have no friends in the pub to talk to, you're that guy that everyone nods too but says "there's that fuckwit Seaney, talks the biggest load of bollox "
You've been on this board as much as everyone else, gets barred and comes back on, the masks slips, gets banned again as the intelligence slips and loses the plot.
But you're consistent, consistently comic gold
Ih dear dear dear hit a nerve, Milhouse always gets abusive when the truth hurts bless.
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 09:43:33 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 08:42:50 PM
Seamus you are wasting your time, they hunt in packs here. These gutless keyboard warriors if they met any man in a pub asked them would they take the vaccine and he said he had concerns, they would maybe at most say they have none and accept his concerns. But hiding in their bedrooms they will try to berate, bully and abuse one over and over who don't follow the narrative, all big men, some think they are wordsmith, its very entertaining to watch. Milhouse cares not a jot about society just himself, he puts himself last on the list to get a vaccine but berates those who cautiously do the same, they love this board they think they are kings. ;D
Dessie
Imagine some bluffer came in into the local and made his outlandish claims and when asked to evidence them all he could he say was he provided that evidence a different day and that was the end of the matter. Sure he would be laughed out of town
By a wordsmith like you. ;D
Quote from: dublin7 on December 18, 2020, 12:02:45 AM
Quote from: LCohen on December 17, 2020, 09:43:33 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 08:42:50 PM
Seamus you are wasting your time, they hunt in packs here. These gutless keyboard warriors if they met any man in a pub asked them would they take the vaccine and he said he had concerns, they would maybe at most say they have none and accept his concerns. But hiding in their bedrooms they will try to berate, bully and abuse one over and over who don't follow the narrative, all big men, some think they are wordsmith, its very entertaining to watch. Milhouse cares not a jot about society just himself, he puts himself last on the list to get a vaccine but berates those who cautiously do the same, they love this board they think they are kings. ;D
Dessie
Imagine some bluffer came in into the local and made his outlandish claims and when asked to evidence them all he could he say was he provided that evidence a different day and that was the end of the matter. Sure he would be laughed out of town
Or imagine he said a chemical engineer told him the vaccine was rubbish and left it at that. You'd be ridiculed and rightly so.
The only reasons the likes of yourself and Angelo have offered against getting the vaccine are some Hollywood conspiracies of evil big pharma/pharmaceutical companies and their CEOs breaking any and all rules to make money.
Oh dear more lies doubt you would last long chatting to anyone, do you have to be a liar to post here?
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:19:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 17, 2020, 08:54:04 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 17, 2020, 08:42:50 PM
Seamus you are wasting your time, they hunt in packs here. These gutless keyboard warriors if they met any man in a pub asked them would they take the vaccine and he said he had concerns, they would maybe at most say they have none and accept his concerns. But hiding in their bedrooms they will try to berate, bully and abuse one over and over who don't follow the narrative, all big men, some think they are wordsmith, its very entertaining to watch. Milhouse cares not a jot about society just himself, he puts himself last on the list to get a vaccine but berates those who cautiously do the same, they love this board they think they are kings. ;D
Seaney you'd have no friends in the pub to talk to, you're that guy that everyone nods too but says "there's that fuckwit Seaney, talks the biggest load of bollox "
You've been on this board as much as everyone else, gets barred and comes back on, the masks slips, gets banned again as the intelligence slips and loses the plot.
But you're consistent, consistently comic gold
Ih dear dear dear hit a nerve, Milhouse always gets abusive when the truth hurts bless.
Well if the hat fits....
Asked if he would get a vaccine, Christy Moore on the radio this morning said that he would get all 5 of them. That's the spirit.
Good to have the seaney account back. Whilst you were away the Seamus account and the Angelo account were active. Well, partially active. Thing's didn't go well for the Desmond collective.
The Seamus account seemed to take personal offence at the Seaney account being asked questions.
Seamus' retaliation had some positives in that it spread some seasonal cheer such were its comedic properties. The Seamus Account has this conviction that I am not answering questions. Such is the Seamus Account's conviction that they are blind to fact. All I had to do do was repost the answer that I had provided to the question and that as the Seamus Account holed below the water line. Seamus ain't been seen since.
So the Angelo account gets rebooted. The accusation against that account is that they don't answer questions and just keeps trotting out the mantra that the question was unanswered at some previous unspecified time and in a form that it is no longer visible on the all seeing internet. As you might have guessed that has proven an unsustainable position. And off popped the Angelo Account.
Before they went they were offered a clean slate and a free hit. Poor creature couldn't muster a single thought.
They did try their hand a bringing back the Seamus Account accusation that I don't answer questions. They even took the radically new venture (for the Desmond Swayne Collective) of providing evidence. However the inexperience in dealing with evidence meant it all went horribly wrong. The evidence was actually of the Angelo account not answering the question. Difficult to think of how that could have gone worse for the Angelo account. The Angelo account checked out of the debate at that stage.
So good to see the Seaney account rise like a turkey from the flames. Let's hope it brings some substantive points and give a fair representation of the Dessie Crew
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Source?
Matt Hancock but he is not my mate, but he maybe someone's mate.
Quote from: LCohen on December 20, 2020, 04:10:41 PM
Good to have the seaney account back. Whilst you were away the Seamus account and the Angelo account were active. Well, partially active. Thing's didn't go well for the Desmond collective.
The Seamus account seemed to take personal offence at the Seaney account being asked questions.
Seamus' retaliation had some positives in that it spread some seasonal cheer such were its comedic properties. The Seamus Account has this conviction that I am not answering questions. Such is the Seamus Account's conviction that they are blind to fact. All I had to do do was repost the answer that I had provided to the question and that as the Seamus Account holed below the water line. Seamus ain't been seen since.
So the Angelo account gets rebooted. The accusation against that account is that they don't answer questions and just keeps trotting out the mantra that the question was unanswered at some previous unspecified time and in a form that it is no longer visible on the all seeing internet. As you might have guessed that has proven an unsustainable position. And off popped the Angelo Account.
Before they went they were offered a clean slate and a free hit. Poor creature couldn't muster a single thought.
They did try their hand a bringing back the Seamus Account accusation that I don't answer questions. They even took the radically new venture (for the Desmond Swayne Collective) of providing evidence. However the inexperience in dealing with evidence meant it all went horribly wrong. The evidence was actually of the Angelo account not answering the question. Difficult to think of how that could have gone worse for the Angelo account. The Angelo account checked out of the debate at that stage.
So good to see the Seaney account rise like a turkey from the flames. Let's hope it brings some substantive points and give a fair representation of the Dessie Crew
Do you write short stories in your spare time?
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.
The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.
The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 08:56:41 PM
Matt Hancock but he is not my mate, but he maybe someone's mate.
Where was that then?
I saw his interviews this morning and he made no such statement. Of course he may have made the statement elsewhere but the internet carries neither it nor any reference to it apart from your own claim.
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 09:04:24 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 20, 2020, 04:10:41 PM
Good to have the seaney account back. Whilst you were away the Seamus account and the Angelo account were active. Well, partially active. Thing's didn't go well for the Desmond collective.
The Seamus account seemed to take personal offence at the Seaney account being asked questions.
Seamus' retaliation had some positives in that it spread some seasonal cheer such were its comedic properties. The Seamus Account has this conviction that I am not answering questions. Such is the Seamus Account's conviction that they are blind to fact. All I had to do do was repost the answer that I had provided to the question and that as the Seamus Account holed below the water line. Seamus ain't been seen since.
So the Angelo account gets rebooted. The accusation against that account is that they don't answer questions and just keeps trotting out the mantra that the question was unanswered at some previous unspecified time and in a form that it is no longer visible on the all seeing internet. As you might have guessed that has proven an unsustainable position. And off popped the Angelo Account.
Before they went they were offered a clean slate and a free hit. Poor creature couldn't muster a single thought.
They did try their hand a bringing back the Seamus Account accusation that I don't answer questions. They even took the radically new venture (for the Desmond Swayne Collective) of providing evidence. However the inexperience in dealing with evidence meant it all went horribly wrong. The evidence was actually of the Angelo account not answering the question. Difficult to think of how that could have gone worse for the Angelo account. The Angelo account checked out of the debate at that stage.
So good to see the Seaney account rise like a turkey from the flames. Let's hope it brings some substantive points and give a fair representation of the Dessie Crew
Do you write short stories in your spare time?
I have no talent for fiction.
So I stick to facts
Quote from: dublin7 on December 20, 2020, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.
The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.
The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm
You are being rash there.
I feel certain that 1 of the account holders will be along shortly with proof of their claims
I don't particularly like the approaches of most of the Western countries to covid vaccine development. Rather surprisingly it's the old tired and test vaccine technologies employed by China that I'd view as being a safer bet than the US/Brit/German vaccine. Whilst mRNA vaccines may prove to be the future of vaccine development their safety profile is as of yet untested especially when you consider they might possibly be rolled out to 1 billion people within 24 months of development. In such a scenario vaccine safety is of the upmost importance.
The mRNA vaccines pretty much hijack your cellular protein machinery to produce many copies of a spike protein. The spike protein is around 1250 amino acids long. The concern is that can this synthetically produced spike protein be cleaved down in to potentially damaging proteins. For example the prion protein that causes BSE/CJD is 250 amino acids long. The Beta amyloid that causes Alzheimer's disease is only 30-40 amino acids long. So potentially you could be giving people a vaccine with effects that may not be visible for years, possibly decades of their lives.
The oxford vaccine is just as bad if not worse. They've piggybacked the spike protein DNA into a chimp virus and then use that chimp virus to infect the cells of the body. Jesus you'd think the whole lesson from coronavirus being that "don't let people catch animal viruses" would have stuck in their heads for more than 2 months. Whilst it's been advertised as a non-replicating simian adenovirus I haven't seen the science behind how they've ensured it's non-replicating. Anyway the non-replicating advantage becomes a moot point if a person is both vaccinated and becomes infected with the simian virus at the same time. In such a scenario you could have potentially married the infectious qualities of Covid with a novel adenovirus. Not a pleasant scenario.
The Chinese vaccine focused on the tried and tested method of simply attenuating the live Covid virus by running it through lines of vero cells. What they've sacrificed in effectiveness they've gained in safety IMO. Even the Russian vaccine operates off a safer platform than the other Western vaccines, unfortunately because they've piggybacked the spike protein DNA into a human coronavirus it's highly likely to be ineffective as a vaccine.
I should add however whilst I have misgivings about the safety profile of the vaccines I'd still take them. You have to remember the bar for vaccine safety is (quite rightly) very, very high. Where a vaccine proven to cause serious illness in 1 per 10,000 doses it would be pulled from the market and regarded an absolute disaster.
Still as a reasonable person if you're told there's a 1 in 10,000 chance this might do you some harm then you'd have to say that's pretty acceptable. You survive much poorer odds than that every day of the week.
Quote from: trileacman on December 20, 2020, 09:55:27 PM
I don't particularly like the approaches of most of the Western countries to covid vaccine development. Rather surprisingly it's the old tired and test vaccine technologies employed by China that I'd view as being a safer bet than the US/Brit/German vaccine. Whilst mRNA vaccines may prove to be the future of vaccine development their safety profile is as of yet untested especially when you consider they might possibly be rolled out to 1 billion people within 24 months of development. In such a scenario vaccine safety is of the upmost importance.
The mRNA vaccines pretty much hijack your cellular protein machinery to produce many copies of a spike protein. The spike protein is around 1250 amino acids long. The concern is that can this synthetically produced spike protein be cleaved down in to potentially damaging proteins. For example the prion protein that causes BSE/CJD is 250 amino acids long. The Beta amyloid that causes Alzheimer's disease is only 30-40 amino acids long. So potentially you could be giving people a vaccine with effects that may not be visible for years, possibly decades of their lives.
The oxford vaccine is just as bad if not worse. They've piggybacked the spike protein DNA into a chimp virus and then use that chimp virus to infect the cells of the body. Jesus you'd think the whole lesson from coronavirus being that "don't let people catch animal viruses" would have stuck in their heads for more than 2 months. Whilst it's been advertised as a non-replicating simian adenovirus I haven't seen the science behind how they've ensured it's non-replicating. Anyway the non-replicating advantage becomes a moot point if a person is both vaccinated and becomes infected with the simian virus at the same time. In such a scenario you could have potentially married the infectious qualities of Covid with a novel adenovirus. Not a pleasant scenario.
The Chinese vaccine focused on the tried and tested method of simply attenuating the live Covid virus by running it through lines of vero cells. What they've sacrificed in effectiveness they've gained in safety IMO. Even the Russian vaccine operates off a safer platform than the other Western vaccines, unfortunately because they've piggybacked the spike protein DNA into a human coronavirus it's highly likely to be ineffective as a vaccine.
Interesting post, the long term consequences of the vaccine are unknown. Whether the vaccine can deal with all strains or mutations of the virus are also probably unknown also. Given the fact that nearly all under 15s who get Covid have little or no symptoms, I can understand the reluctance for some parents, to make a conscious decision to not let their kids take the vaccine.
Quote from: Rudi on December 20, 2020, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: trileacman on December 20, 2020, 09:55:27 PM
I don't particularly like the approaches of most of the Western countries to covid vaccine development. Rather surprisingly it's the old tired and test vaccine technologies employed by China that I'd view as being a safer bet than the US/Brit/German vaccine. Whilst mRNA vaccines may prove to be the future of vaccine development their safety profile is as of yet untested especially when you consider they might possibly be rolled out to 1 billion people within 24 months of development. In such a scenario vaccine safety is of the upmost importance.
The mRNA vaccines pretty much hijack your cellular protein machinery to produce many copies of a spike protein. The spike protein is around 1250 amino acids long. The concern is that can this synthetically produced spike protein be cleaved down in to potentially damaging proteins. For example the prion protein that causes BSE/CJD is 250 amino acids long. The Beta amyloid that causes Alzheimer's disease is only 30-40 amino acids long. So potentially you could be giving people a vaccine with effects that may not be visible for years, possibly decades of their lives.
The oxford vaccine is just as bad if not worse. They've piggybacked the spike protein DNA into a chimp virus and then use that chimp virus to infect the cells of the body. Jesus you'd think the whole lesson from coronavirus being that "don't let people catch animal viruses" would have stuck in their heads for more than 2 months. Whilst it's been advertised as a non-replicating simian adenovirus I haven't seen the science behind how they've ensured it's non-replicating. Anyway the non-replicating advantage becomes a moot point if a person is both vaccinated and becomes infected with the simian virus at the same time. In such a scenario you could have potentially married the infectious qualities of Covid with a novel adenovirus. Not a pleasant scenario.
The Chinese vaccine focused on the tried and tested method of simply attenuating the live Covid virus by running it through lines of vero cells. What they've sacrificed in effectiveness they've gained in safety IMO. Even the Russian vaccine operates off a safer platform than the other Western vaccines, unfortunately because they've piggybacked the spike protein DNA into a human coronavirus it's highly likely to be ineffective as a vaccine.
Interesting post, the long term consequences of the vaccine are unknown. Whether the vaccine can deal with all strains or mutations of the virus are also probably unknown also. Given the fact that nearly all under 15s who get Covid have little or no symptoms, I can understand the reluctance for some parents, to make a conscious decision to not let their kids take the vaccine.
In viral terms Coronavirus mutates very very slowly, the likelihood any that a mutation could lead to a vaccine failure is quite small.
Quote from: trileacman on December 20, 2020, 10:22:06 PM
Quote from: Rudi on December 20, 2020, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from: trileacman on December 20, 2020, 09:55:27 PM
I don't particularly like the approaches of most of the Western countries to covid vaccine development. Rather surprisingly it's the old tired and test vaccine technologies employed by China that I'd view as being a safer bet than the US/Brit/German vaccine. Whilst mRNA vaccines may prove to be the future of vaccine development their safety profile is as of yet untested especially when you consider they might possibly be rolled out to 1 billion people within 24 months of development. In such a scenario vaccine safety is of the upmost importance.
The mRNA vaccines pretty much hijack your cellular protein machinery to produce many copies of a spike protein. The spike protein is around 1250 amino acids long. The concern is that can this synthetically produced spike protein be cleaved down in to potentially damaging proteins. For example the prion protein that causes BSE/CJD is 250 amino acids long. The Beta amyloid that causes Alzheimer's disease is only 30-40 amino acids long. So potentially you could be giving people a vaccine with effects that may not be visible for years, possibly decades of their lives.
The oxford vaccine is just as bad if not worse. They've piggybacked the spike protein DNA into a chimp virus and then use that chimp virus to infect the cells of the body. Jesus you'd think the whole lesson from coronavirus being that "don't let people catch animal viruses" would have stuck in their heads for more than 2 months. Whilst it's been advertised as a non-replicating simian adenovirus I haven't seen the science behind how they've ensured it's non-replicating. Anyway the non-replicating advantage becomes a moot point if a person is both vaccinated and becomes infected with the simian virus at the same time. In such a scenario you could have potentially married the infectious qualities of Covid with a novel adenovirus. Not a pleasant scenario.
The Chinese vaccine focused on the tried and tested method of simply attenuating the live Covid virus by running it through lines of vero cells. What they've sacrificed in effectiveness they've gained in safety IMO. Even the Russian vaccine operates off a safer platform than the other Western vaccines, unfortunately because they've piggybacked the spike protein DNA into a human coronavirus it's highly likely to be ineffective as a vaccine.
Interesting post, the long term consequences of the vaccine are unknown. Whether the vaccine can deal with all strains or mutations of the virus are also probably unknown also. Given the fact that nearly all under 15s who get Covid have little or no symptoms, I can understand the reluctance for some parents, to make a conscious decision to not let their kids take the vaccine.
In viral terms Coronavirus mutates very very slowly, the likelihood any that a mutation could lead to a vaccine failure is quite small.
Interesting thanks for the reply.
Quote from: trileacman on December 20, 2020, 10:01:47 PM
I should add however whilst I have misgivings about the safety profile of the vaccines I'd still take them. You have to remember the bar for vaccine safety is (quite rightly) very, very high. Where a vaccine proven to cause serious illness in 1 per 10,000 doses it would be pulled from the market and regarded an absolute disaster.
Still as a reasonable person if you're told there's a 1 in 10,000 chance this might do you some harm then you'd have to say that's pretty acceptable. You survive much poorer odds than that every day of the week.
Good posts. I was unaware that the China vaccine was done on the traditional basis.
I would imagine that ultimately the Chinese and Russian vaccines will be subject to the western approval processes and may get approvals. You never know. I would also be surprised if we are using different vaccines in a years time
It's great to read stuff like this trileacman as opposed to vaccines are evil ;D thanks for that. Very interesting.
Quote from: trileacman on December 20, 2020, 09:55:27 PMThe mRNA vaccines pretty much hijack your cellular protein machinery to produce many copies of a spike protein. The spike protein is around 1250 amino acids long. The concern is that can this synthetically produced spike protein be cleaved down in to potentially damaging proteins. For example the prion protein that causes BSE/CJD is 250 amino acids long. The Beta amyloid that causes Alzheimer's disease is only 30-40 amino acids long. So potentially you could be giving people a vaccine with effects that may not be visible for years, possibly decades of their lives.
I'd assume there is a straight relationship between the sequence of the mRNA and the proteins (both in terms of length and combination) - so the question would be "if the mRNA were broken, what would result?"
... given that its a very obvious question, the approving authorities across the world must have considered does the mRNA make up have any sections that could, when broken off from the main mRNA, unintentionally result in dangerous proteins being formed.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 21, 2020, 08:57:53 AM
Quote from: trileacman on December 20, 2020, 09:55:27 PMThe mRNA vaccines pretty much hijack your cellular protein machinery to produce many copies of a spike protein. The spike protein is around 1250 amino acids long. The concern is that can this synthetically produced spike protein be cleaved down in to potentially damaging proteins. For example the prion protein that causes BSE/CJD is 250 amino acids long. The Beta amyloid that causes Alzheimer's disease is only 30-40 amino acids long. So potentially you could be giving people a vaccine with effects that may not be visible for years, possibly decades of their lives.
I'd assume there is a straight relationship between the sequence of the mRNA and the proteins (both in terms of length and combination) - so the question would be "if the mRNA were broken, what would result?"
... given that its a very obvious question, the approving authorities across the world must have considered does the mRNA make up have any sections that could, when broken off from the main mRNA, unintentionally result in dangerous proteins being formed.
You greatly overestimate science. For example, the precise mechanism by which Alzheimers disease erodes and destroys brain tissue is unknown. They know protein content buildup in the brain slowly destroys the tissue but the protein responsible is still a mystery. While the evidence points to Beta Amyloid being a component of it, it's still a mystery whether it is beta Amyloid, some fraction cleaved off Beta amyloid or a metabolite of either. For a major disease that's a serious blind spot. Same can be said for motor neurone disease and Parkinsons, the absolute cause of both these diseases are unknown.
So it's impossible to look at a protein or mRNA chain and say that's safe or that one isn't.
Another thing to consider is the competence of people making these vaccines. AstraZeneca is a 60 billion pound company with 70,000 employees yet in making the most media scrutinised vaccine known to man they managed to;
1 - calculate the incorrect dose of the vaccine to be given,
2 - not realise their mistake until they'd almost completed clinical trials.
3 - change the dose to a half dose.
4 - discover that the half dose is more effective
5 - not have a f**king clue why the 1/2 dose was more effective.
By anyone's measure that is a series of absolute c**k-ups, there is zero chance these guys could look at a protein structure and definitively say "that won't cause any issues".
Quote from: dublin7 on December 20, 2020, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.
The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.
The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm
My concerns are over the safety of the vaccine, not its effectiveness.
You should pay more attention.
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 12:42:57 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 20, 2020, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.
The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.
The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm
My concerns are over the safety of the vaccine, not its effectiveness.
You should pay more attention.
Course they are. I won't even bother asking you to point out these issues as you'll just do what you always do and claim you've stated them previously.
Quote from: trileacman on December 21, 2020, 10:31:13 AM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on December 21, 2020, 08:57:53 AM
Quote from: trileacman on December 20, 2020, 09:55:27 PMThe mRNA vaccines pretty much hijack your cellular protein machinery to produce many copies of a spike protein. The spike protein is around 1250 amino acids long. The concern is that can this synthetically produced spike protein be cleaved down in to potentially damaging proteins. For example the prion protein that causes BSE/CJD is 250 amino acids long. The Beta amyloid that causes Alzheimer's disease is only 30-40 amino acids long. So potentially you could be giving people a vaccine with effects that may not be visible for years, possibly decades of their lives.
I'd assume there is a straight relationship between the sequence of the mRNA and the proteins (both in terms of length and combination) - so the question would be "if the mRNA were broken, what would result?"
... given that its a very obvious question, the approving authorities across the world must have considered does the mRNA make up have any sections that could, when broken off from the main mRNA, unintentionally result in dangerous proteins being formed.
You greatly overestimate science. For example, the precise mechanism by which Alzheimers disease erodes and destroys brain tissue is unknown. They know protein content buildup in the brain slowly destroys the tissue but the protein responsible is still a mystery. While the evidence points to Beta Amyloid being a component of it, it's still a mystery whether it is beta Amyloid, some fraction cleaved off Beta amyloid or a metabolite of either. For a major disease that's a serious blind spot. Same can be said for motor neurone disease and Parkinsons, the absolute cause of both these diseases are unknown.
So it's impossible to look at a protein or mRNA chain and say that's safe or that one isn't.
Another thing to consider is the competence of people making these vaccines. AstraZeneca is a 60 billion pound company with 70,000 employees yet in making the most media scrutinised vaccine known to man they managed to;
1 - calculate the incorrect dose of the vaccine to be given,
2 - not realise their mistake until they'd almost completed clinical trials.
3 - change the dose to a half dose.
4 - discover that the half dose is more effective
5 - not have a f**king clue why the 1/2 dose was more effective.
By anyone's measure that is a series of absolute c**k-ups, there is zero chance these guys could look at a protein structure and definitively say "that won't cause any issues".
The half dose was attributed to
a manufacturing error and not the science behind vaccine but don't let that get in the way of misinformation. In any trial it could just as easily be a person administrating the dosage by not reading packaging/instructions correctly.
Also I believe it was being manufactured by a private contractor too which is pretty standard practice I'm the industry. AstraZeneca did realise the mistake early on (weeks before the 2nd dose was to be administered) and reported it to the appropriate bodies; who in turn gave them the go ahead to continue with the original trial as it still met the desired criteria set out by the "trial" and there was no risk to the volunteers. Manufacturing issues and FDA recalls are more common than you think; 99% of the time you never hear about them.
They do have a hypothesis of why the half dose is more effective but at the time this was announced there was wasn't enough evidence or data to confirm that hypothesis - hence why further trials are being carried out and more data collected. It's not accurate to say they don't have a f**king clue.
Based on a lot of written information on vaccines and the 'experts' we have here, all vaccines will have an affect on everyone, some minor to the point of nothing of any note and others at the other extreme (those with the reaction lately) will have a bad outcome, I hope the ones that took the bad reaction have recovered and doing well after that serious scare.
What's best? Look after ourselves, wash sanitize and have limited time with people, bars and cafes and the like shut until 10 years down the line when we have a better idea of the long term effects (if any) of these vaccines.
Do we close down the country like New Zealand, limit people coming in and have massive testing and tracing programs for the length it takes to suit the reviews of the vaccines
Or do we get the vaccine that's been passed, by the methods they use to pass all vaccines?
Looking forward to 2 weeks off work!
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 12:48:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 12:42:57 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 20, 2020, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.
The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.
The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm
My concerns are over the safety of the vaccine, not its effectiveness.
You should pay more attention.
Course they are. I won't even bother asking you to point out these issues as you'll just do what you always do and claim you've stated them previously.
Because I have stated them repeatedly on here.
I've told you how big pharma are only interested in the bottom line, how they regularly bribe approvers, doctors and medical institutions to promote and sanction drugs they know they are severe concerns of. They have received world record fines after being caught doing so. We also know this is an unprecedented turnaround for a vaccine that there is huge pressure on to be approved.
So my concerns are genuine, I have stated them, substantiated them repeatedly and you continue to ignore what is there in front of you.
There are multiple posts on here where I have substantiated my view. This is me repeating myself for idiots like you again and again.
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 01:41:27 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 12:48:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 12:42:57 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 20, 2020, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.
The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.
The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm
My concerns are over the safety of the vaccine, not its effectiveness.
You should pay more attention.
Course they are. I won't even bother asking you to point out these issues as you'll just do what you always do and claim you've stated them previously.
Because I have stated them repeatedly on here.
I've told you how big pharma are only interested in the bottom line, how they regularly bribe approvers, doctors and medical institutions to promote and sanction drugs they know they are severe concerns of. They have received world record fines after being caught doing so. We also know this is an unprecedented turnaround for a vaccine that there is huge pressure on to be approved.
So my concerns are genuine, I have stated them, substantiated them repeatedly and you continue to ignore what is there in front of you.
There are multiple posts on here where I have substantiated my view. This is me repeating myself for idiots like you again and again.
You are not a source.
Quote from: thebigfella on December 21, 2020, 02:00:11 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 01:41:27 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 12:48:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 12:42:57 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 20, 2020, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.
The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.
The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm
My concerns are over the safety of the vaccine, not its effectiveness.
You should pay more attention.
Course they are. I won't even bother asking you to point out these issues as you'll just do what you always do and claim you've stated them previously.
Because I have stated them repeatedly on here.
I've told you how big pharma are only interested in the bottom line, how they regularly bribe approvers, doctors and medical institutions to promote and sanction drugs they know they are severe concerns of. They have received world record fines after being caught doing so. We also know this is an unprecedented turnaround for a vaccine that there is huge pressure on to be approved.
So my concerns are genuine, I have stated them, substantiated them repeatedly and you continue to ignore what is there in front of you.
There are multiple posts on here where I have substantiated my view. This is me repeating myself for idiots like you again and again.
You are not a source.
I've provided the links to all of the above. It just suits some people to ignore that.
Quote from: thebigfella on December 21, 2020, 01:34:58 PM
They do have a hypothesis of why the half dose is more effective but at the time this was announced there was wasn't enough evidence or data to confirm that hypothesis - hence why further trials are being carried out and more data collected. It's not accurate to say they don't have a f**king clue.
It's all gone quiet regarding the authorisation of the Oxford vaccine. Clearly authorisation will not be rushed through like the Pfizer one for obvious reasons. Will they be sent back to do further trials on the half dose/full dose regime before authorisation or will they be authorised for the full dose/full dose regime with 62% efficacy?
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on December 21, 2020, 02:00:11 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 01:41:27 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 12:48:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 12:42:57 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 20, 2020, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.
The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.
The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm
My concerns are over the safety of the vaccine, not its effectiveness.
You should pay more attention.
Course they are. I won't even bother asking you to point out these issues as you'll just do what you always do and claim you've stated them previously.
Because I have stated them repeatedly on here.
I've told you how big pharma are only interested in the bottom line, how they regularly bribe approvers, doctors and medical institutions to promote and sanction drugs they know they are severe concerns of. They have received world record fines after being caught doing so. We also know this is an unprecedented turnaround for a vaccine that there is huge pressure on to be approved.
So my concerns are genuine, I have stated them, substantiated them repeatedly and you continue to ignore what is there in front of you.
There are multiple posts on here where I have substantiated my view. This is me repeating myself for idiots like you again and again.
You are not a source.
I've provided the links to all of the above. It just suits some people to ignore that.
You left out the evil CEOs this time. Are you now happy to admit then that the Pfizer CEO isn't corrupt as you suggested previously for the completely legal arrangement he made for the sale of his shares?
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 02:54:34 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 02:10:57 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on December 21, 2020, 02:00:11 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 01:41:27 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 12:48:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 12:42:57 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 20, 2020, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.
The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.
The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm
My concerns are over the safety of the vaccine, not its effectiveness.
You should pay more attention.
Course they are. I won't even bother asking you to point out these issues as you'll just do what you always do and claim you've stated them previously.
Because I have stated them repeatedly on here.
I've told you how big pharma are only interested in the bottom line, how they regularly bribe approvers, doctors and medical institutions to promote and sanction drugs they know they are severe concerns of. They have received world record fines after being caught doing so. We also know this is an unprecedented turnaround for a vaccine that there is huge pressure on to be approved.
So my concerns are genuine, I have stated them, substantiated them repeatedly and you continue to ignore what is there in front of you.
There are multiple posts on here where I have substantiated my view. This is me repeating myself for idiots like you again and again.
You are not a source.
I've provided the links to all of the above. It just suits some people to ignore that.
You left out the evil CEOs this time. Are you now happy to admit then that the Pfizer CEO isn't corrupt as you suggested previously for the completely legal arrangement he made for the sale of his shares?
Absolutely not. What on earth has came to light since then that could change that?
The optics of it absolutely stink. What on earth do you think might have change my mind. The board of a big pharma company sign off on agreement midway through the pandemic that enriches its CEO if their shares reach a certain price. They then push their vaccine through to get first to market and the share price reaches that level the day it is announced.
It is shocking corporate governance and it undermines any confidence people who would be wary of the vaccine might have.
You really should do some research on the business practices of Pfizer. They have show disregard to the public's heatlh time and time again in the order of increasing profits and wealth.
EMA have provisionally approved the Pfizer one.
Vaccinations to get underway next week.
Pfizer would never do anything wrong or not in the public's interest.
QuotePfizer, the world's largest drugs company, has been hit with the biggest criminal fine in US history as part of a $2.3bn settlement with federal prosecutors for mispromoting medicines and for paying kickbacks to compliant doctors.
In a blow to its reputation in the eyes of doctors and patients, Pfizer pleaded guilty to misbranding the painkiller Bextra, withdrawn from the market in 2004, by promoting the drug for uses that were not approved by medical regulators.
The New York-based company also settled civil allegations concerning improper payments to doctors who prescribed nine other pharmaceutical products, although it continues to deny these charges
QuotePHARMACEUTICAL GIANT PFIZER has been fined a record £84.2 million for charging
"excessive and unfair" prices for an anti-epilepsy drug in the UK.
The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said that prices for phenytoin sodium capsules increased by 2,600% overnight after the medicine was deliberately debranded in September 2012.
Despite claims from Pfizer that the drug was making a loss before it debranded, the CMA said that all such losses would have been recovered within two months of hiking the price.
The cost to the NHS for 100mg pack of the drug shot up from £2.83 to £67.50.
In 2012, the drug cost the NHS £2 million in total. In 2013, this rose to £50 million.
QuotePharmaceutical company Pfizer, Inc. (Pfizer), based in New York, NY, has agreed to pay $23.85 million to resolve claims that it used a foundation as a conduit to pay the copays of Medicare patients taking three Pfizer drugs, in violation of the False Claims Act, the Justice Department announced today.
When a Medicare beneficiary obtains a prescription drug covered by Medicare Part B or Part D, the beneficiary may be required to make a partial payment, which may take the form of a copayment, coinsurance, or deductible (collectively copays). Congress included copay requirements in the Medicare program, in part, to encourage market forces to serve as a check on health care costs, including the prices that pharmaceutical manufacturers can demand for their drugs. Under the Anti-Kickback Statute, a pharmaceutical company is prohibited from offering, directly or indirectly, any remuneration—which includes paying patients' copay obligations—to induce Medicare patients to purchase the company's drugs.
As part of today's settlement, the government alleged that Pfizer used a foundation as a conduit to pay the copay obligations of Medicare patients taking three Pfizer drugs: Sutent and Inlyta, which both treat renal cell carcinoma, and Tikosyn, which treats arrhythmia in patients with atrial fibrillation or atrial flutter. The government alleged that, in order to generate revenue, and instead of giving Sutent and Inlyta to Medicare patients who met the financial qualifications of Pfizer's existing free drug program, Pfizer used a third-party specialty pharmacy to transition certain patients to the foundation, which covered the patients' Medicare copays. Pfizer allegedly made donations to the foundation to enable it to cover the copays of these patients and received confirmation from the foundation, via the specialty pharmacy, that the foundation funded the copays.
There's one thing Pfizer and Big Pharma companies care about and that's money. It overrides any concern for the wellbeing of the general public and there is plenty of precedent there.
So there is reason for people to be both sceptical and cynical to big pharma, particularly around the rolling out of a vaccine in an unprecedented time period with a massive public will to approve.
So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 04:00:55 PM
So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?
Unrelated to safety????
Excuse me???
Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!
FFS.
The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 04:00:55 PM
So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?
Unrelated to safety????
Excuse me???
Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!
FFS.
The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.
The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec
The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.
https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 04:20:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 04:00:55 PM
So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?
Unrelated to safety????
Excuse me???
Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!
FFS.
The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.
The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec
The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.
https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5
So the prices just magically rose by 2600% and you don't see anything unethical about it and how people with illnesses are being deprived of affordable medication?
It shows the culture of Pfizer, money is king and they couldn't give a toss about the general health and wellbeing of their end user. If they can get away with killing them they don't mind.
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 04:20:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 04:00:55 PM
So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?
Unrelated to safety????
Excuse me???
Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!
FFS.
The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.
The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec
The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.
https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5
So the prices just magically rose by 2600% and you don't see anything unethical about it and how people with illnesses are being deprived of affordable medication?
It shows the culture of Pfizer, money is king and they couldn't give a toss about the general health and wellbeing of their end user. If they can get away with killing them they don't mind.
The courts don't think they're doing anything illegal. It's you who are misleading people by giving out fake/false information. Why did you include this case in your argument? You clearly wanted everyone to believe Pfizer had been found guilty of acting illegally
You keep insisting that their vaccine is unsafe because it's rushed. This case has nothing to do with that and CMA did not raise any issues with the quality of Pfizer's products so it actually disproves your argument they produce unsafe products
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 04:20:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 04:00:55 PM
So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?
Unrelated to safety????
Excuse me???
Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!
FFS.
The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.
The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec
The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.
https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5
So the prices just magically rose by 2600% and you don't see anything unethical about it and how people with illnesses are being deprived of affordable medication?
It shows the culture of Pfizer, money is king and they couldn't give a toss about the general health and wellbeing of their end user. If they can get away with killing them they don't mind.
If me or my family are unfortunate enough to need one of their vaccines, rare disease or oncological treatments then I'll grab it with both hands. You can the your chances without the drugs and see how you go.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 06:30:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 04:20:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 04:00:55 PM
So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?
Unrelated to safety????
Excuse me???
Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!
FFS.
The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.
The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec
The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.
https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5
So the prices just magically rose by 2600% and you don't see anything unethical about it and how people with illnesses are being deprived of affordable medication?
It shows the culture of Pfizer, money is king and they couldn't give a toss about the general health and wellbeing of their end user. If they can get away with killing them they don't mind.
If me or my family are unfortunate enough to need one of their vaccines, rare disease or oncological treatments then I'll grab it with both hands. You can the your chances without the drugs and see how you go.
Will you take the vaccine?
Saw a cartoon somewhere-a young kid asking her mother what was the scar on her arm.
Mammy said it was from her smallpox vaccination. Kid asked why didnt I get one? Mammy said "Because it worked"
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 06:58:50 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 06:30:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 04:20:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 04:00:55 PM
So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?
Unrelated to safety????
Excuse me???
Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!
FFS.
The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.
The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec
The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.
https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5
So the prices just magically rose by 2600% and you don't see anything unethical about it and how people with illnesses are being deprived of affordable medication?
It shows the culture of Pfizer, money is king and they couldn't give a toss about the general health and wellbeing of their end user. If they can get away with killing them they don't mind.
If me or my family are unfortunate enough to need one of their vaccines, rare disease or oncological treatments then I'll grab it with both hands. You can the your chances without the drugs and see how you go.
Will you take the vaccine?
Yes. I'm well down the list but I'll take it when I'm due to get it.
A definitive yes!
Good man TB
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 09:04:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 06:58:50 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 06:30:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 04:20:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 04:00:55 PM
So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?
Unrelated to safety????
Excuse me???
Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!
FFS.
The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.
The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec
The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.
https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5
So the prices just magically rose by 2600% and you don't see anything unethical about it and how people with illnesses are being deprived of affordable medication?
It shows the culture of Pfizer, money is king and they couldn't give a toss about the general health and wellbeing of their end user. If they can get away with killing them they don't mind.
If me or my family are unfortunate enough to need one of their vaccines, rare disease or oncological treatments then I'll grab it with both hands. You can the your chances without the drugs and see how you go.
Will you take the vaccine?
Yes. I'm well down the list but I'll take it when I'm due to get it.
Sh!t this post is going to create 7-8 pages of Seanie and Angelo saying you wouldn't take it!
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 09:04:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 06:58:50 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 06:30:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 04:20:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 04:00:55 PM
So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?
Unrelated to safety????
Excuse me???
Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!
FFS.
The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.
The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec
The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.
https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5
So the prices just magically rose by 2600% and you don't see anything unethical about it and how people with illnesses are being deprived of affordable medication?
It shows the culture of Pfizer, money is king and they couldn't give a toss about the general health and wellbeing of their end user. If they can get away with killing them they don't mind.
If me or my family are unfortunate enough to need one of their vaccines, rare disease or oncological treatments then I'll grab it with both hands. You can the your chances without the drugs and see how you go.
Will you take the vaccine?
Yes. I'm well down the list but I'll take it when I'm due to get it.
Good for you.
I'm going to look after my health and take all the necessary precautions to avoid Covid but as long as I have a choice I won't be getting the vaccine.
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 09:30:06 PM
I'm going to look after my health and take all the necessary precautions to avoid Covid but as long as I have a choice I won't be getting the vaccine.
Why?
For ten years taking precautions? You'll be able to spot in Tyrone! The Maskman!
Quote from: trileacman on December 21, 2020, 09:41:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 09:30:06 PM
I'm going to look after my health and take all the necessary precautions to avoid Covid but as long as I have a choice I won't be getting the vaccine.
Why?
Yep. A vaccine seems like a good precaution.
Quote
Sh!t this post is going to create 7-8 pages of Seanie and Angelo saying you wouldn't take it!
;D True!
Quote from: trileacman on December 21, 2020, 09:41:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 09:30:06 PM
I'm going to look after my health and take all the necessary precautions to avoid Covid but as long as I have a choice I won't be getting the vaccine.
Why?
Angelo doesn't need the vaccine. As he said himself he doesn't intend on getting covid
He has a tin foil hat with "No Covid here" written on it.
That should do the trick ::)
Mother in Law got her first jab the other day and I can report that she's still with us.
Quote from: trileacman on December 21, 2020, 09:41:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 09:30:06 PM
I'm going to look after my health and take all the necessary precautions to avoid Covid but as long as I have a choice I won't be getting the vaccine.
Why?
Covid is not a threat to my demograph in general terms. We know nothing about this virus yet other than there is massive public will to rush it through in an unprecedented timeline.
Quote from: Rossfan on December 22, 2020, 12:04:10 AM
He has a tin foil hat with "No Covid here" written on it.
That should do the trick ::)
Thought you were ignoring me sweet cheeks?
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 12:54:32 PM
No nor will any of my family.
Seaney the first page of this thread (will you take vaccine) you said no, and nor will my family!
Quote from: hardstation on December 22, 2020, 11:28:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 22, 2020, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: trileacman on December 21, 2020, 09:41:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 09:30:06 PM
I'm going to look after my health and take all the necessary precautions to avoid Covid but as long as I have a choice I won't be getting the vaccine.
Why?
Covid is not a threat to my demograph in general terms. We know nothing about this virus yet other than there is massive public will to rush it through in an unprecedented timeline.
The public want to rush the virus through? Bastids!
The vaccine, apologies.
Quote from: trailer on December 22, 2020, 10:03:22 AM
Mother in Law got her first jab the other day and I can report that she's still with us.
One of my siblings, a doctor who treats COVID patients, got it too. They're still hanging in there as well.
There is no doubt that these vaccines will materially help the situation in a couple of months.
Quote from: Angelo on December 22, 2020, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: trileacman on December 21, 2020, 09:41:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 09:30:06 PM
I'm going to look after my health and take all the necessary precautions to avoid Covid but as long as I have a choice I won't be getting the vaccine.
Why?
Covid is not a threat to my demograph in general terms. We know nothing about this virus yet other than there is massive public will to rush it through in an unprecedented timeline.
It's likely that the vaccine is no more dangerous than COVID. I'd take the vaccine just so I won't be a) taking COVID at some unfortunate time and b) pass COVID onto someone in a higher risk demographic.
Yes there's a risk with taking the vaccine but there's a much higher probability that by catching COVID and passing on the infection you'd be participating in a chain of infection that at some point in the future will kill someone. So the benefits far outweigh the risk.
Quote from: trileacman on December 22, 2020, 07:21:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 22, 2020, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: trileacman on December 21, 2020, 09:41:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 09:30:06 PM
I'm going to look after my health and take all the necessary precautions to avoid Covid but as long as I have a choice I won't be getting the vaccine.
Why?
Covid is not a threat to my demograph in general terms. We know nothing about this virus yet other than there is massive public will to rush it through in an unprecedented timeline.
It's likely that the vaccine is no more dangerous than COVID. I'd take the vaccine just so I won't be a) taking COVID at some unfortunate time and b) pass COVID onto someone in a higher risk demographic.
Yes there's a risk with taking the vaccine but there's a much higher probability that by catching COVID and passing on the infection you'd be participating in a chain of infection that at some point in the future will kill someone. So the benefits far outweigh the risk.
I hope and intend to get neither the vaccine or Covid.
The higher risk demographic are really the ones who will benefit from the vaccine and you'd imagine we should be in a position where the majority of those at risk are vaccinated by the end of spring.
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 12:54:32 PM
No nor will any of my family.
Seaney the first page of this thread (will you take vaccine) you said no, and nor will my family!
Jesus you are as thick as pigs shite, read the thread title.
Quote from: Seaney on December 22, 2020, 09:03:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 12:54:32 PM
No nor will any of my family.
Seaney the first page of this thread (will you take vaccine) you said no, and nor will my family!
Jesus you are as thick as pigs shite, read the thread title.
So thicko, the person that's in your family that you care for. Have they taken the vaccine?
Quote from: trileacman on December 22, 2020, 07:21:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 22, 2020, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: trileacman on December 21, 2020, 09:41:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 09:30:06 PM
I'm going to look after my health and take all the necessary precautions to avoid Covid but as long as I have a choice I won't be getting the vaccine.
Why?
Covid is not a threat to my demograph in general terms. We know nothing about this virus yet other than there is massive public will to rush it through in an unprecedented timeline.
It's likely that the vaccine is no more dangerous than COVID. I'd take the vaccine just so I won't be a) taking COVID at some unfortunate time and b) pass COVID onto someone in a higher risk demographic.
But are those two reasons the two that aren't covered by this vaccine? The vaccine prevents dangerous illness in 95% in those who take it, but doesn't prevent you getting it or transmitting it?
Quote from: ONeill on December 23, 2020, 07:47:31 AMThe vaccine prevents dangerous illness in 95% in those who take it, but doesn't prevent you getting it or transmitting it?
Its not yet proven that it prevents you transmitting it.
Same as its not yet proven that it doesn't prevent you transmitting it.
Simply a lack of information either way at this time. It's something that will just take time to sort.
To conclude it without any morals or regards for your "volunteers", you'd need to assemble two representative cohorts, vaccinate one cohort, then expose both to covid. After which, both would be monitored for shed viral particles.
Its a bit of a dilemma given that the set of untreated volunteers needs to be actively infected with covid (and could get very sick) to compare against. Its slightly less of a problem in that you are seeking to actively infect the vaccinated group too.
I suppose if they could establish a suitable protocol and find the resource, they could monitor existing covid patients. Wouldn't be quite as rigorous but don't let perfect be the enemy of good and all that.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
But if you get it, because in your mind you are healthy, you don't know you have got it and pass it on, is that ok?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 23, 2020, 10:23:45 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
But if you get it, because in your mind you are healthy, you don't know you have got it and pass it on, is that ok?
Getting the vaccine doesn't neccessarily mean I won't get the vaccine or pass it on. It likely means I won't get as sick (which in my demograph is a mild illness), there is no proof to say it would stop me catching or transmitting.
The elderly and vulnerable people with underlying conditions are those who will benefit from the vaccine.
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 10:30:18 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 23, 2020, 10:23:45 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
But if you get it, because in your mind you are healthy, you don't know you have got it and pass it on, is that ok?
Getting the vaccine doesn't neccessarily mean I won't get the vaccine or pass it on. It likely means I won't get as sick (which in my demograph is a mild illness), there is no proof to say it would stop me catching or transmitting.
The elderly and vulnerable people with underlying conditions are those who will benefit from the vaccine.
If there was proof?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 23, 2020, 10:39:42 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 10:30:18 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 23, 2020, 10:23:45 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
But if you get it, because in your mind you are healthy, you don't know you have got it and pass it on, is that ok?
Getting the vaccine doesn't neccessarily mean I won't get the vaccine or pass it on. It likely means I won't get as sick (which in my demograph is a mild illness), there is no proof to say it would stop me catching or transmitting.
The elderly and vulnerable people with underlying conditions are those who will benefit from the vaccine.
If there was proof?
You're talking about fiction now.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 10:31:26 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 22, 2020, 09:03:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 12:54:32 PM
No nor will any of my family.
Seaney the first page of this thread (will you take vaccine) you said no, and nor will my family!
Jesus you are as thick as pigs shite, read the thread title.
So thicko, the person that's in your family that you care for. Have they taken the vaccine?
No one in my care has had the vaccine, what's your point Milhouse?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 23, 2020, 10:23:45 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
But if you get it, because in your mind you are healthy, you don't know you have got it and pass it on, is that ok?
On the sauce again?
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
Some of us do know it's been satisfactorily tested. You can never give a guarantee on any vaccine, there's always a small level of risk. Just the same as you can't guarantee that you won't get and won't pass it on todo done vulnerable.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 11:47:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
Some of us do know it's been satisfactorily tested. You can never give a guarantee on any vaccine, there's always a small level of risk. Just the same as you can't guarantee that you won't get and won't pass it on todo done vulnerable.
How do you know?
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 11:47:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
Some of us do know it's been satisfactorily tested. You can never give a guarantee on any vaccine, there's always a small level of risk. Just the same as you can't guarantee that you won't get and won't pass it on todo done vulnerable.
How do you know?
Because I'm not stupid.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 12:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 11:47:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
Some of us do know it's been satisfactorily tested. You can never give a guarantee on any vaccine, there's always a small level of risk. Just the same as you can't guarantee that you won't get and won't pass it on todo done vulnerable.
How do you know?
Because I'm not stupid.
So you don't know.
Thanks for clarifying.
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 12:04:38 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 12:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 11:47:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
Some of us do know it's been satisfactorily tested. You can never give a guarantee on any vaccine, there's always a small level of risk. Just the same as you can't guarantee that you won't get and won't pass it on todo done vulnerable.
How do you know?
Because I'm not stupid.
So you don't know.
Thanks for clarifying.
Sorry just to clarify which question? Is the Vaccine safe - yes it's been through all required testing. Is there a risk of serious side effects? Yes between 1-2 in a million. Same all vaccines who have went through the same testing.
That you can't guarantee you won't get COVID - because I'm not stupid.
Quote from: Seaney on December 23, 2020, 11:36:24 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 10:31:26 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 22, 2020, 09:03:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 12:54:32 PM
No nor will any of my family.
Seaney the first page of this thread (will you take vaccine) you said no, and nor will my family!
Jesus you are as thick as pigs shite, read the thread title.
So thicko, the person that's in your family that you care for. Have they taken the vaccine?
No one in my care has had the vaccine, what's your point Milhouse?
I'm guessing Seymour, that's he is wondering (like the rest of us) about your posts which said you would end up having to give to said family member the vaccine?
Quote from: Chief on December 23, 2020, 12:31:30 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 23, 2020, 11:36:24 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 10:31:26 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 22, 2020, 09:03:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 12:54:32 PM
No nor will any of my family.
Seaney the first page of this thread (will you take vaccine) you said no, and nor will my family!
Jesus you are as thick as pigs shite, read the thread title.
So thicko, the person that's in your family that you care for. Have they taken the vaccine?
No one in my care has had the vaccine, what's your point Milhouse?
I'm guessing Seymour, that's he is wondering (like the rest of us) about your posts which said you would end up having to give to said family member the vaccine?
Can I clarify once again for the halfwits trying to score points of a care home resident. I, like you I am sure, are not in charge of my siblings or parents, I am also not a medical practitioner so won't be administering any vaccinations to anyone. My parent in care is not in my charge they are there under a Deprivation of Liberty from the Courts and Tibunals Service, so you and Milhouse wind your f**king necks in and have some human decency for folk not as well of as you and yours.
Quote from: Seaney on December 23, 2020, 01:13:17 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 23, 2020, 12:31:30 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 23, 2020, 11:36:24 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 10:31:26 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 22, 2020, 09:03:40 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 11:49:15 AM
Quote from: Seaney on October 22, 2020, 12:54:32 PM
No nor will any of my family.
Seaney the first page of this thread (will you take vaccine) you said no, and nor will my family!
Jesus you are as thick as pigs shite, read the thread title.
So thicko, the person that's in your family that you care for. Have they taken the vaccine?
No one in my care has had the vaccine, what's your point Milhouse?
I'm guessing Seymour, that's he is wondering (like the rest of us) about your posts which said you would end up having to give to said family member the vaccine?
Can I clarify once again for the halfwits trying to score points of a care home resident. I, like you I am sure, are not in charge of my siblings or parents, I am also not a medical practitioner so won't be administering any vaccinations to anyone. My parent in care is not in my charge they are there under a Deprivation of Liberty from the Courts and Tibunals Service, so you and Milhouse wind your f**king necks in and have some human decency for folk not as well of as you and yours.
When did I not show decency Seymour?
All I did was ask about someone you brought up in this forum and juxtaposed it against your publicly aired views.
To the extent you don't want to chat about it, don't raise it in a forum.
Given it's clearly personal I'm happy to leave it though. It's your business not mine.
I'll chat about anything, what you and Milhouse were doing was trying to score points with a care home resident, you show what type of person you are, we all knew Milhouses form.
Quote from: Seaney on December 23, 2020, 01:36:23 PM
I'll chat about anything, what you and Milhouse were doing was trying to score points with a care home resident, you show what type of person you are, we all knew Milhouses form.
You raised it to make a point did you not?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 12:04:38 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 12:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 11:47:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
Some of us do know it's been satisfactorily tested. You can never give a guarantee on any vaccine, there's always a small level of risk. Just the same as you can't guarantee that you won't get and won't pass it on todo done vulnerable.
How do you know?
Because I'm not stupid.
So you don't know.
Thanks for clarifying.
Sorry just to clarify which question? Is the Vaccine safe - yes it's been through all required testing. Is there a risk of serious side effects? Yes between 1-2 in a million. Same all vaccines who have went through the same testing.
That you can't guarantee you won't get COVID - because I'm not stupid.
Vaccines have gone through the testing before and been found to have side effects. This particular vaccine was rushed through an unprecedented timeline. We then have the issue of Big Pharma, an industry famed for disregarding the welfare of the end user of its products in favour of profits and a culture of bribes, kickbacks, inducements to approve/promote drugs they know could be harmful.
So the same risk of side effects as Covid would be to cause some in my demograph serious health problems?
The bottom line is we don't really know much about the vaccine yet, the coming months will inform us.
Quote from: Chief on December 23, 2020, 01:37:53 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 23, 2020, 01:36:23 PM
I'll chat about anything, what you and Milhouse were doing was trying to score points with a care home resident, you show what type of person you are, we all knew Milhouses form.
You raised it to make a point did you not?
He did, was waiting on being asked whether his person in care will be receiving the vaccine or not. As he didn't want it to be given without consent.
Anyway, I'm bored
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 01:40:28 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 12:04:38 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 12:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 11:47:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
Some of us do know it's been satisfactorily tested. You can never give a guarantee on any vaccine, there's always a small level of risk. Just the same as you can't guarantee that you won't get and won't pass it on todo done vulnerable.
How do you know?
Because I'm not stupid.
So you don't know.
Thanks for clarifying.
Sorry just to clarify which question? Is the Vaccine safe - yes it's been through all required testing. Is there a risk of serious side effects? Yes between 1-2 in a million. Same all vaccines who have went through the same testing.
That you can't guarantee you won't get COVID - because I'm not stupid.
Vaccines have gone through the testing before and been found to have side effects. This particular vaccine was rushed through an unprecedented timeline. We then have the issue of Big Pharma, an industry famed for disregarding the welfare of the end user of its products in favour of profits and a culture of bribes, kickbacks, inducements to approve/promote drugs they know could be harmful.
So the same risk of side effects as Covid would be to cause some in my demograph serious health problems?
The bottom line is we don't really know much about the vaccine yet, the coming months will inform us.
What % of vaccines cause serious side effects? I'll help you out it's roughly 1-2 in a million that require hospitalisation. So at the minute we have a vaccine that has been tested and passed by an industry that has a rate of 1: million of serious side effects. All this we know. So I'm quite happy to take this as my proof that the vaccine is OK. Certainly less of a risk than just believing I won't get it.
Angelo, would you be happier if it was a small Pharm company, rather the big Pharma ones?
The time line would be for you to know if it was safe is 0-5 years 5-10 years or 10+ years?
Last one, have you taken vaccines before?
Quote from: Chief on December 23, 2020, 01:37:53 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 23, 2020, 01:36:23 PM
I'll chat about anything, what you and Milhouse were doing was trying to score points with a care home resident, you show what type of person you are, we all knew Milhouses form.
You raised it to make a point did you not?
Yeah I made a point based on my own experiences I didn't try to use someone's misfortune to score a cheap point.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 23, 2020, 01:53:39 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 23, 2020, 01:37:53 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 23, 2020, 01:36:23 PM
I'll chat about anything, what you and Milhouse were doing was trying to score points with a care home resident, you show what type of person you are, we all knew Milhouses form.
You raised it to make a point did you not?
He did, was waiting on being asked whether his person in care will be receiving the vaccine or not. As he didn't want it to be given without consent.
Anyway, I'm bored
You are also a selfish self centred individual whose only purpose on here is to try and make yourself feel superior and to hell with everyone and anyone. Bet your family and popping the champagne knowing you wont be over this Christmas.
Step away from the eggnog Seany! ;D
Quote from: Seaney on December 23, 2020, 03:13:18 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 23, 2020, 01:53:39 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 23, 2020, 01:37:53 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 23, 2020, 01:36:23 PM
I'll chat about anything, what you and Milhouse were doing was trying to score points with a care home resident, you show what type of person you are, we all knew Milhouses form.
You raised it to make a point did you not?
He did, was waiting on being asked whether his person in care will be receiving the vaccine or not. As he didn't want it to be given without consent.
Anyway, I'm bored
You are also a selfish self centred individual whose only purpose on here is to try and make yourself feel superior and to hell with everyone and anyone. Bet your family and popping the champagne knowing you wont be over this Christmas.
Have a lovely xmas
Quote from: JoG2 on December 23, 2020, 03:24:57 PM
Step away from the eggnog Seany! ;D
Bet that give you a semi, another one who couldn't communicate in the real world.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 23, 2020, 03:32:05 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 23, 2020, 03:13:18 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 23, 2020, 01:53:39 PM
Quote from: Chief on December 23, 2020, 01:37:53 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 23, 2020, 01:36:23 PM
I'll chat about anything, what you and Milhouse were doing was trying to score points with a care home resident, you show what type of person you are, we all knew Milhouses form.
You raised it to make a point did you not?
He did, was waiting on being asked whether his person in care will be receiving the vaccine or not. As he didn't want it to be given without consent.
Anyway, I'm bored
You are also a selfish self centred individual whose only purpose on here is to try and make yourself feel superior and to hell with everyone and anyone. Bet your family and popping the champagne knowing you wont be over this Christmas.
Have a lovely xmas
You are a parasite of a human being, you can comment on any topic but end game is you think you are special, above everyone, your family will enjoy Christmas away from your bile, bet your the family member whom everyone hates.
You are a lovely guy. I hope you have great new year
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 12:42:57 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 20, 2020, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.
The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.
The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm
My concerns are over the safety of the vaccine, not its effectiveness.
You should pay more attention.
Do you have different concerns over the different vaccines or is it a blanket approach?
Perhaps if could set out your safety concerns for each approved vaccine?
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 01:41:27 PM
I've told you how big pharma are only interested in the bottom line
Do you grow ALL your own food and produce all your own alcohol, medications etc? Or do you get it exclusively from non commercial suppliers?
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 01:41:27 PM
they regularly bribe approvers, doctors and medical institutions to promote and sanction drugs they know they are severe concerns of.
That is a huge allegation against Oxford university. Link to the evidence please?
Also post the link to proof of MHRA taking back handers?
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 01:41:27 PM
We also know this is an unprecedented turnaround for a vaccine
Do you really need this explained to again Des?
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 01:41:27 PM
there is huge pressure on to be approved.
Show the evidence of the pressure on the MHRA and then explain why the MHRA delayed the approval of the Oxford vaccine until they entirely satisfied?
If the above is the thing you are relying on when you said you had already set out your position then I think you should start to consideration as to why if your points are so good why your posts are so poor.
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 09:30:06 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 09:04:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 06:58:50 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 06:30:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 21, 2020, 04:20:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 04:02:24 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 21, 2020, 04:00:55 PM
So 2 examples unrelated to safety and one example with potential safety implications from over 16 years ago. The CEO is willing to jeopardise the health of tens of millions of people and a product recall resulting in a tanked share price for a personal lift of 700k?
Unrelated to safety????
Excuse me???
Promoting drugs not even approved by market regulators!!!!!!
FFS.
The CEO and Pfizer's board quite clearly don't care about anything other than their own self-interests.
The verdict in the 2nd case you referenced was actually overturned on appeal.
https://www.ft.com/content/d7f6197a-6a58-11e8-8cf3-0c230fa67aec
The CMA then failed to have this decision reversed. Strange you don't mention that when you linked the original verdict. You must be aware of it given you seem to know so much about how big pharma/corporate CEOs operate.
https://www.ft.com/content/9210d88a-62f1-11ea-b3f3-fe4680ea68b5
So the prices just magically rose by 2600% and you don't see anything unethical about it and how people with illnesses are being deprived of affordable medication?
It shows the culture of Pfizer, money is king and they couldn't give a toss about the general health and wellbeing of their end user. If they can get away with killing them they don't mind.
If me or my family are unfortunate enough to need one of their vaccines, rare disease or oncological treatments then I'll grab it with both hands. You can the your chances without the drugs and see how you go.
Will you take the vaccine?
Yes. I'm well down the list but I'll take it when I'm due to get it.
Good for you.
I'm going to look after my health and take all the necessary precautions to avoid Covid but as long as I have a choice I won't be getting the vaccine.
Please also do all that you can to take care of the health of others
Quote from: Angelo on December 22, 2020, 10:58:35 AM
Quote from: trileacman on December 21, 2020, 09:41:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 09:30:06 PM
I'm going to look after my health and take all the necessary precautions to avoid Covid but as long as I have a choice I won't be getting the vaccine.
Why?
Covid is not a threat to my demograph in general terms. We know nothing about this virus yet other than there is massive public will to rush it through in an unprecedented timeline.
What about the people around you? Or the people around those in your demographic??
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
So the Angelo plan is to maintain the social restrictions forever?
Quote from: LCohen on December 31, 2020, 03:22:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 12:42:57 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 20, 2020, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.
The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.
The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm
My concerns are over the safety of the vaccine, not its effectiveness.
You should pay more attention.
Do you have different concerns over the different vaccines or is it a blanket approach?
Perhaps if could set out your safety concerns for each approved vaccine?
What other vaccines? I haven't taken or have had the need to take a vaccine in my adult life.
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
Sicken him and answer the questions, that'll show him/ shut him up.
come on you're better than that, more intelligent Let him have it!!
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 01:40:28 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 12:13:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 12:04:38 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 12:01:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 12:01:08 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on December 23, 2020, 11:47:19 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 23, 2020, 09:47:52 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 22, 2020, 08:52:13 PM
Yes Angelo be great to eat Kentucky fried chicken and not get fat but the reality is very simple if you put yourself in a position or if your family put you in a position that youse catch Covid then the chances are you have already spread it, do the sensible thing and take the vaccine that will hopefully minimise your illness and the illness of others.
Anyone who feels that they are taking precautions and won't get it is stupid. I've known plenty who have 'taken precautions' and got it
And there is no proof the vaccine will stop me catching the vaccine and transmitting it either. The best way of contracting the virus is to follow all the guidelines between limiting contacts and hygiene, which I have done and will continue to do so. If I was happy that this vaccine was satisfactorily tested and completely safe I would have no issue getting it but none of us know that yet and as Covid only really causes mild illness to people of my demograph then that makes my mind up.
Some of us do know it's been satisfactorily tested. You can never give a guarantee on any vaccine, there's always a small level of risk. Just the same as you can't guarantee that you won't get and won't pass it on todo done vulnerable.
How do you know?
Because I'm not stupid.
So you don't know.
Thanks for clarifying.
Sorry just to clarify which question? Is the Vaccine safe - yes it's been through all required testing. Is there a risk of serious side effects? Yes between 1-2 in a million. Same all vaccines who have went through the same testing.
That you can't guarantee you won't get COVID - because I'm not stupid.
Vaccines have gone through the testing before and been found to have side effects. This particular vaccine was rushed through an unprecedented timeline. We then have the issue of Big Pharma, an industry famed for disregarding the welfare of the end user of its products in favour of profits and a culture of bribes, kickbacks, inducements to approve/promote drugs they know could be harmful.
So the same risk of side effects as Covid would be to cause some in my demograph serious health problems?
The bottom line is we don't really know much about the vaccine yet, the coming months will inform us.
Do any of the products you consume (say food, drink, medicines, toiletries or cosmetics) have any side effects?
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 03:59:38 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 31, 2020, 03:22:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 21, 2020, 12:42:57 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on December 20, 2020, 09:09:20 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 20, 2020, 02:17:38 PM
Looks like the new don't look at the No Deal UK strain might need a new vaccine!
Looks like Seany/Angelo needs to delete another of their Covid theories.
The US surgeon general does not think the variant will be immune to the vaccine.
The deputy head of Europe's biology laboratory researching Covid 19 also does not think the new strain will be immune to any vaccine but will do tests to confirm
My concerns are over the safety of the vaccine, not its effectiveness.
You should pay more attention.
Do you have different concerns over the different vaccines or is it a blanket approach?
Perhaps if could set out your safety concerns for each approved vaccine?
What other vaccines? I haven't taken or have had the need to take a vaccine in my adult life.
There was something in the news about another Covid-19 vaccine.
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
I asked you a range of questions. Your only response was to ask a question which I have answered. Ball back in your court.
The issue of me not answering questions has been raised before and didn't pan out well for those making the allegation. They only succeeded in shooting them selves in foot. But have a go sure
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 31, 2020, 04:04:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
Sicken him and answer the questions, that'll show him/ shut him up.
come on you're better than that, more intelligent Let him have it!!
I've done that and he comes back two weeks later answering the same questions that have previously been answered two weeks later and refusing point blank to answer any himself.
Maybe he has amnesia.
Quote from: LCohen on December 31, 2020, 04:10:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
I asked you a range of questions. Your only response was to ask a question which I have answered. Ball back in your court.
The issue of me not answering questions has been raised before and didn't pan out well for those making the allegation. They only succeeded in shooting them selves in foot. But have a go sure
I have answered all these questions before.
It takes some level of hypocrisy to demand repeat answers to questions that have been dealt with on numerous occasions while you don't have the decency to answer questions yourself.
I agree it didn't pan out well before as you point blank refused to answer questions when you were asked them again. It's pointless asking you to show the same courtesy you demand off others.
Now that science has come up with at least three vaccines for Covid, perhaps they could move on to producing a vaccine against Angelo
Quote from: sid waddell on December 31, 2020, 04:59:07 PM
Now that science has come up with at least three vaccines for Covid, perhaps they could move on to producing a vaccine against Angelo
Has he found any poor optics for the Oxford vaccine? I'm sure he has been furiously googling cases against all the vaccine manufacturers.
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 31, 2020, 04:10:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
I asked you a range of questions. Your only response was to ask a question which I have answered. Ball back in your court.
The issue of me not answering questions has been raised before and didn't pan out well for those making the allegation. They only succeeded in shooting them selves in foot. But have a go sure
I have answered all these questions before.
It takes some level of hypocrisy to demand repeat answers to questions that have been dealt with on numerous occasions while you don't have the decency to answer questions yourself.
I agree it didn't pan out well before as you point blank refused to answer questions when you were asked them again. It's pointless asking you to show the same courtesy you demand off others.
Answering a question with a question is your go to strategy. You're nothing but a hypocrite. Yet again a poster on this MB is calling you out on this. It's your standard operating procedure, especially on this thread. Vague accusations against CEOs and 'Big Pharma" is the only answer or support you give for your opinions
Quote from: Tony Baloney on December 31, 2020, 05:05:43 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on December 31, 2020, 04:59:07 PM
Now that science has come up with at least three vaccines for Covid, perhaps they could move on to producing a vaccine against Angelo
Has he found any poor optics for the Oxford vaccine? I'm sure he has been furiously googling cases against all the vaccine manufacturers.
Hopefully he actually reads what he Google's this time, rather than just cutting and pasting it. The last time he referenced a case Pfizer won instead of lost disproving his mad theories
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 31, 2020, 04:04:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
Sicken him and answer the questions, that'll show him/ shut him up.
come on you're better than that, more intelligent Let him have it!!
What a complete embarrassment you are, nip round and suck him off ffs, total tool of a man.
A few of your recent posts have been quite saucy Seany, it's a bucket of cold water you need and not a vaccine!
Not looking forward to the ICU numbers in Jan, but we're so close vaccine wise. Hang in there everyone and here's to a great 2021.
Quote from: Seaney on December 31, 2020, 07:54:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 31, 2020, 04:04:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
Sicken him and answer the questions, that'll show him/ shut him up.
come on you're better than that, more intelligent Let him have it!!
What a complete embarrassment you are, nip round and suck him off ffs, total tool of a man.
Your mum must be proud and I'd imagine you're kids are wee dotes..
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55503739 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-55503739)
Now they are just making it up.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 31, 2020, 08:31:28 PM
Quote from: Seaney on December 31, 2020, 07:54:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 31, 2020, 04:04:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
Sicken him and answer the questions, that'll show him/ shut him up.
come on you're better than that, more intelligent Let him have it!!
What a complete embarrassment you are, nip round and suck him off ffs, total tool of a man.
Your mum must be proud and I'd imagine you're kids are wee dotes..
Whereas daddy being a complete embarrassment like you are must be super proud for your kids. Oh unknown poster you are so much more intelligent than another unknown poster, you should f**k off with the biggest redner on the board. And there's you calling out dicks. ;D
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:40:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 31, 2020, 04:04:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
Sicken him and answer the questions, that'll show him/ shut him up.
come on you're better than that, more intelligent Let him have it!!
I've done that and he comes back two weeks later answering the same questions that have previously been answered two weeks later and refusing point blank to answer any himself.
Maybe he has amnesia.
Really simple request then - repost the posts that contain your answers.
Could not be more simple
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 31, 2020, 04:10:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
I asked you a range of questions. Your only response was to ask a question which I have answered. Ball back in your court.
The issue of me not answering questions has been raised before and didn't pan out well for those making the allegation. They only succeeded in shooting them selves in foot. But have a go sure
I have answered all these questions before.
It takes some level of hypocrisy to demand repeat answers to questions that have been dealt with on numerous occasions while you don't have the decency to answer questions yourself.
I agree it didn't pan out well before as you point blank refused to answer questions when you were asked them again. It's pointless asking you to show the same courtesy you demand off others.
So help me out.
Repost your earlier posts with the answers. A google search indicates these posts don't exist. You claim that they do. Find them and post them.
Post any questions that have been asked of me that I have not answered.
Could not be easier.
Quote from: Seaney on December 31, 2020, 07:54:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 31, 2020, 04:04:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
Sicken him and answer the questions, that'll show him/ shut him up.
come on you're better than that, more intelligent Let him have it!!
What a complete embarrassment you are, nip round and suck him off ffs, total tool of a man.
Honest question- do you have children or are you in any way responsible for the care of people younger than you?
Quote from: LCohen on January 01, 2021, 10:27:30 AM
Quote from: Seaney on December 31, 2020, 07:54:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on December 31, 2020, 04:04:25 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
Sicken him and answer the questions, that'll show him/ shut him up.
come on you're better than that, more intelligent Let him have it!!
What a complete embarrassment you are, nip round and suck him off ffs, total tool of a man.
Honest question- do you have children or are you in any way responsible for the care of people younger than you?
Couldn't care for himself never mind others, probably the rut of the family
Censorship is a step not to be taken lightly but surely this forum must give serious consideration to the futures of some accounts?
I am completely aware that many of my views are not in keeping with the majority view on some issues but generally things are kept civil and fact based. If these auto-gainsaying accounts are not addressed then this forum (or any thread those accounts choose to patronise) will become dysfunctional and ultimately wind up.
WUMs and in-house trolls are never helpful but these accounts are a step beyond
Who was the last person to be banned? I don't think moderating is happening any more.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 01, 2021, 12:04:41 PM
Who was the last person to be banned? I don't think moderating is happening any more.
Bring back Tony Fearon.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk (https://www.omnicalculator.com/health/vaccine-queue-uk)
I am due one in July 2022!
Close thread - doubt anyone on here getting it this year - Milhouse be relieved!
Quote from: LCohen on January 01, 2021, 10:25:52 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 31, 2020, 04:10:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
I asked you a range of questions. Your only response was to ask a question which I have answered. Ball back in your court.
The issue of me not answering questions has been raised before and didn't pan out well for those making the allegation. They only succeeded in shooting them selves in foot. But have a go sure
I have answered all these questions before.
It takes some level of hypocrisy to demand repeat answers to questions that have been dealt with on numerous occasions while you don't have the decency to answer questions yourself.
I agree it didn't pan out well before as you point blank refused to answer questions when you were asked them again. It's pointless asking you to show the same courtesy you demand off others.
So help me out.
Repost your earlier posts with the answers. A google search indicates these posts don't exist. You claim that they do. Find them and post them.
Post any questions that have been asked of me that I have not answered.
Could not be easier.
They exist, if you bother to go back and reread this thread you will find them.
Don't be so lazy.
Quote from: Angelo on January 04, 2021, 03:46:19 PM
Quote from: LCohen on January 01, 2021, 10:25:52 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 31, 2020, 04:10:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
I asked you a range of questions. Your only response was to ask a question which I have answered. Ball back in your court.
The issue of me not answering questions has been raised before and didn't pan out well for those making the allegation. They only succeeded in shooting them selves in foot. But have a go sure
I have answered all these questions before.
It takes some level of hypocrisy to demand repeat answers to questions that have been dealt with on numerous occasions while you don't have the decency to answer questions yourself.
I agree it didn't pan out well before as you point blank refused to answer questions when you were asked them again. It's pointless asking you to show the same courtesy you demand off others.
So help me out.
Repost your earlier posts with the answers. A google search indicates these posts don't exist. You claim that they do. Find them and post them.
Post any questions that have been asked of me that I have not answered.
Could not be easier.
They exist, if you bother to go back and reread this thread you will find them.
Don't be so lazy.
They don't exist. That is why I can't find them. You say they do exist but can't produce any evidence of them. All I am doing is calling out your Trumpesque performance
Angelo
A quick glance over recent weeks does not show you up in a great light for getting around to answering questions. And that is only the questions posed by me. Others have asked you questions as well. Not much coming back there either. Then there are questions asked more than a few weeks ago and the questions posed to your confrere accounts.
But just sticking to the first category:
If you have a problem with the pace of the development and approval you must have a concern that something has been left out. So what bit?
Do you grow ALL your own food and produce all your own alcohol, medications etc? Or do you get it exclusively from non commercial suppliers?
What about the people around you? Or the people around those in your demographic? Will they all be safe unvaccinated or if you or others in your demographic return to business as usual unvaccinated?
Is your alternative to maintain the social restrictions forever?
What is your evidence of Oxford university AND MHRA taking bribes re the vaccine development?
Show the evidence of the pressure on the MHRA and then explain why the MHRA delayed the approval of the Oxford vaccine until they entirely satisfied?
Do you have different concerns over the different vaccines or is it a blanket approach?
Do any of the products you consume (say food, drink, medicines, toiletries or cosmetics) have any side effects?
Well any answers?
Ah yeah.
The barrage of questions which have already been answered.
Quote from: LCohen on January 05, 2021, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 04, 2021, 03:46:19 PM
Quote from: LCohen on January 01, 2021, 10:25:52 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 31, 2020, 04:10:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
I asked you a range of questions. Your only response was to ask a question which I have answered. Ball back in your court.
The issue of me not answering questions has been raised before and didn't pan out well for those making the allegation. They only succeeded in shooting them selves in foot. But have a go sure
I have answered all these questions before.
It takes some level of hypocrisy to demand repeat answers to questions that have been dealt with on numerous occasions while you don't have the decency to answer questions yourself.
I agree it didn't pan out well before as you point blank refused to answer questions when you were asked them again. It's pointless asking you to show the same courtesy you demand off others.
So help me out.
Repost your earlier posts with the answers. A google search indicates these posts don't exist. You claim that they do. Find them and post them.
Post any questions that have been asked of me that I have not answered.
Could not be easier.
They exist, if you bother to go back and reread this thread you will find them.
Don't be so lazy.
They don't exist. That is why I can't find them. You say they do exist but can't produce any evidence of them. All I am doing is calling out your Trumpesque performance
They're there. You know it but are extremely disingenuous when it comes to debating and only seek to muddy and frustrate.
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 11:38:31 AM
Ah yeah.
The barrage of questions which have already been answered.
So repost the answers. Could not be easier?
I will make it even easier. If you don't like the answer you previously gave then change it for a new one.
As I said. Could not be easier
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 11:39:52 AM
Quote from: LCohen on January 05, 2021, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 04, 2021, 03:46:19 PM
Quote from: LCohen on January 01, 2021, 10:25:52 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 31, 2020, 04:10:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
I asked you a range of questions. Your only response was to ask a question which I have answered. Ball back in your court.
The issue of me not answering questions has been raised before and didn't pan out well for those making the allegation. They only succeeded in shooting them selves in foot. But have a go sure
I have answered all these questions before.
It takes some level of hypocrisy to demand repeat answers to questions that have been dealt with on numerous occasions while you don't have the decency to answer questions yourself.
I agree it didn't pan out well before as you point blank refused to answer questions when you were asked them again. It's pointless asking you to show the same courtesy you demand off others.
So help me out.
Repost your earlier posts with the answers. A google search indicates these posts don't exist. You claim that they do. Find them and post them.
Post any questions that have been asked of me that I have not answered.
Could not be easier.
They exist, if you bother to go back and reread this thread you will find them.
Don't be so lazy.
They don't exist. That is why I can't find them. You say they do exist but can't produce any evidence of them. All I am doing is calling out your Trumpesque performance
They're there. You know it but are extremely disingenuous when it comes to debating and only seek to muddy and frustrate.
Wha???
I am not being disingenuous. I ask questions. I answer those posed of me. I tell the truth.
You ask questions. Pretend they have not been answered. And then repeat the claim when asked for evidence to back it up. When questions are asked of you you don't answer them. Then claim to have answered them. Then repeat the claim and fail to provide any evidence to support your claim. As a poster you are completely exposed as a fraud
Quote from: LCohen on January 05, 2021, 11:44:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 11:39:52 AM
Quote from: LCohen on January 05, 2021, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 04, 2021, 03:46:19 PM
Quote from: LCohen on January 01, 2021, 10:25:52 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 31, 2020, 04:10:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
I asked you a range of questions. Your only response was to ask a question which I have answered. Ball back in your court.
The issue of me not answering questions has been raised before and didn't pan out well for those making the allegation. They only succeeded in shooting them selves in foot. But have a go sure
I have answered all these questions before.
It takes some level of hypocrisy to demand repeat answers to questions that have been dealt with on numerous occasions while you don't have the decency to answer questions yourself.
I agree it didn't pan out well before as you point blank refused to answer questions when you were asked them again. It's pointless asking you to show the same courtesy you demand off others.
So help me out.
Repost your earlier posts with the answers. A google search indicates these posts don't exist. You claim that they do. Find them and post them.
Post any questions that have been asked of me that I have not answered.
Could not be easier.
They exist, if you bother to go back and reread this thread you will find them.
Don't be so lazy.
They don't exist. That is why I can't find them. You say they do exist but can't produce any evidence of them. All I am doing is calling out your Trumpesque performance
They're there. You know it but are extremely disingenuous when it comes to debating and only seek to muddy and frustrate.
Wha???
I am not being disingenuous. I ask questions. I answer those posed of me. I tell the truth.
You ask questions. Pretend they have not been answered. And then repeat the claim when asked for evidence to back it up. When questions are asked of you you don't answer them. Then claim to have answered them. Then repeat the claim and fail to provide any evidence to support your claim. As a poster you are completely exposed as a fraud
Let's be clear, you ask repeat quesitons already answered and refuse to answer any yourself.
There is one fraud here.
He turns up at a certain time every week, posts about 10 successive posts with questions already answered. Fucks off and comes a back a week later to do the same.
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 11:46:40 AM
Quote from: LCohen on January 05, 2021, 11:44:25 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 11:39:52 AM
Quote from: LCohen on January 05, 2021, 11:09:44 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 04, 2021, 03:46:19 PM
Quote from: LCohen on January 01, 2021, 10:25:52 AM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:42:09 PM
Quote from: LCohen on December 31, 2020, 04:10:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on December 31, 2020, 04:00:32 PM
The LCohen strategy of bombarding posters with questions while not answering any posed to him is in full flow again.
I asked you a range of questions. Your only response was to ask a question which I have answered. Ball back in your court.
The issue of me not answering questions has been raised before and didn't pan out well for those making the allegation. They only succeeded in shooting them selves in foot. But have a go sure
I have answered all these questions before.
It takes some level of hypocrisy to demand repeat answers to questions that have been dealt with on numerous occasions while you don't have the decency to answer questions yourself.
I agree it didn't pan out well before as you point blank refused to answer questions when you were asked them again. It's pointless asking you to show the same courtesy you demand off others.
So help me out.
Repost your earlier posts with the answers. A google search indicates these posts don't exist. You claim that they do. Find them and post them.
Post any questions that have been asked of me that I have not answered.
Could not be easier.
They exist, if you bother to go back and reread this thread you will find them.
Don't be so lazy.
They don't exist. That is why I can't find them. You say they do exist but can't produce any evidence of them. All I am doing is calling out your Trumpesque performance
They're there. You know it but are extremely disingenuous when it comes to debating and only seek to muddy and frustrate.
Wha???
I am not being disingenuous. I ask questions. I answer those posed of me. I tell the truth.
You ask questions. Pretend they have not been answered. And then repeat the claim when asked for evidence to back it up. When questions are asked of you you don't answer them. Then claim to have answered them. Then repeat the claim and fail to provide any evidence to support your claim. As a poster you are completely exposed as a fraud
Let's be clear, you ask repeat quesitons already answered and refuse to answer any yourself.
There is one fraud here.
He turns up at a certain time every week, posts about 10 successive posts with questions already answered. Fucks off and comes a back a week later to do the same.
But Milhouse says he's a genius !
Quote from: LCohen on January 05, 2021, 11:40:53 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 11:38:31 AM
Ah yeah.
The barrage of questions which have already been answered.
So repost the answers. Could not be easier?
I will make it even easier. If you don't like the answer you previously gave then change it for a new one.
As I said. Could not be easier
You don't have to stay on this page you great wordsmith, you can click on the wee numbers there and read back.
Lads I post the evidence.
You boys just post allegations and can't back it up.
Like a couple of Trump fan boys.
Quote from: LCohen on January 05, 2021, 11:55:16 AM
Lads I post the evidence.
You boys just post allegations and can't back it up.
Like a couple of Trump fan boys.
You don't post evidence.
You ask incessant repeat question in a barrage format that have already been answered.
And then you bring Trump in out of nowhere, you're a beaten docket whose only weapon (repeat questions already answered) has been taken away from him.
Quote from: LCohen on January 05, 2021, 11:55:16 AM
Lads I post the evidence.
You boys just post allegations and can't back it up.
Like a couple of Trump fan boys.
In fairness that did make me laugh.
Quote from: Seaney on January 05, 2021, 12:07:45 PM
Quote from: LCohen on January 05, 2021, 11:55:16 AM
Lads I post the evidence.
You boys just post allegations and can't back it up.
Like a couple of Trump fan boys.
In fairness that did make me laugh.
Pot Kettle Black?
Im still waiting on your evidence saying care homes are collateral damage when distributing the vaccine.
Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?
Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.
But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:18:49 PM
Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?
Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.
But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.
Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.
But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.
so no alternative
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 12:28:52 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:18:49 PM
Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?
Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.
But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.
Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.
But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.
Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.
*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.
Can any of the sane posters here imagine what would have happened if we had carried on as normal from last March without restrictions/lockdowns???
Quote from: Rossfan on January 05, 2021, 01:11:55 PM
Can any of the sane posters here imagine what would have happened if we had carried on as normal from last March without restrictions/lockdowns???
Can any sane poster here point out to this idiot where someone has advocated for ZERO restrictions like before March 2019??
No, didn't think so.
This is the type of crap you have to deal with from idiots on here and it rules out any kind of informed and progressive discussion on this.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 05, 2021, 12:40:17 PM
so no alternative
Already offered. Do you have problems reading?
Quote from: Rossfan on January 05, 2021, 01:11:55 PM
Can any of the sane posters here imagine what would have happened if we had carried on as normal from last March without restrictions/lockdowns???
Absolute carnage.
Much like the way New York was at one stage with mass graves only it going on much longer.
Lockdowns havent eradicated the virus but they have helped slow it in some form - it would have slowed it down much more if more stringent lockdowns/enforcing of lockdowns had been done
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:19:02 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 05, 2021, 01:11:55 PM
Can any of the sane posters here imagine what would have happened if we had carried on as normal from last March without restrictions/lockdowns???
Can any sane poster here point out to this idiot where someone has advocated for ZERO restrictions like before March 2019??
No, didn't think so.
This is the type of crap you have to deal with from idiots on here and it rules out any kind of informed and progressive discussion on this.
I would imagine the same idiot would have got the year right
Quote from: Rossfan on January 05, 2021, 01:11:55 PM
Can any of the sane posters here imagine what would have happened if we had carried on as normal from last March without restrictions/lockdowns???
It has been a constant source of despondence to me how Professor Neil Ferguson has been vilified by the right-wing pseudo science crowd, merely for pointing out that disaster lay ahead for Britain had it continued on the trajectory it was headed for last March
What occurred was a disaster anyway, but it would have been multiple times greater in magnitude otherwise
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:52:36 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 12:28:52 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:18:49 PM
Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?
Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.
But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.
Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.
But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.
Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.
*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.
They certainly have failed.
Lockdown 3.0 with record numbers.
It might slow down our COVID death toll but you are thinking of this matter through a COVID tunnel vision. Lockdowns might stop the spread of COVID to a certain degree but bring huge negative consequences to vulnerable groupings nevermind the widespread, long term devastating impacts they have.
Not a single confirmed case of flu this year yet Covid is rampant? Is nobody skeptical of this or at least a little bit curious?
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 01:21:43 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:19:02 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 05, 2021, 01:11:55 PM
Can any of the sane posters here imagine what would have happened if we had carried on as normal from last March without restrictions/lockdowns???
Can any sane poster here point out to this idiot where someone has advocated for ZERO restrictions like before March 2019??
No, didn't think so.
This is the type of crap you have to deal with from idiots on here and it rules out any kind of informed and progressive discussion on this.
I would imagine the same idiot would have got the year right
No difference.
It shows the level of misleading and disingenuous debate people like Rossfan engage in.
Nobody, I repeat nobody, I have seen on this thread has ever advocated no restrictions yet Rossfan has now created a strawman argument because he is unable to debate with people on the real issue here.
Why are the pro lockdown crew so willing to dismiss how prolonged lockdown restrictions have serious repercussions on society.
I am looking for a reasonable debate here where people can stand back and look at the pros and cons of both sides and see which cours of action is best but consistently you have what we have just seen from the likes of Rossfan.
Illogical, dismissive, dogmatic strawman arguments.
f**k everyone else because it doesn't bother him.
The first lockdown was entirely correct thing to do but governments all across Europe fucked it up royally and failed to address the fundamental issues and are now using lockdown to diminish their responsibility.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 05, 2021, 12:40:17 PM
so no alternative
;D Doesn't work like that Padraig. Accounts either created by themselves for some kind of weird amusement or by the board-keepers to generate conversation. It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition!
Quote from: JoG2 on January 05, 2021, 01:32:49 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 05, 2021, 12:40:17 PM
so no alternative
;D Doesn't work like that Padraig. Accounts either created by themselves for some kind of weird amusement or by the board-keepers to generate conversation. It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition!
The alternative has been discussed at length here but the slow learners seem to have an awful hard time understanding.
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:23:24 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:52:36 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 12:28:52 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:18:49 PM
Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?
Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.
But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.
Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.
But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.
Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.
*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.
They certainly have failed.
Lockdown 3.0 with record numbers.
It might slow down our COVID death toll but you are thinking of this matter through a COVID tunnel vision. Lockdowns might stop the spread of COVID to a certain degree but bring huge negative consequences to vulnerable groupings nevermind the widespread, long term devastating impacts they have.
Not a single confirmed case of flu this year yet Covid is rampant? Is nobody skeptical of this or at least a little bit curious?
Not one case of flu?
Anyways catching the flu is based on close contacts, they have been dramatically reduced due to washing hands sanitizing and wearing masks..
So I wouldn't look at that as a bad thing, we should do that every year and it might bring that flu problem down.
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:34:24 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on January 05, 2021, 01:32:49 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 05, 2021, 12:40:17 PM
so no alternative
;D Doesn't work like that Padraig. Accounts either created by themselves for some kind of weird amusement or by the board-keepers to generate conversation. It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition! It's the repetition, oh the repetition!
The alternative has been discussed at length here but the slow learners seem to have an awful hard time understanding.
Blah blah blah .. Sooner you're off furlough and back to normality the better for everyone ;)
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:20:00 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 05, 2021, 12:40:17 PM
so no alternative
Already offered. Do you have problems reading?
you directly replied to a person asking for alternatives. you provided none in your reply.. i dont give a f**k what you did or didnt say previously...
you seem happy to repeat that you already provided a reply previously over and over again but not the actual alternatives... why is that i wonder?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 05, 2021, 01:34:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:23:24 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:52:36 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 12:28:52 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:18:49 PM
Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?
Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.
But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.
Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.
But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.
Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.
*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.
They certainly have failed.
Lockdown 3.0 with record numbers.
It might slow down our COVID death toll but you are thinking of this matter through a COVID tunnel vision. Lockdowns might stop the spread of COVID to a certain degree but bring huge negative consequences to vulnerable groupings nevermind the widespread, long term devastating impacts they have.
Not a single confirmed case of flu this year yet Covid is rampant? Is nobody skeptical of this or at least a little bit curious?
Not one case of flu?
Anyways catching the flu is based on close contacts, they have been dramatically reduced due to washing hands sanitizing and wearing masks..
So I wouldn't look at that as a bad thing, we should do that every year and it might bring that flu problem down.
Apparently not.
Catching Covid is also based on close contacts.
Amazing how there was barely an eye lid batted when 50k excess deaths in the 17/18 flu season occurred. It was accepted without a quibble.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 05, 2021, 01:40:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:20:00 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 05, 2021, 12:40:17 PM
so no alternative
Already offered. Do you have problems reading?
you directly replied to a person asking for alternatives. you provided none in your reply.. i dont give a f**k what you did or didnt say previously...
you seem happy to repeat that you already provided a reply previously over and over again but not the actual alternatives... why is that i wonder?
I'm sick and f**king tired of having to repeat myself to lazy f**king idiots.
But there you f**king go.
Quote from: Angelo on January 04, 2021, 02:14:35 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 04, 2021, 01:54:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 04, 2021, 12:59:07 PM
We are not going to know the full impact of this until it's all over.
That may be a year or two down the line.
My concern focuses on whether lockdown and particularly rolling lockdowns where you are dipping in and out of (telling businesses to shut and open and shut and open are going to cause serious long term damage to the economy and employment - high unemployment has seriously negative societal and wellbeing factors).
There's a lot of people very entrenched with their head in the sand. Cases are through the roof at the minute, deaths are rising but we do know the main demograph it's impacting, we do know the median age of death is above the median life expectancy, we do know the 90%+ proportion that already have existing underlying healthcare problems, we do know that deaths due to Covid are overstated. There's no doubt on any of the previous factors, they are widely accepted by every department that handles this. So is it a case that the measures we take are to save people months of their lives - already probably crippled with underlying health issues?
And how do we then balance that out with the serious consequences of lockdown on the economy, people's employment prospects, the ability of people to provide for our families, the mental health of people, those who are vulnerable, in abusive relationships, addiction problems, people with disabilities and need constant care and support services, the education and social development of children, the impact it has on people who are alone and isolated.
I'd be extremely worried about the covid tunnel vision governments around the world are obsessed with.
We seem to have thrown all our eggs into this vaccine basket, we know nothing about it yet.
As opposed to what other basket?
Living with the virus. Reasonable restrictive measures which we had in the summer months until such time as the virus has ran its course.
What I'd like to see in the next few months is among all the panic and hysteria at present - what the excess deaths are like in comparison to a sever winter flu season that we have accepted without a bone of contention every single year.
Have we lost the run of ourselves over a 10% rise in deaths, 90% who already had serious underlying health conditions?
We have to be realistic and practical about this. There is a point when the cure causes more destruction and chaos than the problem and there's a lot of people too entrenched to even countenance this.
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:44:45 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 05, 2021, 01:40:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:20:00 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 05, 2021, 12:40:17 PM
so no alternative
Already offered. Do you have problems reading?
you directly replied to a person asking for alternatives. you provided none in your reply.. i dont give a f**k what you did or didnt say previously...
you seem happy to repeat that you already provided a reply previously over and over again but not the actual alternatives... why is that i wonder?
I'm sick and f**king tired of having to repeat myself to lazy f**king idiots.
But there you f**king go.
Quote from: Angelo on January 04, 2021, 02:14:35 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 04, 2021, 01:54:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 04, 2021, 12:59:07 PM
We are not going to know the full impact of this until it's all over.
That may be a year or two down the line.
My concern focuses on whether lockdown and particularly rolling lockdowns where you are dipping in and out of (telling businesses to shut and open and shut and open are going to cause serious long term damage to the economy and employment - high unemployment has seriously negative societal and wellbeing factors).
There's a lot of people very entrenched with their head in the sand. Cases are through the roof at the minute, deaths are rising but we do know the main demograph it's impacting, we do know the median age of death is above the median life expectancy, we do know the 90%+ proportion that already have existing underlying healthcare problems, we do know that deaths due to Covid are overstated. There's no doubt on any of the previous factors, they are widely accepted by every department that handles this. So is it a case that the measures we take are to save people months of their lives - already probably crippled with underlying health issues?
And how do we then balance that out with the serious consequences of lockdown on the economy, people's employment prospects, the ability of people to provide for our families, the mental health of people, those who are vulnerable, in abusive relationships, addiction problems, people with disabilities and need constant care and support services, the education and social development of children, the impact it has on people who are alone and isolated.
I'd be extremely worried about the covid tunnel vision governments around the world are obsessed with.
We seem to have thrown all our eggs into this vaccine basket, we know nothing about it yet.
As opposed to what other basket?
Living with the virus. Reasonable restrictive measures which we had in the summer months until such time as the virus has ran its course.
What I'd like to see in the next few months is among all the panic and hysteria at present - what the excess deaths are like in comparison to a sever winter flu season that we have accepted without a bone of contention every single year.
Have we lost the run of ourselves over a 10% rise in deaths, 90% who already had serious underlying health conditions?
We have to be realistic and practical about this. There is a point when the cure causes more destruction and chaos than the problem and there's a lot of people too entrenched to even countenance this.
Could you explain what you mean by this bit?
How exactly does this virus "run its course"?
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:23:24 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:52:36 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 12:28:52 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:18:49 PM
Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?
Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.
But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.
Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.
But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.
Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.
*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.
They certainly have failed.
Lockdown 3.0 with record numbers.
It might slow down our COVID death toll but you are thinking of this matter through a COVID tunnel vision. Lockdowns might stop the spread of COVID to a certain degree but bring huge negative consequences to vulnerable groupings nevermind the widespread, long term devastating impacts they have.
Not a single confirmed case of flu this year yet Covid is rampant? Is nobody skeptical of this or at least a little bit curious?
I'm glad that you agree that lock downs slow the death rate and save lives. That's a start.
The rest is about how the NHS is dealing with other ailments, mental health, cancer etc. That's a genuine concern but not linked to lock downs.
So at least we can agree that lock downs are actually successful and your concern is more around what the NHS isn't doing with other services.
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:28:48 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 01:21:43 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:19:02 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 05, 2021, 01:11:55 PM
Can any of the sane posters here imagine what would have happened if we had carried on as normal from last March without restrictions/lockdowns???
Can any sane poster here point out to this idiot where someone has advocated for ZERO restrictions like before March 2019??
No, didn't think so.
This is the type of crap you have to deal with from idiots on here and it rules out any kind of informed and progressive discussion on this.
I would imagine the same idiot would have got the year right
No difference.
It shows the level of misleading and disingenuous debate people like Rossfan engage in.
Nobody, I repeat nobody, I have seen on this thread has ever advocated no restrictions yet Rossfan has now created a strawman argument because he is unable to debate with people on the real issue here.
Why are the pro lockdown crew so willing to dismiss how prolonged lockdown restrictions have serious repercussions on society.
I am looking for a reasonable debate here where people can stand back and look at the pros and cons of both sides and see which cours of action is best but consistently you have what we have just seen from the likes of Rossfan.
Illogical, dismissive, dogmatic strawman arguments.
f**k everyone else because it doesn't bother him.
The first lockdown was entirely correct thing to do but governments all across Europe fucked it up royally and failed to address the fundamental issues and are now using lockdown to diminish their responsibility.
How do you work this out?
Surely, if the first one was necessary, this one is even more necessary?
Please do not give me some speel about what the government should have done in the summer.
We all know this. They fcuked it completely.
But we are where we are now.
So, given that you seem to believe that *this* lockdown is not necessary, what are your proposals for dealing with the current situation?
Preferably ones that don't involve Doc Brown and a Delorean.
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:42:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 05, 2021, 01:34:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:23:24 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:52:36 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 12:28:52 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:18:49 PM
Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?
Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.
But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.
Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.
But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.
Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.
*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.
They certainly have failed.
Lockdown 3.0 with record numbers.
It might slow down our COVID death toll but you are thinking of this matter through a COVID tunnel vision. Lockdowns might stop the spread of COVID to a certain degree but bring huge negative consequences to vulnerable groupings nevermind the widespread, long term devastating impacts they have.
Not a single confirmed case of flu this year yet Covid is rampant? Is nobody skeptical of this or at least a little bit curious?
Not one case of flu?
Anyways catching the flu is based on close contacts, they have been dramatically reduced due to washing hands sanitizing and wearing masks..
So I wouldn't look at that as a bad thing, we should do that every year and it might bring that flu problem down.
Apparently not.
Catching Covid is also based on close contacts.
Amazing how there was barely an eye lid batted when 50k excess deaths in the 17/18 flu season occurred. It was accepted without a quibble.
Ahem
As for the claim that the flu killed 64,000 people in the UK (where the post's author says they are based) in 2018, this is incorrect.
The only reference we've found to a UK figure like that in connection with the 2018 flu outbreak, is that in January 2018 around 64,000 people died in England and Wales, at the time the highest monthly total since 2006.
But this figure was for England and Wales and covered deaths from all causes, not just flu.
Public Health England estimated that over the 2017/18 flu season, there were around 22,000 deaths associated with flu in England. This was one of the highest flu death tolls in recent years, but is still significantly lower than the current death toll from Covid.
It's possible that the post might be mistaking the number of deaths in the UK for a figure from another country. In the USA, the CDC estimates that 61,000 people may have died in the 2017/18 flu season, which again was the highest number in recent years. The CDC estimates so far that there have been 211,000 deaths involving Covid-19 in the USA.https://fullfact.org/online/october-2020-flu-covid-pandemic/
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 02:31:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:42:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 05, 2021, 01:34:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 01:23:24 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:52:36 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 12:28:52 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 12:18:49 PM
Did either of you get an alternative to lock downs? Or advise how the NHS wouldn't be in a worse position if there wasn't a lock down and numbers were allowed to escalate?
Could the NHS be doing things better with regards to trying to keep services going for other ailments? - Yes I think they could, a valid question for the NHS (Although I know they are stretched due to isolation and sick leave, some wards are working at illegal levels of staffing trying to cope at the minute). And one that should be looked at.
But that has nothing to do with Lock downs as a measure of trying to curb the numbers from escalating.
Lockdowns have failed to deal with Covid twice already and have caused huge crises in other areas such as education, employment, mental health, vulnerable groupings whose support services have been cut etc.
But you think we should continue with a failed strategy? The WHO advised against using lockdowns as the sole measure and that's all governments in the western world are doing.
Lock downs haven't been a successful as they should have been because they haven't been enforced enough. However they certainly haven't failed. The Spring peak for deaths was on the 8th April last year and then started to drop. 16 days after the lockdown was put in place. It's been generally accepted that lockdowns help curb the spread. To claim otherwise is nonsense.
*Edit I should add that lock downs are not a treatment or cure to Covid. If that's what you are judging them on then you are being illogical. They are a preventative method. A way of slowing down the death toll until science finds another solution, which it has and is now being rolled out. People complain that it's just kicking the can down the road. That is exactly what a lock down is for. To buy time for another solution. In that, lock downs have absolutely worked.
They certainly have failed.
Lockdown 3.0 with record numbers.
It might slow down our COVID death toll but you are thinking of this matter through a COVID tunnel vision. Lockdowns might stop the spread of COVID to a certain degree but bring huge negative consequences to vulnerable groupings nevermind the widespread, long term devastating impacts they have.
Not a single confirmed case of flu this year yet Covid is rampant? Is nobody skeptical of this or at least a little bit curious?
Not one case of flu?
Anyways catching the flu is based on close contacts, they have been dramatically reduced due to washing hands sanitizing and wearing masks..
So I wouldn't look at that as a bad thing, we should do that every year and it might bring that flu problem down.
Apparently not.
Catching Covid is also based on close contacts.
Amazing how there was barely an eye lid batted when 50k excess deaths in the 17/18 flu season occurred. It was accepted without a quibble.
Ahem
As for the claim that the flu killed 64,000 people in the UK (where the post's author says they are based) in 2018, this is incorrect.
The only reference we've found to a UK figure like that in connection with the 2018 flu outbreak, is that in January 2018 around 64,000 people died in England and Wales, at the time the highest monthly total since 2006.
But this figure was for England and Wales and covered deaths from all causes, not just flu.
Public Health England estimated that over the 2017/18 flu season, there were around 22,000 deaths associated with flu in England. This was one of the highest flu death tolls in recent years, but is still significantly lower than the current death toll from Covid.
It's possible that the post might be mistaking the number of deaths in the UK for a figure from another country. In the USA, the CDC estimates that 61,000 people may have died in the 2017/18 flu season, which again was the highest number in recent years. The CDC estimates so far that there have been 211,000 deaths involving Covid-19 in the USA.
https://fullfact.org/online/october-2020-flu-covid-pandemic/
I'm talking about the level of excess deaths during a very harsh Winter Flu season. I never said they were all attributable to flu, just how you can't say that every person who dies now and tests positive for Covid, died from it. We know for a fact Covid deaths are overstated, this is something confirmed by the bodies who record these deaths.
Of Covid reported deaths in NI over 91 % were as a direct result of covid. (It's actually up to 95% now I believe)
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/deaths-caused-by-covid-19-in-northern-ireland-reach-755-39539154.html
But I'm not sure what your point is? There's 80,000 excess deaths in 2020 in the UK. The majority of these due to covid (75K). (If you want to take 91% of that figure then that's still a hell of a lot) in comparison to 25K odd for flu and flu like deaths in 2018. And that's with the lock downs that weren't in place in 2018. So I'm sure you can imagine the carnage if there wasn't a lock downs.
I'm really lost on what your point is here?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 03:00:58 PM
Of Covid reported deaths in NI over 91 % were as a direct result of covid. (It's actually up to 95% now I believe)
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/deaths-caused-by-covid-19-in-northern-ireland-reach-755-39539154.html
But I'm not sure what your point is? There's 80,000 excess deaths in 2020 in the UK. The majority of these due to covid (75K). (If you want to take 91% of that figure then that's still a hell of a lot) in comparison to 25K odd for flu and flu like deaths in 2018. And that's with the lock downs that weren't in place in 2018. So I'm sure you can imagine the carnage if there wasn't a lock downs.
I'm really lost on what your point is here?
It's when you look at the data, the most worrying findings turn up.
For a start we don't test for flu. But on a historic analysis, there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season of Dec 17 - Mar 18. A four month period. That's a fact. And we didn't bat an eyelid back then when it happened.
If you want to look at the death statistics from NISRA. 1 March - 31 August.
Covid related deaths 875
Aged over 65: 93%
Aged over 70: 88%
Aged over 75: 79%
Aged over 80: 66%
Back in April, the NHS published information that 95% of patients who died from Covid had underlying health conditions.
We know that if a person who dies from Covid tested positive for Covid within a certain period of time, they are going to be classified as a Covid, irrespective of whether it killed them or not.
Now could you imagine if we classifed flu deaths in a similar way?
What will be or particular interest to me is when NISRA publish their excess mortality figures for Dec 2020 - Marc 2021 on how it stacks up to the winter flu season of 17/18 which we didn't bat an eyelid at.
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did he accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You do know the excess deaths with Covid have still occurred even with lockdowns and social distancing measures?
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You have said this multiple times.
Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?
You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You have said this multiple times.
Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?
You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.
I haven't said that.
That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.
On the first lockdown?
I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.
This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:12:54 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 03:00:58 PM
Of Covid reported deaths in NI over 91 % were as a direct result of covid. (It's actually up to 95% now I believe)
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/deaths-caused-by-covid-19-in-northern-ireland-reach-755-39539154.html
But I'm not sure what your point is? There's 80,000 excess deaths in 2020 in the UK. The majority of these due to covid (75K). (If you want to take 91% of that figure then that's still a hell of a lot) in comparison to 25K odd for flu and flu like deaths in 2018. And that's with the lock downs that weren't in place in 2018. So I'm sure you can imagine the carnage if there wasn't a lock downs.
I'm really lost on what your point is here?
It's when you look at the data, the most worrying findings turn up.
For a start we don't test for flu. But on a historic analysis, there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season of Dec 17 - Mar 18. A four month period. That's a fact. And we didn't bat an eyelid back then when it happened.
If you want to look at the death statistics from NISRA. 1 March - 31 August.
Covid related deaths 875
Aged over 65: 93%
Aged over 70: 88%
Aged over 75: 79%
Aged over 80: 66%
Back in April, the NHS published information that 95% of patients who died from Covid had underlying health conditions.
We know that if a person who dies from Covid tested positive for Covid within a certain period of time, they are going to be classified as a Covid, irrespective of whether it killed them or not.
Now could you imagine if we classifed flu deaths in a similar way?
But I've just explained 91% of deaths recorded as Covid, the people die because of covid, not any other issues.
We don't test for the flu but we have a vaccine program in play. And Flu is classified as ILI deaths - Influenza-like illness. So I'm not sure ehat the difference is?
Also the bit about 95% of people who die from covid have underlying heath problems. About 1 in 5 people have underlying heath problems. 1 in 5. That's a huge amount of people who could potentially be at risk from covid.
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
And around we go again. There was 50K excess deaths. They weren't due to Flu. ILI only clocked up less than half that. Nearly 100% of the excess deaths in 2020 were due to Covid (75K out of 80K odd). Your muddying the waters, intentionally I might add.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
And around we go again. There was 50K excess deaths. They weren't due to Flu. ILI only clocked up less than half that. Nearly 100% of the excess deaths in 2020 were due to Covid (75K out of 80K odd). Your muddying the waters, intentionally I might add.
Aye, round the f**king bend again.
I f**king know well they weren't attributed to flu. I've said it multiple times, maybe read my posts the next time, I have never stated anything to the contrary so here you are again with another strawman argument.
For the sake of facts, we don't test for flu do we, not on a mass scale? What we do know for fact and something you seem to keep ignoring was there were 50k excess deaths when a very virulent strain of flu hit the UK - if we had mass testing and used the same criteria as we do for Covid, how many flu deaths do you think we would have recorded? What we also know for a fact is we do mass testing for Covid, we do know that anyone who dies with a positive test for Covid has Covid registered as their cause of death ergo Covid deaths are grossly exaggerated. Something even the NHS and bodies who record these numbers fully acknowledge.
The last claim you have made is absolutely bogus. You haven't the first clue of that, you're talking utter nonsense there, complete and utterly out of your arse.
If you look at the 26 as an example.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/over-93-of-people-who-died-with-covid-19-had-underlying-condition-cso-1.4402354
93% of people who are classified as a Covid death had underlying health conditions. Are we meant to believe that all these people died from Covid rather than whatever it was their underlying health condition was?
We know up north (Mar-Aug) 93% of those classified as Covid deaths are over 65, 66% of the those who are over 80% classified as Covid deaths.
Have people stopped dying from cancer, heart disease, respiratory failure, old age? Why is it Covid being assigned as the cause of death to people who are terminally ill and have very low life expectancies as it is?
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You have said this multiple times.
Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?
You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.
I haven't said that.
That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.
On the first lockdown?
I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.
This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.
It's only impossible to say if one of the following is true;
1. You wilfully ignore all the data produced over the past year saying that it is much worse
2. You can't understand this data
Agreed, on the gov't failures - but you are into Doc Brown/Delorean territory here, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard at the minute.
So again, what's your plan?
And if involves letting the virus "run its course", please explain how a virus like this "runs its course".
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
And around we go again. There was 50K excess deaths. They weren't due to Flu. ILI only clocked up less than half that. Nearly 100% of the excess deaths in 2020 were due to Covid (75K out of 80K odd). Your muddying the waters, intentionally I might add.
Aye, round the f**king bend again.
I f**king know well they weren't attributed to flu. I've said it multiple times, maybe read my posts the next time, I have never stated anything to the contrary so here you are again with another strawman argument.
For the sake of facts, we don't test for flu do we, not on a mass scale? What we do know for fact and something you seem to keep ignoring was there were 50k excess deaths when a very virulent strain of flu hit the UK - if we had mass testing and used the same criteria as we do for Covid, how many flu deaths do you think we would have recorded? What we also know for a fact is we do mass testing for Covid, we do know that anyone who dies with a positive test for Covid has Covid registered as their cause of death ergo Covid deaths are grossly exaggerated. Something even the NHS and bodies who record these numbers fully acknowledge.
The last claim you have made is absolutely bogus. You haven't the first clue of that, you're talking utter nonsense there, complete and utterly out of your arse.
You don't get tired of making a boll!x of yourself do you?
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200615/1-in-5-has-health-issues-that-impact_covid-19#1
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2020/estimates-suggest-one-five-people-worldwide-have-underlying-health-condition
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/health/coronavirus-underlying-conditions.html
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You have said this multiple times.
Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?
You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.
I haven't said that.
That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.
On the first lockdown?
I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.
This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.
It's only impossible to say if one of the following is true;
1. You wilfully ignore all the data produced over the past year saying that it is much worse
2. You can't understand this data
Agreed, on the gov't failures - but you are into Doc Brown/Delorean territory here, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard at the minute.
So again, what's your plan?
And if involves letting the virus "run its course", please explain how a virus like this "runs its course".
The data isn't comparable. March/Apr was an outlier as it was a novel virus we were ill prepared for but as the graph Armaghniac put up earlier we are seeing excess death rates not too disimilar to a bad winter flu season in 17/18 and while you may point to restrictions being in place, every winter we have an operational in place so that should be considered.
This is a novel virus as such so there's no way of saying it one way or another. It is not provable so you are stating something quite ridiculous in reality.
You ask about my plan? The difference between me and you is I take an outlook on society as a whole, the pros and cons to all groupings in society and particularly the most vulnerable. You take a view on Covid and screw anyone else who are not directly at risk from Covid but who are at risk from some of the draconian restrictions brought it through lockdowns. You are saying screw them and let's repeat a failed strategy for the third time.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 04:28:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
And around we go again. There was 50K excess deaths. They weren't due to Flu. ILI only clocked up less than half that. Nearly 100% of the excess deaths in 2020 were due to Covid (75K out of 80K odd). Your muddying the waters, intentionally I might add.
Aye, round the f**king bend again.
I f**king know well they weren't attributed to flu. I've said it multiple times, maybe read my posts the next time, I have never stated anything to the contrary so here you are again with another strawman argument.
For the sake of facts, we don't test for flu do we, not on a mass scale? What we do know for fact and something you seem to keep ignoring was there were 50k excess deaths when a very virulent strain of flu hit the UK - if we had mass testing and used the same criteria as we do for Covid, how many flu deaths do you think we would have recorded? What we also know for a fact is we do mass testing for Covid, we do know that anyone who dies with a positive test for Covid has Covid registered as their cause of death ergo Covid deaths are grossly exaggerated. Something even the NHS and bodies who record these numbers fully acknowledge.
The last claim you have made is absolutely bogus. You haven't the first clue of that, you're talking utter nonsense there, complete and utterly out of your arse.
You don't get tired of making a boll!x of yourself do you?
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200615/1-in-5-has-health-issues-that-impact_covid-19#1
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2020/estimates-suggest-one-five-people-worldwide-have-underlying-health-condition
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/health/coronavirus-underlying-conditions.html
You've posted 3 links that bear absolutely no correlation to what you just said.
You'd be better off admitting you're talking out of your arse here.
Someone who is terminally ill with cancer etc and had Covid is registered as a Covid death, regardless of whether Covid was the cause of death. Do you continue to dispute that?
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:33:24 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 04:28:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
And around we go again. There was 50K excess deaths. They weren't due to Flu. ILI only clocked up less than half that. Nearly 100% of the excess deaths in 2020 were due to Covid (75K out of 80K odd). Your muddying the waters, intentionally I might add.
Aye, round the f**king bend again.
I f**king know well they weren't attributed to flu. I've said it multiple times, maybe read my posts the next time, I have never stated anything to the contrary so here you are again with another strawman argument.
For the sake of facts, we don't test for flu do we, not on a mass scale? What we do know for fact and something you seem to keep ignoring was there were 50k excess deaths when a very virulent strain of flu hit the UK - if we had mass testing and used the same criteria as we do for Covid, how many flu deaths do you think we would have recorded? What we also know for a fact is we do mass testing for Covid, we do know that anyone who dies with a positive test for Covid has Covid registered as their cause of death ergo Covid deaths are grossly exaggerated. Something even the NHS and bodies who record these numbers fully acknowledge.
The last claim you have made is absolutely bogus. You haven't the first clue of that, you're talking utter nonsense there, complete and utterly out of your arse.
You don't get tired of making a boll!x of yourself do you?
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200615/1-in-5-has-health-issues-that-impact_covid-19#1
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2020/estimates-suggest-one-five-people-worldwide-have-underlying-health-condition
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/health/coronavirus-underlying-conditions.html
You've posted 3 links that bear absolutely no correlation to what you just said.
You'd be better off admitting you're talking out of your arse here.
Someone who is terminally ill with cancer etc and had Covid is registered as a Covid death, regardless of whether Covid was the cause of death. Do you continue to dispute that?
It's there for all to see. People can see who's talking out of their arse. You've been handed your arse because each claim you make is BS. As I've already pointed out to you. 91% of the deaths were due to covid. So the 8% is what you are talking about above. I'm happy for you to remove 8% of the deaths.
Alsdo what you are failing to mention in your posts is that there were no lock downs in any of the other years. So 2020 still had 80K excess deaths and that was with restrictions in place that weren't in place every other year including 2017-2018. So it's not comparing like for like. If there were no lock downs we would have been looking at a much higher excess deatj rate.
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:31:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You have said this multiple times.
Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?
You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.
I haven't said that.
That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.
On the first lockdown?
I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.
This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.
It's only impossible to say if one of the following is true;
1. You wilfully ignore all the data produced over the past year saying that it is much worse
2. You can't understand this data
Agreed, on the gov't failures - but you are into Doc Brown/Delorean territory here, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard at the minute.
So again, what's your plan?
And if involves letting the virus "run its course", please explain how a virus like this "runs its course".
The data isn't comparable. March/Apr was an outlier as it was a novel virus we were ill prepared for but as the graph Armaghniac put up earlier we are seeing excess death rates not too disimilar to a bad winter flu season in 17/18 and while you may point to restrictions being in place, every winter we have an operational in place so that should be considered.
This is a novel virus as such so there's no way of saying it one way or another. It is not provable so you are stating something quite ridiculous in reality.
You ask about my plan? The difference between me and you is I take an outlook on society as a whole, the pros and cons to all groupings in society and particularly the most vulnerable. You take a view on Covid and screw anyone else who are not directly at risk from Covid but who are at risk from some of the draconian restrictions brought it through lockdowns. You are saying screw them and let's repeat a failed strategy for the third time.
So no plan at all then?
Anything?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 04:40:26 PM
Alsdo what you are failing to mention in your posts is that there were no lock downs in any of the other years. So 2020 still had 80K excess deaths and that was with restrictions in place that weren't in place every other year including 2017-2018. So it's not comparing like for like. If there were no lock downs we would have been looking at a much higher excess deatj rate.
This is the point, all day every day
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:41:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:31:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You have said this multiple times.
Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?
You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.
I haven't said that.
That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.
On the first lockdown?
I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.
This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.
It's only impossible to say if one of the following is true;
1. You wilfully ignore all the data produced over the past year saying that it is much worse
2. You can't understand this data
Agreed, on the gov't failures - but you are into Doc Brown/Delorean territory here, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard at the minute.
So again, what's your plan?
And if involves letting the virus "run its course", please explain how a virus like this "runs its course".
The data isn't comparable. March/Apr was an outlier as it was a novel virus we were ill prepared for but as the graph Armaghniac put up earlier we are seeing excess death rates not too disimilar to a bad winter flu season in 17/18 and while you may point to restrictions being in place, every winter we have an operational in place so that should be considered.
This is a novel virus as such so there's no way of saying it one way or another. It is not provable so you are stating something quite ridiculous in reality.
You ask about my plan? The difference between me and you is I take an outlook on society as a whole, the pros and cons to all groupings in society and particularly the most vulnerable. You take a view on Covid and screw anyone else who are not directly at risk from Covid but who are at risk from some of the draconian restrictions brought it through lockdowns. You are saying screw them and let's repeat a failed strategy for the third time.
So no plan at all then?
Anything?
Yes. Are you looking for me to post it for the fourth time today?
And your plan is to repeat a strategy that has failed twice before?
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:47:23 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:41:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:31:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You have said this multiple times.
Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?
You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.
I haven't said that.
That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.
On the first lockdown?
I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.
This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.
It's only impossible to say if one of the following is true;
1. You wilfully ignore all the data produced over the past year saying that it is much worse
2. You can't understand this data
Agreed, on the gov't failures - but you are into Doc Brown/Delorean territory here, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard at the minute.
So again, what's your plan?
And if involves letting the virus "run its course", please explain how a virus like this "runs its course".
The data isn't comparable. March/Apr was an outlier as it was a novel virus we were ill prepared for but as the graph Armaghniac put up earlier we are seeing excess death rates not too disimilar to a bad winter flu season in 17/18 and while you may point to restrictions being in place, every winter we have an operational in place so that should be considered.
This is a novel virus as such so there's no way of saying it one way or another. It is not provable so you are stating something quite ridiculous in reality.
You ask about my plan? The difference between me and you is I take an outlook on society as a whole, the pros and cons to all groupings in society and particularly the most vulnerable. You take a view on Covid and screw anyone else who are not directly at risk from Covid but who are at risk from some of the draconian restrictions brought it through lockdowns. You are saying screw them and let's repeat a failed strategy for the third time.
So no plan at all then?
Anything?
Yes. Are you looking for me to post it for the fourth time today?
And your plan is to repeat a strategy that has failed twice before?
So this is the one where we live with the virus until it has "run its course"?
I've asked you now three times to explain how a virus like this runs its course.
You haven't done it yet.
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:33:24 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 04:28:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
And around we go again. There was 50K excess deaths. They weren't due to Flu. ILI only clocked up less than half that. Nearly 100% of the excess deaths in 2020 were due to Covid (75K out of 80K odd). Your muddying the waters, intentionally I might add.
Aye, round the f**king bend again.
I f**king know well they weren't attributed to flu. I've said it multiple times, maybe read my posts the next time, I have never stated anything to the contrary so here you are again with another strawman argument.
For the sake of facts, we don't test for flu do we, not on a mass scale? What we do know for fact and something you seem to keep ignoring was there were 50k excess deaths when a very virulent strain of flu hit the UK - if we had mass testing and used the same criteria as we do for Covid, how many flu deaths do you think we would have recorded? What we also know for a fact is we do mass testing for Covid, we do know that anyone who dies with a positive test for Covid has Covid registered as their cause of death ergo Covid deaths are grossly exaggerated. Something even the NHS and bodies who record these numbers fully acknowledge.
The last claim you have made is absolutely bogus. You haven't the first clue of that, you're talking utter nonsense there, complete and utterly out of your arse.
You don't get tired of making a boll!x of yourself do you?
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200615/1-in-5-has-health-issues-that-impact_covid-19#1
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2020/estimates-suggest-one-five-people-worldwide-have-underlying-health-condition
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/health/coronavirus-underlying-conditions.html
You've posted 3 links that bear absolutely no correlation to what you just said.
You'd be better off admitting you're talking out of your arse here.
Someone who is terminally ill with cancer etc and had Covid is registered as a Covid death, regardless of whether Covid was the cause of death. Do you continue to dispute that?
Sorry just to be fair, what claim was utterly bogus? I thought you were chatting about the 1 in 5 with underlaying health conditions. But I see that was on another post.
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:47:23 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:41:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:31:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You have said this multiple times.
Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?
You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.
I haven't said that.
That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.
On the first lockdown?
I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.
This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.
It's only impossible to say if one of the following is true;
1. You wilfully ignore all the data produced over the past year saying that it is much worse
2. You can't understand this data
Agreed, on the gov't failures - but you are into Doc Brown/Delorean territory here, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard at the minute.
So again, what's your plan?
And if involves letting the virus "run its course", please explain how a virus like this "runs its course".
The data isn't comparable. March/Apr was an outlier as it was a novel virus we were ill prepared for but as the graph Armaghniac put up earlier we are seeing excess death rates not too disimilar to a bad winter flu season in 17/18 and while you may point to restrictions being in place, every winter we have an operational in place so that should be considered.
This is a novel virus as such so there's no way of saying it one way or another. It is not provable so you are stating something quite ridiculous in reality.
You ask about my plan? The difference between me and you is I take an outlook on society as a whole, the pros and cons to all groupings in society and particularly the most vulnerable. You take a view on Covid and screw anyone else who are not directly at risk from Covid but who are at risk from some of the draconian restrictions brought it through lockdowns. You are saying screw them and let's repeat a failed strategy for the third time.
So no plan at all then?
Anything?
Yes. Are you looking for me to post it for the fourth time today?
And your plan is to repeat a strategy that has failed twice before?
And the strategy hasn't failed before.
It did exactly what it was supposed to do, on both occasions.
It reduced the spread of the virus and prevented health services becoming overwhelmed.
But I'll agree that on both previous occasions, the government has totally fcuked up the end game.
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:47:23 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:41:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:31:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You have said this multiple times.
Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?
You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.
I haven't said that.
That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.
On the first lockdown?
I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.
This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.
It's only impossible to say if one of the following is true;
1. You wilfully ignore all the data produced over the past year saying that it is much worse
2. You can't understand this data
Agreed, on the gov't failures - but you are into Doc Brown/Delorean territory here, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard at the minute.
So again, what's your plan?
And if involves letting the virus "run its course", please explain how a virus like this "runs its course".
The data isn't comparable. March/Apr was an outlier as it was a novel virus we were ill prepared for but as the graph Armaghniac put up earlier we are seeing excess death rates not too disimilar to a bad winter flu season in 17/18 and while you may point to restrictions being in place, every winter we have an operational in place so that should be considered.
This is a novel virus as such so there's no way of saying it one way or another. It is not provable so you are stating something quite ridiculous in reality.
You ask about my plan? The difference between me and you is I take an outlook on society as a whole, the pros and cons to all groupings in society and particularly the most vulnerable. You take a view on Covid and screw anyone else who are not directly at risk from Covid but who are at risk from some of the draconian restrictions brought it through lockdowns. You are saying screw them and let's repeat a failed strategy for the third time.
So no plan at all then?
Anything?
Yes. Are you looking for me to post it for the fourth time today?
And your plan is to repeat a strategy that has failed twice before?
So this is the one where we live with the virus until it has "run its course"?
I've asked you now three times to explain how a virus like this runs its course.
You haven't done it yet.
And yet your answer is to repeat a failed strategy for the third time. Yet you want me to readress something I have already done there and don't want to have to discuss how doing the failed thing for the third time is going to bring up any different results.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 04:53:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:33:24 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 04:28:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
And around we go again. There was 50K excess deaths. They weren't due to Flu. ILI only clocked up less than half that. Nearly 100% of the excess deaths in 2020 were due to Covid (75K out of 80K odd). Your muddying the waters, intentionally I might add.
Aye, round the f**king bend again.
I f**king know well they weren't attributed to flu. I've said it multiple times, maybe read my posts the next time, I have never stated anything to the contrary so here you are again with another strawman argument.
For the sake of facts, we don't test for flu do we, not on a mass scale? What we do know for fact and something you seem to keep ignoring was there were 50k excess deaths when a very virulent strain of flu hit the UK - if we had mass testing and used the same criteria as we do for Covid, how many flu deaths do you think we would have recorded? What we also know for a fact is we do mass testing for Covid, we do know that anyone who dies with a positive test for Covid has Covid registered as their cause of death ergo Covid deaths are grossly exaggerated. Something even the NHS and bodies who record these numbers fully acknowledge.
The last claim you have made is absolutely bogus. You haven't the first clue of that, you're talking utter nonsense there, complete and utterly out of your arse.
You don't get tired of making a boll!x of yourself do you?
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200615/1-in-5-has-health-issues-that-impact_covid-19#1
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2020/estimates-suggest-one-five-people-worldwide-have-underlying-health-condition
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/health/coronavirus-underlying-conditions.html
You've posted 3 links that bear absolutely no correlation to what you just said.
You'd be better off admitting you're talking out of your arse here.
Someone who is terminally ill with cancer etc and had Covid is registered as a Covid death, regardless of whether Covid was the cause of death. Do you continue to dispute that?
Sorry just to be fair, what claim was utterly bogus? I thought you were chatting about the 1 in 5 with underlaying health conditions. But I see that was on another post.
100% of excess deaths were due to Covid as you claimed.
That is utterly, utterly bogus.
I said nearly. There's 80k excess deaths, 75k COVID deaths. I'll let you do the maths.
QuoteAnd yet your answer is to repeat a failed strategy for the third time. Yet you want me to readress something I have already done there and don't want to have to discuss how doing the failed thing for the third time is going to bring up any different results.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
has your strategy not failed? we tried to live with covid, it didnt work it led back to lockdowns again
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 05:02:35 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:47:23 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:41:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:31:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You have said this multiple times.
Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?
You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.
I haven't said that.
That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.
On the first lockdown?
I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.
This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.
It's only impossible to say if one of the following is true;
1. You wilfully ignore all the data produced over the past year saying that it is much worse
2. You can't understand this data
Agreed, on the gov't failures - but you are into Doc Brown/Delorean territory here, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard at the minute.
So again, what's your plan?
And if involves letting the virus "run its course", please explain how a virus like this "runs its course".
The data isn't comparable. March/Apr was an outlier as it was a novel virus we were ill prepared for but as the graph Armaghniac put up earlier we are seeing excess death rates not too disimilar to a bad winter flu season in 17/18 and while you may point to restrictions being in place, every winter we have an operational in place so that should be considered.
This is a novel virus as such so there's no way of saying it one way or another. It is not provable so you are stating something quite ridiculous in reality.
You ask about my plan? The difference between me and you is I take an outlook on society as a whole, the pros and cons to all groupings in society and particularly the most vulnerable. You take a view on Covid and screw anyone else who are not directly at risk from Covid but who are at risk from some of the draconian restrictions brought it through lockdowns. You are saying screw them and let's repeat a failed strategy for the third time.
So no plan at all then?
Anything?
Yes. Are you looking for me to post it for the fourth time today?
And your plan is to repeat a strategy that has failed twice before?
So this is the one where we live with the virus until it has "run its course"?
I've asked you now three times to explain how a virus like this runs its course.
You haven't done it yet.
And yet your answer is to repeat a failed strategy for the third time. Yet you want me to readress something I have already done there and don't want to have to discuss how doing the failed thing for the third time is going to bring up any different results.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
You have neither answered nor even addressed this question.
How does a virus like this "run its course"?
And again - the lockdowns didn't fail. The bit that was supposed to come after it did.
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 05:03:19 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 04:53:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:33:24 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 04:28:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
And around we go again. There was 50K excess deaths. They weren't due to Flu. ILI only clocked up less than half that. Nearly 100% of the excess deaths in 2020 were due to Covid (75K out of 80K odd). Your muddying the waters, intentionally I might add.
Aye, round the f**king bend again.
I f**king know well they weren't attributed to flu. I've said it multiple times, maybe read my posts the next time, I have never stated anything to the contrary so here you are again with another strawman argument.
For the sake of facts, we don't test for flu do we, not on a mass scale? What we do know for fact and something you seem to keep ignoring was there were 50k excess deaths when a very virulent strain of flu hit the UK - if we had mass testing and used the same criteria as we do for Covid, how many flu deaths do you think we would have recorded? What we also know for a fact is we do mass testing for Covid, we do know that anyone who dies with a positive test for Covid has Covid registered as their cause of death ergo Covid deaths are grossly exaggerated. Something even the NHS and bodies who record these numbers fully acknowledge.
The last claim you have made is absolutely bogus. You haven't the first clue of that, you're talking utter nonsense there, complete and utterly out of your arse.
You don't get tired of making a boll!x of yourself do you?
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200615/1-in-5-has-health-issues-that-impact_covid-19#1
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2020/estimates-suggest-one-five-people-worldwide-have-underlying-health-condition
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/health/coronavirus-underlying-conditions.html
You've posted 3 links that bear absolutely no correlation to what you just said.
You'd be better off admitting you're talking out of your arse here.
Someone who is terminally ill with cancer etc and had Covid is registered as a Covid death, regardless of whether Covid was the cause of death. Do you continue to dispute that?
Sorry just to be fair, what claim was utterly bogus? I thought you were chatting about the 1 in 5 with underlaying health conditions. But I see that was on another post.
100% of excess deaths were due to Covid as you claimed.
That is utterly, utterly bogus.
He didn't claim that.
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 05:13:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 05:02:35 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:47:23 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:41:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:31:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You have said this multiple times.
Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?
You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.
I haven't said that.
That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.
On the first lockdown?
I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.
This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.
It's only impossible to say if one of the following is true;
1. You wilfully ignore all the data produced over the past year saying that it is much worse
2. You can't understand this data
Agreed, on the gov't failures - but you are into Doc Brown/Delorean territory here, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard at the minute.
So again, what's your plan?
And if involves letting the virus "run its course", please explain how a virus like this "runs its course".
The data isn't comparable. March/Apr was an outlier as it was a novel virus we were ill prepared for but as the graph Armaghniac put up earlier we are seeing excess death rates not too disimilar to a bad winter flu season in 17/18 and while you may point to restrictions being in place, every winter we have an operational in place so that should be considered.
This is a novel virus as such so there's no way of saying it one way or another. It is not provable so you are stating something quite ridiculous in reality.
You ask about my plan? The difference between me and you is I take an outlook on society as a whole, the pros and cons to all groupings in society and particularly the most vulnerable. You take a view on Covid and screw anyone else who are not directly at risk from Covid but who are at risk from some of the draconian restrictions brought it through lockdowns. You are saying screw them and let's repeat a failed strategy for the third time.
So no plan at all then?
Anything?
Yes. Are you looking for me to post it for the fourth time today?
And your plan is to repeat a strategy that has failed twice before?
So this is the one where we live with the virus until it has "run its course"?
I've asked you now three times to explain how a virus like this runs its course.
You haven't done it yet.
And yet your answer is to repeat a failed strategy for the third time. Yet you want me to readress something I have already done there and don't want to have to discuss how doing the failed thing for the third time is going to bring up any different results.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
You have neither answered nor even addressed this question.
How does a virus like this "run its course"?
And again - the lockdowns didn't fail. The bit that was supposed to come after it did.
The goal for lockdowns here to reduce the R number means that they worked. The problem is that they aren't strict enough and they should have a goal of zero covid. We are an island and could achieve what new zealand have if we imposed a very strict lockdown for 2 or 3 months including strict quarantine for anyone flying into the island.
Get the Vaccine. If you want to be a great person and do something for your country and your fellow country people you get the vaccine. It's really that simple.
Quote from: trailer on January 05, 2021, 05:32:23 PM
Get the Vaccine. If you want to be a great person and do something for your country and your fellow country people you get the vaccine. It's really that simple.
100%.
And if you don't you are a selfish dick
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 05:09:02 PM
I said nearly. There's 80k excess deaths, 75k COVID deaths. I'll let you do the maths.
Covid deaths are overstated, unequivocally overstated.
Quote from: lenny on January 05, 2021, 05:18:08 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 05:13:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 05:02:35 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:47:23 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:41:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:31:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You have said this multiple times.
Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?
You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.
I haven't said that.
That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.
On the first lockdown?
I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.
This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.
It's only impossible to say if one of the following is true;
1. You wilfully ignore all the data produced over the past year saying that it is much worse
2. You can't understand this data
Agreed, on the gov't failures - but you are into Doc Brown/Delorean territory here, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard at the minute.
So again, what's your plan?
And if involves letting the virus "run its course", please explain how a virus like this "runs its course".
The data isn't comparable. March/Apr was an outlier as it was a novel virus we were ill prepared for but as the graph Armaghniac put up earlier we are seeing excess death rates not too disimilar to a bad winter flu season in 17/18 and while you may point to restrictions being in place, every winter we have an operational in place so that should be considered.
This is a novel virus as such so there's no way of saying it one way or another. It is not provable so you are stating something quite ridiculous in reality.
You ask about my plan? The difference between me and you is I take an outlook on society as a whole, the pros and cons to all groupings in society and particularly the most vulnerable. You take a view on Covid and screw anyone else who are not directly at risk from Covid but who are at risk from some of the draconian restrictions brought it through lockdowns. You are saying screw them and let's repeat a failed strategy for the third time.
So no plan at all then?
Anything?
Yes. Are you looking for me to post it for the fourth time today?
And your plan is to repeat a strategy that has failed twice before?
So this is the one where we live with the virus until it has "run its course"?
I've asked you now three times to explain how a virus like this runs its course.
You haven't done it yet.
And yet your answer is to repeat a failed strategy for the third time. Yet you want me to readress something I have already done there and don't want to have to discuss how doing the failed thing for the third time is going to bring up any different results.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
You have neither answered nor even addressed this question.
How does a virus like this "run its course"?
And again - the lockdowns didn't fail. The bit that was supposed to come after it did.
The goal for lockdowns here to reduce the R number means that they worked. The problem is that they aren't strict enough and they should have a goal of zero covid. We are an island and could achieve what new zealand have if we imposed a very strict lockdown for 2 or 3 months including strict quarantine for anyone flying into the island.
Lockdowns have worked?
Suffering f**k. Where do you even start with that?
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 05:16:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 05:03:19 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 04:53:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:33:24 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 04:28:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:08:58 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 03:57:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
And around we go again. There was 50K excess deaths. They weren't due to Flu. ILI only clocked up less than half that. Nearly 100% of the excess deaths in 2020 were due to Covid (75K out of 80K odd). Your muddying the waters, intentionally I might add.
Aye, round the f**king bend again.
I f**king know well they weren't attributed to flu. I've said it multiple times, maybe read my posts the next time, I have never stated anything to the contrary so here you are again with another strawman argument.
For the sake of facts, we don't test for flu do we, not on a mass scale? What we do know for fact and something you seem to keep ignoring was there were 50k excess deaths when a very virulent strain of flu hit the UK - if we had mass testing and used the same criteria as we do for Covid, how many flu deaths do you think we would have recorded? What we also know for a fact is we do mass testing for Covid, we do know that anyone who dies with a positive test for Covid has Covid registered as their cause of death ergo Covid deaths are grossly exaggerated. Something even the NHS and bodies who record these numbers fully acknowledge.
The last claim you have made is absolutely bogus. You haven't the first clue of that, you're talking utter nonsense there, complete and utterly out of your arse.
You don't get tired of making a boll!x of yourself do you?
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200615/1-in-5-has-health-issues-that-impact_covid-19#1
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/news/2020/estimates-suggest-one-five-people-worldwide-have-underlying-health-condition
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/15/health/coronavirus-underlying-conditions.html
You've posted 3 links that bear absolutely no correlation to what you just said.
You'd be better off admitting you're talking out of your arse here.
Someone who is terminally ill with cancer etc and had Covid is registered as a Covid death, regardless of whether Covid was the cause of death. Do you continue to dispute that?
Sorry just to be fair, what claim was utterly bogus? I thought you were chatting about the 1 in 5 with underlaying health conditions. But I see that was on another post.
100% of excess deaths were due to Covid as you claimed.
That is utterly, utterly bogus.
He didn't claim that.
It's a bogus claim.
Covid deaths are overstated. We know 93% of people have underlying conditions. 66% of people were over the age of 80.
When have people stopped dying of terminal illness and old age?
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 05:45:07 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 05:09:02 PM
I said nearly. There's 80k excess deaths, 75k COVID deaths. I'll let you do the maths.
Covid deaths are overstated, unequivocally overstated.
I know. I gave you the breakdown. Around 9%. Given the numbers, not a massive impact. Instead of 76k, around 69k.
Does that number change anything significantly for you?
Quote from: lenny on January 05, 2021, 05:18:08 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 05:13:06 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 05:02:35 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:52:34 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:47:23 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:41:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 04:31:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 04:25:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:48:06 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 03:36:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 03:30:20 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 05, 2021, 03:27:50 PM
Angelo - are you saying this isnt serious and is similar to the flu?
You said earlier the 1st lockdown was the right thing to do - we dont lock down for the flu.
Im confused as to what point you are trying to make as you are comparing it to the flu
I didn't say that.
But what I did say how it is unusual how we don't bat an eyelid when we have 50k excess deaths due to a winter flu season and such hysteria and panic exists over Covid?
Why did we accept the winter flu season of 17/18 so meekly and without any recriminations?
You have said this multiple times.
Any chance of a response to the couple of questions I asked earlier?
You are purporting to be the guy who never shirks them, after all.
I haven't said that.
That's just a lie as it is impossible to say. I did pull you out on definitively saying the opposite when there's no way of telling.
On the first lockdown?
I believe it was the right thing to do in terms of a novel virus we were ill prepared to deal with. The fatality rate is nearly 10x less now that the first wave but governments have still failed to address inadequacies in their health systems and have used lokdowns to shirk responsibility for their poor response.
This is the third time they are repeating a failed strategy. When they release statistics on suicides, domestic violence incidents, addiction relapses etc for 2020 it's going to make interesting reading.
It's only impossible to say if one of the following is true;
1. You wilfully ignore all the data produced over the past year saying that it is much worse
2. You can't understand this data
Agreed, on the gov't failures - but you are into Doc Brown/Delorean territory here, which is as much use as a chocolate fireguard at the minute.
So again, what's your plan?
And if involves letting the virus "run its course", please explain how a virus like this "runs its course".
The data isn't comparable. March/Apr was an outlier as it was a novel virus we were ill prepared for but as the graph Armaghniac put up earlier we are seeing excess death rates not too disimilar to a bad winter flu season in 17/18 and while you may point to restrictions being in place, every winter we have an operational in place so that should be considered.
This is a novel virus as such so there's no way of saying it one way or another. It is not provable so you are stating something quite ridiculous in reality.
You ask about my plan? The difference between me and you is I take an outlook on society as a whole, the pros and cons to all groupings in society and particularly the most vulnerable. You take a view on Covid and screw anyone else who are not directly at risk from Covid but who are at risk from some of the draconian restrictions brought it through lockdowns. You are saying screw them and let's repeat a failed strategy for the third time.
So no plan at all then?
Anything?
Yes. Are you looking for me to post it for the fourth time today?
And your plan is to repeat a strategy that has failed twice before?
So this is the one where we live with the virus until it has "run its course"?
I've asked you now three times to explain how a virus like this runs its course.
You haven't done it yet.
And yet your answer is to repeat a failed strategy for the third time. Yet you want me to readress something I have already done there and don't want to have to discuss how doing the failed thing for the third time is going to bring up any different results.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
You have neither answered nor even addressed this question.
How does a virus like this "run its course"?
And again - the lockdowns didn't fail. The bit that was supposed to come after it did.
The goal for lockdowns here to reduce the R number means that they worked. The problem is that they aren't strict enough and they should have a goal of zero covid. We are an island and could achieve what new zealand have if we imposed a very strict lockdown for 2 or 3 months including strict quarantine for anyone flying into the island.
Yes, totally agree.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 05:51:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 05:45:07 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 05:09:02 PM
I said nearly. There's 80k excess deaths, 75k COVID deaths. I'll let you do the maths.
Covid deaths are overstated, unequivocally overstated.
I know. I gave you the breakdown. Around 9%. Given the numbers, not a massive impact. Instead of 76k, around 69k.
Does that number change anything significantly for you?
You're arguing something completely different
You are ignoring the fact that the people who record the deaths have acknowledged their numbers are overstated. It has never been quantified by how much. All we know is that if you test positive for Covid at the time of your death you are listed as a Covid death, regardless of whether you actually died because of Covid or another health related problem. It's not 9, it is not quantifiable but we do know that 90%+ of those who have been classified as Covid deaths already had underlying health conditions and 66% of people who died in the O6 until August were over the age of 80. Do you expect to believe that of 93% people with underlying health conditions, 66% over the age of 80 - that Covid was the cause of death in 91% of those cases. Or do you think it's the arbitrary way deaths are recorded that is the cause of death.
No I'm not. If someone is terminal but dies earlier than they should have due to COVID, then it is rightly noted that Covid was the cause. It's still robbed then of time. If you are arguing that if someone is terminal and dies it shouldn't be classed as covid regardless of whether it was the cause or not, then I simply don't agree.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 07:51:39 PM
No I'm not. If someone is terminal but dies earlier than they should have due to COVID, then it is rightly noted that Covid was the cause. It's still robbed then of time. If you are arguing that if someone is terminal and dies it shouldn't be classed as covid regardless of whether it was the cause or not, then I simply don't agree.
But it doesn't matter what their cause of death is. If they test positive for Covid and they die, they are classified as a Covid death, irrespective of whether or not Covid was what killed them. And that is the danger of the arbitrary way in which it is being reported.
Hosptial admissions with Covid are also being skewed now. Not sure if it was up north or down south but it was reported that a woman who was admitted to hospital with a broken hip and subsequently tested positive for Covid is now being classified as a Covid admission. That woman is not in hospital due to Covid, she is in hospital due to breaking her hip.
If someone has terminal cancer and is given 2 years but catches Covid and dues within a month is it cancer or Covid?
By the same token if someone has cancer and dies of blood poisoning is it cancer that killed him or blood poisoning?
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 07:55:45 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 07:51:39 PM
No I'm not. If someone is terminal but dies earlier than they should have due to COVID, then it is rightly noted that Covid was the cause. It's still robbed then of time. If you are arguing that if someone is terminal and dies it shouldn't be classed as covid regardless of whether it was the cause or not, then I simply don't agree.
But it doesn't matter what their cause of death is. If they test positive for Covid and they die, they are classified as a Covid death, irrespective of whether or not Covid was what killed them. And that is the danger of the arbitrary way in which it is being reported.
Hosptial admissions with Covid are also being skewed now. Not sure if it was up north or down south but it was reported that a woman who was admitted to hospital with a broken hip and subsequently tested positive for Covid is now being classified as a Covid admission. That woman is not in hospital due to Covid, she is in hospital due to breaking her hip.
Did you even read the link? It says how many dies because of Covid (The underlying reason) and how many just died with Covid. That's where the 91% comes from.
Any progress on an answer for me Angelo?
Getting the vaccine by the weekend, next week at the latest. Will report back if I grow a third arm.
https://youtu.be/lrjLUxnjLqY
Interesting graphic. (Albeit covering England only)
Shows the clear effect of the lockdowns in suppression of the disease.
Also shows how close things came to actually getting this under control, had the track and trace function been run correctly and also given actual power to compel folks to isolate.
Also, depressingly, shows very graphically how fcuked things are right now
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 08:03:22 PM
Any progress on an answer for me Angelo?
You're asking me for an answer I have already given you while I am awaiting an answer from you that you have failed to provide.
Interesting mindset you have.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:20:13 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 08:03:22 PM
Any progress on an answer for me Angelo?
You're asking me for an answer I have already given you while I am awaiting an answer from you that you have failed to provide.
Interesting mindset you have.
I asked you this yesterday.
I have checked all the posts since that and you DEFINITELY have not answered this question.
So much for being the guy that doesn't shirk the hard questions.
LCohen has a point.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 08:02:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 07:55:45 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 07:51:39 PM
No I'm not. If someone is terminal but dies earlier than they should have due to COVID, then it is rightly noted that Covid was the cause. It's still robbed then of time. If you are arguing that if someone is terminal and dies it shouldn't be classed as covid regardless of whether it was the cause or not, then I simply don't agree.
But it doesn't matter what their cause of death is. If they test positive for Covid and they die, they are classified as a Covid death, irrespective of whether or not Covid was what killed them. And that is the danger of the arbitrary way in which it is being reported.
Hosptial admissions with Covid are also being skewed now. Not sure if it was up north or down south but it was reported that a woman who was admitted to hospital with a broken hip and subsequently tested positive for Covid is now being classified as a Covid admission. That woman is not in hospital due to Covid, she is in hospital due to breaking her hip.
Did you even read the link? It says how many dies because of Covid (The underlying reason) and how many just died with Covid. That's where the 91% comes from.
It's a bogus claim.
Let me get this right.
You are saying that Covid was the cause of death in 91% of cases where the person had Covid. You're saying this when we have data that states - 93% of people who die from Covid have underlying health issues, 95% of over the age of 65, 66% are over the age of 80%.
And you're coming here stating as matter of fact that Covid is the cause of death? We know from the NHS how these deaths are reported, if you have Covid when you die your death is recorded as a Covid death. You have reported some bogus study which stretches beyond any length of credibility.
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 10:23:07 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:20:13 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 08:03:22 PM
Any progress on an answer for me Angelo?
You're asking me for an answer I have already given you while I am awaiting an answer from you that you have failed to provide.
Interesting mindset you have.
I asked you this yesterday.
I have checked all the posts since that and you DEFINITELY have not answered this question.
So much for being the guy that doesn't shirk the hard questions.
LCohen has a point.
I already answered this.
What you fail to mention is that you have failed to answer the following questions posed to you.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?You're now resorting to the LCohen strategy or repeating questions that have been dealt with in a matter to avoid your inability to argue your own position.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:27:30 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 10:23:07 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:20:13 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 08:03:22 PM
Any progress on an answer for me Angelo?
You're asking me for an answer I have already given you while I am awaiting an answer from you that you have failed to provide.
Interesting mindset you have.
I asked you this yesterday.
I have checked all the posts since that and you DEFINITELY have not answered this question.
So much for being the guy that doesn't shirk the hard questions.
LCohen has a point.
I already answered this.
What you fail to mention is that you have failed to answer the following questions posed to you.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
You're now resorting to the LCohen strategy or repeating questions that have been dealt in a matter to avoid your inability to argue your own position.
You haven't.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a written record.
It's there in black and white (or not, in this case).
So, once more we'll try...
How does a virus like this "run it's course"?
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:24:50 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 08:02:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 07:55:45 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 07:51:39 PM
No I'm not. If someone is terminal but dies earlier than they should have due to COVID, then it is rightly noted that Covid was the cause. It's still robbed then of time. If you are arguing that if someone is terminal and dies it shouldn't be classed as covid regardless of whether it was the cause or not, then I simply don't agree.
But it doesn't matter what their cause of death is. If they test positive for Covid and they die, they are classified as a Covid death, irrespective of whether or not Covid was what killed them. And that is the danger of the arbitrary way in which it is being reported.
Hosptial admissions with Covid are also being skewed now. Not sure if it was up north or down south but it was reported that a woman who was admitted to hospital with a broken hip and subsequently tested positive for Covid is now being classified as a Covid admission. That woman is not in hospital due to Covid, she is in hospital due to breaking her hip.
Did you even read the link? It says how many dies because of Covid (The underlying reason) and how many just died with Covid. That's where the 91% comes from.
It's a bogus claim.
Let me get this right.
You are saying that Covid was the cause of death in 91% of cases where the person had Covid. You're saying this when we have data that states - 93% of people who die from Covid have underlying health issues, 95% of over the age of 65, 66% are over the age of 80%.
And you're coming stating matter of fact that Covid is the cause of death? We know from the NHS how these deaths are reported, if you have Covid when you die your death is recorded as a Covid death. You have reported some bogus study which stretches beyond any length of credibility.
Have you the stats on when these 93% of the people with underlying conditions will die and the stats on the 95% of the people over the age of 65 are going to die? I think the average death rate age is around 78? not sure..
Should we just let them take their chances so that we can have everything up and running for the young fit people? Is that your strategy? Or is it just lock them up away from everyone and look after ourselves?
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 10:31:17 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:27:30 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 10:23:07 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:20:13 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 08:03:22 PM
Any progress on an answer for me Angelo?
You're asking me for an answer I have already given you while I am awaiting an answer from you that you have failed to provide.
Interesting mindset you have.
I asked you this yesterday.
I have checked all the posts since that and you DEFINITELY have not answered this question.
So much for being the guy that doesn't shirk the hard questions.
LCohen has a point.
I already answered this.
What you fail to mention is that you have failed to answer the following questions posed to you.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
You're now resorting to the LCohen strategy or repeating questions that have been dealt in a matter to avoid your inability to argue your own position.
You haven't.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a written record.
It's there in black and white (or not, in this case).
So, once more we'll try...
How does a virus like this "run it's course"?
You're asking me a question that I have already answered. I had three fuckwits yesterday ask me to repeat an answer I have given numerous times.
We know the reason you are doing this. The reason you are doing this is because you can't argue your own positions.
So here is the question YOU ARE AVOIDING.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?Address that and stop trying to muddy the water on questions I have already fully addressed.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 10:31:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:24:50 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 08:02:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 07:55:45 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 07:51:39 PM
No I'm not. If someone is terminal but dies earlier than they should have due to COVID, then it is rightly noted that Covid was the cause. It's still robbed then of time. If you are arguing that if someone is terminal and dies it shouldn't be classed as covid regardless of whether it was the cause or not, then I simply don't agree.
But it doesn't matter what their cause of death is. If they test positive for Covid and they die, they are classified as a Covid death, irrespective of whether or not Covid was what killed them. And that is the danger of the arbitrary way in which it is being reported.
Hosptial admissions with Covid are also being skewed now. Not sure if it was up north or down south but it was reported that a woman who was admitted to hospital with a broken hip and subsequently tested positive for Covid is now being classified as a Covid admission. That woman is not in hospital due to Covid, she is in hospital due to breaking her hip.
Did you even read the link? It says how many dies because of Covid (The underlying reason) and how many just died with Covid. That's where the 91% comes from.
It's a bogus claim.
Let me get this right.
You are saying that Covid was the cause of death in 91% of cases where the person had Covid. You're saying this when we have data that states - 93% of people who die from Covid have underlying health issues, 95% of over the age of 65, 66% are over the age of 80%.
And you're coming stating matter of fact that Covid is the cause of death? We know from the NHS how these deaths are reported, if you have Covid when you die your death is recorded as a Covid death. You have reported some bogus study which stretches beyond any length of credibility.
Have you the stats on when these 93% of the people with underlying conditions will die and the stats on the 95% of the people over the age of 65 are going to die? I think the average death rate age is around 78? not sure..
Should we just let them take their chances so that we can have everything up and running for the young fit people? Is that your strategy? Or is it just lock them up away from everyone and look after ourselves?
Yes.
NISRA here covers the 95% over 65 https://www.nisra.gov.uk/publications/monthly-deaths - Mar-Aug table
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/over-93-of-people-who-died-with-covid-19-had-underlying-condition-cso-1.4402354
It's actually over 93% had underlying health conditions.
Do people die from terminal illness or old age anymore?
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:24:50 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 08:02:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 07:55:45 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 07:51:39 PM
No I'm not. If someone is terminal but dies earlier than they should have due to COVID, then it is rightly noted that Covid was the cause. It's still robbed then of time. If you are arguing that if someone is terminal and dies it shouldn't be classed as covid regardless of whether it was the cause or not, then I simply don't agree.
But it doesn't matter what their cause of death is. If they test positive for Covid and they die, they are classified as a Covid death, irrespective of whether or not Covid was what killed them. And that is the danger of the arbitrary way in which it is being reported.
Hosptial admissions with Covid are also being skewed now. Not sure if it was up north or down south but it was reported that a woman who was admitted to hospital with a broken hip and subsequently tested positive for Covid is now being classified as a Covid admission. That woman is not in hospital due to Covid, she is in hospital due to breaking her hip.
Did you even read the link? It says how many dies because of Covid (The underlying reason) and how many just died with Covid. That's where the 91% comes from.
It's a bogus claim.
Let me get this right.
You are saying that Covid was the cause of death in 91% of cases where the person had Covid. You're saying this when we have data that states - 93% of people who die from Covid have underlying health issues, 95% of over the age of 65, 66% are over the age of 80%.
And you're coming here stating as matter of fact that Covid is the cause of death? We know from the NHS how these deaths are reported, if you have Covid when you die your death is recorded as a Covid death. You have reported some bogus study which stretches beyond any length of credibility.
LOL when you get tired making a complete ass of yourself on line. This bogus study was from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. You are a complete moron. You can reword your question as many times as you like but the reality, as everyone can now see is that you have nothing. But I know your MO now is to go quiet on this for a while and the pop up again ignoring the whole previous discussion where you were shown up and just start again. I have no idea why you do that, but each to their own.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:39:28 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 10:31:50 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:24:50 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 08:02:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 07:55:45 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 07:51:39 PM
No I'm not. If someone is terminal but dies earlier than they should have due to COVID, then it is rightly noted that Covid was the cause. It's still robbed then of time. If you are arguing that if someone is terminal and dies it shouldn't be classed as covid regardless of whether it was the cause or not, then I simply don't agree.
But it doesn't matter what their cause of death is. If they test positive for Covid and they die, they are classified as a Covid death, irrespective of whether or not Covid was what killed them. And that is the danger of the arbitrary way in which it is being reported.
Hosptial admissions with Covid are also being skewed now. Not sure if it was up north or down south but it was reported that a woman who was admitted to hospital with a broken hip and subsequently tested positive for Covid is now being classified as a Covid admission. That woman is not in hospital due to Covid, she is in hospital due to breaking her hip.
Did you even read the link? It says how many dies because of Covid (The underlying reason) and how many just died with Covid. That's where the 91% comes from.
It's a bogus claim.
Let me get this right.
You are saying that Covid was the cause of death in 91% of cases where the person had Covid. You're saying this when we have data that states - 93% of people who die from Covid have underlying health issues, 95% of over the age of 65, 66% are over the age of 80%.
And you're coming stating matter of fact that Covid is the cause of death? We know from the NHS how these deaths are reported, if you have Covid when you die your death is recorded as a Covid death. You have reported some bogus study which stretches beyond any length of credibility.
Have you the stats on when these 93% of the people with underlying conditions will die and the stats on the 95% of the people over the age of 65 are going to die? I think the average death rate age is around 78? not sure..
Should we just let them take their chances so that we can have everything up and running for the young fit people? Is that your strategy? Or is it just lock them up away from everyone and look after ourselves?
Yes.
NISRA here covers the 95% over 65 https://www.nisra.gov.uk/publications/monthly-deaths - Mar-Aug table
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/over-93-of-people-who-died-with-covid-19-had-underlying-condition-cso-1.4402354
It's actually over 93% had underlying health conditions.
Do people die from terminal illness or old age anymore?
So to the second part of my post?
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:36:41 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 10:31:17 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:27:30 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 10:23:07 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:20:13 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 08:03:22 PM
Any progress on an answer for me Angelo?
You're asking me for an answer I have already given you while I am awaiting an answer from you that you have failed to provide.
Interesting mindset you have.
I asked you this yesterday.
I have checked all the posts since that and you DEFINITELY have not answered this question.
So much for being the guy that doesn't shirk the hard questions.
LCohen has a point.
I already answered this.
What you fail to mention is that you have failed to answer the following questions posed to you.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
You're now resorting to the LCohen strategy or repeating questions that have been dealt in a matter to avoid your inability to argue your own position.
You haven't.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a written record.
It's there in black and white (or not, in this case).
So, once more we'll try...
How does a virus like this "run it's course"?
You're asking me a question that I have already answered. I had three fuckwits yesterday ask me to repeat an answer I have given numerous times.
We know the reason you are doing this. The reason you are doing this is because you can't argue your own positions.
So here is the question YOU ARE AVOIDING.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Address that and stop trying to muddy the water on questions I have already fully addressed.
I don't think anyone wants any more failed lockdowns, we just want another successful one like last march where the numbers of infections went down by a huge amount. It meant that we had a fairly normal summer. The problem was that it was nearly too successful and idiots became complacent.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:36:41 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 10:31:17 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:27:30 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 10:23:07 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:20:13 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 05, 2021, 08:03:22 PM
Any progress on an answer for me Angelo?
You're asking me for an answer I have already given you while I am awaiting an answer from you that you have failed to provide.
Interesting mindset you have.
I asked you this yesterday.
I have checked all the posts since that and you DEFINITELY have not answered this question.
So much for being the guy that doesn't shirk the hard questions.
LCohen has a point.
I already answered this.
What you fail to mention is that you have failed to answer the following questions posed to you.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
You're now resorting to the LCohen strategy or repeating questions that have been dealt in a matter to avoid your inability to argue your own position.
You haven't.
It's not a matter of opinion, it's a written record.
It's there in black and white (or not, in this case).
So, once more we'll try...
How does a virus like this "run it's course"?
You're asking me a question that I have already answered. I had three fuckwits yesterday ask me to repeat an answer I have given numerous times.
We know the reason you are doing this. The reason you are doing this is because you can't argue your own positions.
So here is the question YOU ARE AVOIDING.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Address that and stop trying to muddy the water on questions I have already fully addressed.
You 100% haven't answered it, that's just a blatant lie.
As you once said to another poster - back yourself.
You are making a show of yourself with this squirming.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 10:42:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:24:50 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 08:02:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 07:55:45 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 07:51:39 PM
No I'm not. If someone is terminal but dies earlier than they should have due to COVID, then it is rightly noted that Covid was the cause. It's still robbed then of time. If you are arguing that if someone is terminal and dies it shouldn't be classed as covid regardless of whether it was the cause or not, then I simply don't agree.
But it doesn't matter what their cause of death is. If they test positive for Covid and they die, they are classified as a Covid death, irrespective of whether or not Covid was what killed them. And that is the danger of the arbitrary way in which it is being reported.
Hosptial admissions with Covid are also being skewed now. Not sure if it was up north or down south but it was reported that a woman who was admitted to hospital with a broken hip and subsequently tested positive for Covid is now being classified as a Covid admission. That woman is not in hospital due to Covid, she is in hospital due to breaking her hip.
Did you even read the link? It says how many dies because of Covid (The underlying reason) and how many just died with Covid. That's where the 91% comes from.
It's a bogus claim.
Let me get this right.
You are saying that Covid was the cause of death in 91% of cases where the person had Covid. You're saying this when we have data that states - 93% of people who die from Covid have underlying health issues, 95% of over the age of 65, 66% are over the age of 80%.
And you're coming here stating as matter of fact that Covid is the cause of death? We know from the NHS how these deaths are reported, if you have Covid when you die your death is recorded as a Covid death. You have reported some bogus study which stretches beyond any length of credibility.
LOL when you get tired making a complete ass of yourself on line. This bogus study was from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. You are a complete moron. You can reword your question as many times as you like but the reality, as everyone can now see is that you have nothing. But I know your MO now is to go quiet on this for a while and the pop up again ignoring the whole previous discussion where you were shown up and just start again. I have no idea why you do that, but each to their own.
Yes. It is quite clearly bogus.
It's not quantifiable.
We know if you have test positive for Covid when you die you are recorded as a Covid death. That's reality.
And you are saying that 91% of people who had Covid at their death, died from it when 93% of people already had underlying health conditions and 66% are over the age of 80. Are you seriously, seriously trying to tell me that is plausible?
Meanwhile you tried to contend with me (even though I never suggested it) that the 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18 had nothing to do with a very virulent Aussie flu strain.
The mental gynamstics and contradictions you are engaging in here are utterly staggering, reversing your logic to fit your narrative in two different cases.
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Angelo, break this down for me please..
Because someone has underlying conditions, does that mean they would have died anyways whether they caught covid or not?
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:52:40 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 10:42:08 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:24:50 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 08:02:55 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 05, 2021, 07:55:45 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 05, 2021, 07:51:39 PM
No I'm not. If someone is terminal but dies earlier than they should have due to COVID, then it is rightly noted that Covid was the cause. It's still robbed then of time. If you are arguing that if someone is terminal and dies it shouldn't be classed as covid regardless of whether it was the cause or not, then I simply don't agree.
But it doesn't matter what their cause of death is. If they test positive for Covid and they die, they are classified as a Covid death, irrespective of whether or not Covid was what killed them. And that is the danger of the arbitrary way in which it is being reported.
Hosptial admissions with Covid are also being skewed now. Not sure if it was up north or down south but it was reported that a woman who was admitted to hospital with a broken hip and subsequently tested positive for Covid is now being classified as a Covid admission. That woman is not in hospital due to Covid, she is in hospital due to breaking her hip.
Did you even read the link? It says how many dies because of Covid (The underlying reason) and how many just died with Covid. That's where the 91% comes from.
It's a bogus claim.
Let me get this right.
You are saying that Covid was the cause of death in 91% of cases where the person had Covid. You're saying this when we have data that states - 93% of people who die from Covid have underlying health issues, 95% of over the age of 65, 66% are over the age of 80%.
And you're coming here stating as matter of fact that Covid is the cause of death? We know from the NHS how these deaths are reported, if you have Covid when you die your death is recorded as a Covid death. You have reported some bogus study which stretches beyond any length of credibility.
LOL when you get tired making a complete ass of yourself on line. This bogus study was from the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency. You are a complete moron. You can reword your question as many times as you like but the reality, as everyone can now see is that you have nothing. But I know your MO now is to go quiet on this for a while and the pop up again ignoring the whole previous discussion where you were shown up and just start again. I have no idea why you do that, but each to their own.
Yes. It is quite clearly bogus.
It's not quantifiable.
We know if you have test positive for Covid when you die you are recorded as a Covid death. That's reality.
And you are saying that 91% of people who have Covid, died from it when 93% of people already had underlying health conditions and 66% are over the age of 80. Are you seriously, seriously trying to tell me that is plausible?
Meanwhile you tried to contend with me (even though I never suggested it) that the 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18 had nothing to do with a very virulent Aussie flu strain.
The mental gynamstics and contradictions you are engaging in here are utterly staggering, reversing your logic to fit your narrative in two different cases.
I'm not trying to say anything, The NI Statistics and Research Agency are. I tend to use sources like that to form my opinions. You can argue that you don't agree with it. Which is fine, but you'll prob find that most people will side official data rather than Angelo on the internet.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
More squirming, and no answers.
More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.
Make your case.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 10:57:52 AM
Angelo, break this down for me please..
Because someone has underlying conditions, does that mean they would have died anyways whether they caught covid or not?
It means that if they had Covid when they died or within a certain time period, they are registered as Covid being the cause of death when this may not have been true at all.
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:00:54 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
More squirming, and no answers.
More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.
Make your case.
Why won't you answer the question?
You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:03:58 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 10:57:52 AM
Angelo, break this down for me please..
Because someone has underlying conditions, does that mean they would have died anyways whether they caught covid or not?
It means that if they had Covid when they died or within a certain time period, they are registered as Covid being the cause of death when this may not have been true at all.
Correct. Around 8-9%. Which they have reported on. Via the report I linked to you.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
Angelo - the big Irish man. Out to free Ireland. Loves people who laid their lives down for their country and their fellow comrades.... but strangely not willing to take a vaccine to protect himself and others, to protect the most vulnerable in Irish society... this is the paradox that I cannot understand.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:03:58 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 10:57:52 AM
Angelo, break this down for me please..
Because someone has underlying conditions, does that mean they would have died anyways whether they caught covid or not?
It means that if they had Covid when they died or within a certain time period, they are registered as Covid being the cause of death when this may not have been true at all.
Correct. Around 8-9%. Which they have reported on. Via the report I linked to you.
That's utterly bogus though.
You're telling me that 91% of people who had Covid when they died from it, died as a result of Covid?
You're telling me this when 93% of people who die from Covid already had underlying health conditions, 66% of people who died from Covid were over the age of 80. And you're seriously, seriously trying to tell me that of all these people who died with a positive Covid test, died from Covid? Seriously?
Imagine if classifed deaths from flu under the exact same criteria, imagine if we tested every person who dies for flu?
People must not die from cancer, heart disease, respiratory failure or old age anymore.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.
If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.
But you don't seem to consider that at all.
Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?
Quote from: trailer on January 06, 2021, 11:10:12 AM
Angelo - the big Irish man. Out to free Ireland. Loves people who laid their lives down for their country and their fellow comrades.... but strangely not willing to take a vaccine to protect himself and others, to protect the most vulnerable in Irish society... this is the paradox that I cannot understand.
The vaccine is not a threat to my demograph. There is no evidence to suggest the vaccine will stop me contracting or transmitting the disease. The only motive for me to get the vaccine is to minimise any severe symptoms from the virus which does not seem to be the case from my demograph.
So your hysterical post is risible. So I won't be bowing to your hysterical, bullying behaviour because you are talking out of your arse.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:03:58 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 10:57:52 AM
Angelo, break this down for me please..
Because someone has underlying conditions, does that mean they would have died anyways whether they caught covid or not?
It means that if they had Covid when they died or within a certain time period, they are registered as Covid being the cause of death when this may not have been true at all.
But if they had underlying conditions, lets say COPD for instance, and died because when they contracted Covid, did Covid kill them? or did they die quicker because of both factors?
Do you think they would have lived longer without covid being around?
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:12:57 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:06:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:03:58 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 10:57:52 AM
Angelo, break this down for me please..
Because someone has underlying conditions, does that mean they would have died anyways whether they caught covid or not?
It means that if they had Covid when they died or within a certain time period, they are registered as Covid being the cause of death when this may not have been true at all.
Correct. Around 8-9%. Which they have reported on. Via the report I linked to you.
That's utterly bogus though.
You're telling me that 91% of people who had Covid when they died from it, died as a result of Covid?
You're telling me this when 93% of people who die from Covid already had underlying health conditions, 66% of people who died from Covid were over the age of 80. And you're seriously, seriously trying to tell me that of all these people who died with a positive Covid test, died from Covid? Seriously?
Imagine if classifed deaths from flu under the exact same criteria, imagine if we tested every person who dies for flu?
People must not die from cancer, heart disease, respiratory failure or old age anymore.
You'd want to pick that up with them. But I'd advise you go prepared. So state the facts that you have at your disposal.
Rather that just repeating a question which they have already answered but you seem unwilling to accept.
I should point out that people do die of other ailments. Do you think everyone who has dies in 2020 has been from Covid? Dementia and Alzheimer still leading the way. However if someone who has Dementia and dies due to getting covid as well, then they will be recorded as a Covid Death. Rightly so, unless you think that just because they were terminal with another illness means they can't die from Covid? I don't actually know if you are actually this stupid or just enjoy arguing. I thought it was more the latter but now, i'll be honest I'm not so sure.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 11:20:06 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:03:58 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 10:57:52 AM
Angelo, break this down for me please..
Because someone has underlying conditions, does that mean they would have died anyways whether they caught covid or not?
It means that if they had Covid when they died or within a certain time period, they are registered as Covid being the cause of death when this may not have been true at all.
But if they had underlying conditions, lets say COPD for instance, and died because when they contracted Covid, did Covid kill them? or did they die quicker because of both factors?
Do you think they would have lived longer without covid being around?
Maybe, maybe not.
But I know for a fact that people who have died and had underlying health conditions, who did not show any sign of symptom of having Covid, tested positive for Covid and had Covid registered as the cause of their death. How does that make sense?
Imagine if we had the exact same criteria for recording Covid deaths with seasonal flu every winter? Is a virulent strain of flu not extremely life threatening for someone with COPD or respiratory problems?
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.
If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.
But you don't seem to consider that at all.
Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?
Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.
As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.
If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.
But you don't seem to consider that at all.
Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?
Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.
As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.
Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.
Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.
For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.
Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:05:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:00:54 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
More squirming, and no answers.
More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.
Make your case.
Why won't you answer the question?
You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.
2 things;
1.
Your question involves trying "something else". So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is. You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course". So you need to explain what that means in reality. This is the bit where you are struggling badly. If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with. As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.
2.
I asked first.
So go ahead... take the floor
How does this virus "run its course"?
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:34:12 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:05:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:00:54 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
More squirming, and no answers.
More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.
Make your case.
Why won't you answer the question?
You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.
2 things;
1.
Your question involves trying "something else". So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is. You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course". So you need to explain what that means in reality. This is the bit where you are struggling badly. If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with. As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.
2.
I asked first.
So go ahead... take the floor
How does this virus "run its course"?
I think you'll find your question is already answered.
And you're still avoiding the question.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:31:56 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.
If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.
But you don't seem to consider that at all.
Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?
Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.
As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.
Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.
Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.
For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.
Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.
I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:37:28 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:34:12 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:05:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:00:54 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
More squirming, and no answers.
More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.
Make your case.
Why won't you answer the question?
You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.
2 things;
1.
Your question involves trying "something else". So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is. You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course". So you need to explain what that means in reality. This is the bit where you are struggling badly. If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with. As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.
2.
I asked first.
So go ahead... take the floor
How does this virus "run its course"?
I think you'll find your question is already answered.
And you're still avoiding the question.
Nope. Wrong again.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:31:56 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.
If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.
But you don't seem to consider that at all.
Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?
Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.
As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.
Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.
Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.
For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.
Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.
I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.
So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?
We are all going to die, that's a given, how quickly we die is down to a lot of factors, some are pre disposed others we bring on ourselves and some is just rotten luck.
Catching Covid will speed things up for some that have underlying conditions, and the elderly, speeding it up can be avoided and ultimately avoiding and shielding is the way forward for this group, but that doesn't mean that the virus will go away and not have an effect on the aged/sick people, as the people looking after them have lives outside of the homes they attend, so its not a given to just lock them up.
The lockdowns are designed to reduce the hospital intake, that's it, nothing more nothing less. It has done that as the hospitals, while desperately at breaking point haven't crumbled.
As for the economy, yes its taken a hit, business have floundered jobs lost, that's been worldwide, not just here on this island.
mental health issues, people had metal health issues before covid and they will have them after covid. As far as I'm aware there has been services available, but limited through phone calls, face time and so on, visits have been restricted, because of the virus.
Hospitals are cancelling ops because of staffing levels and the redirection of staff. Mother in-law waiting on open heart surgery.. been in week before xmas and no sign of surgery in Belfast, was offered Dublin Blackrock but consultants are still trying to arrange something here, its a critical op but no availability as yet. Its not like they don't want to do it, and they are not standing around scratching their toys.
I've yet to see a plan other than the NZ one that will allow us to be in a better places, that's a government thing, and it has failed miserable, and everyone is in agreement on that.
But this line of people are not dying of covid or because of covid is wearing thin, other than being hit by a bus and finding out they had covid within 28 days of that happening, that's not a death by covid, so we can take out those stats.
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:42:01 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:37:28 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:34:12 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:05:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:00:54 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
More squirming, and no answers.
More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.
Make your case.
Why won't you answer the question?
You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.
2 things;
1.
Your question involves trying "something else". So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is. You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course". So you need to explain what that means in reality. This is the bit where you are struggling badly. If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with. As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.
2.
I asked first.
So go ahead... take the floor
How does this virus "run its course"?
I think you'll find your question is already answered.
And you're still avoiding the question.
Nope. Wrong again.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:31:56 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.
If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.
But you don't seem to consider that at all.
Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?
Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.
As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.
Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.
Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.
For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.
Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.
I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.
So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?
Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:45:18 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:42:01 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:37:28 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:34:12 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:05:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:00:54 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
More squirming, and no answers.
More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.
Make your case.
Why won't you answer the question?
You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.
2 things;
1.
Your question involves trying "something else". So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is. You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course". So you need to explain what that means in reality. This is the bit where you are struggling badly. If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with. As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.
2.
I asked first.
So go ahead... take the floor
How does this virus "run its course"?
I think you'll find your question is already answered.
And you're still avoiding the question.
Nope. Wrong again.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
2 things;
1.
Your question involves trying "something else". So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is. You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course". So you need to explain what that means in reality. This is the bit where you are struggling badly. If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with. As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.
2.
I asked first.
So go ahead... take the floor
How does this virus "run its course"?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 11:45:06 AM
We are all going to die, that's a given, how quickly we die is down to a lot of factors, some are pre disposed others we bring on ourselves and some is just rotten luck.
Catching Covid will speed things up for some that have underlying conditions, and the elderly, speeding it up can be avoided and ultimately avoiding and shielding is the way forward for this group, but that doesn't mean that the virus will go away and not have an effect on the aged/sick people, as the people looking after them have lives outside of the homes they attend, so its not a given to just lock them up.
The lockdowns are designed to reduce the hospital intake, that's it, nothing more nothing less. It has done that as the hospitals, while desperately at breaking point haven't crumbled.
As for the economy, yes its taken a hit, business have floundered jobs lost, that's been worldwide, not just here on this island.
mental health issues, people had metal health issues before covid and they will have them after covid. As far as I'm aware there has been services available, but limited through phone calls, face time and so on, visits have been restricted, because of the virus.
Hospitals are cancelling ops because of staffing levels and the redirection of staff. Mother in-law waiting on open heart surgery.. been in week before xmas and no sign of surgery in Belfast, was offered Dublin Blackrock but consultants are still trying to arrange something here, its a critical op but no availability as yet. Its not like they don't want to do it, and they are not standing around scratching their toys.
I've yet to see a plan other than the NZ one that will allow us to be in a better places, that's a government thing, and it has failed miserable, and everyone is in agreement on that.
But this line of people are not dying of covid or because of covid is wearing thin, other than being hit by a bus and finding out they had covid within 28 days of that happening, that's not a death by covid, so we can take out those stats.
Mental health problems have been exasperated during Lockdowns, the same with domestic violence incidents, addiction relpases etc. These people need supports they cannot access during lockdowns are just a mere example of some of the issues. You seem to be kind of flippant to some of those groupings there, an "ah look, they always had mental health issues" kind of approach to an enviroment which now compounds matters. As Covid might trigger people with underlying health conditions and their situation to worsen, so to will lockdowns and people with mental health issues, people with physical and mental disabilities, people in abusive relationships.
But these people and their needs and their requirements have been ignored and put in the backseat to combat Covid.
Similarly we do know seasonal flu kills and causes serious health implication for the elderly and with underlying health conditions. What I can't accept is the two faced approach of people getting hysterical about the consequences of Covid while shrugging at a virulent flu seasons two years ago that had 50k excess deaths alone in the UK, as if it was nothing?
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:47:20 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:45:18 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:42:01 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:37:28 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:34:12 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:05:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:00:54 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
More squirming, and no answers.
More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.
Make your case.
Why won't you answer the question?
You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.
2 things;
1.
Your question involves trying "something else". So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is. You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course". So you need to explain what that means in reality. This is the bit where you are struggling badly. If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with. As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.
2.
I asked first.
So go ahead... take the floor
How does this virus "run its course"?
I think you'll find your question is already answered.
And you're still avoiding the question.
Nope. Wrong again.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
2 things;
1.
Your question involves trying "something else". So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is. You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course". So you need to explain what that means in reality. This is the bit where you are struggling badly. If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with. As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.
2.
I asked first.
So go ahead... take the floor
How does this virus "run its course"?
Can you answer the question?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:31:56 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.
If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.
But you don't seem to consider that at all.
Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?
Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.
As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.
Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.
Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.
For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.
Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.
I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.
So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?
Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.
Right, so if you were looking at your kettle and the plug blew up and the house caught fire, that's fine as long as it boils for you?
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:51:33 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:47:20 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:45:18 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:42:01 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:37:28 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:34:12 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:05:09 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 11:00:54 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
More squirming, and no answers.
More pathetic stuff from our resident gobshite.
Make your case.
Why won't you answer the question?
You demand it off others yet you can't answer it yourself. Just shows the type of coward you are. A complete and utter shaper who can snipe from the side but has nothing behind it.
2 things;
1.
Your question involves trying "something else". So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is. You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course". So you need to explain what that means in reality. This is the bit where you are struggling badly. If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with. As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.
2.
I asked first.
So go ahead... take the floor
How does this virus "run its course"?
I think you'll find your question is already answered.
And you're still avoiding the question.
Nope. Wrong again.
Are you going to answer the question or not?
2 things;
1.
Your question involves trying "something else". So to answer your question, I need you to tell me what "something else" is. You say that you've listed your "something else" but it involves letting the virus "run its course". So you need to explain what that means in reality. This is the bit where you are struggling badly. If you've got nothing, it would be easier to just say it and get it over with. As it is, all we have is a string of posts showing you up to be an absolute bluffer.
2.
I asked first.
So go ahead... take the floor
How does this virus "run its course"?
Can you answer the question?
Lol
See above.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:52:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:31:56 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.
If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.
But you don't seem to consider that at all.
Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?
Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.
As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.
Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.
Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.
For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.
Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.
I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.
So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?
Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.
Right, so if you were looking at your kettle and the plug blew up and the house caught fire, that's fine as long as it boils for you?
No. But what you are trying to do is blame lockdowns for the reduced level of care to these vulnerable groups. That's not the case. It's issues with the NHS that are causing them.
The issues with regards to people's mental health due to lock downs in an obvious negative. But completely outweighed by the risk to people from Covid.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:56:18 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:52:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:31:56 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.
If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.
But you don't seem to consider that at all.
Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?
Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.
As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.
Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.
Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.
For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.
Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.
I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.
So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?
Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.
Right, so if you were looking at your kettle and the plug blew up and the house caught fire, that's fine as long as it boils for you?
No. But what you are trying to do is blame lockdowns for the reduced level of care to these vulnerable groups. That's not the case. It's issues with the NHS that are causing them.
The issues with regards to people's mental health due to lock downs in an obvious negative. But completely outweighed by the risk to people from Covid.
The mental health issue also needs weighed up against the obvious mental health implications associated with the death of family members.
Which could be fairly widespread if we go down a route where, for instance, we let the virus "run its course"
As a great medical mind once suggested
(Then ran away)
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:56:18 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:52:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:31:56 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.
If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.
But you don't seem to consider that at all.
Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?
Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.
As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.
Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.
Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.
For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.
Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.
I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.
So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?
Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.
Right, so if you were looking at your kettle and the plug blew up and the house caught fire, that's fine as long as it boils for you?
No. But what you are trying to do is blame lockdowns for the reduced level of care to these vulnerable groups. That's not the case. It's issues with the NHS that are causing them.
The issues with regards to people's mental health due to lock downs in an obvious negative. But completely outweighed by the risk to people from Covid.
It's lockdown and the excessive restrictions where domestic abuse victims are holed up with their abusers. People with mental health problems are deprived of their routines, social contacts and supports, children are robbed of their ability to interact with other children and learn in a proper environment.
You seem hellbent on dismissing the very, very real consequences of lockdown on society. To what end I ask?
Jesus this thread is hard work..
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 12:15:09 PM
Jesus this thread is hard work..
Probably the pricks posting in it.
Quote from: armaghniac on January 06, 2021, 12:17:31 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 12:15:09 PM
Jesus this thread is hard work..
Probably the pricks posting in it.
Its tough going.
Anyway - has anyone seen anywhere when the vaccine will have the majority of the vulnerable/elderly covered here?
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:11:24 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:56:18 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:52:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:31:56 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.
If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.
But you don't seem to consider that at all.
Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?
Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.
As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.
Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.
Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.
For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.
Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.
I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.
So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?
Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.
Right, so if you were looking at your kettle and the plug blew up and the house caught fire, that's fine as long as it boils for you?
No. But what you are trying to do is blame lockdowns for the reduced level of care to these vulnerable groups. That's not the case. It's issues with the NHS that are causing them.
The issues with regards to people's mental health due to lock downs in an obvious negative. But completely outweighed by the risk to people from Covid.
It's lockdown and the excessive restrictions where domestic abuse victims are holed up with their abusers. People with mental health problems are deprived of their routines, social contacts and supports, children are robbed of their ability to interact with other children and learn in a proper environment.
You seem hellbent on dismissing the very, very real consequences of lockdown on society. To what end I ask?
Let me assure you I'm not playing anything down. Unfortunately we're not in a perfect world. Abuse will increase and agencies are trying to tackle that with increased advertising, call lines, increased public focus to notice the signs. Same for mental health, they will try and do as much as they can in the current circumstances. These are the negative side effects of the lock down. But the reduced death toll due to lock downs out-weights that. And that's before we mention the fact the without the lockdown the NHS would be under even more pressure and unlikely to be able to function, causing more deaths, more mental health problems, more children having to isolate etc.
Unfortunately lock downs are an essential.
Quote from: Taylor on January 06, 2021, 12:22:53 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 06, 2021, 12:17:31 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 12:15:09 PM
Jesus this thread is hard work..
Probably the pricks posting in it.
Its tough going.
Anyway - has anyone seen anywhere when the vaccine will have the majority of the vulnerable/elderly covered here?
Watched the news last night and it doesn't look good, for a small state like here you'd have expected a quick roll out of vaccines, August before the main baulk of vulnerable/elderly! Production issues of the vials needed to use for the vaccine is one such issue!
Lets order 200 million vaccines.. oh wait, has anyone ordered 200 million vials needed to store these things?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 12:25:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:11:24 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:56:18 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:52:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:46:37 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:44:41 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:40:27 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:31:56 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:26:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:15:30 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:12:09 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 11:03:55 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 10:56:07 AM
It's time for Franko to stop running away and answer the question.
How many more failed lockdowns do you want to bring? How many more suicides, job losses, domestic violence incidents do you want to take place before trying something else?
Not to talk for Franko, But just because you say failed lockdowns, doesn't actually make them failed lockdowns. They did exactly what it said on the tin. Reduce covid deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS.
They are failures. They have not worked. They have caused absolute carnage to people's mental health, relationships, support services to vulnerable groupings, the economy, people's livelihoods.
We'll get data somewhere down the line on suicides this year, if they have seen a notable rise in 2020 and you going to have the nerve to come on here and tell us lockdowns worked? They have been utter failures, if they worked we would not have had Lockdown 2.0 and now Lockdown 3.0.
Lockdowns are essentially governments washing their hands of responsibility, it's there way of citing compliance of the people as the failures of health services and proper planning to live with the virus.
They have worked. I can't be bothered arguing this anymore. It's opinion based so the reality is that your not changing your mind on their success and I'm not changing my position and neither will be able to prove anything definitively so we're as well to save time and leave it there.
If they work why are we in Lockdown 2.0 and Lockdown 3.0. What lockdowns have been proven to do is absolutely decimate employment, the economy, cause huge mental health issues, neglect vulnerable groupings who rely on support services and care, have a deep impact of the social development and education of children etc.
But you don't seem to consider that at all.
Would a lockdown have prevented 50k excess deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18? Should we have locked down then in hindsight?
Did you think a Lock down was going to keep the spread down after it finished? Is that actually what you are saying? That you believed one lock down was going to get rid of Covid. If this is your level of debate I would maybe hang the boots up.
As for the bit in bold, No, they should have taken measures and increased the level of vaccines pushed out.
But it's good that you brought it up, can you imagine what 2020 would have been like if we hadn't locked down. Imagine what the numbers would have been like if we hadn't taken those precautions. Even with them, we were well over the worse winter flu season in years. It's actually scary to think what might have happened had we not acted.
Your focus on lockdown is tunnel vision. Covid, covid, covid, covid.
Your reply made absolutely no reference or comment on the damaging aspects of Lockdown. Not even a countenance that lockdowns create serious problems and issue for wider society as a whole. I think the strategy has completely wrong as a whole.
For me this is a health service crisis, this is years and years and years of governments running down and not investing a health service coming home to roost. It is not the bubonic plague we are talking about here, it is not killing off thousands of fit, young and healthy people who contract it. The failure has been protecting the elderly, protecting the vulnerable and having a healthy system fit for purpose.
Lockdown will not sort out these problems I'm afraid and you seem absolutely hellbent on ignoring the scores of vulnerable groupings who have their services, supports and comforts utterly devastated - not by Covid but by severe Lockdown restrictions.
I didn't mention anything else for a reason. We discussed this previously. A lock down wasn't there to do anything other than reduce Covid Deaths and reduce pressure on the NHS. I'm with you on the fact that this has highlighted a severe failure in funding in the NHS. I don't think anyone would argue any differently. I would have questions over how the NHS operated and why some elective surgery couldn't go ahead. Especially at times when there seemed to be less impact on the NHS. But that should have been managed alongside a lock down. The NHS was being stretched due to staff sickness and isolating. It was never going to be able to operate even at it's usual poor level of service (And I mean that with the greatest level of respect to health workers who have been underfunded for years). That's why lockdowns were so important. To try and reduce any additional demands on an already overused service. It's really that simple.
So you accept you only look at Lockdowns through a Covid and disregard all the other implications of such?
Yes. In the same way I don't look at my kettle and judge it for not being able to make me toast.
Right, so if you were looking at your kettle and the plug blew up and the house caught fire, that's fine as long as it boils for you?
No. But what you are trying to do is blame lockdowns for the reduced level of care to these vulnerable groups. That's not the case. It's issues with the NHS that are causing them.
The issues with regards to people's mental health due to lock downs in an obvious negative. But completely outweighed by the risk to people from Covid.
It's lockdown and the excessive restrictions where domestic abuse victims are holed up with their abusers. People with mental health problems are deprived of their routines, social contacts and supports, children are robbed of their ability to interact with other children and learn in a proper environment.
You seem hellbent on dismissing the very, very real consequences of lockdown on society. To what end I ask?
Let me assure you I'm not playing anything down. Unfortunately we're not in a perfect world. Abuse will increase and agencies are trying to tackle that with increased advertising, call lines, increased public focus to notice the signs. Same for mental health, they will try and do as much as they can in the current circumstances. These are the negative side effects of the lock down. But the reduced death toll due to lock downs out-weights that. And that's before we mention the fact the without the lockdown the NHS would be under even more pressure and unlikely to be able to function, causing more deaths, more mental health problems, more children having to isolate etc.
Unfortunately lock downs are an essential.
Death toll of who though?
People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).
Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 06, 2021, 12:22:53 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 06, 2021, 12:17:31 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 12:15:09 PM
Jesus this thread is hard work..
Probably the pricks posting in it.
Its tough going.
Anyway - has anyone seen anywhere when the vaccine will have the majority of the vulnerable/elderly covered here?
Watched the news last night and it doesn't look good, for a small state like here you'd have expected a quick roll out of vaccines, August before the main baulk of vulnerable/elderly! Production issues of the vials needed to use for the vaccine is one such issue!
Lets order 200 million vaccines.. oh wait, has anyone ordered 200 million vials needed to store these things?
That's an excuse bandied about to allow for government failure
Israel have already 11%+ of their population with the 1st shot and we are only 6 days into 2021.
Supply won't be the issue.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 12:28:57 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 06, 2021, 12:22:53 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on January 06, 2021, 12:17:31 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 12:15:09 PM
Jesus this thread is hard work..
Probably the pricks posting in it.
Its tough going.
Anyway - has anyone seen anywhere when the vaccine will have the majority of the vulnerable/elderly covered here?
Watched the news last night and it doesn't look good, for a small state like here you'd have expected a quick roll out of vaccines, August before the main baulk of vulnerable/elderly! Production issues of the vials needed to use for the vaccine is one such issue!
Lets order 200 million vaccines.. oh wait, has anyone ordered 200 million vials needed to store these things?
August before those groups are vaccinated???
Such a shitshow.
That would mean over a year before everyone else gets it?
(https://graphics.reuters.com/HEALTH-CORONAVIRUS/xegpbbernpq/chart.png)
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:30:32 PM
Death toll of who though?
People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).
Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?
What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:30:32 PM
Death toll of who though?
People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).
Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?
What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?
We get on with things with reasonable restrictions like we had in the summer.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:04:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:30:32 PM
Death toll of who though?
People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).
Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?
What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?
We get on with things with reasonable restrictions like we had in the summer.
You do know what caused the additional lock downs? It was because the reasonable restrictions weren't working and numbers were starting to increase. If we had managed to maintain the numbers over the summer then I don't think there would have been any need to use any additional lockdowns. But the reality was, the numbers weren't maintained, therefore lockdown was essential. It's just a pity the 2nd lockdown was half arsed.
Did you have any joy on the numbers with regards to suicides and domestic abuse?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:30:32 PM
Death toll of who though?
People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).
Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?
What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?
That's it in a nutshell.
It's a shit sandwich, but there don't seem to be any other approaches.
At least any that stand up even the slightest bit of scrutiny.
The know-alls and bluffers amongst us would tell you different, but, as illustrated clearly on this thread, they are left flapping when asked for a credible alternative.
All the countries that have managed to get this under control have used societal lockdowns to do so.
Even the buccaneering Swedish were forced to fall in line eventually when things got out of hand.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 01:12:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:04:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:30:32 PM
Death toll of who though?
People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).
Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?
What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?
We get on with things with reasonable restrictions like we had in the summer.
You do know what caused the additional lock downs? It was because the reasonable restrictions weren't working and numbers were starting to increase. If we had managed to maintain the numbers over the summer then I don't think there would have been any need to use any additional lockdowns. But the reality was, the numbers weren't maintained, therefore lockdown was essential. It's just a pity the 2nd lockdown was half arsed.
Did you have any joy on the numbers with regards to suicides and domestic abuse?
Yes.
Lockdowns aren't sustainable and cause more damage that good. It's like a failed one trick pony here, we are in a vicious cycle of repeating the same failed strategy for the third time. The gov strategy seems to be cross its fingers and hope the vaccine works and/or doesn't kill us all. Modellers, doctors, scientists, politicians have been getting this whole thing wrong for a start.
What I can't understand is how none of you were voicing your concers when we had huge deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18. These are tangible figures. In the 2020 we haven't had one single month that came close to the number of deaths we had in Jan 2018. At the peak of the Covid 1st wave we had 1,933 deaths in April, in Jan 2018 we had 2,101 deaths and all we had on it were maybe a small column on page 5 of the daily newspapers.
We have absolutley lost the run of ourselves. You can die of anything as long as its not Covid and nobody gives a toss.
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 01:17:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:30:32 PM
Death toll of who though?
People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).
Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?
What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?
That's it in a nutshell.
It's a shit sandwich, but there don't seem to be any other approaches.
At least any that stand up even the slightest bit of scrutiny.
The know-alls and bluffers amongst us would tell you different, but, as illustrated clearly on this thread, they are left flapping when asked for a credible alternative.
All the countries that have managed to get this under control have used societal lockdowns to do so.
Even the buccaneering Swedish were forced to fall in line eventually when things got out of hand.
All those anti covid loons claiming Sweden's approach was the example for everyone else to follow have gone very quiet now. Their population density is quite low compared to the rest of Europe so they have a natural advantage alot of countries don't and despite this their death by covid figures are way higher than any of their scandanvian colleagues and thier health system is o the verge of collapse.
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 01:17:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:30:32 PM
Death toll of who though?
People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).
Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?
What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?
That's it in a nutshell.
It's a shit sandwich, but there don't seem to be any other approaches.
At least any that stand up even the slightest bit of scrutiny.
The know-alls and bluffers amongst us would tell you different, but, as illustrated clearly on this thread, they are left flapping when asked for a credible alternative.
All the countries that have managed to get this under control have used societal lockdowns to do so.
Even the buccaneering Swedish were forced to fall in line eventually when things got out of hand.
There certainly doesn't seem to be any other approaches when they keep on using the same one that has failed.
How has Sweden's approached faired out any worse than their European counterparts?
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 01:36:03 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 01:17:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:30:32 PM
Death toll of who though?
People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).
Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?
What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?
That's it in a nutshell.
It's a shit sandwich, but there don't seem to be any other approaches.
At least any that stand up even the slightest bit of scrutiny.
The know-alls and bluffers amongst us would tell you different, but, as illustrated clearly on this thread, they are left flapping when asked for a credible alternative.
All the countries that have managed to get this under control have used societal lockdowns to do so.
Even the buccaneering Swedish were forced to fall in line eventually when things got out of hand.
All those anti covid loons claiming Sweden's approach was the example for everyone else to follow have gone very quiet now.
Why have they gone quiet?
How are Sweden any worse?
Sweden lie 14th in Europe in terms of cases per population, 18th in deaths per population.
How have countries like Spain (12th), the UK (10th) and Italy (5th) who did impose severe lockdowns got on?
Logic really defies the rantings of you guys.
Angelo/Seany ins't the only person to use the figure of 50,000 excess flu deaths against the Covid 19 cases. Hotel owner Sir Rocco Forte has also made this claim. To be fair to Sir Rocco however he doesn't go as far as to suggest the virus should be allowed "run its course" (whatever that means)
https://www.bbc.com/news/54735702
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:08 PM
Angelo/Seany ins't the only person to use thew figure of 50,000 excess flu deaths against the Covid 19 cases. Hotel owner Sir Rocco Forte has also made this claim. To be fair to Sir Rocco however he doesn't go as far as to suggest the virus should be allowed "run its course" (whatever that means)
https://www.bbc.com/news/54735702
Nobody said they were flu deaths. They were excess deaths during flu that seemingly everyone thought were fine, dandy and acceptable at the time.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:29:06 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 01:12:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:04:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:30:32 PM
Death toll of who though?
People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).
Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?
What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?
We get on with things with reasonable restrictions like we had in the summer.
You do know what caused the additional lock downs? It was because the reasonable restrictions weren't working and numbers were starting to increase. If we had managed to maintain the numbers over the summer then I don't think there would have been any need to use any additional lockdowns. But the reality was, the numbers weren't maintained, therefore lockdown was essential. It's just a pity the 2nd lockdown was half arsed.
Did you have any joy on the numbers with regards to suicides and domestic abuse?
Yes.
Lockdowns aren't sustainable and cause more damage that good. It's like a failed one trick pony here, we are in a vicious cycle of repeating the same failed strategy for the third time. The gov strategy seems to be cross its fingers and hope the vaccine works and/or doesn't kill us all. Modellers, doctors, scientists, politicians have been getting this whole thing wrong for a start.
What I can't understand is how none of you were voicing your concers when we had huge deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18. These are tangible figures. In the 2020 we haven't had one single month that came close to the number of deaths we had in Jan 2018. At the peak of the Covid 1st wave we had 1,933 deaths in April, in Jan 2018 we had 2,101 deaths and all we had on it were maybe a small column on page 5 of the daily newspapers.
We have absolutley lost the run of ourselves. You can die of anything as long as its not Covid and nobody gives a toss.
We haven't had a January in Covid yet. Jan death rates are higher in general than April. Lets compare this again at the end of January 2021. Plus I might add that we had a lockdown in March 2020. This thankfully will have reduced the number of deaths that would have occurred in April 2020 if no restrictions had been put in place as like Jan 2018.
Can I ask why would people not care if you don't die of Covid? Just explain that logic to me?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
25k is the expected death each winter from all illnesses (not just flu). The 50k being quoted for 2017/18 is the total deaths from all illnesses, not just flu/pneumonia.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 01:49:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:29:06 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 01:12:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:04:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:30:32 PM
Death toll of who though?
People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).
Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?
What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?
We get on with things with reasonable restrictions like we had in the summer.
You do know what caused the additional lock downs? It was because the reasonable restrictions weren't working and numbers were starting to increase. If we had managed to maintain the numbers over the summer then I don't think there would have been any need to use any additional lockdowns. But the reality was, the numbers weren't maintained, therefore lockdown was essential. It's just a pity the 2nd lockdown was half arsed.
Did you have any joy on the numbers with regards to suicides and domestic abuse?
Yes.
Lockdowns aren't sustainable and cause more damage that good. It's like a failed one trick pony here, we are in a vicious cycle of repeating the same failed strategy for the third time. The gov strategy seems to be cross its fingers and hope the vaccine works and/or doesn't kill us all. Modellers, doctors, scientists, politicians have been getting this whole thing wrong for a start.
What I can't understand is how none of you were voicing your concers when we had huge deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18. These are tangible figures. In the 2020 we haven't had one single month that came close to the number of deaths we had in Jan 2018. At the peak of the Covid 1st wave we had 1,933 deaths in April, in Jan 2018 we had 2,101 deaths and all we had on it were maybe a small column on page 5 of the daily newspapers.
We have absolutley lost the run of ourselves. You can die of anything as long as its not Covid and nobody gives a toss.
We haven't had a January in Covid yet. Jan death rates are higher in general than April. Lets compare this again at the end of January 2021. Plus I might add that we had a lockdown in March 2020. This thankfully will have reduced the number of deaths that would have occurred in April 2020 if no restrictions had been put in place as like Jan 2018.
Can I ask why would people not care if you don't die of Covid? Just explain that logic to me?
April was an outlier, we've had 10x the number of cases in the Oct/Nov that we had in March/April but death rates were nowhere near the same level. I'd expect death rates to be in and around with a small variance of common death rates for Dec/Jan/Feb/Mar.
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
25k is the expected death each winter from all illnesses (not just flu). The 50k being quoted for 2017/18 is the total deaths from all illnesses, not just flu/pneumonia.
Imagine if we plugged all excess deaths down to one cause?
Oh wait.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:29:06 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 01:12:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:04:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:30:32 PM
Death toll of who though?
People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).
Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?
What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?
We get on with things with reasonable restrictions like we had in the summer.
You do know what caused the additional lock downs? It was because the reasonable restrictions weren't working and numbers were starting to increase. If we had managed to maintain the numbers over the summer then I don't think there would have been any need to use any additional lockdowns. But the reality was, the numbers weren't maintained, therefore lockdown was essential. It's just a pity the 2nd lockdown was half arsed.
Did you have any joy on the numbers with regards to suicides and domestic abuse?
Yes.
Lockdowns aren't sustainable and cause more damage that good. It's like a failed one trick pony here, we are in a vicious cycle of repeating the same failed strategy for the third time. The gov strategy seems to be cross its fingers and hope the vaccine works and/or doesn't kill us all. Modellers, doctors, scientists, politicians have been getting this whole thing wrong for a start.
What I can't understand is how none of you were voicing your concers when we had huge deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18. These are tangible figures. In the 2020 we haven't had one single month that came close to the number of deaths we had in Jan 2018. At the peak of the Covid 1st wave we had 1,933 deaths in April, in Jan 2018 we had 2,101 deaths and all we had on it were maybe a small column on page 5 of the daily newspapers.
We have absolutley lost the run of ourselves. You can die of anything as long as its not Covid and nobody gives a toss.
Angelo raises some fair points lads. The one in bold I tend to agree with.
It's ok to not like being restricted and locked down. I've had enough of it personally, compounded by the National Office of Statistics declaring death due to Covid on two occasions now when I know it was 100% not the cause of death (and a few more word of mouth, but obviously not exactly rock solid evidence). Just puts me right off "the cause".
Lockdown went from the last option, to the only option and nobody batted an eyelid. The politicians are offering no hope whatsoever. Robin Swann (Who quit the UUP leadership because it was too stressful...) and your Chief Medical Officer actually look happy enough to be in the limelight every Thursday during their press conference.
The repeated line is, "the vaccine is the way out". The vaccine is here, yet we are in the deepest lockdown yet and they are only predicting worse.
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
25k is the expected death each winter from all illnesses (not just flu). The 50k being quoted for 2017/18 is the total deaths from all illnesses, not just flu/pneumonia.
No, don't believe you, I've seen quotes that 50k people died of the flu, only, during the winter of 17/18, check your figures again please... as these figures are so relevant to this all year round, not flu, covid virus we have going on at the minute
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
It was attributed to a harsh winter temperatures, the beast from the east and an ineffective flu jab for the year. These were identified and with regards to the flu jab actions were taken to try and prevent this happening again. 2017-2018 was not a success, far from it and it will still be talked about in 10 years time when discussing a bad flu year. It was the worst in 40 odd years.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:55:58 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
25k is the expected death each winter from all illnesses (not just flu). The 50k being quoted for 2017/18 is the total deaths from all illnesses, not just flu/pneumonia.
No, don't believe you, I've seen quotes that 50k people died of the flu, only, during the winter of 17/18, check your figures again please... as these figures are so relevant to this all year round, not flu, covid virus we have going on at the minute
If you're referring to me I have said very clearly and distinctly. There were 50k excess deaths during the 17/18 winter flu season in the UK, whether they are down to flu is not quantifiable as we don't test for flu as we do for Covid. Were we too use the same criteria for recording Covid deaths and testing criteria you could almost guarantee that excess deaths associated with flu would be astronomical.
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/urgent-care/flu-and-cold-weather-contributed-towards-50000-excess-winter-deaths-last-year/
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on January 06, 2021, 01:53:43 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:29:06 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 01:12:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:04:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 12:48:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 12:30:32 PM
Death toll of who though?
People with underlying health conditions over the age of 80? How do we counter that with rises in suicide and long term impacts of unemployment, domestic violence, mental health, children's education and development? We seem to have a sole focus on Covid but are not looking at the negative impact that the current strategy. You can't have a debate on it without some hysterical people trying to say you want people to die (not you btw).
Should we not be taking a different approach to protecting the elderly and vulnerable and easing up on some of the more excessive restrictions?
What other approach is an option? There's a vaccine being rolled out. That will take the majority of the vulnerable out of the firing line for Covid. Once that's done things can reopen and relax restrictions more. We are buying time. What were the numbers of suicide increases during Covid? I haven't seen anything that quantifies how big an issue this is to be fair? Do you have any data on that? Same for abuse? It's hard to assess unless we've an idea of the impact these are causing?
We get on with things with reasonable restrictions like we had in the summer.
You do know what caused the additional lock downs? It was because the reasonable restrictions weren't working and numbers were starting to increase. If we had managed to maintain the numbers over the summer then I don't think there would have been any need to use any additional lockdowns. But the reality was, the numbers weren't maintained, therefore lockdown was essential. It's just a pity the 2nd lockdown was half arsed.
Did you have any joy on the numbers with regards to suicides and domestic abuse?
Yes.
Lockdowns aren't sustainable and cause more damage that good. It's like a failed one trick pony here, we are in a vicious cycle of repeating the same failed strategy for the third time. The gov strategy seems to be cross its fingers and hope the vaccine works and/or doesn't kill us all. Modellers, doctors, scientists, politicians have been getting this whole thing wrong for a start.
What I can't understand is how none of you were voicing your concers when we had huge deaths in the winter flu season of 17/18. These are tangible figures. In the 2020 we haven't had one single month that came close to the number of deaths we had in Jan 2018. At the peak of the Covid 1st wave we had 1,933 deaths in April, in Jan 2018 we had 2,101 deaths and all we had on it were maybe a small column on page 5 of the daily newspapers.
We have absolutley lost the run of ourselves. You can die of anything as long as its not Covid and nobody gives a toss.
Angelo raises some fair points lads. The one in bold I tend to agree with.
It's ok to not like being restricted and locked down. I've had enough of it personally, compounded by the National Office of Statistics declaring death due to Covid on two occasions now when I know it was 100% not the cause of death (and a few more word of mouth, but obviously not exactly rock solid evidence). Just puts me right off "the cause".
Lockdown went from the last option, to the only option and nobody batted an eyelid. The politicians are offering no hope whatsoever. Robin Swann (Who quit the UUP leadership because it was too stressful...) and your Chief Medical Officer actually look happy enough to be in the limelight every Thursday during their press conference.
The repeated line is, "the vaccine is the way out". The vaccine is here, yet we are in the deepest lockdown yet and they are only predicting worse.
I don't know anyone that is in favour of lockdowns, no one I've ever spoken to has said, great I love these lockdowns, some craic...
The problem is we have a community of people that can't follow instructions, we've an inept government that can't govern, we've the shittish NHS service for the whole of the uk. The entitlement of the anti vaccine crowd would sicken your hole. The fact that a worldwide pandemic has created more division than unity is staggering..
This insignificant country can't come together and put a plan in that could be like NZ, after seeing how well they have coped with the problem tells you everything you need to know about this place.
Personally, lockdowns ruin my business, even for an essential business/service that I'm in. If there was another solution I'd jump at it, The only solution I'm getting from some here is, lock up the vulnerable and elderly and let everyone under the age of 60 carry on, as its not the demographic that is being affected..
Is that what Angelo wants?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 02:01:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
It was attributed to a harsh winter temperatures, the beast from the east and an ineffective flu jab for the year. These were identified and with regards to the flu jab actions were taken to try and prevent this happening again. 2017-2018 was not a success, far from it and it will still be talked about in 10 years time when discussing a bad flu year. It was the worst in 40 odd years.
Yet we didn't bat an eyelid, a one day minor news stories at 50k excess deaths during a winter flu season. Done and dusted, move on a few days later, chalk it down to a "bad year".
But in Covid's case it's doomsday, mass hysteria and the destruction of society to cater for a 16% rise in excess deaths, primarily of people already with underlying health conditions, with very low life expectancy.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:55:58 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
25k is the expected death each winter from all illnesses (not just flu). The 50k being quoted for 2017/18 is the total deaths from all illnesses, not just flu/pneumonia.
No, don't believe you, I've seen quotes that 50k people died of the flu, only, during the winter of 17/18, check your figures again please... as these figures are so relevant to this all year round, not flu, covid virus we have going on at the minute
According to the UK's Annual Public Heath Report there were 26,408 deaths associated with flu in winter 2018. They do say there were serious issues with the flu vaccine that year and this was an issue
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/839350/Surveillance_of_influenza_and_other_respiratory_viruses_in_the_UK_2018_to_2019-FINAL.pdf
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:01:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:55:58 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
25k is the expected death each winter from all illnesses (not just flu). The 50k being quoted for 2017/18 is the total deaths from all illnesses, not just flu/pneumonia.
No, don't believe you, I've seen quotes that 50k people died of the flu, only, during the winter of 17/18, check your figures again please... as these figures are so relevant to this all year round, not flu, covid virus we have going on at the minute
If you're referring to me I have said very clearly and distinctly. There were 50k excess deaths during the 17/18 winter flu season in the UK, whether they are down to flu is not quantifiable as we don't test for flu as we do for Covid. Were we too use the same criteria for recording Covid deaths and testing criteria you could almost guarantee that excess deaths associated with flu would be astronomical.
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/urgent-care/flu-and-cold-weather-contributed-towards-50000-excess-winter-deaths-last-year/
At this point, that's when the sentence should stop, as you don't know, you have said its not available, there could have been multiple reasons why there may have been spikes in deaths that winter...
I'd two clients that died over xmas, both with chest infections, both elderly, both not covid related.. Other deaths are happening
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 02:05:16 PM
The entitlement of the anti vaccine crowd would sicken your hole.
What an utterly insane comment.
- Anyone who wants the vaccine should go ahead and get it, it should be a matter of personal choice
- If I was in at an at risk grouping, I would most likely roll the dice and get it
- The virus is not a threat to my demographic
- There is absolutely no evidence that shows the vaccine will stop me getting the virus
- There is absolutely no evidence that shows the vaccine will stop me transmitting the virus
- The only potential upside for me is that the vaccine
could potentially mean I suffer from a milder dose
if I did contract the virus
And your talking about
my sense of entitlement because I would rather exercise a personal choice in whether or not to take a rushed through vaccine from a shady industry with little upside in stopping the spread of the virus?
What an utter clown you must be.
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 02:06:33 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:55:58 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
25k is the expected death each winter from all illnesses (not just flu). The 50k being quoted for 2017/18 is the total deaths from all illnesses, not just flu/pneumonia.
No, don't believe you, I've seen quotes that 50k people died of the flu, only, during the winter of 17/18, check your figures again please... as these figures are so relevant to this all year round, not flu, covid virus we have going on at the minute
According to the UK's Annual Public Heath Report there were 26,408 deaths associated with flu in winter 2018. They do say there were serious issues with the flu vaccine that year and this was an issue
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/839350/Surveillance_of_influenza_and_other_respiratory_viruses_in_the_UK_2018_to_2019-FINAL.pdf
We don't test for flu.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:05:43 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 02:01:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
It was attributed to a harsh winter temperatures, the beast from the east and an ineffective flu jab for the year. These were identified and with regards to the flu jab actions were taken to try and prevent this happening again. 2017-2018 was not a success, far from it and it will still be talked about in 10 years time when discussing a bad flu year. It was the worst in 40 odd years.
Yet we didn't bat an eyelid, a one day minor news stories at 50k excess deaths during a winter flu season. Done and dusted, move on a few days later, chalk it down to a "bad year".
But in Covid's case it's doomsday, mass hysteria and the destruction of society to cater for a 16% rise in excess deaths, primarily of people already with underlying health conditions, with very low life expectancy.
It was one bad year. That's the thing with Flu, we know where we are with it. We know the average death toll we know 2017-2018 was the highest in 40 odd years. And the "no one batted an eyelid" rubbish is wearing thin. Most people I know could tell you 2017-2018 was a bad flu year. Have a quick google and you'll see thousands of references to it. But it was an outlier. This is the first year with Covid and it has already surpassed the worst year for flu/ excess deaths in 40 years. And that was while the world changed to try and deal with it.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 02:08:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:01:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:55:58 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 01:51:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
25k is the expected death each winter from all illnesses (not just flu). The 50k being quoted for 2017/18 is the total deaths from all illnesses, not just flu/pneumonia.
No, don't believe you, I've seen quotes that 50k people died of the flu, only, during the winter of 17/18, check your figures again please... as these figures are so relevant to this all year round, not flu, covid virus we have going on at the minute
If you're referring to me I have said very clearly and distinctly. There were 50k excess deaths during the 17/18 winter flu season in the UK, whether they are down to flu is not quantifiable as we don't test for flu as we do for Covid. Were we too use the same criteria for recording Covid deaths and testing criteria you could almost guarantee that excess deaths associated with flu would be astronomical.
https://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/urgent-care/flu-and-cold-weather-contributed-towards-50000-excess-winter-deaths-last-year/
At this point, that's when the sentence should stop, as you don't know, you have said its not available, there could have been multiple reasons why there may have been spikes in deaths that winter...
I'd two clients that died over xmas, both with chest infections, both elderly, both not covid related.. Other deaths are happening
Absolutely but there is also a trend year on year with excess deaths during the winter flu season.
Conversely you must apply the same criteria to Covid deaths then and the arbitrary way in which they are assigned.
But then again we know people like you like to reverse the logic they apply when the narrative reads a littler differently in other situations.
Excess deaths in April - must be Covid.
Excess deaths in January - must not be flu.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:10:17 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 02:05:16 PM
The entitlement of the anti vaccine crowd would sicken your hole.
What an utterly insane comment.
- Anyone who wants the vaccine should go ahead and get it, it should be a matter of personal choice
- If I was in at an at risk grouping, I would most likely roll the dice and get it
- The virus is not a threat to my demographic
- There is absolutely no evidence that shows the vaccine will stop me getting the virus
- There is absolutely no evidence that shows the vaccine will stop me transmitting the virus
- The only potential upside for me is that the vaccine could potentially mean I suffer from a milder dose if I did contract the virus
And your talking about my sense of entitlement because I would rather exercise a personal choice in whether or not to take a rushed through vaccine from a shady industry with little upside in stopping the spread of the virus?
What an utter clown you must be.
Don't take it personally, its a general statement.. If I've something to point out to you I'll quote you. Is that easy enough for you to understand? Shit Ive asked you question, sorry.
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
Now a spike of 25k deaths to normal winters one year in 40, you are now saying its happening every year? or was it just the winter of 17/18?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 02:05:16 PM
I don't know anyone that is in favour of lockdowns, no one I've ever spoken to has said, great I love these lockdowns, some craic...
The problem is we have a community of people that can't follow instructions, we've an inept government that can't govern, we've the shittish NHS service for the whole of the uk. The entitlement of the anti vaccine crowd would sicken your hole. The fact that a worldwide pandemic has created more division than unity is staggering..
This insignificant country can't come together and put a plan in that could be like NZ, after seeing how well they have coped with the problem tells you everything you need to know about this place.
Personally, lockdowns ruin my business, even for an essential business/service that I'm in. If there was another solution I'd jump at it, The only solution I'm getting from some here is, lock up the vulnerable and elderly and let everyone under the age of 60 carry on, as its not the demographic that is being affected..
Is that what Angelo wants?
The whole of Europe cannot follow instructions seemingly. If you don't know anyone in favour of lockdowns then you are more stupid than I initially thought, there are plenty of posters here demanding lockdowns and ignoring all the huge societal consequences that come with them. People simply will not open their eyes to the bigger picture, it's covid, covid, covid, covid, covid. It's the only show in town for them.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 02:18:35 PM
Now a spike of 25k deaths to normal winters one year in 40, you are now saying its happening every year? or was it just the winter of 17/18?
Every year it happens.
But 50k excess death was a staggering amount and people batted their eyes.
I wonder what would happen if they had rebadged the winter flu that year and gave it a new name, said it was a novel virus, mass tested the population and released daily case and death figures.
Most deaths in a single month 2006-2020 inclusive?
January 2018.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:19:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 02:05:16 PM
I don't know anyone that is in favour of lockdowns, no one I've ever spoken to has said, great I love these lockdowns, some craic...
The problem is we have a community of people that can't follow instructions, we've an inept government that can't govern, we've the shittish NHS service for the whole of the uk. The entitlement of the anti vaccine crowd would sicken your hole. The fact that a worldwide pandemic has created more division than unity is staggering..
This insignificant country can't come together and put a plan in that could be like NZ, after seeing how well they have coped with the problem tells you everything you need to know about this place.
Personally, lockdowns ruin my business, even for an essential business/service that I'm in. If there was another solution I'd jump at it, The only solution I'm getting from some here is, lock up the vulnerable and elderly and let everyone under the age of 60 carry on, as its not the demographic that is being affected..
Is that what Angelo wants?
The whole of Europe cannot follow instructions seemingly. If you don't know anyone in favour of lockdowns then you are more stupid than I initially thought, there are plenty of posters here demanding lockdowns and ignoring all the huge societal consequences that come with them. People simply will not open their eyes to the bigger picture, it's covid, covid, covid, covid, covid. It's the only show in town for them.
Ok, then ask, how many people on this board are happy for the lockdowns? don't be shy
I'm not in favour of them, I'd much prefer an easier solution like NZ did
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 02:21:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:19:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 02:05:16 PM
I don't know anyone that is in favour of lockdowns, no one I've ever spoken to has said, great I love these lockdowns, some craic...
The problem is we have a community of people that can't follow instructions, we've an inept government that can't govern, we've the shittish NHS service for the whole of the uk. The entitlement of the anti vaccine crowd would sicken your hole. The fact that a worldwide pandemic has created more division than unity is staggering..
This insignificant country can't come together and put a plan in that could be like NZ, after seeing how well they have coped with the problem tells you everything you need to know about this place.
Personally, lockdowns ruin my business, even for an essential business/service that I'm in. If there was another solution I'd jump at it, The only solution I'm getting from some here is, lock up the vulnerable and elderly and let everyone under the age of 60 carry on, as its not the demographic that is being affected..
Is that what Angelo wants?
The whole of Europe cannot follow instructions seemingly. If you don't know anyone in favour of lockdowns then you are more stupid than I initially thought, there are plenty of posters here demanding lockdowns and ignoring all the huge societal consequences that come with them. People simply will not open their eyes to the bigger picture, it's covid, covid, covid, covid, covid. It's the only show in town for them.
Ok, then ask, how many people on this board are happy for the lockdowns? don't be shy
I'm not in favour of them, I'd much prefer an easier solution like NZ did
Why are you phrasing it as happy?
Why don't you ask how many people support them? That's the kind of weasel you are, rather than admit you're wrong you will try and spin and manipulate the matters.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 02:21:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:19:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 02:05:16 PM
I don't know anyone that is in favour of lockdowns, no one I've ever spoken to has said, great I love these lockdowns, some craic...
The problem is we have a community of people that can't follow instructions, we've an inept government that can't govern, we've the shittish NHS service for the whole of the uk. The entitlement of the anti vaccine crowd would sicken your hole. The fact that a worldwide pandemic has created more division than unity is staggering..
This insignificant country can't come together and put a plan in that could be like NZ, after seeing how well they have coped with the problem tells you everything you need to know about this place.
Personally, lockdowns ruin my business, even for an essential business/service that I'm in. If there was another solution I'd jump at it, The only solution I'm getting from some here is, lock up the vulnerable and elderly and let everyone under the age of 60 carry on, as its not the demographic that is being affected..
Is that what Angelo wants?
The whole of Europe cannot follow instructions seemingly. If you don't know anyone in favour of lockdowns then you are more stupid than I initially thought, there are plenty of posters here demanding lockdowns and ignoring all the huge societal consequences that come with them. People simply will not open their eyes to the bigger picture, it's covid, covid, covid, covid, covid. It's the only show in town for them.
Ok, then ask, how many people on this board are happy for the lockdowns? don't be shy
I'm not in favour of them, I'd much prefer an easier solution like NZ did
Why are you phrasing it as happy?
Why don't you ask how many people support them? That's the kind of weasel you are, rather than admit you're wrong you will try and spin and manipulate the matters.
Seriously? You've not admitted to being wrong once on this board! Spin? f**k you're having a laugh
So like I said (and calling me a weasel you lose your argument with the personal stuff ;)) who's in favour of lockdowns? Is that better wording? I'm not in favour of them, if we could find a better solution I will take it. Just waiting on someone with a bitta brains to give me a solution to all of this, though I much prefer to hear about the winter of 17/18
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 02:34:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:27:18 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 02:21:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:19:12 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 02:05:16 PM
I don't know anyone that is in favour of lockdowns, no one I've ever spoken to has said, great I love these lockdowns, some craic...
The problem is we have a community of people that can't follow instructions, we've an inept government that can't govern, we've the shittish NHS service for the whole of the uk. The entitlement of the anti vaccine crowd would sicken your hole. The fact that a worldwide pandemic has created more division than unity is staggering..
This insignificant country can't come together and put a plan in that could be like NZ, after seeing how well they have coped with the problem tells you everything you need to know about this place.
Personally, lockdowns ruin my business, even for an essential business/service that I'm in. If there was another solution I'd jump at it, The only solution I'm getting from some here is, lock up the vulnerable and elderly and let everyone under the age of 60 carry on, as its not the demographic that is being affected..
Is that what Angelo wants?
The whole of Europe cannot follow instructions seemingly. If you don't know anyone in favour of lockdowns then you are more stupid than I initially thought, there are plenty of posters here demanding lockdowns and ignoring all the huge societal consequences that come with them. People simply will not open their eyes to the bigger picture, it's covid, covid, covid, covid, covid. It's the only show in town for them.
Ok, then ask, how many people on this board are happy for the lockdowns? don't be shy
I'm not in favour of them, I'd much prefer an easier solution like NZ did
Why are you phrasing it as happy?
Why don't you ask how many people support them? That's the kind of weasel you are, rather than admit you're wrong you will try and spin and manipulate the matters.
Seriously? You've not admitted to being wrong once on this board! Spin? f**k you're having a laugh
So like I said (and calling me a weasel you lose your argument with the personal stuff ;)) who's in favour of lockdowns? Is that better wording? I'm not in favour of them, if we could find a better solution I will take it. Just waiting on someone with a bitta brains to give me a solution to all of this, though I much prefer to hear about the winter of 17/18
Nice to see you joking about a bad flu season which had 50k excess deaths now.
Joking?
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
Taylor / Milltown (Millhouse these days ;D).. A good % of GP practices have been administering Pfizer vaccines this week to the over 80s. All, or the vast majority will have and be administering Oxford vaccines to the over 80s from Monday. No idea of projected completion date for this demographic, but it should be way before Aug.
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Were you not complaining about people making strawman arguements? No one has said there's not down sides to lockdowns. It's just outweighted by the benefits. And again they have not failed twice. Us trying to manage under restrictions has failed 3 times hence the reason for lock downs.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.
So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?
If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
So you haven't.
So using Angelo logic you clearly have tunnel vision around these issues and therefore you obviously don't give a fcuk about sending thousands of elderly people to an early grave.
See how easy this sorta grifting is?
The Central Statistics Office only publish an annual figure for the number of deaths by suicide in Ireland as they wait for coroner's court to confirm a case of a death by suicide as the official cause, which can take up to 6 months. The 2019 figure released in May 2020 was recorded as 421.
In September the Samaritans when asked about possible increase in suicides due to lockdown said they did not believe so based on the demand for their services.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 05:00:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
So you haven't.
So using Angelo logic you clearly have tunnel vision around these issues and therefore you obviously don't give a fcuk about sending thousands of elderly people to an early grave.
See how easy this sorta grifting is?
You're answering your question there.
I said that Lockdowns exasperate the problems of these people which would previously have been addressed to a much more acceptable level.
You seem to be saying f**k their needs?
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 07:36:57 PM
In September the Samaritans when asked about possible increase in suicides due to lockdown said they did not believe so based on the demand for their services.
Have you got something to back that up.
The Samaritans released a study in conjunction with the University of Glasgow that stated Lockdowns had a severe impact on the mental health of our young people in particular and the impact of Lockdowns on mental health was likely to be "profound and long lasting". It also showed an "increasing rate in suicidal thoughts". That was published back in October.
It's going to be 6 months down the line so tell us what is acceptable for you in terms of excess suicides this year?
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 05:00:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
So you haven't.
So using Angelo logic you clearly have tunnel vision around these issues and therefore you obviously don't give a fcuk about sending thousands of elderly people to an early grave.
See how easy this sorta grifting is?
You're answering your question there.
I said that Lockdowns exasperate the problems of these people which would previously have been addressed to a much more acceptable level.
You seem to be saying f**k their needs?
So you don't give a fcuk about the thousands of elderly folks (and others) who are headed for an early grave.
It's easy to be Angelo
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 07:36:57 PM
In September the Samaritans when asked about possible increase in suicides due to lockdown said they did not believe so based on the demand for their services.
Have you got something to back that up.
The Samaritans released a study in conjunction with the University of Glasgow that stated Lockdowns had a severe impact on the mental health of our young people in particular and the impact of Lockdowns on mental health was likely to be "profound and long lasting". It also showed an "increasing rate in suicidal thoughts". That was published back in October.
It's going to be 6 months down the line so tell us what is acceptable for you in terms of excess suicides this year?
This will all come out in the wash in the months/years to come.
If suicides and mental health issues spike in the incoming months/years then that will be yet another tragic outcome of this.
The problem is that we have to do something now. We can't wait for data that may or may not ever come before doing something.
And almost every government in the world cannot see a better alternative than some level of societal lockdown.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though
A guy Angelo on the gah board knows the answer
But unfortunately he won't tell anyone what it is
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:53:11 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 05:00:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
So you haven't.
So using Angelo logic you clearly have tunnel vision around these issues and therefore you obviously don't give a fcuk about sending thousands of elderly people to an early grave.
See how easy this sorta grifting is?
You're answering your question there.
I said that Lockdowns exasperate the problems of these people which would previously have been addressed to a much more acceptable level.
You seem to be saying f**k their needs?
So you don't give a fcuk about the thousands of elderly folks (and others) who are headed for an early grave.
It's easy to be Angelo
If they're elderly then they are not heading for an early grave.
I would be more concerned about the wide reaching implications this has on vulnerable groupings whose support services have been taken away, children and people trapped in households where domestic violence and other forms of abuse are occurring who do not have the safe haven of schools and work anymore. I would have more concerns on the long ranging impact unemployment will have on the wellbeing and mental health of people, I would have more concern on the implications of those elderly people living alone who are now cocooned by themselves unable to have their social gatherings and routines such as mass, bingo and other community get togethers.
Quality of life is what is important. There are plenty of the elderly vulnerable groupings who would completely disagree with what you are contending here, they have lived their lives and don't want to spend what remaining time they have left hiding under their bed away from people. If I was 80 odd years of age. I'd take one more good years over 3 years of failing health and fear.
It's very, very cynical the words you use and the way you callously dismiss vulnerable groupings. You won't answer anything?
What's an acceptable increase in suicides for you this year? Because what you are supporting makes it inevitable.
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:59:38 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 07:36:57 PM
In September the Samaritans when asked about possible increase in suicides due to lockdown said they did not believe so based on the demand for their services.
Have you got something to back that up.
The Samaritans released a study in conjunction with the University of Glasgow that stated Lockdowns had a severe impact on the mental health of our young people in particular and the impact of Lockdowns on mental health was likely to be "profound and long lasting". It also showed an "increasing rate in suicidal thoughts". That was published back in October.
It's going to be 6 months down the line so tell us what is acceptable for you in terms of excess suicides this year?
This will all come out in the wash in the months/years to come.
If suicides and mental health issues spike in the incoming months/years then that will be yet another tragic outcome of this.
The problem is that we have to do something now. We can't wait for data that may or may not ever come before doing something.
And almost every government in the world cannot see a better alternative than some level of societal lockdown.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though
A guy Angelo on the gah board knows the answer
But unfortunately he won't tell anyone what it is
So we have to do something now for Covid?
But we don't do anything now for mental health or suicides?
Right.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:00:42 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:53:11 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 05:00:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
So you haven't.
So using Angelo logic you clearly have tunnel vision around these issues and therefore you obviously don't give a fcuk about sending thousands of elderly people to an early grave.
See how easy this sorta grifting is?
You're answering your question there.
I said that Lockdowns exasperate the problems of these people which would previously have been addressed to a much more acceptable level.
You seem to be saying f**k their needs?
So you don't give a fcuk about the thousands of elderly folks (and others) who are headed for an early grave.
It's easy to be Angelo
If they're elderly then they are not heading for an early grave.
I would be more concerned about the wide reaching implications this has on vulnerable groupings whose support services have been taken away, children and people trapped in households where domestic violence and other forms of abuse are occurring who do not have the safe haven of schools and work anymore. I would have more concerns on the long ranging impact unemployment will have on the wellbeing and mental health of people, I would have more concern on the implications of those elderly people living alone who are now cocooned by themselves unable to have their social gatherings and routines such as mass, bingo and other community get togethers.
Quality of life is what is important. There are plenty of the elderly vulnerable groupings who would completely disagree with what you are contending here, they have lived their lives and don't want to spend what remaining time they have left hiding under their bed away from people. If I was 80 odd years of age. I'd take one more good years over 3 years of failing health and fear.
It's very, very cynical the words you use and the way you callously dismiss vulnerable groupings. You won't answer anything?
What's an acceptable increase in suicides for you this year? Because what you are supporting makes it inevitable.
If they die earlier than they normally would have because they have contracted covid, then they have been sent to an early grave.
And you are clearly content with that.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:01:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:59:38 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 07:36:57 PM
In September the Samaritans when asked about possible increase in suicides due to lockdown said they did not believe so based on the demand for their services.
Have you got something to back that up.
The Samaritans released a study in conjunction with the University of Glasgow that stated Lockdowns had a severe impact on the mental health of our young people in particular and the impact of Lockdowns on mental health was likely to be "profound and long lasting". It also showed an "increasing rate in suicidal thoughts". That was published back in October.
It's going to be 6 months down the line so tell us what is acceptable for you in terms of excess suicides this year?
This will all come out in the wash in the months/years to come.
If suicides and mental health issues spike in the incoming months/years then that will be yet another tragic outcome of this.
The problem is that we have to do something now. We can't wait for data that may or may not ever come before doing something.
And almost every government in the world cannot see a better alternative than some level of societal lockdown.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though
A guy Angelo on the gah board knows the answer
But unfortunately he won't tell anyone what it is
So we have to do something now for Covid?
But we don't do anything now for mental health or suicides?
Right.
Not saying it will always be like this, but this is an excerpt from an editorial published in the BMJ in Novermber 2020.
Nevertheless, a reasonably consistent picture is beginning to emerge from high income countries. Reports suggest either no rise in suicide rates (Massachusetts, USA11; Victoria, Australia13; England14) or a fall (Japan,9 Norway15) in the early months of the pandemic. The picture is much less clear in low income countries, where the safety nets available in better resourced settings may be lacking. News reports of police data from Nepal suggest a rise in suicides,12 whereas an analysis of data from Peru suggests the opposite.10https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:06:50 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:00:42 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:53:11 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 05:00:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
So you haven't.
So using Angelo logic you clearly have tunnel vision around these issues and therefore you obviously don't give a fcuk about sending thousands of elderly people to an early grave.
See how easy this sorta grifting is?
You're answering your question there.
I said that Lockdowns exasperate the problems of these people which would previously have been addressed to a much more acceptable level.
You seem to be saying f**k their needs?
So you don't give a fcuk about the thousands of elderly folks (and others) who are headed for an early grave.
It's easy to be Angelo
If they're elderly then they are not heading for an early grave.
I would be more concerned about the wide reaching implications this has on vulnerable groupings whose support services have been taken away, children and people trapped in households where domestic violence and other forms of abuse are occurring who do not have the safe haven of schools and work anymore. I would have more concerns on the long ranging impact unemployment will have on the wellbeing and mental health of people, I would have more concern on the implications of those elderly people living alone who are now cocooned by themselves unable to have their social gatherings and routines such as mass, bingo and other community get togethers.
Quality of life is what is important. There are plenty of the elderly vulnerable groupings who would completely disagree with what you are contending here, they have lived their lives and don't want to spend what remaining time they have left hiding under their bed away from people. If I was 80 odd years of age. I'd take one more good years over 3 years of failing health and fear.
It's very, very cynical the words you use and the way you callously dismiss vulnerable groupings. You won't answer anything?
What's an acceptable increase in suicides for you this year? Because what you are supporting makes it inevitable.
If they die earlier than they normally would have because they have contracted covid, then they have been sent to an early grave.
And you are clearly content with that.
The difference between me and you is that I try and look at things from a broad perspective. I don't focus on one demograph and go to hell with the rest. Would you like to tell a victim of domestic violence that it was neccessary she suffered such horrendous abuse so a 84 year old in a nursing home can get 4 extra months of being confined to a hospital bed living with dementia? You should answer that question because that's the reality of the strategy undertaken
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:08:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:01:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:59:38 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 07:36:57 PM
In September the Samaritans when asked about possible increase in suicides due to lockdown said they did not believe so based on the demand for their services.
Have you got something to back that up.
The Samaritans released a study in conjunction with the University of Glasgow that stated Lockdowns had a severe impact on the mental health of our young people in particular and the impact of Lockdowns on mental health was likely to be "profound and long lasting". It also showed an "increasing rate in suicidal thoughts". That was published back in October.
It's going to be 6 months down the line so tell us what is acceptable for you in terms of excess suicides this year?
This will all come out in the wash in the months/years to come.
If suicides and mental health issues spike in the incoming months/years then that will be yet another tragic outcome of this.
The problem is that we have to do something now. We can't wait for data that may or may not ever come before doing something.
And almost every government in the world cannot see a better alternative than some level of societal lockdown.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though
A guy Angelo on the gah board knows the answer
But unfortunately he won't tell anyone what it is
So we have to do something now for Covid?
But we don't do anything now for mental health or suicides?
Right.
Not saying it will always be like this, but this is an excerpt from an editorial published in the BMJ in Novermber 2020.
Nevertheless, a reasonably consistent picture is beginning to emerge from high income countries. Reports suggest either no rise in suicide rates (Massachusetts, USA11; Victoria, Australia13; England14) or a fall (Japan,9 Norway15) in the early months of the pandemic. The picture is much less clear in low income countries, where the safety nets available in better resourced settings may be lacking. News reports of police data from Nepal suggest a rise in suicides,12 whereas an analysis of data from Peru suggests the opposite.10
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352
In the early months. We are now closing in on 12 months. We are in Lockdown 3.0 with businesses folding, jobs being lost, schools shut again etc etc.
It's all going to come out in the wash. Just remember you argued for this.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:10:37 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:06:50 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:00:42 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:53:11 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 05:00:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
So you haven't.
So using Angelo logic you clearly have tunnel vision around these issues and therefore you obviously don't give a fcuk about sending thousands of elderly people to an early grave.
See how easy this sorta grifting is?
You're answering your question there.
I said that Lockdowns exasperate the problems of these people which would previously have been addressed to a much more acceptable level.
You seem to be saying f**k their needs?
So you don't give a fcuk about the thousands of elderly folks (and others) who are headed for an early grave.
It's easy to be Angelo
If they're elderly then they are not heading for an early grave.
I would be more concerned about the wide reaching implications this has on vulnerable groupings whose support services have been taken away, children and people trapped in households where domestic violence and other forms of abuse are occurring who do not have the safe haven of schools and work anymore. I would have more concerns on the long ranging impact unemployment will have on the wellbeing and mental health of people, I would have more concern on the implications of those elderly people living alone who are now cocooned by themselves unable to have their social gatherings and routines such as mass, bingo and other community get togethers.
Quality of life is what is important. There are plenty of the elderly vulnerable groupings who would completely disagree with what you are contending here, they have lived their lives and don't want to spend what remaining time they have left hiding under their bed away from people. If I was 80 odd years of age. I'd take one more good years over 3 years of failing health and fear.
It's very, very cynical the words you use and the way you callously dismiss vulnerable groupings. You won't answer anything?
What's an acceptable increase in suicides for you this year? Because what you are supporting makes it inevitable.
If they die earlier than they normally would have because they have contracted covid, then they have been sent to an early grave.
And you are clearly content with that.
The difference between me and you is that I try and look at things from a broad perspective. I don't focus on one demograph and go to hell with the rest. Would you like to tell a victim of domestic violence that it was neccessary she suffered such horrendous abuse so a 84 year old in a nursing home can get 4 extra months of being confined to a hospital bed living with dementia? You should answer that question because that's the reality of the strategy undertaken
That's not the reality.
That's a hypothetical anecdotal story you made up. It's as far from reality as it's possible to be.
I'll have a go at this nonsense game
Would you like to tell a 40 year old man with mild asthma and 4 young children that he's going to have to die in a couple of weeks to prevent his neighbour having increased suicidal thoughts?
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:15:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:10:37 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:06:50 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:00:42 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:53:11 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:38:27 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 05:00:29 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
So you haven't.
So using Angelo logic you clearly have tunnel vision around these issues and therefore you obviously don't give a fcuk about sending thousands of elderly people to an early grave.
See how easy this sorta grifting is?
You're answering your question there.
I said that Lockdowns exasperate the problems of these people which would previously have been addressed to a much more acceptable level.
You seem to be saying f**k their needs?
So you don't give a fcuk about the thousands of elderly folks (and others) who are headed for an early grave.
It's easy to be Angelo
If they're elderly then they are not heading for an early grave.
I would be more concerned about the wide reaching implications this has on vulnerable groupings whose support services have been taken away, children and people trapped in households where domestic violence and other forms of abuse are occurring who do not have the safe haven of schools and work anymore. I would have more concerns on the long ranging impact unemployment will have on the wellbeing and mental health of people, I would have more concern on the implications of those elderly people living alone who are now cocooned by themselves unable to have their social gatherings and routines such as mass, bingo and other community get togethers.
Quality of life is what is important. There are plenty of the elderly vulnerable groupings who would completely disagree with what you are contending here, they have lived their lives and don't want to spend what remaining time they have left hiding under their bed away from people. If I was 80 odd years of age. I'd take one more good years over 3 years of failing health and fear.
It's very, very cynical the words you use and the way you callously dismiss vulnerable groupings. You won't answer anything?
What's an acceptable increase in suicides for you this year? Because what you are supporting makes it inevitable.
If they die earlier than they normally would have because they have contracted covid, then they have been sent to an early grave.
And you are clearly content with that.
The difference between me and you is that I try and look at things from a broad perspective. I don't focus on one demograph and go to hell with the rest. Would you like to tell a victim of domestic violence that it was neccessary she suffered such horrendous abuse so a 84 year old in a nursing home can get 4 extra months of being confined to a hospital bed living with dementia? You should answer that question because that's the reality of the strategy undertaken
That's not the reality.
That's a hypothetical anecdotal story you made up. It's as far from reality as it's possible to be.
I'll have a go at this nonsense game
Would you like to tell a 40 year old man with mild asthma and 4 young children that he's going to have to die in a couple of weeks to prevent his neighbour having increased suicidal thoughts?
It is the reality.
How many 40 year old men have died?
We accept fit and healthy men in their 30s dying of flu every year without the need of society shutting down? Why do we accept that?
We accept young men and women getting behind the wheel of a car and dying day in and day out? So why do we accept that?
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:12:07 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:08:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:01:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:59:38 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 07:36:57 PM
In September the Samaritans when asked about possible increase in suicides due to lockdown said they did not believe so based on the demand for their services.
Have you got something to back that up.
The Samaritans released a study in conjunction with the University of Glasgow that stated Lockdowns had a severe impact on the mental health of our young people in particular and the impact of Lockdowns on mental health was likely to be "profound and long lasting". It also showed an "increasing rate in suicidal thoughts". That was published back in October.
It's going to be 6 months down the line so tell us what is acceptable for you in terms of excess suicides this year?
This will all come out in the wash in the months/years to come.
If suicides and mental health issues spike in the incoming months/years then that will be yet another tragic outcome of this.
The problem is that we have to do something now. We can't wait for data that may or may not ever come before doing something.
And almost every government in the world cannot see a better alternative than some level of societal lockdown.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though
A guy Angelo on the gah board knows the answer
But unfortunately he won't tell anyone what it is
So we have to do something now for Covid?
But we don't do anything now for mental health or suicides?
Right.
Not saying it will always be like this, but this is an excerpt from an editorial published in the BMJ in Novermber 2020.
Nevertheless, a reasonably consistent picture is beginning to emerge from high income countries. Reports suggest either no rise in suicide rates (Massachusetts, USA11; Victoria, Australia13; England14) or a fall (Japan,9 Norway15) in the early months of the pandemic. The picture is much less clear in low income countries, where the safety nets available in better resourced settings may be lacking. News reports of police data from Nepal suggest a rise in suicides,12 whereas an analysis of data from Peru suggests the opposite.10
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352
In the early months. We are now closing in on 12 months. We are in Lockdown 3.0 with businesses folding, jobs being lost, schools shut again etc etc.
It's all going to come out in the wash. Just remember you argued for this.
Nope.
I argued that this is f**king horrendous but that I don't see a feasible alternative.
Again I can play your fictional games.
Just remember that your are arguing for a significant percentage of those over 60, plus a random smattering of those younger than 60 to be culled.
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:20:14 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:12:07 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:08:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:01:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:59:38 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 07:36:57 PM
In September the Samaritans when asked about possible increase in suicides due to lockdown said they did not believe so based on the demand for their services.
Have you got something to back that up.
The Samaritans released a study in conjunction with the University of Glasgow that stated Lockdowns had a severe impact on the mental health of our young people in particular and the impact of Lockdowns on mental health was likely to be "profound and long lasting". It also showed an "increasing rate in suicidal thoughts". That was published back in October.
It's going to be 6 months down the line so tell us what is acceptable for you in terms of excess suicides this year?
This will all come out in the wash in the months/years to come.
If suicides and mental health issues spike in the incoming months/years then that will be yet another tragic outcome of this.
The problem is that we have to do something now. We can't wait for data that may or may not ever come before doing something.
And almost every government in the world cannot see a better alternative than some level of societal lockdown.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though
A guy Angelo on the gah board knows the answer
But unfortunately he won't tell anyone what it is
So we have to do something now for Covid?
But we don't do anything now for mental health or suicides?
Right.
Not saying it will always be like this, but this is an excerpt from an editorial published in the BMJ in Novermber 2020.
Nevertheless, a reasonably consistent picture is beginning to emerge from high income countries. Reports suggest either no rise in suicide rates (Massachusetts, USA11; Victoria, Australia13; England14) or a fall (Japan,9 Norway15) in the early months of the pandemic. The picture is much less clear in low income countries, where the safety nets available in better resourced settings may be lacking. News reports of police data from Nepal suggest a rise in suicides,12 whereas an analysis of data from Peru suggests the opposite.10
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352
In the early months. We are now closing in on 12 months. We are in Lockdown 3.0 with businesses folding, jobs being lost, schools shut again etc etc.
It's all going to come out in the wash. Just remember you argued for this.
Nope.
I argued that this is f**king horrendous but that I don't see a feasible alternative.
Again I can play your fictional games.
Just remember that your are arguing for a significant percentage of those over 60, plus a random smattering of those younger than 60 to be culled.
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
Up until the end of August we had 3 men who were aged in their 40s die from Covid.
So just open up and let the 80 year olds have those few weeks before they die of a respiratory death in an ICU with no family friends around them and the worst funeral arrangements you can think of!
The mind boggles, Shipman springs to mind
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2021, 12:27:07 PM
So just open up and let the 80 year olds have those few weeks before they die of a respiratory death in an ICU with no family friends around them and the worst funeral arrangements you can think of!
The mind boggles, Shipman springs to mind
So you're supporting domestic violence then?
Fred West comes to mind.
We can both play that game.
The difference between me and you is I am trying to look at the big picture, not dismissing the needs of vulnerable groupings in the callous manner you do. f**k them right?
And btw your firs part is contracitory, if we are opening it up, we wouldn't be having no family friends or worst funeral arrangements. You can't even frame you argument without contradicting yourself.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:23:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:20:14 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:12:07 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:08:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:01:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:59:38 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 07:36:57 PM
In September the Samaritans when asked about possible increase in suicides due to lockdown said they did not believe so based on the demand for their services.
Have you got something to back that up.
The Samaritans released a study in conjunction with the University of Glasgow that stated Lockdowns had a severe impact on the mental health of our young people in particular and the impact of Lockdowns on mental health was likely to be "profound and long lasting". It also showed an "increasing rate in suicidal thoughts". That was published back in October.
It's going to be 6 months down the line so tell us what is acceptable for you in terms of excess suicides this year?
This will all come out in the wash in the months/years to come.
If suicides and mental health issues spike in the incoming months/years then that will be yet another tragic outcome of this.
The problem is that we have to do something now. We can't wait for data that may or may not ever come before doing something.
And almost every government in the world cannot see a better alternative than some level of societal lockdown.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though
A guy Angelo on the gah board knows the answer
But unfortunately he won't tell anyone what it is
So we have to do something now for Covid?
But we don't do anything now for mental health or suicides?
Right.
Not saying it will always be like this, but this is an excerpt from an editorial published in the BMJ in Novermber 2020.
Nevertheless, a reasonably consistent picture is beginning to emerge from high income countries. Reports suggest either no rise in suicide rates (Massachusetts, USA11; Victoria, Australia13; England14) or a fall (Japan,9 Norway15) in the early months of the pandemic. The picture is much less clear in low income countries, where the safety nets available in better resourced settings may be lacking. News reports of police data from Nepal suggest a rise in suicides,12 whereas an analysis of data from Peru suggests the opposite.10
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352
In the early months. We are now closing in on 12 months. We are in Lockdown 3.0 with businesses folding, jobs being lost, schools shut again etc etc.
It's all going to come out in the wash. Just remember you argued for this.
Nope.
I argued that this is f**king horrendous but that I don't see a feasible alternative.
Again I can play your fictional games.
Just remember that your are arguing for a significant percentage of those over 60, plus a random smattering of those younger than 60 to be culled.
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
Up until the end of August we had 3 men who were aged in their 40s die from Covid.
We have a vaccination program for the flu and a health service that seems to be calibrated so it can
just about treat everyone suffering from flu in the best way current medical knowledge deems possible.
Unfortunately, for this disease, we have one which is only coming online and which a few simpletons will refuse and another which is nowhere near able to cope.
Those issues need addressed, but like I have said multiple times - that ship has sailed for now.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:33:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:23:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:20:14 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:12:07 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:08:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:01:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:59:38 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 07:36:57 PM
In September the Samaritans when asked about possible increase in suicides due to lockdown said they did not believe so based on the demand for their services.
Have you got something to back that up.
The Samaritans released a study in conjunction with the University of Glasgow that stated Lockdowns had a severe impact on the mental health of our young people in particular and the impact of Lockdowns on mental health was likely to be "profound and long lasting". It also showed an "increasing rate in suicidal thoughts". That was published back in October.
It's going to be 6 months down the line so tell us what is acceptable for you in terms of excess suicides this year?
This will all come out in the wash in the months/years to come.
If suicides and mental health issues spike in the incoming months/years then that will be yet another tragic outcome of this.
The problem is that we have to do something now. We can't wait for data that may or may not ever come before doing something.
And almost every government in the world cannot see a better alternative than some level of societal lockdown.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though
A guy Angelo on the gah board knows the answer
But unfortunately he won't tell anyone what it is
So we have to do something now for Covid?
But we don't do anything now for mental health or suicides?
Right.
Not saying it will always be like this, but this is an excerpt from an editorial published in the BMJ in Novermber 2020.
Nevertheless, a reasonably consistent picture is beginning to emerge from high income countries. Reports suggest either no rise in suicide rates (Massachusetts, USA11; Victoria, Australia13; England14) or a fall (Japan,9 Norway15) in the early months of the pandemic. The picture is much less clear in low income countries, where the safety nets available in better resourced settings may be lacking. News reports of police data from Nepal suggest a rise in suicides,12 whereas an analysis of data from Peru suggests the opposite.10
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352
In the early months. We are now closing in on 12 months. We are in Lockdown 3.0 with businesses folding, jobs being lost, schools shut again etc etc.
It's all going to come out in the wash. Just remember you argued for this.
Nope.
I argued that this is f**king horrendous but that I don't see a feasible alternative.
Again I can play your fictional games.
Just remember that your are arguing for a significant percentage of those over 60, plus a random smattering of those younger than 60 to be culled.
Up until the end of August we had 3 men who were aged in their 40s die from Covid.
We have a vaccination program for the flu and a health service that seems to be calibrated so it can just about treat everyone suffering from flu in the best way current medical knowledge deems possible.
Unfortunately, for this disease, we have one which is only coming online and which a few simpletons will refuse and another which is nowhere near able to cope.
Those issues need addressed, but like I have said multiple times - that ship has sailed for now.
Answer the questions:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
Lockdowns are not only because people are dying. People are going to die from flu or from this.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 07, 2021, 12:37:24 PM
Lockdowns are not only because people are dying. People are going to die from flu or from this.
Yes.
And I'll ask you again.
What about the damage lockdowns cause? Never seems to enter your equation, pass it off, shrug your shoulders, doesn't matter, not worth thinking about.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:30:42 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2021, 12:27:07 PM
So just open up and let the 80 year olds have those few weeks before they die of a respiratory death in an ICU with no family friends around them and the worst funeral arrangements you can think of!
The mind boggles, Shipman springs to mind
So you're supporting domestic violence then?
Fred West comes to mind.
We can both play that game.
The difference between me and you is I am trying to look at the big picture, not dismissing the needs of vulnerable groupings in the callous manner you do. f**k them right?
Figures for people hospitalized for covid and the difference in suicides that you have been presented with is off the chart!!!
So I'll answer your question, I'm not ever supporting domestic violence , the police have not stopped working and the services are still working. So people can still get in contact and report to the various different groups. Is it on the rise? I'm sure it is.
Now, do you think letting people die earlier, go through the type of death, and families have funeral arrangements that we have currently is ok? also long as you can have a pint in the local and go about your day, as you don't fall into that bracket, so f**k them!
Fred didnt kill Rose, she was a willing colleague in his game of being a serial killer, not a domestic abuser.
Who's shrugging it off?
Just because you think there is no alternative to lockdown with the way things are going doesn't mean you are shrugging off the implications of them.
Do you think if you approve of lockdown that you don't care about people?
Approval vs thinking something is unfortunately a necessary evil are not the same thing.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:35:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:33:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:23:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:20:14 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:12:07 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:08:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:01:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:59:38 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 07:36:57 PM
In September the Samaritans when asked about possible increase in suicides due to lockdown said they did not believe so based on the demand for their services.
Have you got something to back that up.
The Samaritans released a study in conjunction with the University of Glasgow that stated Lockdowns had a severe impact on the mental health of our young people in particular and the impact of Lockdowns on mental health was likely to be "profound and long lasting". It also showed an "increasing rate in suicidal thoughts". That was published back in October.
It's going to be 6 months down the line so tell us what is acceptable for you in terms of excess suicides this year?
This will all come out in the wash in the months/years to come.
If suicides and mental health issues spike in the incoming months/years then that will be yet another tragic outcome of this.
The problem is that we have to do something now. We can't wait for data that may or may not ever come before doing something.
And almost every government in the world cannot see a better alternative than some level of societal lockdown.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though
A guy Angelo on the gah board knows the answer
But unfortunately he won't tell anyone what it is
So we have to do something now for Covid?
But we don't do anything now for mental health or suicides?
Right.
Not saying it will always be like this, but this is an excerpt from an editorial published in the BMJ in Novermber 2020.
Nevertheless, a reasonably consistent picture is beginning to emerge from high income countries. Reports suggest either no rise in suicide rates (Massachusetts, USA11; Victoria, Australia13; England14) or a fall (Japan,9 Norway15) in the early months of the pandemic. The picture is much less clear in low income countries, where the safety nets available in better resourced settings may be lacking. News reports of police data from Nepal suggest a rise in suicides,12 whereas an analysis of data from Peru suggests the opposite.10
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352
In the early months. We are now closing in on 12 months. We are in Lockdown 3.0 with businesses folding, jobs being lost, schools shut again etc etc.
It's all going to come out in the wash. Just remember you argued for this.
Nope.
I argued that this is f**king horrendous but that I don't see a feasible alternative.
Again I can play your fictional games.
Just remember that your are arguing for a significant percentage of those over 60, plus a random smattering of those younger than 60 to be culled.
Up until the end of August we had 3 men who were aged in their 40s die from Covid.
We have a vaccination program for the flu and a health service that seems to be calibrated so it can just about treat everyone suffering from flu in the best way current medical knowledge deems possible.
Unfortunately, for this disease, we have one which is only coming online and which a few simpletons will refuse and another which is nowhere near able to cope.
Those issues need addressed, but like I have said multiple times - that ship has sailed for now.
Answer the questions:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
I already have.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:35:56 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:33:57 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:23:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:20:14 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:12:07 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 12:08:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:01:28 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 11:59:38 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:43:54 AM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 06, 2021, 07:36:57 PM
In September the Samaritans when asked about possible increase in suicides due to lockdown said they did not believe so based on the demand for their services.
Have you got something to back that up.
The Samaritans released a study in conjunction with the University of Glasgow that stated Lockdowns had a severe impact on the mental health of our young people in particular and the impact of Lockdowns on mental health was likely to be "profound and long lasting". It also showed an "increasing rate in suicidal thoughts". That was published back in October.
It's going to be 6 months down the line so tell us what is acceptable for you in terms of excess suicides this year?
This will all come out in the wash in the months/years to come.
If suicides and mental health issues spike in the incoming months/years then that will be yet another tragic outcome of this.
The problem is that we have to do something now. We can't wait for data that may or may not ever come before doing something.
And almost every government in the world cannot see a better alternative than some level of societal lockdown.
There is light at the end of the tunnel though
A guy Angelo on the gah board knows the answer
But unfortunately he won't tell anyone what it is
So we have to do something now for Covid?
But we don't do anything now for mental health or suicides?
Right.
Not saying it will always be like this, but this is an excerpt from an editorial published in the BMJ in Novermber 2020.
Nevertheless, a reasonably consistent picture is beginning to emerge from high income countries. Reports suggest either no rise in suicide rates (Massachusetts, USA11; Victoria, Australia13; England14) or a fall (Japan,9 Norway15) in the early months of the pandemic. The picture is much less clear in low income countries, where the safety nets available in better resourced settings may be lacking. News reports of police data from Nepal suggest a rise in suicides,12 whereas an analysis of data from Peru suggests the opposite.10
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4352
In the early months. We are now closing in on 12 months. We are in Lockdown 3.0 with businesses folding, jobs being lost, schools shut again etc etc.
It's all going to come out in the wash. Just remember you argued for this.
Nope.
I argued that this is f**king horrendous but that I don't see a feasible alternative.
Again I can play your fictional games.
Just remember that your are arguing for a significant percentage of those over 60, plus a random smattering of those younger than 60 to be culled.
Up until the end of August we had 3 men who were aged in their 40s die from Covid.
We have a vaccination program for the flu and a health service that seems to be calibrated so it can just about treat everyone suffering from flu in the best way current medical knowledge deems possible.
Unfortunately, for this disease, we have one which is only coming online and which a few simpletons will refuse and another which is nowhere near able to cope.
Those issues need addressed, but like I have said multiple times - that ship has sailed for now.
Answer the questions:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
Answer the questions:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu? There is a yearly vaccine program for this, it's been in place for a while now
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that? Maybe we should encourage the elderly to sanitize, reduced contact and was hands more often through the winter. Not a bad thing going forward
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you? No death is acceptable, whether its flu, covid, cancer or death drivers!! If there is a way of reducing them then its unacceptable not to put in measures that will save or let someone live longer
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2021, 12:41:34 PM
Figures for people hospitalized for covid and the difference in suicides that you have been presented with is off the chart!!!
So I'll answer your question, I'm not ever supporting domestic violence , the police have not stopped working and the services are still working. So people can still get in contact and report to the various different groups. Is it on the rise? I'm sure it is.
Fred didnt kill Rose, she was a willing colleague in his game of being a serial killer, not a domestic abuser.
Figures for people hospitalized for covid and the difference in suicides that you have been presented with is off the chart!!! How do you know? You don't but it is a huge cause for concern and people within the mental health field are extremely worried about the consequences of lockdowns. This information has all to come to light and here you are dismissing it.
So I'll answer your question, I'm not ever supporting domestic violence , the police have not stopped working and the services are still working. So people can still get in contact and report to the various different groups. Is it on the rise? I'm sure it is.Domestic violence reports have increased hugely during lockdowns, massively. People are subjected to spend more time locked indoors with their abuser and lockdowns are the cause of it. Once again you are belittling and demeaning these victims as an inconvenience.
Now, do you think letting people die earlier, go through the type of death, and families have funeral arrangements that we have currently is ok? also long as you can have a pint in the local and go about your day, as you don't fall into that bracket, so f**k them!First of all I don't the type of funeral arrangements we have are ok. They are another consequence of lockdowns, so if you have an issue with people not being able to give their loved ones a proper send off then why are you supporting the mechanism which stops them from doing so? I couldn't give a toss about going to my local but I do care about society as a whole. If the pubs never reopened again it would only be a mild inconvenience to me. I am worried about the mental health of people, I am worried about the long term consequences of unemployment, do the economy, to society, to people on a personal level.
The way I look at it is, we have a choice, to enrich the lives of the young, fit and healthy - to give them the opportunities to enjoy the best years of their lives. And right now we are causing huge, huge consequences to society, far reaching and long lasting to what end? It's grand we have clarified domestic abuse victims are one of the groupings you don't give a toss about though.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 07, 2021, 12:43:02 PM
Who's shrugging it off?
Just because you think there is no alternative to lockdown with the way things are going doesn't mean you are shrugging off the implications of them.
Do you think if you approve of lockdown that you don't care about people?
Approval vs thinking something is unfortunately a necessary evil are not the same thing.
You are.
Do you accept the cure could be worse than the problem?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2021, 12:47:14 PM
Answer the questions:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu? There is a yearly vaccine program for this, it's been in place for a while now
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that? Maybe we should encourage the elderly to sanitize, reduced contact and was hands more often through the winter. Not a bad thing going forward
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you? No death is acceptable, whether its flu, covid, cancer or death drivers!! If there is a way of reducing them then its unacceptable not to put in measures that will save or let someone live longer
1. We have a vaccine for Covid now too, being ran in conjuction with a draconian lockdown so what's your point?
2. But no lockdown right, what did he die from? Flu. Ah good enough for him. He can die from anything as long as it's not Covid.
3. Well why do you accept excess deaths every winter from flu? Every year we accept these deaths without a need for lockdown. A lockdown would prevent and certainly minimise the numbers of deaths for flu. But no, it's acceptable to die from flu but not Covid.
What a hypocrite.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:54:02 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 07, 2021, 12:43:02 PM
Who's shrugging it off?
Just because you think there is no alternative to lockdown with the way things are going doesn't mean you are shrugging off the implications of them.
Do you think if you approve of lockdown that you don't care about people?
Approval vs thinking something is unfortunately a necessary evil are not the same thing.
You are.
Do you accept the cure could be worse than the problem?
Umm. No I'm not.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:58:14 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2021, 12:47:14 PM
Answer the questions:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu? There is a yearly vaccine program for this, it's been in place for a while now
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that? Maybe we should encourage the elderly to sanitize, reduced contact and was hands more often through the winter. Not a bad thing going forward
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you? No death is acceptable, whether its flu, covid, cancer or death drivers!! If there is a way of reducing them then its unacceptable not to put in measures that will save or let someone live longer
1. We have a vaccine for Covid now too, being ran in conjuction with a draconian lockdown so what's your point?
2. But no lockdown right, what did he die from? Flu. Ah good enough for him. He can die from anything as long as it's not Covid.
3. Well why do you accept excess deaths every winter from flu? Every year we accept these deaths without a need for lockdown. A lockdown would prevent and certainly minimise the numbers of deaths for flu. But no, it's acceptable to die from flu but not Covid.
What a hypocrite.
You're the type that if everyone was in boat rowing for safety, your be rowing the other direction..
I wish you well
From the Samaritans website:
What do we know about coronavirus and suicide risk?
It is still too soon to know whether coronavirus has affected suicide rates and it is important to note that a rise is not inevitable. However, the effects of the pandemic are being disproportionately felt by the most vulnerable people in society and are exacerbating factors we know are related to suicide.
Clearly the less well off suffer more than the wealthy, but that could be applied to pretty much any area of life.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.
No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.
Got the astrazeneca vaccine today.
I feel fine.
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 07, 2021, 01:44:04 PM
Got the astrazeneca vaccine today.
I feel fine.
Lets get the first covid pub opened! Anyone that has the vaccine can call in with his friends that have been vaccinated and have a pint or two ;D
must bring ID, as IN vaccine proof ID
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 07, 2021, 01:44:04 PM
Got the astrazeneca vaccine today.
I feel fine.
Sheep. Shill etc. etc. Good stuff. The sooner we get it rolled out across society the better. Maybe we should target the civil service next to see if it improves their absence rates.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.
No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.
OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 07, 2021, 01:46:46 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 07, 2021, 01:44:04 PM
Got the astrazeneca vaccine today.
I feel fine.
Lets get the first covid pub opened! Anyone that has the vaccine can call in with his friends that have been vaccinated and have a pint or two ;D
must bring ID, as IN vaccine proof ID
So you've no problem actually catching and spreading the virus to others?
Enlightening.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:47:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.
No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.
OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.
I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 07, 2021, 01:47:06 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 07, 2021, 01:44:04 PM
Got the astrazeneca vaccine today.
I feel fine.
Sheep. Shill etc. etc. Good stuff. The sooner we get it rolled out across society the better. Maybe we should target the civil service next to see if it improves their absence rates.
Ah yes.
Someone who thinks he can demand that others have them same outlook as them.
I've no issue with anyone getting the vaccine, that's their call and they can make informed decisions on their own health situation.
But people like you are dangerous, demanding others take a vaccine that people do have a right to be suspicious and wary about.
But to be fair
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:47:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.
No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.
OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.
I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown. They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:59:03 PM
But to be fair Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:47:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.
No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.
OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.
I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown. They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.
Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.
If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:59:03 PM
But to be fair Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:47:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.
No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.
OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.
I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown. They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.
Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.
If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?
The New Zealanders have conclusively proved this to be nonsense.
It's f**king up the bit after the lockdown that means we keep having repeats.
I am not really sure what you want as an outcome to your arguments here.
Thinking there is no alternative to once solution does not equal dismissing another.
There are costs to locking down and costs to not locking down.
You accusing people of not considering the implications of lockdown when they think it is the only choice we have is basically the same as other people accusing you of having no consideration for the implications of not having a lockdown. So if people are at fault for "picking" one "side" then equally you are culpable for picking the other.
You do seem to be breaking this down into a binary what football team do you support type argument here.
And yes like franko says surely it's clear it's the bit after the lockdown that is f**ked up to make you need to go back into it...
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 02:19:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:59:03 PM
But to be fair Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:47:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.
No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.
OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.
I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown. They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.
Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.
If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?
The New Zealanders have conclusively proved this to be nonsense.
It's f**king up the bit after the lockdown that means we keep having repeats.
So why has lockdown failed all across Europe?
Is it because it's not a small island thousands of miles away from its nearest civilsation?
And I have considered the implications of lockdowns, they have failed before and came back and failed bigger again and now we go for the hat trick.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:59:03 PM
But to be fair Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:47:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.
No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.
OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.
I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown. They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.
Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.
If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?
Going to call BS on that. You just don't like it when posts such as your Mental issue are picked apart as having no basis in proof. You want to be able to use unsubstantiated claims to help your discussion. Who ever mentioned that there would only be one lockdown? Complete nonsense again building strawman arguments.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 02:37:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:59:03 PM
But to be fair Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:47:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.
No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.
OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.
I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown. They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.
Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.
If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?
Going to call BS on that. You just don't like it when posts such as your Mental issue are picked apart as having no basis in proof. You want to be able to use unsubstantiated claims to help your discussion. Who ever mentioned that there would only be one lockdown? Complete nonsense again building strawman arguments.
Picked apart as having no proof? I've outlined it as a worry and people are dismissing it outright without anything to back them up. People have tried again and again on this thread not to countenance the consequences of lockdown, again, again and again. I have said repeatedly that we need to look at the bigger picture not to have Covid Tunnel vision. And here you are dismissing the concerns about lockdown out of hand. Not worthy of discussion?
Do you accept mental health issues as being a worry?
High unemployment rates?
Spiraling national debt?
Impacts of closures and schools on our youth?
Closure of gym, sports facilieties etc on our physical wellbeing and social interaction?
Cancellation of religious services particularly on our elderly and the impact it has on their social interaction?
Rise in domestic violence incidents and the impact of victims?
Supports services available to those with physical and mental disabilities.
These are all matters and groupings that are put in harms way, not by Covid, but by lockdown restrictions.
So rather than dismiss them should we not be having a discussion that lockdown causes more harm than good. Rather than dismiss it, because all I have seen is no willingness to discuss this at all.
We are in a third lockdown, how is it working if we are in a third lockdown. Please tell. We have tried two times before, lockdowns are neither sustainable or effective. How many more do you think we have to go through?
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 02:24:59 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 02:19:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:59:03 PM
But to be fair Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:47:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.
No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.
OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.
I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown. They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.
Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.
If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?
The New Zealanders have conclusively proved this to be nonsense.
It's f**king up the bit after the lockdown that means we keep having repeats.
So why has lockdown failed all across Europe?
Is it because it's not a small island thousands of miles away from its nearest civilsation?
And I have considered the implications of lockdowns, they have failed before and came back and failed bigger again and now we go for the hat trick.
Ah right, so the goalposts have moved now.
Lockdowns only work in *some* places.
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 02:56:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 02:24:59 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 02:19:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:59:03 PM
But to be fair Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:47:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.
No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.
OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.
I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown. They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.
Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.
If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?
The New Zealanders have conclusively proved this to be nonsense.
It's f**king up the bit after the lockdown that means we keep having repeats.
So why has lockdown failed all across Europe?
Is it because it's not a small island thousands of miles away from its nearest civilsation?
And I have considered the implications of lockdowns, they have failed before and came back and failed bigger again and now we go for the hat trick.
Ah right, so the goalposts have moved now.
Lockdowns only work in *some* places.
Still awaiting you to answer 3 questions I asked earlier.
Seems you have a problem with substantiating your views.
Franko logic - it's ok for a fit and healthy man in his 30s to die from flu, it's not ok for a man in his 40s with an underlying health condition to die from Covid (3 confirmed deaths in the first 6 months of Covid of men in their 40s).
In your own time Franko:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:02:39 PM
In your own time Franko:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
There's a vaccine for flu.... key difference, Patriot.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:02:39 PM
In your own time Franko:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
There is one important point to remember - people generally dont die from flu during the summer.
Unlike Covid
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 02:53:46 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 02:37:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 02:13:50 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:59:03 PM
But to be fair Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:50:14 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:47:24 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 01:14:36 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 01:12:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 12:34:30 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 11:37:21 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 06, 2021, 04:58:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:46:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 06, 2021, 04:27:22 PM
If that's the route we are going down, I'd ask Angelo where he had posted his concerns about mental health, domestic abuse or suicides?
He's clearly very concerned about these issues at the minute, so I'd assume he's posted about it elsewhere before this pandemic?
The issues were exasperated by lockdowns.
I'm concerned about the overall picture. I'm concerned that lockdowns do much more damage overall than they do good. I'm worried the failed cure is a lot worse than the initial problem.
Did you get any figures for that? I had a look but couldn't see any. In fact I just found the below
"In the first half of 2020, 102 suicide deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland and Nisra estimates that the overall suicide figure for this year will be somewhere between 200 and 220 - roughly in line with the provisional figures for 2019"
I can't see any data for an increase in the rate as a result of Covid.
Not sure they would be released yet. But you'd expect the surge in the latter half of the year when we have been on the end of 9 months of lockdowns, businesses closing, jobs lost, people out of touch with their routines and outlets and social isolation. What's a acceptable level of increase in suicides for you? These are the questions we need to ask ourselves when we put the needs of one group ahead of others.
There's nothing released yet but the numbers for the first half didn't seem to be impacted. So we don't know yet how significant an impact it's going to have if any. So hard to argue a case for using it as a reason for reducing lockdowns.
So just wait until the damage is done so?
Your claiming damage because it suits your argument when there is no figures to back it up. Do I think more vulnerable people should be put at risk based on a theory? The answer is categorically no.
No I'm not. I'm arguing against people like you dismissing it as something that does not merit discussion.
OK maybe I picked you up wrong. I thought you were actually claiming that lockdowns shouldn't be used and this was one of the reasons. Mental health is absolutely a valid point for discussion. But not one that can be justifiably used as a reason for not locking down at the minute.
I'm saying that there are devastating consequences of lockdown and the decision makers seem to use lockdowns as a mechanism to absolve themselves of responsibility of managing the virus and putting it back on the people. Everyone has became absolutely obsessed with Covid, so much so that they cannot see the far reaching and long term consequences of lockdowns and some people are very eager to dismiss having this discussion or acknowledge that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
There's devastating consequences of not locking down as well. People are obsessed with Covid for a reason. Whether decision makes use lockdowns to try and avoid responsibility doesn't affect the requirement for the lockdown. They definitely made the right decision with regards lock downs. People aren't acknowledging that the cure could be worse than the problem because they don't believe it is. So of course they will argue against it. Just as you entitled to your opinion that lock downs don't work. I think that's complete nonsense but I can't force you to change your mind about it. I think what you want, is to not be challenged on some of your claims.
Those people don't actually argue against. They completely dismiss valid concerns, out of hand with no basis to do so.
If lockdowns worked we wouldn't be having a third one now. They are neither sustainable or functional and have already set in motion long lasting and far reaching implications in the economy, unemployment, education, mental health and domestic abuse among other things. This is why we are now entering our third failed locdown, at what cost?
Going to call BS on that. You just don't like it when posts such as your Mental issue are picked apart as having no basis in proof. You want to be able to use unsubstantiated claims to help your discussion. Who ever mentioned that there would only be one lockdown? Complete nonsense again building strawman arguments.
Picked apart as having no proof? I've outlined it as a worry and people are dismissing it outright without anything to back them up. People have tried again and again on this thread not to countenance the consequences of lockdown, again, again and again. I have said repeatedly that we need to look at the bigger picture not to have Covid Tunnel vision. And here you are dismissing the concerns about lockdown out of hand. Not worthy of discussion?
Do you accept mental health issues as being a worry?
High unemployment rates?
Spiraling national debt?
Impacts of closures and schools on our youth?
Closure of gym, sports facilieties etc on our physical wellbeing and social interaction?
Cancellation of religious services particularly on our elderly and the impact it has on their social interaction?
Rise in domestic violence incidents and the impact of victims?
Supports services available to those with physical and mental disabilities.
These are all matters and groupings that are put in harms way, not by Covid, but by lockdown restrictions.
So rather than dismiss them should we not be having a discussion that lockdown causes more harm than good. Rather than dismiss it, because all I have seen is no willingness to discuss this at all.
We are in a third lockdown, how is it working if we are in a third lockdown. Please tell. We have tried two times before, lockdowns are neither sustainable or effective. How many more do you think we have to go through?
But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.
As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?
You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona 3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.
Quote from: Taylor on January 07, 2021, 03:37:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:02:39 PM
In your own time Franko:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
There is one important point to remember - people generally dont die from flu during the summer.
Unlike Covid
So now it matters what time of the year you die in?
Not many people died this summer from Covid either fwiw.
The level of mental gymnastics you guys are showing is unbelievable.
Ok to die from flu, not ok to die from Covid.
Ok to die in the winter, not ok to die in the summer.
Ok to lockdown in NZ. Not ok to lockdown in Ireland.
Ok to die from covid due to no lockdown. Not ok to die due to mental health problems which may have been exasperated by lockdown.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 03:44:15 PM
But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.
As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?
You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona 3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.
So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.
Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.
Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.
Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.
Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.
There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.
All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.
One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.
We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 07, 2021, 03:54:14 PM
Ok to lockdown in NZ. Not ok to lockdown in Ireland.
Ok to die from covid due to no lockdown. Not ok to die due to mental health problems which may have been exasperated by lockdown.
Well it's ok to die from flu due to no lockdown? Isn't it? We accept it every year.
The whole basic tenet of your argument is a contradiction.
We had 2,101 deaths in Jan 2018, primarily believed to have been down to a virulent flu strain - should we have locked down from Nov/Dec?
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:02:39 PM
In your own time Franko:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
I've already answered these questions ;)
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:01:15 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 07, 2021, 03:54:14 PM
Ok to lockdown in NZ. Not ok to lockdown in Ireland.
Ok to die from covid due to no lockdown. Not ok to die due to mental health problems which may have been exasperated by lockdown.
Well it's ok to die from flu due to no lockdown? Isn't it? We accept it every year.
The whole basic tenet of your argument is a contradiction.
We had 2,101 deaths in Jan 2018, primarily believed to have been down to a virulent flu strain - should we have locked down from Nov/Dec?
You are claiming I am arguing something I am not so the premise of your argument is completely flawed.
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 04:06:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:02:39 PM
In your own time Franko:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
I've already answered these questions ;)
You haven't.
Give it a go.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 07, 2021, 04:07:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:01:15 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 07, 2021, 03:54:14 PM
Ok to lockdown in NZ. Not ok to lockdown in Ireland.
Ok to die from covid due to no lockdown. Not ok to die due to mental health problems which may have been exasperated by lockdown.
Well it's ok to die from flu due to no lockdown? Isn't it? We accept it every year.
The whole basic tenet of your argument is a contradiction.
We had 2,101 deaths in Jan 2018, primarily believed to have been down to a virulent flu strain - should we have locked down from Nov/Dec?
You are claiming I am arguing something I am not so the premise of your argument is completely flawed.
So should we lockdown every winter for seasonal flu? Yes or no.
;D
That has got nothing to do with anything here. Nothing.
What's the point? Are you trying to pretend you're clever by trying to send leading questions to people in the hope they will eventually answer to prove something you have said?
You have continually came up with the wrong conclusion of what people's arguments are. Continually. Then you have called them idiots for making the argument you said they did and they didn't even make.
What if I say yes? What does that mean?
What if I say no? What does that mean?
Nonsense.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:58:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 03:44:15 PM
But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.
As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?
You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona 3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.
So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.
Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.
Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.
Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.
Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.
There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.
All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.
One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.
We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?
No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.
So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:17:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:58:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 03:44:15 PM
But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.
As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?
You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona 3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.
So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.
Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.
Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.
Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.
Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.
There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.
All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.
One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.
We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?
No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.
So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?
Who pays for the furlough schemes? The taxpayer will be footing the bill for this in the long run.
I do realise there is negative impacts in whatever we do but I think those who are making decisiosn are looking at things in one way. They have tunnel vision with regard to Covid.
We are in Lockdown #3. We know they are not sustainable, we know that had the first one worked we would not have had to go to lockdown #2, we are in lockdown#3 now because the 2nd one didn't either.
How many more lockdowns? What's different this time?
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:21:54 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:17:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:58:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 03:44:15 PM
But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.
As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?
You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona 3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.
So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.
Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.
Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.
Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.
Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.
There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.
All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.
One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.
We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?
No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.
So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?
Who pays for the furlough schemes? The taxpayer will be footing the bill for this in the long run.
I do realise there is negative impacts in whatever we do but I think those who are making decisiosn are looking at things in one way. They have tunnel vision with regard to Covid.
We are in Lockdown #3. We know they are not sustainable, we know that had the first one worked we would not have had to go to lockdown #2, we are in lockdown#3 now because the 2nd one didn't either.
How many more lockdowns? What's different this time?
You keep saying Lockdowns don't work. But you aren't in charge of deciding if they do or not. It's like saying this car doesn't work when you're looking to drive on water. Patriot.
Quote from: trailer on January 07, 2021, 04:24:14 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:21:54 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:17:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:58:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 03:44:15 PM
But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.
As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?
You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona 3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.
So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.
Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.
Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.
Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.
Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.
There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.
All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.
One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.
We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?
No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.
So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?
Who pays for the furlough schemes? The taxpayer will be footing the bill for this in the long run.
I do realise there is negative impacts in whatever we do but I think those who are making decisiosn are looking at things in one way. They have tunnel vision with regard to Covid.
We are in Lockdown #3. We know they are not sustainable, we know that had the first one worked we would not have had to go to lockdown #2, we are in lockdown#3 now because the 2nd one didn't either.
How many more lockdowns? What's different this time?
You keep saying Lockdowns don't work. But you aren't in charge of deciding if they do or not. It's like saying this car doesn't work when you're looking to drive on water. Patriot.
Interesting you ran away last time around when you made an idiot out of yourself.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:21:54 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:17:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:58:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 03:44:15 PM
But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.
As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?
You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona 3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.
So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.
Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.
Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.
Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.
Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.
There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.
All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.
One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.
We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?
No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.
So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?
Who pays for the furlough schemes? The taxpayer will be footing the bill for this in the long run.
I do realise there is negative impacts in whatever we do but I think those who are making decisiosn are looking at things in one way. They have tunnel vision with regard to Covid.
We are in Lockdown #3. We know they are not sustainable, we know that had the first one worked we would not have had to go to lockdown #2, we are in lockdown#3 now because the 2nd one didn't either.
How many more lockdowns? What's different this time?
No one ever said there would be one lockdown and that would be it. You're making false claims. Lockdowns will always be needed if we can't manage the level of infection. We knew there would be lock downs until a vaccine program was rolled out that would be an alternative method of keeping Covid in check. That's now happening and hopefully once enough vulnerable people get vaccinated we can open things up again as the death toll and impact on the health service drops.
Quote from: trailer on January 07, 2021, 03:10:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:02:39 PM
In your own time Franko:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
There's a vaccine for flu.... key difference, Patriot.
There's a vaccine for Covid too. Traitor.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 07, 2021, 03:10:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:02:39 PM
In your own time Franko:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
There's a vaccine for flu.... key difference, Patriot.
There's a vaccine for Covid too. Traitor.
Go and get it, Patriot.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:28:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:21:54 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:17:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:58:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 03:44:15 PM
But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.
As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?
You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona 3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.
So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.
Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.
Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.
Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.
Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.
There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.
All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.
One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.
We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?
No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.
So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?
Who pays for the furlough schemes? The taxpayer will be footing the bill for this in the long run.
I do realise there is negative impacts in whatever we do but I think those who are making decisiosn are looking at things in one way. They have tunnel vision with regard to Covid.
We are in Lockdown #3. We know they are not sustainable, we know that had the first one worked we would not have had to go to lockdown #2, we are in lockdown#3 now because the 2nd one didn't either.
How many more lockdowns? What's different this time?
No one ever said there would be one lockdown and that would be it. You're making false claims. Lockdowns will always be needed if we can't manage the level of infection. We knew there would be lock downs until a vaccine program was rolled out that would be an alternative method of keeping Covid in check. That's now happening and hopefully once enough vulnerable people get vaccinated we can open things up again as the death toll and impact on the health service drops.
So how many more lockdowns?
What's going to be different with this one?
To me we seem in a vicious cycle that gets us no further and every further lockdown we go into causes more and more damage to society as whole.
They have been a failure, I simply do not understand how you can credit them as a success. They are unsustainable and each time the virus seems to come back more and more infectious than before.
Are you actually sitting there typing those posts out and saying this is the correct course of action with a straight face?
Quote from: trailer on January 07, 2021, 04:31:21 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:28:31 PM
Quote from: trailer on January 07, 2021, 03:10:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:02:39 PM
In your own time Franko:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
There's a vaccine for flu.... key difference, Patriot.
There's a vaccine for Covid too. Traitor.
Go and get it, Patriot.
No reason to, fascist.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 07, 2021, 04:13:50 PM
;D
That has got nothing to do with anything here. Nothing.
What's the point? Are you trying to pretend you're clever by trying to send leading questions to people in the hope they will eventually answer to prove something you have said?
You have continually came up with the wrong conclusion of what people's arguments are. Continually. Then you have called them idiots for making the argument you said they did and they didn't even make.
What if I say yes? What does that mean?
What if I say no? What does that mean?
Nonsense.
Why can't you answer it.
You have defended lockdowns on the basis that you believe peolpe will die if we don't.
Every winter hundreds and thousands of excess deaths come via the way of Winter flu? But you don't care enough about that to support a lockdown.
I'm having a problem squaring off your contradictions you see?
Ok to die from flu, not ok to die from Covid.
How have I defended lockdowns? Where? Lockdowns are awful - everyone knows that.
QuoteOk to die from flu, not ok to die from Covid.
Not one person on this thread has said this. Not one.
2 plus 2 equals?
It seems to equal something different in your world as you have drawn conclusion after conclusion on my arguments and various others that are just wrong.
[Edit] I also forgot to say, again, that once again you have boiled this down to deaths and deaths alone which is missing a significant part of the story.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:31:48 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:28:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:21:54 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:17:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:58:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 03:44:15 PM
But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.
As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?
You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona 3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.
So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.
Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.
Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.
Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.
Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.
There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.
All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.
One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.
We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?
No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.
So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?
Who pays for the furlough schemes? The taxpayer will be footing the bill for this in the long run.
I do realise there is negative impacts in whatever we do but I think those who are making decisiosn are looking at things in one way. They have tunnel vision with regard to Covid.
We are in Lockdown #3. We know they are not sustainable, we know that had the first one worked we would not have had to go to lockdown #2, we are in lockdown#3 now because the 2nd one didn't either.
How many more lockdowns? What's different this time?
No one ever said there would be one lockdown and that would be it. You're making false claims. Lockdowns will always be needed if we can't manage the level of infection. We knew there would be lock downs until a vaccine program was rolled out that would be an alternative method of keeping Covid in check. That's now happening and hopefully once enough vulnerable people get vaccinated we can open things up again as the death toll and impact on the health service drops.
So how many more lockdowns?
What's going to be different with this one?
To me we seem in a vicious cycle that gets us no further and every further lockdown we go into causes more and more damage to society as whole.
They have been a failure, I simply do not understand how you can credit them as a success. They are unsustainable and each time the virus seems to come back more and more infectious than before.
Are you actually sitting there typing those posts out and saying this is the correct course of action with a straight face?
Nothing different. Each lockdown has reduced covid deaths. Hence success. Yes when we move out of lockdown and try and keep restrictions in place, things then fail miserably unfortunately and we have to go back to lockdown to bring things back in order.
You would like to think that with the vaccine programme and starting to move out of winter it will help. So that hopefully when we reopen again and put restrictions in place we won't be required to go back into another lockdown.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:07:59 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 04:06:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:02:39 PM
In your own time Franko:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
I've already answered these questions ;)
You haven't.
Give it a go.
I have comprehensively answered all your questions.
You are just too lazy to read back and find it.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:31:48 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:28:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:21:54 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:17:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:58:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 03:44:15 PM
But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.
As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?
You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona 3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.
So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.
Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.
Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.
Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.
Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.
There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.
All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.
One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.
We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?
No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.
So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?
Who pays for the furlough schemes? The taxpayer will be footing the bill for this in the long run.
I do realise there is negative impacts in whatever we do but I think those who are making decisiosn are looking at things in one way. They have tunnel vision with regard to Covid.
We are in Lockdown #3. We know they are not sustainable, we know that had the first one worked we would not have had to go to lockdown #2, we are in lockdown#3 now because the 2nd one didn't either.
How many more lockdowns? What's different this time?
No one ever said there would be one lockdown and that would be it. You're making false claims. Lockdowns will always be needed if we can't manage the level of infection. We knew there would be lock downs until a vaccine program was rolled out that would be an alternative method of keeping Covid in check. That's now happening and hopefully once enough vulnerable people get vaccinated we can open things up again as the death toll and impact on the health service drops.
So how many more lockdowns?
What's going to be different with this one?
To me we seem in a vicious cycle that gets us no further and every further lockdown we go into causes more and more damage to society as whole.
They have been a failure, I simply do not understand how you can credit them as a success. They are unsustainable and each time the virus seems to come back more and more infectious than before.
Are you actually sitting there typing those posts out and saying this is the correct course of action with a straight face?
Nothing different. Each lockdown has reduced covid deaths. Hence success. Yes when we move out of lockdown and try and keep restrictions in place, things then fail miserably unfortunately and we have to go back to lockdown to bring things back in order.
You would like to think that with the vaccine programme and starting to move out of winter it will help. So that hopefully when we reopen again and put restrictions in place we won't be required to go back into another lockdown.
Each lockdown has been unsustainable.
And cases come back bigger and stronger each time.
Rinse and repeat.
So what's the end game? The vaccine?
What then? Cross our fingers and hope it works?
And if doesn't? New strains coming on board? What then?
More lockdowns?
It reminds me of that Fr Ted episode.
"Is there anything to be said for another lockdown?"
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 04:42:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:07:59 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 04:06:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:02:39 PM
In your own time Franko:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
I've already answered these questions ;)
You haven't.
Give it a go.
I have comprehensively answered all your questions.
You are just too lazy to read back and find it.
No answer was forthcoming. You failed your big audition.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:45:05 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:42:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:31:48 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:28:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:21:54 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 04:17:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:58:59 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 07, 2021, 03:44:15 PM
But just saying mental health is a worry when there is no proof isn't going to convince anyone. I'm open to this discussion but you need to provide some substance. And it needs to carry significant weight to offset the additional deaths that would be caused by not locking down. Continuing to mention it repeatedly without any substance carry's little weight I'm afraid.
As for unemployment rates, businesses were going to be impacted by Covid regardless. Governments have taken actions to try and minimise this with Furlough and funding to businesses (Rightly so). So they are trying to do what they can. I would still take an economic impact over lives though.
Impact of the schools - Distance learning in the short term. Let the vaccine program kick in and things can get back to normal in time. Not ideal but again weighed against lives not significant enough to oppose lock downs.
Spiralling national dept - Would have happened regardless due to covid and the impact.
Gym/ religious closures - Again not a major issue as it's relative short term lockdown periods. People can still exercise and pray just not in groups inside.
Support services - These should absolutely be maintained during a lockdown. And I believe they are being during this lockdown for vulnerable children/ adults. There will be impact, of course, but it should be managed.
Abuse - This is a valid area. Again I don't see data to suggest it has increased significantly?
You keep mentioning the fact it's a 3rd lockdown as this is some proof of a failure. Should me something where it said there would be one lockdown and that would solve things? You know that's a BS point. We are ona 3rd lockdown because your idea of trying to manage it with restrictions failed 3 times and we have to resort back to lockdowns.
So we wait until we find until 6 months after the damage. The situation is real, you either act now or you regret later. As far as mental health goes, you are advocating a strategy that awaits confirmation of the damage being done rather than taking decisive action to prevent it? You've dismissed this concern.
Businesses being impacted regardless? Nothing even close to the degree that has wiped out complete industries and sectors, that has seen businesses close their doors that will never open them again. Once again, you have the ability to act now or to wait until the full damage has realised. Once again, dismissed.
Schools. Dismissed out of hand, months of telling us schools aren't a problem and then they are. Again the impact of this has been dismissed by you.
Spiralling national debt. Utter horseshit it would have happened regardless. Lockdowns have magnified these things 10x over. Another absolutely preposterous reason to dismiss this. Who is going to foot the bill for this? Who is going to foot the bill for the economic catastrophe lockdown has brought, us, our children and their children after them.
Support services - nowhere near what they are. Ask people who are impacted by this, ask parents of children with special needs etc. Again you are dismissing a very real consequence of lockdown out of hand. These issues are lockdown problems, not Covid problems.
There is data to suggest abuse has increased dramatically in terms of no of incidents reported and calls to helplines.
All these are real issues on their own and these are only some of those groupings. The cumulative net effect of lockdowns are going to be seismic but you seem to determined to act like they don't exist until you have proof of them actually having taken place, at which point the long lasting damage has well and truly been done.
One lockdown should have been enough to get things in place. For me, I find it hard how as a society we are willing to accept flu causing hundreds of excess deaths every winter (on an annual basis let us not forget) but are so determined Covid does not do the same. There's a reason why we allow flu run amock because the preventive measures to stop its spread put too much of a burden on every sector of society. Like Covid flu primarily impacts people who are in the elderly age bracket with underlying conditions and it kills quite a lot of this demograph every winter with a vaccine rolled out. But we accept that without question.
We are told that there is now no flu so I presume winter lockdowns will become the norm to stop the hundreds of excess deaths every winter once we have dealt with Covid? Unless of course we don't give a toss about people who die from flu?
No you take action against the negative impacts as much as possible. You have furlough schemes, you have increased advertising and support lines for domestic abuse, you have distance learning as much as possible etc. You try and minimise the negative impacts of lock downs as much as possible. You try and address them.
What you seem to be conveniently forgetting is that we've had equal time out of lockdown as well, and that hasn't been successful otherwise we wouldn't require the additional lockdowns. If we had managed to put a T&T system in place and minimise the numbers to manageable levels then we would have been able to avoid additional lockdowns.
No one is flat out dismissing the negative impacts of lockdowns but unless your really stupid, you'll realise there is going to be negative impacts on what ever we do.
So we open up again, that means no furlough. How many businesses wouldn't have lasted only for being able to furlough people?
How are people with special needs going to be better treated if Covid is even more rampant that what it currently is? Tell me how more people having to take time off due to being close connections and isolating is going to improve these services? Ditto abuse services.
Tell me how this will all be improved by having increased levels of Covid in the community? You explain that to me and then I agree that we should look at other options?
Who pays for the furlough schemes? The taxpayer will be footing the bill for this in the long run.
I do realise there is negative impacts in whatever we do but I think those who are making decisiosn are looking at things in one way. They have tunnel vision with regard to Covid.
We are in Lockdown #3. We know they are not sustainable, we know that had the first one worked we would not have had to go to lockdown #2, we are in lockdown#3 now because the 2nd one didn't either.
How many more lockdowns? What's different this time?
No one ever said there would be one lockdown and that would be it. You're making false claims. Lockdowns will always be needed if we can't manage the level of infection. We knew there would be lock downs until a vaccine program was rolled out that would be an alternative method of keeping Covid in check. That's now happening and hopefully once enough vulnerable people get vaccinated we can open things up again as the death toll and impact on the health service drops.
So how many more lockdowns?
What's going to be different with this one?
To me we seem in a vicious cycle that gets us no further and every further lockdown we go into causes more and more damage to society as whole.
They have been a failure, I simply do not understand how you can credit them as a success. They are unsustainable and each time the virus seems to come back more and more infectious than before.
Are you actually sitting there typing those posts out and saying this is the correct course of action with a straight face?
Nothing different. Each lockdown has reduced covid deaths. Hence success. Yes when we move out of lockdown and try and keep restrictions in place, things then fail miserably unfortunately and we have to go back to lockdown to bring things back in order.
You would like to think that with the vaccine programme and starting to move out of winter it will help. So that hopefully when we reopen again and put restrictions in place we won't be required to go back into another lockdown.
Each lockdown has been unsustainable.
And cases come back bigger and stronger each time.
Rinse and repeat.
So what's the end game? The vaccine?
What then? Cross our fingers and hope it works?
And if doesn't? New strains coming on board? What then?
More lockdowns?
It reminds me of that Fr Ted episode.
"Is there anything to be said for another lockdown?"
I Agree. It's really disappointing we can't manage it with normal restrictions. Thankfully lockdowns have managed to bring things back again. If only we could get the restrictions to manage it right without having to go into lockdown it would be great. But we have proven again and again we can't do that.
New strain = amend the vaccine.
You really want to ignore the fact that it was the period in between lockdowns that failed rather than the lockdowns don't you.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:45:31 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 04:42:44 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:07:59 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 07, 2021, 04:06:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 03:02:39 PM
In your own time Franko:
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
I've already answered these questions ;)
You haven't.
Give it a go.
I have comprehensively answered all your questions.
You are just too lazy to read back and find it.
No answer was forthcoming. You failed your big audition.
Not my fault you can't read.
There is more than COVID deaths here. Hospitals are overwhelmed with COVID patients who require treatment. Many of these patients will get better, much of this is due to the credit of the medical profession having learned alot about this virus over the last year and the best way to treat it. The side effect of this is it requires people to remain in hospital longer for treatment as they are not dying. COVID patients from a medical point of view are the category that most need immediate treatment. And so the cycle above goes on. Unfortunately this is all to the detriment of cancer treatment, people in need of routine ops and a whole other list of medical needs patients have.
To date the only way to prevent hospitals becoming overwhelmed is to lock people down and prevent the transmission of the virus. There is an alternative, social distancing, wash your hands and wear a mask. But far too many people think they know better and don't follow these guidelines for whatever reason. We all know people who have the virus and going about their daily business as if nothing is wrong. So hence the need for further lockdowns to force people into compliance. It is the lesser of two evils. Social distancing, washing hands and mask wearing won't completely stop the virus spreading but it'll slow it to a point where hospitals can at least cope and the majority of the usual healthcare treatments can go still go ahead to a significant degree.
On the flip side of this most governments have made a complete balls of dealing with this after the first lockdown. They have learned nothing. They have ballsed up track and trace when things were under control to some extent to made it a manageable process. They have ballsed up allowing people into the island without the need to quarantine. Lockdowns are a last resort and an indictment on both those not complying with guidelines and governments (North and South) for their handling of this all.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:31:48 PM
So how many more lockdowns?
What's going to be different with this one?
To me we seem in a vicious cycle that gets us no further and every further lockdown we go into causes more and more damage to society as whole.
Stop posting nonsense. The vaccine, together with a minor boost from better weather and longer days, will mean that the measures can be would down.
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:31:48 PM
So how many more lockdowns?
What's going to be different with this one?
To me we seem in a vicious cycle that gets us no further and every further lockdown we go into causes more and more damage to society as whole.
They have been a failure, I simply do not understand how you can credit them as a success. They are unsustainable and each time the virus seems to come back more and more infectious than before.
Are you actually sitting there typing those posts out and saying this is the correct course of action with a straight face?
So your solution? Allow people to go back to living normally, allow schools to remain open and all businesses to operate as before. Banish all social distancing guidance and rules. Open up hospitality and back to full capacity. Gigs, concerts, sporting events, let them go ahead. Act as if the virus doesn't exist. Except it does exist. It means more people in hospitals all year round. It means staff shortages in hospitals because they inevitably have staff self-isolating at any given time. It means an already failing NHS being completely overwhelmed. It means deciding whether the badly mutilated car crash victim gets a bed or is it instead given to the covid patient about to drown due to the amount of fluid in their lungs.
Quote from: armaghniac on January 07, 2021, 05:16:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 07, 2021, 04:31:48 PM
So how many more lockdowns?
What's going to be different with this one?
To me we seem in a vicious cycle that gets us no further and every further lockdown we go into causes more and more damage to society as whole.
Stop posting nonsense. The vaccine, together with a minor boost from better weather and longer days, will mean that the measures can be would down.
Exactly. Hospitals are f**ked as they stand. Time needs bought for the vaccine. The aim of lockdown is to do this.
That's as simple as it is.
To draw the conclusion that if you think that you think it is ok for people to die from the flu is mind boggling. Not sure how a brain can even think of that conclusion.
I thought Tony Feron was banned?
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.
So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?
If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?
Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 07, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.
So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?
If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?
Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?
So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.
Why don't you go find it.
I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.
Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?
Are you aware of the definition of insanity?
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 07, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.
So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?
If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?
Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?
So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.
Why don't you go find it.
I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.
Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?
Are you aware of the definition of insanity?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, or debating with Angelo.
These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 07, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.
So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?
If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?
Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?
So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.
Why don't you go find it.
I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.
Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?
Are you aware of the definition of insanity?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, or debating with Angelo.
These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein
We're in Lockdown #3 after 2 previous failures.
It is insanity and you can spot the idiots who double down on insanity.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:58:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 07, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.
So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?
If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?
Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?
So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.
Why don't you go find it.
I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.
Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?
Are you aware of the definition of insanity?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, or debating with Angelo.
These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein
We're in Lockdown #3 after 2 previous failures.
It is insanity and you can spot the idiots who double down on insanity.
your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...
you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 08, 2021, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:58:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 07, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.
So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?
If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?
Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?
So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.
Why don't you go find it.
I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.
Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?
Are you aware of the definition of insanity?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, or debating with Angelo.
These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein
We're in Lockdown #3 after 2 previous failures.
It is insanity and you can spot the idiots who double down on insanity.
your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...
you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...
And what's going to happen after Lockdown #3 do you think?
Lockdowns are unsustainable and are causing huge societal problem that we are going to see the impacts of for the rest of our living lives.
For what end are we continuing with the failed strategy of lockdowns?
If we see suicides up 50%, 60%, 70%.
Domestic abuse rates up the same.
Addiction relapses the same.
People reporting mental health problems the same.
Are you going to say that we have done the right thing?
I really can't understand this strategy when we are happy huge excess deaths every winter from seasonal flu without ever contemplating a lockdown.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:07:24 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 08, 2021, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:58:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 07, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.
So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?
If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?
Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?
So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.
Why don't you go find it.
I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.
Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?
Are you aware of the definition of insanity?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, or debating with Angelo.
These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein
We're in Lockdown #3 after 2 previous failures.
It is insanity and you can spot the idiots who double down on insanity.
your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...
you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...
And what's going to happen after Lockdown #3 do you think?
Lockdowns are unsustainable and are causing huge societal problem that we are going to see the impacts of for the rest of our living lives.
For what end are we continuing with the failed strategy of lockdowns?
If we see suicides up 50%, 60%, 70%.
Domestic abuse rates up the same.
Addiction relapses the same.
People reporting mental health problems the same.
Are you going to say that we have done the right thing?
I really can't understand this strategy when we are happy huge excess deaths every winter from seasonal flu without ever contemplating a lockdown.
All those figures (if true) are awful, so how do we bring those figures down?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 10:24:12 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:07:24 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 08, 2021, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:58:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 07, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.
So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?
If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?
Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?
So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.
Why don't you go find it.
I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.
Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?
Are you aware of the definition of insanity?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, or debating with Angelo.
These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein
We're in Lockdown #3 after 2 previous failures.
It is insanity and you can spot the idiots who double down on insanity.
your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...
you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...
And what's going to happen after Lockdown #3 do you think?
Lockdowns are unsustainable and are causing huge societal problem that we are going to see the impacts of for the rest of our living lives.
For what end are we continuing with the failed strategy of lockdowns?
If we see suicides up 50%, 60%, 70%.
Domestic abuse rates up the same.
Addiction relapses the same.
People reporting mental health problems the same.
Are you going to say that we have done the right thing?
I really can't understand this strategy when we are happy huge excess deaths every winter from seasonal flu without ever contemplating a lockdown.
All those figures (if true) are awful, so how do we bring those figures down?
They're hypothetical, bar the domestic abuse cases but we do know Lockdown is the cause.
So what do we do? It's pretty obvious isn't it? We don't use lockdowns.
I think it's generally accepted by everyone other than Angelo that lockdowns were successful in what they were doing. Reducing the numbers. Unfortunately it's quite clear to everyone that Angelo preferred actions after lockdown were complete failures which unfortunately lead back to lockdowns.
Unfortunately it looks like we should have locked down harder and earlier this time round as things are turning into a clusterfuck and I fully expect some grime reading over the next 7-10 days.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:25:34 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 10:24:12 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:07:24 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 08, 2021, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:58:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 07, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.
So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?
If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?
Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?
So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.
Why don't you go find it.
I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.
Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?
Are you aware of the definition of insanity?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, or debating with Angelo.
These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein
We're in Lockdown #3 after 2 previous failures.
It is insanity and you can spot the idiots who double down on insanity.
your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...
you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...
And what's going to happen after Lockdown #3 do you think?
Lockdowns are unsustainable and are causing huge societal problem that we are going to see the impacts of for the rest of our living lives.
For what end are we continuing with the failed strategy of lockdowns?
If we see suicides up 50%, 60%, 70%.
Domestic abuse rates up the same.
Addiction relapses the same.
People reporting mental health problems the same.
Are you going to say that we have done the right thing?
I really can't understand this strategy when we are happy huge excess deaths every winter from seasonal flu without ever contemplating a lockdown.
All those figures (if true) are awful, so how do we bring those figures down?
They're hypothetical, bar the domestic abuse cases but we do know Lockdown is the cause.
So what do we do? It's pretty obvious isn't it? We don't use lockdowns.
Ok we don't use lockdowns we use thingy instead? Which is? its slipped my mind can you remind me again?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 10:30:53 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:25:34 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 10:24:12 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:07:24 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 08, 2021, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:58:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 07, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.
So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?
If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?
Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?
So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.
Why don't you go find it.
I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.
Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?
Are you aware of the definition of insanity?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, or debating with Angelo.
These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein
We're in Lockdown #3 after 2 previous failures.
It is insanity and you can spot the idiots who double down on insanity.
your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...
you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...
And what's going to happen after Lockdown #3 do you think?
Lockdowns are unsustainable and are causing huge societal problem that we are going to see the impacts of for the rest of our living lives.
For what end are we continuing with the failed strategy of lockdowns?
If we see suicides up 50%, 60%, 70%.
Domestic abuse rates up the same.
Addiction relapses the same.
People reporting mental health problems the same.
Are you going to say that we have done the right thing?
I really can't understand this strategy when we are happy huge excess deaths every winter from seasonal flu without ever contemplating a lockdown.
All those figures (if true) are awful, so how do we bring those figures down?
They're hypothetical, bar the domestic abuse cases but we do know Lockdown is the cause.
So what do we do? It's pretty obvious isn't it? We don't use lockdowns.
Ok we don't use lockdowns we use thingy instead? Which is? its slipped my mind can you remind me again?
We use reasonable restrictive measures we had during the summer.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:41:12 AM
We use reasonable restrictive measures we had during the summer.
How did that work out in the end?
Let's throw 2 variables into the equation here...
1. winter
2. the london variant
Further to that...
- what was your starting point in the summer?
- how does that compare to your starting point now?
Quote from: thebigfella on January 08, 2021, 10:48:51 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:41:12 AM
We use reasonable restrictive measures we had during the summer.
How did that work out in the end?
Better for society.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 08, 2021, 10:50:09 AM
Let's throw 2 variables into the equation here...
1. winter
2. the london variant
Further to that...
- what was your starting point in the summer?
- how does that compare to your starting point now?
So are you comparing Covid with the winter flu?
The London variant? Let's get this straight, new variant right? The virus mutated, it will probably mutate, again, again and again. So where's the end game here. 30 more years of living through rolling lockdowns? Sustainable?
thought it was completely irresponsible of that Professor to come out and say that normality may never return.
QuoteSo are you comparing Covid with the winter flu?
Can you show me where I said that?
Let's take a variable winter introduces as an example...
During the summer everyone could meet outside. You were less likely to spread it outside.
In the winter everyone can't meet outside due to the weather. So instead of meeting outside people meet inside.
There you have it. I used the fact that we're in winter to illustrate why it would be worse for covid without comparing anything to the flu which I have never compared anything to or even talked about anyway...
Quote from: clarshack on January 08, 2021, 10:58:29 AM
thought it was completely irresponsible of that Professor to come out and say that normality may never return.
It won't. It's not meant to.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 08, 2021, 11:00:47 AM
QuoteSo are you comparing Covid with the winter flu?
Can you show me where I said that?
Let's take a variable winter introduces as an example...
During the summer everyone could meet outside. You were less likely to spread it outside.
In the winter everyone can't meet outside due to the weather. So instead of meeting outside people meet inside.
There you have it. I used the fact that we're in winter to illustrate why it would be worse for covid without comparing anything to the flu which I have never compared anything to or even talked about anyway...
You seemed to be pointing out it was seasonal. The comment comparing summer and winter.
And the rest of your post even further compares it to winter flu which we can accept 50k excess deaths in a 3/4 month period without batting an eyelid.
;D
2 plus 2 equals?
Anything but 4 it seems.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 08, 2021, 11:08:21 AM
;D
2 plus 2 equals?
Anything but 4 it seems.
I'm just using your logic.
You're the one who said it and the parallels are obvious.
The variables winter introduces are similar to variables that allows winter flu to spread.
Do you think we should have locked down in Nov/Dec 2017?
I don't think you understand logic never mind my logic.
I'm not answering your question because it's leading and a load of nonsense.
Repeat after me...
Thinking that we have no choice but to lockdown now does not mean that you have shrugged off or disregarded people who have died from the flu.(or anyone else for that matter)
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 11:06:13 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 08, 2021, 11:00:47 AM
QuoteSo are you comparing Covid with the winter flu?
Can you show me where I said that?
Let's take a variable winter introduces as an example...
During the summer everyone could meet outside. You were less likely to spread it outside.
In the winter everyone can't meet outside due to the weather. So instead of meeting outside people meet inside.
There you have it. I used the fact that we're in winter to illustrate why it would be worse for covid without comparing anything to the flu which I have never compared anything to or even talked about anyway...
You seemed to be pointing out it was seasonal. The comment comparing summer and winter.
And the rest of your post even further compares it to winter flu which we can accept 50k excess deaths in a 3/4 month period without batting an eyelid.
We've been through this. - Colder than usual winter, Beast from the east and an ineffective flu jab. 2017 was a bad year. People did bat eyelids. There will be bad years again. But all against the backdrop of no lockdowns. Therefore trying to compare it with 2020 is pointless. The world changed in 2020 to try and fight covid and still there were 80K excess deaths. There's no hiding from that.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 11:18:52 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 11:06:13 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 08, 2021, 11:00:47 AM
QuoteSo are you comparing Covid with the winter flu?
Can you show me where I said that?
Let's take a variable winter introduces as an example...
During the summer everyone could meet outside. You were less likely to spread it outside.
In the winter everyone can't meet outside due to the weather. So instead of meeting outside people meet inside.
There you have it. I used the fact that we're in winter to illustrate why it would be worse for covid without comparing anything to the flu which I have never compared anything to or even talked about anyway...
You seemed to be pointing out it was seasonal. The comment comparing summer and winter.
And the rest of your post even further compares it to winter flu which we can accept 50k excess deaths in a 3/4 month period without batting an eyelid.
We've been through this. - Colder than usual winter, Beast from the east and an ineffective flu jab. 2017 was a bad year. People did bat eyelids. There will be bad years again. But all against the backdrop of no lockdowns. Therefore trying to compare it with 2020 is pointless. The world changed in 2020 to try and fight covid and still there were 80K excess deaths. There's no hiding from that.
People didn't bat eyelids.
It was barely news.
We haven't hit the peak of the 17/18 winter flu season yet and we are already in our third lockdown ffs.
Do you have stats for hospital admissions and hospital capacity?
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:41:12 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 10:30:53 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:25:34 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 10:24:12 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:07:24 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 08, 2021, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:58:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 07, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.
So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?
If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?
Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?
So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.
Why don't you go find it.
I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.
Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?
Are you aware of the definition of insanity?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, or debating with Angelo.
These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein
We're in Lockdown #3 after 2 previous failures.
It is insanity and you can spot the idiots who double down on insanity.
your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...
you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...
And what's going to happen after Lockdown #3 do you think?
Lockdowns are unsustainable and are causing huge societal problem that we are going to see the impacts of for the rest of our living lives.
For what end are we continuing with the failed strategy of lockdowns?
If we see suicides up 50%, 60%, 70%.
Domestic abuse rates up the same.
Addiction relapses the same.
People reporting mental health problems the same.
Are you going to say that we have done the right thing?
I really can't understand this strategy when we are happy huge excess deaths every winter from seasonal flu without ever contemplating a lockdown.
All those figures (if true) are awful, so how do we bring those figures down?
They're hypothetical, bar the domestic abuse cases but we do know Lockdown is the cause.
So what do we do? It's pretty obvious isn't it? We don't use lockdowns.
Ok we don't use lockdowns we use thingy instead? Which is? its slipped my mind can you remind me again?
We use reasonable restrictive measures we had during the summer.
Reasonable restrictive measures like:
open up business, 2 meter rule. Work from home if we can. No schools (summer) wash hands, make it warmer... Did we do anything else?
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 08, 2021, 10:48:51 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:41:12 AM
We use reasonable restrictive measures we had during the summer.
How did that work out in the end?
Better for society.
Society had a few months of fun but we have eventually had further restrictions since because those "reasonable restrictive" measures did not work.
So I'll repeat again, how did it work out in the end?
Quote from: thebigfella on January 08, 2021, 11:29:21 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:55:18 AM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 08, 2021, 10:48:51 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:41:12 AM
We use reasonable restrictive measures we had during the summer.
How did that work out in the end?
Better for society.
Society had a few months of fun but we have eventually had further restrictions since because those "reasonable restrictive" measures did not work.
So I'll repeat again, how did it work out in the end?
No, he's going to answer mine first ;)
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 11:19:51 AM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 11:18:52 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 11:06:13 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 08, 2021, 11:00:47 AM
QuoteSo are you comparing Covid with the winter flu?
Can you show me where I said that?
Let's take a variable winter introduces as an example...
During the summer everyone could meet outside. You were less likely to spread it outside.
In the winter everyone can't meet outside due to the weather. So instead of meeting outside people meet inside.
There you have it. I used the fact that we're in winter to illustrate why it would be worse for covid without comparing anything to the flu which I have never compared anything to or even talked about anyway...
You seemed to be pointing out it was seasonal. The comment comparing summer and winter.
And the rest of your post even further compares it to winter flu which we can accept 50k excess deaths in a 3/4 month period without batting an eyelid.
We've been through this. - Colder than usual winter, Beast from the east and an ineffective flu jab. 2017 was a bad year. People did bat eyelids. There will be bad years again. But all against the backdrop of no lockdowns. Therefore trying to compare it with 2020 is pointless. The world changed in 2020 to try and fight covid and still there were 80K excess deaths. There's no hiding from that.
People didn't bat eyelids.
It was barely news.
We haven't hit the peak of the 17/18 winter flu season yet and we are already in our third lockdown ffs.
Your so full of sh!t you just can't stop yourself. I'll give you a tip, don't lie about stuff that can be proven wrong within seconds!! Everyone knows the flu was a big deal in 2017-2018.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42725152
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/18/flu-outbreak-gps-under-huge-pressure-as-deaths-soar-to-120
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/01/18/flu-reaches-epidemic-levels-parts-uk-japanese-strain-dominates/
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/flu-outbreak-hit-epidemic-levels-11875717
WE also didn't lock down in 2018. No matter how many times you want to ignore this fact it's going to be thrown back at you. The world changed in 2020 to try and deal with Covid and even with that we could be looking at a similar or worse stats. And that is the worst year of excess deaths in 40 years. This is not even year 1 with Covid.
Your attempts to normalise this year are pathetic.
Life (and the internet especially) is awash with Angelos
They are two a penny
And not just in covid terms - in the workplace/sport/family life - everywhere...
The crabit aul uncle that sits in the corner and whinges constantly cos 'everything is shite'
Will talk to the cows come home about what they are against and give you chapter and verse as to why
But ask them what the are for and they turn into blubbering messes
Ask them to present credible alternatives to the way things are and they wither on the vine
Quote from: Franko on January 08, 2021, 11:35:57 AM
Life (and the internet especially) is awash with Angelos
They are two a penny
And not just in covid terms - in the workplace/sport/family life - everywhere...
The crabit aul uncle that sits in the corner and whinges constantly cos 'everything is shite'
Will talk to the cows come home about what they are against and give you chapter and verse as to why
But ask them what the are for and they turn into blubbering messes
Ask them to present credible alternatives to the way things are and they wither on the vine
Yet you're the one putting forward misinformation.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 11:43:02 AM
Quote from: Franko on January 08, 2021, 11:35:57 AM
Life (and the internet especially) is awash with Angelos
They are two a penny
And not just in covid terms - in the workplace/sport/family life - everywhere...
The crabit aul uncle that sits in the corner and whinges constantly cos 'everything is shite'
Will talk to the cows come home about what they are against and give you chapter and verse as to why
But ask them what the are for and they turn into blubbering messes
Ask them to present credible alternatives to the way things are and they wither on the vine
Yet you're the one putting forward misinformation.
No you are
no he is
Oh no he isn't
Oh no he is
I know its panto season but come on
The WHO and 170+ Governments and their Health systems have got it wrong according to the Angelos and Karens.
In the absence of those geniuses telling us the correct way we can only assume they mean "let it rip" and kill thousands upon thousands in Ireland alone.
Of course Angelo and Karen wouldn't get it as they go about as normal in a Covid ridden society.
Would that be because the Virus doesn't attack people with low IQ?
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 11:48:55 AM
The WHO and 170+ Governments and their Health systems have got it wrong according to the Angelos and Karens.
In the absence of those geniuses telling us the correct way we can only assume they mean "let it rip" and kill thousands upon thousands in Ireland alone.
Of course Angelo and Karen wouldn't get it as they go about as normal in a Covid ridden society.
Would that be because the Virus doesn't attack people with low IQ?
Most hysterics from the village idiot.
The only people that use "let it rip" are sensationalist, hysterical "Karens" like Rossfan.
Nobody on here have advocated for a "let it rip" approach but one could argue people like Rossfan do argue for spiraling mental health problems to emerge, domestic violence cases to rise, long term unemployment to emerge, poverty to increase, support services for the vulnerable to be cut.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 11:52:19 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 11:48:55 AM
The WHO and 170+ Governments and their Health systems have got it wrong according to the Angelos and Karens.
In the absence of those geniuses telling us the correct way we can only assume they mean "let it rip" and kill thousands upon thousands in Ireland alone.
Of course Angelo and Karen wouldn't get it as they go about as normal in a Covid ridden society.
Would that be because the Virus doesn't attack people with low IQ?
Most hysterics from the village idiot.
The only people that use "let it rip" are sensationalist, hysterical "Karens" like Rossfan.
Nobody on here have advocated for a "let it rip" approach but one could argue people like Rossfan do argue for spiraling mental health problems to emerge, domestic violence cases to rise, long term unemployment to emerge, poverty to increase, support services for the vulnerable to be cut.
Dam straight uncle Andy
Maybe they should say "run its course" or "fizzle out"
Quote from: Franko on January 08, 2021, 11:59:35 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 11:52:19 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 11:48:55 AM
The WHO and 170+ Governments and their Health systems have got it wrong according to the Angelos and Karens.
In the absence of those geniuses telling us the correct way we can only assume they mean "let it rip" and kill thousands upon thousands in Ireland alone.
Of course Angelo and Karen wouldn't get it as they go about as normal in a Covid ridden society.
Would that be because the Virus doesn't attack people with low IQ?
Most hysterics from the village idiot.
The only people that use "let it rip" are sensationalist, hysterical "Karens" like Rossfan.
Nobody on here have advocated for a "let it rip" approach but one could argue people like Rossfan do argue for spiraling mental health problems to emerge, domestic violence cases to rise, long term unemployment to emerge, poverty to increase, support services for the vulnerable to be cut.
Dam straight uncle Andy
Maybe they should say "run its course" or "fizzle out"
Do you want it to stay so?
Presumably your goal is to see the death and destruction of society?
We all know that you don't care about vulnerable groupings who suffer from lockdowns. You want to apply as much misery as possible on them. We saw yesterday that you don't have a problem with fit and healthy people dying from flu.
Quote from: Franko on January 08, 2021, 11:59:35 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 11:52:19 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 11:48:55 AM
The WHO and 170+ Governments and their Health systems have got it wrong according to the Angelos and Karens.
In the absence of those geniuses telling us the correct way we can only assume they mean "let it rip" and kill thousands upon thousands in Ireland alone.
Of course Angelo and Karen wouldn't get it as they go about as normal in a Covid ridden society.
Would that be because the Virus doesn't attack people with low IQ?
Most hysterics from the village idiot.
The only people that use "let it rip" are sensationalist, hysterical "Karens" like Rossfan.
Nobody on here have advocated for a "let it rip" approach but one could argue people like Rossfan do argue for spiraling mental health problems to emerge, domestic violence cases to rise, long term unemployment to emerge, poverty to increase, support services for the vulnerable to be cut.
Dam straight uncle Andy
Maybe they should say "run its course" or "fizzle out"
Floor is yours wee man.
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 08, 2021, 11:59:35 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 11:52:19 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 11:48:55 AM
The WHO and 170+ Governments and their Health systems have got it wrong according to the Angelos and Karens.
In the absence of those geniuses telling us the correct way we can only assume they mean "let it rip" and kill thousands upon thousands in Ireland alone.
Of course Angelo and Karen wouldn't get it as they go about as normal in a Covid ridden society.
Would that be because the Virus doesn't attack people with low IQ?
Most hysterics from the village idiot.
The only people that use "let it rip" are sensationalist, hysterical "Karens" like Rossfan.
Nobody on here have advocated for a "let it rip" approach but one could argue people like Rossfan do argue for spiraling mental health problems to emerge, domestic violence cases to rise, long term unemployment to emerge, poverty to increase, support services for the vulnerable to be cut.
Dam straight uncle Andy
Maybe they should say "run its course" or "fizzle out"
Floor is yours wee man.
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
Someone must have hit the reset button on you this morning
Quote from: Franko on January 08, 2021, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 08, 2021, 11:59:35 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 11:52:19 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 11:48:55 AM
The WHO and 170+ Governments and their Health systems have got it wrong according to the Angelos and Karens.
In the absence of those geniuses telling us the correct way we can only assume they mean "let it rip" and kill thousands upon thousands in Ireland alone.
Of course Angelo and Karen wouldn't get it as they go about as normal in a Covid ridden society.
Would that be because the Virus doesn't attack people with low IQ?
Most hysterics from the village idiot.
The only people that use "let it rip" are sensationalist, hysterical "Karens" like Rossfan.
Nobody on here have advocated for a "let it rip" approach but one could argue people like Rossfan do argue for spiraling mental health problems to emerge, domestic violence cases to rise, long term unemployment to emerge, poverty to increase, support services for the vulnerable to be cut.
Dam straight uncle Andy
Maybe they should say "run its course" or "fizzle out"
Floor is yours wee man.
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
Someone must have hit the reset button on you this morning
I see you woke up this morning with the same lack of balls you had yesterday.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:16:36 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 08, 2021, 12:11:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:06:33 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 08, 2021, 11:59:35 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 11:52:19 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 11:48:55 AM
The WHO and 170+ Governments and their Health systems have got it wrong according to the Angelos and Karens.
In the absence of those geniuses telling us the correct way we can only assume they mean "let it rip" and kill thousands upon thousands in Ireland alone.
Of course Angelo and Karen wouldn't get it as they go about as normal in a Covid ridden society.
Would that be because the Virus doesn't attack people with low IQ?
Most hysterics from the village idiot.
The only people that use "let it rip" are sensationalist, hysterical "Karens" like Rossfan.
Nobody on here have advocated for a "let it rip" approach but one could argue people like Rossfan do argue for spiraling mental health problems to emerge, domestic violence cases to rise, long term unemployment to emerge, poverty to increase, support services for the vulnerable to be cut.
Dam straight uncle Andy
Maybe they should say "run its course" or "fizzle out"
Floor is yours wee man.
Do you see an alternative to people dying from flu?
Maybe we should lockdown every winter to prevent that?
Or are people dying from flu acceptable to you?
Someone must have hit the reset button on you this morning
I see you woke up this morning with the same lack of balls you had yesterday.
;D ;D
Uncle Andy's getting cranky again
Soon be time for your afternoon sleep
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:05:42 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 08, 2021, 11:59:35 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 11:52:19 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 11:48:55 AM
The WHO and 170+ Governments and their Health systems have got it wrong according to the Angelos and Karens.
In the absence of those geniuses telling us the correct way we can only assume they mean "let it rip" and kill thousands upon thousands in Ireland alone.
Of course Angelo and Karen wouldn't get it as they go about as normal in a Covid ridden society.
Would that be because the Virus doesn't attack people with low IQ?
Most hysterics from the village idiot.
The only people that use "let it rip" are sensationalist, hysterical "Karens" like Rossfan.
Nobody on here have advocated for a "let it rip" approach but one could argue people like Rossfan do argue for spiraling mental health problems to emerge, domestic violence cases to rise, long term unemployment to emerge, poverty to increase, support services for the vulnerable to be cut.
Dam straight uncle Andy
Maybe they should say "run its course" or "fizzle out"
Do you want it to stay so?
Presumably your goal is to see the death and destruction of society?
We all know that you don't care about vulnerable groupings who suffer from lockdowns. You want to apply as much misery as possible on them. We saw yesterday that you don't have a problem with fit and healthy people dying from flu.
Not sensational
Not hysterical
;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Lockdowns worked.
Reasonable restrictions - not so much.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Lockdowns worked.
Reasonable restrictions - not so much.
Absolute horseshit.
They have failed, unequivocally.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Lockdowns worked.
Reasonable restrictions - not so much.
Absolute horseshit.
They have failed, unequivocally.
Reasonable restrictions? Yes absolutely. They have been a complete shambles.
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 11:48:55 AM
The WHO and 170+ Governments and their Health systems have got it wrong according to the Angelos and Karens.
In the absence of those geniuses telling us the correct way we can only assume they mean "let it rip" and kill thousands upon thousands in Ireland alone.
Of course Angelo and Karen wouldn't get it as they go about as normal in a Covid ridden society.
Would that be because the Virus doesn't attack people with low IQ?
They don't intend to get it. Power of positive thinking and all that.
https://www.thesecret.tv
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Lockdowns worked.
Reasonable restrictions - not so much.
Absolute horseshit.
They have failed, unequivocally.
Reasonable restrictions? Yes absolutely. They have been a complete shambles.
Reasonable restrictions allow for people to go and out and work, for businesses to stay open, for vulnerable groupings to avail of support services, look after their physical and mental health, for domestic abuse victims to have some manner of escape and support from their abuser.
Tell those groupings we need another lockdown.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Lockdowns worked.
Reasonable restrictions - not so much.
Absolute horseshit.
They have failed, unequivocally.
Reasonable restrictions? Yes absolutely. They have been a complete shambles.
Reasonable restrictions allow for people to go and out and work, for businesses to stay open, for vulnerable groupings to avail of support services, look after their physical and mental health, for domestic abuse victims to have some manner of escape and support from their abuser.
Tell those groupings we need another lockdown.
Reasonable restrictions failed 3 times. Plaese don't tell me you would want to return to that, where people can't be treated in hospital due to stress on the NHS, Where cancer people are dying because of hospitals being overrun, where support services can't operate as staff are isolating. And on top of that where the death rate is 80K+ above the average.
No one would argue for that surely.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Lockdowns worked.
Reasonable restrictions - not so much.
Absolute horseshit.
They have failed, unequivocally.
Reasonable restrictions? Yes absolutely. They have been a complete shambles.
Reasonable restrictions allow for people to go and out and work, for businesses to stay open, for vulnerable groupings to avail of support services, look after their physical and mental health, for domestic abuse victims to have some manner of escape and support from their abuser.
Tell those groupings we need another lockdown.
Reasonable restrictions failed 3 times. Plaese don't tell me you would want to return to that, where people can't be treated in hospital due to stress on the NHS, Where cancer people are dying because of hospitals being overrun, where support services can't operate as staff are isolating. And on top of that where the death rate is 80K+ above the average.
No one would argue for that surely.
They haven't failed the groupings I've outlined who you have once again dismissed as an irrelevance or an inconvenience.
Cancer patients are dying as a result of lockdowns. Why are Covid patients the priority? Why don't we have a specialist cancer hospital during this where Covid cases are not admitted?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 11:27:35 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:41:12 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 10:30:53 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:25:34 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 10:24:12 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 10:07:24 AM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 08, 2021, 10:02:51 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:58:21 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 09:56:00 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 09:46:14 AM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 07, 2021, 09:26:28 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 04:54:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 04:44:47 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 03:09:49 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 02:15:54 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 06, 2021, 02:11:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 06, 2021, 01:49:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 06, 2021, 01:47:58 PM
Can anyone tell me how many people died of the flu, in the winter of 17/18? I've been trying to find these figures for a while now, no luck..
In the UK there were 50k excess deaths during the winter flu season. What this is attributable to is not confirmed. All we know is that everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable and every winter we find excess death rates perfectly acceptable.
Except this winter that is.
I'm really struggling here to see the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that because "everyone found that type of excess death rate perfectly acceptable" (which I don't believe at all) that we should find similar or higher death rates acceptable now?
No-one wants to be in lock down. But what is the realistic alternative? Let things go on as they were? Allow hospitals to be overrun with patients to the point where new patients cannot be admitted or staff collapse on their feet? With an R rate of 1.8, the number of cases will grow very quickly and likewise the small percentage requiring hospital treatment will grow (did I see 1% somewhere?). 1% of our populate is over 18K hospital admissions which would not normally happen over the lifecycle of this covid pandemic.
In my opinion, we need the short term emergency lockdown to protect the health system from collapsing whilst the medium/long term answer is the Vaccine (provided it is used in the way it has been designed to be used). And whilst lock down will adversely affect the economy and mental health of some, surely a big picture approach has to be taken where the highest risk conditions (currently Covid) are prioritised?
The single biggest failing is that there is too much dithering in deciding to impose the restrictions
If you have a better idea Angelo, I'd love to hear it.
I'm talking about facts here.
If you didn't find it acceptable in Jan 18, shows a few posts where you wanted something done about it?
It's the complete and utter contradictions of people like you who will put out a rationale on one hand and then go against it when you are shown something else.
Why don't we lockdown every winter to save deaths when we know flus are a huge problem? Can you answer me that? Should we have been locking down in Nov/Dec 17?
What facts are you talking about?
Why do you think i'd have posted on here in Jan 18 about not finding something acceptable? Does the fact that I didn't post on here mean I didn't think it?
What contradictions have I made? Please point them out?
Like I said in the previous post when highlighting the risks to the health service, if you have a better idea than lockdown at this particular point in time I'd like to hear it. Genuinely I would. I personally don't see a better choice right now, so please do share some of your wisdom based on facts!
If you dont have a better idea to protect the health service at this point in time, then what are you talking about?
The death rates during the winter flu season in 17/18.
A better idea would be not to continue with a strategy that has failed to curb Covid twice before and has detrimental consequences to society.
But hey you want to pretend that lockdowns have no negative consequences and have an agenda to dismiss taking a step back and looking at the bigger picture and all the carnage lockdowns cause.
Ok, so instead of telling us what your strategy is, your position is simply not the current strategy as it's failing?
I have never said there are no negative consequences of lockdown. What I clearly said was that the highest priority right now, today, is Covid and the pressure it's putting on the health service.
So I'll ask you again, what measures would you take today to reduce the pressure on the health service given that the single biggest issue affecting them at the moment is the number of patients being admitted with Covid?
If you don't have a strategy then please explain what you are talking about?
Angelo still waiting for your reply....or don't you have one?
So you're asking me a question I have comprehensively answered before.
Why don't you go find it.
I had to bump the same answer for Tubberman after he quoted it there a few days ago. PadraicHenryPearse and Franko then insisted on asking me the same already answered question a few posts later and now you. If you're too lazy to read the last 10 or so pages on this topic then that's not my problem.
Meanwhile you insist on repeating a strategy that has already failed twice?
Are you aware of the definition of insanity?
The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result, or debating with Angelo.
These words are usually credited to the acclaimed genius Albert Einstein
We're in Lockdown #3 after 2 previous failures.
It is insanity and you can spot the idiots who double down on insanity.
your plan as far as i can make out is do what we did after lockdown 1. it didnt work!!! we tried again after lockdown 2 and it still didnt work...
you seem to think we can do it better and not overrun the health system.and that people will go about their normal business knowing they are getting and spreading... but haven't explain how we so it different so we woild not be back in a lockdown again.... lockdowns are a direct result of your approach not working...
And what's going to happen after Lockdown #3 do you think?
Lockdowns are unsustainable and are causing huge societal problem that we are going to see the impacts of for the rest of our living lives.
For what end are we continuing with the failed strategy of lockdowns?
If we see suicides up 50%, 60%, 70%.
Domestic abuse rates up the same.
Addiction relapses the same.
People reporting mental health problems the same.
Are you going to say that we have done the right thing?
I really can't understand this strategy when we are happy huge excess deaths every winter from seasonal flu without ever contemplating a lockdown.
All those figures (if true) are awful, so how do we bring those figures down?
They're hypothetical, bar the domestic abuse cases but we do know Lockdown is the cause.
So what do we do? It's pretty obvious isn't it? We don't use lockdowns.
Ok we don't use lockdowns we use thingy instead? Which is? its slipped my mind can you remind me again?
We use reasonable restrictive measures we had during the summer.
Reasonable restrictive measures like:
open up business, 2 meter rule. Work from home if we can. No schools (summer) wash hands, make it warmer... Did we do anything else?
Angelo, can you fill in the rest of this please, and then show me when we did this that it didn't lead to the numbers rising, and did the numbers rise because we went into lockdown
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:06:56 PM
Angelo, can you fill in the rest of this please, and then show me when we did this that it didn't lead to the numbers rising, and did the numbers rise because we went into lockdown
Another post dismissing any vulnerable grouping that is not a Covid statistic.
There's more to this than people who get Covid you know but f**k them right?
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:06:56 PM
Angelo, can you fill in the rest of this please, and then show me when we did this that it didn't lead to the numbers rising, and did the numbers rise because we went into lockdown
Another post dismissing any vulnerable grouping that is not a Covid statistic.
There's more to this than people who get Covid you know but f**k them right?
I'm asking a simple question, I'm not arguing with you, as its pointless, just want to know other than the ones I've listed is there something missing? If so we should look at it sensibly and ask for those life saving restrictions to come back into play
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:01:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Lockdowns worked.
Reasonable restrictions - not so much.
Absolute horseshit.
They have failed, unequivocally.
Reasonable restrictions? Yes absolutely. They have been a complete shambles.
Reasonable restrictions allow for people to go and out and work, for businesses to stay open, for vulnerable groupings to avail of support services, look after their physical and mental health, for domestic abuse victims to have some manner of escape and support from their abuser.
Tell those groupings we need another lockdown.
Reasonable restrictions failed 3 times. Plaese don't tell me you would want to return to that, where people can't be treated in hospital due to stress on the NHS, Where cancer people are dying because of hospitals being overrun, where support services can't operate as staff are isolating. And on top of that where the death rate is 80K+ above the average.
No one would argue for that surely.
They haven't failed the groupings I've outlined who you have once again dismissed as an irrelevance or an inconvenience.
Cancer patients are dying as a result of lockdowns. Why are Covid patients the priority? Why don't we have a specialist cancer hospital during this where Covid cases are not admitted?
I didn't, We discussed then at length yesterday, you should know you were involved. I just don't intend to do that dance again.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:06:56 PM
Angelo, can you fill in the rest of this please, and then show me when we did this that it didn't lead to the numbers rising, and did the numbers rise because we went into lockdown
Another post dismissing any vulnerable grouping that is not a Covid statistic.
There's more to this than people who get Covid you know but f**k them right?
I'm asking a simple question, I'm not arguing with you, as its pointless, just want to know other than the ones I've listed is there something missing? If so we should look at it sensibly and ask for those life saving restrictions to come back into play
But you are completing disregarding any grouping other than Covid.
Another guy who has Covid tunnel vision.
During Lockdown, decisions were made to stop cancer screenings and other appointments. This led to cancer diagnoses dropping rapidly during lockdown periods. We were happy to let cancer spread in people to stop Covid. Why? Cancer kills how many people every year and we abandoned that fight to focus on Covid. We abandoned every other physicla and mental ailment that ravages people every year to focus soleley on Covid. It's ok I suppose we can probably chalk them down as a Covid death at the end of the day to justify it.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:16:40 PM
I didn't, We discussed then at length yesterday, you should know you were involved. I just don't intend to do that dance again.
Point out to where you considered and referenced their needs and their plight in the below post.
Reasonable restrictions failed 3 times. Plaese don't tell me you would want to return to that, where people can't be treated in hospital due to stress on the NHS, Where cancer people are dying because of hospitals being overrun, where support services can't operate as staff are isolating. And on top of that where the death rate is 80K+ above the average.
No one would argue for that surely.Cancer diagnoses fell during lockdown. Why was that? Because they wanted to assign resources from helping people battle cancer to battle Covid.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:17:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:06:56 PM
Angelo, can you fill in the rest of this please, and then show me when we did this that it didn't lead to the numbers rising, and did the numbers rise because we went into lockdown
Another post dismissing any vulnerable grouping that is not a Covid statistic.
There's more to this than people who get Covid you know but f**k them right?
I'm asking a simple question, I'm not arguing with you, as its pointless, just want to know other than the ones I've listed is there something missing? If so we should look at it sensibly and ask for those life saving restrictions to come back into play
But you are completing disregarding any grouping other than Covid.
Another guy who has Covid tunnel vision.
During Lockdown, decisions were made to stop cancer screenings and other appointments. This led to cancer diagnoses dropping rapidly during lockdown periods. We were happy to let cancer spread in people to stop Covid. Why? Cancer kills how many people every year and we abandoned that fight to focus on Covid. We abandoned every other physicla and mental ailment that ravages people every year to focus soleley on Covid. It's ok I suppose we can probably chalk them down as a Covid death at the end of the day to justify it.
They are now cancelling cancer operations due to pressure on the NHS with staff shortages. This is the result of your preferred option. This is what your reasonable restrictions have done.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:19:03 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:16:40 PM
I didn't, We discussed then at length yesterday, you should know you were involved. I just don't intend to do that dance again.
Point out to where you considered and referenced their needs and their plight in the below post.
Reasonable restrictions failed 3 times. Plaese don't tell me you would want to return to that, where people can't be treated in hospital due to stress on the NHS, Where cancer people are dying because of hospitals being overrun, where support services can't operate as staff are isolating. And on top of that where the death rate is 80K+ above the average.
No one would argue for that surely.
Cancer diagnoses fell during lockdown. Why was that? Because they wanted to assign resources from helping people battle cancer to battle Covid.
I didn't. Maybe you should re read my post about what we discussed yesterday. Your drowning angelo and you know it.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:17:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:06:56 PM
Angelo, can you fill in the rest of this please, and then show me when we did this that it didn't lead to the numbers rising, and did the numbers rise because we went into lockdown
Another post dismissing any vulnerable grouping that is not a Covid statistic.
There's more to this than people who get Covid you know but f**k them right?
I'm asking a simple question, I'm not arguing with you, as its pointless, just want to know other than the ones I've listed is there something missing? If so we should look at it sensibly and ask for those life saving restrictions to come back into play
But you are completing disregarding any grouping other than Covid.
Another guy who has Covid tunnel vision.
During Lockdown, decisions were made to stop cancer screenings and other appointments. This led to cancer diagnoses dropping rapidly during lockdown periods. We were happy to let cancer spread in people to stop Covid. Why? Cancer kills how many people every year and we abandoned that fight to focus on Covid. We abandoned every other physicla and mental ailment that ravages people every year to focus soleley on Covid. It's ok I suppose we can probably chalk them down as a Covid death at the end of the day to justify it.
Don't remind me what cancer does, I've dealt with it since March and buried my dad with it in November so you can keep your details and what people go through with cancer..
So if we stick to the title thread and covid, and not having a covid tunnel vision head. What restrictions would improve the numbers for covid other than lockdown? BTW I don't like lockdown as it greatly reduced my own personal and business needs but you haven't answered my question.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:20:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:17:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:06:56 PM
Angelo, can you fill in the rest of this please, and then show me when we did this that it didn't lead to the numbers rising, and did the numbers rise because we went into lockdown
Another post dismissing any vulnerable grouping that is not a Covid statistic.
There's more to this than people who get Covid you know but f**k them right?
I'm asking a simple question, I'm not arguing with you, as its pointless, just want to know other than the ones I've listed is there something missing? If so we should look at it sensibly and ask for those life saving restrictions to come back into play
But you are completing disregarding any grouping other than Covid.
Another guy who has Covid tunnel vision.
During Lockdown, decisions were made to stop cancer screenings and other appointments. This led to cancer diagnoses dropping rapidly during lockdown periods. We were happy to let cancer spread in people to stop Covid. Why? Cancer kills how many people every year and we abandoned that fight to focus on Covid. We abandoned every other physicla and mental ailment that ravages people every year to focus soleley on Covid. It's ok I suppose we can probably chalk them down as a Covid death at the end of the day to justify it.
They are now cancelling cancer operations due to pressure on the NHS with staff shortages. This is the result of your preferred option. This is what your reasonable restrictions have done.
Point proven - this is what lockdown brings you.
They choose to cancel cancer operations DURING a lockdown.
Why cancel the cancer operation that could save someone's life?
Covid trumps everything and the consequences of such shortsighted vision is of detrimental impact to our society. If you don't have Covid, healthcare is not interested in you.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:22:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:17:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:06:56 PM
Angelo, can you fill in the rest of this please, and then show me when we did this that it didn't lead to the numbers rising, and did the numbers rise because we went into lockdown
Another post dismissing any vulnerable grouping that is not a Covid statistic.
There's more to this than people who get Covid you know but f**k them right?
I'm asking a simple question, I'm not arguing with you, as its pointless, just want to know other than the ones I've listed is there something missing? If so we should look at it sensibly and ask for those life saving restrictions to come back into play
But you are completing disregarding any grouping other than Covid.
Another guy who has Covid tunnel vision.
During Lockdown, decisions were made to stop cancer screenings and other appointments. This led to cancer diagnoses dropping rapidly during lockdown periods. We were happy to let cancer spread in people to stop Covid. Why? Cancer kills how many people every year and we abandoned that fight to focus on Covid. We abandoned every other physicla and mental ailment that ravages people every year to focus soleley on Covid. It's ok I suppose we can probably chalk them down as a Covid death at the end of the day to justify it.
Don't remind me what cancer does, I've dealt with it since March and buried my dad with it in November so you can keep your details and what people go through with cancer..
So if we stick to the title thread and covid, and not having a covid tunnel vision head. What restrictions would improve the numbers for covid other than lockdown? BTW I don't like lockdown as it greatly reduced my own personal and business needs but you haven't answered my question.
I buried my uncle a few months back to cancer. He was diagnosed with it a few weeks before he died. Lockdowns and a focus solely on Covid was the reason for it.
I'm not interested in tackling things based solely on Covid, I am only interested in tackling things with a wider view for the benefit of society and you have shown your own weakness there. You don't care about the consequential damage as long as Covid is dealt with. You don't care that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
They are cancelling operations as there are no flipping ICU beds available ffs!
Mother in-law needs open heart surgery and is stuck in hospital and there are no operations available for a critical much needed life threatening op!
The reason she can't have the surgery is because we have fuckwits out there not giving a dam and going about as if there is no virus!
How dumb can one be?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:01:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Lockdowns worked.
Reasonable restrictions - not so much.
Absolute horseshit.
They have failed, unequivocally.
Reasonable restrictions? Yes absolutely. They have been a complete shambles.
Reasonable restrictions allow for people to go and out and work, for businesses to stay open, for vulnerable groupings to avail of support services, look after their physical and mental health, for domestic abuse victims to have some manner of escape and support from their abuser.
Tell those groupings we need another lockdown.
Reasonable restrictions failed 3 times. Plaese don't tell me you would want to return to that, where people can't be treated in hospital due to stress on the NHS, Where cancer people are dying because of hospitals being overrun, where support services can't operate as staff are isolating. And on top of that where the death rate is 80K+ above the average.
No one would argue for that surely.
They haven't failed the groupings I've outlined who you have once again dismissed as an irrelevance or an inconvenience.
Cancer patients are dying as a result of lockdowns. Why are Covid patients the priority? Why don't we have a specialist cancer hospital during this where Covid cases are not admitted?
I didn't, We discussed then at length yesterday, you should know you were involved. I just don't intend to do that dance again.
And you've reverted to type again. Covid, covid, covid - forget everything else. Decisions should be made with a big picture outlook. Lockdowns cause a lot more damage than good and I think that's going to show over time.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:23:26 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:20:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:17:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:06:56 PM
Angelo, can you fill in the rest of this please, and then show me when we did this that it didn't lead to the numbers rising, and did the numbers rise because we went into lockdown
Another post dismissing any vulnerable grouping that is not a Covid statistic.
There's more to this than people who get Covid you know but f**k them right?
I'm asking a simple question, I'm not arguing with you, as its pointless, just want to know other than the ones I've listed is there something missing? If so we should look at it sensibly and ask for those life saving restrictions to come back into play
But you are completing disregarding any grouping other than Covid.
Another guy who has Covid tunnel vision.
During Lockdown, decisions were made to stop cancer screenings and other appointments. This led to cancer diagnoses dropping rapidly during lockdown periods. We were happy to let cancer spread in people to stop Covid. Why? Cancer kills how many people every year and we abandoned that fight to focus on Covid. We abandoned every other physicla and mental ailment that ravages people every year to focus soleley on Covid. It's ok I suppose we can probably chalk them down as a Covid death at the end of the day to justify it.
They are now cancelling cancer operations due to pressure on the NHS with staff shortages. This is the result of your preferred option. This is what your reasonable restrictions have done.
Point proven - this is what lockdown brings you.
They choose to cancel cancer operations DURING a lockdown.
Why cancel the cancer operation that could save someone's life?
Covid trumps everything and the consequences of such shortsighted vision is of detrimental impact to our society. If you don't have Covid, healthcare is not interested in you.
You know your going under Angelo. Best to leave it. You know why they are cancelling these operations don't you? Cause the NHS can't cope with the level of covid and the staff shortages cause of it. Your lets wash our hands and get on with it theory has been destroyed. And it's a complete clusterfuck and people are dying because of it. We should hang our heads that we didn't lock down sooner and harder. There was plenty of warning but people like you didn't want to see it.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 10:28:37 AM
I think it's generally accepted by everyone other than Angelo that lockdowns were successful in what they were doing. Reducing the numbers. Unfortunately it's quite clear to everyone that Angelo preferred actions after lockdown were complete failures which unfortunately lead back to lockdowns.
Unfortunately it looks like we should have locked down harder and earlier this time round as things are turning into a clusterfuck and I fully expect some grime reading over the next 7-10 days.
Yes I agree with this.
No one wants lockdown and everyone gets the wide range of problems they introduce.
But, to use one of Angelo's terms, the definition of madness would be to just plod on regardless. The NHS would eventually collapse and then where would we be.
It seems Angelo can only see a single view point and is eithe unwilling or unable to see that covid at this point in time is the single biggest strain on the NHS in terms of hospital admissions.
To reduce this strain and in doing so enable the NHS to treat other conditions a lockdown is the only way for a quick improvement.
The vaccine should reduce the infection date moving forward, but it's just too far away at the minute to have an immediate effect.
It's a harsh reality that some people will fail to get treatment has a result of current NHS pressures, but a judgement call has to be made which is hopefully the lesser of two evils.
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:27:04 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:01:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Lockdowns worked.
Reasonable restrictions - not so much.
Absolute horseshit.
They have failed, unequivocally.
Reasonable restrictions? Yes absolutely. They have been a complete shambles.
Reasonable restrictions allow for people to go and out and work, for businesses to stay open, for vulnerable groupings to avail of support services, look after their physical and mental health, for domestic abuse victims to have some manner of escape and support from their abuser.
Tell those groupings we need another lockdown.
Reasonable restrictions failed 3 times. Plaese don't tell me you would want to return to that, where people can't be treated in hospital due to stress on the NHS, Where cancer people are dying because of hospitals being overrun, where support services can't operate as staff are isolating. And on top of that where the death rate is 80K+ above the average.
No one would argue for that surely.
They haven't failed the groupings I've outlined who you have once again dismissed as an irrelevance or an inconvenience.
Cancer patients are dying as a result of lockdowns. Why are Covid patients the priority? Why don't we have a specialist cancer hospital during this where Covid cases are not admitted?
I didn't, We discussed then at length yesterday, you should know you were involved. I just don't intend to do that dance again.
And you've reverted to type again. Covid, covid, covid - forget everything else. Decisions should be made with a big picture outlook. Lockdowns cause a lot more damage than good and I think that's going to show over time.
Covid covid covid yes. Because it over runs everything if not controlled and that then affects everything. We are seeing first hand now what reasonable restrictions have done. A complete mess.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:26:49 PM
They are cancelling operations as there are no flipping ICU beds available ffs!
Mother in-law needs open heart surgery and is stuck in hospital and there are no operations available for a critical much needed life threatening op!
The reason she can't have the surgery is because we have fuckwits out there not giving a dam and going about as if there is no virus!
How dumb can one be?
I'm sorry to hear that.
This is due to a chronically underfunded, under resourced health service.
Maybe the reason people are going out there not giving a damn is because lockdowns have failed. How many more lockdowns do you think are needed?
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:25:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:22:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:17:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:06:56 PM
Angelo, can you fill in the rest of this please, and then show me when we did this that it didn't lead to the numbers rising, and did the numbers rise because we went into lockdown
Another post dismissing any vulnerable grouping that is not a Covid statistic.
There's more to this than people who get Covid you know but f**k them right?
I'm asking a simple question, I'm not arguing with you, as its pointless, just want to know other than the ones I've listed is there something missing? If so we should look at it sensibly and ask for those life saving restrictions to come back into play
But you are completing disregarding any grouping other than Covid.
Another guy who has Covid tunnel vision.
During Lockdown, decisions were made to stop cancer screenings and other appointments. This led to cancer diagnoses dropping rapidly during lockdown periods. We were happy to let cancer spread in people to stop Covid. Why? Cancer kills how many people every year and we abandoned that fight to focus on Covid. We abandoned every other physicla and mental ailment that ravages people every year to focus soleley on Covid. It's ok I suppose we can probably chalk them down as a Covid death at the end of the day to justify it.
Don't remind me what cancer does, I've dealt with it since March and buried my dad with it in November so you can keep your details and what people go through with cancer..
So if we stick to the title thread and covid, and not having a covid tunnel vision head. What restrictions would improve the numbers for covid other than lockdown? BTW I don't like lockdown as it greatly reduced my own personal and business needs but you haven't answered my question.
I buried my uncle a few months back to cancer. He was diagnosed with it a few weeks before he died. Lockdowns and a focus solely on Covid was the reason for it.
I'm not interested in tackling things based solely on Covid, I am only interested in tackling things with a wider view for the benefit of society and you have shown your own weakness there. You don't care about the consequential damage as long as Covid is dealt with. You don't care that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
. If he died after a few weeks of getting it then an operation wouldn't have helped him, if you know about cancer then you'd know that much. You still haven't answered, the reason why you can't answer is because, you are wrong.
The other people will be cared for if we had the ability to open up these services, but due to the high numbers and the deranged anti vaccers/non covid believers we can't, otherwise the numbers keep going up, beds become full ICU is at capacity and staffing levels drop because of covid and you can see the knock on effect?
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 08, 2021, 01:27:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 10:28:37 AM
I think it's generally accepted by everyone other than Angelo that lockdowns were successful in what they were doing. Reducing the numbers. Unfortunately it's quite clear to everyone that Angelo preferred actions after lockdown were complete failures which unfortunately lead back to lockdowns.
Unfortunately it looks like we should have locked down harder and earlier this time round as things are turning into a clusterfuck and I fully expect some grime reading over the next 7-10 days.
Yes I agree with this.
No one wants lockdown and everyone gets the wide range of problems they introduce.
But, to use one of Angelo's terms, the definition of madness would be to just plod on regardless. The NHS would eventually collapse and then where would we be.
It seems Angelo can only see a single view point and is eithe unwilling or unable to see that covid at this point in time is the single biggest strain on the NHS in terms of hospital admissions.
To reduce this strain and in doing so enable the NHS to treat other conditions a lockdown is the only way for a quick improvement.
The vaccine should reduce the infection date moving forward, but it's just too far away at the minute to have an immediate effect.
It's a harsh reality that some people will fail to get treatment has a result of current NHS pressures, but a judgement call has to be made which is hopefully the lesser of two evils.
What utter horseshit, what a complete contradiction.
I have a broad view that we should not solely be looking at the consequences in terms of Covid. We shjould be looking at it an overall consequence and the overall impact on society as a whole.
You on the other hand have one singular view, Covid. You dismiss out of hand, cannot countenance any reality of the cure (lockdowns) being a bigger danger than the problem (Covid). You just will not even dare countenance that potential reality.
And then you have the utter nerve to come out that wholly illogical, nonsensical statement.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:33:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:25:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:22:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:17:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:06:56 PM
Angelo, can you fill in the rest of this please, and then show me when we did this that it didn't lead to the numbers rising, and did the numbers rise because we went into lockdown
Another post dismissing any vulnerable grouping that is not a Covid statistic.
There's more to this than people who get Covid you know but f**k them right?
I'm asking a simple question, I'm not arguing with you, as its pointless, just want to know other than the ones I've listed is there something missing? If so we should look at it sensibly and ask for those life saving restrictions to come back into play
But you are completing disregarding any grouping other than Covid.
Another guy who has Covid tunnel vision.
During Lockdown, decisions were made to stop cancer screenings and other appointments. This led to cancer diagnoses dropping rapidly during lockdown periods. We were happy to let cancer spread in people to stop Covid. Why? Cancer kills how many people every year and we abandoned that fight to focus on Covid. We abandoned every other physicla and mental ailment that ravages people every year to focus soleley on Covid. It's ok I suppose we can probably chalk them down as a Covid death at the end of the day to justify it.
Don't remind me what cancer does, I've dealt with it since March and buried my dad with it in November so you can keep your details and what people go through with cancer..
So if we stick to the title thread and covid, and not having a covid tunnel vision head. What restrictions would improve the numbers for covid other than lockdown? BTW I don't like lockdown as it greatly reduced my own personal and business needs but you haven't answered my question.
I buried my uncle a few months back to cancer. He was diagnosed with it a few weeks before he died. Lockdowns and a focus solely on Covid was the reason for it.
I'm not interested in tackling things based solely on Covid, I am only interested in tackling things with a wider view for the benefit of society and you have shown your own weakness there. You don't care about the consequential damage as long as Covid is dealt with. You don't care that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
. If he died after a few weeks of getting it then an operation wouldn't have helped him, if you know about cancer then you'd know that much. You still haven't answered, the reason why you can't answer is because, you are wrong.
The other people will be cared for if we had the ability to open up these services, but due to the high numbers and the deranged anti vaccers/non covid believers we can't, otherwise the numbers keep going up, beds become full ICU is at capacity and staffing levels drop because of covid and you can see the knock on effect?
Yet we are introducing all these measures for a virus whose victims are
66% over the age of 80
93% with underlying health conditions
So its ok we deny cancer victims the right to potentially life saving operations as they might only live a few weeks extra to save the lifes of people with very short life expectancies as is.
It's a contradiction.
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 08, 2021, 01:27:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 10:28:37 AM
I think it's generally accepted by everyone other than Angelo that lockdowns were successful in what they were doing. Reducing the numbers. Unfortunately it's quite clear to everyone that Angelo preferred actions after lockdown were complete failures which unfortunately lead back to lockdowns.
Unfortunately it looks like we should have locked down harder and earlier this time round as things are turning into a clusterfuck and I fully expect some grime reading over the next 7-10 days.
Yes I agree with this.
No one wants lockdown and everyone gets the wide range of problems they introduce.
But, to use one of Angelo's terms, the definition of madness would be to just plod on regardless. The NHS would eventually collapse and then where would we be.
It seems Angelo can only see a single view point and is eithe unwilling or unable to see that covid at this point in time is the single biggest strain on the NHS in terms of hospital admissions.
To reduce this strain and in doing so enable the NHS to treat other conditions a lockdown is the only way for a quick improvement.
The vaccine should reduce the infection date moving forward, but it's just too far away at the minute to have an immediate effect.
It's a harsh reality that some people will fail to get treatment has a result of current NHS pressures, but a judgement call has to be made which is hopefully the lesser of two evils.
You say the NHS would eventually collapse and then where would we be. We are very very close to finding out unfortunately. If the numbers don't slow very soon - I would even say within the next week - there is big trouble. Over the last 2 days alone we have had a 57 patient increase in inpatients due to covid. I'm hopeful that this is a backlog etc of recording over christmas but if there is nearly an increase of 30 patients a day in out hospitals in the north the system is going to collapse and soon.
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:29:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:27:04 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:01:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Lockdowns worked.
Reasonable restrictions - not so much.
Absolute horseshit.
They have failed, unequivocally.
Reasonable restrictions? Yes absolutely. They have been a complete shambles.
Reasonable restrictions allow for people to go and out and work, for businesses to stay open, for vulnerable groupings to avail of support services, look after their physical and mental health, for domestic abuse victims to have some manner of escape and support from their abuser.
Tell those groupings we need another lockdown.
Reasonable restrictions failed 3 times. Plaese don't tell me you would want to return to that, where people can't be treated in hospital due to stress on the NHS, Where cancer people are dying because of hospitals being overrun, where support services can't operate as staff are isolating. And on top of that where the death rate is 80K+ above the average.
No one would argue for that surely.
They haven't failed the groupings I've outlined who you have once again dismissed as an irrelevance or an inconvenience.
Cancer patients are dying as a result of lockdowns. Why are Covid patients the priority? Why don't we have a specialist cancer hospital during this where Covid cases are not admitted?
I didn't, We discussed then at length yesterday, you should know you were involved. I just don't intend to do that dance again.
And you've reverted to type again. Covid, covid, covid - forget everything else. Decisions should be made with a big picture outlook. Lockdowns cause a lot more damage than good and I think that's going to show over time.
Covid covid covid yes. Because it over runs everything if not controlled and that then affects everything. We are seeing first hand now what reasonable restrictions have done. A complete mess.
It overruns everything.
But no to mental health
No to domestic abuse victims
No to children and their education and social development
No to the economy and unemployment and the stigma and decades of damage and hardship it will bring.
Don't even countenance the above for God sake, these groupings are an irrelevance, an inconvenience
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:26:49 PM
They are cancelling operations as there are no flipping ICU beds available ffs!
Mother in-law needs open heart surgery and is stuck in hospital and there are no operations available for a critical much needed life threatening op!
The reason she can't have the surgery is because we have fuckwits out there not giving a dam and going about as if there is no virus!
How dumb can one be?
I'm sorry to hear that.
This is due to a chronically underfunded, under resourced health service.
Maybe the reason people are going out there not giving a damn is because lockdowns have failed. How many more lockdowns do you think are needed?
Not a sinner has said the NHS is funded properly, is be losing money since it started and is so underfunded for the population has increased by 12 million or more since introduction.. We need to pay more money into it to pay for it
We peaked in April last year when everyone knew what covid was .. So we lockdown and after 3 months of everyone off bar the essential we got it down to zero at times.. So we did that to create reduced cases for hospital. then when the numbers rose again, it was applied, this time though for some reason everyone complained, and said f**k it....
Saying f**k it and we should have this beaten isnt the reality and they were told wave 2 will come and wave 3 and so on, its not like people didn't understand, if and a big if, if people had have continued to do the things we did through March to end of June, we'd be doing fine.. They didnt and as a result the rest of all these services that we need (not covid) related suffered, as people were laid off due to covid, people got sick, face to face became dangerous new variants..
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:38:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:33:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:25:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:22:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:17:01 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:08:32 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:06:56 PM
Angelo, can you fill in the rest of this please, and then show me when we did this that it didn't lead to the numbers rising, and did the numbers rise because we went into lockdown
Another post dismissing any vulnerable grouping that is not a Covid statistic.
There's more to this than people who get Covid you know but f**k them right?
I'm asking a simple question, I'm not arguing with you, as its pointless, just want to know other than the ones I've listed is there something missing? If so we should look at it sensibly and ask for those life saving restrictions to come back into play
But you are completing disregarding any grouping other than Covid.
Another guy who has Covid tunnel vision.
During Lockdown, decisions were made to stop cancer screenings and other appointments. This led to cancer diagnoses dropping rapidly during lockdown periods. We were happy to let cancer spread in people to stop Covid. Why? Cancer kills how many people every year and we abandoned that fight to focus on Covid. We abandoned every other physicla and mental ailment that ravages people every year to focus soleley on Covid. It's ok I suppose we can probably chalk them down as a Covid death at the end of the day to justify it.
Don't remind me what cancer does, I've dealt with it since March and buried my dad with it in November so you can keep your details and what people go through with cancer..
So if we stick to the title thread and covid, and not having a covid tunnel vision head. What restrictions would improve the numbers for covid other than lockdown? BTW I don't like lockdown as it greatly reduced my own personal and business needs but you haven't answered my question.
I buried my uncle a few months back to cancer. He was diagnosed with it a few weeks before he died. Lockdowns and a focus solely on Covid was the reason for it.
I'm not interested in tackling things based solely on Covid, I am only interested in tackling things with a wider view for the benefit of society and you have shown your own weakness there. You don't care about the consequential damage as long as Covid is dealt with. You don't care that the cure could be far worse than the problem.
. If he died after a few weeks of getting it then an operation wouldn't have helped him, if you know about cancer then you'd know that much. You still haven't answered, the reason why you can't answer is because, you are wrong.
The other people will be cared for if we had the ability to open up these services, but due to the high numbers and the deranged anti vaccers/non covid believers we can't, otherwise the numbers keep going up, beds become full ICU is at capacity and staffing levels drop because of covid and you can see the knock on effect?
Yet we are introducing all these measures for a virus whose victims are
66% over the age of 80
93% with underlying health conditions
So its ok we deny cancer victims the right to potentially life saving operations as they might only live a few weeks extra to save the lifes of people with very short life expectancies as is.
It's a contradiction.
Its not a contradiction, If he died with a couple of weeks what life saving or longer living op would have helped the poor man? And remember I've looked and dealt with this personally..
I've also had uncles die during covid, not covid related
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:42:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:26:49 PM
They are cancelling operations as there are no flipping ICU beds available ffs!
Mother in-law needs open heart surgery and is stuck in hospital and there are no operations available for a critical much needed life threatening op!
The reason she can't have the surgery is because we have fuckwits out there not giving a dam and going about as if there is no virus!
How dumb can one be?
I'm sorry to hear that.
This is due to a chronically underfunded, under resourced health service.
Maybe the reason people are going out there not giving a damn is because lockdowns have failed. How many more lockdowns do you think are needed?
Not a sinner has said the NHS is funded properly, is be losing money since it started and is so underfunded for the population has increased by 12 million or more since introduction.. We need to pay more money into it to pay for it
We peaked in April last year when everyone knew what covid was .. So we lockdown and after 3 months of everyone off bar the essential we got it down to zero at times.. So we did that to create reduced cases for hospital. then when the numbers rose again, it was applied, this time though for some reason everyone complained, and said f**k it....
Saying f**k it and we should have this beaten isnt the reality and they were told wave 2 will come and wave 3 and so on, its not like people didn't understand, if and a big if, if people had have continued to do the things we did through March to end of June, we'd be doing fine.. They didnt and as a result the rest of all these services that we need (not covid) related suffered, as people were laid off due to covid, people got sick, face to face became dangerous new variants..
And the reality of those vulnerable groupings impacted by lockdowns?
"We don't care about you"
Listen I think all of us should be tried for our crimes to humanity here. We've been thinking of it all wrong. I've seen the light. I've realised that thinking lockdown is the only option I have means I am an evil individual who has no consideration for any vulnerable grouping in society who will be impacted by lockdown.
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 08, 2021, 01:39:17 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 08, 2021, 01:27:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 10:28:37 AM
I think it's generally accepted by everyone other than Angelo that lockdowns were successful in what they were doing. Reducing the numbers. Unfortunately it's quite clear to everyone that Angelo preferred actions after lockdown were complete failures which unfortunately lead back to lockdowns.
Unfortunately it looks like we should have locked down harder and earlier this time round as things are turning into a clusterfuck and I fully expect some grime reading over the next 7-10 days.
Yes I agree with this.
No one wants lockdown and everyone gets the wide range of problems they introduce.
But, to use one of Angelo's terms, the definition of madness would be to just plod on regardless. The NHS would eventually collapse and then where would we be.
It seems Angelo can only see a single view point and is eithe unwilling or unable to see that covid at this point in time is the single biggest strain on the NHS in terms of hospital admissions.
To reduce this strain and in doing so enable the NHS to treat other conditions a lockdown is the only way for a quick improvement.
The vaccine should reduce the infection date moving forward, but it's just too far away at the minute to have an immediate effect.
It's a harsh reality that some people will fail to get treatment has a result of current NHS pressures, but a judgement call has to be made which is hopefully the lesser of two evils.
You say the NHS would eventually collapse and then where would we be. We are very very close to finding out unfortunately. If the numbers don't slow very soon - I would even say within the next week - there is big trouble. Over the last 2 days alone we have had a 57 patient increase in inpatients due to covid. I'm hopeful that this is a backlog etc of recording over christmas but if there is nearly an increase of 30 patients a day in out hospitals in the north the system is going to collapse and soon.
All hospitals in the North, with the exception of Causeway are currently at surge levels. With the numbers growing...... :(
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:40:29 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:29:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:27:04 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:01:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Lockdowns worked.
Reasonable restrictions - not so much.
Absolute horseshit.
They have failed, unequivocally.
Reasonable restrictions? Yes absolutely. They have been a complete shambles.
Reasonable restrictions allow for people to go and out and work, for businesses to stay open, for vulnerable groupings to avail of support services, look after their physical and mental health, for domestic abuse victims to have some manner of escape and support from their abuser.
Tell those groupings we need another lockdown.
Reasonable restrictions failed 3 times. Plaese don't tell me you would want to return to that, where people can't be treated in hospital due to stress on the NHS, Where cancer people are dying because of hospitals being overrun, where support services can't operate as staff are isolating. And on top of that where the death rate is 80K+ above the average.
No one would argue for that surely.
They haven't failed the groupings I've outlined who you have once again dismissed as an irrelevance or an inconvenience.
Cancer patients are dying as a result of lockdowns. Why are Covid patients the priority? Why don't we have a specialist cancer hospital during this where Covid cases are not admitted?
I didn't, We discussed then at length yesterday, you should know you were involved. I just don't intend to do that dance again.
And you've reverted to type again. Covid, covid, covid - forget everything else. Decisions should be made with a big picture outlook. Lockdowns cause a lot more damage than good and I think that's going to show over time.
Covid covid covid yes. Because it over runs everything if not controlled and that then affects everything. We are seeing first hand now what reasonable restrictions have done. A complete mess.
It overruns everything.
But no to mental health
No to domestic abuse victims
No to children and their education and social development
No to the economy and unemployment and the stigma and decades of damage and hardship it will bring.
Don't even countenance the above for God sake, these groupings are an irrelevance, an inconvenience
We discussed these yesterday. Actions should be taken to address the impact of lockdown on these. But the answer is not to remove lockdown. Removing lockdowns just exasperates the complete failure we have to deal with Covid in a "normal" environment.
Quote from: JoG2 on January 08, 2021, 01:58:02 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on January 08, 2021, 01:39:17 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 08, 2021, 01:27:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 10:28:37 AM
I think it's generally accepted by everyone other than Angelo that lockdowns were successful in what they were doing. Reducing the numbers. Unfortunately it's quite clear to everyone that Angelo preferred actions after lockdown were complete failures which unfortunately lead back to lockdowns.
Unfortunately it looks like we should have locked down harder and earlier this time round as things are turning into a clusterfuck and I fully expect some grime reading over the next 7-10 days.
Yes I agree with this.
No one wants lockdown and everyone gets the wide range of problems they introduce.
But, to use one of Angelo's terms, the definition of madness would be to just plod on regardless. The NHS would eventually collapse and then where would we be.
It seems Angelo can only see a single view point and is eithe unwilling or unable to see that covid at this point in time is the single biggest strain on the NHS in terms of hospital admissions.
To reduce this strain and in doing so enable the NHS to treat other conditions a lockdown is the only way for a quick improvement.
The vaccine should reduce the infection date moving forward, but it's just too far away at the minute to have an immediate effect.
It's a harsh reality that some people will fail to get treatment has a result of current NHS pressures, but a judgement call has to be made which is hopefully the lesser of two evils.
You say the NHS would eventually collapse and then where would we be. We are very very close to finding out unfortunately. If the numbers don't slow very soon - I would even say within the next week - there is big trouble. Over the last 2 days alone we have had a 57 patient increase in inpatients due to covid. I'm hopeful that this is a backlog etc of recording over christmas but if there is nearly an increase of 30 patients a day in out hospitals in the north the system is going to collapse and soon.
All hospitals in the North, with the exception of Causeway are currently at surge levels. With the numbers growing...... :(
Yeah - we're in big bother over the next few weeks. Big big bother.
1500 new cases and increase of 42 in the inpatients. Occupancy down from 102% to 99% so at least that's something. 20 deaths :(
Serious question Angelo - if everyone ignores lockdown and behaves like we did in the Summer with 'restrictive measures' do you think things will get better with society in general?
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:59:09 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:40:29 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:29:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:27:04 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:01:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Lockdowns worked.
Reasonable restrictions - not so much.
Absolute horseshit.
They have failed, unequivocally.
Reasonable restrictions? Yes absolutely. They have been a complete shambles.
Reasonable restrictions allow for people to go and out and work, for businesses to stay open, for vulnerable groupings to avail of support services, look after their physical and mental health, for domestic abuse victims to have some manner of escape and support from their abuser.
Tell those groupings we need another lockdown.
Reasonable restrictions failed 3 times. Plaese don't tell me you would want to return to that, where people can't be treated in hospital due to stress on the NHS, Where cancer people are dying because of hospitals being overrun, where support services can't operate as staff are isolating. And on top of that where the death rate is 80K+ above the average.
No one would argue for that surely.
They haven't failed the groupings I've outlined who you have once again dismissed as an irrelevance or an inconvenience.
Cancer patients are dying as a result of lockdowns. Why are Covid patients the priority? Why don't we have a specialist cancer hospital during this where Covid cases are not admitted?
I didn't, We discussed then at length yesterday, you should know you were involved. I just don't intend to do that dance again.
And you've reverted to type again. Covid, covid, covid - forget everything else. Decisions should be made with a big picture outlook. Lockdowns cause a lot more damage than good and I think that's going to show over time.
Covid covid covid yes. Because it over runs everything if not controlled and that then affects everything. We are seeing first hand now what reasonable restrictions have done. A complete mess.
It overruns everything.
But no to mental health
No to domestic abuse victims
No to children and their education and social development
No to the economy and unemployment and the stigma and decades of damage and hardship it will bring.
Don't even countenance the above for God sake, these groupings are an irrelevance, an inconvenience
We discussed these yesterday. Actions should be taken to address the impact of lockdown on these. But the answer is not to remove lockdown. Removing lockdowns just exasperates the complete failure we have to deal with Covid in a "normal" environment.
That's a very vague term and not a practical solution.
What practical solutions have you?
Quote from: Taylor on January 08, 2021, 02:52:18 PM
Serious question Angelo - if everyone ignores lockdown and behaves like we did in the Summer with 'restrictive measures' do you think things will get better with society in general?
I think they will improve from the current situation for these groupings, yes. How many people have been put out of work as a result of the latest lockdowns?
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:45:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:42:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:32:57 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 01:26:49 PM
They are cancelling operations as there are no flipping ICU beds available ffs!
Mother in-law needs open heart surgery and is stuck in hospital and there are no operations available for a critical much needed life threatening op!
The reason she can't have the surgery is because we have fuckwits out there not giving a dam and going about as if there is no virus!
How dumb can one be?
I'm sorry to hear that.
This is due to a chronically underfunded, under resourced health service.
Maybe the reason people are going out there not giving a damn is because lockdowns have failed. How many more lockdowns do you think are needed?
Not a sinner has said the NHS is funded properly, is be losing money since it started and is so underfunded for the population has increased by 12 million or more since introduction.. We need to pay more money into it to pay for it
We peaked in April last year when everyone knew what covid was .. So we lockdown and after 3 months of everyone off bar the essential we got it down to zero at times.. So we did that to create reduced cases for hospital. then when the numbers rose again, it was applied, this time though for some reason everyone complained, and said f**k it....
Saying f**k it and we should have this beaten isnt the reality and they were told wave 2 will come and wave 3 and so on, its not like people didn't understand, if and a big if, if people had have continued to do the things we did through March to end of June, we'd be doing fine.. They didnt and as a result the rest of all these services that we need (not covid) related suffered, as people were laid off due to covid, people got sick, face to face became dangerous new variants..
And the reality of those vulnerable groupings impacted by lockdowns?
"We don't care about you"
If you can post a quote were anyone on this board has said that vulnerable people outside of covid don't matter?
To use a phrase, All lives matter.
But you can't do operations when the hospitals are full unless, a doctor decides right, he's 86 has covid, f**k him and lets look after the other person who's 65.. So do all lives matter or just the vulnerable groups you have stated
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 02:55:34 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 08, 2021, 02:52:18 PM
Serious question Angelo - if everyone ignores lockdown and behaves like we did in the Summer with 'restrictive measures' do you think things will get better with society in general?
I think they will improve from the current situation for these groupings, yes. How many people have been put out of work as a result of the latest lockdowns?
Will the cases go down and the hospital admissions?
I was wondering, do you think the hospital admissions are fake? or real?
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 02:54:34 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:59:09 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:40:29 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:29:51 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:27:04 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:16:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:01:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 01:00:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:55:37 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:52:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:46:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 12:35:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 12:33:07 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 12:22:56 PM
Ahh so the genius recommends the "fizzle out" strategy.
I wonder was that what our Government tried in December where cases went from 400 a day up to 5 or 6,000.
Would that be Covid fizzling out?
That would be yet another failed lockdown strategy which just like the first one, did not work.
You're really vocal about Covid but do you care about unemployment, mental health and suicides, domestic violence and other forms of abuse, care services and supports to people with mental and physical disabilities, the education and social development of children etc? You quite clearly seem to be giving those groupings the two fingers because lockdowns will have a very long lasting and serious impact on all those vulernable groupings. But you have no problem throwing your two fingers up at their needs.
Lockdowns worked.
Reasonable restrictions - not so much.
Absolute horseshit.
They have failed, unequivocally.
Reasonable restrictions? Yes absolutely. They have been a complete shambles.
Reasonable restrictions allow for people to go and out and work, for businesses to stay open, for vulnerable groupings to avail of support services, look after their physical and mental health, for domestic abuse victims to have some manner of escape and support from their abuser.
Tell those groupings we need another lockdown.
Reasonable restrictions failed 3 times. Plaese don't tell me you would want to return to that, where people can't be treated in hospital due to stress on the NHS, Where cancer people are dying because of hospitals being overrun, where support services can't operate as staff are isolating. And on top of that where the death rate is 80K+ above the average.
No one would argue for that surely.
They haven't failed the groupings I've outlined who you have once again dismissed as an irrelevance or an inconvenience.
Cancer patients are dying as a result of lockdowns. Why are Covid patients the priority? Why don't we have a specialist cancer hospital during this where Covid cases are not admitted?
I didn't, We discussed then at length yesterday, you should know you were involved. I just don't intend to do that dance again.
And you've reverted to type again. Covid, covid, covid - forget everything else. Decisions should be made with a big picture outlook. Lockdowns cause a lot more damage than good and I think that's going to show over time.
Covid covid covid yes. Because it over runs everything if not controlled and that then affects everything. We are seeing first hand now what reasonable restrictions have done. A complete mess.
It overruns everything.
But no to mental health
No to domestic abuse victims
No to children and their education and social development
No to the economy and unemployment and the stigma and decades of damage and hardship it will bring.
Don't even countenance the above for God sake, these groupings are an irrelevance, an inconvenience
We discussed these yesterday. Actions should be taken to address the impact of lockdown on these. But the answer is not to remove lockdown. Removing lockdowns just exasperates the complete failure we have to deal with Covid in a "normal" environment.
That's a very vague term and not a practical solution.
What practical solutions have you?
Increased advertising and outreach to abuse victims, Increased funding to abuse charities, highlight the warning signs with the general public. Increased help to abuse victims who wish to move out of a abusive relationship - accommodation, counselling etc.
Teaching - Improved distance learning. Teachers will improve the content of E-learning as they get more used to it.
Unemployment - Furlough scheme, funding for struggling businesses.
Support for those with Mental and physical disabilities - This is a tough one. Increased funding to the support services would help, but the reality is that a covid rampant environment as you champion is even worse for this category as services would be even further diminished by rampant covid. And people with physical disabilities would be required to shield even more. So there is no way this category benefits from reasonable restrictions environment.
So now that I have answered you, explain how the same groups would be improved by an environment were covid is rampant?
Sure them oul restrictions dont work
https://roscommonherald.ie/2021/01/08/green-shoots-that-level-5-restrictions-are-beginning-to-take-effect/
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 01:36:25 PM
Quote from: tbrick18 on January 08, 2021, 01:27:55 PM
Quote from: trueblue1234 on January 08, 2021, 10:28:37 AM
I think it's generally accepted by everyone other than Angelo that lockdowns were successful in what they were doing. Reducing the numbers. Unfortunately it's quite clear to everyone that Angelo preferred actions after lockdown were complete failures which unfortunately lead back to lockdowns.
Unfortunately it looks like we should have locked down harder and earlier this time round as things are turning into a clusterfuck and I fully expect some grime reading over the next 7-10 days.
Yes I agree with this.
No one wants lockdown and everyone gets the wide range of problems they introduce.
But, to use one of Angelo's terms, the definition of madness would be to just plod on regardless. The NHS would eventually collapse and then where would we be.
It seems Angelo can only see a single view point and is eithe unwilling or unable to see that covid at this point in time is the single biggest strain on the NHS in terms of hospital admissions.
To reduce this strain and in doing so enable the NHS to treat other conditions a lockdown is the only way for a quick improvement.
The vaccine should reduce the infection date moving forward, but it's just too far away at the minute to have an immediate effect.
It's a harsh reality that some people will fail to get treatment has a result of current NHS pressures, but a judgement call has to be made which is hopefully the lesser of two evils.
What utter horseshit, what a complete contradiction.
I have a broad view that we should not solely be looking at the consequences in terms of Covid. We shjould be looking at it an overall consequence and the overall impact on society as a whole.
You on the other hand have one singular view, Covid. You dismiss out of hand, cannot countenance any reality of the cure (lockdowns) being a bigger danger than the problem (Covid). You just will not even dare countenance that potential reality.
And then you have the utter nerve to come out that wholly illogical, nonsensical statement.
You have a broad view....which ignores the impact of Covid on the NHS and society as a whole!
Ironically, if we don't lockdown and covid runs free through the population the vulnerable groups that you refer to will only suffer more as the NHS will be on its knees.
I think it's quite amusing that you talk about wholly illogical, nonsensical statements ;D
And to be quite honest, I don't need utter nerve to call out nonsense.
You are very good at telling everyone what doesn't work and what the problems are but you have no alternative of your own which would be any better. In fact, anything you have suggested would only make things worse.
I don't doubt your concern for those vulnerable categories of people or indeed the economy, but I do think you have a twisted view on the current state of things.
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 03:56:28 PM
Sure them oul restrictions dont work
https://roscommonherald.ie/2021/01/08/green-shoots-that-level-5-restrictions-are-beginning-to-take-effect/
Yes.
But just how long after you get out of Level 5....will you be back in it.
That seems to be the problem.
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on January 08, 2021, 04:22:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 03:56:28 PM
Sure them oul restrictions dont work
https://roscommonherald.ie/2021/01/08/green-shoots-that-level-5-restrictions-are-beginning-to-take-effect/
Yes.
But just how long after you get out of Level 5....will you be back in it.
That seems to be the problem.
Until the numbers go down?
You're a decent poster, intelligent and don't get drawn into too many crazy discussions.
I'm not for lockdowns, in so many levels. I think its nuts and I'm the point of wondering where do we go...
But can you (I'm not debating with Angelo on this anymore) show me a path out of lockdowns that will keep the cases below what we have (the highest since it began) reducing hospital admissions and dropping the ICU numbers, because on a personal level my wife's mother needs one right now. for when (whenever that will be) after her open heart surgery.
In my view I seen everyone (40% if you go by the poll above ;) ) think life is ok and went ahead with their daily lives while not doing the things they did during the, what I call it, the proper full lockdown. Is there a solution?
Letting people die whatever age they are, or time they are meant to have left in their life isn't acceptable for me, I'd love nothing more to have my dad for another 6 months..
Blaming governments and poor NHS isn't going to solve it in the short term. What can we do short term to fix it?
Quote from: Angelo on January 08, 2021, 02:55:34 PM
Quote from: Taylor on January 08, 2021, 02:52:18 PM
Serious question Angelo - if everyone ignores lockdown and behaves like we did in the Summer with 'restrictive measures' do you think things will get better with society in general?
I think they will improve from the current situation for these groupings, yes. How many people have been put out of work as a result of the latest lockdowns?
Ok.
Im not being specific to certain grouping.
What I mean is society in general - that includes if we come out of lockdown and hospital admissions rocket (which they will) that would mean not only would people people with Covid be left outside but every op cancelled etc etc.
And if the deaths start to pile up how would that impact families who lose loved ones? Alcohol/drug abuse to cope with grief?
The public outrage because we didnt try to protect the vulnerable at all
Not a loaded question - just trying to understand how you think coming out of lockdown would help
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 08, 2021, 04:33:03 PM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on January 08, 2021, 04:22:50 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on January 08, 2021, 03:56:28 PM
Sure them oul restrictions dont work
https://roscommonherald.ie/2021/01/08/green-shoots-that-level-5-restrictions-are-beginning-to-take-effect/
Yes.
But just how long after you get out of Level 5....will you be back in it.
That seems to be the problem.
Until the numbers go down?
You're a decent poster, intelligent and don't get drawn into too many crazy discussions.
I'm not for lockdowns, in so many levels. I think its nuts and I'm the point of wondering where do we go...
But can you (I'm not debating with Angelo on this anymore) show me a path out of lockdowns that will keep the cases below what we have (the highest since it began) reducing hospital admissions and dropping the ICU numbers, because on a personal level my wife's mother needs one right now. for when (whenever that will be) after her open heart surgery.
In my view I seen everyone (40% if you go by the poll above ;) ) think life is ok and went ahead with their daily lives while not doing the things they did during the, what I call it, the proper full lockdown. Is there a solution?
Letting people die whatever age they are, or time they are meant to have left in their life isn't acceptable for me, I'd love nothing more to have my dad for another 6 months..
Blaming governments and poor NHS isn't going to solve it in the short term. What can we do short term to fix it?
That man has had you lads round his fingers for months ;D
Ah look we can't go straight out of lockdown. I despise them myself but I'm not saying, lets get the show on the road next week either but there must be a path out of it. The NI Executive for example at the moment only gives the worst case scenario - it's an actual policy, insane and sinister. It turns me off the cause. Robin Swann is to blame there, he said 15k would die in March? People aren't stupid....not even a 10th of that coming up to a year later, why do you think people don't comply? I'm not saying I agree with that, but that's what public attitude is.
But....we do need to make the most of the vaccine from here on. I was all for a Chinese stay at home or execution style military boot camp (hyperbole, but you get the point). Once off, that's it. Never again. If there was no vaccine...but it's here, I think now 3 of them so there are brighter days ahead despite my current anger at the situation. But I do want numbers, I want to know when lockdown never, ever exists again. At what % of population vaccinated are we free? I think that is fair.
But what we are doing now is madness (lockdown and repeat). I'm not sure if it was this thread or one of the others I said it months ago.....we are basically putting our thumb on the leak only for one to be where we can't reach the other side and repeat.
I do blame the Govt in some areas tbh, I actually declared Covid finished in the summer. It was. Little to no death, cases were fairly low aswell, we were so close. We had track and trace......and look what happened there. A massive, massive failure....so much so Stormont haven't talked about it in months, they are sneaky up there too. I don't think the South done any better in that regard either. Track and trace was essential to help fight the cause and it did collapse, actually, it might not have even had the foundations to begin with. I also get very annoyed when the Govt blame us, yet nobody there has made a mistake.....
Clearly we can't let people die. People get frustrated with this all, that's ok too. I've lost 2 (far out) relatives to Covid, North and South.
They didn't have it. I know they didn't have it and I've seen the certs that say it. But someone is allowed to, wily nilly throw down Covid and that can never be questioned. That is wrong. Certainly more accountability is needed, if not accuracy. And I am not the only one to experience that for sure.
What is the answer? Christ knows....We have 1/2/3 vaccines depending on what part of the Island you are on now. It looks like we are going to do at least 6 more weeks of this and hope for the best. That's what the policy looks like. I mean to be fair they are pumping the vaccine out rightly in the North for how critical I am of the other....they are doing this right anyway so maybe this will be the last one? I don't really trust that....but it could be.
I understand they are doing it for the hospitals, but the Govt must also, always understand, we pay for those hospitals every week/fortnight or month. We never miss a payment. It's not our fault they were overran. Don't blame us for you being caught doing it on the cheap....and that isn't just the British, it's the Irish, it's the Italian etc.
Longest post ever.....away to enjoy the weekend lads. That's enough Covid!
https://norwaytoday.info/news/norwegian-medicines-agency-links-13-deaths-to-vaccine-side-effects-those-who-died-were-frail-and-old/amp/
The Norwegian Medicines Agency linked 13 deaths to the corona vaccine's side effects. Those who died had two things in common – they were old and frail.
A total of 23 deaths have been reported in connection with the corona vaccination.
So far, 13 of these have been assessed.
"The reports might indicate that common side effects from mRNA vaccines, such as fever and nausea, may have led to deaths in some frail patients," chief physician Sigurd Hortemo in the Norwegian Medicines Agency noted.
Side effects
The Norwegian Medicines Agency and the National Institute of Public Health (FHI) jointly assess all side effects reports.
As a result, the FHI has updated the corona vaccination guide with new advice on the vaccination of frail elderly people.
"If you are very frail, you should probably not be vaccinated," Steinar Madsen at the Norwegian Medicines Agency said at a webinar on corona vaccine for journalists on Thursday.
Source: © NTB Scanpix / #Norway Today / #NorwayTodayNews
Do you have a news tip for Norway Today? We want to hear it. Get in touch at info@norwaytoday.no
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 12:49:19 PM
https://norwaytoday.info/news/norwegian-medicines-agency-links-13-deaths-to-vaccine-side-effects-those-who-died-were-frail-and-old/amp/
The Norwegian Medicines Agency linked 13 deaths to the corona vaccine's side effects. Those who died had two things in common – they were old and frail.
A total of 23 deaths have been reported in connection with the corona vaccination.
So far, 13 of these have been assessed.
"The reports might indicate that common side effects from mRNA vaccines, such as fever and nausea, may have led to deaths in some frail patients," chief physician Sigurd Hortemo in the Norwegian Medicines Agency noted.
Side effects
The Norwegian Medicines Agency and the National Institute of Public Health (FHI) jointly assess all side effects reports.
As a result, the FHI has updated the corona vaccination guide with new advice on the vaccination of frail elderly people.
"If you are very frail, you should probably not be vaccinated," Steinar Madsen at the Norwegian Medicines Agency said at a webinar on corona vaccine for journalists on Thursday.
Source: © NTB Scanpix / #Norway Today / #NorwayTodayNews
Do you have a news tip for Norway Today? We want to hear it. Get in touch at info@norwaytoday.no
No comment from Milltown?
Did they die from the vaccine or with the vaccine? This is the question i thought you would have asked Angelo
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 12:49:19 PM
https://norwaytoday.info/news/norwegian-medicines-agency-links-13-deaths-to-vaccine-side-effects-those-who-died-were-frail-and-old/amp/
The Norwegian Medicines Agency linked 13 deaths to the corona vaccine's side effects. Those who died had two things in common – they were old and frail.
A total of 23 deaths have been reported in connection with the corona vaccination.
So far, 13 of these have been assessed.
"The reports might indicate that common side effects from mRNA vaccines, such as fever and nausea, may have led to deaths in some frail patients," chief physician Sigurd Hortemo in the Norwegian Medicines Agency noted.
Side effects
The Norwegian Medicines Agency and the National Institute of Public Health (FHI) jointly assess all side effects reports.
As a result, the FHI has updated the corona vaccination guide with new advice on the vaccination of frail elderly people.
"If you are very frail, you should probably not be vaccinated," Steinar Madsen at the Norwegian Medicines Agency said at a webinar on corona vaccine for journalists on Thursday.
Source: © NTB Scanpix / #Norway Today / #NorwayTodayNews
Do you have a news tip for Norway Today? We want to hear it. Get in touch at info@norwaytoday.no
Definitely something that will need monitored. But they don't seem overly concerned about the risks of the vaccination.
"We are not alarmed by this. It is quite clear that these vaccines have very little risk, with a small exception for the frailest patients," Steinar Madsen, medical director with the agency, told Norwegian broadcaster NRK.
"Doctors must now carefully consider who should be vaccinated. Those who are very frail and at the very end of life can be vaccinated after an individual assessment," he added.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 03:03:09 PM
Did they die from the vaccine or with the vaccine? This is the question i thought you would have asked Angelo
So when it's the vaccine that is listed as the cause of death, they were old and frail so it was to be expected.
But when 60%+ of the people who the the virus kills are over 80, when over 90% of the people have underlying health conditions - everyone goes into mass hysteria.
13 people die from a vaccine, "ah they were old and frail".
Some figures from down south (Oct - present):
https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/1350037510211166208/photo/1
No deaths under the age of 45.
2% of deaths in the age bracket of 45-64
33% deaths in the age bracket of 65-79
65% of deaths in the age bracket of 80+
Cue hysteria.
Vaccine kills 13 in Norway, "ah sure look, they were dying anyway"
i didnt say any of that..what was your motivation for sharing that article? :)
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:08:57 PM
i didnt say any of that..what was your motivation for sharing that article? :)
That vaccines might be utterly worthless if they are killing off the only demograph at risk of Covid.
Some people have taken very bad reactions to these Covid vaccines, I know with any medication, vaccines there can be serious to mild side effects, however it ain't good and the alternative ain't good either.
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:08:57 PM
i didnt say any of that..what was your motivation for sharing that article? :)
That vaccines might be utterly worthless if they are killing off the only demograph at risk of Covid.
They are not the only demographic at risk of covid. They are the demographic with the highest mortality rate..
i just found it strange that you spent months asking how many people died of covid and how many died with it and that wasnt the first quetion you asked about the vaccines info.
the number one cause of death is being born..
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:08:57 PM
i didnt say any of that..what was your motivation for sharing that article? :)
That vaccines might be utterly worthless if they are killing off the only demograph at risk of Covid.
They are not the only demographic at risk of covid. They are the demographic with the highest mortality rate..
i just found it strange that you spent months asking how many people died of covid and how many died with it and that wasnt the first quetion you asked about the vaccines info.
the number one cause of death is being born..
Look at the statistics of deaths from Covid. If you're under 65 years of age and have no underlying health issues then you are as likely to die from getting Covid as you are from hopping behind the wheel of a car and doing a 40 mile round trip.
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:08:57 PM
i didnt say any of that..what was your motivation for sharing that article? :)
That vaccines might be utterly worthless if they are killing off the only demograph at risk of Covid.
They are not the only demographic at risk of covid. They are the demographic with the highest mortality rate..
i just found it strange that you spent months asking how many people died of covid and how many died with it and that wasnt the first quetion you asked about the vaccines info.
the number one cause of death is being born..
Look at the statistics of deaths from Covid. If you're under 65 years of age and have no underlying health issues then you are as likely to die from getting Covid as you are from hopping behind the wheel of a car and doing a 40 mile round trip.
That not what the post i responded too stated. i would also question the equivalence of covid to a 40 mile roind trip.
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 06:02:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:08:57 PM
i didnt say any of that..what was your motivation for sharing that article? :)
That vaccines might be utterly worthless if they are killing off the only demograph at risk of Covid.
They are not the only demographic at risk of covid. They are the demographic with the highest mortality rate..
i just found it strange that you spent months asking how many people died of covid and how many died with it and that wasnt the first quetion you asked about the vaccines info.
the number one cause of death is being born..
Look at the statistics of deaths from Covid. If you're under 65 years of age and have no underlying health issues then you are as likely to die from getting Covid as you are from hopping behind the wheel of a car and doing a 40 mile round trip.
That not what the post i responded too stated. i would also question the equivalence of covid to a 40 mile roind trip.
Covid has a fatality rate in the following demographs of:
0-19 - 0.008% (8 in every 100,000 positive cases)
20-39 - 0.006% (6 in every 100,000 positive cases)
40-59 - 0.03% (3 in every 1,000 positive cases)
Covid is well down the list in the causes of deaths to over half the population. Road traffic accidents are the cause of more deaths in those age groups every year.
So what do we do about road traffic deaths? Should we stop people from driving? Chip cars to stop them doing over 20mph on the roads?
Or do we just go - "ah deaths will happen but we will just get on with it".
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 06:34:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 06:02:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:08:57 PM
i didnt say any of that..what was your motivation for sharing that article? :)
That vaccines might be utterly worthless if they are killing off the only demograph at risk of Covid.
They are not the only demographic at risk of covid. They are the demographic with the highest mortality rate..
i just found it strange that you spent months asking how many people died of covid and how many died with it and that wasnt the first quetion you asked about the vaccines info.
the number one cause of death is being born..
Look at the statistics of deaths from Covid. If you're under 65 years of age and have no underlying health issues then you are as likely to die from getting Covid as you are from hopping behind the wheel of a car and doing a 40 mile round trip.
That not what the post i responded too stated. i would also question the equivalence of covid to a 40 mile roind trip.
Covid has a fatality rate in the following demographs of:
0-19 - 0.008% (8 in every 100,000 positive cases)
20-39 - 0.006% (6 in every 100,000 positive cases)
40-59 - 0.03% (3 in every 1,000 positive cases)
Covid is well down the list in the causes of deaths to over half the population. Road traffic accidents are the cause of more deaths in those age groups every year.
So what do we do about road traffic deaths? Should we stop people from driving? Chip cars to stop them doing over 20mph on the roads?
Or do we just go - "ah deaths will happen but we will just get on with it".
Who knew road traffic accidents were contagious? Not only that but rate of accident growth was exponential?
Ah the old false equivalence play.
Brilliant that our rates for the vaccine Is doing well, the target hit the vulnerable should be met by mid February, the lockdown should reduce the numbers even further.
Keep home stay safe
Quote from: thebigfella on January 15, 2021, 06:46:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 06:34:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 06:02:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:08:57 PM
i didnt say any of that..what was your motivation for sharing that article? :)
That vaccines might be utterly worthless if they are killing off the only demograph at risk of Covid.
They are not the only demographic at risk of covid. They are the demographic with the highest mortality rate..
i just found it strange that you spent months asking how many people died of covid and how many died with it and that wasnt the first quetion you asked about the vaccines info.
the number one cause of death is being born..
Look at the statistics of deaths from Covid. If you're under 65 years of age and have no underlying health issues then you are as likely to die from getting Covid as you are from hopping behind the wheel of a car and doing a 40 mile round trip.
That not what the post i responded too stated. i would also question the equivalence of covid to a 40 mile roind trip.
Covid has a fatality rate in the following demographs of:
0-19 - 0.008% (8 in every 100,000 positive cases)
20-39 - 0.006% (6 in every 100,000 positive cases)
40-59 - 0.03% (3 in every 1,000 positive cases)
Covid is well down the list in the causes of deaths to over half the population. Road traffic accidents are the cause of more deaths in those age groups every year.
So what do we do about road traffic deaths? Should we stop people from driving? Chip cars to stop them doing over 20mph on the roads?
Or do we just go - "ah deaths will happen but we will just get on with it".
Who knew road traffic accidents were contagious? Not only that but rate of accident growth was exponential?
Ah the old false equivalence play.
They are a lot more fatal than Covid is for under 60s.
So why not save lives by either banning people from driving of chipping cars not to exceed 20mph?
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 06:34:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 06:02:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:08:57 PM
i didnt say any of that..what was your motivation for sharing that article? :)
That vaccines might be utterly worthless if they are killing off the only demograph at risk of Covid.
They are not the only demographic at risk of covid. They are the demographic with the highest mortality rate..
i just found it strange that you spent months asking how many people died of covid and how many died with it and that wasnt the first quetion you asked about the vaccines info.
the number one cause of death is being born..
Look at the statistics of deaths from Covid. If you're under 65 years of age and have no underlying health issues then you are as likely to die from getting Covid as you are from hopping behind the wheel of a car and doing a 40 mile round trip.
That not what the post i responded too stated. i would also question the equivalence of covid to a 40 mile roind trip.
Covid has a fatality rate in the following demographs of:
0-19 - 0.008% (8 in every 100,000 positive cases)
20-39 - 0.006% (6 in every 100,000 positive cases)
40-59 - 0.03% (3 in every 1,000 positive cases)
Covid is well down the list in the causes of deaths to over half the population. Road traffic accidents are the cause of more deaths in those age groups every year.
So what do we do about road traffic deaths? Should we stop people from driving? Chip cars to stop them doing over 20mph on the roads?
Or do we just go - "ah deaths will happen but we will just get on with it".
again your tunnel vision om death rates surprises me since you spend so much time telling others they have tunnel vision... you do understand those under 60/70 get it, there is long covid, they spread it and signifant numbers need health care when capacity isnt there to deal with it.
is there acceptable death from traffic accidents? and is there an eyelid batted?? where have you shown your outrage..
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 06:59:48 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 15, 2021, 06:46:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 06:34:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 06:02:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:08:57 PM
i didnt say any of that..what was your motivation for sharing that article? :)
That vaccines might be utterly worthless if they are killing off the only demograph at risk of Covid.
They are not the only demographic at risk of covid. They are the demographic with the highest mortality rate..
i just found it strange that you spent months asking how many people died of covid and how many died with it and that wasnt the first quetion you asked about the vaccines info.
the number one cause of death is being born..
Look at the statistics of deaths from Covid. If you're under 65 years of age and have no underlying health issues then you are as likely to die from getting Covid as you are from hopping behind the wheel of a car and doing a 40 mile round trip.
That not what the post i responded too stated. i would also question the equivalence of covid to a 40 mile roind trip.
Covid has a fatality rate in the following demographs of:
0-19 - 0.008% (8 in every 100,000 positive cases)
20-39 - 0.006% (6 in every 100,000 positive cases)
40-59 - 0.03% (3 in every 1,000 positive cases)
Covid is well down the list in the causes of deaths to over half the population. Road traffic accidents are the cause of more deaths in those age groups every year.
So what do we do about road traffic deaths? Should we stop people from driving? Chip cars to stop them doing over 20mph on the roads?
Or do we just go - "ah deaths will happen but we will just get on with it".
Who knew road traffic accidents were contagious? Not only that but rate of accident growth was exponential?
Ah the old false equivalence play.
They are a lot more fatal than Covid is for under 60s.
So why not save lives by either banning people from driving of chipping cars not to exceed 20mph?
I'll repeat, the road accidents are not contagious.
Roads are a perfect example. Since I learned to drive, road deaths per Km have been reduced to about one tenth of what they were. Because people follow the rules and keep their distance etc. Covid is the same, deaths cannot be reduced to zero, but they can be greatly reduced.
Quote from: thebigfella on January 15, 2021, 08:08:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 06:59:48 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 15, 2021, 06:46:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 06:34:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 06:02:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:08:57 PM
i didnt say any of that..what was your motivation for sharing that article? :)
That vaccines might be utterly worthless if they are killing off the only demograph at risk of Covid.
They are not the only demographic at risk of covid. They are the demographic with the highest mortality rate..
i just found it strange that you spent months asking how many people died of covid and how many died with it and that wasnt the first quetion you asked about the vaccines info.
the number one cause of death is being born..
Look at the statistics of deaths from Covid. If you're under 65 years of age and have no underlying health issues then you are as likely to die from getting Covid as you are from hopping behind the wheel of a car and doing a 40 mile round trip.
That not what the post i responded too stated. i would also question the equivalence of covid to a 40 mile roind trip.
Covid has a fatality rate in the following demographs of:
0-19 - 0.008% (8 in every 100,000 positive cases)
20-39 - 0.006% (6 in every 100,000 positive cases)
40-59 - 0.03% (3 in every 1,000 positive cases)
Covid is well down the list in the causes of deaths to over half the population. Road traffic accidents are the cause of more deaths in those age groups every year.
So what do we do about road traffic deaths? Should we stop people from driving? Chip cars to stop them doing over 20mph on the roads?
Or do we just go - "ah deaths will happen but we will just get on with it".
Who knew road traffic accidents were contagious? Not only that but rate of accident growth was exponential?
Ah the old false equivalence play.
They are a lot more fatal than Covid is for under 60s.
So why not save lives by either banning people from driving of chipping cars not to exceed 20mph?
I'll repeat, the road accidents are not contagious.
So deaths have nothing to do with this?
We are doing this to stop people getting mild illness?
Should we stop people driving cares to stop people breaking bones, being paralysed, destroying the planet?
Quote from: armaghniac on January 15, 2021, 08:31:11 PM
Roads are a perfect example. Since I learned to drive, road deaths per Km have been reduced to about one tenth of what they were. Because people follow the rules and keep their distance etc. Covid is the same, deaths cannot be reduced to zero, but they can be greatly reduced.
More fit and healthy u40s killed from road traffic accidents in 2019 than u40s killed of Covid in 2020.
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 09:15:13 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 15, 2021, 08:08:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 06:59:48 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 15, 2021, 06:46:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 06:34:35 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 06:02:17 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 05:51:09 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:52:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 04:20:04 PM
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 15, 2021, 04:08:57 PM
i didnt say any of that..what was your motivation for sharing that article? :)
That vaccines might be utterly worthless if they are killing off the only demograph at risk of Covid.
They are not the only demographic at risk of covid. They are the demographic with the highest mortality rate..
i just found it strange that you spent months asking how many people died of covid and how many died with it and that wasnt the first quetion you asked about the vaccines info.
the number one cause of death is being born..
Look at the statistics of deaths from Covid. If you're under 65 years of age and have no underlying health issues then you are as likely to die from getting Covid as you are from hopping behind the wheel of a car and doing a 40 mile round trip.
That not what the post i responded too stated. i would also question the equivalence of covid to a 40 mile roind trip.
Covid has a fatality rate in the following demographs of:
0-19 - 0.008% (8 in every 100,000 positive cases)
20-39 - 0.006% (6 in every 100,000 positive cases)
40-59 - 0.03% (3 in every 1,000 positive cases)
Covid is well down the list in the causes of deaths to over half the population. Road traffic accidents are the cause of more deaths in those age groups every year.
So what do we do about road traffic deaths? Should we stop people from driving? Chip cars to stop them doing over 20mph on the roads?
Or do we just go - "ah deaths will happen but we will just get on with it".
Who knew road traffic accidents were contagious? Not only that but rate of accident growth was exponential?
Ah the old false equivalence play.
They are a lot more fatal than Covid is for under 60s.
So why not save lives by either banning people from driving of chipping cars not to exceed 20mph?
I'll repeat, the road accidents are not contagious.
So deaths have nothing to do with this?
We are doing this to stop people getting mild illness?
Should we stop people driving cares to stop people breaking bones, being paralysed, destroying the planet?
Road accidents are not contagious. You keep peddling this false equivalence.
Quote from: thebigfella on January 15, 2021, 09:25:21 PM
Road accidents are not contagious. You keep peddling this false equivalence.
So you keep repeating. Nobody is arguing that with you, so we heard you the first time.
Road traffic accidents do kill though, they kill fit and healthy u40s in multiples of the amount Covid does but we accept that right?
It's fine to die by road traffic accidents, acceptable to die of flue, ok to die via a syringe of a vaccine from a big pharma company but not Covid.
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 09:30:53 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 15, 2021, 09:25:21 PM
Road accidents are not contagious. You keep peddling this false equivalence.
So you keep repeating. Nobody is arguing that with you, so we heard you the first time.
Road traffic accidents do kill though, they kill fit and healthy u40s in multiples of the amount Covid does but we accept that right?
It's fine to die by road traffic accidents, acceptable to die of flue, ok to die via a syringe of a vaccine from a big pharma company but not Covid.
Again road accidents are not contagious. What do you not get? It's a false equivalence trying to compare deaths.
FYI road accidents account for about 2000 people per annum in the UK. Not per day, per annum. And nobody said it was okay to die in road accidents - the numbers are down significantly compared to years ago due to the advent of car safety measures etc. And as bigfella says they aren't contagious. NEXT!
Quote from: Angelo on January 15, 2021, 09:30:53 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 15, 2021, 09:25:21 PM
Road accidents are not contagious. You keep peddling this false equivalence.
So you keep repeating. Nobody is arguing that with you, so we heard you the first time.
Road traffic accidents do kill though, they kill fit and healthy u40s in multiples of the amount Covid does but we accept that right?
It's fine to die by road traffic accidents, acceptable to die of flue, ok to die via a syringe of a vaccine from a big pharma company but not Covid.
you replied to everyone else but my questions.. curious
we have put in places rules that has reduced road deaths and increased the safety of cars, roads and footpaths. Over time more and more people have adhered to those rules and deaths reduced.
a flu vaccine has been created and there is more and more awareness every year of the availabilty of a vaccine, take up of the vaccine and hygiene. i think hygiene standards will really improve after last year.
covid we had nothing only increased public awarenss of hygiene and social distancing. That wasn't enough so more drastic measures were required with lockdowns and then increased restrictions. (lockdowns worked much better than selective restrictions in reducing covid levels.) now we have the vaccine.
If the vaccine works, we will open up again, people attitudes to face masks and hand hygiene etc. will probably continue, more people might take the flu vaccine, WFH will reduce overcrowding on public transport but maybe less people will take it, more cycling, walking and running to work etc. social distancing in a way.
lockdowns and restrictions are now also part of the toolkit and i wouldnt be surprised if there are seasonal viruses in the future that put pressure on health services that these measures.would be used to protect lives.
The title of the thread is will you get a vaccine becomes available 2021, it came in 2020 and 99% of the vulnerable will have it by Feb 21.
Fantastic
Well done scientists, real actual experts in their field.
Hats of to those who know what they are talking about
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 15, 2021, 10:33:32 PM
The title of the thread is will you get a vaccine becomes available 2021, it came in 2020 and 99% of the vulnerable will have it by Feb 21.
Fantastic
Well done scientists, real actual experts in their field.
Hats of to those who know what they are talking about
Well said. As someone who is shielding again, I can't wait for the vaccine.
The multiple vaccines is a great achievement. There are still no really good simple tests and there hasn't been that much movement on the treatment front, it wasn't obvious that vaccines would win out first.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on January 15, 2021, 09:50:10 PM
FYI road accidents account for about 2000 people per annum in the UK. Not per day, per annum. And nobody said it was okay to die in road accidents - the numbers are down significantly compared to years ago due to the advent of car safety measures etc. And as bigfella says they aren't contagious. NEXT!
Road traffic accidents are a much bigger threat to under 40s and people without any underlying health issues than Covid. Why aren't we protecting this demograph from something that kills them?
Why are road traffic deaths acceptable?
Why are deaths from heart disease acceptable?
Why are death from flu acceptable?
Why are deaths from Covid not acceptable?
Why are deaths from a vaccine acceptable?
Up to 29 dead in Norway now from the vaccine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/norway-vaccine-fatalities-among-people-75-and-older-rise-to-29
Rossfan, dublin7 and Milltown conspicuous in their silence.
I suppose while it's not ok for Covid to kill an old person, it is ok for a vaccine rushed through production and approved in record time to kill them off.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Up to 29 dead in Norway now from the vaccine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/norway-vaccine-fatalities-among-people-75-and-older-rise-to-29
Can you post a link for your claim? The link you posted says 29 elderly people who were vaccinated have died.
Quote from: dublin7 on January 16, 2021, 04:18:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Up to 29 dead in Norway now from the vaccine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/norway-vaccine-fatalities-among-people-75-and-older-rise-to-29
Can you post a link for your claim? The link you posted says 29 elderly people who were vaccinated have died.
Wow.
Complete and utter double standards.
"all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine," the Norwegian Medicines Agency said in a written response to Bloomberg on Saturday.29 dead from the vaccine. They didn't have Covid though so they probably deserved to die in your eyes. As long as big pharma can make a few quid everything is alright in your eyes, you are amoral.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 16, 2021, 04:18:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Up to 29 dead in Norway now from the vaccine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/norway-vaccine-fatalities-among-people-75-and-older-rise-to-29
Can you post a link for your claim? The link you posted says 29 elderly people who were vaccinated have died.
Wow.
Complete and utter double standards.
"all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine," the Norwegian Medicines Agency said in a written response to Bloomberg on Saturday.
29 dead from the vaccine. They didn't have Covid though so they probably deserved to die in your eyes. As long as big pharma can make a few quid everything is alright in your eyes, you are amoral.
Do you even read the articles before you link them? Clearly not. Disappointed, but not surprised
Quote from: dublin7 on January 16, 2021, 05:49:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 16, 2021, 04:18:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Up to 29 dead in Norway now from the vaccine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/norway-vaccine-fatalities-among-people-75-and-older-rise-to-29
Can you post a link for your claim? The link you posted says 29 elderly people who were vaccinated have died.
Wow.
Complete and utter double standards.
"all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine," the Norwegian Medicines Agency said in a written response to Bloomberg on Saturday.
29 dead from the vaccine. They didn't have Covid though so they probably deserved to die in your eyes. As long as big pharma can make a few quid everything is alright in your eyes, you are amoral.
Do you even read the articles before you link them? Clearly not. Disappointed, but not surprised
I did. Clearly you didn't.
Have you any actual point to make other than ignore facts and blindly defend the indefensible. You have a habit of ignoring the matter of the debate and using vague, empty statements to deflect away from the debate.
The article is quite clear, this vaccine has been linked to the deaths of 29 people in Norway.
And you are the same naive mug who defended the manufacturer of this vaccine profiteering off rushing it through. I have been vindicated once again here.
The vaccine seems to cause as much damage to the demograph most at risk from Covid as the virus itself does.
What is the upside of the vaccine? Apart from enriching majority shareholders and boardroom executives of big pharma.
Could it be that drug companies are up to their old tricks in the trials/tesing the efficacy of their drugs and not disclosing full accurate information about those trials?
Peter Doshi: poses serious questions about Pfizer and Moderna's claims of "95% effective" vaccines in an article in the BMJ
https://tinyurl.com/y62nggy4 (https://tinyurl.com/y62nggy4)
This information was not released to the public but was found among 400 pages of summary data presented to the FDA
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=42 (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=42)
Page 42 Only a 19% better chance of not testing positive
There were "3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group."
A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, "would be a relative risk reduction of 19% far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization
That means with the vaccine inside you, you have a 19% better chance of not testing positive in a pcr covid test and that's "far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization"
Page 18 Imbalance in exclusion and no explanation
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=18
What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna's trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for "major protocol deviation"—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.)
Fever and pain medications, unblinding,
Pain and fever medications to treat symptoms, such drugs could mask symptoms, leading to underdetection of covid-19 cases, these medicines were taken around 3–4 times more often in vaccine versus placebo recipients (at least for Pfizer's vaccine—
Quote from: Main Street on January 16, 2021, 06:11:10 PM
Could it be that drug companies are up to their old tricks in the trials/tesing the efficacy of their drugs and not disclosing full accurate information about those trials?
Peter Doshi: poses serious questions about Pfizer and Moderna's claims of "95% effective" vaccines in an article in the BMJ
https://tinyurl.com/y62nggy4 (https://tinyurl.com/y62nggy4)
This information was not released to the public but was found among 400 pages of summary data presented to the FDA
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=42 (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=42)
Page 42 Only a 19% better chance of not testing positive
There were "3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group."
A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, "would be a relative risk reduction of 19% far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization
That means with the vaccine inside you, you have a 19% better chance of not testing positive in a pcr covid test and that's "far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization"
Page 18 Imbalance in exclusion and no explanation
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=18
What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna's trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for "major protocol deviation"—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.)
Fever and pain medications, unblinding,
Pain and fever medications to treat symptoms, such drugs could mask symptoms, leading to underdetection of covid-19 cases, these medicines were taken around 3–4 times more often in vaccine versus placebo recipients (at least for Pfizer's vaccine—
Well who'd have thought that.
A lot of posters on here are going to look like prize idiots in the coming years, thankfully I won't be one of them.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 06:12:40 PM
Quote from: Main Street on January 16, 2021, 06:11:10 PM
Could it be that drug companies are up to their old tricks in the trials/tesing the efficacy of their drugs and not disclosing full accurate information about those trials?
Peter Doshi: poses serious questions about Pfizer and Moderna's claims of "95% effective" vaccines in an article in the BMJ
https://tinyurl.com/y62nggy4 (https://tinyurl.com/y62nggy4)
This information was not released to the public but was found among 400 pages of summary data presented to the FDA
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=42 (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=42)
Page 42 Only a 19% better chance of not testing positive
There were "3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group."
A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, "would be a relative risk reduction of 19% far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization
That means with the vaccine inside you, you have a 19% better chance of not testing positive in a pcr covid test and that's "far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization"
Page 18 Imbalance in exclusion and no explanation
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=18
What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna's trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for "major protocol deviation"—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.)
Fever and pain medications, unblinding,
Pain and fever medications to treat symptoms, such drugs could mask symptoms, leading to underdetection of covid-19 cases, these medicines were taken around 3–4 times more often in vaccine versus placebo recipients (at least for Pfizer's vaccine—
Well who'd have thought that.
A lot of posters on here are going to look like prize idiots in the coming years, thankfully I won't be one of them.
Some posters will be delighted that you are leaving!
Quote from: restorepride on January 16, 2021, 06:16:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 06:12:40 PM
Quote from: Main Street on January 16, 2021, 06:11:10 PM
Could it be that drug companies are up to their old tricks in the trials/tesing the efficacy of their drugs and not disclosing full accurate information about those trials?
Peter Doshi: poses serious questions about Pfizer and Moderna's claims of "95% effective" vaccines in an article in the BMJ
https://tinyurl.com/y62nggy4 (https://tinyurl.com/y62nggy4)
This information was not released to the public but was found among 400 pages of summary data presented to the FDA
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=42 (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=42)
Page 42 Only a 19% better chance of not testing positive
There were "3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group."
A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, "would be a relative risk reduction of 19% far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization
That means with the vaccine inside you, you have a 19% better chance of not testing positive in a pcr covid test and that's "far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization"
Page 18 Imbalance in exclusion and no explanation
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=18
What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna's trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for "major protocol deviation"—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.)
Fever and pain medications, unblinding,
Pain and fever medications to treat symptoms, such drugs could mask symptoms, leading to underdetection of covid-19 cases, these medicines were taken around 3–4 times more often in vaccine versus placebo recipients (at least for Pfizer's vaccine—
Well who'd have thought that.
A lot of posters on here are going to look like prize idiots in the coming years, thankfully I won't be one of them.
Some posters will be delighted that you are leaving!
I'd imagine a lot of posters would love that. They might have a free run at talking all the utter bollocks they want then with nobody to hold them to account.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 06:19:28 PM
Quote from: restorepride on January 16, 2021, 06:16:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 06:12:40 PM
Quote from: Main Street on January 16, 2021, 06:11:10 PM
Could it be that drug companies are up to their old tricks in the trials/tesing the efficacy of their drugs and not disclosing full accurate information about those trials?
Peter Doshi: poses serious questions about Pfizer and Moderna's claims of "95% effective" vaccines in an article in the BMJ
https://tinyurl.com/y62nggy4 (https://tinyurl.com/y62nggy4)
This information was not released to the public but was found among 400 pages of summary data presented to the FDA
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=42 (https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=42)
Page 42 Only a 19% better chance of not testing positive
There were "3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group."
A rough estimate of vaccine efficacy against developing covid-19 symptoms, with or without a positive PCR test result, "would be a relative risk reduction of 19% far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization
That means with the vaccine inside you, you have a 19% better chance of not testing positive in a pcr covid test and that's "far below the 50% effectiveness threshold for authorization"
Page 18 Imbalance in exclusion and no explanation
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download#page=18
What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna's trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for "major protocol deviation"—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.)
Fever and pain medications, unblinding,
Pain and fever medications to treat symptoms, such drugs could mask symptoms, leading to underdetection of covid-19 cases, these medicines were taken around 3–4 times more often in vaccine versus placebo recipients (at least for Pfizer's vaccine—
Well who'd have thought that.
A lot of posters on here are going to look like prize idiots in the coming years, thankfully I won't be one of them.
Some posters will be delighted that you are leaving!
I'd imagine a lot of posters would love that. They might have a free run at talking all the utter bollocks they want then with nobody to hold them to account.
Do you actually take this stuff seriously? It is a discussion board ffs. Entertainment!
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 06:04:06 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 16, 2021, 05:49:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 16, 2021, 04:18:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Up to 29 dead in Norway now from the vaccine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/norway-vaccine-fatalities-among-people-75-and-older-rise-to-29
Can you post a link for your claim? The link you posted says 29 elderly people who were vaccinated have died.
Wow.
Complete and utter double standards.
"all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine," the Norwegian Medicines Agency said in a written response to Bloomberg on Saturday.
29 dead from the vaccine. They didn't have Covid though so they probably deserved to die in your eyes. As long as big pharma can make a few quid everything is alright in your eyes, you are amoral.
Do you even read the articles before you link them? Clearly not. Disappointed, but not surprised
I did. Clearly you didn't.
Have you any actual point to make other than ignore facts and blindly defend the indefensible. You have a habit of ignoring the matter of the debate and using vague, empty statements to deflect away from the debate.
The article is quite clear, this vaccine has been linked to the deaths of 29 people in Norway.
And you are the same naive mug who defended the manufacturer of this vaccine profiteering off rushing it through. I have been vindicated once again here.
The vaccine seems to cause as much damage to the demograph most at risk from Covid as the virus itself does.
What is the upside of the vaccine? Apart from enriching majority shareholders and boardroom executives of big pharma.
Can you post the quote or the article where they clearly said the deaths are the vaccines fault? It's not on the one you linked.
Quote from: dublin7 on January 16, 2021, 06:24:22 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 06:04:06 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 16, 2021, 05:49:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 04:48:21 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on January 16, 2021, 04:18:48 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Up to 29 dead in Norway now from the vaccine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/norway-vaccine-fatalities-among-people-75-and-older-rise-to-29
Can you post a link for your claim? The link you posted says 29 elderly people who were vaccinated have died.
Wow.
Complete and utter double standards.
"all deaths are thus linked to this vaccine," the Norwegian Medicines Agency said in a written response to Bloomberg on Saturday.
29 dead from the vaccine. They didn't have Covid though so they probably deserved to die in your eyes. As long as big pharma can make a few quid everything is alright in your eyes, you are amoral.
Do you even read the articles before you link them? Clearly not. Disappointed, but not surprised
I did. Clearly you didn't.
Have you any actual point to make other than ignore facts and blindly defend the indefensible. You have a habit of ignoring the matter of the debate and using vague, empty statements to deflect away from the debate.
The article is quite clear, this vaccine has been linked to the deaths of 29 people in Norway.
And you are the same naive mug who defended the manufacturer of this vaccine profiteering off rushing it through. I have been vindicated once again here.
The vaccine seems to cause as much damage to the demograph most at risk from Covid as the virus itself does.
What is the upside of the vaccine? Apart from enriching majority shareholders and boardroom executives of big pharma.
Can you post the quote or the article where they clearly said the deaths are the vaccines fault? It's not on the one you linked.
Wow.
The double standards once again.
60 deaths attributed to Covid in your little statelet today, the median age 85. You going to question relentlessly whether those deaths were as a result of Covid or do you only try and absolve billion dollar pharmaceutical companies when it comes to the death of the elderly?
You could address the issues but your level of discourse is quite shameful. If you are going to act morally superior then I'd expect you to carry your standards equally across the board.
There are blatant and obvious observations expressed from the Norway authorities about the vaccine and the most elderly
The Norwegian Institute of Public Health judges that "for those with the most severe frailty, even relatively mild vaccine side effects can have serious consequences. For those who have a very short remaining life span anyway, the benefit of the vaccine may be marginal or irrelevant."
Most (elderly) people have experienced the expected side effects of the vaccine, such as nausea and vomiting, fever, local reactions at the injection site, and worsening of their underlying condition."
In the paperwork with each vaccine in regards to side effects, some 10% experienced these side effects in the trials. But in Norway with ina certain age group, everybody experiences these effects.
Can't wait to take vaccine next week, think it's a game changer.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/world/norway-warns-of-vaccination-risks-for-sick-patients-after-23-people-die/amp-11610778473019.html
Maybe not giving it to frail and sick patients is the way forward. If you read the whole article it'll give a proper insight to these deaths.
If you read the headline (like the Karen's of this world) then you're dumb
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 16, 2021, 06:39:46 PM
Can't wait to take vaccine next week, think it's a game changer.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/world/norway-warns-of-vaccination-risks-for-sick-patients-after-23-people-die/amp-11610778473019.html
Maybe not giving it to frail and sick patients is the way forward. If you read the whole article it'll give a proper insight to these deaths.
If you read the headline (like the Karen's of this world) then you're dumb
Yeah, the demograph most impacted by Covid are the ones who are being killed by the supposed cure.
If ever a contribution summed you up it's the type of post you have just done, amazing how you can blend your stupidity in with misplaced arrogance so seamlessly.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Up to 29 dead in Norway now from the vaccine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/norway-vaccine-fatalities-among-people-75-and-older-rise-to-29
Norway has given at least one dose to about 33,000 people, focusing on those considered to be most at risk if they contract the virus, including the elderly.
23/33000 = 0.09%
Current case mortality rate for a comparable group is likely to be between 5 and 10%.
So the vaccine is only around 5000 times safer then. [I suppose, to be fair, it remains to be seen whether anyone from the vaccinated group gets (and dies from) COVID or not]
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on January 16, 2021, 07:44:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Up to 29 dead in Norway now from the vaccine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/norway-vaccine-fatalities-among-people-75-and-older-rise-to-29
Norway has given at least one dose to about 33,000 people, focusing on those considered to be most at risk if they contract the virus, including the elderly.
23/33000 = 0.09%
Current case mortality rate for a comparable group is likely to be between 5 and 10%.
So the vaccine is only around 5000 times safer then. [I suppose, to be fair, it remains to be seen whether anyone from the vaccinated group gets (and dies from) COVID or not]
So you're saying that Norway have vaccinated 33k senior citizens?
It's 29 deaths now and Covid has only killed 517 people in Norway in the 10 odd months of its existence.
Anyway, what is interesting is that you don't see it as a problem. The thing that is meant to protect the vulnerable and the elderly from Covid, in actual fact also ends up killing a rather significant amount of them.
We know, unequivocally that the chances of Covid killing you or causing you extreme complications are tiny if you're under 40 and in good health - this demograph do not need the vaccine. The vaccine then looks like it causes problems for the demograph it really is designed to protect.
What is the actual upside of this vaccine other than enriching big pharma.
People who have died of 'vaccination' could have died of old age or whatever terminal illness they had, do we have that information?
Or are people saying they died because of the vaccine?
We'd a clampit saying people would be dying of flu old age and other terminal illnesses and nothing related to Covid, and thats fine
I suppose you could use any information to suit your argument.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 16, 2021, 08:59:00 PM
People who have died of 'vaccination' could have died of old age or whatever terminal illness they had, do we have that information?
Or are people saying they died because of the vaccine?
We'd a clampit saying people would be dying of flu old age and other terminal illnesses and nothing related to Covid, and thats fine
I suppose you could use any information to suit your argument.
Anti vax people will say its because of the vaccine and nothing will convince them otherwise.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 16, 2021, 08:59:00 PM
People who have died of 'vaccination' could have died of old age or whatever terminal illness they had, do we have that information?
So by your logic:
Old person dies of vaccine - ah they were old.
Old person dies of Covid - we must shut everything down and save lives from Covid.
And then you have the other eejit rabbiting on about anti-vaxxers......
Deary, deary me.
The mental gymnastics you guys engage is unbelievable.
We know 90%+ of Covid deaths are over 60s, we know 65% or thereabouts are over the age of 80. We know 93% of people who are recorded as Covid deaths have underlying health issues. BUT IGNORE ALL OF THIS WHEN SOMEONE DIES OF COVID.
We know those who died due to side effects of the vaccine were elderly and in poor health SO RELAY THE DEATH COMPLETELY TO THIS SINGLE FACTOR
You're either an idiot or you just have a very callous way of dealing with what is clearly obvious.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 08:53:26 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on January 16, 2021, 07:44:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Up to 29 dead in Norway now from the vaccine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/norway-vaccine-fatalities-among-people-75-and-older-rise-to-29
Norway has given at least one dose to about 33,000 people, focusing on those considered to be most at risk if they contract the virus, including the elderly.
23/33000 = 0.09%
Current case mortality rate for a comparable group is likely to be between 5 and 10%.
So the vaccine is only around 5000 times safer then. [I suppose, to be fair, it remains to be seen whether anyone from the vaccinated group gets (and dies from) COVID or not]
So you're saying that Norway have vaccinated 33k senior citizens?
Thats a direct quote from YOUR link.
F88k me - do you actually bother to read your own stuff beyond the headline?
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on January 16, 2021, 09:43:11 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 08:53:26 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on January 16, 2021, 07:44:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Up to 29 dead in Norway now from the vaccine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/norway-vaccine-fatalities-among-people-75-and-older-rise-to-29
Norway has given at least one dose to about 33,000 people, focusing on those considered to be most at risk if they contract the virus, including the elderly.
23/33000 = 0.09%
Current case mortality rate for a comparable group is likely to be between 5 and 10%.
So the vaccine is only around 5000 times safer then. [I suppose, to be fair, it remains to be seen whether anyone from the vaccinated group gets (and dies from) COVID or not]
So you're saying that Norway have vaccinated 33k senior citizens?
Thats a direct quote from YOUR link.
F88k me - do you actually bother to read your own stuff beyond the headline?
You're the one that gave us the 0.009% figure.
That figure is disingenuous and misleading, more than likely your intention.
Most of those vaccinated with the vaccine so far are frontline healthcare workers, not senior citizens. So your figure is inaccurate and designed to mislead. The quote you mentioned has nothing to do with that and does not in anyway support your misinformation, it actually corrects it.
So maybe do a bit more reading yourself next time.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 08:53:26 PM
Anyway, what is interesting is that you don't see it as a problem.
Did I say that?
I put it in perspective.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 08:53:26 PM
Anyway, what is intereThe thing that is meant to protect the vulnerable and the elderly from Covid, in actual fact also ends up killing a rather significant amount of them.
Insufficient data for that conclusion.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 08:53:26 PM
What is the actual upside of this vaccine other than enriching big pharma.
Re-read the post you quoted. Particularly the bit comparing case mortality to vaccine "mortality".
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 09:46:00 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on January 16, 2021, 09:43:11 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 08:53:26 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on January 16, 2021, 07:44:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Up to 29 dead in Norway now from the vaccine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/norway-vaccine-fatalities-among-people-75-and-older-rise-to-29
Norway has given at least one dose to about 33,000 people, focusing on those considered to be most at risk if they contract the virus, including the elderly.
23/33000 = 0.09%
Current case mortality rate for a comparable group is likely to be between 5 and 10%.
So the vaccine is only around 5000 times safer then. [I suppose, to be fair, it remains to be seen whether anyone from the vaccinated group gets (and dies from) COVID or not]
So you're saying that Norway have vaccinated 33k senior citizens?
Thats a direct quote from YOUR link.
F88k me - do you actually bother to read your own stuff beyond the headline?
You're the one that gave us the 0.009% figure.
That figure is disingenuous and misleading, more than likely your intention.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Most of those vaccinated with the vaccine so far are frontline healthcare workers, not senior citizens. So your figure is inaccurate and designed to mislead. The quote you mentioned has nothing to do with that and does not in anyway support your misinformation, it actually corrects it.
Quotefocusing on those considered to be most at risk if they contract the virus, including the elderly
"IF THEY" - Not "OF".
Again, a bit more reading is in order for yourself Angelo. Or are you unable to actually parse a sentence correctly?
Given that I have interpreted the sentence correctly - at least - assuming bloomberg have written what they meant to state - then 23/33000 is the correct sum.
Lads arguing over a scientifically proven vaccine on an Internet forum at 10pm on a Saturday night, pubs cant reopen quick enough!
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on January 16, 2021, 09:50:12 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 09:46:00 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on January 16, 2021, 09:43:11 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 08:53:26 PM
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on January 16, 2021, 07:44:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Up to 29 dead in Norway now from the vaccine.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-16/norway-vaccine-fatalities-among-people-75-and-older-rise-to-29
Norway has given at least one dose to about 33,000 people, focusing on those considered to be most at risk if they contract the virus, including the elderly.
23/33000 = 0.09%
Current case mortality rate for a comparable group is likely to be between 5 and 10%.
So the vaccine is only around 5000 times safer then. [I suppose, to be fair, it remains to be seen whether anyone from the vaccinated group gets (and dies from) COVID or not]
So you're saying that Norway have vaccinated 33k senior citizens?
Thats a direct quote from YOUR link.
F88k me - do you actually bother to read your own stuff beyond the headline?
You're the one that gave us the 0.009% figure.
That figure is disingenuous and misleading, more than likely your intention.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 03:55:31 PM
Most of those vaccinated with the vaccine so far are frontline healthcare workers, not senior citizens. So your figure is inaccurate and designed to mislead. The quote you mentioned has nothing to do with that and does not in anyway support your misinformation, it actually corrects it.
Quotefocusing on those considered to be most at risk if they contract the virus, including the elderly
"IF THEY" - Not "OF".
Again, a bit more reading is in order for yourself Angelo. Or are you unable to actually parse a sentence correctly?
Given that I have interpreted the sentence correctly - at least - assuming bloomberg have written what they meant to state - then 23/33000 is the correct sum.
We're talking about the elderly here, are you saying the 33k vaccinated are the elderly.
You really need to clarify this. The majority of this people are health care workers who have been vaccinated, not the elderly so you should trying to mislead people that the 0.009% is of the elderly. It's clearly not, the quote in the article refutes the message you are putting out there.
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 16, 2021, 09:55:36 PM
Lads arguing over a scientifically proven vaccine on an Internet forum at 10pm on a Saturday night, pubs cant reopen quick enough!
Because big pharma would never do anything wrong? They would never endanger human life for profits?
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 09:57:10 PM
You really need to clarify this. The majority of this people are health care workers who have been vaccinated, not the elderly so you should trying to mislead people that the 0.009% is of the elderly. It's clearly not, the quote in the article refutes the message you are putting out there.
Look... the quote clearly states those at MOST AT RISK IF THEY GET covid. Get that into your head.
Young health care workers - by your very own admission - are not among the most at risk IF THEY GET IT. They are at high risk OF getting it. But the consequences aren't there.
Note also, in my original point on the matter - I said "mortality rate for a comparable group" - so I am not limiting it to elderly only, but also those with underlying conditions etc.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 09:57:57 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 16, 2021, 09:55:36 PM
Lads arguing over a scientifically proven vaccine on an Internet forum at 10pm on a Saturday night, pubs cant reopen quick enough!
Because big pharma would never do anything wrong? They would never endanger human life for profits?
Angelo, I've had the first dose of the vaccine, im the healthiest I've ever been.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on January 16, 2021, 10:05:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 09:57:10 PM
You really need to clarify this. The majority of this people are health care workers who have been vaccinated, not the elderly so you should trying to mislead people that the 0.009% is of the elderly. It's clearly not, the quote in the article refutes the message you are putting out there.
Look... the quote clearly states those at MOST AT RISK IF THEY GET covid. Get that into your head.
Young health care workers - by your very own admission - are not among the most at risk IF THEY GET IT. They are at high risk OF getting it. But the consequences aren't there.
Note also, in my original point on the matter - I said "mortality rate for a comparable group" - so I am not limiting it to elderly only, but also those with underlying conditions etc.
How many of the most at risk did they vaccinate? Giving me a figure? Or is it that you do not have a clue about that and you are making massive assumptions and trying to then, disingenuously pass them as factual and linking them to a quote that does not in anyway support your assumptions.
How many of the 33k vaccinations in Norway were given to those in the most at risk category? Give him a figure, a % or round figure will do? I've asked you this before but I think the reason you have neglected to answer this is because you have said something that you don't actually know.
The vast majority of vaccinations seem to be given to healthcare workers. I know the figures down south on the vaccination during the week said that 90% of vaccines administered were given to front line health care workers with the remaining 10% to those in nursing homes.
So address the question, if you don't know say so and then retract the misleading comment you made.
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 16, 2021, 10:09:50 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 09:57:57 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 16, 2021, 09:55:36 PM
Lads arguing over a scientifically proven vaccine on an Internet forum at 10pm on a Saturday night, pubs cant reopen quick enough!
Because big pharma would never do anything wrong? They would never endanger human life for profits?
Angelo, I've had the first dose of the vaccine, im the healthiest I've ever been.
Good for you.
But if you're under 40 then I don't think the vaccine really does anything for you.
0.008% fatality rate in 0-19s in the north so far.
0.006% fatality rate in 20-39 in the north so far.
I love these comments where if you say it it's true and if someone else says it it's not true..
It really makes you right every time.
Old and vulnerable die due to taking vaccine wrong, old and vulnerable dying because of old age ok...
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 16, 2021, 10:19:43 PM
I love these comments where if you say it it's true and if someone else says it it's not true..
It really makes you right every time.
Old and vulnerable die due to taking vaccine wrong, old and vulnerable dying because of old age ok...
All I'm doing is applying your logic.
I would say those dying of the vaccine is due to bad health and old age, same as the vast, vast majority of Covid deaths.
Median age of the 60 deaths down South today was 85 yet don't dare say that they might dying due to old age and bad health, not Covid.
Yet when a vaccine kills them, ah it was old age and bad health which it was that killed him.
Complete and utter double standards from you guys, as usual.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 10:14:55 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 16, 2021, 10:09:50 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 09:57:57 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 16, 2021, 09:55:36 PM
Lads arguing over a scientifically proven vaccine on an Internet forum at 10pm on a Saturday night, pubs cant reopen quick enough!
Because big pharma would never do anything wrong? They would never endanger human life for profits?
Angelo, I've had the first dose of the vaccine, im the healthiest I've ever been.
Good for you.
But if you're under 40 then I don't think the vaccine really does anything for you.
0.008% fatality rate in 0-19s in the north so far.
0.006% fatality rate in 20-39 in the north so far.
I am under 40, but I'm in regular contact with people who are over 40, not least members of my family. Is not a good idea for me to get it for them?
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 16, 2021, 11:01:45 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 10:14:55 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 16, 2021, 10:09:50 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 09:57:57 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 16, 2021, 09:55:36 PM
Lads arguing over a scientifically proven vaccine on an Internet forum at 10pm on a Saturday night, pubs cant reopen quick enough!
Because big pharma would never do anything wrong? They would never endanger human life for profits?
Angelo, I've had the first dose of the vaccine, im the healthiest I've ever been.
Good for you.
But if you're under 40 then I don't think the vaccine really does anything for you.
0.008% fatality rate in 0-19s in the north so far.
0.006% fatality rate in 20-39 in the north so far.
I am under 40, but I'm in regular contact with people who are over 40, not least members of my family. Is not a good idea for me to get it for them?
No evidence to suggest that the vaccine stops you contracting the virus or spreading it. All that the trials say is that it reduces the symptoms you get from Covid.
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 16, 2021, 10:09:50 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 09:57:57 PM
Quote from: RedHand88 on January 16, 2021, 09:55:36 PM
Lads arguing over a scientifically proven vaccine on an Internet forum at 10pm on a Saturday night, pubs cant reopen quick enough!
Because big pharma would never do anything wrong? They would never endanger human life for profits?
Angelo, I've had the first dose of the vaccine, im the healthiest I've ever been.
You're only saying that to wind up Angeloballoon.
You probably won't last till morning...
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 16, 2021, 06:39:46 PM
Can't wait to take vaccine next week, think it's a game changer.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.livemint.com/news/world/norway-warns-of-vaccination-risks-for-sick-patients-after-23-people-die/amp-11610778473019.html
Maybe not giving it to frail and sick patients is the way forward. If you read the whole article it'll give a proper insight to these deaths.
If you read the headline (like the Karen's of this world) then you're dumb
That was the import of the Bloomberg article linked and quoted earlier, why did you not read that? Fooled by the headline of Angelo?
Are you as dumb as the Karen's of this world? :D
23 elderly frail people dying a premature or accelerated death immediately after vaccine intake, in Norway a country which has a proven excellent record in managing their nursing homes in times of crises, is no small event. Healthy people can handle a vaccine ill effect but it is the height of medical incompetence/quackery to administer the vaccine to the very frail elderly when any one of the 10 main vaccine ill effects can kill that person.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 10:13:21 PM
How many of the most at risk did they vaccinate? Giving me a figure? Or is it that you do not have a clue about that and you are making massive assumptions and trying to then, disingenuously pass them as factual and linking them to a quote that does not in anyway support your assumptions.
How many of the 33k vaccinations in Norway were given to those in the most at risk category? Give him a figure, a % or round figure will do? I've asked you this before but I think the reason you have neglected to answer this is because you have said something that you don't actually know.
I don't have to give you anything more than the square root of f**k all.
You were quick to label the vaccine as a disaster based on sketchy data - whereas I turned that same sketchy data right around and demolished your "argument" such as it was.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 10:13:21 PM
The vast majority of vaccinations seem to be given to healthcare workers. I know the figures down south on the vaccination during the week said that 90% of vaccines administered were given to front line health care workers with the remaining 10% to those in nursing homes.
For the 3rd or 4th time - read what YOUR article said you retard. It talked about those AT RISK IF THEY GET IT.
That is not healthcare workers.
... and last time I checked, Norway was not "down south"
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 10:13:21 PM
So address the question, if you don't know say so and then retract the misleading comment you made.
Your some boy to be talking about misleading comments.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on January 17, 2021, 12:17:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 10:13:21 PM
How many of the most at risk did they vaccinate? Giving me a figure? Or is it that you do not have a clue about that and you are making massive assumptions and trying to then, disingenuously pass them as factual and linking them to a quote that does not in anyway support your assumptions.
How many of the 33k vaccinations in Norway were given to those in the most at risk category? Give him a figure, a % or round figure will do? I've asked you this before but I think the reason you have neglected to answer this is because you have said something that you don't actually know.
I don't have to give you anything more than the square root of f**k all.
You were quick to label the vaccine as a disaster based on sketchy data - whereas I turned that same sketchy data right around and demolished your "argument" such as it was.
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 10:13:21 PM
The vast majority of vaccinations seem to be given to healthcare workers. I know the figures down south on the vaccination during the week said that 90% of vaccines administered were given to front line health care workers with the remaining 10% to those in nursing homes.
For the 3rd or 4th time - read what YOUR article said you retard. It talked about those AT RISK IF THEY GET IT.
That is not healthcare workers.
... and last time I checked, Norway was not "down south"
Quote from: Angelo on January 16, 2021, 10:13:21 PM
So address the question, if you don't know say so and then retract the misleading comment you made.
Your some boy to be talking about misleading comments.
Did I label the vaccine a disaster? No.
Did I point out that the vaccine seems to have a similar impact on the elderly and vulnerable that Covid does? Yes.
The fact that both the vaccine and Covid only seem to adversely impact people who are elderly and in bad health should be something that is noted.
In the north there have been around 50k positive cases of people under 40 having Covid and 3 deaths in that age group i. This virus clear as day is not any threat to the u40 demograph unless you have severe underlying health conditions.
Yet the spin is Covid kills the elderly and vulnerable.
But when it's the vaccine that is the problem, it's because they are elderly and vulnerable.
What's the end game here? What are we protecting ourselves from with the vaccine?
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
This is the "I'm Alright, Jack" ideology taken to its logical conclusion, mixed in crackpot conspiracy theorising for good measure
It is the Putin-esque world of ultra-cynicism, "there is no truth", "what is truth?"
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:53:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
This is the "I'm Alright, Jack" ideology taken to its logical conclusion, mixed in crackpot conspiracy theorising for good measure
It is the Putin-esque world of ultra-cynicism, "there is no truth", "what is truth?"
You've just posted a post referencing "I'm alright Jack", Putin and conspiracy theories because you can't explain an upside to a vaccine that has not been shown to stop a person contracting or transmitting the virus and where the virus has a fatality rate of 0.008% in under 20s and 0.006% in people 19-39. In Norway we then find out the vaccine is helping to kill off the elderly and vulnerable.
They are facts, you can't ackowledge them so it's your cocktail of conspiracy theories, Putin and "I'm alright Jack". You'll generally find the people must impacted by lockdowns are not the "I'm alright Jack" types, they are the working class people.
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
The neighbour is 32 and in hospital. Both him and the girlfriend tested positive, not sure where she is, but they both been flouting the guidelines from March. Fond of the parties and gathering etc...
It's likely no threat to his mortality but it's a bed he's taking up in hospital from someone who may need it, and extra pressure not needed on the health service all because of the above attitude. Big picture completely missed again.
Economist Stephen Kinsella this morning said that there is no trade off between public health and economic health - that the two are complementary
Get your public health right and economic health flows from that
This has been obvious from day one
The people who suffer most from public health being fucked are the vulnerable - the poor, the working class, the elderly, the sick
The exact people that Angelo and Julia Hartley-Brewer and Toby Young and other crackpots he gets his opinions from are happy to throw under the bus
What Angelo says could come straight from the mouth of Julia Hartley-Brewer, who flew off to Antigua for a holiday at Christmas
She's alright, Jack
Right-wing political correctness says we cannot, we should not call these people what they are
But we should
They are psychopaths
Quote from: thebigfella on January 17, 2021, 03:07:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
The neighbour is 32 and in hospital. Both him and the girlfriend tested positive, not sure where she is, but they both been flouting the guidelines from March. Fond of the parties and gathering etc...
It's likely no threat to his mortality but it's a bed he's taking up in hospital from someone who may need it, and extra pressure not needed on the health service all because of the above attitude. Big picture completely missed again.
And if someone who is involved in a road traffic accident takes up a hospital bed?
Missing the big picture again.
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 03:10:22 PM
Economist Stephen Kinsella this morning said that there is no trade off between public health and economic health - that the two are complementary
Get your public health right and economic health flows from that
This has been obvious from day one
The people who suffer most from public health being fucked are the vulnerable - the poor, the working class, the elderly, the sick
The exact people that Angelo and Julia Hartley-Brewer and Toby Young and other crackpots he gets his opinions from are happy to throw under the bus
What Angelo says could come straight from the mouth of Julia Hartley-Brewer, who flew off to Antigua for a holiday at Christmas
She's alright, Jack
So you only pick economists and scientists who agree with you and disregard scientists and economists who don't agree with you. Sound logic there.
You had your arse handed to you a few minutes ago, more in your line if you addressed that.
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 03:12:21 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 03:10:22 PM
Economist Stephen Kinsella this morning said that there is no trade off between public health and economic health - that the two are complementary
Get your public health right and economic health flows from that
This has been obvious from day one
The people who suffer most from public health being fucked are the vulnerable - the poor, the working class, the elderly, the sick
The exact people that Angelo and Julia Hartley-Brewer and Toby Young and other crackpots he gets his opinions from are happy to throw under the bus
What Angelo says could come straight from the mouth of Julia Hartley-Brewer, who flew off to Antigua for a holiday at Christmas
She's alright, Jack
So you only pick economists and scientists who agree with you and disregard scientists and economists who don't agree with you. Sound logic there.
You had your arse handed to you a few minutes ago, more in your line if you addressed that.
More Putinist propaganda, don't believe the truth, believe motivated "reasoning" from crackpots
My father will die in the next few days because views like yours were given undue credence
And there are thousands of others like him
Lives taken, lives ruined because right-wing, "I'm Alright Jack" bastards with zero regard for society were listened to
And it is hard not to feel a deep, burning anger at that
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 03:17:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 03:12:21 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 03:10:22 PM
Economist Stephen Kinsella this morning said that there is no trade off between public health and economic health - that the two are complementary
Get your public health right and economic health flows from that
This has been obvious from day one
The people who suffer most from public health being fucked are the vulnerable - the poor, the working class, the elderly, the sick
The exact people that Angelo and Julia Hartley-Brewer and Toby Young and other crackpots he gets his opinions from are happy to throw under the bus
What Angelo says could come straight from the mouth of Julia Hartley-Brewer, who flew off to Antigua for a holiday at Christmas
She's alright, Jack
So you only pick economists and scientists who agree with you and disregard scientists and economists who don't agree with you. Sound logic there.
You had your arse handed to you a few minutes ago, more in your line if you addressed that.
More Putinist propaganda, don't believe the truth, believe motivated "reasoning" from crackpots
My father will die in the next few days because views like yours were given undue credence
And there are thousands of others like him
Lives taken, lives ruined because right-wing, "I'm Alright Jack" bastards with zero regard for society were listened to
And it is hard not to feel a deep, burning anger at that
No I'm just pointing out how you only post up scientists and economists who agree with you. Conversely you completely disregard anything of their peers who disagree with them.
Go back 7 or 8 posts, I posted this, every bit of it is true.
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or healthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.Rather than tackle that post, you went on some rant about conspiracy theories, Putin and "I'm alright Jack" type nonsense. Your single biggest issue in life Sid, is healthy debate and people challenging your dogmatic and dangerous rhetoric. For a man who pretends to be a socialist you don't do a very good job of it, you are as right wing as they come.
The views of the so called "libertarian" loonies were summed up in plain sight by "Lord" Jonathan Sumption on BBC1 this morning
He tells a stage 4 bowel cancer sufferer that "Your life is less valuable"
This is the ideology of Josef Mengele, the ideology of the Nazis' Aktion T4 holocaust - which is the same ideology as the "let it rip" ideology
Eton and Magdalen College Oxford-educated Sumption has been an influential "thinker" for decades in British right-wing circles, his "thinking" has been normalised because, due to right-wing political correctness, it was never called out for what it was - evil
Thus it is no surprise that he has an army of parrots to parrot his evil ideology
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1350762750327271424
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 03:32:14 PM
The views of the so called "libertarian" loonies were summed up in plain sight by "Lord" Jonathan Sumption on BBC1 this morning
He tells a stage 4 bowel cancer sufferer that "Your life is less valuable"
This is the ideology of Josef Mengele, the ideology of the Nazis' Aktion T4 holocaust - which is the same ideology as the "let it rip" ideology
Eton and Magdalen College Oxford-educated Sumption has been an influential "thinker" for decades in British right-wing circles, his "thinking" has been normalised because, due to right-wing political correctness, it was never called out for what it was - evil
Thus it is no surprise that he has an army of parrots to parrot his evil ideology
https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1350762750327271424
Sid, you're still running away from the facts.
What's the upside of the vaccine for under 40s?
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 03:11:14 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 17, 2021, 03:07:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
The neighbour is 32 and in hospital. Both him and the girlfriend tested positive, not sure where she is, but they both been flouting the guidelines from March. Fond of the parties and gathering etc...
It's likely no threat to his mortality but it's a bed he's taking up in hospital from someone who may need it, and extra pressure not needed on the health service all because of the above attitude. Big picture completely missed again.
And if someone who is involved in a road traffic accident takes up a hospital bed?
Missing the big picture again.
Didn't realise those big pharma bastards also had a vaccine for road accidents as well
Quote from: thebigfella on January 17, 2021, 03:42:11 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 03:11:14 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 17, 2021, 03:07:00 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
The neighbour is 32 and in hospital. Both him and the girlfriend tested positive, not sure where she is, but they both been flouting the guidelines from March. Fond of the parties and gathering etc...
It's likely no threat to his mortality but it's a bed he's taking up in hospital from someone who may need it, and extra pressure not needed on the health service all because of the above attitude. Big picture completely missed again.
And if someone who is involved in a road traffic accident takes up a hospital bed?
Missing the big picture again.
Didn't realise those big pharma bastards also had a vaccine for road accidents as well
Missing the big picture. If somebody is a road traffic accident they are there as a result of someone driving a vehicle.
That person in a hospital bed could deny someone with a serious illness they have developed from medical care.
So should we ban cars on roads to save the health service and lives? I'm merely applying your logic here.
angleo are you advocating for an end to driving? if you are not, are you accepting road deaths? can you show where you batted an eyelid for these deaths previously?
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on January 17, 2021, 04:05:36 PM
angleo are you advocating for an end to driving? if you are not, are you accepting road deaths? can you show where you batted an eyelid for these deaths previously?
No I'm just trying to hold the people with double standards to account.
By your standards you should be the one demanding this unless of course it's ok for people to die from road traffic accidents but not from Covid?
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2021-01-18/norway-finds-no-direct-link-between-elderly-deaths-and-vaccine
Positive news. Has there been any reports from other countries of higher than expected deaths after vaccination? Given the global roll out you would have expected to see similar figures coming from other countries if there was an issue.
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.
Quote from: Redhand Santa on January 18, 2021, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.
So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.
If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.
I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Redhand Santa on January 18, 2021, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.
So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.
If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.
I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?
So I refer to the earlier points, road accidents are not contagious.
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Redhand Santa on January 18, 2021, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.
So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.
If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.
I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?
So I refer to the earlier points, road accidents are not contagious.
Road accidents kill under 40s in multiples of what Covid has every year, that is statistically proven. We've had more u40s wiped out in one weekend this year in road accidents than we have had u40s killed in 9 months from Covid? So if road accidents are not contagious but yet kill around 10x that of u40s every year than Covid does, then why does contagion matter?
What you seem to be telling us is that road deaths don't matter, Covid deaths do.
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Redhand Santa on January 18, 2021, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.
So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.
If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.
I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?
So I refer to the earlier points, road accidents are not contagious.
Road accidents kill under 40s in multiples of what Covid has every year, that is statistically proven. We've had more u40s wiped out in one weekend this year in road accidents than we have had u40s killed in 9 months from Covid? So if road accidents are not contagious but yet kill around 10x that of u40s every year than Covid does, then why does contagion matter?
What you seem to be telling us is that road deaths don't matter, Covid deaths do.
Nope I clearly stating that road accidents are not contagious to point out its a false equvalience. You are inferring the rest.
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Redhand Santa on January 18, 2021, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.
So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.
If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.
I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?
So I refer to the earlier points, road accidents are not contagious.
Road accidents kill under 40s in multiples of what Covid has every year, that is statistically proven. We've had more u40s wiped out in one weekend this year in road accidents than we have had u40s killed in 9 months from Covid? So if road accidents are not contagious but yet kill around 10x that of u40s every year than Covid does, then why does contagion matter?
What you seem to be telling us is that road deaths don't matter, Covid deaths do.
65 year olds can't catch a fatal car crash from you
There's one poster here who is contagious to threads, resulting in them becoming car crashes
Quote from: Franko on January 18, 2021, 03:18:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Redhand Santa on January 18, 2021, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.
So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.
If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.
I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?
So I refer to the earlier points, road accidents are not contagious.
Road accidents kill under 40s in multiples of what Covid has every year, that is statistically proven. We've had more u40s wiped out in one weekend this year in road accidents than we have had u40s killed in 9 months from Covid? So if road accidents are not contagious but yet kill around 10x that of u40s every year than Covid does, then why does contagion matter?
What you seem to be telling us is that road deaths don't matter, Covid deaths do.
65 year olds can't catch a fatal car crash from you
Yet u40s are more likely to die in a car crash than catching Covid from you.
So road deaths don't matter? Got ya.
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:45:16 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 18, 2021, 03:18:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Redhand Santa on January 18, 2021, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.
So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.
If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.
I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?
So I refer to the earlier points, road accidents are not contagious.
Road accidents kill under 40s in multiples of what Covid has every year, that is statistically proven. We've had more u40s wiped out in one weekend this year in road accidents than we have had u40s killed in 9 months from Covid? So if road accidents are not contagious but yet kill around 10x that of u40s every year than Covid does, then why does contagion matter?
What you seem to be telling us is that road deaths don't matter, Covid deaths do.
65 year olds can't catch a fatal car crash from you
Yet u40s are more likely to die in a car crash than catching Covid from you.
So road deaths don't matter? Got ya.
Where did he state that?
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 03:46:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:45:16 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 18, 2021, 03:18:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Redhand Santa on January 18, 2021, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.
So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.
If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.
I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?
So I refer to the earlier points, road accidents are not contagious.
Road accidents kill under 40s in multiples of what Covid has every year, that is statistically proven. We've had more u40s wiped out in one weekend this year in road accidents than we have had u40s killed in 9 months from Covid? So if road accidents are not contagious but yet kill around 10x that of u40s every year than Covid does, then why does contagion matter?
What you seem to be telling us is that road deaths don't matter, Covid deaths do.
65 year olds can't catch a fatal car crash from you
Yet u40s are more likely to die in a car crash than catching Covid from you.
So road deaths don't matter? Got ya.
Where did he state that?
He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.
Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
A 53 year old mother of two died from Covid in Our Lady Of Lourdes in Drogheda yesterday
A lad not far down from me caught Covid before Christmas, and passed it on to his father, who has now died from it
Imagine thinking that 40 year olds carrying Covid around is just fine
Buy hey "focussed protection", "shielding", or some other ludicrous buzzword dreamt up by the psychopathic Sunetra Gupta
Quote from: sid waddell on January 18, 2021, 03:48:34 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
A 53 year old mother of two died from Covid in Our Lady Of Lourdes in Drogheda yesterday
A lad not far down from me caught Covid before Christmas, and passed it on to his father, who has now died from it
Imagine thinking that 40 year olds carrying Covid around is just fine
Buy hey "focussed protection", "shielding", or some other ludicrous buzzword dreamt up by the psychopathic Sunetra Gupta
And how will the vaccine solve that, Sid?
When I asked you that yesterday you started ranting about Putin, "I'm alright Jack" and conspiracy theories.
Hope you are actually able to come up with something that's not nonsense this time?
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.
Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?
How can you agree that? They are false equivalences, road accidents (and resulting deaths) are not contagious.
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
Anecdotal story? Let me tell you this you condescending little p***k, that lad was on a ventilator for 4 days. His family thought he was on his way out. But yeah, keep spreading shite that covid is no risk to people under 40. Dickhead.
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 04:00:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.
Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?
How can you agree that? They are false equivalences, road accidents (and resulting deaths) are not contagious.
Angelo's argument is that we get around a certain number of road deaths per year, therefore we should allow drink driving, no seat belts, and have all cars without brakes
Angelo's logic holds that if we did that, road deaths would not increase
Angelo's logic is if somebody wants to drink drive home without a seat belt in a car with no brakes, that's fine, because that individual "is making the best decision for themselves, the individual"
Never mind that might crash into another car and kill a load of people, all that matter's is that individual's "personal utility"
This is what far right far right libertarian "logic" holds
And the anti-lockdown, anti-vaxx ideology is far right libertarian
It's the ideology of a psychopath
And people should not be politically correct and extend any undue respect to this psychopathy
We should say what it is - psychopathy
It's the logic of a pain in the hole is what it is.
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 18, 2021, 04:00:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
Anecdotal story? Let me tell you this you condescending little p***k, that lad was on a ventilator for 4 days. His family thought he was on his way out. But yeah, keep spreading shite that covid is no risk to people under 40. Dickhead.
I'm talking about facts here, one of us being rational and you're being a hard man with bad manners, pathetic really.
Statistically Covid is no risk to under 40s, absolutle fact.
Quote from: sid waddell on January 18, 2021, 04:06:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 04:00:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.
Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?
How can you agree that? They are false equivalences, road accidents (and resulting deaths) are not contagious.
Angelo's argument is that we get around a certain number of road deaths per year, therefore we should allow drink driving, no seat belts, and have all cars without brakes
Angelo's logic holds that if we did that, road deaths would not increase
Angelo's logic is if somebody wants to drink drive home without a seat belt in a car with no brakes, that's fine, because that individual "is making the best decision for themselves, the individual"
Never mind that might crash into another car and kill a load of people, all that matter's is that individual's "personal utility"
This is what far right far right libertarian "logic" holds
And the anti-lockdown, anti-vaxx ideology is far right libertarian
It's the ideology of a psychopath
And people should not be politically correct and extend any undue respect to this psychopathy
We should say what it is - psychopathy
I've never said anything like that.
All I have done is point out that we accept half measures on something that kills far more young people every single year than Covid.
While we have draconian measures on a virus that is little threat to the u40 demograph.
We are soft on road deaths if anything. Society accepts road deaths but does not accept Covid deaths.
Once again I am using statistics and facts to put forward a very reasoned and informed argument while you are howling at the moon - psychopath, anti-vaxxers bla, bla, bla - the rantings of an unhinged maniac.
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:18:17 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 18, 2021, 04:00:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
Anecdotal story? Let me tell you this you condescending little p***k, that lad was on a ventilator for 4 days. His family thought he was on his way out. But yeah, keep spreading shite that covid is no risk to people under 40. Dickhead.
I'm talking about facts here, one of us being rational and you're being a hard man with bad manners, pathetic really.
Statistically Covid is no risk to under 40s, absolutle fact.
You're full of shit. If it was no risk to U40s why would an under 40 have spent near a week on a ventilator.
Hard man? Bad manners? Have a read through your own posts you idiot. And you being rational? Are you actually serious?
Quote from: blasmere on January 18, 2021, 04:25:54 PM
I'm talking about facts here, one of us being rational and you're being a hard man with bad manners, pathetic really.
Statistically Covid is no risk to under 40s, absolutle fact.
[/quote]
That's an astounding fact, if only I'd known. I'm off now to resume my life, to hell with everyone else!
[/quote]
3 deaths under the age of 40 since the pandemic started.
RTAs could claim that in a weekend.
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:21:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 18, 2021, 04:06:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 04:00:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.
Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?
How can you agree that? They are false equivalences, road accidents (and resulting deaths) are not contagious.
Angelo's argument is that we get around a certain number of road deaths per year, therefore we should allow drink driving, no seat belts, and have all cars without brakes
Angelo's logic holds that if we did that, road deaths would not increase
Angelo's logic is if somebody wants to drink drive home without a seat belt in a car with no brakes, that's fine, because that individual "is making the best decision for themselves, the individual"
Never mind that might crash into another car and kill a load of people, all that matter's is that individual's "personal utility"
This is what far right far right libertarian "logic" holds
And the anti-lockdown, anti-vaxx ideology is far right libertarian
It's the ideology of a psychopath
And people should not be politically correct and extend any undue respect to this psychopathy
We should say what it is - psychopathy
I've never said anything like that.
All I have done is point out that we accept half measures on something that kills far more young people every single year than Covid.
While we have draconian measures on a virus that is little threat to the u40 demograph.
We are soft on road deaths if anything. Society accepts road deaths but does not accept Covid deaths.
Once again I am using statistics and facts to put forward a very reasoned and informed argument while you are howling at the moon - psychopath, anti-vaxxers bla, bla, bla - the rantings of an unhinged maniac.
Could you make up your mind. Is it no threat to U40s or is it little threat? Hard enough to take you serious at the best of times nevermind when you can't even agree with yourself
Quote from: sid waddell on January 18, 2021, 04:06:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 04:00:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.
Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?
How can you agree that? They are false equivalences, road accidents (and resulting deaths) are not contagious.
Angelo's argument is that we get around a certain number of road deaths per year, therefore we should allow drink driving, no seat belts, and have all cars without brakes
Angelo's logic holds that if we did that, road deaths would not increase
Angelo's logic is if somebody wants to drink drive home without a seat belt in a car with no brakes, that's fine, because that individual "is making the best decision for themselves, the individual"
Never mind that might crash into another car and kill a load of people, all that matter's is that individual's "personal utility"
This is what far right far right libertarian "logic" holds
And the anti-lockdown, anti-vaxx ideology is far right libertarian
It's the ideology of a psychopath
And people should not be politically correct and extend any undue respect to this psychopathy
We should say what it is - psychopathy
f**k the rest, it's a fundamental misunderstanding of statistics, probablity and data analysis.
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:26:49 PM
Quote from: blasmere on January 18, 2021, 04:25:54 PM
I'm talking about facts here, one of us being rational and you're being a hard man with bad manners, pathetic really.
Statistically Covid is no risk to under 40s, absolutle fact.
That's an astounding fact, if only I'd known. I'm off now to resume my life, to hell with everyone else!
[/quote]
3 deaths under the age of 40 since the pandemic started.
RTAs could claim that in a weekend.
[/quote]
That's an absolute lie that line you spouted there, whatever about RTA's, pros and cons of lockdowns, etc,.. You debate in facts you say, that statement is not a fact at all.
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 18, 2021, 04:27:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:21:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 18, 2021, 04:06:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 04:00:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.
Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?
How can you agree that? They are false equivalences, road accidents (and resulting deaths) are not contagious.
Angelo's argument is that we get around a certain number of road deaths per year, therefore we should allow drink driving, no seat belts, and have all cars without brakes
Angelo's logic holds that if we did that, road deaths would not increase
Angelo's logic is if somebody wants to drink drive home without a seat belt in a car with no brakes, that's fine, because that individual "is making the best decision for themselves, the individual"
Never mind that might crash into another car and kill a load of people, all that matter's is that individual's "personal utility"
This is what far right far right libertarian "logic" holds
And the anti-lockdown, anti-vaxx ideology is far right libertarian
It's the ideology of a psychopath
And people should not be politically correct and extend any undue respect to this psychopathy
We should say what it is - psychopathy
I've never said anything like that.
All I have done is point out that we accept half measures on something that kills far more young people every single year than Covid.
While we have draconian measures on a virus that is little threat to the u40 demograph.
We are soft on road deaths if anything. Society accepts road deaths but does not accept Covid deaths.
Once again I am using statistics and facts to put forward a very reasoned and informed argument while you are howling at the moon - psychopath, anti-vaxxers bla, bla, bla - the rantings of an unhinged maniac.
Could you make up your mind. Is it no threat to U40s or is it little threat? Hard enough to take you serious at the best of times nevermind when you can't even agree with yourself
The statistics say we have had 3 deaths in 40-50k cases. Minimal threat.
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:21:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 18, 2021, 04:06:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 04:00:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.
Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?
How can you agree that? They are false equivalences, road accidents (and resulting deaths) are not contagious.
Angelo's argument is that we get around a certain number of road deaths per year, therefore we should allow drink driving, no seat belts, and have all cars without brakes
Angelo's logic holds that if we did that, road deaths would not increase
Angelo's logic is if somebody wants to drink drive home without a seat belt in a car with no brakes, that's fine, because that individual "is making the best decision for themselves, the individual"
Never mind that might crash into another car and kill a load of people, all that matter's is that individual's "personal utility"
This is what far right far right libertarian "logic" holds
And the anti-lockdown, anti-vaxx ideology is far right libertarian
It's the ideology of a psychopath
And people should not be politically correct and extend any undue respect to this psychopathy
We should say what it is - psychopathy
I've never said anything like that.
All I have done is point out that we accept half measures on something that kills far more young people every single year than Covid.
While we have draconian measures on a virus that is little threat to the u40 demograph.
We are soft on road deaths if anything. Society accepts road deaths but does not accept Covid deaths.
Once again I am using statistics and facts to put forward a very reasoned and informed argument while you are howling at the moon - psychopath, anti-vaxxers bla, bla, bla - the rantings of an unhinged maniac.
The people who think they give "reasoned arguments" for insanity are the most dangerous of all
You are a case in point
Quote from: blasmere on January 18, 2021, 04:32:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:26:49 PM
Quote from: blasmere on January 18, 2021, 04:25:54 PM
I'm talking about facts here, one of us being rational and you're being a hard man with bad manners, pathetic really.
Statistically Covid is no risk to under 40s, absolutle fact.
That's an astounding fact, if only I'd known. I'm off now to resume my life, to hell with everyone else!
3 deaths under the age of 40 since the pandemic started.
RTAs could claim that in a weekend.
[/quote]
That's an absolute lie that line you spouted there, whatever about RTA's, pros and cons of lockdowns, etc,.. You debate in facts you say, that statement is not a fact at all.
[/quote]
3 deaths in 40-50k cases.
Are sports a risk to u40s?
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:34:27 PM
Quote from: blasmere on January 18, 2021, 04:32:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:26:49 PM
Quote from: blasmere on January 18, 2021, 04:25:54 PM
I'm talking about facts here, one of us being rational and you're being a hard man with bad manners, pathetic really.
Statistically Covid is no risk to under 40s, absolutle fact.
That's an astounding fact, if only I'd known. I'm off now to resume my life, to hell with everyone else!
3 deaths under the age of 40 since the pandemic started.
RTAs could claim that in a weekend.
That's an absolute lie that line you spouted there, whatever about RTA's, pros and cons of lockdowns, etc,.. You debate in facts you say, that statement is not a fact at all.
[/quote]
3 deaths in 40-50k cases.Are sports a risk to u40s?
[/quote]
That's not no risk is it.
Quote from: sid waddell on January 18, 2021, 04:33:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:21:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 18, 2021, 04:06:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 04:00:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.
Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?
How can you agree that? They are false equivalences, road accidents (and resulting deaths) are not contagious.
Angelo's argument is that we get around a certain number of road deaths per year, therefore we should allow drink driving, no seat belts, and have all cars without brakes
Angelo's logic holds that if we did that, road deaths would not increase
Angelo's logic is if somebody wants to drink drive home without a seat belt in a car with no brakes, that's fine, because that individual "is making the best decision for themselves, the individual"
Never mind that might crash into another car and kill a load of people, all that matter's is that individual's "personal utility"
This is what far right far right libertarian "logic" holds
And the anti-lockdown, anti-vaxx ideology is far right libertarian
It's the ideology of a psychopath
And people should not be politically correct and extend any undue respect to this psychopathy
We should say what it is - psychopathy
I've never said anything like that.
All I have done is point out that we accept half measures on something that kills far more young people every single year than Covid.
While we have draconian measures on a virus that is little threat to the u40 demograph.
We are soft on road deaths if anything. Society accepts road deaths but does not accept Covid deaths.
Once again I am using statistics and facts to put forward a very reasoned and informed argument while you are howling at the moon - psychopath, anti-vaxxers bla, bla, bla - the rantings of an unhinged maniac.
The people who think they give "reasoned arguments" for insanity are the most dangerous of all
You are a case in point
Just baseless sneering from you Sid.
You've been given the floor to dispute what I said and you've morphed into full on projection mode.
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:36:31 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 18, 2021, 04:33:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:21:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 18, 2021, 04:06:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 04:00:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.
Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?
How can you agree that? They are false equivalences, road accidents (and resulting deaths) are not contagious.
Angelo's argument is that we get around a certain number of road deaths per year, therefore we should allow drink driving, no seat belts, and have all cars without brakes
Angelo's logic holds that if we did that, road deaths would not increase
Angelo's logic is if somebody wants to drink drive home without a seat belt in a car with no brakes, that's fine, because that individual "is making the best decision for themselves, the individual"
Never mind that might crash into another car and kill a load of people, all that matter's is that individual's "personal utility"
This is what far right far right libertarian "logic" holds
And the anti-lockdown, anti-vaxx ideology is far right libertarian
It's the ideology of a psychopath
And people should not be politically correct and extend any undue respect to this psychopathy
We should say what it is - psychopathy
I've never said anything like that.
All I have done is point out that we accept half measures on something that kills far more young people every single year than Covid.
While we have draconian measures on a virus that is little threat to the u40 demograph.
We are soft on road deaths if anything. Society accepts road deaths but does not accept Covid deaths.
Once again I am using statistics and facts to put forward a very reasoned and informed argument while you are howling at the moon - psychopath, anti-vaxxers bla, bla, bla - the rantings of an unhinged maniac.
The people who think they give "reasoned arguments" for insanity are the most dangerous of all
You are a case in point
Just baseless sneering from you Sid.
You've been given the floor to dispute what I said and you've morphed into full on projection mode.
""Sneering" at a psychopath" ;D
"Oooh, you're mean, why can't I be a psychopath in peace? Why do people have to keep reminding me what I am? Why won't they stop SNEERING at my psychopathy?"
"They sneered, so
I'm a victim!"
Em, yeah, whatever
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:45:16 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 18, 2021, 03:18:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Redhand Santa on January 18, 2021, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.
So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.
If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.
I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?
So I refer to the earlier points, road accidents are not contagious.
Road accidents kill under 40s in multiples of what Covid has every year, that is statistically proven. We've had more u40s wiped out in one weekend this year in road accidents than we have had u40s killed in 9 months from Covid? So if road accidents are not contagious but yet kill around 10x that of u40s every year than Covid does, then why does contagion matter?
What you seem to be telling us is that road deaths don't matter, Covid deaths do.
65 year olds can't catch a fatal car crash from you
Yet u40s are more likely to die in a car crash than catching Covid from you.
So road deaths don't matter? Got ya.
Pig - Grunt
Quote from: blasmere on January 18, 2021, 04:35:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:34:27 PM
Quote from: blasmere on January 18, 2021, 04:32:10 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:26:49 PM
Quote from: blasmere on January 18, 2021, 04:25:54 PM
I'm talking about facts here, one of us being rational and you're being a hard man with bad manners, pathetic really.
Statistically Covid is no risk to under 40s, absolutle fact.
That's an astounding fact, if only I'd known. I'm off now to resume my life, to hell with everyone else!
3 deaths under the age of 40 since the pandemic started.
RTAs could claim that in a weekend.
That's an absolute lie that line you spouted there, whatever about RTA's, pros and cons of lockdowns, etc,.. You debate in facts you say, that statement is not a fact at all.
3 deaths in 40-50k cases.Are sports a risk to u40s?
[/quote]
That's not no risk is it.
[/quote]
For me, yes.
Do you consider crossing a road everday a risk? Sitting behind the wheel of a car a risk? Going for a run or a cycle?
If you don't then I fail to see how you could see Covid as a risk for u40s?
Quote from: Franko on January 18, 2021, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:45:16 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 18, 2021, 03:18:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Redhand Santa on January 18, 2021, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.
So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.
If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.
I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?
So I refer to the earlier points, road accidents are not contagious.
Road accidents kill under 40s in multiples of what Covid has every year, that is statistically proven. We've had more u40s wiped out in one weekend this year in road accidents than we have had u40s killed in 9 months from Covid? So if road accidents are not contagious but yet kill around 10x that of u40s every year than Covid does, then why does contagion matter?
What you seem to be telling us is that road deaths don't matter, Covid deaths do.
65 year olds can't catch a fatal car crash from you
Yet u40s are more likely to die in a car crash than catching Covid from you.
So road deaths don't matter? Got ya.
Pig - Grunt
Good point, well argued.
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:33:30 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 18, 2021, 04:27:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:21:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 18, 2021, 04:06:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 04:00:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.
Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?
How can you agree that? They are false equivalences, road accidents (and resulting deaths) are not contagious.
Angelo's argument is that we get around a certain number of road deaths per year, therefore we should allow drink driving, no seat belts, and have all cars without brakes
Angelo's logic holds that if we did that, road deaths would not increase
Angelo's logic is if somebody wants to drink drive home without a seat belt in a car with no brakes, that's fine, because that individual "is making the best decision for themselves, the individual"
Never mind that might crash into another car and kill a load of people, all that matter's is that individual's "personal utility"
This is what far right far right libertarian "logic" holds
And the anti-lockdown, anti-vaxx ideology is far right libertarian
It's the ideology of a psychopath
And people should not be politically correct and extend any undue respect to this psychopathy
We should say what it is - psychopathy
I've never said anything like that.
All I have done is point out that we accept half measures on something that kills far more young people every single year than Covid.
While we have draconian measures on a virus that is little threat to the u40 demograph.
We are soft on road deaths if anything. Society accepts road deaths but does not accept Covid deaths.
Once again I am using statistics and facts to put forward a very reasoned and informed argument while you are howling at the moon - psychopath, anti-vaxxers bla, bla, bla - the rantings of an unhinged maniac.
Could you make up your mind. Is it no threat to U40s or is it little threat? Hard enough to take you serious at the best of times nevermind when you can't even agree with yourself
The statistics say we have had 3 deaths in 40-50k cases. Minimal threat.
So is it minimal threat, little threat or no threat? Can you at least agree with yourself here?
Quote from: sid waddell on January 18, 2021, 04:44:38 PM
""Sneering" at a psychopath" ;D
"Oooh, you're mean, why can't I be a psychopath in peace? Why do people have to keep reminding me what I am? Why won't they stop SNEERING at my psychopathy?"
"They sneered, so I'm a victim!"
Em, yeah, whatever
All this distraction, insults, innuendo and deflection merely because when I asked questions that was at odds with your misinformation.
There is no evidence to suggest the vaccine stops you contracting Covid or transmitting it.
There have been 3 deaths in 46,408 positive cases in the u40 grouping, a fatality rate of 0.0064%.
So once again, what's the upside of an u40 taking this vaccine?
I don't think you've got it in your locker to answer it to do what you do best, throw some more vitriol at me and avoid the issues.
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 18, 2021, 05:04:16 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:33:30 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 18, 2021, 04:27:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:21:23 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 18, 2021, 04:06:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 04:00:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:47:56 PM
He didn't acknowledge that road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid.
Can we all agree that statistically speaking road deaths are more likely to kill u40s than Covid?
How can you agree that? They are false equivalences, road accidents (and resulting deaths) are not contagious.
Angelo's argument is that we get around a certain number of road deaths per year, therefore we should allow drink driving, no seat belts, and have all cars without brakes
Angelo's logic holds that if we did that, road deaths would not increase
Angelo's logic is if somebody wants to drink drive home without a seat belt in a car with no brakes, that's fine, because that individual "is making the best decision for themselves, the individual"
Never mind that might crash into another car and kill a load of people, all that matter's is that individual's "personal utility"
This is what far right far right libertarian "logic" holds
And the anti-lockdown, anti-vaxx ideology is far right libertarian
It's the ideology of a psychopath
And people should not be politically correct and extend any undue respect to this psychopathy
We should say what it is - psychopathy
I've never said anything like that.
All I have done is point out that we accept half measures on something that kills far more young people every single year than Covid.
While we have draconian measures on a virus that is little threat to the u40 demograph.
We are soft on road deaths if anything. Society accepts road deaths but does not accept Covid deaths.
Once again I am using statistics and facts to put forward a very reasoned and informed argument while you are howling at the moon - psychopath, anti-vaxxers bla, bla, bla - the rantings of an unhinged maniac.
Could you make up your mind. Is it no threat to U40s or is it little threat? Hard enough to take you serious at the best of times nevermind when you can't even agree with yourself
The statistics say we have had 3 deaths in 40-50k cases. Minimal threat.
So is it minimal threat, little threat or no threat? Can you at least agree with yourself here?
All of the above.
How is it all of them? Seriously??? Do you think no threat is the same as little threat?
RIP to this poor young man
https://m.independent.ie/news/a-beautiful-spirit-tributes-paid-to-nurse-with-young-son-who-died-after-contracting-covid-19-39980869.html
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:58:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 18, 2021, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:45:16 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 18, 2021, 03:18:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Redhand Santa on January 18, 2021, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.
So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.
If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.
I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?
So I refer to the earlier points, road accidents are not contagious.
Road accidents kill under 40s in multiples of what Covid has every year, that is statistically proven. We've had more u40s wiped out in one weekend this year in road accidents than we have had u40s killed in 9 months from Covid? So if road accidents are not contagious but yet kill around 10x that of u40s every year than Covid does, then why does contagion matter?
What you seem to be telling us is that road deaths don't matter, Covid deaths do.
65 year olds can't catch a fatal car crash from you
Yet u40s are more likely to die in a car crash than catching Covid from you.
So road deaths don't matter? Got ya.
Pig - Grunt
Good point, well argued.
I'm debating in facts and logic.
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
Do you know why that is? It beggars belief that you are still going on about this when every time you do so it's putting a big neon sign on your head saying "I'm clueless".
Because its impossible to prove a negative.All they can do is observe those that have received the vaccine to try and catch any instances of where someone that has been vaccinated might pass it on. That requires a lot of observation over a long time frame. Far longer and far more extensive than has been possible in the compressed safety studies.
Or they can deliberately infect people that have had the vaccine to see if they shed viral particles that can then be cultured in the lab. But that's a bit immoral, unless you get volunteers - which a number of programs are looking for right now.
It is known covid is at its most contagious up to around 5-7 days after initial infection. Then it drops off - that drop off is likely due to the immune system's response. So if the immune system is kick-started with the vaccine, then it likely also nails the contagious period. But stating the theory and proving it by observation are two very different things.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/11/covid-19-most-contagious-first-5-days-illness-study-finds
Quote from: Franko on January 18, 2021, 05:19:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 04:58:10 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 18, 2021, 04:45:46 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:45:16 PM
Quote from: Franko on January 18, 2021, 03:18:03 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 03:13:42 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on January 18, 2021, 03:08:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:53:41 PM
Quote from: Redhand Santa on January 18, 2021, 02:51:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 02:47:32 PM
Quote from: tonto1888 on January 17, 2021, 09:23:39 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
Quote from: sid waddell on January 17, 2021, 02:35:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 01:03:21 PM
What is the reason for someone under 40 in good health to get the vaccine? There is absolutely no upside to it as far as I can see.
Basic regard for one's own health
Basic regard for the health of their loved ones
Basic regard for the idea of society, and for humanity itself
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
A virus which is not any sort of threat to anyone fit or unhealthy under the age of 40.
What's the upside? What you posted seem to be rather flimsy and ideological rather than based in reality and facts.
Big pharma will get very rich so maybe for their shareholders, that is an upside.
Not any sort of threat to anyone under 40? A friend of mine who is 38 has just come out of hospital after spending a week there. But aye, he was under no threat at all. Ejit.
I go on facts rather than anecdotal stories.
We have had 3 deaths in the u40 categories with close to 50k positive cases - that's a fact. 3 deaths in 9 months of the virus in the u40 category - how many deaths have we had from road traffic accidents in the same category in the same time? 56 people dead in 2020 in the O6 from road deaths, I can guarantee you there were more than 3 in the u40 category. Yet we accept road deaths as part of life.
We try to minimise them as much as possible though. Checks on cars via mot, drink driving laws, speed limits, age limits speedbelts etc. All those impact on our freedom to do what we want but our accepted as they help to save lives.
So we take half measures on road deaths but we go draconian on Covid.
If you're under 40 you're far more likely to die from a car crash than Covid. That is statistically proven in the O6.
I don't have figures but I'd say suicide impacted the u40 population more than Covid deaths in O6 too this year. Are we doing enough on suicide? Why does Covid trump all these other factors of death and quality of life in society?
So I refer to the earlier points, road accidents are not contagious.
Road accidents kill under 40s in multiples of what Covid has every year, that is statistically proven. We've had more u40s wiped out in one weekend this year in road accidents than we have had u40s killed in 9 months from Covid? So if road accidents are not contagious but yet kill around 10x that of u40s every year than Covid does, then why does contagion matter?
What you seem to be telling us is that road deaths don't matter, Covid deaths do.
65 year olds can't catch a fatal car crash from you
Yet u40s are more likely to die in a car crash than catching Covid from you.
So road deaths don't matter? Got ya.
Pig - Grunt
Good point, well argued.
I'm debating in facts and logic.
Insults is your bread and butter. Facts and logic confuse you.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on January 18, 2021, 08:18:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 17, 2021, 02:42:11 PM
A vaccine that has not been proven to either stop anyone contracting or transmitting the virus.
Do you know why that is? It beggars belief that you are still going on about this when every time you do so it's putting a big neon sign on your head saying "I'm clueless".
Because its impossible to prove a negative.
All they can do is observe those that have received the vaccine to try and catch any instances of where someone that has been vaccinated might pass it on. That requires a lot of observation over a long time frame. Far longer and far more extensive than has been possible in the compressed safety studies.
Or they can deliberately infect people that have had the vaccine to see if they shed viral particles that can then be cultured in the lab. But that's a bit immoral, unless you get volunteers - which a number of programs are looking for right now.
It is known covid is at its most contagious up to around 5-7 days after initial infection. Then it drops off - that drop off is likely due to the immune system's response. So if the immune system is kick-started with the vaccine, then it likely also nails the contagious period. But stating the theory and proving it by observation are two very different things.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/11/covid-19-most-contagious-first-5-days-illness-study-finds
So what that long posts states is that there is nothing to point out that the vaccine stops you getting Covid or spreading it.
So what's the upside for a demograph, like the u40s, getting it when they are not at risk to the virus?
Statistically I'd imagine the fatality rate this year for u40s is similar to flu? Most u40s I know don't get the flu jab. Only around 20% of the population get the flu jab, I've never gotten it.
If we are looking at things logically and pragmatically we can state we have 46k cases of Covids in the u40s, 3 deaths. It's not really a threat to u40s and to try and frame as such is scaremongering and really disingenuous, completely at odds with the data.
Do you know why that is? It beggars belief that you are still going on about this when every time you do so it's putting a big neon sign on your head saying "I'm clueless".
Because its impossible to prove a negative.
All they can do is observe those that have received the vaccine to try and catch any instances of where someone that has been vaccinated might pass it on. That requires a lot of observation over a long time frame. Far longer and far more extensive than has been possible in the compressed safety studies.
Or they can deliberately infect people that have had the vaccine to see if they shed viral particles that can then be cultured in the lab. But that's a bit immoral, unless you get volunteers - which a number of programs are looking for right now.
It is known covid is at its most contagious up to around 5-7 days after initial infection. Then it drops off - that drop off is likely due to the immune system's response. So if the immune system is kick-started with the vaccine, then it likely also nails the contagious period. But stating the theory and proving it by observation are two very different things.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/11/covid-19-most-contagious-first-5-days-illness-study-finds
[/quote]
Radiogaga, can an under 40 contract this virus as easy as an over 60?
And if that demographic can catch it and deliver it to someone else that will push up the numbers in hospitals?
If after a lengthy study of these vaccines will it prove either way whether it's preventive or just good at reducing the illness that comes with it? Which would be great considering the hospitals working at full capacity.
So while under 40's have a better chance of not dying they can still give it to someone else who'll have a lesser chance of not being hospitalised or dying..
The more people vaccinated the less likely the hospitals will be busy, and rates of Covid may stay the same but eventually it'll be like catching a cold or flu..
Though unvaccinated people may be at risk, I think that's a good thing, it may work out better in the end.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 18, 2021, 09:57:42 PM
Do you know why that is? It beggars belief that you are still going on about this when every time you do so it's putting a big neon sign on your head saying "I'm clueless".
Because its impossible to prove a negative.
All they can do is observe those that have received the vaccine to try and catch any instances of where someone that has been vaccinated might pass it on. That requires a lot of observation over a long time frame. Far longer and far more extensive than has been possible in the compressed safety studies.
Or they can deliberately infect people that have had the vaccine to see if they shed viral particles that can then be cultured in the lab. But that's a bit immoral, unless you get volunteers - which a number of programs are looking for right now.
It is known covid is at its most contagious up to around 5-7 days after initial infection. Then it drops off - that drop off is likely due to the immune system's response. So if the immune system is kick-started with the vaccine, then it likely also nails the contagious period. But stating the theory and proving it by observation are two very different things.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/11/covid-19-most-contagious-first-5-days-illness-study-finds
QuoteRadiogaga, can an under 40 contract this virus as easy as an over 60?
And if that demographic can catch it and deliver it to someone else that will push up the numbers in hospitals?
If after a lengthy study of these vaccines will it prove either way whether it's preventive or just good at reducing the illness that comes with it? Which would be great considering the hospitals working at full capacity.
So while under 40's have a better chance of not dying they can still give it to someone else who'll have a lesser chance of not being hospitalised or dying..
The more people vaccinated the less likely the hospitals will be busy, and rates of Covid may stay the same but eventually it'll be like catching a cold or flu..
Though unvaccinated people may be at risk, I think that's a good thing, it may work out better in the end.
I'd have expected better of you. :D
Have you forgotten the golden rule, "Don't feed the trolls?"
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 09:20:36 PM
Insults is your bread and butter. Facts and logic confuse you.
*are
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 09:28:44 PM
So what that long posts states is that there is nothing to point out that the vaccine stops you getting Covid or spreading it.
No you utter idiot - it points out how the process of making that declaration is - by its very nature - much more drawn out than determining whether it gives primary vaccine recipient anti-bodies, T-cells and whether they are protected against the disease/virus in question.
Of course, all that sailed straight over your head. Going by the state of your posts I'm guessing your default position on something beyond your grasp is just retreat to the facebook opinion?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 18, 2021, 09:57:42 PM
Radiogaga, can an under 40 contract this virus as easy as an over 60?
I would suspect the main factor in contracting it is viral load exposure. Not age.
What it does beyond that depends on the viral load exposure and the state of the persons immune system*. The state of the person's immune system of course having a correlation with age (but not necessarily bound to it - you'll get 80 year olds in better shape than some 60 year olds for instance).
*Hence why young medics can die of it (massive exposure) and why immunocompromised are obviously vulnerable to any exposure.
Of course, this is just me postulating - but I'd be reasonably confident that's the way it'll turn out in studies. Its not like one viral particle stops in someones nose or mouth and says to his mates "nah, too young, lets go somewhere else".
I suppose the real question you are asking is "can an under 40 spread this virus as easy as an over 60?" For that I have no answer. Put a gun to my head and I'd say, everything else being equal, they likely shed less viral particles, but to what degree I've absolutely no idea, the variation may be significant or may be irrelevant. Of course, against that, its reasonable to suggest a 40 year old is likely to be in contact with more people thus offering more opportunity for spread.
Perhaps worth noting (well, worth noting by those with a genuine interest in the discussion) that around 7% of COVID hospital admissions in the north through the pandemic have been from the under 40s cohort.
The death stats would suggest that these individuals usually respond well enough to treatment to allow for eventual discharge, but that 7% is not insignificant. It equates to several hundred people occupying hospital resources at a time when the health service here has effectively ceased to function.
I'd suggest that the continued potential for this cohort to need hospital treatment, and thereby eat into already overstretched resources, is a decent reason to encourage those in the age bracket to take the opportunity of a vaccine when offered.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on January 19, 2021, 07:12:29 AM
Quote from: Angelo on January 18, 2021, 09:28:44 PM
So what that long posts states is that there is nothing to point out that the vaccine stops you getting Covid or spreading it.
No you utter idiot - it points out how the process of making that declaration is - by its very nature - much more drawn out than determining whether it gives primary vaccine recipient anti-bodies, T-cells and whether they are protected against the disease/virus in question.
Of course, all that sailed straight over your head. Going by the state of your posts I'm guessing your default position on something beyond your grasp is just retreat to the facebook opinion?
Again, you seem to have taken a very long winded and misleading route before eventually confirming there is nothing to suggest the vaccine stops you from contracting and transmitting the disease.
So it looks like the vaccine was nowhere near as successful as trials indicated according to data from Israel.
Well who would have thought that?
All those pig pharma cheerleaders look like idiots now.
Quote from: Angelo on January 20, 2021, 03:48:50 PM
So it looks like the vaccine was nowhere near as successful as trials indicated according to data from Israel.
Well who would have thought that?
All those pig pharma cheerleaders look like idiots now.
The vaccine (pfizer) should be successful. The way governments choose to roll it out makes it less effective.
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on January 20, 2021, 04:30:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 20, 2021, 03:48:50 PM
So it looks like the vaccine was nowhere near as successful as trials indicated according to data from Israel.
Well who would have thought that?
All those pig pharma cheerleaders look like idiots now.
The vaccine (pfizer) should be successful. The way governments choose to roll it out makes it less effective.
Nowhere near as effective as their trials suggested.
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on January 20, 2021, 04:30:58 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 20, 2021, 03:48:50 PM
So it looks like the vaccine was nowhere near as successful as trials indicated according to data from Israel.
Well who would have thought that?
All those pig pharma cheerleaders look like idiots now.
The vaccine (pfizer) should be successful. The way governments choose to roll it out makes it less effective.
I agree. The vaccines also offer a lot of much needed hope to society. Their true effectiveness can only be assessed over time though.
In the meantime, they offer at least a partial solution for many as shown in the uptake so far.
Novavax's Covid-19 vaccine is 89 per cent effective and works against the new variants of the virus, according to data published from clinical trials in the UK and South Africa.
The US biotech said its trial in partnership with the UK government's vaccine task force showed 95.6 per cent efficacy against the original strain and 85.6 per cent against B.1.1.7, which was circulating widely in the country during the study.
In a separate phase 2b study in South Africa, Novavax found that the vaccine was 60 per cent effective in participants without HIV, with none of the Covid-19 cases in the vaccinated group being serious. The vaccine did not work as well in HIV-positive participants, however, dragging the overall efficacy in South Africa down to 49 per cent
Good to see the European Court of Human Rights have passed legislation that allows for people to choose whether they are vaccinated or not.
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html
I know a good few posters here were on for abusing people's human rights and forcing a vaccine they have concerns with on them.
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:42:20 PM
Good to see the European Court of Human Rights have passed legislation that allows for people to choose whether they are vaccinated or not.
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html
I know a good few posters here were on for abusing people's human rights and forcing a vaccine they have concerns with on them.
Be no good to you as you live outside of Europe now
Arlene losing her shit over the vaccine being stopped going over the border!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 29, 2021, 02:16:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:42:20 PM
Good to see the European Court of Human Rights have passed legislation that allows for people to choose whether they are vaccinated or not.
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html
I know a good few posters here were on for abusing people's human rights and forcing a vaccine they have concerns with on them.
Be no good to you as you live outside of Europe now
Boom 💥 💥
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 29, 2021, 02:16:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:42:20 PM
Good to see the European Court of Human Rights have passed legislation that allows for people to choose whether they are vaccinated or not.
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html
I know a good few posters here were on for abusing people's human rights and forcing a vaccine they have concerns with on them.
Be no good to you as you live outside of Europe now
Beautiful work lol....
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 29, 2021, 02:16:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:42:20 PM
Good to see the European Court of Human Rights have passed legislation that allows for people to choose whether they are vaccinated or not.
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html
I know a good few posters here were on for abusing people's human rights and forcing a vaccine they have concerns with on them.
Be no good to you as you live outside of Europe now
You know where I live?
I knew that news would upset you though.
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 29, 2021, 02:16:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:42:20 PM
Good to see the European Court of Human Rights have passed legislation that allows for people to choose whether they are vaccinated or not.
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html
I know a good few posters here were on for abusing people's human rights and forcing a vaccine they have concerns with on them.
Be no good to you as you live outside of Europe now
You know where I live?
I knew that news would upset you though.
Cuckoo land? God knows where you live, thankfully nowhere near me
It seems like Von der what's her name has made a right pigs ear of the vaccine rollout and has now riled up both Sinn Fein and the DUP in case the non-existent vaccines could cross the border to the UK, while poor Micheál is firing off phone calls to see what is going on. Time to put that smooth operator Barnier in charge.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 29, 2021, 08:39:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 29, 2021, 02:16:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:42:20 PM
Good to see the European Court of Human Rights have passed legislation that allows for people to choose whether they are vaccinated or not.
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html
I know a good few posters here were on for abusing people's human rights and forcing a vaccine they have concerns with on them.
Be no good to you as you live outside of Europe now
You know where I live?
I knew that news would upset you though.
Cuckoo land? God knows where you live, thankfully nowhere near me
[/quotT
Tá iontas orm go bhfuil cead ag Naomh Gall postáil go fóill. Ábhar náire ag a chlub.
Quote from: restorepride on January 29, 2021, 11:12:02 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 29, 2021, 08:39:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 08:22:10 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on January 29, 2021, 02:16:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on January 29, 2021, 01:42:20 PM
Good to see the European Court of Human Rights have passed legislation that allows for people to choose whether they are vaccinated or not.
https://pace.coe.int/en/files/29004/html
I know a good few posters here were on for abusing people's human rights and forcing a vaccine they have concerns with on them.
Be no good to you as you live outside of Europe now
You know where I live?
I knew that news would upset you though.
Cuckoo land? God knows where you live, thankfully nowhere near me
[/quotT
Tá iontas orm go bhfuil cead ag Naomh Gall postáil go fóill. Ábhar náire ag a chlub.
Did you get that from Milltown Row? Amazing
So which is the vaccine to go for? Pfizer, astra zeneca, moderna or the Russian alternative?
From what I know I would go with pfizer or moderna. They seem to be more effective than astra zeneca.
The best one to go for is the first one your offered. Whether one is 90% effective and another 70% doesn't really matter. All the vaccines keep you from getting really sick which is all that really matters.
Quote from: clarshack on February 06, 2021, 09:22:28 PM
Are the ones getting the vaccine here in the vulnerable category? Genuinely curious.
I got it, due to work. But I think you can only get it if you fall into the categories stated
Reports that the South African variant challenges the AZ vaccine, people got the symptoms but not hospitalisation, but it not clear what the age profile of those tested were, asyoung people would have few hospitalisations anyway.
Quote from: clarshack on February 06, 2021, 09:22:28 PM
Are the ones getting the vaccine here in the vulnerable category? Genuinely curious.
Get it through work as well. I'm administering them as part of my job.
Quote from: Capt Pat on February 06, 2021, 07:22:11 PM
So which is the vaccine to go for? Pfizer, astra zeneca, moderna or the Russian alternative?
From what I know I would go with pfizer or moderna. They seem to be more effective than astra zeneca.
Sputik actually appears to be the best. Efficacy comparable to the best of the rest and 2 attack vectors on the virus.
Quote from: RadioGAAGAA on February 07, 2021, 09:52:24 PM
Quote from: Capt Pat on February 06, 2021, 07:22:11 PM
So which is the vaccine to go for? Pfizer, astra zeneca, moderna or the Russian alternative?
From what I know I would go with pfizer or moderna. They seem to be more effective than astra zeneca.
Sputik actually appears to be the best. Efficacy comparable to the best of the rest and 2 attack vectors on the virus.
Not surprising to see Russia lead the way.
I think the latest news on AZ shows that people do have a right to be cautious about this vaccine.
The fact that these cases in Norway are impacting young people is a severe cause for concern. I wonder how that will tie in with zealotry espoused on this thread by a number of posters who want to coerce fit and healthy people under the age of 40 to get a vaccine that may have serious consequences.
I'm surprised no one is mentioning the speculation around Marvin Hagler and the vaccine causing him problems. I think it is supposed to be Hearns who said that is what happened him. (Could all just be nonsense on social media tbh)
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 15, 2021, 10:14:21 AM
I'm surprised no one is mentioning the speculation around Marvin Hagler and the vaccine causing him problems. I think it is supposed to be Hearns who said that is what happened him. (Could all just be nonsense on social media tbh)
That's well known medical doctor Thomas Hearns
Yeah I get that but people do tend to latch on to these things.
This type of thing was always going to happen the further we got down the line with the vaccine.
The people being vaccinated against Covid are the weakest of the population, nobody lives forever. We need to keep a level head here, people will always die. We must not assume it is because of the vaccine. Or any complications were because of the vaccine.
At the start of the Covid discussion this was the stick to beat people with, do people not die anymore etc. Now it's starting to go full circle.
With Covid there is a tendency to be 100% one view or the other. As with life however, there are areas that fall between the extremes. This is one of those. People should not jump on the anti vax train here because of blood clotting reports - we need to continue doing what we are doing, if there is an issue of course it must be treated with complete seriousness, but I think the Irish Govt has unnecessarily caused a bit of trouble here.
This is going to continue now for the foreseeable. Hopefully its a panic over nothing, it's good to see people being cautious obviously but it really does nothing for the programme, the younger buy in, and a return to 'normal' life.
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 15, 2021, 11:37:32 AM
This type of thing was always going to happen the further we got down the line with the vaccine.
The people being vaccinated against Covid are the weakest of the population, nobody lives forever. We need to keep a level head here, people will always die. We must not assume it is because of the vaccine. Or any complications were because of the vaccine.
At the start of the Covid discussion this was the stick to beat people with, do people not die anymore etc. Now it's starting to go full circle.
With Covid there is a tendency to be 100% one view or the other. As with life however, there are areas that fall between the extremes. This is one of those. People should not jump on the anti vax train here because of blood clotting reports - we need to continue doing what we are doing, if there is an issue of course it must be treated with complete seriousness, but I think the Irish Govt has unnecessarily caused a bit of trouble here.
This is going to continue now for the foreseeable. Hopefully its a panic over nothing, it's good to see people being cautious obviously but it really does nothing for the programme, the younger buy in, and a return to 'normal' life.
The proportion of people getting clots is consistent with the number who would normally get clots in the overall population. If nobody got clots having had the vaccine then the vaccine would be rightly hailed as a miracle cure for clots. 13 people have had clots out of millions of people who've received the vaccine.
Quote from: lenny on March 15, 2021, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 15, 2021, 11:37:32 AM
This type of thing was always going to happen the further we got down the line with the vaccine.
The people being vaccinated against Covid are the weakest of the population, nobody lives forever. We need to keep a level head here, people will always die. We must not assume it is because of the vaccine. Or any complications were because of the vaccine.
At the start of the Covid discussion this was the stick to beat people with, do people not die anymore etc. Now it's starting to go full circle.
With Covid there is a tendency to be 100% one view or the other. As with life however, there are areas that fall between the extremes. This is one of those. People should not jump on the anti vax train here because of blood clotting reports - we need to continue doing what we are doing, if there is an issue of course it must be treated with complete seriousness, but I think the Irish Govt has unnecessarily caused a bit of trouble here.
This is going to continue now for the foreseeable. Hopefully its a panic over nothing, it's good to see people being cautious obviously but it really does nothing for the programme, the younger buy in, and a return to 'normal' life.
The proportion of people getting clots is consistent with the number who would normally get clots in the overall population. If nobody got clots having had the vaccine then the vaccine would be rightly hailed as a miracle cure for clots. 13 people have had clots out of millions of people who've received the vaccine.
Are blood clots common in young people? This is typical of the narrative here
If someone dies or gets ill with Covid - tie the death or illness to Covid.
If someone dies or gets ill shortly after getting a vaccine - do not investigate any potential link to the vaccine.
It's confirmation bias and it's very sinisiter.
There is clearly enough concern from regulatory bodies to want to investigate the cause but we have a person of complete ignorance like you telling us that everything is grand?
Dead on.
Quote from: lenny on March 15, 2021, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 15, 2021, 11:37:32 AM
This type of thing was always going to happen the further we got down the line with the vaccine.
The people being vaccinated against Covid are the weakest of the population, nobody lives forever. We need to keep a level head here, people will always die. We must not assume it is because of the vaccine. Or any complications were because of the vaccine.
At the start of the Covid discussion this was the stick to beat people with, do people not die anymore etc. Now it's starting to go full circle.
With Covid there is a tendency to be 100% one view or the other. As with life however, there are areas that fall between the extremes. This is one of those. People should not jump on the anti vax train here because of blood clotting reports - we need to continue doing what we are doing, if there is an issue of course it must be treated with complete seriousness, but I think the Irish Govt has unnecessarily caused a bit of trouble here.
This is going to continue now for the foreseeable. Hopefully its a panic over nothing, it's good to see people being cautious obviously but it really does nothing for the programme, the younger buy in, and a return to 'normal' life.
The proportion of people getting clots is consistent with the number who would normally get clots in the overall population. If nobody got clots having had the vaccine then the vaccine would be rightly hailed as a miracle cure for clots. 13 people have had clots out of millions of people who've received the vaccine.
It's less
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ewg94uKWQAUQOv8?format=jpg&name=large)
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:57:11 AM
Quote from: lenny on March 15, 2021, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 15, 2021, 11:37:32 AM
This type of thing was always going to happen the further we got down the line with the vaccine.
The people being vaccinated against Covid are the weakest of the population, nobody lives forever. We need to keep a level head here, people will always die. We must not assume it is because of the vaccine. Or any complications were because of the vaccine.
At the start of the Covid discussion this was the stick to beat people with, do people not die anymore etc. Now it's starting to go full circle.
With Covid there is a tendency to be 100% one view or the other. As with life however, there are areas that fall between the extremes. This is one of those. People should not jump on the anti vax train here because of blood clotting reports - we need to continue doing what we are doing, if there is an issue of course it must be treated with complete seriousness, but I think the Irish Govt has unnecessarily caused a bit of trouble here.
This is going to continue now for the foreseeable. Hopefully its a panic over nothing, it's good to see people being cautious obviously but it really does nothing for the programme, the younger buy in, and a return to 'normal' life.
The proportion of people getting clots is consistent with the number who would normally get clots in the overall population. If nobody got clots having had the vaccine then the vaccine would be rightly hailed as a miracle cure for clots. 13 people have had clots out of millions of people who've received the vaccine.
Are blood clots common in young people? This is typical of the narrative here
If someone dies or gets ill with Covid - tie the death or illness to Covid.
If someone dies or gets ill shortly after getting a vaccine - do not investigate any potential link to the vaccine.
It's confirmation bias and it's very sinisiter.
There is clearly enough concern from regulatory bodies to want to investigate the cause but we have a person of complete ignorance like you telling us that everything is grand?
Dead on.
Are the young people getting the vaccine now?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:57:11 AM
Quote from: lenny on March 15, 2021, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 15, 2021, 11:37:32 AM
This type of thing was always going to happen the further we got down the line with the vaccine.
The people being vaccinated against Covid are the weakest of the population, nobody lives forever. We need to keep a level head here, people will always die. We must not assume it is because of the vaccine. Or any complications were because of the vaccine.
At the start of the Covid discussion this was the stick to beat people with, do people not die anymore etc. Now it's starting to go full circle.
With Covid there is a tendency to be 100% one view or the other. As with life however, there are areas that fall between the extremes. This is one of those. People should not jump on the anti vax train here because of blood clotting reports - we need to continue doing what we are doing, if there is an issue of course it must be treated with complete seriousness, but I think the Irish Govt has unnecessarily caused a bit of trouble here.
This is going to continue now for the foreseeable. Hopefully its a panic over nothing, it's good to see people being cautious obviously but it really does nothing for the programme, the younger buy in, and a return to 'normal' life.
The proportion of people getting clots is consistent with the number who would normally get clots in the overall population. If nobody got clots having had the vaccine then the vaccine would be rightly hailed as a miracle cure for clots. 13 people have had clots out of millions of people who've received the vaccine.
Are blood clots common in young people? This is typical of the narrative here
If someone dies or gets ill with Covid - tie the death or illness to Covid.
If someone dies or gets ill shortly after getting a vaccine - do not investigate any potential link to the vaccine.
It's confirmation bias and it's very sinisiter.
There is clearly enough concern from regulatory bodies to want to investigate the cause but we have a person of complete ignorance like you telling us that everything is grand?
Dead on.
Are the young people getting the vaccine now?
Seems like you are commenting from a position of ignorance again.
The clotting cases in Norway relate to 4 young people.
The cases in Austria was where a 49 year old died from clotting after the vaccine and a 35 year old woman was in a serious condition.
That seems like a very low number out of millions vaccinated and very probably just coincidental.
But yeah, they should obviously look at the case histories.
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 01:06:04 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:57:11 AM
Quote from: lenny on March 15, 2021, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 15, 2021, 11:37:32 AM
This type of thing was always going to happen the further we got down the line with the vaccine.
The people being vaccinated against Covid are the weakest of the population, nobody lives forever. We need to keep a level head here, people will always die. We must not assume it is because of the vaccine. Or any complications were because of the vaccine.
At the start of the Covid discussion this was the stick to beat people with, do people not die anymore etc. Now it's starting to go full circle.
With Covid there is a tendency to be 100% one view or the other. As with life however, there are areas that fall between the extremes. This is one of those. People should not jump on the anti vax train here because of blood clotting reports - we need to continue doing what we are doing, if there is an issue of course it must be treated with complete seriousness, but I think the Irish Govt has unnecessarily caused a bit of trouble here.
This is going to continue now for the foreseeable. Hopefully its a panic over nothing, it's good to see people being cautious obviously but it really does nothing for the programme, the younger buy in, and a return to 'normal' life.
The proportion of people getting clots is consistent with the number who would normally get clots in the overall population. If nobody got clots having had the vaccine then the vaccine would be rightly hailed as a miracle cure for clots. 13 people have had clots out of millions of people who've received the vaccine.
Are blood clots common in young people? This is typical of the narrative here
If someone dies or gets ill with Covid - tie the death or illness to Covid.
If someone dies or gets ill shortly after getting a vaccine - do not investigate any potential link to the vaccine.
It's confirmation bias and it's very sinisiter.
There is clearly enough concern from regulatory bodies to want to investigate the cause but we have a person of complete ignorance like you telling us that everything is grand?
Dead on.
Are the young people getting the vaccine now?
Seems like you are commenting from a position of ignorance again.
The clotting cases in Norway relate to 4 young people.
The cases in Austria was where a 49 year old died from clotting after the vaccine and a 35 year old woman was in a serious condition.
You were in favour of just letting old people die, as that's what happens, as an acceptable part of life and we shouldn't be concerned with old people dying, but 4 people get a clot and you have a complaint? Christ the night
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 01:06:04 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:57:11 AM
Quote from: lenny on March 15, 2021, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 15, 2021, 11:37:32 AM
This type of thing was always going to happen the further we got down the line with the vaccine.
The people being vaccinated against Covid are the weakest of the population, nobody lives forever. We need to keep a level head here, people will always die. We must not assume it is because of the vaccine. Or any complications were because of the vaccine.
At the start of the Covid discussion this was the stick to beat people with, do people not die anymore etc. Now it's starting to go full circle.
With Covid there is a tendency to be 100% one view or the other. As with life however, there are areas that fall between the extremes. This is one of those. People should not jump on the anti vax train here because of blood clotting reports - we need to continue doing what we are doing, if there is an issue of course it must be treated with complete seriousness, but I think the Irish Govt has unnecessarily caused a bit of trouble here.
This is going to continue now for the foreseeable. Hopefully its a panic over nothing, it's good to see people being cautious obviously but it really does nothing for the programme, the younger buy in, and a return to 'normal' life.
The proportion of people getting clots is consistent with the number who would normally get clots in the overall population. If nobody got clots having had the vaccine then the vaccine would be rightly hailed as a miracle cure for clots. 13 people have had clots out of millions of people who've received the vaccine.
Are blood clots common in young people? This is typical of the narrative here
If someone dies or gets ill with Covid - tie the death or illness to Covid.
If someone dies or gets ill shortly after getting a vaccine - do not investigate any potential link to the vaccine.
It's confirmation bias and it's very sinisiter.
There is clearly enough concern from regulatory bodies to want to investigate the cause but we have a person of complete ignorance like you telling us that everything is grand?
Dead on.
Are the young people getting the vaccine now?
Seems like you are commenting from a position of ignorance again.
The clotting cases in Norway relate to 4 young people.
The cases in Austria was where a 49 year old died from clotting after the vaccine and a 35 year old woman was in a serious condition.
You were in favour of just letting old people die, as that's what happens, as an acceptable part of life and we shouldn't be concerned with old people dying, but 4 people get a clot and you have a complaint? Christ the night
You see this is the type of moronic engagement someone can expect from you. You will debase any topic with hysterical statements like that.
Of course I did not want old people to die and I was not in favour of it and you saying I did is both tactless and deceitful.
Do you want me to respond in kind by saying you want young people to die? Is that the type of discussion you strive for?
And bizarrely enough I'm the guy who will draw ire from the mob on here for having to put with your moronic comments.
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 01:06:04 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:57:11 AM
Quote from: lenny on March 15, 2021, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 15, 2021, 11:37:32 AM
This type of thing was always going to happen the further we got down the line with the vaccine.
The people being vaccinated against Covid are the weakest of the population, nobody lives forever. We need to keep a level head here, people will always die. We must not assume it is because of the vaccine. Or any complications were because of the vaccine.
At the start of the Covid discussion this was the stick to beat people with, do people not die anymore etc. Now it's starting to go full circle.
With Covid there is a tendency to be 100% one view or the other. As with life however, there are areas that fall between the extremes. This is one of those. People should not jump on the anti vax train here because of blood clotting reports - we need to continue doing what we are doing, if there is an issue of course it must be treated with complete seriousness, but I think the Irish Govt has unnecessarily caused a bit of trouble here.
This is going to continue now for the foreseeable. Hopefully its a panic over nothing, it's good to see people being cautious obviously but it really does nothing for the programme, the younger buy in, and a return to 'normal' life.
The proportion of people getting clots is consistent with the number who would normally get clots in the overall population. If nobody got clots having had the vaccine then the vaccine would be rightly hailed as a miracle cure for clots. 13 people have had clots out of millions of people who've received the vaccine.
Are blood clots common in young people? This is typical of the narrative here
If someone dies or gets ill with Covid - tie the death or illness to Covid.
If someone dies or gets ill shortly after getting a vaccine - do not investigate any potential link to the vaccine.
It's confirmation bias and it's very sinisiter.
There is clearly enough concern from regulatory bodies to want to investigate the cause but we have a person of complete ignorance like you telling us that everything is grand?
Dead on.
Are the young people getting the vaccine now?
Seems like you are commenting from a position of ignorance again.
The clotting cases in Norway relate to 4 young people.
The cases in Austria was where a 49 year old died from clotting after the vaccine and a 35 year old woman was in a serious condition.
Venous thromboembolism ie clots has a background rate in population of 120 in 100,000 (0.12%) age 50, 50 in 100,000 age 25. The numbers who've developed clots post vaccine are consistent with the background number in the general population.
Quote from: lenny on March 15, 2021, 02:37:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 01:06:04 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 01:01:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:57:11 AM
Quote from: lenny on March 15, 2021, 11:49:02 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on March 15, 2021, 11:37:32 AM
This type of thing was always going to happen the further we got down the line with the vaccine.
The people being vaccinated against Covid are the weakest of the population, nobody lives forever. We need to keep a level head here, people will always die. We must not assume it is because of the vaccine. Or any complications were because of the vaccine.
At the start of the Covid discussion this was the stick to beat people with, do people not die anymore etc. Now it's starting to go full circle.
With Covid there is a tendency to be 100% one view or the other. As with life however, there are areas that fall between the extremes. This is one of those. People should not jump on the anti vax train here because of blood clotting reports - we need to continue doing what we are doing, if there is an issue of course it must be treated with complete seriousness, but I think the Irish Govt has unnecessarily caused a bit of trouble here.
This is going to continue now for the foreseeable. Hopefully its a panic over nothing, it's good to see people being cautious obviously but it really does nothing for the programme, the younger buy in, and a return to 'normal' life.
The proportion of people getting clots is consistent with the number who would normally get clots in the overall population. If nobody got clots having had the vaccine then the vaccine would be rightly hailed as a miracle cure for clots. 13 people have had clots out of millions of people who've received the vaccine.
Are blood clots common in young people? This is typical of the narrative here
If someone dies or gets ill with Covid - tie the death or illness to Covid.
If someone dies or gets ill shortly after getting a vaccine - do not investigate any potential link to the vaccine.
It's confirmation bias and it's very sinisiter.
There is clearly enough concern from regulatory bodies to want to investigate the cause but we have a person of complete ignorance like you telling us that everything is grand?
Dead on.
Are the young people getting the vaccine now?
Seems like you are commenting from a position of ignorance again.
The clotting cases in Norway relate to 4 young people.
The cases in Austria was where a 49 year old died from clotting after the vaccine and a 35 year old woman was in a serious condition.
Venous thromboembolism ie clots has a background rate in population of 120 in 100,000 (0.12%) age 50, 50 in 100,000 age 25. The numbers who've developed clots post vaccine are consistent with the background number in the general population.
And would numbers not be very high in that cohort. 4 young people getting this shortly after being administered in Norway (a population of around 5m) with the AZ vaccine is a serious issue and deserves to be investigated further.
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
So far, 50 vaccine hospitalisations, could be more in time? Then again, Covid-19 cancellation is the main aim regardless of the cost.
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
Unless you are completely thick, I just put the figures up, I said nothing else.
If you want to draw your own conclusions knock yourself out
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:14:19 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
So far, 50 vaccine hospitalisations, could be more in time? Then again, Covid-19 cancellation is the main aim regardless of the cost.
Or you could not bother with a vaccine just in case and let people continue to die and economies turned to shit.
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
People get injured and die in cars in massive numbers every day. Cars are essential for most people and therefore continue to be manufactured and driven every day. Manufacturers will continue to analyse data to make cars safer. If you don't want to die in a car, sit in the house.
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
You can't decide on what you want, live with the virus let more people die don't take the vaccine, let more people die. What's acceptable to you? What's the percentage of that 50 out of 17 million, you're good with figures, you did one before.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:33:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
People get injured and die in cars in massive numbers every day. Cars are essential for most people and therefore continue to be manufactured and driven every day. Manufacturers will continue to analyse data to make cars safer. If you don't want to die in a car, sit in the house.
So it's ok for people to die in car crashes and from vaccines but not ok for people to die with Covid.
Sound logic there. You've confirmed to me the type of thinking you and your like-minded people possess. Covid tunnel vision.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:33:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
People get injured and die in cars in massive numbers every day. Cars are essential for most people and therefore continue to be manufactured and driven every day. Manufacturers will continue to analyse data to make cars safer. If you don't want to die in a car, sit in the house.
You really did not think that one out, before you wrote it?
Which poster brought up the car accident example before?
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
As usual, you're lying through your teeth
Fact check: No links found between vaccination and deathshttps://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-no-links-found-between-vaccination-and-deaths/a-56458746
Hysterical Flat Earther: "People are dying from the vaccine!"
Normal person: "But you have no evidence to say that"
(https://i.imgur.com/frU5sYf.jpg)
One of the health workers in Norway has now died after the vaccine.
This is an example of the dangerous narrative of those zealots who try and shame and coerce people into getting a vaccine that people have a right to exercise their own personal caution.
https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/56RxMK/helsearbeider-som-ble-innlagt-etter-astrazeneca-vaksinering-er-doed-undersoeker-om-det-er-sammenheng
News article on the death.
Should make people think before they try shaming others for being wary about this vaccine.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 11:37:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
You can't decide on what you want, live with the virus let more people die don't take the vaccine, let more people die. What's acceptable to you? What's the percentage of that 50 out of 17 million, you're good with figures, you did one before.
I think one person dying from a vaccine is too many. For the at risk categories the benefits outweigh the risks.
For u40s and fit and healthy people I think people should think long and hard about it and be allowed make their own decision. We know the data on Covid and fit and healthy people under 40, the chance of serious illness or death from it are minimal. The chance of you getting Covid too are reduced by social distancing etc.
People who get Covid die from it we are told.
People who take the vaccine just die from blood clotting and we are told to ignore any possible relation to them getting the vaccine shortly before.
It's a strange double standard.
I see the sociopathic liar is still lying
Predictable as a traffic jam during a wet rush hour on Bothar na Treabh
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 08:01:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 11:37:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
You can't decide on what you want, live with the virus let more people die don't take the vaccine, let more people die. What's acceptable to you? What's the percentage of that 50 out of 17 million, you're good with figures, you did one before.
I think one person dying from a vaccine is too many. For the at risk categories the benefits outweigh the risks.
For u40s and fit and healthy people I think people should think long and hard about it and be allowed make their own decision. We know the data on Covid and fit and healthy people under 40, the chance of serious illness or death from it are minimal. The chance of you getting Covid too are reduced by social distancing etc.
People who get Covid die from it we are told.
People who take the vaccine just die from blood clotting and we are told to ignore any possible relation to them getting the vaccine shortly before.
It's a strange double standard.
Again you are all over the place, you throw up odds of catching the virus and then under 40's getting it is minimal, pure waffle btw, then say with the percentage of 4 people dying from taking the vaccine out of 17 million isn't worth the risk?
Go back to bed and rest. As for the double standard I have no idea what you are on about, no lives are acceptable and I've always said that, you on the other hand were going on about acceptable deaths and we have to live with covid and accept that deaths are going to happen! Weirdo
Everyday countries stop vaccinating this health emergency continues and will continue to kill people. That's the choice that some governments are making. And if I am totally honest if this wasn't a British vaccine I don't think these European countries would be halting their vaccination programmes. Italy are heading back into lockdown, a third wave. Ireland and others are absolutely crazy not to be continuing vaccinating people especially when they have a huge data set showing the success of the vaccine on their doorstep.
Nobody's stopped vaccinating, just suspended use of 1 of the vaccines due to concerning reports from Norway.
Quote from: trailer on March 16, 2021, 08:51:08 AM
Everyday countries stop vaccinating this health emergency continues and will continue to kill people. That's the choice that some governments are making. And if I am totally honest if this wasn't a British vaccine I don't think these European countries would be halting their vaccination programmes. Italy are heading back into lockdown, a third wave. Ireland and others are absolutely crazy not to be continuing vaccinating people especially when they have a huge data set showing the success of the vaccine on their doorstep.
Completely agree. The EU is playing hardball politics here.
Norway isn't in the EU ;)
Quote from: trailer on March 16, 2021, 08:51:08 AM
Everyday countries stop vaccinating this health emergency continues and will continue to kill people. That's the choice that some governments are making. And if I am totally honest if this wasn't a British vaccine I don't think these European countries would be halting their vaccination programmes. Italy are heading back into lockdown, a third wave. Ireland and others are absolutely crazy not to be continuing vaccinating people especially when they have a huge data set showing the success of the vaccine on their doorstep.
It seems obvious to me that certain European countries have a sort of nationalist vested interest in trying to discredit the Astra Zeneca vaccine and the British strategy of delayed second doses - which always seemed sensible to me
But then again there's a massive vested interest among far right and populist politicians and media, especially in Britain, to paint the EU as being at fault for the slow supply of vaccines, and the peddling of easy answers about "going it alone" in procuring supply
Throughout this pandemic there has also been a fear of being seen to be wrong - in large part because of the hyper paranoid "gotcha" mentality of hyper partisan social media, and that has led to some really bad decisions and sticking with failed ideology
For example in Ireland there has been a concerted gaslighting campaign against the Zero Covid people by Government and some members of NPHET, as it became steadily more apparent that the Zero Covid people had pretty much got it right in their analysis all along
Luke O'Neill laid into NIAC yesterday for suspending the Astra Zeneca vaccine, and I think he's right
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 08:01:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 11:37:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
You can't decide on what you want, live with the virus let more people die don't take the vaccine, let more people die. What's acceptable to you? What's the percentage of that 50 out of 17 million, you're good with figures, you did one before.
I think one person dying from a vaccine is too many. For the at risk categories the benefits outweigh the risks.
For u40s and fit and healthy people I think people should think long and hard about it and be allowed make their own decision. We know the data on Covid and fit and healthy people under 40, the chance of serious illness or death from it are minimal. The chance of you getting Covid too are reduced by social distancing etc.
People who get Covid die from it we are told.
People who take the vaccine just die from blood clotting and we are told to ignore any possible relation to them getting the vaccine shortly before.
It's a strange double standard.
Again you are all over the place, you throw up odds of catching the virus and then under 40's getting it is minimal, pure waffle btw, then say with the percentage of 4 people dying from taking the vaccine out of 17 million isn't worth the risk?
Go back to bed and rest. As for the double standard I have no idea what you are on about, no lives are acceptable and I've always said that, you on the other hand were going on about acceptable deaths and we have to live with covid and accept that deaths are going to happen! Weirdo
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
There's not 17 million people in Norway, there is 5 million.
There's not 17 million AZ vaccines administered in the world.
In the past week, there has been a significant number of cases of blood clotting reported shortly after people received their AZ vaccine. Two of these people have now died, in the the past week and we have people like you trying to coerce or shame people into getting a novel vaccine that has currently being halted and suspended by the EMA to investigate the linkages.
The actions and words from EMA are very different on this, they were quick to outright dismiss this when the Austrian incidents happened last week, this week with further cases emerging and further deaths they have suspended it while reassuring us everything is ok. It's clear everything is not ok as they would not have suspended it otherwise.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 08:01:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 11:37:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
You can't decide on what you want, live with the virus let more people die don't take the vaccine, let more people die. What's acceptable to you? What's the percentage of that 50 out of 17 million, you're good with figures, you did one before.
I think one person dying from a vaccine is too many. For the at risk categories the benefits outweigh the risks.
For u40s and fit and healthy people I think people should think long and hard about it and be allowed make their own decision. We know the data on Covid and fit and healthy people under 40, the chance of serious illness or death from it are minimal. The chance of you getting Covid too are reduced by social distancing etc.
People who get Covid die from it we are told.
People who take the vaccine just die from blood clotting and we are told to ignore any possible relation to them getting the vaccine shortly before.
It's a strange double standard.
Again you are all over the place, you throw up odds of catching the virus and then under 40's getting it is minimal, pure waffle btw, then say with the percentage of 4 people dying from taking the vaccine out of 17 million isn't worth the risk?
Go back to bed and rest. As for the double standard I have no idea what you are on about, no lives are acceptable and I've always said that, you on the other hand were going on about acceptable deaths and we have to live with covid and accept that deaths are going to happen! Weirdo
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
There's not 17 million people in Norway, there is 5 million.
There's not 17 million AZ vaccines administered in the world.
In the past week, there has been a significant number of cases of blood clotting reported shortly after people received their AZ vaccine. Two of these people have now died, in the the past week and we have people like you trying to coerce or shame people into getting a novel vaccine that has currently being halted and suspended by the EMA to investigate the linkages.
The actions and words from EMA are very different on this, they were quick to outright dismiss this when the Austrian incidents happened last week, this week with further cases emerging and further deaths they have suspended it while reassuring us everything is ok. It's clear everything is not ok as they would not have suspended it otherwise.
Yes there has.
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on March 16, 2021, 09:30:34 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 08:01:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 11:37:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
You can't decide on what you want, live with the virus let more people die don't take the vaccine, let more people die. What's acceptable to you? What's the percentage of that 50 out of 17 million, you're good with figures, you did one before.
I think one person dying from a vaccine is too many. For the at risk categories the benefits outweigh the risks.
For u40s and fit and healthy people I think people should think long and hard about it and be allowed make their own decision. We know the data on Covid and fit and healthy people under 40, the chance of serious illness or death from it are minimal. The chance of you getting Covid too are reduced by social distancing etc.
People who get Covid die from it we are told.
People who take the vaccine just die from blood clotting and we are told to ignore any possible relation to them getting the vaccine shortly before.
It's a strange double standard.
Again you are all over the place, you throw up odds of catching the virus and then under 40's getting it is minimal, pure waffle btw, then say with the percentage of 4 people dying from taking the vaccine out of 17 million isn't worth the risk?
Go back to bed and rest. As for the double standard I have no idea what you are on about, no lives are acceptable and I've always said that, you on the other hand were going on about acceptable deaths and we have to live with covid and accept that deaths are going to happen! Weirdo
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
There's not 17 million people in Norway, there is 5 million.
There's not 17 million AZ vaccines administered in the world.
In the past week, there has been a significant number of cases of blood clotting reported shortly after people received their AZ vaccine. Two of these people have now died, in the the past week and we have people like you trying to coerce or shame people into getting a novel vaccine that has currently being halted and suspended by the EMA to investigate the linkages.
The actions and words from EMA are very different on this, they were quick to outright dismiss this when the Austrian incidents happened last week, this week with further cases emerging and further deaths they have suspended it while reassuring us everything is ok. It's clear everything is not ok as they would not have suspended it otherwise.
Yes there has.
Meant the EU, apologies.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 08:01:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 11:37:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
You can't decide on what you want, live with the virus let more people die don't take the vaccine, let more people die. What's acceptable to you? What's the percentage of that 50 out of 17 million, you're good with figures, you did one before.
I think one person dying from a vaccine is too many. For the at risk categories the benefits outweigh the risks.
For u40s and fit and healthy people I think people should think long and hard about it and be allowed make their own decision. We know the data on Covid and fit and healthy people under 40, the chance of serious illness or death from it are minimal. The chance of you getting Covid too are reduced by social distancing etc.
People who get Covid die from it we are told.
People who take the vaccine just die from blood clotting and we are told to ignore any possible relation to them getting the vaccine shortly before.
It's a strange double standard.
Again you are all over the place, you throw up odds of catching the virus and then under 40's getting it is minimal, pure waffle btw, then say with the percentage of 4 people dying from taking the vaccine out of 17 million isn't worth the risk?
Go back to bed and rest. As for the double standard I have no idea what you are on about, no lives are acceptable and I've always said that, you on the other hand were going on about acceptable deaths and we have to live with covid and accept that deaths are going to happen! Weirdo
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
There's not 17 million people in Norway, there is 5 million.
There's not 17 million AZ vaccines administered in the world.
In the past week, there has been a significant number of cases of blood clotting reported shortly after people received their AZ vaccine. Two of these people have now died, in the the past week and we have people like you trying to coerce or shame people into getting a novel vaccine that has currently being halted and suspended by the EMA to investigate the linkages.
The actions and words from EMA are very different on this, they were quick to outright dismiss this when the Austrian incidents happened last week, this week with further cases emerging and further deaths they have suspended it while reassuring us everything is ok. It's clear everything is not ok as they would not have suspended it otherwise.
EMA have not suspended the Astra Zeneca vaccine. . . "The benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalisation and death, outweigh the risks of side effects."
Quote from: screenexile on March 16, 2021, 09:44:23 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 08:01:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 11:37:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
You can't decide on what you want, live with the virus let more people die don't take the vaccine, let more people die. What's acceptable to you? What's the percentage of that 50 out of 17 million, you're good with figures, you did one before.
I think one person dying from a vaccine is too many. For the at risk categories the benefits outweigh the risks.
For u40s and fit and healthy people I think people should think long and hard about it and be allowed make their own decision. We know the data on Covid and fit and healthy people under 40, the chance of serious illness or death from it are minimal. The chance of you getting Covid too are reduced by social distancing etc.
People who get Covid die from it we are told.
People who take the vaccine just die from blood clotting and we are told to ignore any possible relation to them getting the vaccine shortly before.
It's a strange double standard.
Again you are all over the place, you throw up odds of catching the virus and then under 40's getting it is minimal, pure waffle btw, then say with the percentage of 4 people dying from taking the vaccine out of 17 million isn't worth the risk?
Go back to bed and rest. As for the double standard I have no idea what you are on about, no lives are acceptable and I've always said that, you on the other hand were going on about acceptable deaths and we have to live with covid and accept that deaths are going to happen! Weirdo
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
There's not 17 million people in Norway, there is 5 million.
There's not 17 million AZ vaccines administered in the world.
In the past week, there has been a significant number of cases of blood clotting reported shortly after people received their AZ vaccine. Two of these people have now died, in the the past week and we have people like you trying to coerce or shame people into getting a novel vaccine that has currently being halted and suspended by the EMA to investigate the linkages.
The actions and words from EMA are very different on this, they were quick to outright dismiss this when the Austrian incidents happened last week, this week with further cases emerging and further deaths they have suspended it while reassuring us everything is ok. It's clear everything is not ok as they would not have suspended it otherwise.
EMA have not suspended the Astra Zeneca vaccine. . . "The benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine in preventing COVID-19, with its associated risk of hospitalisation and death, outweigh the risks of side effects."
The benefits outweigh the risk seems to be a rather cold and callous take on a vaccine that has been associated with a number of blood clotting related deaths in Europe in the past week.
The majority of European countries have now suspended the vaccine.
It's grand that the EMA were casually dismissing Austria suspending the vaccine for a blood clotting related death and serious illness and then we see a number of cases in Norway in the following week.
This is serious.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:51:49 AM
The benefits outweigh the risk seems to be a rather cold and callous take on a vaccine that has been associated with a number of blood clotting related deaths in Europe in the past week.
"Associated with"?
Here is what the Norwegian report which you cited earlier actually says:
Health authorities are investigating whether there is a link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and special blood clotting cases. It has not been concluded whether there is a connection.
"We assess whether there are similarities between the three patients who can say something about the reason why they have had such a particular course of the disease," says Madsen of the Norwegian Medicines Agency.
–Is there anything in the surveys you have done so far that suggests that it may be related to vaccination?
"At the moment, we can't say that. There may be a connection, but it doesn't have to be. We can't say that there is a connection or that there is no connection right now," Madsen said.Also you state "a number of deaths". Can you say how many?
As for the total number of blood clot patients (fatal and non-fatal), here is what the BBC has reported in the last half hour:
"About 17 million people have been vaccinated in the EU and the UK - 37 people who had the Oxford vaccine have been reported as having had a blood clot.
However, the number of blood clots reported is no more than would have been expected to have happened naturally."https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55056016 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55056016)
As someone who has now received his first jab, I'll take my chances with that (and a second one) over the chances of contracting Covid-19.
Every. Single. Time.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 11:17:34 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:51:49 AM
The benefits outweigh the risk seems to be a rather cold and callous take on a vaccine that has been associated with a number of blood clotting related deaths in Europe in the past week.
"Associated with"?
Here is what the Norwegian report which you cited earlier actually says:
Health authorities are investigating whether there is a link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and special blood clotting cases. It has not been concluded whether there is a connection.
"We assess whether there are similarities between the three patients who can say something about the reason why they have had such a particular course of the disease," says Madsen of the Norwegian Medicines Agency.
–Is there anything in the surveys you have done so far that suggests that it may be related to vaccination?
"At the moment, we can't say that. There may be a connection, but it doesn't have to be. We can't say that there is a connection or that there is no connection right now," Madsen said.
Also you state "a number of deaths". Can you say how many?
As for the total number of blood clot patients (fatal and non-fatal), here is what the BBC has reported in the last half hour:
"About 17 million people have been vaccinated in the EU and the UK - 37 people who had the Oxford vaccine have been reported as having had a blood clot.
However, the number of blood clots reported is no more than would have been expected to have happened naturally."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55056016 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55056016)
As someone who has now received his first jab, I'll take my chances with that (and a second one) over the chances of contracting Covid-19.
Every. Single. Time.
Yes and the anti-vax folk are happy that you will take the vaccine EG . They will be delighted when the % is well into the heard immunity figures and others have created this immunity. They'll never shout or advise others to not take it (some watery excuse or another), just incase the % uptake drops. Take this Angelo fella as an example. Has serious concerns but is happy for his nearest and dearest to take the risk without a word. How cowardly and selfish is that? Happy that the most of us are stepping up to the plate.
I'll be getting my 2nd dose in the coming days. Parents vaccinated, primary 4-7 back in on Monday, so v happy with the way things are progressing atm.
True story.
Man fell of a roof and sadly died. He'd just got the Vaccine a week before hand but they are recording the death as caused by the vaccine.
It's on Facebook, so must be true.
Quote from: JoG2 on March 16, 2021, 11:35:55 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 11:17:34 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:51:49 AM
The benefits outweigh the risk seems to be a rather cold and callous take on a vaccine that has been associated with a number of blood clotting related deaths in Europe in the past week.
"Associated with"?
Here is what the Norwegian report which you cited earlier actually says:
Health authorities are investigating whether there is a link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and special blood clotting cases. It has not been concluded whether there is a connection.
"We assess whether there are similarities between the three patients who can say something about the reason why they have had such a particular course of the disease," says Madsen of the Norwegian Medicines Agency.
–Is there anything in the surveys you have done so far that suggests that it may be related to vaccination?
"At the moment, we can't say that. There may be a connection, but it doesn't have to be. We can't say that there is a connection or that there is no connection right now," Madsen said.
Also you state "a number of deaths". Can you say how many?
As for the total number of blood clot patients (fatal and non-fatal), here is what the BBC has reported in the last half hour:
"About 17 million people have been vaccinated in the EU and the UK - 37 people who had the Oxford vaccine have been reported as having had a blood clot.
However, the number of blood clots reported is no more than would have been expected to have happened naturally."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55056016 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55056016)
As someone who has now received his first jab, I'll take my chances with that (and a second one) over the chances of contracting Covid-19.
Every. Single. Time.
Yes and the anti-vax folk are happy that you will take the vaccine EG . They will be delighted when the % is well into the heard immunity figures and others have created this immunity. They'll never shout or advise others to not take it (some watery excuse or another), just incase the % uptake drops. Take this Angelo fella as an example. Has serious concerns but is happy for his nearest and dearest to take the risk without a word. How cowardly and selfish is that? Happy that the most of us are stepping up to the plate.
I'll be getting my 2nd dose in the coming days. Parents vaccinated, primary 4-7 back in on Monday, so v happy with the way things are progressing atm.
There you are again. The dogmatic language and zealot tones. I'm not anti-vax, I do think people who have reservations about the vaccine have grounded and rational reasons for doing so but we have intolerant and quite bigoted people like you who cannot show respect for that viewpoint and attempt a campaign of shaming, misrepresenting and villanising people whose viewpoint differs to theirs.
The news we have here now:
Norway have suspended the vaccine. Why would they do that?
The 4 blood clotting cases happened in healthcare workers who were vaccinated with the AZ vaccine shortly before. All relatively young, one has passed away. Norway is a country of 5m people - that is extremely worrying. The cases in Austria which also included the death of a 49 year old woman are extremely worrying and a 35 year old who was also in a serious condition.
And then we have that sort of abusive idiocy from yourself against anyone who raises concerns about this vaccine.
The AZ vaccine is currently suspended across most European countries. Are they anti-vax too?
Your input and commentary here is moronic but what else should I have expected.
Quote from: Louther on March 16, 2021, 11:41:03 AM
True story.
Man fell of a roof and sadly died. He'd just got the Vaccine a week before hand but they are recording the death as caused by the vaccine.
It's on Facebook, so must be true.
Maybe you should ring up all the European countries and tell them there's nothing to worry about.
Maybe tell that to the two families that are grieving a loved one that their death had nothing to do with a vaccine.
You need to ask yourself why are you so quick to absolve the vaccine of having anything to do with the deaths? What's your play here. Do you think the families would appreciate some Man Utd diehard on a GAA forum telling them that the vaccine had nothing to do with their deaths?
Quote from: JoG2 on March 16, 2021, 11:35:55 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 11:17:34 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:51:49 AM
The benefits outweigh the risk seems to be a rather cold and callous take on a vaccine that has been associated with a number of blood clotting related deaths in Europe in the past week.
"Associated with"?
Here is what the Norwegian report which you cited earlier actually says:
Health authorities are investigating whether there is a link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and special blood clotting cases. It has not been concluded whether there is a connection.
"We assess whether there are similarities between the three patients who can say something about the reason why they have had such a particular course of the disease," says Madsen of the Norwegian Medicines Agency.
–Is there anything in the surveys you have done so far that suggests that it may be related to vaccination?
"At the moment, we can't say that. There may be a connection, but it doesn't have to be. We can't say that there is a connection or that there is no connection right now," Madsen said.
Also you state "a number of deaths". Can you say how many?
As for the total number of blood clot patients (fatal and non-fatal), here is what the BBC has reported in the last half hour:
"About 17 million people have been vaccinated in the EU and the UK - 37 people who had the Oxford vaccine have been reported as having had a blood clot.
However, the number of blood clots reported is no more than would have been expected to have happened naturally."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55056016 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55056016)
As someone who has now received his first jab, I'll take my chances with that (and a second one) over the chances of contracting Covid-19.
Every. Single. Time.
Yes and the anti-vax folk are happy that you will take the vaccine EG . They will be delighted when the % is well into the heard immunity figures and others have created this immunity. They'll never shout or advise others to not take it (some watery excuse or another), just incase the % uptake drops. Take this Angelo fella as an example. Has serious concerns but is happy for his nearest and dearest to take the risk without a word. How cowardly and selfish is that? Happy that the most of us are stepping up to the plate.
I'll be getting my 2nd dose in the coming days. Parents vaccinated, primary 4-7 back in on Monday, so v happy with the way things are progressing atm.
Two good posts.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 11:46:13 AM
Quote from: Louther on March 16, 2021, 11:41:03 AM
True story.
Man fell of a roof and sadly died. He'd just got the Vaccine a week before hand but they are recording the death as caused by the vaccine.
It's on Facebook, so must be true.
Maybe you should ring up all the European countries and tell them there's nothing to worry about.
Maybe tell that to the two families that are grieving a loved one that their death had nothing to do with a vaccine.
You need to ask yourself why are you so quick to absolve the vaccine of having anything to do with the deaths? What's your play here. Do you think the families would appreciate some Man Utd diehard on a GAA forum telling them that the vaccine had nothing to do with their deaths?
I was merely pointing out some of the ridiculous stories that was doing the rounds when Covid was been blamed for any random deaths and turning it round.
But while you at it. Read what you've said and apply it to yourself and all you've said about Covid deaths.
Quote from: Louther on March 16, 2021, 11:56:04 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 11:46:13 AM
Quote from: Louther on March 16, 2021, 11:41:03 AM
True story.
Man fell of a roof and sadly died. He'd just got the Vaccine a week before hand but they are recording the death as caused by the vaccine.
It's on Facebook, so must be true.
Maybe you should ring up all the European countries and tell them there's nothing to worry about.
Maybe tell that to the two families that are grieving a loved one that their death had nothing to do with a vaccine.
You need to ask yourself why are you so quick to absolve the vaccine of having anything to do with the deaths? What's your play here. Do you think the families would appreciate some Man Utd diehard on a GAA forum telling them that the vaccine had nothing to do with their deaths?
I was merely pointing out some of the ridiculous stories that was doing the rounds when Covid was been blamed for any random deaths and turning it round.
But while you at it. Read what you've said and apply it to yourself and all you've said about Covid deaths.
Is that a backtrack?
You are one of a number of posters who are completely unwilling to countenance the fact that vaccines may have had anything to do with a death.
The vaccine is suspended across most European countries at the minute.
The same guys who will dogmatically shame and insult anyone who voices concerns on the vaccine, who voice reservations about its safety are the first to dismiss any link or correlation between the vaccine and serious illness or death.
Anti-vax is being used as a pejorative term it seems for people who value their health and are right to do so.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 12:04:47 PM
Anti-vax is being used as a pejorative term it seems for people who value their health and are right to do so.
It is being used as a pejorative term for people who do not value other people's health and who have inflated sense of their own self importance.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 12:04:47 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 16, 2021, 11:56:04 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 11:46:13 AM
Quote from: Louther on March 16, 2021, 11:41:03 AM
True story.
Man fell of a roof and sadly died. He'd just got the Vaccine a week before hand but they are recording the death as caused by the vaccine.
It's on Facebook, so must be true.
Maybe you should ring up all the European countries and tell them there's nothing to worry about.
Maybe tell that to the two families that are grieving a loved one that their death had nothing to do with a vaccine.
You need to ask yourself why are you so quick to absolve the vaccine of having anything to do with the deaths? What's your play here. Do you think the families would appreciate some Man Utd diehard on a GAA forum telling them that the vaccine had nothing to do with their deaths?
I was merely pointing out some of the ridiculous stories that was doing the rounds when Covid was been blamed for any random deaths and turning it round.
But while you at it. Read what you've said and apply it to yourself and all you've said about Covid deaths.
Is that a backtrack?
You are one of a number of posters who are completely unwilling to countenance the fact that vaccines may have had anything to do with a death.
The vaccine is suspended across most European countries at the minute.
The same guys who will dogmatically shame and insult anyone who voices concerns on the vaccine, who voice reservations about its safety are the first to dismiss any link or correlation between the vaccine and serious illness or death.
Anti-vax is being used as a pejorative term it seems for people who value their health and are right to do so.
One of the posters? I've hardly commented on it but would be happy to take any of them.
You also seem happy to lump all vaccines into one pot with what is suspended across Europe. It's just one and not in all parts of Europe. And we will know very shortly if this precautionary suspension wil continue with all data at present saying it shouldn't be a permanent suspension. I'll leave that to the experts to decide on the course of action.
Others will take a very small uncertainty round it to justify their position on the grounds of health but are willing to risk the uncertainty of getting the virus and the risks that come with that in regards their health, now and in the future. Which is?
Reading a quote online:
After 10 million doses Astra zeneca had reported 28 cases of blood clots
After 11 million doses of Pfizer had reports 25 cases of blood clots.
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on March 16, 2021, 12:26:26 PM
Reading a quote online:
After 10 million doses Astra zeneca had reported 28 cases of blood clots
After 11 million doses of Pfizer had reports 25 cases of blood clots.
Statistically pretty much identical.
How many cases per 10 million who did not receive a vaccine?
I don't think there is fundamental problem with the AZ vaccine. It is possible that there was a batch with inadequate quality control and I expect the investigation will clarify this.
Given the extremely low numbers, most likely a statistical anomaly. Clusters happen.
We'll see what they come up with.
From yesterday's Guardian (my emphasis throughout):
While governments are pulling the plug [on the AZ vaccine], most scientists are rolling their eyes. The EMA and WHO are investigating the incidents, but so far there is no evidence that any were caused by the vaccine.
Experts say that the numbers of blood clots and thrombocytopenia cases in people who have been vaccinated is no higher than in the population that has not received the jab. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, representing medical experts around the world, said on Friday that "the small number of reported thrombotic events relative to the millions of administered Covid-19 vaccinations does not suggest a direct link".
Blood clots are common, they said, but not more common in people who have had a Covid jab, from evidence so far. They recommended that even people with a history of blood clots or taking blood-thinning drugs should go and get their vaccination.
In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises the government, have both been robust. "The UK has administered 11m doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and there has been no demonstrable difference in the number of blood clots since the vaccine was introduced," said Prof Anthony Harden, the JCVI deputy chair. The MHRA said it was working closely with its international counterparts and reviewing the cases, but "the evidence available does not suggest the vaccine is the cause".
AstraZeneca itself says there have been 15 deep vein thrombosis (DVT) events and 22 pulmonary embolisms (blood clots in the lungs) across the whole of the EU and UK up to 8 March. "This is much lower than would be expected to occur naturally in a general population of this size and is similar across other licensed Covid-19 vaccines," it said in a statement.
The article then goes on to consider "other [i.e. non-medical] factors" which may be influencing European governments, which you can read for yourself:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/europes-caution-over-oxford-vaccine-about-more-than-the-science (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/europes-caution-over-oxford-vaccine-about-more-than-the-science)
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 12:45:55 PM
From yesterday's Guardian (my emphasis throughout):
While governments are pulling the plug [on the AZ vaccine], most scientists are rolling their eyes. The EMA and WHO are investigating the incidents, but so far there is no evidence that any were caused by the vaccine.
Experts say that the numbers of blood clots and thrombocytopenia cases in people who have been vaccinated is no higher than in the population that has not received the jab. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, representing medical experts around the world, said on Friday that "the small number of reported thrombotic events relative to the millions of administered Covid-19 vaccinations does not suggest a direct link".
Blood clots are common, they said, but not more common in people who have had a Covid jab, from evidence so far. They recommended that even people with a history of blood clots or taking blood-thinning drugs should go and get their vaccination.
In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises the government, have both been robust. "The UK has administered 11m doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and there has been no demonstrable difference in the number of blood clots since the vaccine was introduced," said Prof Anthony Harden, the JCVI deputy chair. The MHRA said it was working closely with its international counterparts and reviewing the cases, but "the evidence available does not suggest the vaccine is the cause".
AstraZeneca itself says there have been 15 deep vein thrombosis (DVT) events and 22 pulmonary embolisms (blood clots in the lungs) across the whole of the EU and UK up to 8 March. "This is much lower than would be expected to occur naturally in a general population of this size and is similar across other licensed Covid-19 vaccines," it said in a statement.
The article then goes on to consider "other [i.e. non-medical] factors" which may be influencing European governments, which you can read for yourself:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/europes-caution-over-oxford-vaccine-about-more-than-the-science (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/europes-caution-over-oxford-vaccine-about-more-than-the-science)
Oh yes scientists have no vested interest in this at all sure.
Astrazeneca have proven to be liars in relation to delivering these vaccines, so people are inevitably suspicious of them.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 12:46:29 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 12:45:55 PM
From yesterday's Guardian (my emphasis throughout):
While governments are pulling the plug [on the AZ vaccine], most scientists are rolling their eyes. The EMA and WHO are investigating the incidents, but so far there is no evidence that any were caused by the vaccine.
Experts say that the numbers of blood clots and thrombocytopenia cases in people who have been vaccinated is no higher than in the population that has not received the jab. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, representing medical experts around the world, said on Friday that "the small number of reported thrombotic events relative to the millions of administered Covid-19 vaccinations does not suggest a direct link".
Blood clots are common, they said, but not more common in people who have had a Covid jab, from evidence so far. They recommended that even people with a history of blood clots or taking blood-thinning drugs should go and get their vaccination.
In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises the government, have both been robust. "The UK has administered 11m doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and there has been no demonstrable difference in the number of blood clots since the vaccine was introduced," said Prof Anthony Harden, the JCVI deputy chair. The MHRA said it was working closely with its international counterparts and reviewing the cases, but "the evidence available does not suggest the vaccine is the cause".
AstraZeneca itself says there have been 15 deep vein thrombosis (DVT) events and 22 pulmonary embolisms (blood clots in the lungs) across the whole of the EU and UK up to 8 March. "This is much lower than would be expected to occur naturally in a general population of this size and is similar across other licensed Covid-19 vaccines," it said in a statement.
The article then goes on to consider "other [i.e. non-medical] factors" which may be influencing European governments, which you can read for yourself:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/europes-caution-over-oxford-vaccine-about-more-than-the-science (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/europes-caution-over-oxford-vaccine-about-more-than-the-science)
Oh yes scientists have no vested interest in this at all sure.
I'd trust the scientists' views over that of an unscientific observer* who has by now established a clear interest in defending his earlier claims, even when they've been demonstrated to be unsubstantiated (at best), or false (at worst).
But hey, you go on playing the man instead of the ball.
* - That's you, btw, just in case you're in any doubt.
The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis
https://www.isth.org/page/History (https://www.isth.org/page/History)
I'm far from an expert on blood clots, but this sounds like exactly the sort of organization you would be expecting to hear from on this type of concern.
Not sure what vested interest such a body would have in the vaccine issue, beyond the same one we all have in combatting this disease.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 16, 2021, 12:52:11 PM
Astrazeneca have proven to be liars in relation to delivering these vaccines, so people are inevitably suspicious of them.
While politicians never lie...
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 12:52:35 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 12:46:29 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 12:45:55 PM
From yesterday's Guardian (my emphasis throughout):
While governments are pulling the plug [on the AZ vaccine], most scientists are rolling their eyes. The EMA and WHO are investigating the incidents, but so far there is no evidence that any were caused by the vaccine.
Experts say that the numbers of blood clots and thrombocytopenia cases in people who have been vaccinated is no higher than in the population that has not received the jab. The International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis, representing medical experts around the world, said on Friday that "the small number of reported thrombotic events relative to the millions of administered Covid-19 vaccinations does not suggest a direct link".
Blood clots are common, they said, but not more common in people who have had a Covid jab, from evidence so far. They recommended that even people with a history of blood clots or taking blood-thinning drugs should go and get their vaccination.
In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority and the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI), which advises the government, have both been robust. "The UK has administered 11m doses of the AstraZeneca vaccine and there has been no demonstrable difference in the number of blood clots since the vaccine was introduced," said Prof Anthony Harden, the JCVI deputy chair. The MHRA said it was working closely with its international counterparts and reviewing the cases, but "the evidence available does not suggest the vaccine is the cause".
AstraZeneca itself says there have been 15 deep vein thrombosis (DVT) events and 22 pulmonary embolisms (blood clots in the lungs) across the whole of the EU and UK up to 8 March. "This is much lower than would be expected to occur naturally in a general population of this size and is similar across other licensed Covid-19 vaccines," it said in a statement.
The article then goes on to consider "other [i.e. non-medical] factors" which may be influencing European governments, which you can read for yourself:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/europes-caution-over-oxford-vaccine-about-more-than-the-science (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/15/europes-caution-over-oxford-vaccine-about-more-than-the-science)
Oh yes scientists have no vested interest in this at all sure.
I'd trust the scientists' views over that of an unscientific observer* who has by now established a clear interest in defending his earlier claims, even when they've been demonstrated to be unsubstantiated (at best), or false (at worst).
But hey, you go on playing the man instead of the ball.
* - That's you, btw, just in case you're in any doubt.
I'm not playing the man.
I'm merely pointing out that the scientists have a vested interest. You obviously don't like that being pointed out.
What do you think about Big Pharma having no liability if any deaths are connected to the vaccine?
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 12:58:21 PM
I'm not playing the man.
I'm merely pointing out that the scientists have a vested interest. You obviously don't like that being pointed out.
Questioning the motives of "the scientists" [
sic] (all of them?) and/or at least claiming without proof that their supposed vested interests are causing them to falsify their findings etc, is precisely the definition of "playing the man".
Whereas addressing their findings - which you conspicuously fail to do - is playing the ball.
And that's what I don't like.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 12:58:21 PM
What do you think about Big Pharma having no liability if any deaths are connected to the vaccine?
Who do you mean by 'Big Pharma'? All of the vaccine manufacturers, including those who developed and distributed them on a non-profit basis? You know, like (ahem) these people:
"A key element of Oxford's partnership with AstraZeneca is the joint commitment to provide the vaccine on a not-for-profit basis for the duration of the pandemic across the world, and in perpetuity to low- and middle-income countries"https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/nov/23/oxford-astrazeneca-results-covid-vaccine-developing-countries (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/nov/23/oxford-astrazeneca-results-covid-vaccine-developing-countries)
And how do you know they'll have "no liability"?
Or even that any of these vaccines have
directly caused otherwise avoidable deaths*?
Fact is, it is easy to throw out generalisations designed to scare us all of The Bogeyman.
While being far harder than proving that The Bogeyman actually exists.
* - I used
that construction since it is so much clearer than your own loose and entirely unscientific "connected with".
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 01:46:27 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 12:58:21 PM
I'm not playing the man.
I'm merely pointing out that the scientists have a vested interest. You obviously don't like that being pointed out.
Questioning the motives of "the scientists" [sic] (all of them?) and/or at least claiming without proof that their supposed vested interests are causing them to falsify their findings etc, is precisely the definition of "playing the man".
Whereas addressing their findings - which you conspicuously fail to do - is playing the ball.
And that's what I don't like.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 12:58:21 PM
What do you think about Big Pharma having no liability if any deaths are connected to the vaccine?
Who do you mean by 'Big Pharma'? All of the vaccine manufacturers, including those who developed and distributed them on a non-profit basis? You know, like (ahem) these people:
"A key element of Oxford's partnership with AstraZeneca is the joint commitment to provide the vaccine on a not-for-profit basis for the duration of the pandemic across the world, and in perpetuity to low- and middle-income countries"
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/nov/23/oxford-astrazeneca-results-covid-vaccine-developing-countries (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/nov/23/oxford-astrazeneca-results-covid-vaccine-developing-countries)
And how do you know they'll have "no liability"?
Or even that any of these vaccines have directly caused otherwise avoidable deaths*?
Fact is, it is easy to throw out generalisations designed to scare us all of The Bogeyman.
While being far harder than proving that The Bogeyman actually exists.
* - I used that construction since it is so much clearer than your own loose and entirely unscientific "connected with".
Without doubt scientists have vested interests. If you are denying that then you might as well keep your head in the sand.
I know they have no liability.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
It seems you are being very economical with the truth, why is that?
Two of the four Norwegians with blood clotting linked to the AZ vaccine have now died.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 08:01:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 11:37:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
You can't decide on what you want, live with the virus let more people die don't take the vaccine, let more people die. What's acceptable to you? What's the percentage of that 50 out of 17 million, you're good with figures, you did one before.
I think one person dying from a vaccine is too many. For the at risk categories the benefits outweigh the risks.
For u40s and fit and healthy people I think people should think long and hard about it and be allowed make their own decision. We know the data on Covid and fit and healthy people under 40, the chance of serious illness or death from it are minimal. The chance of you getting Covid too are reduced by social distancing etc.
People who get Covid die from it we are told.
People who take the vaccine just die from blood clotting and we are told to ignore any possible relation to them getting the vaccine shortly before.
It's a strange double standard.
Again you are all over the place, you throw up odds of catching the virus and then under 40's getting it is minimal, pure waffle btw, then say with the percentage of 4 people dying from taking the vaccine out of 17 million isn't worth the risk?
Go back to bed and rest. As for the double standard I have no idea what you are on about, no lives are acceptable and I've always said that, you on the other hand were going on about acceptable deaths and we have to live with covid and accept that deaths are going to happen! Weirdo
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
There's not 17 million people in Norway, there is 5 million.
There's not 17 million AZ vaccines administered in the world.
In the past week, there has been a significant number of cases of blood clotting reported shortly after people received their AZ vaccine. Two of these people have now died, in the the past week and we have people like you trying to coerce or shame people into getting a novel vaccine that has currently being halted and suspended by the EMA to investigate the linkages.
The actions and words from EMA are very different on this, they were quick to outright dismiss this when the Austrian incidents happened last week, this week with further cases emerging and further deaths they have suspended it while reassuring us everything is ok. It's clear everything is not ok as they would not have suspended it otherwise.
My stupidity? When did I bring Norway into this? Go and have a lie down, been a tough couple of days for you, the fingers must be bleeding at this point
I see EvilG has met Angeloworld ;D
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 02:43:26 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 09:24:59 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 08:49:03 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 08:01:09 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 11:37:37 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 15, 2021, 11:20:57 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on March 15, 2021, 11:09:28 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 15, 2021, 11:00:49 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 15, 2021, 10:40:26 PM
Out of the 17 million vaccine jabs given throughout Europe it said on the news 50 were hospitalised from the vaccine.
So what you are saying is that lives in danger from the Vaccine are less important than lives in danger from Covid-19?
That much is clear. Almost 900,000 deaths in Europe vs 50 accine hospitalizations.
This is the type of complete disingenuous narrative that guys like you engage in.
There's been deaths from the vaccines, it is right they are stopped and investigated and people have a right to be concerned regarding this.
If you're are in an at risk category the benefits exceed the risk. If you are not then you have reason to skeptical and your choice be respected.
You can't decide on what you want, live with the virus let more people die don't take the vaccine, let more people die. What's acceptable to you? What's the percentage of that 50 out of 17 million, you're good with figures, you did one before.
I think one person dying from a vaccine is too many. For the at risk categories the benefits outweigh the risks.
For u40s and fit and healthy people I think people should think long and hard about it and be allowed make their own decision. We know the data on Covid and fit and healthy people under 40, the chance of serious illness or death from it are minimal. The chance of you getting Covid too are reduced by social distancing etc.
People who get Covid die from it we are told.
People who take the vaccine just die from blood clotting and we are told to ignore any possible relation to them getting the vaccine shortly before.
It's a strange double standard.
Again you are all over the place, you throw up odds of catching the virus and then under 40's getting it is minimal, pure waffle btw, then say with the percentage of 4 people dying from taking the vaccine out of 17 million isn't worth the risk?
Go back to bed and rest. As for the double standard I have no idea what you are on about, no lives are acceptable and I've always said that, you on the other hand were going on about acceptable deaths and we have to live with covid and accept that deaths are going to happen! Weirdo
Your stupidity knows no bounds.
There's not 17 million people in Norway, there is 5 million.
There's not 17 million AZ vaccines administered in the world.
In the past week, there has been a significant number of cases of blood clotting reported shortly after people received their AZ vaccine. Two of these people have now died, in the the past week and we have people like you trying to coerce or shame people into getting a novel vaccine that has currently being halted and suspended by the EMA to investigate the linkages.
The actions and words from EMA are very different on this, they were quick to outright dismiss this when the Austrian incidents happened last week, this week with further cases emerging and further deaths they have suspended it while reassuring us everything is ok. It's clear everything is not ok as they would not have suspended it otherwise.
My stupidity? When did I bring Norway into this? Go and have a lie down, been a tough couple of days for you, the fingers must be bleeding at this point
There are four cases in Norway.
Quote from: Rossfan on March 16, 2021, 02:49:15 PM
I see EvilG has met Angeloworld ;D
I was banned under some feuding rule.
Can the mods do something about this lad when he all seems to be able to offer is stalk a reference a poster ad nauseum that he claims to have on ignore?
Ironically enough no poster has yet come forward to admit that they value Rossfan's contribution to the board. I'm hardly surprised.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 01:52:45 PM
Without doubt scientists have vested interests. If you are denying that then you might as well keep your head in the sand.
Of course scientists have "vested interests" - primarily in producing better science.
But you're implying ulterior interests (motives, actually), without ever specifying exactly which scientists, exactly which motives and exactly how they benefit from them to the detriment of the rest of us.
But I guess that's kinda hard, meaning it's so much easier to fling out vague, unsubstantiated generalisations of the "Scientists have vested interests" type.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 01:52:45 PM
I know they have no liability.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
It seems you are being very economical with the truth, why is that?
What do you mean by "they"?
You have merely demonstrated that two vaccine producers of many, have limited liability in one country (USA).
Whilst ignoring that redress may be available in another US forum.
And conveniently overlooking that with any process which involves an element of risk, companies may well decline entirely to invent new products which could leave them liable to potentially open-ended claims.
But maybe you'd prefer it if we were facing this pandemic without any vaccines at all?
Or at least only vaccines which were produced in completely unaccountable dictatorships like Russia or China?
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 02:56:15 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 01:52:45 PM
Without doubt scientists have vested interests. If you are denying that then you might as well keep your head in the sand.
Of course scientists have "vested interests" - primarily in producing better science.
But you're implying ulterior interests (motives, actually), without ever specifying exactly which scientists, exactly which motives and exactly how they benefit from them to the detriment of the rest of us.
But I guess that's kinda hard, meaning it's so much easier to fling out vague, unsubstantiated generalisations of the "Scientists have vested interests" type.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 01:52:45 PM
I know they have no liability.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
It seems you are being very economical with the truth, why is that?
What do you mean by "they"?
You have merely demonstrated that two vaccine producers of many, have limited liability in one country (USA).
Whilst ignoring that redress may be available in another US forum.
And conveniently overlooking that with any process which involves an element of risk, companies may well decline entirely to invent new products which could leave them liable to potentially open-ended claims.
But maybe you'd prefer it if we were facing this pandemic without any vaccines at all?
Or at least only vaccines which were produced in completely unaccountable dictatorships like Russia or China?
By they I mean the big pharmaceutical companies. I thought I made it pretty clear:
What do you think about Big Pharma having no liability if any deaths are connected to the vaccine?
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 03:25:08 PM
By they I mean the big pharmaceutical companies. I thought I made it pretty clear:
What do you think about Big Pharma having no liability if any deaths are connected to the vaccine?
You made an unqualified, catch-all claim, implying that every manufacturer in every jurisdiction is immune from liability in every circumstance.
Yet you were only able to point to two manufacturers in one jurisdiction and then only for "unintentional" harm.
Whilst all the while ignoring the good reasons, some of which I listed, why such manufacturers might enjoy a degree of protection.
Or are you one of those people who believes that just about everything they don't like, agree with or understand must be some sort of conspiracy?
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 03:36:40 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 03:25:08 PM
By they I mean the big pharmaceutical companies. I thought I made it pretty clear:
What do you think about Big Pharma having no liability if any deaths are connected to the vaccine?
You made an unqualified, catch-all claim, implying that every manufacturer in every jurisdiction is immune from liability in every circumstance.
Yet you were only able to point to two manufacturers in one jurisdiction and then only for "unintentional" harm.
Whilst all the while ignoring the good reasons, some of which I listed, why such manufacturers might enjoy a degree of protection.
Or are you one of those people who believes that just about everything they don't like, agree with or understand must be some sort of conspiracy?
Where have they liability?
Go on, tell me.
Angelo quote:
The benefits outweigh the risk seems to be a rather cold and callous take on a vaccine that has been associated with a number of blood clotting related deaths in Europe in the past week.
The majority of European countries have now suspended the vaccine.
It's grand that the EMA were casually dismissing Austria suspending the vaccine for a blood clotting related death and serious illness and then we see a number of cases in Norway in the following week.
This is serious.
[/quote]
How many countries in Europe?
Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Iceland have suspended the use of the vaccine, while Austria stopped using a batch
I'm counting 6 here, I believe there are 44 countries. so I'm guessing, just a rough guess mind you, that the majority would need to 23?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 03:53:49 PM
Angelo quote:
The benefits outweigh the risk seems to be a rather cold and callous take on a vaccine that has been associated with a number of blood clotting related deaths in Europe in the past week.
The majority of European countries have now suspended the vaccine.
It's grand that the EMA were casually dismissing Austria suspending the vaccine for a blood clotting related death and serious illness and then we see a number of cases in Norway in the following week.
This is serious.
How many countries in Europe?
Ireland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway and Iceland have suspended the use of the vaccine, while Austria stopped using a batch
I'm counting 6 here, I believe there are 44 countries. so I'm guessing, just a rough guess mind you, that the majority would need to 23?
[/quote]
Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Austria, Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Netherlands, Lithuania, Estonia, Bulgaria, Sweden, Latvia among others.
I'm only noticing Spain on that list from What I put up, have you a link for the 23 countries that have suspended it
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 04:07:01 PM
I'm only noticing Spain on that list from What I put up, have you a link for the 23 countries that have suspended it
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/15/which-countries-have-halted-use-of-astrazenecas-covid-vaccine
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 03:37:42 PM
Where have they liability?
Go on, tell me.
It was you who introduced the "no liability" claim to the debate, not anyone else
So it must be for you to back it up, not the rest of us to disprove it.
So far you've pointed to two companies in one jurisdiction, and then only for unintentional harm.
So I'll leave you to get on with the rest of it.
After that you can take a rest before addressing the good reasons why manufacturers should require immunity from prosecution and governments might grant it (see my post at 2.56pm today).
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 04:09:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 04:07:01 PM
I'm only noticing Spain on that list from What I put up, have you a link for the 23 countries that have suspended it
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/15/which-countries-have-halted-use-of-astrazenecas-covid-vaccine
Think that's still short
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 04:12:34 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 04:09:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 04:07:01 PM
I'm only noticing Spain on that list from What I put up, have you a link for the 23 countries that have suspended it
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/15/which-countries-have-halted-use-of-astrazenecas-covid-vaccine
Think that's still short
You only counted 6, there's 17 there - including the 4 biggest countries in the EU.
The 4 biggest countries in the EU have stopped it. The biggest nation in Europe never approved it to begin with.
Got a call from the GP there and am booked in next wednesday..
Happy days
Booked in on Friday morning. Glad to be getting it
From earlier this afternoon:
The EU's medicines regulator has said it remains "firmly convinced" that the benefits of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid-19 jab outweigh the risks.
It reiterated that there was "no indication" the vaccine causes blood clots, after several leading EU states paused their rollouts.
European Medicines Agency (EMA) head Emer Cooke said the body stood by its decision to approve the vaccine.
More here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56411561 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56411561)
I await with interest Angelo's explanation of how (Irishwoman) Ms. Cooke and the other scientists at the EMA are speaking from "a vested interest".
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/emer-cooke-takes-office-head-ema (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/emer-cooke-takes-office-head-ema)
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 04:28:27 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 04:12:34 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 04:09:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 04:07:01 PM
I'm only noticing Spain on that list from What I put up, have you a link for the 23 countries that have suspended it
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/3/15/which-countries-have-halted-use-of-astrazenecas-covid-vaccine
Think that's still short
You only counted 6, there's 17 there - including the 4 biggest countries in the EU.
The 4 biggest countries in the EU have stopped it. The biggest nation in Europe never approved it to begin with.
You're still short, you said the majority, if there are 44 countries...
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 04:12:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 03:37:42 PM
Where have they liability?
Go on, tell me.
It was you who introduced the "no liability" claim to the debate, not anyone else
So it must be for you to back it up, not the rest of us to disprove it.
So far you've pointed to two companies in one jurisdiction, and then only for unintentional harm.
So I'll leave you to get on with the rest of it.
After that you can take a rest before addressing the good reasons why manufacturers should require immunity from prosecution and governments might grant it (see my post at 2.56pm today).
So you're contending a claim that you don't know the answer too. That is the epitome of ignorance from you.
It should not be hard to prove me wrong. I have given you examples where Big Pharma are waiving liability to vaccine problems, all you have to show examples of one vaccine being liable one jurisdiction so it should not he hard.
Unless of course you are contending matters of a matter of outright ignorance. Now wouldn't that say a lot.
The coincidence theorists are in full flow here.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 06:06:06 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 04:12:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 03:37:42 PM
Where have they liability?
Go on, tell me.
It was you who introduced the "no liability" claim to the debate, not anyone else
So it must be for you to back it up, not the rest of us to disprove it.
So far you've pointed to two companies in one jurisdiction, and then only for unintentional harm.
So I'll leave you to get on with the rest of it.
After that you can take a rest before addressing the good reasons why manufacturers should require immunity from prosecution and governments might grant it (see my post at 2.56pm today).
So you're contending a claim that you don't know the answer too. That is the epitome of ignorance from you.
It should not be hard to prove me wrong. I have given you examples where Big Pharma are waiving liability to vaccine problems, all you have to show examples of one vaccine being liable one jurisdiction so it should not he hard.
Unless of course you are contending matters of a matter of outright ignorance. Now wouldn't that say a lot.
So.
You are unable to back up the claim which you introduced to this thread (general immunity from prosecution for all companies in all jurisdictions).
You are unable or unwilling to address the valid reasons why Pharmaceutical companies might seek - and be granted - immunity.
You have failed to specify how and why (unspecified) "vested interests" have caused the world's scientists to mislead us over vaccine safety and in what circumstances.
And further to that last point, you are ignoring the solid, up-to-the minute defence by the European Medicines Agency of its authorisation of the AZ vaccine, even in the face of major member governments like France and Germany expressing reservations.
Seeing as most people on here seem to be favourable towards vaccination, it remains for those who, like you, insist on claiming otherwise to back up your claims.
P.S. A bit of specificity would be nice, rather than blithely relying on vague generalisations like "Big Pharma", "vested interests" and "the majority of Europe" etc.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 06:21:01 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 06:06:06 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 04:12:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 03:37:42 PM
Where have they liability?
Go on, tell me.
It was you who introduced the "no liability" claim to the debate, not anyone else
So it must be for you to back it up, not the rest of us to disprove it.
So far you've pointed to two companies in one jurisdiction, and then only for unintentional harm.
So I'll leave you to get on with the rest of it.
After that you can take a rest before addressing the good reasons why manufacturers should require immunity from prosecution and governments might grant it (see my post at 2.56pm today).
So you're contending a claim that you don't know the answer too. That is the epitome of ignorance from you.
It should not be hard to prove me wrong. I have given you examples where Big Pharma are waiving liability to vaccine problems, all you have to show examples of one vaccine being liable one jurisdiction so it should not he hard.
Unless of course you are contending matters of a matter of outright ignorance. Now wouldn't that say a lot.
So.
You are unable to back up the claim which you introduced to this thread (general immunity from prosecution for all companies in all jurisdictions).
You are unable or unwilling to address the valid reasons why Pharmaceutical companies might seek - and be granted - immunity.
You have failed to specify how and why (unspecified) "vested interests" have caused the world's scientists to mislead us over vaccine safety and in what circumstances.
And further to that last point, you are ignoring the solid, up-to-the minute defence by the European Medicines Agency of its authorisation of the AZ vaccine, even in the face of major member governments like France and Germany expressing reservations.
Seeing as most people on here seem to be favourable towards vaccination, it remains for those who, like you, insist on claiming otherwise to back up your claims.
P.S. A bit of specificity would be nice, rather than blithely relying on vague generalisations like "Big Pharma", "vested interests" and "the majority of Europe" etc.
I have given you examples.
You have given none.
It's a slam dunk for you to disprove me but you can't. I've won this one pretty easily. All you need is one example in one jurisdiction but you decided to contend something on a point of ignorance.
Telling.
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 06:26:06 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 06:21:01 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 06:06:06 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 04:12:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 03:37:42 PM
Where have they liability?
Go on, tell me.
It was you who introduced the "no liability" claim to the debate, not anyone else
So it must be for you to back it up, not the rest of us to disprove it.
So far you've pointed to two companies in one jurisdiction, and then only for unintentional harm.
So I'll leave you to get on with the rest of it.
After that you can take a rest before addressing the good reasons why manufacturers should require immunity from prosecution and governments might grant it (see my post at 2.56pm today).
So you're contending a claim that you don't know the answer too. That is the epitome of ignorance from you.
It should not be hard to prove me wrong. I have given you examples where Big Pharma are waiving liability to vaccine problems, all you have to show examples of one vaccine being liable one jurisdiction so it should not he hard.
Unless of course you are contending matters of a matter of outright ignorance. Now wouldn't that say a lot.
So.
You are unable to back up the claim which you introduced to this thread (general immunity from prosecution for all companies in all jurisdictions).
You are unable or unwilling to address the valid reasons why Pharmaceutical companies might seek - and be granted - immunity.
You have failed to specify how and why (unspecified) "vested interests" have caused the world's scientists to mislead us over vaccine safety and in what circumstances.
And further to that last point, you are ignoring the solid, up-to-the minute defence by the European Medicines Agency of its authorisation of the AZ vaccine, even in the face of major member governments like France and Germany expressing reservations.
Seeing as most people on here seem to be favourable towards vaccination, it remains for those who, like you, insist on claiming otherwise to back up your claims.
P.S. A bit of specificity would be nice, rather than blithely relying on vague generalisations like "Big Pharma", "vested interests" and "the majority of Europe" etc.
I have given you examples.
You have given none.
It's a slam dunk for you to disprove me but you can't. I've won this one pretty easily. All you need is one example in one jurisdiction but you decided to contend something on a point of ignorance.
Telling.
You have given one isolated example of two companies in one jurisdiction who are exempt from liability. This excludes the dozens of companies who have developed vaccines (fully or in part), or which are working on it, in numerous other countries.
Yet still you claim "Big Pharma" (i.e. all of them, everywhere) are relying on this, without anything more to back it up.
And that's before you address the valid reasons I outlined why companies would require such immunity and why governments might grant it.
The ball is in your court.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 06:41:07 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 06:26:06 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 06:21:01 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 06:06:06 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 16, 2021, 04:12:19 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 16, 2021, 03:37:42 PM
Where have they liability?
Go on, tell me.
It was you who introduced the "no liability" claim to the debate, not anyone else
So it must be for you to back it up, not the rest of us to disprove it.
So far you've pointed to two companies in one jurisdiction, and then only for unintentional harm.
So I'll leave you to get on with the rest of it.
After that you can take a rest before addressing the good reasons why manufacturers should require immunity from prosecution and governments might grant it (see my post at 2.56pm today).
So you're contending a claim that you don't know the answer too. That is the epitome of ignorance from you.
It should not be hard to prove me wrong. I have given you examples where Big Pharma are waiving liability to vaccine problems, all you have to show examples of one vaccine being liable one jurisdiction so it should not he hard.
Unless of course you are contending matters of a matter of outright ignorance. Now wouldn't that say a lot.
So.
You are unable to back up the claim which you introduced to this thread (general immunity from prosecution for all companies in all jurisdictions).
You are unable or unwilling to address the valid reasons why Pharmaceutical companies might seek - and be granted - immunity.
You have failed to specify how and why (unspecified) "vested interests" have caused the world's scientists to mislead us over vaccine safety and in what circumstances.
And further to that last point, you are ignoring the solid, up-to-the minute defence by the European Medicines Agency of its authorisation of the AZ vaccine, even in the face of major member governments like France and Germany expressing reservations.
Seeing as most people on here seem to be favourable towards vaccination, it remains for those who, like you, insist on claiming otherwise to back up your claims.
P.S. A bit of specificity would be nice, rather than blithely relying on vague generalisations like "Big Pharma", "vested interests" and "the majority of Europe" etc.
I have given you examples.
You have given none.
It's a slam dunk for you to disprove me but you can't. I've won this one pretty easily. All you need is one example in one jurisdiction but you decided to contend something on a point of ignorance.
Telling.
You have given one isolated example of two companies in one jurisdiction who are exempt from liability. This excludes the dozens of companies who have developed vaccines (fully or in part), or which are working on it, in numerous other countries.
Yet still you claim "Big Pharma" (i.e. all of them, everywhere) are relying on this, without anything more to back it up.
And that's before you address the valid reasons I outlined why companies would require such immunity and why governments might grant it.
The ball is in your court.
And you have given no examples or liability on any Covid vaccine manufacturer in any jurisdiction.
I make that 1-0 to me. Do you want to concede defeat now?
Evil Genius and Angelo...this is a discussion board, not a point-scoring exercise.
Unless you both cease, I think Rule 9 will be brought into play:
9. 'Feuds'.
On occasion, two or more posters become fixated with annoying each other, without necessarily descending into personal abuse per se. However this behaviour is very disruptive to whatever thread it breaks out it, and causes threads to be taken over by tit for tat insults. In a case such as this, a moderator may post a public and private warning for both posters to completely ignore the other, refraining from referring to, directing comments at, or answering the other poster. Disregarding this warning will result in a ban.
Penalties - 1st offence after warning - 2 Days, 2nd Offence - 10 Days, Subsequent Offences - Recurring 15 Day bans.
Next move is up to you...
Quote from: GAABoardMod5 on March 16, 2021, 07:23:35 PM
Evil Genius and Angelo...this is a discussion board, not a point-scoring exercise.
Unless you both cease, I think Rule 9 will be brought into play:
9. 'Feuds'.
On occasion, two or more posters become fixated with annoying each other, without necessarily descending into personal abuse per se. However this behaviour is very disruptive to whatever thread it breaks out it, and causes threads to be taken over by tit for tat insults. In a case such as this, a moderator may post a public and private warning for both posters to completely ignore the other, refraining from referring to, directing comments at, or answering the other poster. Disregarding this warning will result in a ban.
Penalties - 1st offence after warning - 2 Days, 2nd Offence - 10 Days, Subsequent Offences - Recurring 15 Day bans.
Next move is up to you...
Aye.
A discussion board and are you going to do anything else about posters highjacking every thread with their political prejudices?
Or do you just decide to curtail debate but facilitate people spam every thread with their political bias.
Serious question here.
Angelo you e lost the plot lad. Toys out of pram!
1-0? Wtf
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 16, 2021, 07:41:32 PM
Angelo you e lost the plot lad. Toys out of pram!
1-0? Wtf
It's a fair question.
The moderator seems to like applying his rules selectively.
We have two posters here discussing the subject matter and he's threatening them with bans.
Meanwhile we have trailer, Sid, Rossfan and Dublin7 running across multiple threads and bringing their political bias into it. We have a few one policy posters who bring that policy into every single thread they post on, spamming the thread with matters not relating to it.
Maybe that should be worth more moderation that two posters who are actually discussing the subject matter of the topic.
The again he banned me the last time because another posters was stalking me making false accusations that I said he was a rapist.
I for one welcome the return of evil genius so mod 5 would you ever get ta fcuk.... ;)
Good to see Evil G back - he/she hasnt changed one bit but at least attempts to back up his thought process/arguments with valid reasoning.
Leave him be Mod......leave him be
Quote from: Taylor on March 16, 2021, 08:28:54 PM
Good to see Evil G back - he/she hasnt changed one bit but at least attempts to back up his thought process/arguments with valid reasoning.
Leave him be Mod......leave him be
Evil Genius will soon learn what everyone else has. You're only wasting you time trying to argue with himself. I'm just surprised it gone on do long and people's mental health hasn't been brought into it somehow by the people's champion from Tyrone
Anyway back on to the cases in Norway.
It seems to be one that the coincidence theorists are doing their best to absolve any link to the vaccine
- Norway - a country of around 5m.
- 4 frontline healthcare workers who we are told were young so we'd assume all under 50 had serious blood clotting/bleeding issues shortly after receiving the AZ vaccine
- 2 of them have since passed away
- Now, how likely would it be that 4 people (presumably fit and healthy) would be hospitalised within a short space of time with serious blood clotting and bleeding issues, 2 of which subsequently passed away, in a country of 5m?
- That seems highly unlikely and the vaccine seems to be a common denominator
What I think is worrying is that we have a number of coincidence theorists on here that do not want to countenance the prospect that the vaccine has anything to do with this, we are just expected to believe this is a complete conincidence.
Quote from: dublin7 on March 16, 2021, 08:35:08 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 16, 2021, 08:28:54 PM
Good to see Evil G back - he/she hasnt changed one bit but at least attempts to back up his thought process/arguments with valid reasoning.
Leave him be Mod......leave him be
Evil Genius will soon learn what everyone else has. You're only wasting you time trying to argue with himself. I'm just surprised it gone on do long and people's mental health hasn't been brought into it somehow by the people's champion from Tyrone
Thats the problem - people try to engage - its a waste of time as has been proven multiple times.
Just ignore
Quote from: Taylor on March 16, 2021, 08:36:56 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 16, 2021, 08:35:08 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 16, 2021, 08:28:54 PM
Good to see Evil G back - he/she hasnt changed one bit but at least attempts to back up his thought process/arguments with valid reasoning.
Leave him be Mod......leave him be
Evil Genius will soon learn what everyone else has. You're only wasting you time trying to argue with himself. I'm just surprised it gone on do long and people's mental health hasn't been brought into it somehow by the people's champion from Tyrone
Thats the problem - people try to engage - its a waste of time as has been proven multiple times.
Just ignore
Engage?
Have a look back at the posts. He contended something on a point of ignorance. He had three chances to substantiate his point and failed.
Same as the lot of ye, throw the toys out of the pram when ye get called out on your bullshit.
Quote from: Taylor on March 16, 2021, 08:28:54 PM
Good to see Evil G back - he/she hasnt changed one bit but at least attempts to back up his thought process/arguments with valid reasoning.
Leave him be Mod......leave him be
No action planned at the moment against any poster.
Just trying to nip things in the bud before drastic action is needed/taken.
All posters are welcome and treated equally, but they must know that, similar to football, levels of disciplinary action increase. So one poster's initial warning that does not carry a ban will be appropriate, while another poster in the same argument may receive a 15 day ban, based on past/recent transgressions.
Quote from: GAABoardMod5 on March 16, 2021, 08:39:53 PM
Quote from: Taylor on March 16, 2021, 08:28:54 PM
Good to see Evil G back - he/she hasnt changed one bit but at least attempts to back up his thought process/arguments with valid reasoning.
Leave him be Mod......leave him be
No action planned at the moment against any poster.
Just trying to nip things in the bud before drastic action is needed/taken.
All posters are welcome and treated equally, but they must know that, similar to football, levels of disciplinary action increase. So one poster's initial warning that does not carry a ban will be appropriate, while another poster in the same argument may receive a 15 day ban, based on past/recent transgressions.
Ballix Mod.........gotta go stronger than that.
Everyone is laughing at you saying how weak you are (not me).
Show some authority f**k sake
Quote from: Taylor on March 16, 2021, 08:28:54 PM
Good to see Evil G back - he/she hasnt changed one bit but at least attempts to back up his thought process/arguments with valid reasoning.
Leave him be Mod......leave him be
+1
In my book, he is the most capable debater I have come across.
However, he can have a short fuse sometimes and may not realise at times that he is being goaded into losing the rag.
Some of the abuse he traded with Lynchbhoy, among others, is the stuff of legend. ;D
More to the point, I'm a bit surprised that he has let himself be drawn into a dogfight so easily.
Mod.. This man is an addition to this and any other discussion board, especially when he loses the cool (and he hasn't done that...yet.)
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 17, 2021, 12:24:07 AM
In my book, he is the most capable debater I have come across.
High praise indeed, given the range of master debaters on this board.
I think Mod5 is in breach of rule 10 - personal threats. Where's mod6?
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 17, 2021, 12:24:07 AM
Quote from: Taylor on March 16, 2021, 08:28:54 PM
Good to see Evil G back - he/she hasnt changed one bit but at least attempts to back up his thought process/arguments with valid reasoning.
Leave him be Mod......leave him be
+1
In my book, he is the most capable debater I have come across.
However, he can have a short fuse sometimes and may not realise at times that he is being goaded into losing the rag.
Some of the abuse he traded with Lynchbhoy, among others, is the stuff of legend. ;D
More to the point, I'm a bit surprised that he has let himself be drawn into a dogfight so easily.
Mod.. This man is an addition to this and any other discussion board, especially when he loses the cool (and he hasn't done that...yet.)
Thank you for those considerate words (also those of other posters).
On reflection I should have realised far sooner that you simply cannot argue with some people, told him to STFU, taken my ban and moved on ;D
Today's latest:
COVID-19: European regulator says Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine is 'safe and effective'
The European Union's medicines agency has said the Oxford-AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine is "safe and effective" to use following an investigation into reports of blood clots in a small number of recipients.
The EMA said the benefits outweigh the risks - and the vaccine is not linked to an "overall risk" of blood clots.
More here: https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-european-regulator-says-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-is-safe-and-effective-12249663 (https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-european-regulator-says-oxford-astrazeneca-vaccine-is-safe-and-effective-12249663)
Benefits outweighing the risks.
Move along, nothing to see here.
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 05:53:40 PM
Benefits outweighing the risks.
Move along, nothing to see here.
So you are going against the experts?
I said earlier that someone wouldn't be happy, hi ho
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 05:57:02 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 05:53:40 PM
Benefits outweighing the risks.
Move along, nothing to see here.
So you are going against the experts?
I said earlier that someone wouldn't be happy, hi ho
I am not a coincidence theorist.
(chiefly derogatory) Someone who rejects the claims of conspiracy theories, believing that any observations or occurrences are better explained by more mundane causes.
Who said you were? And why do you keep adding these to your posts?
EMA have said it's safe, hopefully this will increase the uptake of the vaccine in Europe before a 3rd wave, if there is a 3rd wave will it be before the winter?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 07:28:13 PM
(chiefly derogatory) Someone who rejects the claims of conspiracy theories, believing that any observations or occurrences are better explained by more mundane causes.
Who said you were? And why do you keep adding these to your posts?
EMA have said it's safe, hopefully this will increase the uptake of the vaccine in Europe before a 3rd wave, if there is a 3rd wave will it be before the winter?
Did they say its safe?
I believe their words were that the benefits outweigh the risks.
I think they have embarked out a coincidence theorist outlook on the blood clotting.
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 07:39:23 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 07:28:13 PM
(chiefly derogatory) Someone who rejects the claims of conspiracy theories, believing that any observations or occurrences are better explained by more mundane causes.
Who said you were? And why do you keep adding these to your posts?
EMA have said it's safe, hopefully this will increase the uptake of the vaccine in Europe before a 3rd wave, if there is a 3rd wave will it be before the winter?
Did they say its safe?
I believe their words were that the benefits outweigh the risks.
I think they have embarked out a coincidence theorist outlook on the blood clotting.
Did they link the vaccine to blood clots? Also I've notice the birth control pill causes more blood clots, it's a good thing you don't take that
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 05:53:40 PM
Benefits outweighing the risks.
Move along, nothing to see here.
As with all drugs.
Quote from: thebigfella on March 18, 2021, 07:45:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 05:53:40 PM
Benefits outweighing the risks.
Move along, nothing to see here.
As with all drugs.
Depends if you're at risk in the first place.
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 07:47:39 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on March 18, 2021, 07:45:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 05:53:40 PM
Benefits outweighing the risks.
Move along, nothing to see here.
As with all drugs.
Depends if you're at risk in the first place.
Hopefully you don't take it, I'd be very disappointed to bump into you in some sunny destination
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 07:47:39 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on March 18, 2021, 07:45:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 05:53:40 PM
Benefits outweighing the risks.
Move along, nothing to see here.
As with all drugs.
Depends if you're at risk in the first place.
Er, the people who've been receiving the vaccine have been the ones at most risk.
You know, the aged, those with pre-existing conditions etc
Still, what do these people know?
There is no evidence the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine causes blood clots, say UK and EU regulators after a "thorough and careful review".
The MHRA and the EMA say people can have confidence in the vaccine's benefits and should get immunised, despite some countries pausing use. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56447367 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56447367)
"World Heath Organisation backs AstraZeneca Covid vaccine"
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1087222 (https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1087222)
Was out today breaking the law! Wearing no mask! Breaking the law breaking the law!
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 18, 2021, 08:01:04 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 07:47:39 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on March 18, 2021, 07:45:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 05:53:40 PM
Benefits outweighing the risks.
Move along, nothing to see here.
As with all drugs.
Depends if you're at risk in the first place.
Er, the people who've been receiving the vaccine have been the ones at most risk.
You know, the aged, those with pre-existing conditions etc
Still, what do these people know?
There is no evidence the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine causes blood clots, say UK and EU regulators after a "thorough and careful review".
The MHRA and the EMA say people can have confidence in the vaccine's benefits and should get immunised, despite some countries pausing use.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56447367 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56447367)
"World Heath Organisation backs AstraZeneca Covid vaccine"
https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1087222 (https://news.un.org/en/story/2021/03/1087222)
I would say that the fact we have made little progress in 12 months would suggest they don't know very much.
They know more than some bedroom bound WUM's I suspect
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 07:47:39 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on March 18, 2021, 07:45:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 05:53:40 PM
Benefits outweighing the risks.
Move along, nothing to see here.
As with all drugs.
Depends if you're at risk in the first place.
What you on about, ALL drugs have known side effects.... the benefit outweighs the risks from side effects
Quote from: thebigfella on March 18, 2021, 09:24:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 07:47:39 PM
Quote from: thebigfella on March 18, 2021, 07:45:13 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 18, 2021, 05:53:40 PM
Benefits outweighing the risks.
Move along, nothing to see here.
As with all drugs.
Depends if you're at risk in the first place.
What you on about, ALL drugs have known side effects.... the benefit outweighs the risks from side effects
The risks of Covid to u40s is minimal. Norwegian doctor made that point tonight of RTE. The people who died in Norway were at minimum risk of severe Covid so this is a huge worry for them and why they are investigating it seriously. Hard to disagree with his rationale.
Was it down to the vaccine?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:34:57 PM
Was it down to the vaccine?
Looks to be the most likely factor.
Unless you're a coincidence theorist.
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 07:42:27 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 18, 2021, 10:34:57 PM
Was it down to the vaccine?
Looks to be the most likely factor.
Unless you're a coincidence theorist.
Is that right? The most likely factor? hmmm that sounds a bit odd
Is it seasonal also?
Blood clotting death in Sweden too after the AZ vaccine
Vaccine still suspended in both countries as they investigate further.
"We obtained results that could explain the clinical evolution of our hospitalised patients," said Paal Andre Holme, a director of the national hospital in Oslo.
"These results support our theory... that these patients had a strong immune response which led to the formation of antibodies that could affect the (blood) platelets and lead to a thrombus" or blood clot, he added.
Asked if the death was caused by the vaccine, he replied: "I don't see any other possibility at this point," while emphasising that it was still a question of "indicators".
Will they stop birth control pill also?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 19, 2021, 07:57:10 AM
Will they stop birth control pill also?
If there are cases of fit and healthy people dying as a result of them then they should.
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 08:13:18 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 19, 2021, 07:57:10 AM
Will they stop birth control pill also?
If there are cases of fit and healthy people dying as a result of them then they should.
Been happening for years, young fit healthy women having clots in the brain for many years and its still in production..
Paracetamol:
you get a skin rash that may include itchy, red, swollen, blistered or peeling skin.
you're wheezing.
you get tightness in the chest or throat.
you have trouble breathing or talking.
your mouth, face, lips, tongue or throat start swelling.
Calcium tablets:
Calcium supplements may increase the incidence of constipation, severe diarrhea, and abdominal pain. 1,62 It highlights that calcium carbonate is more often associated with gastrointestinal side effects, including constipation, flatulence, and bloating.
All medications have issues with them. Thankfully they do more good than harm.
But the tin-hat brigade are out in force, 17 million vaccine jabs given out in Europe already, you have these cases which may or may not have had a reaction to it, has been given the green light by the EMA that this is good to go..
You said the majority of countries in Europe stopped using them, that was a wee fib, how many have stopped now?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 19, 2021, 08:49:41 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 08:13:18 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 19, 2021, 07:57:10 AM
Will they stop birth control pill also?
If there are cases of fit and healthy people dying as a result of them then they should.
Been happening for years, young fit healthy women having clots in the brain for many years and its still in production..
Paracetamol:
you get a skin rash that may include itchy, red, swollen, blistered or peeling skin.
you're wheezing.
you get tightness in the chest or throat.
you have trouble breathing or talking.
your mouth, face, lips, tongue or throat start swelling.
Calcium tablets:
Calcium supplements may increase the incidence of constipation, severe diarrhea, and abdominal pain. 1,62 It highlights that calcium carbonate is more often associated with gastrointestinal side effects, including constipation, flatulence, and bloating.
All medications have issues with them. Thankfully they do more good than harm.
But the tin-hat brigade are out in force, 17 million vaccine jabs given out in Europe already, you have these cases which may or may not have had a reaction to it, has been given the green light by the EMA that this is good to go..
You said the majority of countries in Europe stopped using them, that was a wee fib, how many have stopped now?
You're the one telling fibs here. Most countries who had approved AZ had paused or halted their vaccine programme for a number of days in light of this.
I named 17 of them. You seem to be under the illusion that every European country has approved the AZ vaccine which is not true.
So maybe get your facts right next time.
(https://www.thesun.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/ROB-ASTRAZENECA-MAP-v7-1.jpg)
That does not include all the countries who suspended the vaccine in Europe. Cyprus, Sweden, Portugal and Slovenia also suspended it too.
Neither does it include European countries yet to approve AZ such as Switzerland
Another case now of a 27 year old Georgian nurse in critical condition after her AZ vaccine.
https://agenda.ge/en/news/2021/729
Germany, France, Italy and Spain are some of the countries who have announed they are re-starting the use of Astra Zenica vaccines.
Emer Cooke, head of the European Medicines Agency, on Thursday said its investigation had concluded that the AstraZeneca vaccine was "not associated" with a potential risk of blood clots noted recently by some scientists, adding that the benefits of the shot outweighed possible risks.
The lunatic fringe will no doubt claim that she/EMA have been bought off by big pharma or some other conspiracy nonsense, but hopefully the Irish government will announce today they are re-starting the issuing of these vaccines as well
https://www.ft.com/content/c83944d5-ad26-415f-bf34-1eba428beeb9
Are you going to put up all the healthy people round Europe who have been hospitalised with covid without taking an vaccine as a comparison?
Quote from: dublin7 on March 19, 2021, 11:32:32 AM
Germany, France, Italy and Spain are some of the countries who have announed they are re-starting the use of Astra Zenica vaccines.
Emer Cooke, head of the European Medicines Agency, on Thursday said its investigation had concluded that the AstraZeneca vaccine was "not associated" with a potential risk of blood clots noted recently by some scientists, adding that the benefits of the shot outweighed possible risks.
The lunatic fringe will no doubt claim that she/EMA have been bought off by big pharma or some other conspiracy nonsense, but hopefully the Irish government will announce today they are re-starting the issuing of these vaccines as well
https://www.ft.com/content/c83944d5-ad26-415f-bf34-1eba428beeb9
Hmmmm.
Are the lunatic fringe the coincidence theorists that believe vaccines have absolutely no correlation with a growing number of serious illness or death in young people shortly after they are vaccinated?
The EMA were dismissing this as soon as it was announced. The medical experts in Norway seem to disagree with them. They must be part of a lunatic fringe.
Anyone who doesn't want the vaccine should move to the ROI. It'll be rolling lockdowns for the rest of the year. Their vaccination program along with the rest of Europe it has to be said is a disgrace. No vaccine = lockdown for you poor chaps.
Quote from: trailer on March 19, 2021, 11:49:13 AM
Anyone who doesn't want the vaccine should move to the ROI. It'll be rolling lockdowns for the rest of the year. Their vaccination program along with the rest of Europe it has to be said is a disgrace. No vaccine = lockdown for you poor chaps.
It is accelerating all the time though and everyone will be done by August. Pfizer have greatly increased their production and they have proved capable of delivering, both in Europe and the USA. Moderna are delivering twice as much also, and J&J are starting. Once you are in June Curevac will come on board. I haven't mentioned AZ but even they should manage more in Q2 than Q1.
It is a pity not to get done before the holiday season though.
Quote from: Louther on March 19, 2021, 11:33:14 AM
Are you going to put up all the healthy people round Europe who have been hospitalised with covid without taking an vaccine as a comparison?
The anti-vaxers are so far entrenched they will cling to anything to support their viewpoint. The absolute state of some of the recent posts. Rightly scorned now as I'm sure the modern anti-vaxers once poured scorn on the 'traditional' anti vaxers.
Quote from: JoG2 on March 19, 2021, 12:52:00 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 19, 2021, 11:33:14 AM
Are you going to put up all the healthy people round Europe who have been hospitalised with covid without taking an vaccine as a comparison?
The anti-vaxers are so far entrenched they will cling to anything to support their viewpoint. The absolute state of some of the recent posts. Rightly scorned now as I'm sure the modern anti-vaxers once poured scorn on the 'traditional' anti vaxers.
I'm not anti-vax. Once again you try and misrepresent anyone with a different view to you as a lunatic.
The concerns are real on this, in Norway they have concluded that vaccines were the cause of death of young, fit and healthy people. That's what the head of the Norwegian hospital has concluded.
Now are you going to label the head of a hospital as an anti-vax lunatic because they disagree with your bigoted viewpoint.
People have a right to have concerns on this vaccine and people like you who try to demonise people who express to concerns are an absolute blight on democracy and functional society.
Maybe tell the families and friends on those people that have died in Norway, Sweden and Austria now that they are anti-vaxxers because they have developed concerns as a result of what has happened.
The crass and ignorant arrogance off your post says it all about you.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 19, 2021, 12:31:40 PM
Pfizer have greatly increased their production and they have proved capable of delivering, both in Europe and the USA. Moderna are delivering twice as much also, and J&J are starting. Once you are in June Curevac will come on board. I haven't mentioned AZ but even they should manage more in Q2 than Q1.
As was pointed out the other day, almost half of the vaccines which AZ
have already delivered to the EU are yet to be used.
That's right, millions of AZ vaccine doses have been sitting unused in fridges around the continent, at the same time as EU politicians have been lacerating AZ for not delivering enough vaccines.
Which is just another example of politicians seeking to deflect the blame for their own incompetence onto others.
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 01:13:01 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on March 19, 2021, 12:52:00 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 19, 2021, 11:33:14 AM
Are you going to put up all the healthy people round Europe who have been hospitalised with covid without taking an vaccine as a comparison?
The anti-vaxers are so far entrenched they will cling to anything to support their viewpoint. The absolute state of some of the recent posts. Rightly scorned now as I'm sure the modern anti-vaxers once poured scorn on the 'traditional' anti vaxers.
I'm not anti-vax. Once again you try and misrepresent anyone with a different view to you as a lunatic.
The concerns are real on this, in Norway they have concluded that vaccines were the cause of death of young, fit and healthy people. That's what the head of the Norwegian hospital has concluded.
Now are you going to label the head of a hospital as an anti-vax lunatic because they disagree with your bigoted viewpoint.
People have a right to have concerns on this vaccine and people like you who try to demonise people who express to concerns are an absolute blight on democracy and functional society.
Maybe tell the families and friends on those people that have died in Norway, Sweden and Austria now that they are anti-vaxxers because they have developed concerns as a result of what has happened.
The crass and ignorant arrogance off your post says it all about you.
Amid major speculations and suspension of AstraZeneca's Covid-19 vaccine in several countries, the UK's medicines regulator assured that the vaccine is "safe and there is no evidence to suggest that the jabs are the cause behind blood clots as reported in some European countries."
Some countries in the European Union have temporarily suspended use of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine as a precautionary measure based on reports of rare blood coagulation disorders in persons who had received the vaccine. Other countries in the EU – having considered the same information - have decided to continue using the vaccine in their immunization programmes.
Vaccination against COVID-19 will not reduce illness or deaths from other causes. Thromboembolic events are known to occur frequently. Venous thromboembolism is the third most common cardiovascular disease globally.
In extensive vaccination campaigns, it is routine for countries to signal potential adverse events following immunization. This does not necessarily mean that the events are linked to vaccination itself, but it is good practice to investigate them. It also shows that the surveillance system works and that effective controls are in place.
WHO is in regular contact with the European Medicines Agency and regulators around the world for the latest information on COVID-19 vaccine safety. The WHO COVID-19 Subcommittee of the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety is carefully assessing the latest available safety data for the AstraZeneca vaccine. Once that review is completed, WHO will immediately communicate the findings to the public.
At this time, WHO considers that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh its risks and recommends that vaccinations continue.
Reports of blood clots in some people who received the AstraZeneca-Oxford shot led several countries — many of them in Europe — to temporarily stop using the vaccine. The World Health Organization said there's no link between the shot and an increased risk of developing blood clots and is investigating.
I suppose it depends on which tin foil hat Angelo is wearing
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 19, 2021, 01:22:18 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 01:13:01 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on March 19, 2021, 12:52:00 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 19, 2021, 11:33:14 AM
Are you going to put up all the healthy people round Europe who have been hospitalised with covid without taking an vaccine as a comparison?
The anti-vaxers are so far entrenched they will cling to anything to support their viewpoint. The absolute state of some of the recent posts. Rightly scorned now as I'm sure the modern anti-vaxers once poured scorn on the 'traditional' anti vaxers.
I'm not anti-vax. Once again you try and misrepresent anyone with a different view to you as a lunatic.
The concerns are real on this, in Norway they have concluded that vaccines were the cause of death of young, fit and healthy people. That's what the head of the Norwegian hospital has concluded.
Now are you going to label the head of a hospital as an anti-vax lunatic because they disagree with your bigoted viewpoint.
People have a right to have concerns on this vaccine and people like you who try to demonise people who express to concerns are an absolute blight on democracy and functional society.
Maybe tell the families and friends on those people that have died in Norway, Sweden and Austria now that they are anti-vaxxers because they have developed concerns as a result of what has happened.
The crass and ignorant arrogance off your post says it all about you.
Amid major speculations and suspension of AstraZeneca's Covid-19 vaccine in several countries, the UK's medicines regulator assured that the vaccine is "safe and there is no evidence to suggest that the jabs are the cause behind blood clots as reported in some European countries."
Some countries in the European Union have temporarily suspended use of the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine as a precautionary measure based on reports of rare blood coagulation disorders in persons who had received the vaccine. Other countries in the EU – having considered the same information - have decided to continue using the vaccine in their immunization programmes.
Vaccination against COVID-19 will not reduce illness or deaths from other causes. Thromboembolic events are known to occur frequently. Venous thromboembolism is the third most common cardiovascular disease globally.
In extensive vaccination campaigns, it is routine for countries to signal potential adverse events following immunization. This does not necessarily mean that the events are linked to vaccination itself, but it is good practice to investigate them. It also shows that the surveillance system works and that effective controls are in place.
WHO is in regular contact with the European Medicines Agency and regulators around the world for the latest information on COVID-19 vaccine safety. The WHO COVID-19 Subcommittee of the Global Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety is carefully assessing the latest available safety data for the AstraZeneca vaccine. Once that review is completed, WHO will immediately communicate the findings to the public.
At this time, WHO considers that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh its risks and recommends that vaccinations continue.
Reports of blood clots in some people who received the AstraZeneca-Oxford shot led several countries — many of them in Europe — to temporarily stop using the vaccine. The World Health Organization said there's no link between the shot and an increased risk of developing blood clots and is investigating.
I suppose it depends on which tin foil hat Angelo is wearing
So the Norwegians are conspiracy theorists now?
Good point, well argued.
The Coincidence Theorists have now decided that Norwegian Medical Experts are anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists.
https://www.thelocal.com/20210318/norwegian-experts-conclude-strong-immune-response-from-astrazeneca-vaccine-linked-to-blood-clots/
"We have found the cause. There is nothing but the vaccine that can explain the immune reaction that occurred," Pål Andre Holme, professor and chief physician at Oslo University Hospital told newspaper VG
He is an anti-vax conspiracy theorist I suppose.
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 01:13:01 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on March 19, 2021, 12:52:00 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 19, 2021, 11:33:14 AM
Are you going to put up all the healthy people round Europe who have been hospitalised with covid without taking an vaccine as a comparison?
The anti-vaxers are so far entrenched they will cling to anything to support their viewpoint. The absolute state of some of the recent posts. Rightly scorned now as I'm sure the modern anti-vaxers once poured scorn on the 'traditional' anti vaxers.
I'm not anti-vax. Once again you try and misrepresent anyone with a different view to you as a lunatic.
The concerns are real on this, in Norway they have concluded that vaccines were the cause of death of young, fit and healthy people. That's what the head of the Norwegian hospital has concluded.
Now are you going to label the head of a hospital as an anti-vax lunatic because they disagree with your bigoted viewpoint.
People have a right to have concerns on this vaccine and people like you who try to demonise people who express to concerns are an absolute blight on democracy and functional society.
Maybe tell the families and friends on those people that have died in Norway, Sweden and Austria now that they are anti-vaxxers because they have developed concerns as a result of what has happened.
The crass and ignorant arrogance off your post says it all about you.
I'm surprised Norway have got as far as vaccinating their young and healthy, they must be leading the way in Europe considering the UK still hasn't got to the under 50's yet.
Quote from: Maroon Manc on March 19, 2021, 01:46:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 01:13:01 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on March 19, 2021, 12:52:00 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 19, 2021, 11:33:14 AM
Are you going to put up all the healthy people round Europe who have been hospitalised with covid without taking an vaccine as a comparison?
The anti-vaxers are so far entrenched they will cling to anything to support their viewpoint. The absolute state of some of the recent posts. Rightly scorned now as I'm sure the modern anti-vaxers once poured scorn on the 'traditional' anti vaxers.
I'm not anti-vax. Once again you try and misrepresent anyone with a different view to you as a lunatic.
The concerns are real on this, in Norway they have concluded that vaccines were the cause of death of young, fit and healthy people. That's what the head of the Norwegian hospital has concluded.
Now are you going to label the head of a hospital as an anti-vax lunatic because they disagree with your bigoted viewpoint.
People have a right to have concerns on this vaccine and people like you who try to demonise people who express to concerns are an absolute blight on democracy and functional society.
Maybe tell the families and friends on those people that have died in Norway, Sweden and Austria now that they are anti-vaxxers because they have developed concerns as a result of what has happened.
The crass and ignorant arrogance off your post says it all about you.
I'm surprised Norway have got as far as vaccinating their young and healthy, they must be leading the way in Europe considering the UK still hasn't got to the under 50's yet.
They were frontline healthcare workers. Good health, no underlying conditions.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 19, 2021, 12:31:40 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 19, 2021, 11:49:13 AM
Anyone who doesn't want the vaccine should move to the ROI. It'll be rolling lockdowns for the rest of the year. Their vaccination program along with the rest of Europe it has to be said is a disgrace. No vaccine = lockdown for you poor chaps.
It is accelerating all the time though and everyone will be done by August. Pfizer have greatly increased their production and they have proved capable of delivering, both in Europe and the USA. Moderna are delivering twice as much also, and J&J are starting. Once you are in June Curevac will come on board. I haven't mentioned AZ but even they should manage more in Q2 than Q1.
It is a pity not to get done before the holiday season though.
The ROI vaccinated 300 people last Sunday. Three hundred. The government probably needed a lie down after all that hard work.
That's since been corrected. It was 303...
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 19, 2021, 01:53:35 PM
That's since been corrected. It was 303...
With those kind of numbers it's impossible to see a summer of any kind in the ROI. They haven't even got the hotel quarantine going yet.
Yeah I would say the summer is a write off. I also think it could be up here too as even if vaccinations are happening they do appear to be very very cautious.
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 19, 2021, 02:10:38 PM
Yeah I would say the summer is a write off. I also think it could be up here too as even if vaccinations are happening they do appear to be very very cautious.
That's very true but maybe I am over optimistic but I imagine (pray and hope) Restaurants and Beer Gardens at least to be open, Christ maybe even table service in a Pub!!
In the South I can't see any of that if I am honest.
3 people in Norway have died from Covid 19 under the age of 40 in the past 12 months.
2 people in Norway died from the vaccine in the past week
Just reflect on that for a minute.
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 02:18:15 PM
3 people in Norway have died from Covid 19 under the age of 40 in the past 12 months.
2 people in Norway died from the vaccine in the past week
Just reflect on that for a minute.
Duly reflected
keew tsap eht ni eniccav eht morf deid yawroN ni elpoep 2
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 02:18:15 PM
3 people in Norway have died from Covid 19 under the age of 40 in the past 12 months.
2 people in Norway died from the vaccine in the past week
Just reflect on that for a minute.
That really is quite staggering. After all your posts I had thought that Covid was absolutely no threat to anyone under 40. Now you're telling me that 3 people under 40 have died from covid. I don't know what to believe now.
Quote from: lenny on March 19, 2021, 02:32:23 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 02:18:15 PM
3 people in Norway have died from Covid 19 under the age of 40 in the past 12 months.
2 people in Norway died from the vaccine in the past week
Just reflect on that for a minute.
That really is quite staggering. After all your posts I had thought that Covid was absolutely no threat to anyone under 40. Now you're telling me that 3 people under 40 have died from covid. I don't know what to believe now.
By the timelines, the vaccine seems to be about 4 times more dangerous than the virus itself to the u40 category.
To attempt to get back on-topic:
I had the Pfizer Biontic jab on Tuesday. No problem with the injection and nothing out of the ordinary until early on Wednesday morning. I awoke with a throbbing pain in my vaccinatedd arm. I didn''t feel great- much the same as having a slight hangover.
Couldn't sleep on Wednesday night or last night either. Now, on Friday afternoon, I feel almost fully recovered.
The reaction was unpleasant while it lasted but, overall, I'm glad I was given the chance to get protected and I'd advise anyone who gets the chance to do so, not to hesitate
Differs dramatically from person to person.
I had my first Pfizer jab two weeks ago and had no ill effects apart from slightly sort arm at the injection site.
Bracing myself for the second one next week though! Apparently the second one is the tougher one, no matter which version you're going with.
My dad, mid 80s , has now had the both and , for once lol, hasn't complained about any of it.
This is a man who won't get the flu vaccine because he feels like crap after it.
Quote from: J70 on March 19, 2021, 03:01:18 PM
Differs dramatically from person to person.
I had my first Pfizer jab two weeks ago and had no ill effects apart from slightly sort arm at the injection site.
Bracing myself for the second one next week though! Apparently the second one is the tougher one, no matter which version you're going with.
I've had my second one. I usually react badly to flu vacc. I have had absolutely no symptoms from either apart from a very slightly sore arm. Most people I've spoken to give a similar story
The other half has the Pzifer and no affects after first, slight headache after second but could have been caused by the nightshift pattern she was on at the time.
The Mammy has had no issues either. And she doesn't take the flu jab.
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 02:18:15 PM
3 people in Norway have died from Covid 19 under the age of 40 in the past 12 months.
2 people in Norway died from the vaccine in the past week
Just reflect on that for a minute.
What about the 2018 flu crisis though? I've missed that
Finland now suspends the AZ vaccine after two cases of blood clotting.
Well, well, well.
The coincidence theorists will have a job trying to explain this one.
It's funny how the lads holding up the scandanavian countries like Norway and Finland as the template of managing the virus will now engage in mental gymnastics to say they are conspiracy theorists and anti-vax because they think the vaccines are causing serious illness and deaths.
The double standards is out of this world.
Dr. Steinar Madsen, Director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency, speaking yesterday after the EMA authorised use of the AZ vaccine (my emphasis):
He said Norway was in a "special situation" and has to take a "longer pause" to look into the problem but he said they are aware the vaccine is the only way out of the pandemic.
My guess is that like almost all the rest of Europe, they now accept that they should be using the AZ vaccine. However after the scare they've had domestically, they need to wait ("pause") before announcing it.
And consult 'Angelo'.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 19, 2021, 03:56:05 PM
Dr. Steinar Madsen, Director of the Norwegian Medicines Agency, speaking yesterday after the EMA authorised use of the AZ vaccine (my emphasis):
He said Norway was in a "special situation" and has to take a "longer pause" to look into the problem but he said they are aware the vaccine is the only way out of the pandemic.
My guess is that like almost all the rest of Europe, they now accept that they should be using the AZ vaccine. However after the scare they've had domestically, they need to wait ("pause") before announcing it.
And consult 'Angelo'.
Finland have just announced today they are suspending AZ vaccine
The EMA have dismissed these problems without any interest in investigation. Clearly the outlook in Scandanavian countries is that the AZ vaccine is causing serious illness and death in a demograph that would have a minimal chance of severe illness or death with Covid.
By the logic of the vaccine zealots here, Scandanavian countries are anti-vaxx.
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 04:00:05 PM
Finland have just announced today they are suspending AZ vaccine
The EMA have dismissed these problems without any interest in investigation. Clearly the outlook in Scandanavian countries is that the AZ vaccine is causing serious illness and death in a demograph that would have a minimal chance of severe illness or death with Covid.
Are you saying that the EMA didn't take
all data, including those from Scandinavia, into account before coming to their conclusion?
Or that they did look at it, but deliberately chose to ignore it, since it didn't suit them to accept it for some reason?
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 19, 2021, 04:10:59 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 04:00:05 PM
Finland have just announced today they are suspending AZ vaccine
The EMA have dismissed these problems without any interest in investigation. Clearly the outlook in Scandanavian countries is that the AZ vaccine is causing serious illness and death in a demograph that would have a minimal chance of severe illness or death with Covid.
Are you saying that the EMA didn't take all data, including those from Scandinavia, into account before coming to their conclusion?
Or that they did look at it, but deliberately chose to ignore it, since it didn't suit them to accept it for some reason?
It looks like it as there seems to be a huge conflict of opinions between the two.
The EMA seemed to dismiss any concerns from the get go. Their public utterances from the very start seemed to have been that it's fine and don't worry about what was bein said in Norway.
In Norway they still have the vaccine paused and have concluded that the vaccine was the the only possible cause of the blood clotting. Finland today have also gone against the EMA and halted the rollout of the AZ vaccine.
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-finland-vaccinations/finland-suspends-use-of-astrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-idUSS3N27V02G
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 19, 2021, 01:19:43 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 19, 2021, 12:31:40 PM
Pfizer have greatly increased their production and they have proved capable of delivering, both in Europe and the USA. Moderna are delivering twice as much also, and J&J are starting. Once you are in June Curevac will come on board. I haven't mentioned AZ but even they should manage more in Q2 than Q1.
As was pointed out the other day, almost half of the vaccines which AZ have already delivered to the EU are yet to be used.
That's right, millions of AZ vaccine doses have been sitting unused in fridges around the continent, at the same time as EU politicians have been lacerating AZ for not delivering enough vaccines.
Which is just another example of politicians seeking to deflect the blame for their own incompetence onto others.
As you might say yourself....
Link?
Here's that link from Angelo
HELSINKI (Reuters) - Finland has suspended the use of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine while it investigates two possible cases of blood clots, the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare said on Friday
German hospital identify treatment for blood clot
https://www.dw.com/en/astrazeneca-german-team-discovers-thrombosis-trigger/a-56925550
So if there is a diagnosis technique and a treatment, then all that is needed is for doctors to monitor people will symptoms after a vaccine.
Quote from: Rossfan on March 19, 2021, 05:00:50 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 19, 2021, 01:19:43 PM
As was pointed out the other day, almost half of the vaccines which AZ have already delivered to the EU are yet to be used.
That's right, millions of AZ vaccine doses have been sitting unused in fridges around the continent, at the same time as EU politicians have been lacerating AZ for not delivering enough vaccines.
Which is just another example of politicians seeking to deflect the blame for their own incompetence onto others.
As you might say yourself....
Link?
This isn't the source I heard, but it'll do the job:
"At the same time, some countries aren't using all the Oxford/AstraZeneca doses they do have. The most recent data available show the rate of administration — the doses used in each EU country versus the doses received — differs significantly by manufacturer. In Belgium, Hungary, the Netherlands and Slovenia, less than one-third of Oxford/AstraZeneca doses that were delivered have been administered up until March 7.
In Germany, where some people have reportedly turned down the offer to get vaccinated with the Oxford/AstraZeneca jab after the country's scientists raised concern over its efficacy in older populations, the administration rate for this vaccine is only slightly higher, with less than half of the AstraZeneca doses having been used."https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-covid19-vaccine-deliveries-in-europe-by-the-numbers/ (https://www.politico.eu/article/coronavirus-covid19-vaccine-deliveries-in-europe-by-the-numbers/)
Thanks EG.
They could pass them on to us then!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 19, 2021, 05:27:05 PM
Here's that link from Angelo
HELSINKI (Reuters) - Finland has suspended the use of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine while it investigates two possible cases of blood clots, the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare said on Friday
The coincidence theory being bandied about again.
Quote from: J70 on March 19, 2021, 03:01:18 PM
Differs dramatically from person to person.
I had my first Pfizer jab two weeks ago and had no ill effects apart from slightly sort arm at the injection site.
Bracing myself for the second one next week though! Apparently the second one is the tougher one, no matter which version you're going with.
Had my second shot of the moderna on Tuesday. First shot gave me a sore arm (enough to wake me during the night) but no other issues. Second shot gave me flu-like symptoms all Wednesday (ached all over, nausea), no aches Thursday, but some nausea. Mostly grand today.
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 06:04:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 19, 2021, 05:27:05 PM
Here's that link from Angelo
HELSINKI (Reuters) - Finland has suspended the use of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine while it investigates two possible cases of blood clots, the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare said on Friday
The coincidence theory being bandied about again.
It's your link ;D ;D ;D
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 19, 2021, 06:54:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 06:04:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 19, 2021, 05:27:05 PM
Here's that link from Angelo
HELSINKI (Reuters) - Finland has suspended the use of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine while it investigates two possible cases of blood clots, the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare said on Friday
The coincidence theory being bandied about again.
It's your link ;D ;D ;D
Yes which is why Finland has stopped the vaccine.
Maybe you should contact the Finnish govt and tell them it's just a coincidence.
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 06:56:46 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 19, 2021, 06:54:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 19, 2021, 06:04:06 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 19, 2021, 05:27:05 PM
Here's that link from Angelo
HELSINKI (Reuters) - Finland has suspended the use of AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine while it investigates two possible cases of blood clots, the Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare said on Friday
The coincidence theory being bandied about again.
It's your link ;D ;D ;D
Yes which is why Finland has stopped the vaccine.
Maybe you should contact the Finnish govt and tell them it's just a coincidence.
It's your post you used to show how dangerous it is ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Do you ever read the links?
I see Boris on the sky news website today giving 2 thumbs up after being given the astra zeneca virus. It reminds me somehow of Boris at the start of the pandemic saying he was visiting hospitals and shaking hands with everybody, then shortly afterwards catching covid and ending up in intensive care.
Quote from: Capt Pat on March 19, 2021, 10:58:03 PM
I see Boris on the sky news website today giving 2 thumbs up after being given the astra zeneca virus. It reminds me somehow of Boris at the start of the pandemic saying he was visiting hospitals and shaking hands with everybody, then shortly afterwards catching covid and ending up in intensive care.
He's one guy I'm hoping gets the Norway batch
33% of Daily Mail readers are anti-vaxxers
33% are mad to get the Johnson and Johnson vaccine because they think Boris and his oul fella invented it
The other 33% think it's a Big Pharma conspiracy that Johnson received a rival vaccine to the one they think he invented
Quote from: trailer on March 19, 2021, 01:52:48 PM
The ROI vaccinated 300 people last Sunday. Three hundred. The government probably needed a lie down after all that hard work.
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 19, 2021, 01:53:35 PM
That's since been corrected. It was 303...
Seriously?
Yesterday the UK administered 660,276 doses, making just over 26m on their first jab, with another 2m who've got their second.
Quote from: Rossfan on March 19, 2021, 05:49:37 PM
Thanks EG.
They could pass them on to us then!
Update from today's paper:
"Just over 12 per cent of the EU population has been vaccinated, while more than half of its stockpile of around 15 million AstraZeneca jabs remains unused."I wonder how the EU's lawsuit against AZ for non-delivery is going?
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 20, 2021, 02:13:21 PM
Yesterday the UK administered 660,276 doses, making just over 26m on their first jab, with another 2m who've got their second.
And most of those doses came from the EU and many of those secured by an opaque relationship with AZ who have not honoured their EU commitments.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 20, 2021, 02:18:13 PM
Update from today's paper:
"Just over 12 per cent of the EU population has been vaccinated, while more than half of its stockpile of around 15 million AstraZeneca jabs remains unused."
After a week when AZ was paused of course there is something of a stockpile, it won't take long to reduce that.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2021, 04:14:31 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 20, 2021, 02:13:21 PM
Quote from: trailer on March 19, 2021, 01:52:48 PM
Yesterday the UK administered 660,276 doses, making just over 26m on their first jab, with another 2m who've got their second.
And most of those doses came from the EU and many of those secured by an opaque relationship with AZ who have not honoured their EU commitments.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 20, 2021, 02:18:13 PM
Update from today's paper:
"Just over 12 per cent of the EU population has been vaccinated, while more than half of its stockpile of around 15 million AstraZeneca jabs remains unused."
After a week when AZ was paused of course there is something of a stockpile, it won't take long to reduce that.
The EU signed the deal with AZ for Vaccines the day before the UK government did. However the UK have an agreement that they get priority as they fund a lot of this research. So they get first dibs on the Vaccine. They inserted this clause into their funding conditions. Good clever business.
The EU have been shown up to be a f**king shambles in regard to their vaccination programme and every time UVL opens her mouth I worry about what she'll say.
Re the AZ non-delivery, 'Trailer' (I think) has already addressed why that is so.
And even if they didn't have good cause, how on earth cvan the EU complain about non-delivery if they haven't even used half the doses they have got!
As for the idea that "it won't take long" to reduce the stockpile after a one week pause, the stockile is at least 8m doses.
Which is more than eg France and Italy have adminstered in total after more than two months!
And that's for both AZ and Pfizer combined i.e. if they were to switch all their resources towards AZ, then their Pfizer stock would start backing up.
And that's if you can get people to accept the AZ vaccine. All this fecking about from Merckel and Macron etc has only fuelled vaccine hesitancy, not dispelled it.
Considering the UK's dreadful Covid record throughout 2020, I'm in no position to point-score or engage in vaccine nationalism etc.
But no-one can defend the EU's record on vaccination in 2021 - a total clusterfuck from the very beginning.
Quote from: trailer on March 20, 2021, 04:19:24 PM
The EU signed the deal with AZ for Vaccines the day before the UK government did. However the UK have an agreement that they get priority as they fund a lot of this research. So they get first dibs on the Vaccine. They inserted this clause into their funding conditions. Good clever business.
The EU have been shown up to be a f**king shambles in regard to their vaccination programme and every time UVL opens her mouth I worry about what she'll say.
This is not good business, it is crooked business. If you sign a contract with someone and they are secondary to another party then you have to inform them of this. This is especially important if it concerns a matter where thousands of people may die because of your actions. And of course large part of the Oxford research was funded by the EU.
The uk funded it for 100 million?
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 20, 2021, 04:49:45 PM
Re the AZ non-delivery, 'Trailer' (I think) has already addressed why that is so.
Trailer did nothing of the sort.
QuoteAs for the idea that "it won't take long" to reduce the stockpile after a one week pause, the stockile is at least 8m doses.
Which is more than eg France and Italy have adminstered in total after more than two months!
I think you are making it up, as of yesterday Italy has deployed 7.53m doses.
Quote
And that's if you can get people to accept the AZ vaccine. All this fecking about from Merckel and Macron etc has only fuelled vaccine hesitancy, not dispelled it.
I'm certainly not defending Macron. But the fact that AZ are lying about their supplies and haven't been approved in the US does not help.
Quote
But no-one can defend the EU's record on vaccination in 2021 - a total clusterfuck from the very beginning.
They ordered Pfizer, the ordered AZ, they even ordered Moderna, which the UK did not. Their strategy is not so different from the UK, except AZ will not deliver.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2021, 05:12:19 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 20, 2021, 04:49:45 PM
Re the AZ non-delivery, 'Trailer' (I think) has already addressed why that is so.
Trailer did nothing of the sort.
I said "I think" because someone fcuked up the reply order in an earlier post, so it wasn't clear.
Anyhow, someone posted:
"The EU signed the deal with AZ for Vaccines the day before the UK government did. However the UK have an agreement that they get priority as they fund a lot of this research. So they get first dibs on the Vaccine. They inserted this clause into their funding conditions. Good clever business.
The EU have been shown up to be a f**king shambles in regard to their vaccination programme and every time UVL opens her mouth I worry about what she'll say." I concur with that.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2021, 05:12:19 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 20, 2021, 04:49:45 PM
As for the idea that "it won't take long" to reduce the stockpile after a one week pause, the stockile is at least 8m doses.
Which is more than eg France and Italy have adminstered in total after more than two months!
I think you are making it up, as of yesterday Italy has deployed 7.53m doses.
Sorry, I hadn't noticed that the chart I was looking at was dated 01 March.
Nonetheless my general point stands - countries can't complain about not receiving supplies when they can't administer the supplies they do have.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2021, 05:12:19 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 20, 2021, 04:49:45 PM
And that's if you can get people to accept the AZ vaccine. All this fecking about from Merckel and Macron etc has only fuelled vaccine hesitancy, not dispelled it.
I'm certainly not defending Macron. But the fact that AZ are lying about their supplies and haven't been approved in the US does not help.
The alleged "lying" about delivery has nothing to do with people's belief in it's efficacy/safety.
And as for the USA, are you saying that the AZ vaccine isn't safe? Because if you are, then you and other doubters are contradicting the WHO, the EMA, the MHRA and most of the equivalent bodies in the member states of the EU.
Fact is, the mixed-messages from UVDL, Macron, Merckel and certain other political leaders has done FAR more damage to the case for immunisation than the two peripheral causes you cite.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2021, 05:12:19 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 20, 2021, 04:49:45 PM
But no-one can defend the EU's record on vaccination in 2021 - a total clusterfuck from the very beginning.
They ordered Pfizer, the ordered AZ, they even ordered Moderna, which the UK did not. Their strategy is not so different from the UK, except AZ will not deliver.
It's not a question of "strategy" - although being slower to approve the various vaccines than the UK certainly didn't help.
Nor is the problem one of non-delivery by AZ, when as I repeat, they haven't managed to administer all the doses they have received, whether AZ or otherwise. (Nor have they proven that AZ "lied" or broke its contract, at least not yet)
Instead the problem is down to (a ) muddled decision-making in Brussels; (b ) incompetent vaccine administration in member states; (c ) mixed messages from European political leaders; and (d ) high levels of vaccine hesitancy on the continent, much of which derives directly from the first three.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 20, 2021, 05:45:17 PM
Nor is the problem one of non-delivery by AZ, when as I repeat, they haven't managed to administer all the doses they have received, whether AZ or otherwise. (Nor have they proven that AZ "lied" or broke its contract, at least not yet)
The problem is one of non delivery by AZ, the rest are either less important or are related to this.
In particular, the politicians slagging AZ is definitely related to AZ reneging on its commitments. I'm not defending Macron, but the connection is there.
The breaking of the contract is a technical thing and slippery wording may save them. But on any moral level, AZ's behaviour has been a disgrace.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2021, 06:11:35 PM
The problem is one of non delivery by AZ, the rest are either less important or are related to this.
If they had long lines of people waiting to get vaccinated, and empty fridges, then you'd have a point.
But it's the other way round - full fridges and empty queues.
There was an example last month on TV, where they visited a brand new Vaccine centre which had just opened in the centre of Brussels. It had the capacity to treat 5,000 people per day, yet by closing time, only 200 had showed up.
And that's in the country which at that stage had the highest number of deaths per head of population in the whole of Europe.
But maybe you'd rather the EU stockpile was even bigger, at the expense of countries which
are willing and able to adminster it?
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2021, 06:11:35 PMIn particular, the politicians slagging AZ is definitely related to AZ reneging on its commitments.
The breaking of the contract is a technical thing and slippery wording may save them.
You simply don't know
that, since it has yet to be tested.
But if I had to guess what's behind this row, I'd plump for politicians desperately looking to point the finger of blame to others, to deflect from their own incompetence.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2021, 06:11:35 PM
But on any moral level, AZ's behaviour has been a disgrace.
If you listen to UVDL, perhaps.
But a much greater disgrace is countries stockpiling, but not administering, vaccines which save lives.
EG, you are happy to allow a pharma company renege on its commitments and allow thousands die and that is it OK with you so long as you can take a shot at EU politicians. Those politicians are self serving, of course, but that in no way excuses the behaviour of AZ or Oxford University that developed a top class vaccine but refused to make it available in the EU in order to pander to Brexiteers.
I presume the "stockpiling" referred to is by individual Countries and not the EU.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2021, 05:12:19 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 20, 2021, 04:49:45 PM
Re the AZ non-delivery, 'Trailer' (I think) has already addressed why that is so.
Trailer did nothing of the sort.
QuoteAs for the idea that "it won't take long" to reduce the stockpile after a one week pause, the stockile is at least 8m doses.
Which is more than eg France and Italy have adminstered in total after more than two months!
I think you are making it up, as of yesterday Italy has deployed 7.53m doses.
Quote
And that's if you can get people to accept the AZ vaccine. All this fecking about from Merckel and Macron etc has only fuelled vaccine hesitancy, not dispelled it.
I'm certainly not defending Macron. But the fact that AZ are lying about their supplies and haven't been approved in the US does not help.
Quote
But no-one can defend the EU's record on vaccination in 2021 - a total clusterfuck from the very beginning.
They ordered Pfizer, the ordered AZ, they even ordered Moderna, which the UK did not. Their strategy is not so different from the UK, except AZ will not deliver.
The UK has 17m Moderna on order among a lot of others https://www.cityam.com/which-covid-vaccines-has-the-uk-government-ordered/
Every step of the way the EUs vaccine response has been pathetic, blaming AZ is a new and barely credible string to the bow. as I've said before on here some posters seem oblivious to vaccine public opinion across the world, they continue to defend ROI & EU approach blindly.
In regards to the EU attitude to AZ, as David Baddies tweeted - "The food here is terrible - and the portions are so small".
What is "vaccine public opinion across the world"?.
How is the ROI to give vaccines they haven't got?
Quote from: Rossfan on March 20, 2021, 07:23:45 PM
What is "vaccine public opinion across the world"?.
How is the ROI to give vaccines they haven't got?
That the EU vaccine acquisition plan & roll out has been and continues to be a disaster; pretty much answers both parts of your response.
Quote from: bennydorano on March 20, 2021, 07:08:19 PM
The UK has 17m Moderna on order among a lot of others https://www.cityam.com/which-covid-vaccines-has-the-uk-government-ordered
However, they were late to order and did not order for Q1. According to people here, this entitles Moderna to now renege on their order as it suits them.
Quote from: bennydoranoEvery step of the way the EUs vaccine response has been pathetic, blaming AZ is a new and barely credible string to the bow. as I've said before on here some posters seem oblivious to vaccine public opinion across the world, they continue to defend ROI & EU approach blindly.
Why shouldn't we blame AZ, they took the order and haven't fulfilled it. That does not say that the EU were perfect, but whatever the EU did it does not change that AZ are a disgrace.
What on earth is vaccine public opinion across the world?
Sure the European countries won't take it now anyways... the damage is done, seems there's lots of Angelos in Europe
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2021, 06:53:43 PM
EG, you are happy to allow a pharma company renege on its commitments...
It has not been proven that that AZ "reneged". The Commission has claimed that it has, AZ's defence is that it was only required to use its best endeavours (to fulfil the order).
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2021, 06:53:43 PM
... and allow thousands [to] die
It is the governments who cannot persuade their citizens to accept the vaccine, and/or those which already HAVE vaccine in stock, but are unable to get it out of the fridge and into arms, who are to blame for avoidable deaths.
As I say, if the EU's stocks had run out; and people were begging for them; and had AZ been proven to have broken their contract, then you'd have a case.
But the first two don't apply (quite the reverse, in fact) and the third has not yet been determined.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2021, 06:53:43 PM
... that is it OK with you so long as you can take a shot at EU politicians.
So it's not my case you're concerned about, rather it's my motives. Or more accurately the motives which you assign to me.
Well not that it's any of your business, but I was a solid Remainer, who has no time for Johnson, Farage or any of the Brexit lot.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 20, 2021, 06:53:43 PM
Those politicians are self serving, of course, but that in no way excuses the behaviour of AZ or Oxford University that developed a top class vaccine but refused to make it available in the EU in order to pander to Brexiteers.
Why would Oxford University, an institution more usually associated with progressive, liberal values etc, want to "pander to Brexiteers"?
And as for AZ, you are aware where the "Astra" bit comes from?
"Astra AB was a former international pharmaceutical company headquartered in Södertälje, Sweden. Astra was formed in 1913 and merged with the British Zeneca Group in 1999 to form AstraZeneca."Sweden is part of the EU itself, in case you'd forgotten... ::)
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 07:45:36 PM
Sure the European countries won't take it now anyways... the damage is done, seems there's lots of Angelos in Europe
Some of us have a free mind and question things and don't openly swallow whatever the Tories tell us to do.
Maybe someday you will evolve.
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 08:37:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 07:45:36 PM
Sure the European countries won't take it now anyways... the damage is done, seems there's lots of Angelos in Europe
Some of us have a free mind and question things and don't openly swallow whatever the Tories tell us to do.
Maybe someday you will evolve.
Tories?
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 20, 2021, 07:50:54 PM
It is the governments who cannot persuade their citizens to accept the vaccine, and/or those which already HAVE vaccine in stock, but are unable to get it out of the fridge and into arms, who are to blame for avoidable deaths.
As I say, if the EU's stocks had run out; and people were begging for them; and had AZ been proven to have broken their contract, then you'd have a case.
This is mere whataboutery, which is to be expected, I suppose. First of all not all governments have been tardy in using the vaccine. But even for those who have, if that did a push they could remove the stockpile by the end of the month. If they did so, do you think that AZ would then honour their commitments? You know very well that the would not. The stockpile is undesirable in itself, but it has nothing to do with the failure of AZ.
Quote from: Evil Genius
Why would Oxford University, an institution more usually associated with progressive, liberal values etc, want to "pander to Brexiteers"?
It is the more the case that they concentrated on serving Britain and on having a cheap product for the Third World (this is admirable). They did not make any effort in the developed world, although given the age profile of Covid victims that is where their vaccine would do most good. However, these aims were not mutually exclusive, they could have ensured supply in Britain and in Europe, they just didn't thlnk the latter important.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 09:16:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 08:37:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 07:45:36 PM
Sure the European countries won't take it now anyways... the damage is done, seems there's lots of Angelos in Europe
Some of us have a free mind and question things and don't openly swallow whatever the Tories tell us to do.
Maybe someday you will evolve.
Tories?
Yes.
You take your direction on the AZ vaccine from Tories.
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 09:47:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 09:16:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 08:37:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 07:45:36 PM
Sure the European countries won't take it now anyways... the damage is done, seems there's lots of Angelos in Europe
Some of us have a free mind and question things and don't openly swallow whatever the Tories tell us to do.
Maybe someday you will evolve.
Tories?
Yes.
You take your direction on the AZ vaccine from Tories.
I prefer to get it from respected groups like EMA, other experts and scientists who have more knowledge than the likes of you?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 10:23:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 09:47:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 09:16:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 08:37:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 07:45:36 PM
Sure the European countries won't take it now anyways... the damage is done, seems there's lots of Angelos in Europe
Some of us have a free mind and question things and don't openly swallow whatever the Tories tell us to do.
Maybe someday you will evolve.
Tories?
Yes.
You take your direction on the AZ vaccine from Tories.
I prefer to get it from respected groups like EMA, other experts and scientists who have more knowledge than the likes of you?
Here is what Kary Mullis, inventor of the RT-PCR test, had to say about Fauci, the "expert" of the "experts". Mullis died August 2019, his invention would not be the gold standard test for diagnosing "COVID 19" if he were alive today.
https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1369720747313098753 (https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1369720747313098753)
So you prefer the knowledge from Angelo a random user on the internet?
Quote from: Seamus on March 21, 2021, 12:03:44 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 10:23:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 09:47:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 09:16:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 08:37:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 07:45:36 PM
Sure the European countries won't take it now anyways... the damage is done, seems there's lots of Angelos in Europe
Some of us have a free mind and question things and don't openly swallow whatever the Tories tell us to do.
Maybe someday you will evolve.
Tories?
Yes.
You take your direction on the AZ vaccine from Tories.
I prefer to get it from respected groups like EMA, other experts and scientists who have more knowledge than the likes of you?
Here is what Kary Mullis, inventor of the RT-PCR test, had to say about Fauci, the "expert" of the "experts". Mullis died August 2019, his invention would not be the gold standard test for diagnosing "COVID 19" if he were alive today.
https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1369720747313098753 (https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1369720747313098753)
I'd defo say Fauci had him murdered
Quote from: sid waddell on March 21, 2021, 12:18:29 AM
Quote from: Seamus on March 21, 2021, 12:03:44 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 10:23:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 09:47:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 09:16:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 08:37:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 07:45:36 PM
Sure the European countries won't take it now anyways... the damage is done, seems there's lots of Angelos in Europe
Some of us have a free mind and question things and don't openly swallow whatever the Tories tell us to do.
Maybe someday you will evolve.
Tories?
Yes.
You take your direction on the AZ vaccine from Tories.
I prefer to get it from respected groups like EMA, other experts and scientists who have more knowledge than the likes of you?
Here is what Kary Mullis, inventor of the RT-PCR test, had to say about Fauci, the "expert" of the "experts". Mullis died August 2019, his invention would not be the gold standard test for diagnosing "COVID 19" if he were alive today.
https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1369720747313098753 (https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1369720747313098753)
I'd defo say Fauci had him murdered
Did you claim that 2 million bucks yet?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 10:23:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 09:47:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 09:16:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 08:37:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 07:45:36 PM
Sure the European countries won't take it now anyways... the damage is done, seems there's lots of Angelos in Europe
Some of us have a free mind and question things and don't openly swallow whatever the Tories tell us to do.
Maybe someday you will evolve.
Tories?
Yes.
You take your direction on the AZ vaccine from Tories.
I prefer to get it from respected groups like EMA, other experts and scientists who have more knowledge than the likes of you?
What about the experts in Norway?
Seems like there is a lot of hypocrisy to what you say.
Will they stop birth control pills ?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2021, 10:01:22 AM
Will they stop birth control pills ?
If they are causing deaths of young and healthy people I'm sure they will look at it too.
I'm happy your hypocrisy has been exposed and your pathetic hiding behind "experts" has also shown to be hollow and sincere.
Easy to know which poster has never once in his life had any reason to think about anything to do with birth control pills
Quote from: Angelo on March 21, 2021, 10:40:06 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2021, 10:01:22 AM
Will they stop birth control pills ?
If they are causing deaths of young and healthy people I'm sure they will look at it too.
I'm happy your hypocrisy has been exposed and your pathetic hiding behind "experts" has also shown to be hollow and sincere.
Your hypocrisy is ten fold, you were calling for acceptable deaths! Spin merchant
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2021, 11:04:17 AM
Quote from: Angelo on March 21, 2021, 10:40:06 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2021, 10:01:22 AM
Will they stop birth control pills ?
If they are causing deaths of young and healthy people I'm sure they will look at it too.
I'm happy your hypocrisy has been exposed and your pathetic hiding behind "experts" has also shown to be hollow and sincere.
Your hypocrisy is ten fold, you were calling for acceptable deaths! Spin merchant
And now you are.
I never called deaths acceptable. You say deaths are unacceptable with Covid but are happy for people to be killed by a vaccine seemingly.
Some double standards.
You said we accept deaths every year, when will these deaths (Covid) become acceptable.
You're all over the shop, all I've stated is the EMA have said the vaccine is safe
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2021, 11:48:39 AM
You said we accept deaths every year, when will these deaths (Covid) become acceptable.
You're all over the shop, all I've stated is the EMA have said the vaccine is safe
We accept deaths.
And the Norwegian Medical Experts clearly disagree with the EMA.
You're the one having to rail back on your own "experts" line. What's your issue with the Medical Experts in Norway? Are they anti-vax or conspiracy theorists?
The anti crew were down on Benone beach protesting yesterday by all accounts. Ireland's Freedom something or other. Protesting against lockdowns, masks, vaccines, civil liberty, Bill Gates, some reset or other etc. Among the keynote speakers were Anne McCloskey and that gym owner from Newry. Christ on a stick
https://www.rte.ie/news/2021/0321/1205220-lockdown-protest-dublin-court/
Ages of some of the cnuts ffs!
Another unqualified Tory Brexiteer who gets all his information from YouTube videos speaks:
Professor Luke O'Neill*
Pausing use of AstraZeneca vaccine like throwing away an extinguisher while fire rages
We won't get out of this mess by the autumn if we pause our vaccination programme again like we did last week
It has been a challenging week in the world of Covid-19 vaccines. As with most things in life, there are bumps in the road. The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine hit a big bump last Sunday. This bump led to the car stopping. The Irish Government paused the use of this highly-efficacious and safe vaccine; 30,000 people who were due to be vaccinated were told: "Sorry, not this week."
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/pausing-use-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-like-throwing-away-an-extinguisher-while-fire-rages-40220993.html (https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/pausing-use-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-like-throwing-away-an-extinguisher-while-fire-rages-40220993.html)
To put this 30k vaccinations into context, yesterday (i.e. one day) the UK passed a new record for vaccinations, with 873,784 jabs given. At one stage, they were actually administering 20 jabs a second, in England alone. Which means that before today, 27.6m people in the UK i.e. more than half the adult population, have received at least one dose.
As for the claim on this forum yesterday that Oxford University and AZ are carrying out some sort of anti-EU/Brexiteer conspiracy (fcuk me, I'm still laughing at that one), everything is pointing to the exact opposite.
Namely that already angered by the UK leaving, the EU is being increasingly embarrassed by the UK's vaccination success showing up their own failure, so they're lashing out at anything and everything British to try and discredit us.
(When I typed that last bit, do not infer that I am claiming that the EU is being uniquely venal with this sort of carry on. Rather it seems to me that it is just the sort of thing that ALL politicians are capable of doing when under pressure. However, it is particularly egregious in this case, since we are talking here a matter of life and death. Literally.)
* - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_A._J._O'Neill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_A._J._O'Neill)
Would I be right in saying that the above makes Prof. O'Neill the Republic's leading immunologist?
Quote from: Angelo on March 21, 2021, 11:50:38 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2021, 11:48:39 AM
You said we accept deaths every year, when will these deaths (Covid) become acceptable.
You're all over the shop, all I've stated is the EMA have said the vaccine is safe
We accept deaths.
And the Norwegian Medical Experts clearly disagree with the EMA.
You're the one having to rail back on your own "experts" line. What's your issue with the Medical Experts in Norway? Are they anti-vax or conspiracy theorists?
Two organisations Ema, WHO have both said it's safe, they are creditable. More creditable than your ramblings.
What's Norway's medical experts doing? I suppose they are being extra careful. But globally it's a lot safer than the millions of deaths which have happened so far, though to you, those deaths are acceptable
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 21, 2021, 06:00:38 PM
As for the claim on this forum yesterday that Oxford University and AZ are carrying out some sort of anti-EU/Brexiteer conspiracy (fcuk me, I'm still laughing at that one), everything is pointing to the exact opposite.
OK, then, since you obviously have great insight then you tell us why the Oxford vaccine is not available in the EU to those who need it. And please don't come back with stories of it not being deployed, I am asking why it is not being supplied.
QuoteNamely that already angered by the UK leaving, the EU is being increasingly embarrassed by the UK's vaccination success showing up their own failure, so they're lashing out at anything and everything British to try and discredit us.
So did those pesky EU people kill those people in Norway just to discredit the vaccine?
Quote
Would I be right in saying that the above makes Prof. O'Neill the Republic's leading immunologist?
He is certainly the one that talks the most. The point is when the fire alarm goes off you investigate and then go back to your desk. There was an alarm, it was investigated, normal service has resumed. A delay of one week in getting a vaccine may have some adverse effects, but modest ones. There is so little AZ vaccine that they can easily catch up.
Quote from: sid waddell on March 21, 2021, 12:18:29 AM
Quote from: Seamus on March 21, 2021, 12:03:44 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 10:23:41 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 09:47:29 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 09:16:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 20, 2021, 08:37:30 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 20, 2021, 07:45:36 PM
Sure the European countries won't take it now anyways... the damage is done, seems there's lots of Angelos in Europe
Some of us have a free mind and question things and don't openly swallow whatever the Tories tell us to do.
Maybe someday you will evolve.
Tories?
Yes.
You take your direction on the AZ vaccine from Tories.
I prefer to get it from respected groups like EMA, other experts and scientists who have more knowledge than the likes of you?
Here is what Kary Mullis, inventor of the RT-PCR test, had to say about Fauci, the "expert" of the "experts". Mullis died August 2019, his invention would not be the gold standard test for diagnosing "COVID 19" if he were alive today.
https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1369720747313098753 (https://twitter.com/LegendaryEnergy/status/1369720747313098753)
I'd defo say Fauci had him murdered
Probably got the raa to do it.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 21, 2021, 06:26:25 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 21, 2021, 06:00:38 PM
As for the claim on this forum yesterday that Oxford University and AZ are carrying out some sort of anti-EU/Brexiteer conspiracy (fcuk me, I'm still laughing at that one), everything is pointing to the exact opposite.
OK, then, since you obviously have great insight then you tell us why the Oxford vaccine is not available in the EU to those who need it. And please don't come back with stories of it not being deployed, I am asking why it is not being supplied.
QuoteNamely that already angered by the UK leaving, the EU is being increasingly embarrassed by the UK's vaccination success showing up their own failure, so they're lashing out at anything and everything British to try and discredit us.
So did those pesky EU people kill those people in Norway just to discredit the vaccine?
Quote
Would I be right in saying that the above makes Prof. O'Neill the Republic's leading immunologist?
He is certainly the one that talks the most. The point is when the fire alarm goes off you investigate and then go back to your desk. There was an alarm, it was investigated, normal service has resumed. A delay of one week in getting a vaccine may have some adverse effects, but modest ones. There is so little AZ vaccine that they can easily catch up.
Today's Sunday Times:
UVDL's attempt to pin the blame on supply difficulties appeared at odds with complaints last week by Stella Kyriakides, the EU Health Commissioner, that member states were sitting on "reservoirs of vaccines" that they had yet to inject.
These are thought to be as many as 14million doses.
Quote from: bennydorano on March 21, 2021, 06:58:54 PM
Today's Sunday Times:
UVDL's attempt to pin the blame on supply difficulties appeared at odds with complaints last week by Stella Kyriakides, the EU Health Commissioner, that member states were sitting on "reservoirs of vaccines" that they had yet to inject. These are thought to be as many as 14million doses.
I was referring to the ROI, the EU has all sort of different situations in different places and I am not familiar with these.
The ROI has no great stockpile of vaccines, they generally inject them within a week or so.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 21, 2021, 06:26:25 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 21, 2021, 06:00:38 PM
As for the claim on this forum yesterday that Oxford University and AZ are carrying out some sort of anti-EU/Brexiteer conspiracy (fcuk me, I'm still laughing at that one), everything is pointing to the exact opposite.
OK, then, since you obviously have great insight then you tell us why the Oxford vaccine is not available in the EU to those who need it. And please don't come back with stories of it not being deployed, I am asking why it is not being supplied.
It has been supplied, literally millions of doses, half of which remain unused.
The point being that with more recent supplies being delayed, the EU is desperately trying to deflect blame from their own failings, so are lashing out at AZ/UK for a hiccup in sending out the latest batch. A batch which they weren't willing or able to administer even if they did receive it. ???
Meanwhile, as for why AZ haven't sent the latest batch to the EU, here is what the aforementioned Prof. O'Neill had to say on the matter:
Prof O'Neill said it was a "c**k-up" from Astrazeneca that led to one of their two European plants in the Netherlands not receiving authorisation to produce the vaccine for Europe. He said "the word is" that the shelves are lined with vaccines in this plant and once Astrazeneca provides all the requisite documentation to the EU, it should "clear the logjam".https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus/ridiculous-and-stupid-for-excess-vaccines-in-northern-ireland-to-not-be-given-to-the-republic-says-professor-luke-oneill-40191837.html (https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus/ridiculous-and-stupid-for-excess-vaccines-in-northern-ireland-to-not-be-given-to-the-republic-says-professor-luke-oneill-40191837.html)
So no "Conspiracy", just simple C**k-Up - as is often the case.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 21, 2021, 06:26:25 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 21, 2021, 06:00:38 PM
Namely that already angered by the UK leaving, the EU is being increasingly embarrassed by the UK's vaccination success showing up their own failure, so they're lashing out at anything and everything British to try and discredit us.
So did those pesky EU people kill those people in Norway just to discredit the vaccine?
It has not been established that the vaccine "killed those people", even by the Norwegians themselves.
And Correlation is not the same as Causation.
Nor is Coincidence, for that matter.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 21, 2021, 06:26:25 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 21, 2021, 06:00:38 PM
Would I be right in saying that the above makes Prof. O'Neill the Republic's leading immunologist?
He is certainly the one that talks the most.
He talks the most because he's got the most to say.
And from his position, experience and expertise, most people are happy to listen to what he has to say.
But on the basis that you seem to think you know better than him, and his findings are inconvenient for you, it must be disappointing that you can't discredit him for his knowledge or his motives and have to make do with sneering at the high profile he's achieved. You know, as the country's leading immunologist during a pandemic.
Which is beyond pathetic.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 21, 2021, 06:26:25 PM
The point is when the fire alarm goes off you investigate and then go back to your desk. There was an alarm, it was investigated, normal service has resumed. A delay of one week in getting a vaccine may have some adverse effects, but modest ones. There is so little AZ vaccine that they can easily catch up.
"Modest effects"? How many people died from Covid in ROI last week? And how many of them might have been saved had they had access to vaccinations?
Rather more than the 3 people currently being investigated in Norway, I'd hazard.
As for "so little" AZ vaccine, it has been reliably reported that the EU had millions of unused doses when the temporary ban was imposed.
And in any case, time spent administering AZ vaccine is time which cannot be spent administering Pfizer vaccine, the point being that most EU countries, incl ROI, cannot manage to administer all the vaccines, of all types, which they already have.
But I suppose that's all the fault of the Brits., too. ::)
Is there any media outlet that O'Neill isn't on?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2021, 06:02:28 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 21, 2021, 11:50:38 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 21, 2021, 11:48:39 AM
You said we accept deaths every year, when will these deaths (Covid) become acceptable.
You're all over the shop, all I've stated is the EMA have said the vaccine is safe
We accept deaths.
And the Norwegian Medical Experts clearly disagree with the EMA.
You're the one having to rail back on your own "experts" line. What's your issue with the Medical Experts in Norway? Are they anti-vax or conspiracy theorists?
Two organisations Ema, WHO have both said it's safe, they are creditable. More creditable than your ramblings.
What's Norway's medical experts doing? I suppose they are being extra careful. But globally it's a lot safer than the millions of deaths which have happened so far, though to you, those deaths are acceptable
Extra careful.
They have concluded that the two deaths could only be possibly down to the vaccine. Two deaths from a population subset with a minimal chance of serious illness form Covid.
Millions of deaths you are happy with as being 'acceptable' and two possible deaths related to the vaccine, now you are coming across thick
How predictable that the nutcase who was complaining about scaremongering all winter is now scaremongering himself
That's hypocrisy for ya ;D
Quote from: sid waddell on March 21, 2021, 08:09:09 PM
How predictable that the nutcase who was complaining about scaremongering all winter is now scaremongering himself
That's hypocrisy for ya ;D
He shoots!
He scores!
Back of the net! :D
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 21, 2021, 06:00:38 PM
Another unqualified Tory Brexiteer who gets all his information from YouTube videos speaks:
Professor Luke O'Neill*
Pausing use of AstraZeneca vaccine like throwing away an extinguisher while fire rages
We won't get out of this mess by the autumn if we pause our vaccination programme again like we did last week
It has been a challenging week in the world of Covid-19 vaccines. As with most things in life, there are bumps in the road. The Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine hit a big bump last Sunday. This bump led to the car stopping. The Irish Government paused the use of this highly-efficacious and safe vaccine; 30,000 people who were due to be vaccinated were told: "Sorry, not this week."
https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/pausing-use-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-like-throwing-away-an-extinguisher-while-fire-rages-40220993.html (https://www.independent.ie/world-news/coronavirus/pausing-use-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-like-throwing-away-an-extinguisher-while-fire-rages-40220993.html)
To put this 30k vaccinations into context, yesterday (i.e. one day) the UK passed a new record for vaccinations, with 873,784 jabs given. At one stage, they were actually administering 20 jabs a second, in England alone. Which means that before today, 27.6m people in the UK i.e. more than half the adult population, have received at least one dose.
As for the claim on this forum yesterday that Oxford University and AZ are carrying out some sort of anti-EU/Brexiteer conspiracy (fcuk me, I'm still laughing at that one), everything is pointing to the exact opposite.
Namely that already angered by the UK leaving, the EU is being increasingly embarrassed by the UK's vaccination success showing up their own failure, so they're lashing out at anything and everything British to try and discredit us.
(When I typed that last bit, do not infer that I am claiming that the EU is being uniquely venal with this sort of carry on. Rather it seems to me that it is just the sort of thing that ALL politicians are capable of doing when under pressure. However, it is particularly egregious in this case, since we are talking here a matter of life and death. Literally.)
* - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_A._J._O'Neill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luke_A._J._O'Neill)
Would I be right in saying that the above makes Prof. O'Neill the Republic's leading immunologist?
Don't quite understand what point you are making here, EG.
I see nothing wrong with O'Neill's assertion that;
"Pausing use of AstraZeneca vaccine like throwing away an extinguisher while fire rages
We won't get out of this mess by the autumn if we pause our vaccination programme again like we did last week"
Where's your issue with the above?
Yet, you appear to side with the generally accepted view that the decision to halt the use of this vaccine was based on venal (political) motives. That's the majority view in this country at least and O'Neill clearly agrees with the majority.
And, yes, he is widely regarded as Ireland's leading immunologist, judging by his frequent appearances on a variety of TV programs on a number of TV channels and his contributions to a large number of newspapers. (I haven't been keeping a count so, obviously, I am underestimating) but without doubt, his opinions are in widely accepted.
(I cannot recall any occasion any other immunologist has been interviewed or quoted in any news outlet -- or local community newsletter for that matter.)
So, once again, what's your problem with O'Neill?
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 22, 2021, 12:47:19 AM
So, once again, what's your problem with O'Neill?
EG has no problem with O'Neill, he thinks that I do.
I disagree with O'Neill that a pause of a few days is not an appropriate thing to do to investigate these incidents. This is a not technical scientific question but one of public policy.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 22, 2021, 12:53:07 AM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 22, 2021, 12:47:19 AM
So, once again, what's your problem with O'Neill?
EG has no problem with O'Neill, he thinks that I do.
I disagree with O'Neill that a pause of a few days is not an appropriate thing to do to investigate these incidents. This is a not technical scientific question but one of public policy.
Jaysus, I was worried for a while! ;D
And yes, I understand where you are coming from but I still think Merkel, Macron et all had ulterior (ie political) motives when they backed the suspension of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 22, 2021, 12:59:23 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 22, 2021, 12:53:07 AM
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 22, 2021, 12:47:19 AM
So, once again, what's your problem with O'Neill?
EG has no problem with O'Neill, he thinks that I do.
I disagree with O'Neill that a pause of a few days is not an appropriate thing to do to investigate these incidents. This is a not technical scientific question but one of public policy.
Jaysus, I was worried for a while! ;D
And yes, I understand where you are coming from but I still think Merkel, Macron et all had ulterior (ie political) motives when they backed the suspension of the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Yes, on this at least(!) 'Armaghniac' has got it right: I do agree with O'Neill and do fear that both Macron and Merckel are more interested in the Politics than the Science - they've both got elections coming up, after all.
In particular, they are both trying to impress on the electorate that they take the public's safety very seriously by eg pausing the AZ vaccine. Which on the face of it seems reasonable, except that by constantly talking about safety and side-effects etc, it actually spooks people rather than reassuring them. (For example, if I asked you to think of any animal you like except an elephant, the first one you'd think of would be... an elephant!)
Now fair enough if they genuinely believed there was a significant risk - anyone can miscalculate, even experienced operators like those two. But when their own advisers and the EMA and the WHO were telling them not to pause the roll-out, that prioritising of the political optics over the science on so serious a matter was shamefully inexcusable (imo).
Worse still, leaders in other, smaller countries like ROI will have been very reluctant to go against their example, or break with EU solidarity, meaning that the consequences of their miscalculation and politicking migrated far beyond their own borders.
Leading to this situation from as far back as a month ago:
Germany's Covid vaccine stocks unused because people don't want AstraZeneca jab
Incorrect claims about jab, including by French president Emmanuel Macron, are 'major problem', expert says
More than a million people in Germany are being left at risk of Covid because a "psychological problem" means stockpiles of AstraZeneca jabs are not being used, a leading vaccine expert has revealed.
Professor Thomas Mertens, who chairs Germany's Standing Commission on Vaccination which advises the government, admitted there was a "problem" persuading people to have the Oxford/AstraZeneca jabs due to flawed perceptions about its efficacy.
"We have about 1.4 million doses of AstraZeneca vaccine in store and only about 240,000 have been given to the people," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"We are working quite hard on this point and try to convince the people to accept the vaccine and really to gain the trust in the vaccine in the population.
"But as you may know this is some kind of psychological problem too and it will unfortunately take a little bit of time to reach this goal."https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/germans-covid-astrazeneca-oxford-vaccine-b921196.html (https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/germans-covid-astrazeneca-oxford-vaccine-b921196.html)
The EU whinging about vaccines and them not administering them and undermining the AZ jab is just f**king baffling. The EU has many many pros but it is shit at some things and this is one such example.
National Governments are in charge of the administering.
Meanwhile the evidence continues to pile up - even as AZ stocks are piling up in fridges across the continent...
Covid vaccine: US trial of AstraZeneca jab confirms safety
Results from the long-awaited US trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine are out and confirm that the shot is both safe and highly effective.
More than 32,000 volunteers took part, mostly in America, but also in Chile and Peru.
The vaccine was 79% effective at stopping symptomatic Covid disease and 100% effective at preventing people from falling seriously ill.
And there were no safety issues regarding blood clots.
More here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56479462 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56479462)
This comes on the back of this investigation:
AstraZeneca: UK and EU clot reviews confirm safety of vaccine
There is no evidence the AstraZeneca Covid vaccine causes blood clots, say UK and EU regulators after a "thorough and careful review".
The MHRA and the EMA say people can have confidence in the vaccine's benefits and should get immunised, despite some countries pausing use.
More here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56447367 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56447367)
In particular, put these two findings side by side:
"In the UK, five cases of cerebral sinus vein thrombosis (CSVT), among 11 million people who have received the vaccine, occurred in men aged between 19 and 59. One of these was fatal.
CSVT can occur naturally and no link to the vaccine has been established. The patients also had low blood platelet counts - cells involved with clotting.
Covid infection can make clots more likely."
and
"The vaccine was 79% effective at stopping symptomatic Covid disease and 100% effective at preventing people from falling seriously ill."
One fatality amongst 11 million vaccinated people, which may not even have been due to the vaccine, versus 100% protection from falling seriously ill from covid.
And still some morons continue to point to an infinitesimally tiny, and as yet unproven, "risk" from taking the vaccine... ::)
Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2021, 01:34:14 PM
National Governments are in charge of the administering.
Ok
As of 19th March ROI has administered 129,000 AZ vaccines, cost $3-4 each, compared to over 0.5m of Pfizer @ $20 a pop. The EU currently has an estimated 13m AZ vaccines unused in storage across various countries.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/covid-19-vaccine-tracker-what-s-available-in-the-republic-of-ireland-and-what-else-is-coming-1.4481095?mode=amp#how%20many%20vaccinated
Quote from: bennydorano on March 22, 2021, 02:58:13 PM
As of 19th March ROI has administered 129 AZ vaccines, cost $3-4 each, compared to over 0.5m of Pfizer @ $20 a pop. The EU currently has an estimated 13m AZ vaccines unused in storage across various countries.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/covid-19-vaccine-tracker-what-s-available-in-the-republic-of-ireland-and-what-else-is-coming-1.4481095?mode=amp#how%20many%20vaccinated
Laughable
ROI and the EU not covering itself in glory on this topic I'm afraid.
129,000 AZ as of last Friday
https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/pages/vaccinations
But sure don't ket the truth get in the way.
Apologies, dodgy Irish Times presentation of data.
Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2021, 03:39:49 PM
129,000 AZ as of last Friday
https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/pages/vaccinations
But sure don't ket the truth get in the way.
By your figures, ROI had administered 668,529 vaccine doses as of 19 March.
As of 18 March, NI had administered 713,392:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948)
And as you will know, the population of ROI is nearly 2 1/2 x times that of NI.
"Ain't that the truth!"
Btw, it gives me no pleasure to note that our neighbours are lagging behind, and not just because of the danger of cross-border transmission. For whether it's eg the UK's lamentable performance coping with the virus in 2020, or ROI's in administering the vaccine in 2021, both led/are leading to avoidable severe illness and the death of ordinary people.
Quote from: bennydorano on March 22, 2021, 03:44:11 PM
Apologies, dodgy Irish Times presentation of data.
Maybe, but you were willing to believe that the number was only 129, which suggested a rather odd predisposition.
And the inclusion of the cost in this is completely misleading, I expect the low price of these is why they haven't bothered to produce enough.
Better to have a vaccine that costs more but you can get it than a cheap one where the producer reneges on their orders.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 22, 2021, 04:09:28 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 22, 2021, 03:44:11 PM
Apologies, dodgy Irish Times presentation of data.
Maybe, but you were willing to believe that the number was only 129, which suggested a rather odd predisposition.
And the inclusion of the cost in this is completely misleading, I expect the low price of these is why they haven't bothered to produce enough.
Better to have a vaccine that costs more but you can get it than a cheap one where the producer reneges on their orders.
Are you not the same boy who was lauding the EU for not paying over the odds for contracts while the UK gambled to get early (yet more expensive deals) - and now there's a clear correlation between early action and actual delivery of product, do you still think it's laudable?
Quote from: armaghniac on March 22, 2021, 04:09:28 PM
... the inclusion of the cost in this is completely misleading, I expect the low price of these is why they haven't bothered to produce enough.
Better to have a vaccine that costs more but you can get it than a cheap one where the producer reneges on their orders.
Wtf!In return for receiving huge UK funding to develop the vaccine, AZ agreed to distribute it
at cost, not just to UK and EU, worldwide, for the duration of the pandemic. Indeed it was a condition of that funding that they do so.
Which is one reason why it is so cheap. Another reason is that being based on completely different science to Pfizer's vaccine, it is notably cheaper to manufacture, store and distribute etc. For example, the Pfizer vaccine has to be stored at -75 degrees to achieve maximum efficacy, whereas AZ can be stored at 2 - 8 degrees Celsius i.e. in an ordinary fridge:
https://cnnphilippines.com/world/2020/11/24/AstraZeneca-vaccine-comes-with-advantage-of-easier-storage--WHO-chief-scientist-says.html (https://cnnphilippines.com/world/2020/11/24/AstraZeneca-vaccine-comes-with-advantage-of-easier-storage--WHO-chief-scientist-says.html)
And there is still no proof whatever that AZ (an Anglo-Swedish* company btw) reneged on delivering orders to the EU, just a claim by an already severely discredited EU Commission which is under growing presuure from its own member states to account for its incompetence.
* - Or are you claiming that with Sweden a member of the EU, that a half-Swedish company would deliberately discriminate against its own and its fellow EU citizens? ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 04:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2021, 03:39:49 PM
129,000 AZ as of last Friday
https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/pages/vaccinations
But sure don't ket the truth get in the way.
By your figures, ROI had administered 668,529 vaccine doses as of 19 March.
As of 18 March, NI had administered 713,392:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948)
And as you will know, the population of ROI is nearly 2 1/2 x times that of NI.
"Ain't that the truth!"
Btw, it gives me no pleasure to note that our neighbours are lagging behind, and not just because of the danger of cross-border transmission. For whether it's eg the UK's lamentable performance coping with the virus in 2020, or ROI's in administering the vaccine in 2021, both led/are leading to avoidable severe illness and the death of ordinary people.
Can only administer the doses we get :-\
It'll be interesting to see if the Vaccine wars accelerate this week, was reading that there is a big link in the chain of the Pfizer vaccine produced in the UK, a tit for tat action (or a threat of it, no matter how self defeating it could be) wouldn't be beneath the Tory Government if the EU ups the ante
Quote from: bennydorano on March 22, 2021, 04:22:45 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 22, 2021, 04:09:28 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 22, 2021, 03:44:11 PM
Apologies, dodgy Irish Times presentation of data.
Maybe, but you were willing to believe that the number was only 129, which suggested a rather odd predisposition.
And the inclusion of the cost in this is completely misleading, I expect the low price of these is why they haven't bothered to produce enough.
Better to have a vaccine that costs more but you can get it than a cheap one where the producer reneges on their orders.
Are you not the same boy who was lauding the EU for not paying over the odds for contracts while the UK gambled to get early (yet more expensive deals) - and now there's a clear correlation between early action and actual delivery of product, do you still think it's laudable?
"Laudable" vs "Laughable" :D
Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2021, 04:30:22 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 04:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2021, 03:39:49 PM
129,000 AZ as of last Friday
https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/pages/vaccinations
But sure don't ket the truth get in the way.
By your figures, ROI had administered 668,529 vaccine doses as of 19 March.
As of 18 March, NI had administered 713,392:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948)
And as you will know, the population of ROI is nearly 2 1/2 x times that of NI.
"Ain't that the truth!"
Can only administer the doses we get :-\
Except that ROI paused the administering of AZ doses not because of shortages, but because of "safety" fears.
Fears which ROI's own experts, neighbouring NI authorities, the MHRA in UK, the EMA and the WHO said were unfounded. Even the US Authorities have now passed the AZ vaccine as being safe - and you know how suspicious they are of everything that isn't from the good 'ol US of A!
And in any case, with (literally) millions of AZ doses being stockpiled unused on the Continent, why didn't the ROI authorities ask for them to be sent to Ireland, if only while administration was being paused in Europe?
Quote from: Evil Genius
By your figures, ROI had administered 668,529 vaccine doses as of 19 March.
The quarter of a million that AZ did not deliver would have helped
Quote from: bennydorano on March 22, 2021, 04:22:45 PM
Are you not the same boy who was lauding the EU for not paying over the odds for contracts while the UK gambled to get early (yet more expensive deals) - and now there's a clear correlation between early action and actual delivery of product, do you still think it's laudable?
this early action thing is a bit of a myth. AZ did a deal with major EU countries last June and the EU took it over.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 04:28:25 PM
And there is still no proof whatever that AZ (an Anglo-Swedish* company btw) reneged on delivering orders to the EU, just a claim by an already severely discredited EU Commission which is under growing presuure from its own member states to account for its incompetence.
They did not fill the order, you can quibble as to the term renege, welsh non-performance etc is a matter of semantics.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 04:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2021, 03:39:49 PM
129,000 AZ as of last Friday
https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/pages/vaccinations
But sure don't ket the truth get in the way.
By your figures, ROI had administered 668,529 vaccine doses as of 19 March.
As of 18 March, NI had administered 713,392:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948)
And as you will know, the population of ROI is nearly 2 1/2 x times that of NI.
"Ain't that the truth!"
Btw, it gives me no pleasure to note that our neighbours are lagging behind, and not just because of the danger of cross-border transmission. For whether it's eg the UK's lamentable performance coping with the virus in 2020, or ROI's in administering the vaccine in 2021, both led/are leading to avoidable severe illness and the death of ordinary people.
ROI vaccine rollout has without doubt been hit by problems but you got to remember that you're talking about the first dose and not full vaccinations.
UK GOV went for a 10-12 week gap between the doses not recommended by the vaccine manufacturers whereas the ROI have went for the three weeks from what I can make out.
UK Gov may have gambled and gotten it right.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 04:37:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2021, 04:30:22 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 04:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2021, 03:39:49 PM
129,000 AZ as of last Friday
https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/pages/vaccinations
But sure don't ket the truth get in the way.
By your figures, ROI had administered 668,529 vaccine doses as of 19 March.
As of 18 March, NI had administered 713,392:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948)
And as you will know, the population of ROI is nearly 2 1/2 x times that of NI.
"Ain't that the truth!"
Can only administer the doses we get :-\
Except that ROI paused the administering of AZ doses not because of shortages, but because of "safety" fears.
Fears which ROI's own experts, neighbouring NI authorities, the MHRA in UK, the EMA and the WHO said were unfounded. Even the US Authorities have now passed the AZ vaccine as being safe - and you know how suspicious they are of everything that isn't from the good 'ol US of A!
And in any case, with (literally) millions of AZ doses being stockpiled unused on the Continent, why didn't the ROI authorities ask for them to be sent to Ireland, if only while administration was being paused in Europe?
Because we were paused as well!
Quote from: armaghniac on March 22, 2021, 04:41:53 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius
By your figures, ROI had administered 668,529 vaccine doses as of 19 March.
The quarter of a million that AZ did not deliver would have helped
Er, the ROI declined to use them, remember? There could have been a refridgerated lorry load parked in Micheál Martin's front drive and they wouldn't have been allowed to be used!
And even before the pause, there were literally
millions of AZ doses which had been delivered, but sitting unused in various EU countries. They'd never have missed a quarter of a million of them for ROI.
But I must say, as complaints about Da Brits go, this is a novel one:
"We don't trust your vaccine and we're not using it. Oh and by the way, why aren't you sending us some more?" Quote from: armaghniac on March 22, 2021, 04:41:53 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 04:28:25 PM
And there is still no proof whatever that AZ (an Anglo-Swedish* company btw) reneged on delivering orders to the EU, just a claim by an already severely discredited EU Commission which is under growing presuure from its own member states to account for its incompetence.
They did not fill the order, you can quibble as to the term renege, welsh non-performance etc is a matter of semantics.
"Semantics" your hole.
The EU is saying that AZ should have delivered a set amount of vaccine, AZ is saying that they are required to act on a "best endeavours" basis - a standard contract term - meaning that when unexpected production problems meant they couldn't fulfil the EU order, they were protected.
That is, it's a matter of
law, which a court will decide. (That's assuming the Commission continues to push it)
Quote from: johnnycool on March 22, 2021, 04:57:23 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 04:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2021, 03:39:49 PM
129,000 AZ as of last Friday
https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/pages/vaccinations
But sure don't ket the truth get in the way.
By your figures, ROI had administered 668,529 vaccine doses as of 19 March.
As of 18 March, NI had administered 713,392:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948)
And as you will know, the population of ROI is nearly 2 1/2 x times that of NI.
"Ain't that the truth!"
Btw, it gives me no pleasure to note that our neighbours are lagging behind, and not just because of the danger of cross-border transmission. For whether it's eg the UK's lamentable performance coping with the virus in 2020, or ROI's in administering the vaccine in 2021, both led/are leading to avoidable severe illness and the death of ordinary people.
ROI vaccine rollout has without doubt been hit by problems but you got to remember that you're talking about the first dose and not full vaccinations.
UK GOV went for a 10-12 week gap between the doses not recommended by the vaccine manufacturers whereas the ROI have went for the three weeks from what I can make out.
UK Gov may have gambled and gotten it right.
Except that when gambling, they didn't place all their money on red.
NI, for example, has already administered nearly 50k second doses (to esp vulnerable and key workers etc), which equates to 7% of the total.
And in any case, people haven't been dying for want of a second jab, they've been dying for want of their first.
Meaning that every (non-priority) person given their second jab after 3 weeks is taking up a slot for someone else to get their first jab - the nurses can't do two at a time.
EDIT: I see that my "nearly 50k second doses" was somewhat short of the mark. Today's updated figure is 78,496:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56485473 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56485473)
This is more than half the number of second jabs administered in ROI (we don't have half the population), while overall, NI has administered more than ROI full stop.
Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2021, 05:04:12 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 04:37:17 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2021, 04:30:22 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 04:08:46 PM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 22, 2021, 03:39:49 PM
129,000 AZ as of last Friday
https://covid19ireland-geohive.hub.arcgis.com/pages/vaccinations
But sure don't ket the truth get in the way.
By your figures, ROI had administered 668,529 vaccine doses as of 19 March.
As of 18 March, NI had administered 713,392:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-56463948)
And as you will know, the population of ROI is nearly 2 1/2 x times that of NI.
"Ain't that the truth!"
Can only administer the doses we get :-\
Except that ROI paused the administering of AZ doses not because of shortages, but because of "safety" fears.
Fears which ROI's own experts, neighbouring NI authorities, the MHRA in UK, the EMA and the WHO said were unfounded. Even the US Authorities have now passed the AZ vaccine as being safe - and you know how suspicious they are of everything that isn't from the good 'ol US of A!
And in any case, with (literally) millions of AZ doses being stockpiled unused on the Continent, why didn't the ROI authorities ask for them to be sent to Ireland, if only while administration was being paused in Europe?
Because we were paused as well!
And whose fault was
that?
AZ have been saying consistently throughout that their vaccine is safe (as has nearly everyone else).
Or are people now blaming AZ for the ROI's pause, too?
This is getting more Father Dougal by the day. ::)
They paused giving out the vaccines until the independent medical experts said it was ok. It's Fr Dougal like that you don't understand that.
Quote from: dublin7 on March 22, 2021, 07:45:50 PM
They paused giving out the vaccines until the independent medical experts said it was ok. It's Fr Dougal like that you don't understand that.
In Ireland what reports were they getting on this?
Quote from: dublin7 on March 22, 2021, 07:45:50 PM
They paused giving out the vaccines until the independent medical experts said it was ok. It's Fr Dougal like that you don't understand that.
Wrong. The "independent medical experts" you cite were in a minority.
Meaning that the ROI government
chose to pause the AZ vaccine, despite the great majority of expert advisers (EMA, WHO etc) saying they shouldn't, and the majority of EU members continuing to use it.
Fair enough, they were entitled to do so - even if it is turning out to be the wrong decision - but they cannot bleat about not receiving the vaccine at the same time.
But you're right, it's probably not Father Dougal. Even he couldn't be that stupid...
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2021, 07:51:27 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 22, 2021, 07:45:50 PM
They paused giving out the vaccines until the independent medical experts said it was ok. It's Fr Dougal like that you don't understand that.
In Ireland what reports were they getting on this?
NPHET advised them to based on discussions they had with their European counterparts or equivalents. They then dealt with the EMA and re-started using the vaccine.
Once again the government were in a no in win position. You have people calling them idiots for pausing using the vaccine and if they hadn't they'd have people calling them idiots for not doing it. What can you do?
Quote from: dublin7 on March 22, 2021, 09:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2021, 07:51:27 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 22, 2021, 07:45:50 PM
They paused giving out the vaccines until the independent medical experts said it was ok. It's Fr Dougal like that you don't understand that.
In Ireland what reports were they getting on this?
NPHET advised them to based on discussions they had with their European counterparts or equivalents. They then dealt with the EMA and re-started using the vaccine.
Once again the government were in a no in win position. You have people calling them idiots for pausing using the vaccine and if they hadn't they'd have people calling them idiots for not doing it. What can you do?
So there was no reports in Ireland of clotting or even links to clotting?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2021, 09:25:36 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 22, 2021, 09:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2021, 07:51:27 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 22, 2021, 07:45:50 PM
They paused giving out the vaccines until the independent medical experts said it was ok. It's Fr Dougal like that you don't understand that.
In Ireland what reports were they getting on this?
NPHET advised them to based on discussions they had with their European counterparts or equivalents. They then dealt with the EMA and re-started using the vaccine.
Once again the government were in a no in win position. You have people calling them idiots for pausing using the vaccine and if they hadn't they'd have people calling them idiots for not doing it. What can you do?
So there was no reports in Ireland of clotting or even links to clotting?
They received some reports, but nothing as extreme as what happened in Norway. When the rest of Europe started pausing using the vaccine they must have discussed it with them.
Didn't hear of any reports of clotting after receiving the vaccine, is the south using phizer also?
Quote from: dublin7 on March 22, 2021, 09:22:15 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 22, 2021, 07:51:27 PM
Quote from: dublin7 on March 22, 2021, 07:45:50 PM
They paused giving out the vaccines until the independent medical experts said it was ok. It's Fr Dougal like that you don't understand that.
In Ireland what reports were they getting on this?
NPHET advised them to based on discussions they had with their European counterparts or equivalents. They then dealt with the EMA and re-started using the vaccine.
Once again the government were in a no in win position. You have people calling them idiots for pausing using the vaccine and if they hadn't they'd have people calling them idiots for not doing it. What can you do?
Sorry, but it was anything but a "no win" situation.
First, the majority of expert opinion throughout the EU and beyond was that the vaccine is/was safe and could save far more lives than it might (emphasise) cost.
Second, the idea of "Erring on the side of caution" is ridiculous in the middle of a pandemic.
Third, the pyshological impact of saying that "We're pausing the vaccine while we double-check the vaccine's safety" immediately puts doubt into peoples minds and plays into the hands of the conspirators.
Finally, with many more experts saying it's safe than experts worrying it might not be, it should have been left up to the people to make thier own choice. That is, those who want to take it should not be prevented from having it because of the fears of those who don't.
All of which would be bad enough had governments come to this conclusion themselves.
But it's quite clear that other countries took their cue from Macron and Merckel, who with elections coming up for both, were themselves far more worried about the political optics than the science.
A complete clusterfuck.
Did we not pause prior to Germany and France?
if erring of the side of caution is ridiculous why did the vaccines have to be approved in the first place? What is the pyshological impact of saying we are ignoring concerns of vaccine safety?
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on March 22, 2021, 09:47:36 PM
Did we not pause prior to Germany and France?
if erring of the side of caution is ridiculous why did the vaccines have to be approved in the first place? What is the pyshological impact of saying we are ignoring concerns of vaccine safety?
That's it. There's enough misinformation/scare mongering as it is so you can't blame the government for pausing the vaccine roll out. It's easy taking the role of captain hindsight as he's never wrong.
Ah how quickly people forgot how much of a disaster uk have been right through this,very short memories
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on March 22, 2021, 09:47:36 PM
if erring of the side of caution is ridiculous why did the vaccines have to be approved in the first place?
I said erring on the side of caution
in a pandemic is ridiculous, eg like saying that you have to have gone on a fire safety course before you can use a fire extinguisher - when your house is burning down.
And if you're asking why vaccines have to be approved in the first place...
Quote from: PadraicHenryPearse on March 22, 2021, 09:47:36 PM
What is the pyshological impact of saying we are ignoring concerns of vaccine safety?
No-one is saying we should ignore safety. But as I noted earlier, if you are
over-cautious, then you're only putting
more fear into peoples minds by acceding to a possible "risk", no matter how unlikely.
And this was made worse by the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has had just as many blood clot associations as AZ (per number of doses administered), yet no-one has suspended its use. Even more to the point, there were just as many post test blood clots observed in the AZ placebo group as in those who were actually given the vaccine.
Yet all of these were ignored in the rush to "caution".
And worst of all was the French position, where initially they refused to give AZ to over-65's, because it hadn't been tested on that group. This ignored the fact that there was no scientific reason why it should not work for them at least as well for them, never mind the even more critical fact that over-65's are at much greater risk from Covid.
Of course they had to do an about-turn when all the data showed that if anything, older people were
better protected than younger people. Which was wasted time enough, but when spooked by a bare handful of unexplained blood-clotting incidents in Norway and Germany etc, they first suspended the AZ vaccine, then reintroduced it, but not for under-55's!
Which showed that at least one of those decisions MUST have been wrong, while the evidence is increasing that both were wrong.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on March 22, 2021, 11:45:23 PM
Ah how quickly people forgot how much of a disaster uk have been right through this,very short memories
Our response to the disease itself in 2020 was a disaster.
But that should not be an excuse for ignoring it completely when we manage to get it right over vaccination in 2021.
Meaning that after 28m+ vaccinations administered, we're now seeing a lower spread of infection in the UK than in the EU; our hospitalisation rate is falling whilst many others is rising and fewer people are dying than at any time since September.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 11:59:54 PM
No-one is saying we should ignore safety. But as I noted earlier, if you are over-cautious, then you're only putting more fear into peoples minds by acceding to a possible "risk", no matter how unlikely.
You are saying that pausing for a few days to investigate death is excessive. You need to be able to say that the issue was investigated and explained.
QuoteAnd this was made worse by the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has had just as many blood clot associations as AZ (per number of doses administered), yet no-one has suspended its use. Even more to the point, there were just as many post test blood clots observed in the AZ placebo group as in those who were actually given the vaccine.
Blood clots are not all the same.
QuoteAnd worst of all was the French position, where initially they refused to give AZ to over-65's, because it hadn't been tested on that group. This ignored the fact that there was no scientific reason why it should not work for them at least as well for them, never mind the even more critical fact that over-65's are at much greater risk from Covid.
It wasn't tested, the idea of testing is that you wait for the test. In ROI the AZ was used for health workers, as is the case in Norway where the nurse died, vaccination continued.
QuoteOf course they had to do an about-turn when all the data showed that if anything, older people were better protected than younger people. Which was wasted time enough, but when spooked by a bare handful of unexplained blood-clotting incidents in Norway and Germany etc, they first suspended the AZ vaccine, then reintroduced it, but not for under-55's!
Which showed that at least one of those decisions MUST have been wrong, while the evidence is increasing that both were wrong.
It shows nothing of the sort. As John Maynard Keynes is reputed to have said, when I receive new information I change my mind, what do you do?
Fair enough for criticise Macron for his idiotic statement, but you cannot reasonably criticise the French for responding to data.
Meanwhile, the results revealed this morning from the US testing of the AZ vaccine bear repeating:
"Results from the long-awaited US trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine are out and confirm that the shot is both safe and highly effective.
More than 32,000 volunteers took part, mostly in America, but also in Chile and Peru.
The vaccine was 79% effective against stopping symptomatic Covid disease and 100% effective at preventing people from falling seriously ill.
And there were no safety issues regarding blood clots."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56479462 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56479462)
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 23, 2021, 12:18:01 AM
Meanwhile, the results revealed this morning from the US testing of the AZ vaccine bear repeating:
"Results from the long-awaited US trial of the Oxford-AstraZeneca Covid vaccine are out and confirm that the shot is both safe and highly effective.
More than 32,000 volunteers took part, mostly in America, but also in Chile and Peru.
The vaccine was 79% effective against stopping symptomatic Covid disease and 100% effective at preventing people from falling seriously ill.
And there were no safety issues regarding blood clots."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56479462 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56479462)
THe Oxford vaccine is a great scientific achievement, althpugh it will have to modifed for the South African variant as it will be useful in Africa.
It is very regrettable that they did not wish to supply it in Europe where the age profile of the population meant that it could do much good.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 23, 2021, 12:17:17 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 11:59:54 PM
No-one is saying we should ignore safety. But as I noted earlier, if you are over-cautious, then you're only putting more fear into peoples minds by acceding to a possible "risk", no matter how unlikely.
You are saying that pausing for a few days to investigate death is excessive. You need to be able to say that the issue was investigated and explained.
Try telling that to the relatives of the people who died/will die avoidably during those few days for want of vaccination, a number which is statistically far greater than the people who
might have died from unusual blood-clotting, which itself may or may not be vaccine-related.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 23, 2021, 12:17:17 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 11:59:54 PM
And this was made worse by the fact that the Pfizer vaccine has had just as many blood clot associations as AZ (per number of doses administered), yet no-one has suspended its use. Even more to the point, there were just as many post test blood clots observed in the AZ placebo group as in those who were actually given the vaccine.
Blood clots are not all the same.
No, but the pattern was no different for Pfizer than it was for AZ.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 23, 2021, 12:17:17 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 11:59:54 PM
Of course they had to do an about-turn when all the data showed that if anything, older people were better protected than younger people. Which was wasted time enough, but when spooked by a bare handful of unexplained blood-clotting incidents in Norway and Germany etc, they first suspended the AZ vaccine, then reintroduced it, but not for under-55's!
Which showed that at least one of those decisions MUST have been wrong, while the evidence is increasing that both were wrong.
It shows nothing of the sort. As John Maynard Keynes is reputed to have said, when I receive new information I change my mind, what do you do?
Fair enough for criticise Macron for his idiotic statement, but you cannot reasonably criticise the French for responding to data.
They clearly got it wrong by withholding it from over-65's.
Now the evidence of millions of vaccinations administered to under-55's in the UK and elsewhere is that it is safe and effective for that group, too. Which is only what the EMA and the WHO are saying, with the US authorities weighing in behind them today, too.
As for the French "responding to the data", the data clearly shows that statistically, many more people will die from contracting Covid than would die from unusual blood-clotting - even if it should be proven that vaccination caused the latter, which it hasn't yet.
As I said, a clusterfuck.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 23, 2021, 12:37:19 AM
THe Oxford vaccine is a great scientific achievement, althpugh it will have to modifed for the South African variant as it will be useful in Africa.
It is very regrettable that they did not wish to supply it in Europe where the age profile of the population meant that it could do much good.
It is not yet certain how much less effective the AZ vaccine is to the SA variant, if at all.
But even if it's efficacy is a few points lower, percentage-wise, the fact that it is so much cheaper than the Pfizer vaccine, and doesn't have to be transported and stored at ultra-low temperatures, means that it will still be available to provide protection to millions in Africa that will not be open to them from Pfizer and other vaccines.
Which is why Ghana, for example, has administered nearly half a million AZ doses already and is crying out for more:
https://www.msn.com/en-xl/africa/ghana/covid-19-almost-half-a-million-ghanaians-receive-astrazeneca-vaccines/ar-BB1eOpJq (https://www.msn.com/en-xl/africa/ghana/covid-19-almost-half-a-million-ghanaians-receive-astrazeneca-vaccines/ar-BB1eOpJq)
Quote from: armaghniac on March 23, 2021, 12:37:19 AM
It is very regrettable that they did not wish to supply it in Europe where the age profile of the population meant that it could do much good.
How many f**king times? >:(
It is simply untrue to claim that AZ "do not wish to supply it in Europe". They have
already distributed millions of doses to Europe, from both their UK and continental facilities, where ironically (and disgracefully) many of those doses remain unused.
The problem is that some of the doses which they contracted to supply have been delayed due to a manufacturing problem. The EU is claiming that they should (effectively) divert some of the vaccines they are supplying under other deals, whilst AZ say that under the terms of all their other various contracts, they cannot do so; nor can they be held liable for the reduction in supply to the EU.
It remains to be seen which side is correct, presumably after a court case or three.
Meanwhile,whatever the contractual obligations, why do you and so many others ignore the fact that AZ is as much Swedish as it is British, and Sweden is an EU member, making it plain silly to claim that the country is somehow "anti-EU".
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 23, 2021, 12:38:42 AM
Try telling that to the relatives of the people who died/will die avoidably during those few days for want of vaccination, a number which is statistically far greater than the people who might have died from unusual blood-clotting, which itself may or may not be vaccine-related.
In the ROI there was about one chance in 33 of any death resulting from this, as the AZ was being given to younger people only.
This shouldn't be diminished, but it shouldn't be exaggerated either.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 22, 2021, 11:59:54 PM
No, but the pattern was no different for Pfizer than it was for AZ.
THe Norwegian medical authorities do not think so.
Quote from: Evil Genius
They clearly got it wrong by withholding it from over-65's.
No, they waited for the data.
Quote from: Evil Genius
As for the French "responding to the data", the data clearly shows that statistically, many more people will die from contracting Covid than would die from unusual blood-clotting - even if it should be proven that vaccination caused the latter, which it hasn't yet.
Perhaps, but they won't be the same people. You need to show the vaccine is safe to get youngish people to take it as their risk of Covid is less.
Some interesting points in this US Senate committee hearing.
Quote from: Last Man on March 23, 2021, 07:35:16 AM
Some interesting points in this US Senate committee hearing.
https://youtu.be/QAHi3lX3oGM
Quote from: Last Man on March 23, 2021, 11:25:58 AM
Quote from: Last Man on March 23, 2021, 07:35:16 AM
Some interesting points in this US Senate committee hearing.
https://youtu.be/QAHi3lX3oGM
Very interesting - I wonder whether this ignoring of the benefits of treatment is because the Health Insurance companies didn't want to pay for it?
Anyhow, should this properly be moved to the China Virus thread, since it concentrates on treatment of people who are ill with Covid, rather than vaccination to prevent people getting it?
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0323/1205557-coronavirus-astrazeneca/
EG - on the Astra Vaccine my understanding of their manufacturing schedule is that in their contract for funding the UK inserted a clause that their order must be met from domestic supply and until this is done, no exports allowed. This was a condition of their funding and the US also inserted it into their funding agreements in US. The EU did not.
Therefore none of the vaccine manufactured in UK has been exported. This hasn't been the case with EU manufacturing and they have exported from EU into UK to meet its orders there. The EU have no export clause and are now looking at an export ban.
The effect of this was zero UK manufactured Astra vaccines shipped to EU while almost 10m vaccines have been exported from EU.
It doesn't excuse the slow roll out across EU and why many remain in storage.
This was been reported last week.
We need a vaccine for stupidity. Start with EU leaders
Quote from: Louther on March 23, 2021, 01:44:25 PM
EG - on the Astra Vaccine my understanding of their manufacturing schedule is that in their contract for funding the UK inserted a clause that their order must be met from domestic supply and until this is done, no exports allowed. This was a condition of their funding and the US also inserted it into their funding agreements in US. The EU did not.
Therefore none of the vaccine manufactured in UK has been exported. This hasn't been the case with EU manufacturing and they have exported from EU into UK to meet its orders there. The EU have no export clause and are now looking at an export ban.
The effect of this was zero UK manufactured Astra vaccines shipped to EU while almost 10m vaccines have been exported from EU.
It doesn't excuse the slow roll out across EU and why many remain in storage.
This was been reported last week.
At worst, that means that the Commission buggered up in drawing up the contracts - you can hardly blame the UK for that.
Whilst AZ's production problems occurred in their Netherlands plant in Leiden, not their UK facilities.
Why would the UK send vaccines to the EU which are being used by the day at home, when (a ) supplies from the continent to the UK are at risk, and (b ) the EU isn't even using the stocks they have?
This is all one giant arse-covering exercise by the Commission, and the minority (emphasise) of EU members which suspended AZ vaccine use unnecessarily - "If you can't defend, deflect."
Quote from: Louther on March 23, 2021, 01:44:25 PM
It doesn't excuse the slow roll out across EU and why many remain in storage.
Yep, I was speaking to a guy who lives in Nerja, Spain earlier.
The Spanish, who've suffered a very high death rate in the pandemic, are still only half-way through vaccinating the over-80's at the moment, while at 66, he doesn't expect to get his jab until September!
I don't blame UK, they doing what they've had to do. Made a balls of a lot of things but the vaccine roll out isn't one.
And I don't think it's the UK call to issue or not deliver into EU from their manufacturing. They have Astra contractually to make this decision for them. Eg Astra make 1million doses, UK order for 1.5m, EU order for 1.5m. Without contracts. Astra could say ok - .5m each to Uk and Eu but they don't have to make that call. All stays in UK.
While this has been missed from EU side, they have said, morally correct or not, that they consider the vaccine roll out been fair across all nations as been the only way to eliminate and that not allowing export damages this. Not sure if this is a way of covering their ass or was the genuine rationale in first place.
Heard from a pretty reliable source that Covid passports are going to be a thing for travel. UK government have it pretty much organised.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 23, 2021, 03:56:48 PM
Whilst AZ's production problems occurred in their Netherlands plant in Leiden, not their UK facilities.
Why would the UK send vaccines to the EU which are being used by the day at home, when (a ) supplies from the continent to the UK are at risk, and (b ) the EU isn't even using the stocks they have?
Because you cannot say, unless using typical unionist logic, you send us your vaccines but we won't send you any.
QuoteThis is all one giant arse-covering exercise by the Commission,
It is, but it is also an attempt to get people vaccinated and save lives. Presumably, you'd be happy to let people die to teach the Commission a lesson.
Quote
and the minority (emphasise) of EU members which suspended AZ vaccine use unnecessarily -
At this stage most of that gap has already been made up. Change the record.
QuoteYep, I was speaking to a guy who lives in Nerja, Spain earlier.
The Spanish, who've suffered a very high death rate in the pandemic, are still only half-way through vaccinating the over-80's at the moment, while at 66, he doesn't expect to get his jab until September!
Spain will rev up the pace as supply increases. Everyone in Spain like every other part of the EU will be vaccinated in August, never mind September.
On an aside, some parts of Spain have a substantial proportion of the population with immunity, having had the virus when it was at its peak.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 24, 2021, 10:17:35 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 23, 2021, 03:56:48 PM
Whilst AZ's production problems occurred in their Netherlands plant in Leiden, not their UK facilities.
Why would the UK send vaccines to the EU which are being used by the day at home, when (a ) supplies from the continent to the UK are at risk, and (b ) the EU isn't even using the stocks they have?
Because you cannot say, unless using typical unionist logic, you send us your vaccines but we won't send you any.
QuoteThis is all one giant arse-covering exercise by the Commission,
It is, but it is also an attempt to get people vaccinated and save lives. Presumably, you'd be happy to let people die to teach the Commission a lesson.
Quote
and the minority (emphasise) of EU members which suspended AZ vaccine use unnecessarily -
At this stage most of that gap has already been made up. Change the record.
[qupte]Yep, I was speaking to a guy who lives in Nerja, Spain earlier.
The Spanish, who've suffered a very high death rate in the pandemic, are still only half-way through vaccinating the over-80's at the moment, while at 66, he doesn't expect to get his jab until September!
[/quote
Spain will rev up the pace as supply increases. Everyone in Spain like every other part of the EU will be vaccinated in August, never mind September.
On an aside, some parts of Spain have a substantial proportion of the population with immunity, having had the virus when it was at its peak.
"Unionist logic" - There you have it. In the end, it really doesn't matter what I say, it's who I am which condemns me.
It's like earlier in the debate, someone (wrongly) assumed I was speaking from a Brexiteer position - thanks, whoever you were - as if the assumption, even if correct, automatically discredited my argument.
And then we finally reached the full card of "Bigot's Bingo!" with your disgraceful slur that I'm "happy to let people die" in order to prove a point.
There is no point in my debating with you any more, since you've already made up your mind, not about my argument, but about me.
And you've got both wrong.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 24, 2021, 12:02:47 PM
"Unionist logic" - There you have it. In the end, it really doesn't matter what I say, it's who I am which condemns me.
It's like earlier in the debate, someone (wrongly) assumed I was speaking from a Brexiteer position - thanks, whoever you were - as if the assumption, even if correct, automatically discredited my argument.
And then we finally reached the full card of "Bigot's Bingo!" with your disgraceful slur that I'm "happy to let people die" in order to prove a point.
There is no point in my debating with you any more, since you've already made up your mind, not about my argument, but about me.
And you've got both wrong.
This entire debate is characterised by the contention that EU has to consider the interests of the UK but that the UK does not have to consider the interests of the EU. I am entitled to point out that this argument has the typical hypocrisy of unionists or Brexiteers, this does not imply that you are one but it does imply that you have a similar willingness to make points without accepting the same logic in reverse.
As for letting people die, it seems to me that the EU efforts to get more vaccine out of AZ are not just about saving face but are also concerned with people's health, if you do not accept this then you lack concern for that health.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 24, 2021, 04:36:08 PM
This entire debate is characterised by the contention that EU has to consider the interests of the UK but that the UK does not have to consider the interests of the EU. I am entitled to point out that this argument has the typical hypocrisy of unionists or Brexiteers, this does not imply that you are one but it does imply that you have a similar willingness to make points without accepting the same logic in reverse.
As for letting people die, it seems to me that the EU efforts to get more vaccine out of AZ are not just about saving face but are also concerned with people's health, if you do not accept this then you lack concern for that health.
Is it by any chance your "Nationalist mindset" [
sic] which prevents you from getting this:
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 24, 2021, 12:02:47 PM
There is no point in my debating with you any more, since you've already made up your mind, not about my argument, but about me. And you've got both wrong.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 24, 2021, 05:27:48 PM
Is it by any chance your "Nationalist mindset" [sic] which prevents you from getting this:
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 24, 2021, 12:02:47 PM
There is no point in my debating with you any more, since you've already made up your mind, not about my argument, but about me. And you've got both wrong.
You are the one that posted again after you said you wouldn't do so any more. I did not say that I had stopped posting and I needed to defend myself from your allegations .
Peace in our time between UK and EU
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-56509521
Great to see the Private Beacon hospital vaccinating Teachers in a Private School in Bray. That's the spirit. The South demonstrating yet again that their rollout of the Vaccine is absolutely on point.
Quote from: trailer on March 26, 2021, 08:56:55 AM
Great to see the Private Beacon hospital vaccinating Teachers in a Private School in Bray. That's the spirit. The South demonstrating yet again that their rollout of the Vaccine is absolutely on point.
Disgrace that this happened. Example of why private healthcare facilities don't serve a just purpose.
I hope they get hammered for this but very likely be a few strong words in public and behind closed doors but not much else that can be done unless the owners remove the person responsible.
Quote from: trailer on March 26, 2021, 08:56:55 AM
Great to see the Private Beacon hospital vaccinating Teachers in a Private School in Bray. That's the spirit. The South demonstrating yet again that their rollout of the Vaccine is absolutely on point.
I don't think anyone is impressed with this and it seems to be a solo run by the Beacon CEO who by a strange coincidence has children who attend this school. There is supposed to be a back up list for places like the Beacon to call if people don't turn up for their appointments, but it was ignored in this case.
In an ideal world the individual in this case would face disciplinary action but the fact he's a public sector worker/HSE employee probably means he'll get away with a don't do that again warning and that will be that unfortunately
How is the CEO of a Private Hospital a "public service worker/HSE employee"?
I presume all the private hospitals got supplies for their staff?
Why would he be a public sector worker if he works in the Beacon?
Do most of those private boyos not double job? Plenty do up here anyway I think.
Consultants do.
But CEOs and various other Private Hospital staffs would be full time employees of the hospital.
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 26, 2021, 09:33:08 AM
Do most of those private boyos not double job? Plenty do up here anyway I think.
They mustn't see their kids at all the consultants up here..
http://jrnl.ie/5392464f
Quote from: Rossfan on March 26, 2021, 10:49:11 AM
http://jrnl.ie/5392464f
That's why you lads need a socialist republic. ;)
Social Democracy YES
"Socialist Republic" NO THANKS!!
One way to sidestep EU shenanigans
BBC News - Novavax: Deal agreed to 'fill and finish' 60 million doses in UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-56570168
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 26, 2021, 09:59:47 AM
Quote from: imtommygunn on March 26, 2021, 09:33:08 AM
Do most of those private boyos not double job? Plenty do up here anyway I think.
They mustn't see their kids at all the consultants up here..
When the wives complain they just tell them to check the online bank account!
Quote from: bennydorano on March 29, 2021, 10:51:10 PM
One way to sidestep EU shenanigans
BBC News - Novavax: Deal agreed to 'fill and finish' 60 million doses in UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-56570168
The first round of vaccination will be over before these guys get going.
There is going to loads of vaccine in the summer, of many different types.
On the good news front, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines stop about 90% of transmission, once people have two doses etc. That is mighty news, because if you have 90% of people vaccinated and you only have 10% transmission then your R is below 1 and an epidemic cannot get going.
So with loads of vaccine and vaccines that work well, this Covid is on the way out, although it will take a while yet.
That's why we are missing a certain poster
Quote from: armaghniac on March 29, 2021, 11:42:19 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 29, 2021, 10:51:10 PM
One way to sidestep EU shenanigans
BBC News - Novavax: Deal agreed to 'fill and finish' 60 million doses in UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-56570168
The first round of vaccination will be over before these guys get going.
There is going to loads of vaccine in the summer, of many different types.
On the good news front, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines stop about 90% of transmission, once people have two doses etc. That is mighty news, because if you have 90% of people vaccinated and you only have 10% transmission then your R is below 1 and an epidemic cannot get going.
So with loads of vaccine and vaccines that work well, this Covid is on the way out, although it will take a while yet.
Great news. Hopefully the end is in sight.
Canada the latest to take action on the AZ vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/30/canada-suspends-use-of-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-for-those-under-55
They must be anti-vaxx lunatics too.
Berlin not happy with Astra jab
https://m.independent.ie/news/berlin-suspends-use-of-astrazeneca-vaccine-again-due-to-reports-of-blood-clots-40256240.html
Mildred will on to name the Germans now as anti-vaxx lunatics.
That's the Scandanavians, Canadians and Germans who are now anti-vaxx nutters.
Quote from: Angelo on March 30, 2021, 09:58:06 AM
Canada the latest to take action on the AZ vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/30/canada-suspends-use-of-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-for-those-under-55
They must be anti-vaxx lunatics too.
4 people developed blood clots out of 20 million doses given in EU. The guardain article even highlighted that no blood clots have been observed in Canada.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clot-issue-wont-go-away/618451/
Just that short pause sparked despair and condemnation. Commentators and public-health experts called it "stupid, harmful, "quite dangerous," and a "magnificent example of European failure." The problem, they said, was that the actual evidence of harm had been very weak—and maybe even nonexistent. Writing in The New York Times on March 22, Heidi Larson, the director of the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, noted that just 25 Europeans had developed blood clots, out of 20 million who received the AstraZeneca vaccine. That rate, she said, was lower than what you'd normally see among unvaccinated people. According to the statistician David Spiegelhalter, the furor over blood clots showed our "basic and often creative urge to find patterns even where none exist."
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 30, 2021, 01:38:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 30, 2021, 09:58:06 AM
Canada the latest to take action on the AZ vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/30/canada-suspends-use-of-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-for-those-under-55
They must be anti-vaxx lunatics too.
4 people developed blood clots out of 20 million doses given in EU. The guardain article even highlighted that no blood clots have been observed in Canada.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clot-issue-wont-go-away/618451/
Just that short pause sparked despair and condemnation. Commentators and public-health experts called it "stupid, harmful, "quite dangerous," and a "magnificent example of European failure." The problem, they said, was that the actual evidence of harm had been very weak—and maybe even nonexistent. Writing in The New York Times on March 22, Heidi Larson, the director of the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, noted that just 25 Europeans had developed blood clots, out of 20 million who received the AstraZeneca vaccine. That rate, she said, was lower than what you'd normally see among unvaccinated people. According to the statistician David Spiegelhalter, the furor over blood clots showed our "basic and often creative urge to find patterns even where none exist."
If I told you 93% of people who are recorded as Covid deaths, had underlying health conditions - what would that statistic tell you?
What you quoted there stated just 25 Europeans out of 20 million with an AZ jab developed blood clots. Yet Germany is suspending it after
31 reported cases of blood clot, a woman died in Austria a few weeks back from it too, another woman was seriously ill at the same time.
Coincidence theorism is out in force.
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 30, 2021, 01:38:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 30, 2021, 09:58:06 AM
Canada the latest to take action on the AZ vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/30/canada-suspends-use-of-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-for-those-under-55
They must be anti-vaxx lunatics too.
4 people developed blood clots out of 20 million doses given in EU. The guardain article even highlighted that no blood clots have been observed in Canada.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clot-issue-wont-go-away/618451/
Just that short pause sparked despair and condemnation. Commentators and public-health experts called it "stupid, harmful, "quite dangerous," and a "magnificent example of European failure." The problem, they said, was that the actual evidence of harm had been very weak—and maybe even nonexistent. Writing in The New York Times on March 22, Heidi Larson, the director of the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, noted that just 25 Europeans had developed blood clots, out of 20 million who received the AstraZeneca vaccine. That rate, she said, was lower than what you'd normally see among unvaccinated people. According to the statistician David Spiegelhalter, the furor over blood clots showed our "basic and often creative urge to find patterns even where none exist."
The issue is not the aggregate of blood clots, but a very particular type of blood clot that is uncommon generally. Using statistics for all blood clots may provide no great insight.
Quote from: trailer on March 30, 2021, 08:42:52 AM
Quote from: armaghniac on March 29, 2021, 11:42:19 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on March 29, 2021, 10:51:10 PM
One way to sidestep EU shenanigans
BBC News - Novavax: Deal agreed to 'fill and finish' 60 million doses in UK
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-56570168
The first round of vaccination will be over before these guys get going.
There is going to loads of vaccine in the summer, of many different types.
On the good news front, the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines stop about 90% of transmission, once people have two doses etc. That is mighty news, because if you have 90% of people vaccinated and you only have 10% transmission then your R is below 1 and an epidemic cannot get going.
So with loads of vaccine and vaccines that work well, this Covid is on the way out, although it will take a while yet.
Great news. Hopefully the end is in sight.
Absolutely, great to hear.
Quote from: Angelo on March 30, 2021, 01:34:59 PM
Mildred will on to name the Germans now as anti-vaxx lunatics.
That's the Scandanavians, Canadians and Germans who are now anti-vaxx nutters.
Can you answer me this cockhead? been avoiding it
Angelo you've been referring to flu's and no flu's recorded, just new variants of Covid.
What do you mean exactly?
Am I too assume from your references that, Covid is just a new flu variant that has mutated to becoming more life threatening to the worldwide and not just in the winter months?
Or that Covid is actually flu and we should have just treated it as such and continued with limited restrictions?
Can you answer theses?
Or Covid is real and not flu at all and with a closed border attitude we could have saved more lives?
I live in New York and I will be getting the J&J vaccine next week. It is the single shot version so I will just need a single appointment.
NY open this week to everyone over 30, and next week to everyone over 16.
Got my second Pfizer dose last week at the Javitts Center.
NY brought out the Empire Pass thing last week too.
Phone app where you can download any test results, as well as your vaccine details once they're processed. Each will come with a QR code which can be scanned. Think the Barclays Center and other venues have been testing them out. Basically a vaccine passport.
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 03:44:50 PM
NY brought out the Empire Pass thing last week too.
Phone app where you can download any test results, as well as your vaccine details once they're processed. Each will come with a QR code which can be scanned. Think the Barclays Center and other venues have been testing them out. Basically a vaccine passport.
Interesting, how have the public reacted? Keep us informed on its implementation and any issues.
It's just out, and not a mandatory thing yet. Actually Excelsior Pass, not Empire.
Here's one story on it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/)
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 04:36:53 PM
It's just out, and not a mandatory thing yet. Actually Excelsior Pass, not Empire.
Here's one story on it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/)
So If i book tickets to go to New York in October, we should be ok?
We'll have both been (at that point) both jabs
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 04:36:53 PM
It's just out, and not a mandatory thing yet. Actually Excelsior Pass, not Empire.
Here's one story on it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/)
for the us posters in particular the lifting of mask mandate and a fully open economy in Texas and Mississippi seem to have had no bearing on cases . Is it vaccination or are the masks overrated.
Quote from: Angelo on March 30, 2021, 01:45:41 PM
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 30, 2021, 01:38:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 30, 2021, 09:58:06 AM
Canada the latest to take action on the AZ vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/30/canada-suspends-use-of-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-for-those-under-55
They must be anti-vaxx lunatics too.
4 people developed blood clots out of 20 million doses given in EU. The guardain article even highlighted that no blood clots have been observed in Canada.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clot-issue-wont-go-away/618451/
Just that short pause sparked despair and condemnation. Commentators and public-health experts called it "stupid, harmful, "quite dangerous," and a "magnificent example of European failure." The problem, they said, was that the actual evidence of harm had been very weak—and maybe even nonexistent. Writing in The New York Times on March 22, Heidi Larson, the director of the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, noted that just 25 Europeans had developed blood clots, out of 20 million who received the AstraZeneca vaccine. That rate, she said, was lower than what you'd normally see among unvaccinated people. According to the statistician David Spiegelhalter, the furor over blood clots showed our "basic and often creative urge to find patterns even where none exist."
If I told you 93% of people who are recorded as Covid deaths, had underlying health conditions - what would that statistic tell you?
What you quoted there stated just 25 Europeans out of 20 million with an AZ jab developed blood clots. Yet Germany is suspending it after 31 reported cases of blood clot, a woman died in Austria a few weeks back from it too, another woman was seriously ill at the same time.
Coincidence theorism is out in force.
The quote is from the article which is probably a few days old. So 31 clots have occurred out of 29 million jabs wordwide. People are looking to find links which aren't necessarily there.
The birth control pill is proven to have raise the risk of blood clots but its still bring taken daily by millions.
If there are serious risks then they need investigated but stopping the drug being given during a pandemic when every regulator says the risk greatly outweighs any potential side effect is going to prolong covid further.
Quote from: Gmac on March 30, 2021, 04:59:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 04:36:53 PM
It's just out, and not a mandatory thing yet. Actually Excelsior Pass, not Empire.
Here's one story on it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/)
for the us posters in particular the lifting of mask mandate and a fully open economy in Texas and Mississippi seem to have had no bearing on cases . Is it vaccination or are the masks overrated.
Let's not celebrate just yet.
The mask mandate was only lifted a few weeks ago. And what was the rate of mask wearing in those places in the first place? Are those people huddled together in indoor spaces for any lengths of time?
Why would you think that masks are overrated?
No one has said they're the panacaea. They're one element, along with the social distancing, hand hygiene, testing, vaccines and the rest. Their purpose is to limit the amount of virus a potentially infected person will exhale. They're not respirators, so the protection offered in terms of inhalation is limited.
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 05:30:55 PM
Quote from: Gmac on March 30, 2021, 04:59:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 04:36:53 PM
It's just out, and not a mandatory thing yet. Actually Excelsior Pass, not Empire.
Here's one story on it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/)
for the us posters in particular the lifting of mask mandate and a fully open economy in Texas and Mississippi seem to have had no bearing on cases . Is it vaccination or are the masks overrated.
Let's not celebrate just yet.
The mask mandate was only lifted a few weeks ago. And what was the rate of mask wearing in those places in the first place? Are those people huddled together in indoor spaces for any lengths of time?
Why would you think that masks are overrated?
No one has said they're the panacaea. They're one element, along with the social distancing, hand hygiene, testing, vaccines and the rest. Their purpose is to limit the amount of virus a potentially infected person will exhale. They're not respirators, so the protection offered in terms of inhalation is limited.
who's celebrating? It's a bit of good news for a change, a lot on here would be happy if it was going badly there . I never said they didn't work .
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 30, 2021, 05:24:50 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 30, 2021, 01:45:41 PM
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 30, 2021, 01:38:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 30, 2021, 09:58:06 AM
Canada the latest to take action on the AZ vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/30/canada-suspends-use-of-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-for-those-under-55
They must be anti-vaxx lunatics too.
4 people developed blood clots out of 20 million doses given in EU. The guardain article even highlighted that no blood clots have been observed in Canada.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clot-issue-wont-go-away/618451/
Just that short pause sparked despair and condemnation. Commentators and public-health experts called it "stupid, harmful, "quite dangerous," and a "magnificent example of European failure." The problem, they said, was that the actual evidence of harm had been very weak—and maybe even nonexistent. Writing in The New York Times on March 22, Heidi Larson, the director of the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, noted that just 25 Europeans had developed blood clots, out of 20 million who received the AstraZeneca vaccine. That rate, she said, was lower than what you'd normally see among unvaccinated people. According to the statistician David Spiegelhalter, the furor over blood clots showed our "basic and often creative urge to find patterns even where none exist."
If I told you 93% of people who are recorded as Covid deaths, had underlying health conditions - what would that statistic tell you?
What you quoted there stated just 25 Europeans out of 20 million with an AZ jab developed blood clots. Yet Germany is suspending it after 31 reported cases of blood clot, a woman died in Austria a few weeks back from it too, another woman was seriously ill at the same time.
Coincidence theorism is out in force.
The quote is from the article which is probably a few days old. So 31 clots have occurred out of 29 million jabs wordwide. People are looking to find links which aren't necessarily there.
The birth control pill is proven to have raise the risk of blood clots but its still bring taken daily by millions.
If there are serious risks then they need investigated but stopping the drug being given during a pandemic when every regulator says the risk greatly outweighs any potential side effect is going to prolong covid further.
No, no, no.
31cases in Germany alone.
Quote from: Angelo on March 30, 2021, 06:06:12 PM
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 30, 2021, 05:24:50 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 30, 2021, 01:45:41 PM
Quote from: tyrone08 on March 30, 2021, 01:38:20 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 30, 2021, 09:58:06 AM
Canada the latest to take action on the AZ vaccine.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/mar/30/canada-suspends-use-of-astrazeneca-covid-vaccine-for-those-under-55
They must be anti-vaxx lunatics too.
4 people developed blood clots out of 20 million doses given in EU. The guardain article even highlighted that no blood clots have been observed in Canada.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/03/astrazeneca-vaccine-blood-clot-issue-wont-go-away/618451/
Just that short pause sparked despair and condemnation. Commentators and public-health experts called it "stupid, harmful, "quite dangerous," and a "magnificent example of European failure." The problem, they said, was that the actual evidence of harm had been very weak—and maybe even nonexistent. Writing in The New York Times on March 22, Heidi Larson, the director of the Vaccine Confidence Project at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, noted that just 25 Europeans had developed blood clots, out of 20 million who received the AstraZeneca vaccine. That rate, she said, was lower than what you'd normally see among unvaccinated people. According to the statistician David Spiegelhalter, the furor over blood clots showed our "basic and often creative urge to find patterns even where none exist."
If I told you 93% of people who are recorded as Covid deaths, had underlying health conditions - what would that statistic tell you?
What you quoted there stated just 25 Europeans out of 20 million with an AZ jab developed blood clots. Yet Germany is suspending it after 31 reported cases of blood clot, a woman died in Austria a few weeks back from it too, another woman was seriously ill at the same time.
Coincidence theorism is out in force.
The quote is from the article which is probably a few days old. So 31 clots have occurred out of 29 million jabs wordwide. People are looking to find links which aren't necessarily there.
The birth control pill is proven to have raise the risk of blood clots but its still bring taken daily by millions.
If there are serious risks then they need investigated but stopping the drug being given during a pandemic when every regulator says the risk greatly outweighs any potential side effect is going to prolong covid further.
No, no, no.
31cases in Germany alone.
The UK has just announced the lowest number of deaths from Covid since October.
And the number of total deaths for this month is now below the (annual) March average.
Meanwhile, the number of Covid cases continues to level off, at an average of 5,066 new confirmed infections a day over the last seven days. The 4,040 cases announced today compares with 5,379 new cases a week ago. (The equivalent in Germany for last week was over 20k a day).
In hospitals, the number of patients continues to fall, with 4,153 at the latest count. At its January peak, the figure for hospitalisation was almost 40,000.
While the number of vaccinations administered has now passed 34m, approximately half of those AZ.
With all the deaths from Covid, has the world's population shrank in the last year? You'd expect that all these deaths in addition to the normal reasons would mean there are a lot less people in the world?
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 30, 2021, 09:30:58 PM
With all the deaths from Covid, has the world's population shrank in the last year? You'd expect that all these deaths in addition to the normal reasons would mean there are a lot less people in the world?
I'm sure there's some p***k that knows that number
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 30, 2021, 09:30:58 PM
With all the deaths from Covid, has the world's population shrank in the last year? You'd expect that all these deaths in addition to the normal reasons would mean there are a lot less people in the world?
Was actually reading that Italy's population has fallen by over 300k in last year. This isn't down to Covid entirely but reflects their aging population and falling birth rates in developed countries.
Birth rate in January/February 2021 has fallen dramatically in Ireland despite the lockdown which suggests that the unplanned births from casual encounters didn't happen as much. No nookie No Nanny's.
Quote from: Louther on March 30, 2021, 09:38:43 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 30, 2021, 09:30:58 PM
With all the deaths from Covid, has the world's population shrank in the last year? You'd expect that all these deaths in addition to the normal reasons would mean there are a lot less people in the world?
Was actually reading that Italy's population has fallen by over 300k in last year. This isn't down to Covid entirely but reflects their aging population and falling birth rates in developed countries.
Birth rate in January/February 2021 has fallen dramatically in Ireland despite the lockdown which suggests that the unplanned births from casual encounters didn't happen as much. No nookie No Nanny's.
With such a rampant contagious disease you'd expect populations to decrease dramatically. With half a million dead in the USA alone.
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 30, 2021, 10:28:16 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 30, 2021, 09:38:43 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on March 30, 2021, 09:30:58 PM
With all the deaths from Covid, has the world's population shrank in the last year? You'd expect that all these deaths in addition to the normal reasons would mean there are a lot less people in the world?
Was actually reading that Italy's population has fallen by over 300k in last year. This isn't down to Covid entirely but reflects their aging population and falling birth rates in developed countries.
Birth rate in January/February 2021 has fallen dramatically in Ireland despite the lockdown which suggests that the unplanned births from casual encounters didn't happen as much. No nookie No Nanny's.
With such a rampant contagious disease you'd expect populations to decrease dramatically. With half a million dead in the USA alone.
Birth rate in US is around 4 million I think.
The application to work at the Vaccination centres in the 26 is on a par with the level of insanity that makes the HSE so inefficient and costly. It will struggle to get the required numbers to work in them, even if willing to volunteer.
If you already working in HSE or as a GP it doesn't seem to matter. There is reams of paperwork to submit. Police vetting from every country for every address you have lived in, clearance from every employer you have had, full CV and the best yet, copy of exam results for every exam taken since Junior Cert.
The wife looked at this and give up. She has lived/worked in UK and Australia and would take weeks to get the police clearance and employer clearance. She has been through this before for vetting but current vetting is required. As for the junior cert, wasn't even called the junior cert when she sat it and has no idea where the results even are.
Many saying the same included nurses, doctors and surgeons all willing to help as volunteers if needed to get this done but can see issues coming down the tracks. They have pushed the application closing date 4 times now which show the alarm bells ringing.
Why can't they just put HSE registered staff across into these centres and move quickly.
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 09:25:48 AM
The application to work at the Vaccination centres in the 26 is on a par with the level of insanity that makes the HSE so inefficient and costly. It will struggle to get the required numbers to work in them, even if willing to volunteer.
There have been several examples of doctors etc, coming on the radio about this.
It does not surprise me, all HR departments are a complete law onto themselves and have no interest in the actual need for the job being done.
Edit: I was just speaking to someone whose brother was a recently retired surgeon in England. He put himself forward for the vaccination, but gave up because of all the bureaucracy, hand-washing courses (for a surgeon), child protection (when children do not get this vaccine) etc. So it is no better in England than in the ROI.
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 09:25:48 AM
The application to work at the Vaccination centres in the 26 is on a par with the level of insanity that makes the HSE so inefficient and costly. It will struggle to get the required numbers to work in them, even if willing to volunteer.
If you already working in HSE or as a GP it doesn't seem to matter. There is reams of paperwork to submit. Police vetting from every country for every address you have lived in, clearance from every employer you have had, full CV and the best yet, copy of exam results for every exam taken since Junior Cert.
The wife looked at this and give up. She has lived/worked in UK and Australia and would take weeks to get the police clearance and employer clearance. She has been through this before for vetting but current vetting is required. As for the junior cert, wasn't even called the junior cert when she sat it and has no idea where the results even are.
Many saying the same included nurses, doctors and surgeons all willing to help as volunteers if needed to get this done but can see issues coming down the tracks. They have pushed the application closing date 4 times now which show the alarm bells ringing.
Why can't they just put HSE registered staff across into these centres and move quickly.
If I am right the UK had did have a similar issue. Not sure how they resolved or if they did but there was definitely a paperwork issue in the beginning.
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40254977.html
Quote from: Rossfan on March 31, 2021, 11:41:35 AM
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40254977.html
Process seems as clear as mud! It didn't say in that piece that CPL are handling the recruitment and that there interpretation may have differed and is now been clarified by the HSE.
Why this can't be done by HSE is beyond me using their staff network, public health and GP resources.
The plan is to have 30 centres operating at minimum with 12 hour days, 7 days a week. 3,290 staff won't cut it.
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 11:55:43 AM
Quote from: Rossfan on March 31, 2021, 11:41:35 AM
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40254977.html
Process seems as clear as mud! It didn't say in that piece that CPL are handling the recruitment and that there interpretation may have differed and is now been clarified by the HSE.
Why this can't be done by HSE is beyond me using their staff network, public health and GP resources.
The plan is to have 30 centres operating at minimum with 12 hour days, 7 days a week. 3,290 staff won't cut it.
Worth pointing out that CPL is the company of FG TD Jennifer Carroll McNeill's family.
They were awarded a big contract at the start of the pandemic without tender.
CPL are a massive company/employer and have many contracts with HSE going back 20plus years.
They have the resources and people to do this but it seems the criteria hasn't been made clear. I just don't know why it's been outsourced - agency hiring HSE staff to do HSE work.
The TD connection is loose, CPL been operating for 20+ years in terms of agency staff for HSE and many others. It's actually been sold by the TDs uncle to a multi national in the last year. .
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Does anyone know if the location you receive the jab determines the vaccine you receive?
Are they giving the Pfizer one at the centres and AZ at the pharmacies?
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
You absolute numpty! Her brother (does she have a brother) isn't Paul Carroll of CPL, that's her uncle. Who has been doing HSE contracts for years.
And I know where you got that story from - Gript and John McGuirk. The right wing media website in Ireland who drive this type of nonsense and misinformation.
So the so called socialist and republican gets his information from gript! Absolute spoofer.
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on March 30, 2021, 04:57:20 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 04:36:53 PM
It's just out, and not a mandatory thing yet. Actually Excelsior Pass, not Empire.
Here's one story on it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/)
So If i book tickets to go to New York in October, we should be ok?
We'll have both been (at that point) both jabs
Ok in terms of having to get this vaccine passport?
From what I've heard, its not going to be mandatory in terms of the state or city government saying you have to get it (the vaccine OR the passport).
Whether or not you'll need it to get into a Broadway show or a Knicks game or a museum is a different matter.
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a
FG govt with a
FG minister for health awarding
a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on
zero hour contracts to a
company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Quote from: Gmac on March 30, 2021, 05:56:44 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 05:30:55 PM
Quote from: Gmac on March 30, 2021, 04:59:16 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 04:36:53 PM
It's just out, and not a mandatory thing yet. Actually Excelsior Pass, not Empire.
Here's one story on it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/ (https://www.forbes.com/sites/suzannerowankelleher/2021/03/27/new-york-just-launched-a-digital-vaccine-pass-to-restart-concerts-sports-events-and-other-activities/amp/)
for the us posters in particular the lifting of mask mandate and a fully open economy in Texas and Mississippi seem to have had no bearing on cases . Is it vaccination or are the masks overrated.
Let's not celebrate just yet.
The mask mandate was only lifted a few weeks ago. And what was the rate of mask wearing in those places in the first place? Are those people huddled together in indoor spaces for any lengths of time?
Why would you think that masks are overrated?
No one has said they're the panacaea. They're one element, along with the social distancing, hand hygiene, testing, vaccines and the rest. Their purpose is to limit the amount of virus a potentially infected person will exhale. They're not respirators, so the protection offered in terms of inhalation is limited.
who's celebrating? It's a bit of good news for a change, a lot on here would be happy if it was going badly there . I never said they didn't work .
Fair enough.
Numbers rising in a fair other few states at the moment.
And the CDC are not sounding too optimistic about avoiding a fourth wave. Hopefully the vaccines (and apparently, in another bit of good news, vaccine hesitancy is decreasing) nip it in the bud.
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Is that another gript article? Spoofer. Have you decided if it's her uncle or brother?
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Lack of tendering is not great in these situations but CPL had obviously done work for HSE for many years so clearly had some sort of a framework contract. I am guessing there was a time pressure on this and for expediency they may have been awarded this under benchmarked rates etc. Ideally you test the market but sometimes that is not possible
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Is that another gript article? Spoofer. Have you decided if it's her uncle or brother?
No. It's an Irish Times article.
And you're triggered, pet.
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:30:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Lack of tendering is not great in these situations but CPL had obviously done work for HSE for many years so clearly had some sort of a framework contract. I am guessing there was a time pressure on this and for expediency they may have been awarded this under benchmarked rates etc. Ideally you test the market but sometimes that is not possible
The optics of it are very bad.
Paying a private company with family links to a party member millions for contracts that exploit workers in a vital public sector that is understaffed is not a good look.
It's the FFG way, throw public services and resources over to the private sector and enrich the chosen few.
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:10:25 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Is that another gript article? Spoofer. Have you decided if it's her uncle or brother?
No. It's an Irish Times article.
And you're triggered, pet.
You're hiding, true trait of a spoofer.
You claimed that her brother was owner of CPL? Did you not?
The source of this was Gript who wrongly claimed this. Gript is a known right wing media ran by John McGuirk.
So you get your info from right wing media. An absolute spoofer.
You're rattled wee man.
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:10:25 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Is that another gript article? Spoofer. Have you decided if it's her uncle or brother?
No. It's an Irish Times article.
And you're triggered, pet.
You're hiding, true trait of a spoofer.
You claimed that her brother was owner of CPL? Did you not?
The source of this was Gript who wrongly claimed this. Gript is a known right wing media ran by John McGuirk.
So you get your info from right wing media. An absolute spoofer.
You're rattled wee man.
Why are Gript any more or less reliable than the pathetic shower of gobshites that we call the mainstream media?
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 31, 2021, 03:31:42 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:10:25 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Is that another gript article? Spoofer. Have you decided if it's her uncle or brother?
No. It's an Irish Times article.
And you're triggered, pet.
You're hiding, true trait of a spoofer.
You claimed that her brother was owner of CPL? Did you not?
The source of this was Gript who wrongly claimed this. Gript is a known right wing media ran by John McGuirk.
So you get your info from right wing media. An absolute spoofer.
You're rattled wee man.
Why are Gript any more or less reliable than the pathetic shower of gobshites that we call the mainstream media?
Why does everything have to be compared to something else? Can you not judge something on its own merits? Gript is right wing in its agenda, known to spread lies and misinformation and links to all sorts of suspect organisations.
I decided that without comparing to the other unreliable and agenda driven media.
One pathetic shower doesn't make another shower any less of gobshites.
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:10:25 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Is that another gript article? Spoofer. Have you decided if it's her uncle or brother?
No. It's an Irish Times article.
And you're triggered, pet.
You're hiding, true trait of a spoofer.
You claimed that her brother was owner of CPL? Did you not?
The source of this was Gript who wrongly claimed this. Gript is a known right wing media ran by John McGuirk.
So you get your info from right wing media. An absolute spoofer.
You're rattled wee man.
He did own the company. I think you're telling claiming fibs if he didn't own the company. You're very easily triggered by criticism of the following things:
- Free State corruption
- FFG failings
- English football
There's a pattern emerging to your psyche. Are you a bit of an anglophile would you say?
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:30:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Lack of tendering is not great in these situations but CPL had obviously done work for HSE for many years so clearly had some sort of a framework contract. I am guessing there was a time pressure on this and for expediency they may have been awarded this under benchmarked rates etc. Ideally you test the market but sometimes that is not possible
The optics of it are very bad.
Paying a private company with family links to a party member millions for contracts that exploit workers in a vital public sector that is understaffed is not a good look.
It's the FFG way, throw public services and resources over to the private sector and enrich the chosen few.
Public company governed by stock exchange rules......
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:13:50 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:30:33 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Lack of tendering is not great in these situations but CPL had obviously done work for HSE for many years so clearly had some sort of a framework contract. I am guessing there was a time pressure on this and for expediency they may have been awarded this under benchmarked rates etc. Ideally you test the market but sometimes that is not possible
The optics of it are very bad.
Paying a private company with family links to a party member millions for contracts that exploit workers in a vital public sector that is understaffed is not a good look.
It's the FFG way, throw public services and resources over to the private sector and enrich the chosen few.
Public company governed by stock exchange rules......
Whose major shareholders had family ties to a Gov TD.
It's about the optics at the end of the day and it stinks.
Millions of public money awarded to connected parties of Gov TDs to exploit workers on zero hour contracts without tendering. How does that look?
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 09:25:48 AM
The application to work at the Vaccination centres in the 26 is on a par with the level of insanity that makes the HSE so inefficient and costly. It will struggle to get the required numbers to work in them, even if willing to volunteer.
If you already working in HSE or as a GP it doesn't seem to matter. There is reams of paperwork to submit. Police vetting from every country for every address you have lived in, clearance from every employer you have had, full CV and the best yet, copy of exam results for every exam taken since Junior Cert.
I read somewhere recently that Germany is still deciding whether to allow GP's, never mind Pharmacists, to administer the vaccine. (Might have been decided since?).
Also, their system is strictly federal, meaning you get lots of gaps etc in the programme. For example, one State has such strict Data Protection laws, that they don't have a record of their citizens ages anywhere.
So when they started the vaccination programme they were reduced to scanning the electoral roll and sending out the first invitations to people who had old-fashioned names, on the basis that they might be old!
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:56:57 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:10:25 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Is that another gript article? Spoofer. Have you decided if it's her uncle or brother?
No. It's an Irish Times article.
And you're triggered, pet.
You're hiding, true trait of a spoofer.
You claimed that her brother was owner of CPL? Did you not?
The source of this was Gript who wrongly claimed this. Gript is a known right wing media ran by John McGuirk.
So you get your info from right wing media. An absolute spoofer.
You're rattled wee man.
He did own the company. I think you're telling claiming fibs if he didn't own the company. You're very easily triggered by criticism of the following things:
- Free State corruption
- FFG failings
- English football
There's a pattern emerging to your psyche. Are you a bit of an anglophile would you say?
Firstly, he isn't her brother? Can you address that for the 3rd time? You claimed and continue to claim it's the case. Can we really believe anything you say?
If you using Gript with it's known right wing agenda where facts are optional, what else have you said that comes form these type of sources.
And he Uncle held a minority shareholding in a listed company where the majority holding was his actual wife who he is separated from.
You carry on deflecting. Sign of a spoofer Wee Man.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 31, 2021, 10:21:54 AM
Edit: I was just speaking to someone whose brother was a recently retired surgeon in England. He put himself forward for the vaccination, but gave up because of all the bureaucracy, hand-washing courses (for a surgeon), child protection (when children do not get this vaccine) etc. So it is no better in England than in the ROI.
Note that the report below dates from
April 2020:
Hundreds of thousands of volunteers will be called upon to deliver a mass roll out of the coronavirus vaccine, according to reports.
The NHS recruited more than 750,000 people in April, with duties to include delivering goods to the elderly and taking patients for hospital appointments.
But with the vaccine - which could be approved by next week - seen as the best shot at stamping out Covid-19 for good, they are now reportedly set to be trained up to administer the actual jabs.
An email sent to volunteers and seen by LBC, says they can be expected to be "trained to deliver a vaccination to a patient. They will also be ready to act if a patient has an adverse reaction".
While volunteers will also act as vaccination carers who "will support patients all the way through, from arrival to discharge".
St John Ambulance is recruiting 30,000 volunteers to operate the hubs and help deliver the vaccine in England.
Recruitment documents, seen by the Daily Mail, show volunteers are only required to have two or more A-levels, and reiterates they will be "trained to deliver the actual injection".
It then adds: "We'll provide training for non-first aiders, including administering injections."
Those who sign up must be aged 18-69, at a low risk of contracting coronavirus and able to work a minimum of two six to eight-hour shifts per month.https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-volunteers-trained-up-give-23101386 (https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-volunteers-trained-up-give-23101386)
And while it may not subsequently have gone exactly to plan, the fact is that the NHS has been able to administer up to 800k doses per day, with availablilty of the vaccine itself, rather than a shortage of staff, being the only reason for lower daily figures.
My vaccine was administered by a trainee nurse.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 31, 2021, 04:12:35 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 09:25:48 AM
The application to work at the Vaccination centres in the 26 is on a par with the level of insanity that makes the HSE so inefficient and costly. It will struggle to get the required numbers to work in them, even if willing to volunteer.
If you already working in HSE or as a GP it doesn't seem to matter. There is reams of paperwork to submit. Police vetting from every country for every address you have lived in, clearance from every employer you have had, full CV and the best yet, copy of exam results for every exam taken since Junior Cert.
I read somewhere recently that Germany is still deciding whether to allow GP's, never mind Pharmacists, to administer the vaccine. (Might have been decided since?).
Also, their system is strictly federal, meaning you get lots of gaps etc in the programme. For example, one State has such strict Data Protection laws, that they don't have a record of their citizens ages anywhere.
So when they started the vaccination programme they were reduced to scanning the electoral roll and sending out the first invitations to people who had old-fashioned names, on the basis that they might be old!
Seriously? Feckingg hell
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 04:15:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:56:57 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:10:25 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Is that another gript article? Spoofer. Have you decided if it's her uncle or brother?
No. It's an Irish Times article.
And you're triggered, pet.
You're hiding, true trait of a spoofer.
You claimed that her brother was owner of CPL? Did you not?
The source of this was Gript who wrongly claimed this. Gript is a known right wing media ran by John McGuirk.
So you get your info from right wing media. An absolute spoofer.
You're rattled wee man.
He did own the company. I think you're telling claiming fibs if he didn't own the company. You're very easily triggered by criticism of the following things:
- Free State corruption
- FFG failings
- English football
There's a pattern emerging to your psyche. Are you a bit of an anglophile would you say?
Firstly, he isn't her brother? Can you address that for the 3rd time? You claimed and continue to claim it's the case. Can we really believe anything you say?
If you using Gript with it's known right wing agenda where facts are optional, what else have you said that comes form these type of sources.
And he Uncle held a minority shareholding in a listed company where the majority holding was his actual wife who he is separated from.
You carry on deflecting. Sign of a spoofer Wee Man.
I don't know why you keep referencing Gript.
It seems to be that you like to spread baseless innuendo without a shred of evidence when your beloved Anglophile tendencies are exposed.
Diddums.
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 04:33:21 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 04:15:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:56:57 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:10:25 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Is that another gript article? Spoofer. Have you decided if it's her uncle or brother?
No. It's an Irish Times article.
And you're triggered, pet.
You're hiding, true trait of a spoofer.
You claimed that her brother was owner of CPL? Did you not?
The source of this was Gript who wrongly claimed this. Gript is a known right wing media ran by John McGuirk.
So you get your info from right wing media. An absolute spoofer.
You're rattled wee man.
He did own the company. I think you're telling claiming fibs if he didn't own the company. You're very easily triggered by criticism of the following things:
- Free State corruption
- FFG failings
- English football
There's a pattern emerging to your psyche. Are you a bit of an anglophile would you say?
Firstly, he isn't her brother? Can you address that for the 3rd time? You claimed and continue to claim it's the case. Can we really believe anything you say?
If you using Gript with it's known right wing agenda where facts are optional, what else have you said that comes form these type of sources.
And he Uncle held a minority shareholding in a listed company where the majority holding was his actual wife who he is separated from.
You carry on deflecting. Sign of a spoofer Wee Man.
I don't know why you keep referencing Gript.
It seems to be that you like to spread baseless innuendo without a shred of evidence when your beloved Anglophile tendencies are exposed.
Diddums.
4th time - is Paul Carroll the TD's brother or Sister that you have claimed, as have Gript?
Can you not admit you got it wrong? Spoofer.
Quote from: Armagh18 on March 31, 2021, 04:28:42 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 31, 2021, 04:12:35 PM
I read somewhere recently that Germany is still deciding whether to allow GP's, never mind Pharmacists, to administer the vaccine. (Might have been decided since?).
Also, their system is strictly federal, meaning you get lots of gaps etc in the programme. For example, one State has such strict Data Protection laws, that they don't have a record of their citizens ages anywhere.
So when they started the vaccination programme they were reduced to scanning the electoral roll and sending out the first invitations to people who had old-fashioned names, on the basis that they might be old!
Seriously? Feckingg hell
That bit about the Data Protection was reported on BBC World Service radio, so I take it to be correct (at least then at any rate - may have been resolved since?)
From an hour and a half ago:
"Experts investigating possible links between the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine and blood clots have so far found no specific risk factors, such as age, gender or medical history, European Union regulators have said.
However, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said analysis was continuing.
It restated its view that the benefits of the vaccine in preventing Covid-19 outweighed any risk of side effects."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56586804 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56586804)
"Poland [population 37.8m] has reported the highest number of new virus-related deaths so far this year - 653 in 24 hours."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56586804 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56586804)
Yesterday's figure for the UK [population 68.1m] was 56 deaths.
Meanwhile, the UK vaccination rate currently covers 50.85% of the total population, whilst Poland's equivalent is 16.07%:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196071/covid-19-vaccination-rate-in-europe-by-country/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196071/covid-19-vaccination-rate-in-europe-by-country/)
Yet you still get morons advising us all not to get vaccinated. >:(
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 31, 2021, 05:00:09 PM
"Poland [population 37.8m] has reported the highest number of new virus-related deaths so far this year - 653 in 24 hours."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56586804 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56586804)
Yesterday's figure for the UK [population 68.1m] was 56 deaths.
Meanwhile, the UK vaccination rate currently covers 50.85% of the total population, whilst Poland's equivalent is 16.07%:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196071/covid-19-vaccination-rate-in-europe-by-country/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196071/covid-19-vaccination-rate-in-europe-by-country/)
Yet you still get morons advising us all not to get vaccinated. >:(
Poland in a very poor way and looks like parts of Europe going to suffer over next few months as vaccines are so slow getting out. No wonder if your Germany example is the common theme. Plus if the healthcare system so stressed with covid infections it's rollout will suffer too from ability to roll it out.
You get people all talk about not getting it, particularly on social media and forums, but when it comes to it these same people be first in line with sleeves rolled up looking the jab. They like to seem important and build up an online persona that is far removed from the reality of who they really are.
Dunno how reliable this is ("Politics For All"?), but terrific news if true:
@PoliticsForAlI
1h
BREAKING: A new major study from Denmark finds that there were FEWER cases of blood clots in people who had the AZ vaccine than the general population
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1377266848304144386 (https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1377266848304144386)
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 05:05:32 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 31, 2021, 05:00:09 PM
"Poland [population 37.8m] has reported the highest number of new virus-related deaths so far this year - 653 in 24 hours."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56586804 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56586804)
Yesterday's figure for the UK [population 68.1m] was 56 deaths.
Meanwhile, the UK vaccination rate currently covers 50.85% of the total population, whilst Poland's equivalent is 16.07%:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196071/covid-19-vaccination-rate-in-europe-by-country/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/1196071/covid-19-vaccination-rate-in-europe-by-country/)
Yet you still get morons advising us all not to get vaccinated. >:(
Poland in a very poor way and looks like parts of Europe going to suffer over next few months as vaccines are so slow getting out. No wonder if your Germany example is the common theme. Plus if the healthcare system so stressed with covid infections it's rollout will suffer too from ability to roll it out.
Yep, for instance Ukraine [population 43.7m, though some of those may be in the Russian-occupied part] recorded 407 Covid deaths yesterday.
One esp heart-breaking story:
"Volodymyr and Diana Rodikov were raising three of their own and eight adopted children in a family-type orphanage in the village of Lypovy Skitok near Kyiv.
The family has gone through many trials. In 2014, they had to flee the war in Donbass, leaving behind their home and all their possessions, and start all over again.
In 2017, they settled in a large spacious house in the village.
"I saw these children, they were happy. They hugged their mother, played with their father. They did everything together - prepared preserves for the winter, baked cakes. They were a great team of absolutely happy children," local official Iryna Gorbacheva tells BBC News Ukraine.
Diana and Volodymyr were hospitalised with Covid-19 in early March. Eight of the 11 children were also diagnosed with coronavirus but they had much milder symptoms.
The parents were transferred to intensive care, where for more than three weeks doctors fought for their lives - but could not save them.
Now the children live in a rehabilitation centre where they receive psychological help.
"These children went through a lot of grief - the tragedy of their own families when they found themselves in an orphanage, war, resettlement," says Gorbacheva.
Social workers and local deputies are looking for new foster parents for the children."https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56586804 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56586804)
P.S. The UK's Covid death rate has fallen further today to 43, as compared with 56 yesterday.
NPHET would just depress ye at this stage.
UK administered as many 2nd jabs as 1st jabs today, for the first time - approx 250k of each.
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 31, 2021, 05:23:57 PM
UK administered as many 2nd jabs as 1st jabs today, for the first time - approx 250k of each.
Superb figures.
If the vaccination rate continues like this then we should be all covered & back to normal sooner than anticipated.
The UK Gov fucked up a lot of things during this pandemic from care homes, to awarding contracts to mates, to lockdowns etc etc.
But their rollout of the vaccine, thus far, has been world leading
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 31, 2021, 05:23:57 PM
UK administered as many 2nd jabs as 1st jabs today, for the first time - approx 250k of each.
This will be the pattern. They were doing 300,00+ first jabs back in Jan/Feb and these people now require a second jab. There will be less progress on first jabs for a while, supply won't be growing in April. Younger folk will get their jabs May/June when supply increases.
Quote from: armaghniac on March 31, 2021, 05:47:21 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on March 31, 2021, 05:23:57 PM
UK administered as many 2nd jabs as 1st jabs today, for the first time - approx 250k of each.
This will be the pattern. They were doing 300,00+ first jabs back in Jan/Feb and these people now require a second jab. There will be less progress on first jabs for a while, supply won't be growing in April. Younger folk will get their jabs May/June when supply increases.
I think (could be wrong, mind) that this was partly down to individual supply issues, not just pure clinical reasons.
That is, if your 1st jab is Pfizer, the 2nd has to be Pfizer too. Ditto with AZ.
Meaning that if they're esp short of one but have plenty of the other, or expect that to be the case in the coming days, they'll pile ahead with 2nd jabs from the one they do have.
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 04:43:08 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 04:33:21 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 04:15:52 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:56:57 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 03:27:54 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 03:10:25 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 02:28:31 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:25:23 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:20:30 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 02:13:37 PM
Quote from: TabClear on March 31, 2021, 02:11:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 01:50:15 PM
Company of a govt TD's brother getting a multi million contract to recruit zero hour contract workers in a pandemic without tender is not a good look I think we will all agree.
Is this CPL the publicly listed company that was bought by a Japanese multinational?
After the contract was awarded.
At the time of the contract being awarded which was early last year it was in the ownership of a FG TD's brother.
I was adding to my post when you replied. I am pretty sure CPL was listed on the stock exchange albeit the CEO was about a 33% shareholder. The CEO and founder is actually married to the brother so she might object to you calling it "his" company!
They owned a 34% shareholding between them and were directors in the company from an article I looked at there.
I think we can all agree though that a FG govt with a FG minister for health awarding a multi-million untendered contract to recruit workers on zero hour contracts to a company with close family ties to a FG TD (being the largest shareholders) in the middle of a pandemic has a very bad look to it.
Is that another gript article? Spoofer. Have you decided if it's her uncle or brother?
No. It's an Irish Times article.
And you're triggered, pet.
You're hiding, true trait of a spoofer.
You claimed that her brother was owner of CPL? Did you not?
The source of this was Gript who wrongly claimed this. Gript is a known right wing media ran by John McGuirk.
So you get your info from right wing media. An absolute spoofer.
You're rattled wee man.
He did own the company. I think you're telling claiming fibs if he didn't own the company. You're very easily triggered by criticism of the following things:
- Free State corruption
- FFG failings
- English football
There's a pattern emerging to your psyche. Are you a bit of an anglophile would you say?
Firstly, he isn't her brother? Can you address that for the 3rd time? You claimed and continue to claim it's the case. Can we really believe anything you say?
If you using Gript with it's known right wing agenda where facts are optional, what else have you said that comes form these type of sources.
And he Uncle held a minority shareholding in a listed company where the majority holding was his actual wife who he is separated from.
You carry on deflecting. Sign of a spoofer Wee Man.
I don't know why you keep referencing Gript.
It seems to be that you like to spread baseless innuendo without a shred of evidence when your beloved Anglophile tendencies are exposed.
Diddums.
4th time - is Paul Carroll the TD's brother or Sister that you have claimed, as have Gript?
Can you not admit you got it wrong? Spoofer.
I haven't a clue if what you are saying is right or wrong.
I don't read Gript, but clearly to know that you must.
It's interesting to see how worked up you are getting up about discussing the untendered multi-million contracts getting handed out to business with close family connections to a FG TD which exploit workers through zero hour contracts.
So now you have actually accidentally exposed yourself as a reader of far right editorials as a well as an unashamed defender of Blueshirt cronyism.
I can understand why you are triggered.
All the hallmarks of an absolute spoofer and bluffer.
You stated someone was a brother of a TD. Twice. Now you are saying you don't know or "rather haven't a clue".
So do you make a habit of saying stuff that you haven't a clue about? Is that generally how you post stuff to make your points? Can we really trust anything you say?
Why did you say it was her brother if you "haven't a clue" if what I say is right or wrong?
And I know it was gript who ran the story and got it very wrong cause they got pulled on it at the time by a people who regularly expose their misinformation and far right propaganda.
You are a bluffer Wee man.
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 07:58:48 PM
All the hallmarks of an absolute spoofer and bluffer.
You stated someone was a brother of a TD. Twice. Now you are saying you don't know or "rather haven't a clue".
So do you make a habit of saying stuff that you haven't a clue about? Is that generally how you post stuff to make your points? Can we really trust anything you say?
Why did you say it was her brother if you "haven't a clue" if what I say is right or wrong?
And I know it was gript who ran the story and got it very wrong cause they got pulled on it at the time by a people who regularly expose their misinformation and far right propaganda.
You are a bluffer Wee man.
So it's ok because it was actually her uncle.
Uncle/brother doesn't seem to make any difference to the general point, it's just the semantics for you to try and digress away from the cronyism of FG.
You also made a mess of your Gript point. In trying to baselessly associate me with them you have outed yourself as a reader of their content, I can't tell you what Gript say because I don't read their articles. You on the other hand seem to know exactly what they say and what they don't say and you ironically have exposed that when you were trying to make that incorrect and baseless allegation against me.
Some village in Louth has now exported their specialist in idiocy to the internet.
Try and twist it all you like and make it about something else.
Fact: You lied, twice. Can't even say why you claimed it was her brother. Did you just guess? Na, one of your far right racist rags said it and you believed.
Can we really believe anything you say?
Likely get lot of your other "facts" form Gript and the like.
Exposed as a liar. ;D ;D ;D
Hearing some great stories on numbers vaccinated and certainly numbers of infections and deaths lend some weight to the argument that the vaccinations and lockdowns are working.
However, possibly anecdotal, I know of 4 primary schools having to close due to covid infections and in one case a year group having to stay off due to infections.
My own parents were in hospital yesterday where my dad was getting his prep for another round of treatment. The doctor said that when he comes in for treatment he'll not be able to bring anyone in with him due to covid restrictions and because they are preparing for the start of the 3rd wave. Parents didn't really ask why that was the case as they'd other things on their mind, but a worrying development all the same.
It might be a leap, but perhaps schools returning and some already closing alongside the return of all kids to school in a couple of weeks is expected to trigger the third wave. Depressing if true.
We're not out of the woods yet, but vaccinations definately the best chance of putting us into a position of being able to live with this virus.
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 08:25:09 PM
Try and twist it all you like and make it about something else.
Fact: You lied, twice. Can't even say why you claimed it was her brother. Did you just guess? Na, one of your far right racist rags said it and you believed.
Can we really believe anything you say?
Likely get lot of your other "facts" form Gript and the like.
Exposed as a liar. ;D ;D ;D
You outed yourself as a Gript reader when tyring to falsely claim I was with baseless allegations.
I think you might have learned a lesson where running your mouth off leads you to.
Quote from: Angelo on March 31, 2021, 08:29:29 PM
Quote from: Louther on March 31, 2021, 08:25:09 PM
Try and twist it all you like and make it about something else.
Fact: You lied, twice. Can't even say why you claimed it was her brother. Did you just guess? Na, one of your far right racist rags said it and you believed.
Can we really believe anything you say?
Likely get lot of your other "facts" form Gript and the like.
Exposed as a liar. ;D ;D ;D
You outed yourself as a Gript reader when tyring to falsely claim I was with baseless allegations.
I think you might have learned a lesson where running your mouth off leads you to.
Rather sad attempt at deflection.
You lied. End of story.
And I've have no problem telling you of the other lies and poison that Gript spread. It actually resonates with a lot of your agenda in here - anti-vac, anti-lockdown, racist, anti-mask. Selfish shower who want it all their own way really. Can see why it appeals to you.
Liar. ;D ;D
WHO putting the boot into EU 'unacceptably slowly vaccine roll-out.
https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/2021/0401/1207377-coronavirus-vaccine-hans-kluge/
Article doesnt mention EU ;)
Refers to WHO's "European Region" of 53 Countries.
https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2021/0401/1207471-ireland-vaccine-latest/
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 01, 2021, 04:06:46 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2021/0401/1207471-ireland-vaccine-latest/
Very frustrating. New rushed systems obviously have errors in them that haven't been ironed out but on this scale you'd have expected less.
Quote from: Louther on April 01, 2021, 04:17:12 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 01, 2021, 04:06:46 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2021/0401/1207471-ireland-vaccine-latest/
Very frustrating. New rushed systems obviously have errors in them that haven't been ironed out but on this scale you'd have expected less.
Is it that or indication of people not wanting the jab?
Quote from: Rossfan on April 01, 2021, 03:13:34 PM
Article doesnt mention EU ;)
Refers to WHO's "European Region" of 53 Countries.
That's what's known as a thinly veiled diplomatic boot
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 01, 2021, 04:20:02 PM
Quote from: Louther on April 01, 2021, 04:17:12 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 01, 2021, 04:06:46 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2021/0401/1207471-ireland-vaccine-latest/
Very frustrating. New rushed systems obviously have errors in them that haven't been ironed out but on this scale you'd have expected less.
Is it that or indication of people not wanting the jab?
It's an indication of a dysfunctional system. See some ppl on twitter claiming they've been contact 2 and 3 times being offered the vaccine. There's no central system for booking or recording who's been offered the jab. It looks like another shit show from the HSE.
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 01, 2021, 04:20:02 PM
Quote from: Louther on April 01, 2021, 04:17:12 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 01, 2021, 04:06:46 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2021/0401/1207471-ireland-vaccine-latest/
Very frustrating. New rushed systems obviously have errors in them that haven't been ironed out but on this scale you'd have expected less.
Is it that or indication of people not wanting the jab?
No. As far as I can gather they registered on the portal for the jab but once received, they remained on the waiting list and got another appointment for a first jab.
15m Pfizer units wastes at a manufacturing facility in the US after an error on the manufacturing process by the workers :-[
Second jab this morning, the wife thinks its great, I've managed to power hose the paving, bring out the garden furniture from the garage, cut and trim the grass and walk the dogs!!
Though expecting the worst later, chills sore arm and a blood clot! ah well
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2021, 05:10:49 PM
Though expecting the worst later, chills sore arm and a blood clot! ah well
Sounds like a regular night in for Angelo
Quote from: Louther on April 01, 2021, 04:47:51 PM
15m Pfizer units wastes at a manufacturing facility in the US after an error on the manufacturing process by the workers :-[
It was Johnson and Johnson - not Pfizer
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on April 01, 2021, 06:00:24 PM
Quote from: Louther on April 01, 2021, 04:47:51 PM
15m Pfizer units wastes at a manufacturing facility in the US after an error on the manufacturing process by the workers :-[
It was Johnson and Johnson - not Pfizer
Even worse. Same as 30million then since its single dose ffs.
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 03:41:13 PM
NY open this week to everyone over 30, and next week to everyone over 16.
Got my second Pfizer dose last week at the Javitts Center.
I am getting the J&J vaccine at Javits as well. From what I have heard the process has been pretty efficient.
Quote from: Louther on April 01, 2021, 04:43:51 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 01, 2021, 04:20:02 PM
Quote from: Louther on April 01, 2021, 04:17:12 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 01, 2021, 04:06:46 PM
https://www.rte.ie/news/regional/2021/0401/1207471-ireland-vaccine-latest/
Very frustrating. New rushed systems obviously have errors in them that haven't been ironed out but on this scale you'd have expected less.
Is it that or indication of people not wanting the jab?
No. As far as I can gather they registered on the portal for the jab but once received, they remained on the waiting list and got another appointment for a first jab.
Ok I see
One for all those people saying: "Sure I'm young and healthy, and Covid won't get me, so why should I bother with the vaccine?"
Covid jab probably does protect those around you
"The Covid-19 vaccine blocks pretty much all cases of serious illness - but the government has been much more cautious about saying whether it stops people carrying the virus and infecting others.
Until evidence had built up from lots of people being vaccinated, scientists could not say for sure if the jab would stop transmission - and there was concern those vaccinated might stop taking precautions, potentially leading to a rise in infections.
Yet the evidence is moving fast.
Protection from the vaccine may not be perfect and people still need to be careful - but this does not mean it provides no protection to others.
In fact it is becoming increasingly clear the jab is a very big step towards protecting those around you - particularly people who are vulnerable, including the elderly and those with care needs such as learning disabilities or mental illness.
A growing body of real-world evidence suggests it stops a big chunk of people catching the virus at all - if you don't get infected in the first place, you cannot infect other people."
(More here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56514470 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56514470)
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 01, 2021, 05:10:49 PM
Second jab this morning, the wife thinks its great, I've managed to power hose the paving, bring out the garden furniture from the garage, cut and trim the grass and walk the dogs!!
Though expecting the worst later, chills sore arm and a blood clot! ah well
I got my first AZ jab last week, felt ok for the first 12 hours and then the headaches, muscle aches, stiffness and temperatures like someone had given me a hiding. :o
Took a few days to get back to normal, but no pain, no gain..
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 01, 2021, 07:18:19 PM
One for all those people saying: "Sure I'm young and healthy, and Covid won't get me, so why should I bother with the vaccine?"
Covid jab probably does protect those around you
"The Covid-19 vaccine blocks pretty much all cases of serious illness - but the government has been much more cautious about saying whether it stops people carrying the virus and infecting others.
Until evidence had built up from lots of people being vaccinated, scientists could not say for sure if the jab would stop transmission - and there was concern those vaccinated might stop taking precautions, potentially leading to a rise in infections.
Yet the evidence is moving fast.
Protection from the vaccine may not be perfect and people still need to be careful - but this does not mean it provides no protection to others.
In fact it is becoming increasingly clear the jab is a very big step towards protecting those around you - particularly people who are vulnerable, including the elderly and those with care needs such as learning disabilities or mental illness.
A growing body of real-world evidence suggests it stops a big chunk of people catching the virus at all - if you don't get infected in the first place, you cannot infect other people."
(More here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56514470 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56514470)
That is not what they say, they are saying, why should I get it, when nothing is reopening.
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on April 02, 2021, 10:36:22 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 01, 2021, 07:18:19 PM
One for all those people saying: "Sure I'm young and healthy, and Covid won't get me, so why should I bother with the vaccine?"
Covid jab probably does protect those around you
"The Covid-19 vaccine blocks pretty much all cases of serious illness - but the government has been much more cautious about saying whether it stops people carrying the virus and infecting others.
Until evidence had built up from lots of people being vaccinated, scientists could not say for sure if the jab would stop transmission - and there was concern those vaccinated might stop taking precautions, potentially leading to a rise in infections.
Yet the evidence is moving fast.
Protection from the vaccine may not be perfect and people still need to be careful - but this does not mean it provides no protection to others.
In fact it is becoming increasingly clear the jab is a very big step towards protecting those around you - particularly people who are vulnerable, including the elderly and those with care needs such as learning disabilities or mental illness.
A growing body of real-world evidence suggests it stops a big chunk of people catching the virus at all - if you don't get infected in the first place, you cannot infect other people."
(More here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56514470 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56514470)
That is not what they say, they are saying, why should I get it, when nothing is reopening.
I agree. Should be reopening now or else whats the point? Almost everyone who is at risk has got at least one jab. I don't really give a f**k if I get covid or not.
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on April 02, 2021, 10:36:22 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 01, 2021, 07:18:19 PM
One for all those people saying: "Sure I'm young and healthy, and Covid won't get me, so why should I bother with the vaccine?"
Covid jab probably does protect those around you
"The Covid-19 vaccine blocks pretty much all cases of serious illness - but the government has been much more cautious about saying whether it stops people carrying the virus and infecting others.
Until evidence had built up from lots of people being vaccinated, scientists could not say for sure if the jab would stop transmission - and there was concern those vaccinated might stop taking precautions, potentially leading to a rise in infections.
Yet the evidence is moving fast.
Protection from the vaccine may not be perfect and people still need to be careful - but this does not mean it provides no protection to others.
In fact it is becoming increasingly clear the jab is a very big step towards protecting those around you - particularly people who are vulnerable, including the elderly and those with care needs such as learning disabilities or mental illness.
A growing body of real-world evidence suggests it stops a big chunk of people catching the virus at all - if you don't get infected in the first place, you cannot infect other people."
(More here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56514470 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56514470)
That is not what they say, they are saying, why should I get it, when nothing is reopening.
In fairness plenty are saying that.
Including the board's most prominent anti-vaxxer
At this point it should all be about Covid hospital admissions and have a number to work from.
As for those who don't give a f**k, then their attitude will only spread it and we should bring in the vaccine passport
Quote from: Franko on April 02, 2021, 11:54:40 AM
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on April 02, 2021, 10:36:22 AM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 01, 2021, 07:18:19 PM
One for all those people saying: "Sure I'm young and healthy, and Covid won't get me, so why should I bother with the vaccine?"
Covid jab probably does protect those around you
"The Covid-19 vaccine blocks pretty much all cases of serious illness - but the government has been much more cautious about saying whether it stops people carrying the virus and infecting others.
Until evidence had built up from lots of people being vaccinated, scientists could not say for sure if the jab would stop transmission - and there was concern those vaccinated might stop taking precautions, potentially leading to a rise in infections.
Yet the evidence is moving fast.
Protection from the vaccine may not be perfect and people still need to be careful - but this does not mean it provides no protection to others.
In fact it is becoming increasingly clear the jab is a very big step towards protecting those around you - particularly people who are vulnerable, including the elderly and those with care needs such as learning disabilities or mental illness.
A growing body of real-world evidence suggests it stops a big chunk of people catching the virus at all - if you don't get infected in the first place, you cannot infect other people."
(More here: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56514470 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56514470)
That is not what they say, they are saying, why should I get it, when nothing is reopening.
In fairness plenty are saying that.
Including the board's most prominent anti-vaxxer
I'd say most youngpeople arent too bothered if they get the jab or not but will take it if it means getting back to normal.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 11:55:53 AM
At this point it should all be about Covid hospital admissions and have a number to work from.
As for those who don't give a f**k, then their attitude will only spread it and we should bring in the vaccine passport
Facist
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 02, 2021, 11:57:01 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 11:55:53 AM
At this point it should all be about Covid hospital admissions and have a number to work from.
As for those who don't give a f**k, then their attitude will only spread it and we should bring in the vaccine passport
Facist
Ok Karen
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 02, 2021, 11:57:01 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 11:55:53 AM
At this point it should all be about Covid hospital admissions and have a number to work from.
As for those who don't give a f**k, then their attitude will only spread it and we should bring in the vaccine passport
Facist
You're running around the board like a wee dog let out into a big field.
Quote from: JoG2 on April 02, 2021, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 02, 2021, 11:57:01 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 11:55:53 AM
At this point it should all be about Covid hospital admissions and have a number to work from.
As for those who don't give a f**k, then their attitude will only spread it and we should bring in the vaccine passport
Facist
You're running around the board like a wee dog let out into a big field.
Another shithead for the ignore list.
Quote from: JoG2 on April 02, 2021, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 02, 2021, 11:57:01 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 11:55:53 AM
At this point it should all be about Covid hospital admissions and have a number to work from.
As for those who don't give a f**k, then their attitude will only spread it and we should bring in the vaccine passport
Facist
You're running around the board like a wee dog let out into a big field.
I'd say it's Angelos burner account ;D
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 11:57:51 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 02, 2021, 11:57:01 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 11:55:53 AM
At this point it should all be about Covid hospital admissions and have a number to work from.
As for those who don't give a f**k, then their attitude will only spread it and we should bring in the vaccine passport
Facist
Ok Karen
If you're that worried about covid get the vaccine. If not then don't and it's none of your business who gets it or who doesn't. I'm not anti vax btw and will take it no problem.
Quote from: Louther on April 02, 2021, 12:11:23 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on April 02, 2021, 12:01:31 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 02, 2021, 11:57:01 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 11:55:53 AM
At this point it should all be about Covid hospital admissions and have a number to work from.
As for those who don't give a f**k, then their attitude will only spread it and we should bring in the vaccine passport
Facist
You're running around the board like a wee dog let out into a big field.
I'd say it's Angelos burner account ;D
Ah now that's too far. Call me whatever you like but don't accuse me of being from Tyrone ;)
I've got both jabs.
I'm worried that others who don't take it will give it to others, or if there is a high percentage of non vaccine takers it will mutate and we are back to square one.
But hey ho
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 12:32:11 PM
I've got both jabs.
I'm worried that others who don't take it will give it to others, or if there is a high percentage of non vaccine takers it will mutate and we are back to square one.
But hey ho
Both?! You look alright for 80!
Quote from: dec on April 01, 2021, 07:10:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 03:41:13 PM
NY open this week to everyone over 30, and next week to everyone over 16.
Got my second Pfizer dose last week at the Javitts Center.
I am getting the J&J vaccine at Javits as well. From what I have heard the process has been pretty efficient.
Javitts set-up is impressive. Industrial scale stuff.
When I got my first jab, the place was packed, but everything was moving very quickly. They were processing close to ten people per minute at the time I was there.
Second dose, it was much quieter, but still busy by any normal standards.
Quote from: Tony Baloney on April 02, 2021, 12:44:22 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 12:32:11 PM
I've got both jabs.
I'm worried that others who don't take it will give it to others, or if there is a high percentage of non vaccine takers it will mutate and we are back to square one.
But hey ho
Both?! You look alright for 80!
Front line worker sure!
I see the Dutch are now anti-vaxx lunatics.
5 women aged between 25-65 with blood clotting after getting the AZ vaccine.
Of course nothing to see here for the coincidence theorists.
Got the call up from the GP here in Lurgan yesterday. I don't fit into any of the groups called up, so don't know why I was offered it (possibly as I'm feeding baby). They must have had a surplus they needed to use before the holiday weekend!
Quote from: Angelo on April 02, 2021, 07:19:35 PM
I see the Dutch are now anti-vaxx lunatics.
5 women aged between 25-65 with blood clotting after getting the AZ vaccine.
Of course nothing to see here for the coincidence theorists.
Probably the younger ones got it from taking the pill
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 07:50:01 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 02, 2021, 07:19:35 PM
I see the Dutch are now anti-vaxx lunatics.
5 women aged between 25-65 with blood clotting after getting the AZ vaccine.
Of course nothing to see here for the coincidence theorists.
Probably the younger ones got it from taking the pill
Coincidence theorist.
30 in the UK with blood clotting issues from 18odd million doses of the AZ (reported in today's Times). Would you stop 18m people getting a vaccine because 30 will have issues?
Quote from: Angelo on April 02, 2021, 08:14:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 07:50:01 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 02, 2021, 07:19:35 PM
I see the Dutch are now anti-vaxx lunatics.
5 women aged between 25-65 with blood clotting after getting the AZ vaccine.
Of course nothing to see here for the coincidence theorists.
Probably the younger ones got it from taking the pill
Coincidence theorist.
Have Holland stopped it? Have they confirmed there is a link?
I could only see report on the 16th of March
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 08:48:42 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 02, 2021, 08:14:20 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 02, 2021, 07:50:01 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 02, 2021, 07:19:35 PM
I see the Dutch are now anti-vaxx lunatics.
5 women aged between 25-65 with blood clotting after getting the AZ vaccine.
Of course nothing to see here for the coincidence theorists.
Probably the younger ones got it from taking the pill
Coincidence theorist.
Have Holland stopped it? Have they confirmed there is a link?
I could only see report on the 16th of March
NL are confining it to over 60s. This won't slow things down as most of the people being vaccinated now are over 60 and likely by the time they get those done there will be more clarification on this issue.
Quote from: J70 on April 02, 2021, 12:53:07 PM
Quote from: dec on April 01, 2021, 07:10:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 03:41:13 PM
NY open this week to everyone over 30, and next week to everyone over 16.
Got my second Pfizer dose last week at the Javitts Center.
I am getting the J&J vaccine at Javits as well. From what I have heard the process has been pretty efficient.
Javitts set-up is impressive. Industrial scale stuff.
When I got my first jab, the place was packed, but everything was moving very quickly. They were processing close to ten people per minute at the time I was there.
Second dose, it was much quieter, but still busy by any normal standards.
My appointment was before work so I got through everything with no wait. No side effects so far but I guess it takes some time before Bill Gates' microchips start doing their damage :)
Quote from: dec on April 05, 2021, 06:38:47 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 02, 2021, 12:53:07 PM
Quote from: dec on April 01, 2021, 07:10:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 03:41:13 PM
NY open this week to everyone over 30, and next week to everyone over 16.
Got my second Pfizer dose last week at the Javitts Center.
I am getting the J&J vaccine at Javits as well. From what I have heard the process has been pretty efficient.
Javitts set-up is impressive. Industrial scale stuff.
When I got my first jab, the place was packed, but everything was moving very quickly. They were processing close to ten people per minute at the time I was there.
Second dose, it was much quieter, but still busy by any normal standards.
My appointment was before work so I got through everything with no wait. No side effects so far but I guess it takes some time before Bill Gates' microchips start doing their damage :)
Better wi-fi speed though
Quote from: dec on April 05, 2021, 06:38:47 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 02, 2021, 12:53:07 PM
Quote from: dec on April 01, 2021, 07:10:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 03:41:13 PM
NY open this week to everyone over 30, and next week to everyone over 16.
Got my second Pfizer dose last week at the Javitts Center.
I am getting the J&J vaccine at Javits as well. From what I have heard the process has been pretty efficient.
Javitts set-up is impressive. Industrial scale stuff.
When I got my first jab, the place was packed, but everything was moving very quickly. They were processing close to ten people per minute at the time I was there.
Second dose, it was much quieter, but still busy by any normal standards.
My appointment was before work so I got through everything with no wait. No side effects so far but I guess it takes some time before Bill Gates' microchips start doing their damage :)
I got the Pfizer. No real side effects either time apart from my shoulder being sore to the touch, and maybe a wee bit tired the day after the second one.
My wife and a few family members got the Moderna, and felt very shitty for a day or so after the second dose.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 05, 2021, 06:44:30 PM
Quote from: dec on April 05, 2021, 06:38:47 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 02, 2021, 12:53:07 PM
Quote from: dec on April 01, 2021, 07:10:18 PM
Quote from: J70 on March 30, 2021, 03:41:13 PM
NY open this week to everyone over 30, and next week to everyone over 16.
Got my second Pfizer dose last week at the Javitts Center.
I am getting the J&J vaccine at Javits as well. From what I have heard the process has been pretty efficient.
Javitts set-up is impressive. Industrial scale stuff.
When I got my first jab, the place was packed, but everything was moving very quickly. They were processing close to ten people per minute at the time I was there.
Second dose, it was much quieter, but still busy by any normal standards.
My appointment was before work so I got through everything with no wait. No side effects so far but I guess it takes some time before Bill Gates' microchips start doing their damage :)
Better wi-fi speed though
;D
Quote from: bennydorano on April 02, 2021, 08:32:27 PM
30 in the UK with blood clotting issues from 18odd million doses of the AZ (reported in today's Times). Would you stop 18m people getting a vaccine because 30 will have issues?
Indeed.
Remember, that we're talking about 7 reported deaths, which have not yet been confirmed as having been caused by the vaccine. (Covid itself frequently causes clotting, albeit not necessarily the rare form linked with the 7 deaths).
But let us assume for the sake of argument that the vaccine was responsible. Since the vaccine isn't 100% effective in preventing death or serious illness, let's reduce the 18m AZ jabs administered to date to (a conservative) 14m which have been effective.
That means the odds of your getting this fatal clotting from the vaccine is 2 million to one!
Now look at the effect of
not giving those jabs. One figure I've seen quoted is that 0.1% of Covid sufferers die. Which means that by giving those vaccines, there could easily be as many as
14,000 people alive who might otherwise have died. And that's just the UK.
All of which is before you count all the suffering from the disease itself, incl long Covid.
As well as all the other harm which is being caused by this disease going unchecked in the absence of an effective, widespread vaccination programme being put in place.
Interesting news has emerged from the Netherlands concerning "vaccine nationalism" and the proposed EU export ban.
There was a brand new, but little used, manufacturing facility available last year in Leiden, owned by Halex.
Scientists in the UK identified this as suitable for manufacturing the AZ vaccine and last April the UK government contributed up to €25m (the exact figure is not certain) for Halix to upgrade their production facility to manifacture 200 litre vats of vaccine at a time. (The UK also sent over experts to assist with the process)
They put it to the Dutch government that if they contributed to the project, this could be ramped up to 100 litre vats.
The Dutch governmment didn't contribute a single cent, yet now they're complaining because the plant is fulfilling it's contract with the UK to export the vaccines we ordered, and threatening to stop it.
The above was unearthed by Dutch journalists btw, with the UK Press now picking up on it:
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/03/dutch-had-chance-to-invest-in-leiden-vaccine-maker-halix-nos/ (https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/03/dutch-had-chance-to-invest-in-leiden-vaccine-maker-halix-nos/)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/01/inside-vaccine-factory-tug-war-uk-puts-21m-eu-says-non-exports/ (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/01/inside-vaccine-factory-tug-war-uk-puts-21m-eu-says-non-exports/)
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 05, 2021, 09:19:39 PM
Interesting news has emerged from the Netherlands concerning "vaccine nationalism" and the proposed EU export ban.
There was a brand new, but little used, manufacturing facility available last year in Leiden, owned by Halex.
Scientists in the UK identified this as suitable for manufacturing the AZ vaccine and last April the UK government contributed up to €25m (the exact figure is not certain) for Halix to upgrade their production facility to manifacture 200 litre vats of vaccine at a time. (The UK also sent over experts to assist with the process)
They put it to the Dutch government that if they contributed to the project, this could be ramped up to 100 litre vats.
The Dutch governmment didn't contribute a single cent, yet now they're complaining because the plant is fulfilling it's contract with the UK to export the vaccines we ordered, and threatening to stop it.
The above was unearthed by Dutch journalists btw, with the UK Press now picking up on it:
https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/03/dutch-had-chance-to-invest-in-leiden-vaccine-maker-halix-nos/ (https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/03/dutch-had-chance-to-invest-in-leiden-vaccine-maker-halix-nos/)
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/01/inside-vaccine-factory-tug-war-uk-puts-21m-eu-says-non-exports/ (https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/01/inside-vaccine-factory-tug-war-uk-puts-21m-eu-says-non-exports/)
AZ took the contract, which meant that they believed that they could fulfill it, unless they are a shower of liars. Given that they are in the drug business they are in a position to know. If they cannot fulfill the contract to the EU they should certainly not be allowed export to places in less need of the vaccine.
Just scheduled my first shot for Thursday morning-thank fvck
50 + and 1 underlying condition
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 02:29:16 AM
Just scheduled my first shot for Thursday morning-thank fvck
50 + and 1 underlying condition
When is MA opening it up to everyone? (Biden wants it nationwide by the beginning of May)
NY starts everyone over 16 this week.
Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2021, 11:56:06 AM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 02:29:16 AM
Just scheduled my first shot for Thursday morning-thank fvck
50 + and 1 underlying condition
When is MA opening it up to everyone? (Biden wants it nationwide by the beginning of May)
NY starts everyone over 16 this week.
Probably in the next 2 weeks but pretty much anyone can now get it.
I'm not a proponent of line jumping, and I have one legitimate pre existing condition, but other people I know who don't have predicting conditions are signing up anyway. Their logic is why should smokers, drug users and obese people get rewarded for bad life decisions and jump the line ahead of them
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-vaccinations-for-individuals-with-certain-medical-conditions
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 12:26:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2021, 11:56:06 AM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 02:29:16 AM
Just scheduled my first shot for Thursday morning-thank fvck
50 + and 1 underlying condition
When is MA opening it up to everyone? (Biden wants it nationwide by the beginning of May)
NY starts everyone over 16 this week.
Probably in the next 2 weeks but pretty much anyone can now get it.
I'm not a proponent of line jumping, and I have one legitimate pre existing condition, but other people I know who don't have predicting conditions are signing up anyway. Their logic is why should smokers, drug users and obese people get rewarded for bad life decisions and jump the line ahead of them
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-vaccinations-for-individuals-with-certain-medical-conditions
Shouldn't be too many left after all the obese get the jab surely ?
So the EMA after weeks of grandstanding have now come clean and told us there is a risk of blood clotting from the AZ vaccine.
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
So the EMA after weeks of grandstanding have now come clean and told us there is a risk of blood clotting from the AZ vaccine.
In young people did I read? In that case the rollout hasn't vaccinated that age group so hopefully something more suitable will be selected for them when their time comes
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 12:43:38 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 12:26:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2021, 11:56:06 AM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 02:29:16 AM
Just scheduled my first shot for Thursday morning-thank fvck
50 + and 1 underlying condition
When is MA opening it up to everyone? (Biden wants it nationwide by the beginning of May)
NY starts everyone over 16 this week.
Probably in the next 2 weeks but pretty much anyone can now get it.
I'm not a proponent of line jumping, and I have one legitimate pre existing condition, but other people I know who don't have predicting conditions are signing up anyway. Their logic is why should smokers, drug users and obese people get rewarded for bad life decisions and jump the line ahead of them
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-vaccinations-for-individuals-with-certain-medical-conditions
Shouldn't be too many left after all the obese get the jab surely ?
Never mind the obese-they changed it over the weekend to include overweight people
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on April 06, 2021, 12:49:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
So the EMA after weeks of grandstanding have now come clean and told us there is a risk of blood clotting from the AZ vaccine.
In young people did I read? In that case the rollout hasn't vaccinated that age group so hopefully something more suitable will be selected for them when their time comes
Hopefully.
Also hopefully a reminder to the zealots who want to force or coerce vaccinations on people who are not at risk of Covid of the potential dangers of doing so.
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 01:11:51 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on April 06, 2021, 12:49:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
So the EMA after weeks of grandstanding have now come clean and told us there is a risk of blood clotting from the AZ vaccine.
In young people did I read? In that case the rollout hasn't vaccinated that age group so hopefully something more suitable will be selected for them when their time comes
Hopefully.
Also hopefully a reminder to the zealots who want to force or coerce vaccinations on people who are not at risk of Covid of the potential dangers of doing so.
At this rate of not taking pills they'll be back using the rhythm method
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 01:11:51 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on April 06, 2021, 12:49:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
So the EMA after weeks of grandstanding have now come clean and told us there is a risk of blood clotting from the AZ vaccine.
In young people did I read? In that case the rollout hasn't vaccinated that age group so hopefully something more suitable will be selected for them when their time comes
Hopefully.
Also hopefully a reminder to the zealots who want to force or coerce vaccinations on people who are not at risk of Covid of the potential dangers of doing so.
Is that the Gript take on it?
Quote from: Louther on April 06, 2021, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 01:11:51 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on April 06, 2021, 12:49:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
So the EMA after weeks of grandstanding have now come clean and told us there is a risk of blood clotting from the AZ vaccine.
In young people did I read? In that case the rollout hasn't vaccinated that age group so hopefully something more suitable will be selected for them when their time comes
Hopefully.
Also hopefully a reminder to the zealots who want to force or coerce vaccinations on people who are not at risk of Covid of the potential dangers of doing so.
Is that the Gript take on it?
You tell me.
You're the subscriber to it.
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 01:44:42 PM
Quote from: Louther on April 06, 2021, 01:30:56 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 01:11:51 PM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on April 06, 2021, 12:49:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
So the EMA after weeks of grandstanding have now come clean and told us there is a risk of blood clotting from the AZ vaccine.
In young people did I read? In that case the rollout hasn't vaccinated that age group so hopefully something more suitable will be selected for them when their time comes
Hopefully.
Also hopefully a reminder to the zealots who want to force or coerce vaccinations on people who are not at risk of Covid of the potential dangers of doing so.
Is that the Gript take on it?
You tell me.
You're the subscriber to it.
Bluffer!
By the way, how is India working out that you had said was baffling scientists?
A senior official at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has said he believes there is a link between the AstraZeneca vaccine and extremely rare cases of blood clots reported in people who recently had the jab.
In an interview with Italy's Il Messaggero newspaper, Marco Cavaleri, head of vaccines strategy at the EMA, said it was "clear there is a link with the vaccine" but there was still uncertainty about what exactly was causing such a reaction.
Mr Cavaleri said that among younger vaccinated people there was a higher than expected number of cases of cerebral thrombosis – blood clotting in the brain – compared with the general population.
A spokesperson for the EMA told The Independent the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC), which is reviewing the data, had "not yet reached a conclusion and the review is currently ongoing", with an announcement expected on Wednesday or Thursday.
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 12:26:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2021, 11:56:06 AM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 02:29:16 AM
Just scheduled my first shot for Thursday morning-thank fvck
50 + and 1 underlying condition
When is MA opening it up to everyone? (Biden wants it nationwide by the beginning of May)
NY starts everyone over 16 this week.
Probably in the next 2 weeks but pretty much anyone can now get it.
I'm not a proponent of line jumping, and I have one legitimate pre existing condition, but other people I know who don't have predicting conditions are signing up anyway. Their logic is why should smokers, drug users and obese people get rewarded for bad life decisions and jump the line ahead of them
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-vaccinations-for-individuals-with-certain-medical-conditions
NJ had smokers down among the heightened-risk groups early on too, which didn't go down well there either. I get the resentment, but those people are legitimately at higher risk of serious illness and will be among those taking up ICU beds if they contract COVID. Its a zero sum game, unfortunately.
I waited until I was eligible too (I also had a qualifying comorbidity which put me in the running before they got down to the completely young and healthy), but I could have moved earlier. NY allowed service industry workers who deal with the public to get in early, and there were quite a few Irish bars willing to help out friends and relatives with a wee note!
Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2021, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 12:26:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2021, 11:56:06 AM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 02:29:16 AM
Just scheduled my first shot for Thursday morning-thank fvck
50 + and 1 underlying condition
When is MA opening it up to everyone? (Biden wants it nationwide by the beginning of May)
NY starts everyone over 16 this week.
Probably in the next 2 weeks but pretty much anyone can now get it.
I'm not a proponent of line jumping, and I have one legitimate pre existing condition, but other people I know who don't have predicting conditions are signing up anyway. Their logic is why should smokers, drug users and obese people get rewarded for bad life decisions and jump the line ahead of them
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-vaccinations-for-individuals-with-certain-medical-conditions
NJ had smokers down among the heightened-risk groups early on too, which didn't go down well there either. I get the resentment, but those people are legitimately at higher risk of serious illness and will be among those taking up ICU beds if they contract COVID. Its a zero sum game, unfortunately.
I waited until I was eligible too (I also had a qualifying comorbidity which put me in the running before they got down to the completely young and healthy), but I could have moved earlier. NY allowed service industry workers who deal with the public to get in early, and there were quite a few Irish bars willing to help out friends and relatives with a wee note!
LOL
"Former smokers" are also included in Massachusetts.
At least anecdotally, that's what tipped some people over the edge who otherwise were willing to wait a little bit longer. I was just casually was chatting with someone last weekend and they told me about a local health center who were pretty much vaccinating all comers at this stage
Doesn't seem to be any shortage of vaccines up here at this stage
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 02:26:55 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2021, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 12:26:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2021, 11:56:06 AM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 02:29:16 AM
Just scheduled my first shot for Thursday morning-thank fvck
50 + and 1 underlying condition
When is MA opening it up to everyone? (Biden wants it nationwide by the beginning of May)
NY starts everyone over 16 this week.
Probably in the next 2 weeks but pretty much anyone can now get it.
I'm not a proponent of line jumping, and I have one legitimate pre existing condition, but other people I know who don't have predicting conditions are signing up anyway. Their logic is why should smokers, drug users and obese people get rewarded for bad life decisions and jump the line ahead of them
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-vaccinations-for-individuals-with-certain-medical-conditions
NJ had smokers down among the heightened-risk groups early on too, which didn't go down well there either. I get the resentment, but those people are legitimately at higher risk of serious illness and will be among those taking up ICU beds if they contract COVID. Its a zero sum game, unfortunately.
I waited until I was eligible too (I also had a qualifying comorbidity which put me in the running before they got down to the completely young and healthy), but I could have moved earlier. NY allowed service industry workers who deal with the public to get in early, and there were quite a few Irish bars willing to help out friends and relatives with a wee note!
LOL
"Former smokers" are also included in Massachusetts.
At least anecdotally, that's what tipped some people over the edge who otherwise were willing to wait a little bit longer. I was just casually was chatting with someone last weekend and they told me about a local health center who were pretty much vaccinating all comers at this stage
Doesn't seem to be any shortage of vaccines up here at this stage
Can you send some of the extra's back home?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 02:32:16 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 02:26:55 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2021, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 12:26:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2021, 11:56:06 AM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 02:29:16 AM
Just scheduled my first shot for Thursday morning-thank fvck
50 + and 1 underlying condition
When is MA opening it up to everyone? (Biden wants it nationwide by the beginning of May)
NY starts everyone over 16 this week.
Probably in the next 2 weeks but pretty much anyone can now get it.
I'm not a proponent of line jumping, and I have one legitimate pre existing condition, but other people I know who don't have predicting conditions are signing up anyway. Their logic is why should smokers, drug users and obese people get rewarded for bad life decisions and jump the line ahead of them
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-vaccinations-for-individuals-with-certain-medical-conditions
NJ had smokers down among the heightened-risk groups early on too, which didn't go down well there either. I get the resentment, but those people are legitimately at higher risk of serious illness and will be among those taking up ICU beds if they contract COVID. Its a zero sum game, unfortunately.
I waited until I was eligible too (I also had a qualifying comorbidity which put me in the running before they got down to the completely young and healthy), but I could have moved earlier. NY allowed service industry workers who deal with the public to get in early, and there were quite a few Irish bars willing to help out friends and relatives with a wee note!
LOL
"Former smokers" are also included in Massachusetts.
At least anecdotally, that's what tipped some people over the edge who otherwise were willing to wait a little bit longer. I was just casually was chatting with someone last weekend and they told me about a local health center who were pretty much vaccinating all comers at this stage
Doesn't seem to be any shortage of vaccines up here at this stage
Can you send some of the extra's back home?
Do you mean down South MR?
Not much shortages in the North either
Quote from: Taylor on April 06, 2021, 04:09:48 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 02:32:16 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 02:26:55 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2021, 02:10:43 PM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 12:26:23 PM
Quote from: J70 on April 06, 2021, 11:56:06 AM
Quote from: whitey on April 06, 2021, 02:29:16 AM
Just scheduled my first shot for Thursday morning-thank fvck
50 + and 1 underlying condition
When is MA opening it up to everyone? (Biden wants it nationwide by the beginning of May)
NY starts everyone over 16 this week.
Probably in the next 2 weeks but pretty much anyone can now get it.
I'm not a proponent of line jumping, and I have one legitimate pre existing condition, but other people I know who don't have predicting conditions are signing up anyway. Their logic is why should smokers, drug users and obese people get rewarded for bad life decisions and jump the line ahead of them
https://www.mass.gov/info-details/covid-19-vaccinations-for-individuals-with-certain-medical-conditions
NJ had smokers down among the heightened-risk groups early on too, which didn't go down well there either. I get the resentment, but those people are legitimately at higher risk of serious illness and will be among those taking up ICU beds if they contract COVID. Its a zero sum game, unfortunately.
I waited until I was eligible too (I also had a qualifying comorbidity which put me in the running before they got down to the completely young and healthy), but I could have moved earlier. NY allowed service industry workers who deal with the public to get in early, and there were quite a few Irish bars willing to help out friends and relatives with a wee note!
LOL
"Former smokers" are also included in Massachusetts.
At least anecdotally, that's what tipped some people over the edge who otherwise were willing to wait a little bit longer. I was just casually was chatting with someone last weekend and they told me about a local health center who were pretty much vaccinating all comers at this stage
Doesn't seem to be any shortage of vaccines up here at this stage
Can you send some of the extra's back home?
Do you mean down South MR?
Not much shortages in the North either
The South, so that we can travel, get the games up and running and start having fans at the matches!!
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
So the EMA after weeks of grandstanding have now come clean and told us there is a risk of blood clotting from the AZ vaccine.
There's a risk from everything - including driving to the Vaccination centre to get your jab.
What's important is risk measurement. On which point, do you care to reply to my own post from 8.21pm yesterday?
Just in case you missed it, here it is again:
"Remember, that we're talking about 7 reported deaths, which have not yet been confirmed as having been caused by the vaccine. (Covid itself frequently causes clotting, albeit not necessarily the rare form linked with the 7 deaths).
But let us assume for the sake of argument that the vaccine was responsible. Since the vaccine isn't 100% effective in preventing death or serious illness, let's reduce the 18m AZ jabs administered to date to (a conservative) 14m which have been effective.
That means the odds of your getting this fatal clotting from the vaccine is 2 million to one!
Now look at the effect of not giving those jabs. One figure I've seen quoted is that 0.1% of Covid sufferers die. Which means that by giving those vaccines, there could easily be as many as 14,000 people alive who might otherwise have died. And that's just the UK."14,000 vs 7 - I think I know which risk I prefer.
I got my first Jab today at the Odyssey , it was well organized throughput and probably about an hour in total from start to finish
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 06, 2021, 06:45:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
So the EMA after weeks of grandstanding have now come clean and told us there is a risk of blood clotting from the AZ vaccine.
There's a risk from everything - including driving to the Vaccination centre to get your jab.
What's important is risk measurement. On which point, do you care to reply to my own post from 8.21pm yesterday?
Just in case you missed it, here it is again:
"Remember, that we're talking about 7 reported deaths, which have not yet been confirmed as having been caused by the vaccine. (Covid itself frequently causes clotting, albeit not necessarily the rare form linked with the 7 deaths).
But let us assume for the sake of argument that the vaccine was responsible. Since the vaccine isn't 100% effective in preventing death or serious illness, let's reduce the 18m AZ jabs administered to date to (a conservative) 14m which have been effective.
That means the odds of your getting this fatal clotting from the vaccine is 2 million to one!
Now look at the effect of not giving those jabs. One figure I've seen quoted is that 0.1% of Covid sufferers die. Which means that by giving those vaccines, there could easily be as many as 14,000 people alive who might otherwise have died. And that's just the UK."
14,000 vs 7 - I think I know which risk I prefer.
So what incentive is there for an u40 to take that risk when the chance of them dying from Covid or becoming seriously ill from it is so remote and that's if they even get it in the first place.
Are the odds the same?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 07:11:07 PM
Are the odds the same?
Yeah close enough I think , it's the rationale now being used by some countries for not giving it to younger people. There is as much chance of dying of COVID as there is of getting clots from vacinne. But I'm not sure what is classed as "young"
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 07:09:15 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 06, 2021, 06:45:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
So the EMA after weeks of grandstanding have now come clean and told us there is a risk of blood clotting from the AZ vaccine.
There's a risk from everything - including driving to the Vaccination centre to get your jab.
What's important is risk measurement. On which point, do you care to reply to my own post from 8.21pm yesterday?
Just in case you missed it, here it is again:
"Remember, that we're talking about 7 reported deaths, which have not yet been confirmed as having been caused by the vaccine. (Covid itself frequently causes clotting, albeit not necessarily the rare form linked with the 7 deaths).
But let us assume for the sake of argument that the vaccine was responsible. Since the vaccine isn't 100% effective in preventing death or serious illness, let's reduce the 18m AZ jabs administered to date to (a conservative) 14m which have been effective.
That means the odds of your getting this fatal clotting from the vaccine is 2 million to one!
Now look at the effect of not giving those jabs. One figure I've seen quoted is that 0.1% of Covid sufferers die. Which means that by giving those vaccines, there could easily be as many as 14,000 people alive who might otherwise have died. And that's just the UK."
14,000 vs 7 - I think I know which risk I prefer.
So what incentive is there for an u40 to take that risk when the chance of them dying from Covid or becoming seriously ill from it is so remote and that's if they even get it in the first place.
Help stop further surges
Help stop the rise & spread of variants
Help protect family & friends
Help protect vulnerable members of society
Help speed up our return to normal by achieving Herd Immunity through vaccination
Look after your own health prospects
Civic duty
Quote from: bennydorano on April 06, 2021, 07:31:32 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 07:09:15 PM
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 06, 2021, 06:45:05 PM
Quote from: Angelo on April 06, 2021, 12:44:52 PM
So the EMA after weeks of grandstanding have now come clean and told us there is a risk of blood clotting from the AZ vaccine.
There's a risk from everything - including driving to the Vaccination centre to get your jab.
What's important is risk measurement. On which point, do you care to reply to my own post from 8.21pm yesterday?
Just in case you missed it, here it is again:
"Remember, that we're talking about 7 reported deaths, which have not yet been confirmed as having been caused by the vaccine. (Covid itself frequently causes clotting, albeit not necessarily the rare form linked with the 7 deaths).
But let us assume for the sake of argument that the vaccine was responsible. Since the vaccine isn't 100% effective in preventing death or serious illness, let's reduce the 18m AZ jabs administered to date to (a conservative) 14m which have been effective.
That means the odds of your getting this fatal clotting from the vaccine is 2 million to one!
Now look at the effect of not giving those jabs. One figure I've seen quoted is that 0.1% of Covid sufferers die. Which means that by giving those vaccines, there could easily be as many as 14,000 people alive who might otherwise have died. And that's just the UK."
14,000 vs 7 - I think I know which risk I prefer.
So what incentive is there for an u40 to take that risk when the chance of them dying from Covid or becoming seriously ill from it is so remote and that's if they even get it in the first place.
Help stop further surges
Help stop the rise & spread of variants
Help protect family & friends
Help protect vulnerable members of society
Help speed up our return to normal by achieving Herd Immunity through vaccination
Look after your own health prospects
Civic duty
But if everyone else that's at risk is vaccinated and AZ vacinne puts certain ages at risk of dying from it as from COVID itself surely it makes it understandable that people will choose not to get a comparatively rushed vacinne
All of them are rushed?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 07:38:40 PM
All of them are rushed?
I know that's why I used comparatively and it never had the efficacy percentages from get go either when you look at others . I choose not to get it, I'm not an anti vaxxer, not mad but I think if you phoned me tomorrow and offered Pfizer I'd probably take it
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 06, 2021, 07:42:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 07:38:40 PM
All of them are rushed?
I know that's why I used comparatively and it never had the efficacy percentages from get go either when you look at others . I choose not to get it, I'm not an anti vaxxer, not mad but I think if you phoned me tomorrow and offered Pfizer I'd probably take it
If the choice is between Pfizer and AZ, then
that might be a reasonable response.
But when the choice is between AZ and no vaccine? (Or at least, no vaccine for another 6 months?)
Remember, there are up to 18m people in the UK alone who've had the AZ jab, thousands of whom might not be alive otherwise. And these aren't just the elderly, many have been younger people with underlying conditions, or front line workers.
And all that's before you get to the fact of those AZ vaccinated spreading the virus to their fellow citizens at a much lower rate than if they'd never been vaccinated in the first place.
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 06, 2021, 11:16:43 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 06, 2021, 07:42:44 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 07:38:40 PM
All of them are rushed?
I know that's why I used comparatively and it never had the efficacy percentages from get go either when you look at others . I choose not to get it, I'm not an anti vaxxer, not mad but I think if you phoned me tomorrow and offered Pfizer I'd probably take it
If the choice is between Pfizer and AZ, then that might be a reasonable response.
But when the choice is between AZ and no vaccine? (Or at least, no vaccine for another 6 months?)
6 months? Some of our chemical engineers will tell you 10 years
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 06, 2021, 07:28:34 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 07:11:07 PM
Are the odds the same?
Yeah close enough I think , it's the rationale now being used by some countries for not giving it to younger people. There is as much chance of dying of COVID as there is of getting clots from vacinne. But I'm not sure what is classed as "young"
2.88 million have died worldwide from Covid
It's estimated that 21% of Covid patients develop venous thromboembolism
https://b-s-h.org.uk/about-us/news/clot-risk-from-covid-19-linked-to-increased-mortality/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30383-7/fulltext
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/facts.html
If you don't want clotting, don't get Covid
If you don't want Covid, get the vaccine
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:21:59 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 06, 2021, 07:28:34 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 07:11:07 PM
Are the odds the same?
Yeah close enough I think , it's the rationale now being used by some countries for not giving it to younger people. There is as much chance of dying of COVID as there is of getting clots from vacinne. But I'm not sure what is classed as "young"
2.88 million have died worldwide from Covid
It's estimated that 21% of Covid patients develop venous thromboembolism
https://b-s-h.org.uk/about-us/news/clot-risk-from-covid-19-linked-to-increased-mortality/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30383-7/fulltext
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/facts.html
If you don't want clotting, don't get Covid
If you don't want Covid, get the vaccine
*with Covid.
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 07, 2021, 12:13:27 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:21:59 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 06, 2021, 07:28:34 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 07:11:07 PM
Are the odds the same?
Yeah close enough I think , it's the rationale now being used by some countries for not giving it to younger people. There is as much chance of dying of COVID as there is of getting clots from vacinne. But I'm not sure what is classed as "young"
2.88 million have died worldwide from Covid
It's estimated that 21% of Covid patients develop venous thromboembolism
https://b-s-h.org.uk/about-us/news/clot-risk-from-covid-19-linked-to-increased-mortality/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30383-7/fulltext
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/facts.html
If you don't want clotting, don't get Covid
If you don't want Covid, get the vaccine
*with Covid.
As I predicted last Autumn, the loonies now claim you die
with Covid, but
from the vaccine
My father, for instance, is one of those they claim died
with it, not
from it
Believe me, he died
from it
2.88 million is a significant undercounting by the way
The UK for instance massively undercounts Covid deaths, leaving out anybody who dies after a 28 day cut off
Of course none of these dubious claims about vaccines extend to the Russian or Chinese vaccines
Funny that
I somehow doubt the people who have developed a new found interest in mental health will care much about this
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-brain-idUSKBN2BT2ZI?taid=606ce6ddc8c94b0001857a05&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter
A third of COVID survivors suffer neurological or mental disorders: study
By Kate Kelland
3 MIN READ
LONDON (Reuters) - One in three COVID-19 survivors in a study of more than 230,000 mostly American patients were diagnosed with a brain or psychiatric disorder within six months, suggesting the pandemic could lead to a wave of mental and neurological problems, scientists said on Tuesday.
----
And I suspect they also won't care much for this:
https://www.vox.com/2021/4/6/22368210/suicides-covid-19-coronavirus-lockdown-2020
Last year, as then-President Donald Trump railed against Covid-19 lockdowns and called on states to reopen their economies, he claimed the shutdowns would lead to a spike in suicides: "You're going to lose more people by putting a country into a massive recession or depression. You're going to lose people. You're going to have suicides by the thousands."
But new data suggests that the number of suicides actually decreased in the US last year. According to the National Center for Health Statistics, suicides totaled fewer than 45,000 in 2020, down from about 47,500 in 2019 and more than 48,000 in 2018.
So far, this seems to be true globally. England saw no increase in suicides in the aftermath of lockdowns, Louis Appleby, a researcher on suicide and self-harm at the University of Manchester, wrote for the medical journal BMJ. The same seems to be true in other nations, including Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Norway, Peru, and Sweden, based on data for the first few months of lockdowns around the globe.
Quote from: sid waddell on April 07, 2021, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 07, 2021, 12:13:27 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:21:59 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 06, 2021, 07:28:34 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 07:11:07 PM
Are the odds the same?
Yeah close enough I think , it's the rationale now being used by some countries for not giving it to younger people. There is as much chance of dying of COVID as there is of getting clots from vacinne. But I'm not sure what is classed as "young"
2.88 million have died worldwide from Covid
It's estimated that 21% of Covid patients develop venous thromboembolism
https://b-s-h.org.uk/about-us/news/clot-risk-from-covid-19-linked-to-increased-mortality/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30383-7/fulltext
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/facts.html
If you don't want clotting, don't get Covid
If you don't want Covid, get the vaccine
*with Covid.
As I predicted last Autumn, the loonies now claim you die with Covid, but from the vaccine
My father, for instance, is one of those they claim died with it, not from it
Believe me, he died from it
2.88 million is a significant undercounting by the way
The UK for instance massively undercounts Covid deaths, leaving out anybody who dies after a 28 day cut off
Where did I mention a vaccine?
Quote from: sid waddell on April 07, 2021, 12:37:23 AM
As I predicted last Autumn, the loonies now claim you die with Covid, but from the vaccine
You'll find it's the loonies that actually say the opposite.
When it's the vaccine the narrative is people were old or frail as we saw in Norway earlier this year when 17 deaths in the elderly were reported linked to the vaccine.
When it's the vaccine it's that these are rare and odd occurrences of blood clotting. These deaths and blood clot occurences are happening in people who are not in the at risk categories. The medical experts you love to cite are beginning to slowly admit that the AZ vaccine does in fact cause blood clotting which has led to serious cases and deaths.
Now I know you are at pains to spin and throw mud as usual as you are the biggest proponent of misinformation out there but there are concerns with this virus and it's backed up by more and more medical bodies limiting use or halting the AZ vaccine.
People who are not at risk should weigh up the pros and cons of the vaccine for them and doing so does not make you anti-vax as your campaign of misinformation and misrepresentation dictates. To do so does not mean you are anti-vax, a person like who is fundamentally fascist like you believes it is acceptable in a democracy to force your views and outlooks on people and that is becoming evermore dangerous for society as a whole.
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 07, 2021, 07:44:43 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 07, 2021, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 07, 2021, 12:13:27 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:21:59 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 06, 2021, 07:28:34 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 07:11:07 PM
Are the odds the same?
Yeah close enough I think , it's the rationale now being used by some countries for not giving it to younger people. There is as much chance of dying of COVID as there is of getting clots from vacinne. But I'm not sure what is classed as "young"
2.88 million have died worldwide from Covid
It's estimated that 21% of Covid patients develop venous thromboembolism
https://b-s-h.org.uk/about-us/news/clot-risk-from-covid-19-linked-to-increased-mortality/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30383-7/fulltext
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/facts.html
If you don't want clotting, don't get Covid
If you don't want Covid, get the vaccine
*with Covid.
As I predicted last Autumn, the loonies now claim you die with Covid, but from the vaccine
My father, for instance, is one of those they claim died with it, not from it
Believe me, he died from it
2.88 million is a significant undercounting by the way
The UK for instance massively undercounts Covid deaths, leaving out anybody who dies after a 28 day cut off
Where did I mention a vaccine?
When have you ever made a post that was remotely worth engaging with?
Quote from: sid waddell on April 07, 2021, 10:03:18 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 07, 2021, 07:44:43 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 07, 2021, 12:37:23 AM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 07, 2021, 12:13:27 AM
Quote from: sid waddell on April 06, 2021, 11:21:59 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 06, 2021, 07:28:34 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 06, 2021, 07:11:07 PM
Are the odds the same?
Yeah close enough I think , it's the rationale now being used by some countries for not giving it to younger people. There is as much chance of dying of COVID as there is of getting clots from vacinne. But I'm not sure what is classed as "young"
2.88 million have died worldwide from Covid
It's estimated that 21% of Covid patients develop venous thromboembolism
https://b-s-h.org.uk/about-us/news/clot-risk-from-covid-19-linked-to-increased-mortality/
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30383-7/fulltext
https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/dvt/facts.html
If you don't want clotting, don't get Covid
If you don't want Covid, get the vaccine
*with Covid.
As I predicted last Autumn, the loonies now claim you die with Covid, but from the vaccine
My father, for instance, is one of those they claim died with it, not from it
Believe me, he died from it
2.88 million is a significant undercounting by the way
The UK for instance massively undercounts Covid deaths, leaving out anybody who dies after a 28 day cut off
Where did I mention a vaccine?
When have you ever made a post that was remotely worth engaging with?
You seem to keep doing it...
'Keep getting Oxford jab', says sister of man who died with blood clot
Pharmacist Alison Astles, whose brother Neil died on Sunday after developing a blood clot following his first dose of the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine, said she "strongly believed" people should continue to have the jab.
She said her brother, who was 59, had the jab on 17 March and, after a week or so, began to have headaches and nausea.
She says he was taken to the emergency department on Friday night where doctors found a "huge blood clot" and he died on Sunday.
She was told by clinicians they were 99.9% sure the clot was due to the vaccine.
Speaking to the BBC News Channel, she said: "The human being, the sister in me, still feels absolutely furious and very angry that this has happened to my brother."
But she continued: "Despite what has happened to Neil and the impact on our family, I still strongly believe that people should go ahead and have the vaccine.
"If you've had one dose, go ahead and have your second.
"If you haven't had your dose yet make sure that you do.
"Because, overall, we will save more lives by people having the vaccine than not.
"The risk of a clot is very, very small and my brother was extraordinarily unlucky."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56672556 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56672556)
Your odds with the vaccine are better than your odds with Covid.
Getting close to 1 million doses given out in the north now. Serious work.
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 08, 2021, 06:47:56 PM
Getting close to 1 million doses given out in the north now. Serious work.
They fail at pretty much everything else. But they have nailed the vaccine roll out.
No doubt the person responsible and their team we probably don't even know their names. But we should, instead of these other clowns
Quote from: GetOverTheBar on April 08, 2021, 06:49:42 PM
Quote from: Armagh18 on April 08, 2021, 06:47:56 PM
Getting close to 1 million doses given out in the north now. Serious work.
They fail at pretty much everything else. But they have nailed the vaccine roll out.
No doubt the person responsible and their team we probably don't even know their names. But we should, instead of these other clowns
Nothing to do with the politicians, it's the NHS who're responsible for the vaccine success. They had the infrastructure in place from the annual jab and just had to build on that.
Booked in for the 5G upgrade myself. Cannot wait if I am honest.
EU agency examines reports of blood clots with J&J Covid vaccine
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/09/eu-agency-examines-reports-of-blood-clots-with-jj-covid-vaccine
Boris Johnson. First he tells us he is visiting hospitals and shaking hands with everyone and ends up in intensive care. Then not one to miss a photo opportunity he gets himself photographed getting the astra zeneca vaccine giving a big thumbs up and cheesy grin to the camera. He tells us he isn't worried, I wonder if he is worried now about possible blood clots for those under 60.
I remember saying on here when it became apparent the Brits were first in the queue for the vaccines that that was fine by me as they would be the guinea pigs and it seems it is turning out that way.
Quote from: Capt Pat on April 12, 2021, 10:40:50 PM
Boris Johnson. First he tells us he is visiting hospitals and shaking hands with everyone and ends up in intensive care. Then not one to miss a photo opportunity he gets himself photographed getting the astra zeneca vaccine giving a big thumbs up and cheesy grin to the camera. He tells us he isn't worried, I wonder if he is worried now about possible blood clots for those under 60.
I remember saying on here when it became apparent the Brits were first in the queue for the vaccines that that was fine by me as they would be the guinea pigs and it seems it is turning out that way.
If 40 million people started taking paracetamol tomorrow do you think there would be issues with it?
Quote from: Capt Pat on April 12, 2021, 10:40:50 PM
I remember saying on here when it became apparent the Brits were first in the queue for the vaccines that that was fine by me as they would be the guinea pigs and it seems it is turning out that way.
And the 1.8m Irish guinea pigs to the north of the island, a million of whom have now been vaccinated?
Or this woman?
https://coventryobserver.co.uk/news/90-year-old-coventry-grandmother-margaret-keenan-becomes-the-first-patient-in-the-world-to-receive-covid-19-vaccine-25972/ (https://coventryobserver.co.uk/news/90-year-old-coventry-grandmother-margaret-keenan-becomes-the-first-patient-in-the-world-to-receive-covid-19-vaccine-25972/)
(She's from Enniskillen. Thats the Enniskillen on the Erne, not Enniskillen-upon-Avon btw)
Quote from: Capt Pat on April 12, 2021, 10:40:50 PM
Boris Johnson. First he tells us he is visiting hospitals and shaking hands with everyone and ends up in intensive care. Then not one to miss a photo opportunity he gets himself photographed getting the astra zeneca vaccine giving a big thumbs up and cheesy grin to the camera. He tells us he isn't worried, I wonder if he is worried now about possible blood clots for those under 60.
I remember saying on here when it became apparent the Brits were first in the queue for the vaccines that that was fine by me as they would be the guinea pigs and it seems it is turning out that way.
Cretinous post of the year award
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 12, 2021, 10:46:45 PM
Quote from: Capt Pat on April 12, 2021, 10:40:50 PM
Boris Johnson. First he tells us he is visiting hospitals and shaking hands with everyone and ends up in intensive care. Then not one to miss a photo opportunity he gets himself photographed getting the astra zeneca vaccine giving a big thumbs up and cheesy grin to the camera. He tells us he isn't worried, I wonder if he is worried now about possible blood clots for those under 60.
I remember saying on here when it became apparent the Brits were first in the queue for the vaccines that that was fine by me as they would be the guinea pigs and it seems it is turning out that way.
If 40 million people started taking paracetamol tomorrow do you think there would be issues with it?
One of the odd turns of the past 18 months is that the governments' whitewash focus on Covid seems to have convinced a lot of people that humans didn't die prematurely, suddenly, unexpectedly or unnecessarily prior to 2020.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/13/health/johnson-vaccine-pause-cdc-fda/index.html
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the US Food and Drug Administration are recommending that the United States pause the use of Johnson & Johnson's Covid-19 vaccine over six reported US cases of a "rare and severe" type of blood clot.
The six reported cases were among more than 6.8 million doses of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine administered in the United States. All six cases occurred among women between the ages of 18 and 48, and symptoms occurred 6 to 13 days after vaccination...
Del Rio added that the blood clotting may be connected to how the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is an adenovirus vector vaccine -- the same type as AstraZeneca's coronavirus vaccine...
The effect of all this is that men between 60 and 70 in Ireland will be getting these crap vaccines in the first instance.
Quote from: armaghniac on April 13, 2021, 02:28:21 PM
The effect of all this is that men between 60 and 70 in Ireland will be getting these crap vaccines in the first instance.
Have the EU ordered any Phizer ones?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 13, 2021, 02:33:57 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 13, 2021, 02:28:21 PM
The effect of all this is that men between 60 and 70 in Ireland will be getting these crap vaccines in the first instance.
Have the EU ordered any Phizer ones?
Of course they have, and they'll likely order more now. Half of the deliveries are Pfizer + another 8% of Moderna. But now these will be used mostly for people over 70 or under 60.
About 75% of vaccinations to date have been Pfizer.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 13, 2021, 02:33:57 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on April 13, 2021, 02:28:21 PM
The effect of all this is that men between 60 and 70 in Ireland will be getting these crap vaccines in the first instance.
Have the EU ordered any Phizer ones?
Both my parents have received their 1st covid vaccinations and they both got the Pfizer one
I got the AZ one yesterday. I have definitely felt better than I have done today.
My two, fairly aged, parents got the pfizer one (both jabs).
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 13, 2021, 04:36:39 PM
I got the AZ one yesterday. I have definitely felt better than I have done today.
My two, fairly aged, parents got the pfizer one (both jabs).
Got the AZ myself. Felt like shit the next day, real chills and headache. Few paracetamols and I was right as rain the next day.
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 13, 2021, 04:36:39 PM
I got the AZ one yesterday. I have definitely felt better than I have done today.
My two, fairly aged, parents got the pfizer one (both jabs).
I suppose the broadband works quicker in the house now!
Quote from: Rich Ricci on April 13, 2021, 05:09:55 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 13, 2021, 04:36:39 PM
I got the AZ one yesterday. I have definitely felt better than I have done today.
My two, fairly aged, parents got the pfizer one (both jabs).
Got the AZ myself. Felt like shit the next day, real chills and headache. Few paracetamols and I was right as rain the next day.
Good to know. Hoping that I am the same. It's nothing major - just general crappy feeling.
Yes mr 5G works great now...
I got the AZ last Wednesday, I have to say I wasn't near right until yesterday. They say a reaction like that is in theory good as your immune system is kicking in. Word on the street is AZ first dose and Pzifer 2nd dose can make you feel pretty shitty for a bit.
Quote from: bennydorano on April 13, 2021, 09:00:20 PM
I got the AZ last Wednesday, I have to say I wasn't near right until yesterday. They say a reaction like that is in theory good as your immune system is kicking in. Word on the street is AZ first dose and Pzifer 2nd dose can make you feel pretty shitty for a bit.
I'll be totally honest, I reckon I got a placebo!! Needle pain from first absolutely nothing from second
First jab booked here for myself and herself in San Jose for Thursday morning.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on April 13, 2021, 09:06:05 PM
Quote from: bennydorano on April 13, 2021, 09:00:20 PM
I got the AZ last Wednesday, I have to say I wasn't near right until yesterday. They say a reaction like that is in theory good as your immune system is kicking in. Word on the street is AZ first dose and Pzifer 2nd dose can make you feel pretty shitty for a bit.
I'll be totally honest, I reckon I got a placebo!! Needle pain from first absolutely nothing from second
Same. Maybe we got water.
Got J&J last Thursday
Slightly under the weather on Friday-like a very mild hangover. Perfect after that
Actually felt worse after getting the regular flu shot last September
Quote from: bennydorano on April 13, 2021, 09:00:20 PM
I got the AZ last Wednesday, I have to say I wasn't near right until yesterday. They say a reaction like that is in theory good as your immune system is kicking in. Word on the street is AZ first dose and Pzifer 2nd dose can make you feel pretty shitty for a bit.
Son and mother and father law got AZ, all sick for 2 days. 3 colleagues in work got it, same. Mother and father and Mrs got Pfizer, not a thing except tiredness
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on April 13, 2021, 09:18:16 PM
First jab booked here for myself and herself in San Jose for Thursday morning.
1st one down - really efficient operation by the county health unit.
2nd dose booked for 3 weeks time.
Seemingly the people who suffered blood clotting after the J&J vaccine were on birth control/fertility medication
Quote from: whitey on April 15, 2021, 08:12:59 PM
Seemingly the people who suffered blood clotting after the J&J vaccine were on birth control/fertility medication
If they are able to give it to men and many women as a consequence then this would be a result.
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on April 15, 2021, 06:10:18 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on April 13, 2021, 09:18:16 PM
First jab booked here for myself and herself in San Jose for Thursday morning.
1st one down - really efficient operation by the county health unit.
2nd dose booked for 3 weeks time.
i have to go to Richmond on Tuesday morning for my first dose. Coulda waited longer for something closer to San Jose, but I don't want to wait.
Over 35s now eligible in the occupied 6 I'm booked in for tomorrow evening. Can't come quick enough!!
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 16, 2021, 05:56:27 AM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on April 15, 2021, 06:10:18 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on April 13, 2021, 09:18:16 PM
First jab booked here for myself and herself in San Jose for Thursday morning.
1st one down - really efficient operation by the county health unit.
2nd dose booked for 3 weeks time.
i have to go to Richmond on Tuesday morning for my first dose. Coulda waited longer for something closer to San Jose, but I don't want to wait.
Supposedly anyone 16+ is eligible for the vaccine now in every state. That doesn't mean much if is so difficult to actually book an appointment.
Second dose done and dusted without a hint of side effects.
Quote from: dec on April 19, 2021, 05:34:40 PM
Quote from: Eamonnca1 on April 16, 2021, 05:56:27 AM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on April 15, 2021, 06:10:18 PM
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on April 13, 2021, 09:18:16 PM
First jab booked here for myself and herself in San Jose for Thursday morning.
1st one down - really efficient operation by the county health unit.
2nd dose booked for 3 weeks time.
i have to go to Richmond on Tuesday morning for my first dose. Coulda waited longer for something closer to San Jose, but I don't want to wait.
Supposedly anyone 16+ is eligible for the vaccine now in every state. That doesn't mean much if is so difficult to actually book an appointment.
Colleague of mine in Seattle in his early 40s, said he'd have to wait a fair while yet. But himself and his wife travelled 2.5 hours east, 'where they don't believe in Covid' and got their jabs no problem!
I've heard of a few doing that. Look for the most whacky states and get your vaccine booked imminently there lol.
Got my first dose of Pfizer this morning. We'll see how I feel tomorrow.
Got AZ Vaccine last night and everything was fine until about 2am and I woke up with severe chills a headache and feeling achey.
Lasted through the night only starting to come round now hopefully that's the end of it!! Great operation they have in the SSE in Belfast in and out very quickly plenty of people there and all very helpful!
I'd that too. It went away quick enough. Main hangover a sore arm for a few days.
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 21, 2021, 08:33:24 AM
I'd that too. It went away quick enough. Main hangover a sore arm for a few days.
Reminds me of school days after getting one of the boosters (BCG maybe?) and there'd be a fair few dead arm punches being dished out on the affected arm!
Woman in work's Husband has had some serious blood clotting related issues after his vaccination - he got Pzifer. I had to Google it there to see if there'd been any other reported cases as you don't hear much about it in comparison to AZ and J&J, but there's been 35 cases with Pzifer (4 with Moderna) https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/13/researchers-search-for-answers-in-puzzle-of-blood-clots-and-covid-vaccines-and-see-some-clues/
Received my second Pfizer shot yesterday
24 hours later no side effects except a sore arm that had a big goose egg but has since gone down.
No side effects from me from the Pfizer. Not even a sore arm, just a very mild and barely noticeable ache.
was reading there about an actor (Vivek) who was big in India and he took a heart attack and died the next day after his jab on the 16th April.
Quote from: Rich Ricci on April 13, 2021, 05:09:55 PM
Quote from: imtommygunn on April 13, 2021, 04:36:39 PM
I got the AZ one yesterday. I have definitely felt better than I have done today.
My two, fairly aged, parents got the pfizer one (both jabs).
Got the AZ myself. Felt like shit the next day, real chills and headache. Few paracetamols and I was right as rain the next day.
Felt a bit ropey myself after the AZ one...
Quote from: clarshack on April 22, 2021, 10:02:46 AM
was reading there about an actor (Vivek) who was big in India and he took a heart attack and died the next day after his jab on the 16th April.
Overweight man has heart attack.
Quote from: clarshack on April 22, 2021, 10:02:46 AM
was reading there about an actor (Vivek) who was big in India and he took a heart attack and died the next day after his jab on the 16th April.
As good a reason as I've read to not take the vaccine. Indebted
Had the 1st AZ couple of weeks ago, no side effects at all.
Got the AZ a few days ago. All good in hood here. No side effects at all.
Have we started to see this much anticipated "ramp up" now that the vaccination centres are starting to open up and operate? Few consecutive days of 40k+. Will need to do this daily and more over next number of weeks. Lots of people in mid 60s already got first shot and opened up for lower age brackets.
Big week with decision on J&J badly needed to go right way.
Meanwhile:
"Millions of Oxford/AstraZeneca doses to be wasted in Netherlands
Most of the 11 million Oxford-AstraZeneca doses ordered by the Netherlands will not be used."
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-news-live-millions-of-astrazeneca-doses-go-to-waste-in-netherlands-as-europe-confirms-vaccinated-holidaymakers-welcome-this-summer-12287305 (https://news.sky.com/story/covid-news-live-millions-of-astrazeneca-doses-go-to-waste-in-netherlands-as-europe-confirms-vaccinated-holidaymakers-welcome-this-summer-12287305)
This news emerged at the same time as:
The European Commission has launched legal action against vaccine-maker AstraZeneca.
A spokesman said: "We want to make sure there is a speedy delivery of a sufficient number of doses that European citizens are entitled to and which have been promised on the basis of the contract,"
You couldn't make this shit up... ::)
Quote from: Evil Genius on April 26, 2021, 08:35:15 PM
Meanwhile:
"Millions of Oxford/AstraZeneca doses to be wasted in Netherlands
Most of the 11 million Oxford-AstraZeneca doses ordered by the Netherlands will not be used."
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-news-live-millions-of-astrazeneca-doses-go-to-waste-in-netherlands-as-europe-confirms-vaccinated-holidaymakers-welcome-this-summer-12287305 (https://news.sky.com/story/covid-news-live-millions-of-astrazeneca-doses-go-to-waste-in-netherlands-as-europe-confirms-vaccinated-holidaymakers-welcome-this-summer-12287305)
What is it about the Netherlands? The EU originally ordered AZ because some countries, including NL, were too scabby to buy Pfixrt/Biontech and the required freezers. Perhaps Bulgaria had real problems paying for it, but NL did not.
However, these vaccines will be unused in NL, I do not see why they should be wasted, unless they have reached their date, which is doubtful. Send them on a plane to India.
Note that the shipment to Ireland this week came from Asia, so these would be useful in Europe also.
the J&J has been approved for over 50s here, so that will keep things going for a while. However, the main J&J volume is in June when the over 50s will mostly be done.
They may amend the rules if more data emerges.
A prominent Kenyan doctor who became an anti-vaccine campaigner and conspiracy theorist has died from the disease.
Dr Stephen Karanja said it was unnecessary to vaccinate Kenyans against Covid-19.
Instead, he argued for steam inhalation and a cocktail of drugs, including hydroxychloroquine and zinc.
He also spread conspiracy theories, involving Bill Gates and population control.
Dr Karanja died on Thursday in the high-dependency unit of a private hospital in the capital Nairobi.
More than 800,000 Kenyans have now been vaccinated, with no severe side effects being reported.
Before his death, Dr Karanja was the chair of the Catholic Doctors Association, which described him "as a true medical soldier".
More here: https://tv47.co.ke/2021/04/29/dr-stephen-karanja-catholic-doctors-association-chair-dies/ (https://tv47.co.ke/2021/04/29/dr-stephen-karanja-catholic-doctors-association-chair-dies/)
Still, it was nice that he could afford to spend his last days in the comfort of a private hospital, wasn't it?
Ended up gettin the AZ last week, I have to say I had 2 bads days with it, unbelievable cramps and shakes
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 30, 2021, 03:00:32 PM
Ended up gettin the AZ last week, I have to say I had 2 bads days with it, unbelievable cramps and shakes
Good man Fear. Yeah, shivers and aches for a day or 2 with the AZ seems to be common enough.
Quote from: JoG2 on April 30, 2021, 03:28:10 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 30, 2021, 03:00:32 PM
Ended up gettin the AZ last week, I have to say I had 2 bads days with it, unbelievable cramps and shakes
Good man Fear. Yeah, shivers and aches for a day or 2 with the AZ seems to be common enough.
Probably correct decision jog2
Quote from: JoG2 on April 30, 2021, 03:28:10 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 30, 2021, 03:00:32 PM
Ended up gettin the AZ last week, I have to say I had 2 bads days with it, unbelievable cramps and shakes
Good man Fear. Yeah, shivers and aches for a day or 2 with the AZ seems to be common enough.
Better news for your 2nd AZ jab:
Will the side effects be worse for the second dose?
Not all vaccines are the same. For the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine, side effects tend to be milder with the second dose. For the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, side effects tend to be stronger with the second dose. The type of side effects are the same and should still only last a day or two.https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/second-coronavirus-vaccine (https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/coronavirus-and-your-health/second-coronavirus-vaccine)
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 30, 2021, 06:09:38 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on April 30, 2021, 03:28:10 PM
Quote from: Fear Bun Na Sceilpe on April 30, 2021, 03:00:32 PM
Ended up gettin the AZ last week, I have to say I had 2 bads days with it, unbelievable cramps and shakes
Good man Fear. Yeah, shivers and aches for a day or 2 with the AZ seems to be common enough.
Probably correct decision jog2
Oh aye, 100%. We might get to drop a few euro on the slots in Bundoran yet!
:D :D
2nd Pfizer done this morning - no improvement to my 5G service though
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 07, 2021, 08:52:34 PM
2nd Pfizer done this morning - no improvement to my 5G service though
Bill and Melinda Gates are getting divorced. I think they are arguing over who gets to control the microchips.
Quote from: Gabriel_Hurl on May 07, 2021, 08:52:34 PM
2nd Pfizer done this morning - no improvement to my 5G service though
Got mine 2nd on Wed and no issues. Wife got hers yesterday and in bad shape. She'd need to tighten up for the weekend.
Yesterday France reported 184 Covid deaths:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/france/ (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/france/)
While the UK reported 11:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/ (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/)
This disparity has been broadly similar for weeks now, if not months.
Yet in France, they're having to throw away unused AZ vaccines which have become out-of-date:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/57095105 (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/57095105)
Unbelievable.
Meanwhile Germany, whose population is approximately 25% bigger, reported 252 deaths yesterday:
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/ (https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/germany/)
Here is the US the CDC authorized the Pfizer vaccine for 12-15 year olds, my son got his first shot today.
26 counties reached 2m shots delivered today.
They'll be able to crank up the pace further depending on the J&J and AZ age rules.
Got my first (Moderna) dose last week. Area around the injection was very sore for about 36 hours or so. Apart from that, I was good.
Roll out and impact it's shown here, UK and round the world shows how important it is.
Mind boggles that people still don't want to take it.
Got my Pfizer 2 the other day. Bit of an arm ache but nothing else. Had a slight sore head this morning but that probably wasn't related.
Just got my teenagers (U16) scheduled for their first shot on Saturday.
My wife an I got the J&J a months ago with no side effects
SIL had a bad reaction to her second shot of Pfizer
I work for a large institution in NY. They're mandating everyone be vaccinated by Sept 1st. Only exceptions are religious and medical ones authorized by the state.
Quote from: J70 on May 14, 2021, 05:06:42 PM
I work for a large institution in NY. They're mandating everyone be vaccinated by Sept 1st. Only exceptions are religious and medical ones authorized by the state.
Religious ones are blx as any can decalre their relgon is anti vax. Love thy neighbour and all that. If your religon required you to be nudist would that be exempted also?
There will medical cases and it for these people's benefit that the rest of us have to jabbed.
I won't be forcefully jabbed then, me being a Jedi Knight and all.
Quote from: armaghniac on May 14, 2021, 05:42:36 PM
Quote from: J70 on May 14, 2021, 05:06:42 PM
I work for a large institution in NY. They're mandating everyone be vaccinated by Sept 1st. Only exceptions are religious and medical ones authorized by the state.
Religious ones are blx as any can decalre their relgon is anti vax. Love thy neighbour and all that. If your religon required you to be nudist would that be exempted also?
There will medical cases and it for these people's benefit that the rest of us have to jabbed.
At least with our HR, anyone pleading a religious exemption will have to prove their case is genuine.
Cuomo got rid of the religious exemption for skipping vaccinations of kids in schools and childcare facilities a couple of years ago (in response to measles rampaging through some Jewish sects, in particular). Apparently the appeals have failed so far.
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/03/19/n-y-court-upholds-repeal-of-religious-exemption-to-vaccination-requirement/ (https://reason.com/volokh/2021/03/19/n-y-court-upholds-repeal-of-religious-exemption-to-vaccination-requirement/)
Almost 290,000 done in the last 7 days in the 26 counties, or more than 7% of the adult population. They can probably crank this up a bit more in June, so the summer will see people done and they can start doing the teenagers by September.
So UK govt saying one dose of a vaccination is only 33% effective against the Indian variant.
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on May 23, 2021, 10:21:25 AM
So UK govt saying one dose of a vaccination is only 33% effective against the Indian variant.
Which dose, AZ or Phizer? I think they mentioned 2 doses will work better. I'd expect there'll be a rush to speed up the second dose
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on May 23, 2021, 11:50:45 AM
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on May 23, 2021, 10:21:25 AM
So UK govt saying one dose of a vaccination is only 33% effective against the Indian variant.
Which dose, AZ or Phizer? I think they mentioned 2 doses will work better. I'd expect there'll be a rush to speed up the second dose
Both, they also have said that 2 doses are "highly effective".
Double dose of phizer more effective than a double dose if Oxford Astrazenica. Both 33% effective after first dose (against Indian variant). Pfizer then 88% effective after 2 nd dose compared to 60% for oxford Astra. Most older people getting the Oxford AstraZeneca also a driver in Percentages.
Quote from: Jeepers Creepers on May 23, 2021, 10:21:25 AM
So UK govt saying one dose of a vaccination is only 33% effective against the Indian variant.
in stopping you catching it i hope? What is the % against actually getting ill?
26 counties moving right along
>2.4M doses administered by end today & likely to exceed 2.5M by Tue
>45% adults have had Dose 1
>15% fully vaccinated
Est. total for current week ~300k
they should be around the 80% first dose by the first weekend in July and everyone can get their second dose by mid August or so.
Will you get the covid vaccine? Put it this way I wont be the first in line. A friend of mine makes vaccinations and she even gave them to her own daughter, so I am not against vaccinations but I do have vaccination hesitancy. Why? when you read quotes from global oligarchy like Kissinger, this is what he said from a speech to the "who" council on eugenics February 25 2009.
"Once the herd accepts mandatory vaccinations, it's game over. They will accept anything-forcible blood or organ donation-"for the greater good". We can genetically modify children and sterilize them-"for the greater good". Control sheep minds and you control the herd. Vaccine makers stand to make billions. Many of you in this room are investors. It's a big win win. We thin out the heard and the herd pays us for extermination services".
Except Kissinger, much of a **** as he was, never said that.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251 (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251)
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on June 08, 2021, 05:56:26 PM
Will you get the covid vaccine? Put it this way I wont be the first in line. A friend of mine makes vaccinations and she even gave them to her own daughter, so I am not against vaccinations but I do have vaccination hesitancy. Why? when you read quotes from global oligarchy like Kissinger, this is what he said from a speech to the "who" council on eugenics February 25 2009.
"Once the herd accepts mandatory vaccinations, it's game over. They will accept anything-forcible blood or organ donation-"for the greater good". We can genetically modify children and sterilize them-"for the greater good". Control sheep minds and you control the herd. Vaccine makers stand to make billions. Many of you in this room are investors. It's a big win win. We thin out the heard and the herd pays us for extermination services".
Given the quote seems to be false would you have less vaccine hesitancy now?
Got pumped full to the gills of Moderna today. Happy days.
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 08, 2021, 06:44:11 PM
Except Kissinger, much of a **** as he was, never said that.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251 (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251)
;D
Out of interest, how many of the 46 who said 'No' in the poll, haven't had the vaccine?
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 08, 2021, 06:44:11 PM
Except Kissinger, much of a **** as he was, never said that.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251 (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251)
Damage limitation by Reuters not exactly a reliable source. Who funds Reuters? Big bankers who make a fortune of "usery".
Nope ill not be getting the jab.
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on June 09, 2021, 10:44:42 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 08, 2021, 06:44:11 PM
Except Kissinger, much of a **** as he was, never said that.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251 (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251)
Damage limitation by Reuters not exactly a reliable source. Who funds Reuters? Big bankers who make a fortune of "usery".
Nope ill not be getting the jab.
Ahh now. 😂😂
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on June 09, 2021, 10:44:42 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 08, 2021, 06:44:11 PM
Except Kissinger, much of a **** as he was, never said that.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251 (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251)
Damage limitation by Reuters not exactly a reliable source. Who funds Reuters? Big bankers who make a fortune of "usery".
Nope ill not be getting the jab.
Just stay away from the club games then ;)
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on June 09, 2021, 10:44:42 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 08, 2021, 06:44:11 PM
Except Kissinger, much of a **** as he was, never said that.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251 (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251)
Damage limitation by Reuters not exactly a reliable source. Who funds Reuters? Big bankers who make a fortune of "usery".
Nope ill not be getting the jab.
Must be tough going not trusting anyone.
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on June 09, 2021, 10:44:42 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 08, 2021, 06:44:11 PM
Except Kissinger, much of a **** as he was, never said that.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251 (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251)
Damage limitation by Reuters not exactly a reliable source. Who funds Reuters? Big bankers who make a fortune of "usery".
Yeah, I figured you'd go for the source. So how about you put up a link from a reliable source in which Kissinger is said to have said what you say he said?
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on June 09, 2021, 10:44:42 PM
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 08, 2021, 06:44:11 PM
Except Kissinger, much of a **** as he was, never said that.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251 (https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-henry-kissinger-quote-manda/false-claim-henry-kissinger-quote-about-mandatory-vaccinations-idUSKBN22Y251)
Damage limitation by Reuters not exactly a reliable source. Who funds Reuters? Big bankers who make a fortune of "usery".
Nope ill not be getting the jab.
Your Gateway Pundit, Weekly World News and Daily Stormer addled mind is apparently the only "trustworthy" source for anything
It's spelled "usury" by the way and the way you use it is a dead giveaway as to the sort of wacko views you have about people of a particular religion
Quote from: Baile an tuaigh on June 08, 2021, 05:56:26 PM
... when you read quotes from global oligarchy like Kissinger, this is what he said from a speech to the "who" council on eugenics February 25 2009.
"Once the herd accepts mandatory vaccinations, it's game over. They will accept anything-forcible blood or organ donation-"for the greater good". We can genetically modify children and sterilize them-"for the greater good". Control sheep minds and you control the herd. Vaccine makers stand to make billions. Many of you in this room are investors. It's a big win win. We thin out the heard and the herd pays us for extermination services".
Let's cut to the chase: This is misinformation. There is no evidence that Kissinger ever said or wrote this.
We found other versions of the quote also include the time and place Kissinger supposedly gave the address — "to the World Health Organization Council on Eugenics Feb 25, 2009."
But when we contacted Christian Lindmeier, a spokesperson for the World Health Organization, he told us that not only are there no records in WHO's archives of the speech, but a "World Health Organization Council on Eugenics" does not exist.
"We have no records of any such speech," Lindmeier wrote PolitiFact in an email. "Please also note that there is no such 'Council' as claimed in the statement, respectively a related meme."https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jun/25/facebook-posts/henry-kissinger-never-said-once-herd-accepts-manda/ (https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/jun/25/facebook-posts/henry-kissinger-never-said-once-herd-accepts-manda/)
Considering the opprobrium in which the "science" of Eugenics is held, only a f**king idiiot would suggest including it in the name of any organisation in this day and age.
And only a bigger f**king idiot would swallow it.
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I wonder how many parents had their kids vaccinated when they were young?
Absolutely madness when you think about it
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
the need to make vaccination a requirement for school attendance and above all third level attendance.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I wonder how many parents had their kids vaccinated when they were young?
Absolutely madness when you think about it
do you have kids 12-18 ?
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I wonder how many parents had their kids vaccinated when they were young?
Absolutely madness when you think about it
do you have kids 12-18 ?
Mine are adults.
I crazily got them vaccinated when they were young, one developed four heads the other two are normal
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I wonder how many parents had their kids vaccinated when they were young?
Absolutely madness when you think about it
do you have kids 12-18 ?
My kids aren't the age for this vaccine but once they're allowed to get it I'll be getting it. A) because I love them and want to protect them and B) I'm a good citizen and see the value in everyone working together to defeat this virus.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 09:22:46 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I wonder how many parents had their kids vaccinated when they were young?
Absolutely madness when you think about it
do you have kids 12-18 ?
Mine are adults.
I crazily got them vaccinated when they were young, one developed four heads the other two are normal
good for you , why so aggressive I asked a simple question.
12+ have been eligible for a while now in New York. My 12 and 15 year olds have both gotten both their Pfizer shots. 15yo felt tired the next day after the 2nd shot but that was all.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 09:22:46 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I wonder how many parents had their kids vaccinated when they were young?
Absolutely madness when you think about it
do you have kids 12-18 ?
Mine are adults.
I crazily got them vaccinated when they were young, one developed four heads the other two are normal
;D
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 10:03:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 09:22:46 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I wonder how many parents had their kids vaccinated when they were young?
Absolutely madness when you think about it
do you have kids 12-18 ?
Mine are adults.
I crazily got them vaccinated when they were young, one developed four heads the other two are normal
good for you , why so aggressive I asked a simple question.
No aggression, I just find it baffling that people will have vaccines and allow their very young children to have it but have fears over this vaccine?
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 10:03:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 09:22:46 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I wonder how many parents had their kids vaccinated when they were young?
Absolutely madness when you think about it
do you have kids 12-18 ?
Mine are adults.
I crazily got them vaccinated when they were young, one developed four heads the other two are normal
good for you , why so aggressive I asked a simple question.
No aggression, I just find it baffling that people will have vaccines and allow their very young children to have it but have fears over this vaccine?
this is a little different it has had a very short time to develop and kids under 18 are more likely to be hit by lightning and die than die from covid , all have to be taken into consideration
Kids have more chance of getting hit by lightning and die than die from Covid, I get that, no problem, but there is more chance that they'll catch Covid, spread it unsuspectingly to others who will die or mutate the virus into something that we are constantly fighting ffs!
You get that don't you?
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I have nieces and nephews in that age group.
They've all gotten their first dose.
My kids, both younger than 12, will get it when they become eligible.
Quote from: Gmac on June 11, 2021, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 10:03:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 09:22:46 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I wonder how many parents had their kids vaccinated when they were young?
Absolutely madness when you think about it
do you have kids 12-18 ?
Mine are adults.
I crazily got them vaccinated when they were young, one developed four heads the other two are normal
good for you , why so aggressive I asked a simple question.
No aggression, I just find it baffling that people will have vaccines and allow their very young children to have it but have fears over this vaccine?
this is a little different it has had a very short time to develop and kids under 18 are more likely to be hit by lightning and die than die from covid , all have to be taken into consideration
What do mean by this? What is an appropriate time?
Please get your kids vaccinated. It is what is best for them, you and society.
Quote from: Gmac on June 11, 2021, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 10:03:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 09:22:46 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I wonder how many parents had their kids vaccinated when they were young?
Absolutely madness when you think about it
do you have kids 12-18 ?
Mine are adults.
I crazily got them vaccinated when they were young, one developed four heads the other two are normal
good for you , why so aggressive I asked a simple question.
No aggression, I just find it baffling that people will have vaccines and allow their very young children to have it but have fears over this vaccine?
this is a little different it has had a very short time to develop and kids under 18 are more likely to be hit by lightning and die than die from covid , all have to be taken into consideration
The mRNA vaccine technology has been in development for decades and research has made huge advances over this past decade. They didn't just conjure these COVID vaccines up out of thin air last summer.
Sure just use the UV light followed by some drinking of bleach....
Quote from: J70 on June 11, 2021, 12:40:15 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 11, 2021, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 10:03:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 09:22:46 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I wonder how many parents had their kids vaccinated when they were young?
Absolutely madness when you think about it
do you have kids 12-18 ?
Mine are adults.
I crazily got them vaccinated when they were young, one developed four heads the other two are normal
good for you , why so aggressive I asked a simple question.
No aggression, I just find it baffling that people will have vaccines and allow their very young children to have it but have fears over this vaccine?
this is a little different it has had a very short time to develop and kids under 18 are more likely to be hit by lightning and die than die from covid , all have to be taken into consideration
The mRNA vaccine technology has been in development for decades and research has made huge advances over this past decade. They didn't just conjure these COVID vaccines up out of thin air last summer.
Sorry but I doubt if that will get past the epidemiology experts on facebook or indeed down the pub.
Quote from: J70 on June 11, 2021, 12:40:15 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 11, 2021, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 10:03:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 09:22:46 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I wonder how many parents had their kids vaccinated when they were young?
Absolutely madness when you think about it
do you have kids 12-18 ?
Mine are adults.
I crazily got them vaccinated when they were young, one developed four heads the other two are normal
good for you , why so aggressive I asked a simple question.
No aggression, I just find it baffling that people will have vaccines and allow their very young children to have it but have fears over this vaccine?
this is a little different it has had a very short time to develop and kids under 18 are more likely to be hit by lightning and die than die from covid , all have to be taken into consideration
The mRNA vaccine technology has been in development for decades and research has made huge advances over this past decade. They didn't just conjure these COVID vaccines up out of thin air last summer.
is it not a novel virus ? Never seen in humans before?
The vaccine would have to be started from scratch no.
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 11, 2021, 01:48:56 PM
Sure just use the UV light followed by some drinking of bleach....
were you the guy on here showering after bringing in the mail or burning your clothes when you came back from the supermarket ?
Quote from: Gmac on June 11, 2021, 02:57:02 PM
Quote from: J70 on June 11, 2021, 12:40:15 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 11, 2021, 12:43:23 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 10:03:45 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 09:22:46 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:49:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 10, 2021, 08:41:33 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I wonder how many parents had their kids vaccinated when they were young?
Absolutely madness when you think about it
do you have kids 12-18 ?
Mine are adults.
I crazily got them vaccinated when they were young, one developed four heads the other two are normal
good for you , why so aggressive I asked a simple question.
No aggression, I just find it baffling that people will have vaccines and allow their very young children to have it but have fears over this vaccine?
this is a little different it has had a very short time to develop and kids under 18 are more likely to be hit by lightning and die than die from covid , all have to be taken into consideration
The mRNA vaccine technology has been in development for decades and research has made huge advances over this past decade. They didn't just conjure these COVID vaccines up out of thin air last summer.
is it not a novel virus ? Never seen in humans before?
The vaccine would have to be started from scratch no.
Part of the beauty of mRNA vaccine technology is that it is versatile and can be quickly adapted to various kinds of viruses by plugging in sequences of nucleotides.
"Plug and play" I've seen it described as.
Quote from: Gmac on June 11, 2021, 02:58:50 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 11, 2021, 01:48:56 PM
Sure just use the UV light followed by some drinking of bleach....
were you the guy on here showering after bringing in the mail or burning your clothes when you came back from the supermarket ?
No, My wife was having a fit at the start, she cleaned the food packaging..
I worked through most of the pandemic. But I generally have a shower after work, most people do, I can't afford to burn clothes
So what type of bleach are you using?
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I've two children under 16, not a chance will they be takin it
Quote from: clarshack on June 11, 2021, 06:56:55 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
No, there's no long term data. Also this:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/cdc-heart-inflammation-cases-ages-16-24-higher-than-expected-after-mrna-covid-19-2021-06-10/
It is easy to quote some issues with the vaccine, but you also have to recognise that while younger people do not usually die, many will suffer more severe symptoms from Covid.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7927578/
Quote from: Dire Ear on June 11, 2021, 06:28:44 PM
Quote from: Gmac on June 10, 2021, 08:39:31 PM
Anyone with kids here 12-18 ? Will you get them vaccinated?
I've two children under 16, not a chance will they be takin it
No chance my kids will be getting it either
Well we need to ensure that they are not allowed mingle with the children of responsible people
Kids will thank you for that approach when they're not allowed into discos or on a plane. You'll thank them when they bring Covid home to your house.
Quote from: trailer on June 12, 2021, 02:50:01 PM
Kids will thank you for that approach when they're not allowed into discos or on a plane. You'll thank them when they bring Covid home to your house.
And every other vaccine available to them probably already in their bodies
For those of you not giving the vaccine to the kids, have you also prevented them from getting the 6 in 1, Rotavirus, Hib/MenC, MenB, 4 in 1 pre-school booster, MMR and HPV vaccines (I'm sure there are more!)?
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 12, 2021, 03:33:00 PM
For those of you not giving the vaccine to the kids, have you also prevented them from getting the 6 in 1, Rotavirus, Hib/MenC, MenB, 4 in 1 pre-school booster, MMR and HPV vaccines (I'm sure there are more!)?
How established are the 6 in 1, Rotavirus, Hib/MenC, MenB, 4 in 1 pre-school booster, MMR and HPV vaccines?
How many years are they around?
What are the dangers to children who don't get those vaccines in comparison to Covid 19 Vaccine?
Quote from: From the Bunker on June 12, 2021, 03:53:05 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 12, 2021, 03:33:00 PM
For those of you not giving the vaccine to the kids, have you also prevented them from getting the 6 in 1, Rotavirus, Hib/MenC, MenB, 4 in 1 pre-school booster, MMR and HPV vaccines (I'm sure there are more!)?
How established are the 6 in 1, Rotavirus, Hib/MenC, MenB, 4 in 1 pre-school booster, MMR and HPV vaccines?
How many years are they around?
What are the dangers to children who don't get those vaccines in comparison to Covid 19 Vaccine?
So when did those vaccines come out? And who got them first?
Quote from: armaghniac on June 12, 2021, 11:46:53 AM
Well we need to ensure that they are not allowed mingle with the children of responsible people
Yep a big yellow star should separate the worthy from the unworthy...
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 12, 2021, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on June 12, 2021, 03:53:05 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 12, 2021, 03:33:00 PM
For those of you not giving the vaccine to the kids, have you also prevented them from getting the 6 in 1, Rotavirus, Hib/MenC, MenB, 4 in 1 pre-school booster, MMR and HPV vaccines (I'm sure there are more!)?
How established are the 6 in 1, Rotavirus, Hib/MenC, MenB, 4 in 1 pre-school booster, MMR and HPV vaccines?
How many years are they around?
What are the dangers to children who don't get those vaccines in comparison to Covid 19 Vaccine?
So when did those vaccines come out? And who got them first?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_vaccines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_vaccines)
Quote from: JoG2 on June 12, 2021, 03:14:13 PM
Quote from: trailer on June 12, 2021, 02:50:01 PM
Kids will thank you for that approach when they're not allowed into discos or on a plane. You'll thank them when they bring Covid home to your house.
And every other vaccine available to them probably already in their bodies
Not sure any of those other vaccines were in trial until 2023.
Quote from: trailer on June 12, 2021, 02:50:01 PM
Kids will thank you for that approach when they're not allowed into discos or on a plane. You'll thank them when they bring Covid home to your house.
Flush out their lungs with bleach and they'll be fine
Quote from: From the Bunker on June 12, 2021, 08:00:11 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 12, 2021, 04:00:00 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on June 12, 2021, 03:53:05 PM
Quote from: Tony Baloney on June 12, 2021, 03:33:00 PM
For those of you not giving the vaccine to the kids, have you also prevented them from getting the 6 in 1, Rotavirus, Hib/MenC, MenB, 4 in 1 pre-school booster, MMR and HPV vaccines (I'm sure there are more!)?
How established are the 6 in 1, Rotavirus, Hib/MenC, MenB, 4 in 1 pre-school booster, MMR and HPV vaccines?
How many years are they around?
What are the dangers to children who don't get those vaccines in comparison to Covid 19 Vaccine?
So when did those vaccines come out? And who got them first?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_vaccines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_human_vaccines)
So someone took them at the start? Or did they just wait for something like medical trials followed by extensive tests and monitoring thousands of people to produce a vaccine that ultimately everyone will take after independent medical experts give permission for these to be used?
The every day pill can cause clots and cause death or injury, it's not taken by everyone not even half the population, not even a quarter of the population, any parents know if their kids are taking the pill?
Quote from: clarshack on June 16, 2021, 11:27:27 AM
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/382a9250-cdc3-11eb-979e-6eddfcb6b6ef
And thats great, we should have the study, to see ifeverything is ok to either have it, or not, thats the road to take, not the view of anti vaxxers
Quote from: clarshack on June 16, 2021, 11:27:27 AM
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/382a9250-cdc3-11eb-979e-6eddfcb6b6ef
Ach now, don't be listening to the experts.
Been two weeks since I registered and still haven't been called. Anyone else have to wait that long?
Quote from: clarshack on June 16, 2021, 11:27:27 AM
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/382a9250-cdc3-11eb-979e-6eddfcb6b6ef
FINALLY you are taking the advice of experts and not Big Sharon on Facebook (loves her children Kash, Kateee, Kaxon and Karliiii).
Quote from: laoislad on June 16, 2021, 02:57:28 PM
Been two weeks since I registered and still haven't been called. Anyone else have to wait that long?
Think I was 12 days the wife about 14
Quote from: gerrykeegan on June 16, 2021, 03:31:43 PM
Quote from: laoislad on June 16, 2021, 02:57:28 PM
Been two weeks since I registered and still haven't been called. Anyone else have to wait that long?
Think I was 12 days the wife about 14
In Dublin, when the 45-49 age group were registering, my experience was that those in the higher age range were waiting 12-14 days before they got the text, those in the lower end of that age range up to a week longer.
Quote from: laoislad on June 16, 2021, 02:57:28 PM
Been two weeks since I registered and still haven't been called. Anyone else have to wait that long?
I'm 10 days waiting
2nd Jab yesterday.
Starting to think that the UK are going to screw up the online Passport thing whereas the EU one seems good to go from July?
I got my second Jab on Tuesday, was a bit under the weather yesterday but feeling 100% today thankfully
Quote from: sid waddell on June 17, 2021, 10:01:56 AM
Quote from: laoislad on June 16, 2021, 02:57:28 PM
Been two weeks since I registered and still haven't been called. Anyone else have to wait that long?
I'm 10 days waiting
Just got the text from the HSE that I'm to go to Croker on Monday to get vaccinated and I'm being given the the Pfizer one.
I registered for it on the HSE website 2 weeks ago.
WHO now recommend not to vaccinate under 18s ,
Is this a new stance by WHO, Gmac? I found this on WHO's website, but I don't know if it's a change of policy.:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice (https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice)
"There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults."
Quote from: Jell 0 Biafra on June 22, 2021, 03:56:33 AM
Is this a new stance by WHO, Gmac? I found this on WHO's website, but I don't know if it's a change of policy.:
https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice (https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/covid-19-vaccines/advice)
"There is not yet enough evidence on the use of vaccines against COVID-19 in children to make recommendations for children to be vaccinated against COVID-19. Children and adolescents tend to have milder disease compared to adults."
as of today they are saying not to vaccinate under 18s
Turns out we never really needed these vaccines, who knew! But it may be already too late.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/7uVXKgE6eLJKMXkETwcw0D?si=O6tJyGkxQ3uOeLKzzDCkow&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A4rOoJ6Egrf8K2IrywzwOMk&dl_branch=1
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 10:47:12 AM
Taking the Astrazeneca didn't fare well for this poor lady and there are plenty like her:
https://twitter.com/juliet41597263/status/1399159969564532738?s=20
Seems legit.
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 10:47:12 AM
Taking the Astrazeneca didn't fare well for this poor lady and there are plenty like her:
https://twitter.com/juliet41597263/status/1399159969564532738?s=20
Plenty of people who can't see? So twitter is the place to see (sorry no pun intended) where the nut jobs are? Is angelo there?
Quote from: gerrykeegan on June 16, 2021, 03:31:43 PM
Quote from: laoislad on June 16, 2021, 02:57:28 PM
Been two weeks since I registered and still haven't been called. Anyone else have to wait that long?
Think I was 12 days the wife about 14
Still waiting, will be 3 weeks tomorrow since I registered.
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 10:47:12 AM
Taking the Astrazeneca didn't fare well for this poor lady and there are plenty like her:
https://twitter.com/juliet41597263/status/1399159969564532738?s=20
Have you been vaccinated?
Quote from: trailer on June 23, 2021, 10:50:13 AM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 10:47:12 AM
Taking the Astrazeneca didn't fare well for this poor lady and there are plenty like her:
https://twitter.com/juliet41597263/status/1399159969564532738?s=20
Seems legit.
It does. Very compelling case and the evidence is overwhelming that juliet41597263 has been blinded by the AZ vaccine. Wake up sheeple ::)
Quote from: JoG2 on June 23, 2021, 11:05:58 AM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 10:47:12 AM
Taking the Astrazeneca didn't fare well for this poor lady and there are plenty like her:
https://twitter.com/juliet41597263/status/1399159969564532738?s=20
Have you been vaccinated?
What he is saying is that the link you highlighted will have more credibility if you are.
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 10:47:12 AM
Taking the Astrazeneca didn't fare well for this poor lady and there are plenty like her:
https://twitter.com/juliet41597263/status/1399159969564532738?s=20
Some cracking replies to that tweet. My favourites are the ones about waiting for "holistic"
doctors quacks to come up with homeopathic therapies and usual we'll "praying the covid away".
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:32:52 AM
all you have to do is check out the different government's adverse reactions reporting schemes. yellow card scheme in uk, vaers in the US etc.
there have been nearly 12,000 eye disorders recorded for the astrazeneca vaccine in the uk alone.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions
How many have lost their sight? and do you believe that tweet is real?
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:59:18 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 11:51:10 AM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:32:52 AM
all you have to do is check out the different government's adverse reactions reporting schemes. yellow card scheme in uk, vaers in the US etc.
there have been nearly 12,000 eye disorders recorded for the astrazeneca vaccine in the uk alone.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions
How many have lost their sight? and do you believe that tweet is real?
Look it up for yourself, and how does it matter if I believe the tweet is real or not if government figures are showing that people are losing their sight.
Selective at best Clarshack.
A report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine, only that the reporter has a suspicion it may have. Underlying or previously undiagnosed illness unrelated to vaccination can also be factors in such reports. The relative number and nature of reports should therefore not be used to compare the safety of the different vaccines. All reports are kept under continual review in order to identify possible new risks.
The fact the government are publishing these figures should give you comfort that it's not all part of some covert organisation planning world domination.
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:59:18 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 11:51:10 AM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:32:52 AM
all you have to do is check out the different government's adverse reactions reporting schemes. yellow card scheme in uk, vaers in the US etc.
there have been nearly 12,000 eye disorders recorded for the astrazeneca vaccine in the uk alone.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions
How many have lost their sight? and do you believe that tweet is real?
Look it up for yourself, and how does it matter if I believe the tweet is real or not if government figures are showing that people are losing their sight.
You put it up saying poor woman, as if her story was true
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 01:38:27 PM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:59:18 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 11:51:10 AM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:32:52 AM
all you have to do is check out the different government's adverse reactions reporting schemes. yellow card scheme in uk, vaers in the US etc.
there have been nearly 12,000 eye disorders recorded for the astrazeneca vaccine in the uk alone.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions
How many have lost their sight? and do you believe that tweet is real?
Look it up for yourself, and how does it matter if I believe the tweet is real or not if government figures are showing that people are losing their sight.
You put it up saying poor woman, as if her story was true
Folk scouring the Web looking for anything they think might back up their warped thinking, whether it's factually correct or not is irrelevant.
There was a lady (that's a loosely based term for this one) on the internet who stuck a coin on her arm after getting the jab claiming her arm is now magnetic!! I think its the grease dripping down from her hair that was keeping the coin in place.. Poor woman
Quote from: JoG2 on June 23, 2021, 01:44:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 01:38:27 PM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:59:18 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 11:51:10 AM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:32:52 AM
all you have to do is check out the different government's adverse reactions reporting schemes. yellow card scheme in uk, vaers in the US etc.
there have been nearly 12,000 eye disorders recorded for the astrazeneca vaccine in the uk alone.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions
How many have lost their sight? and do you believe that tweet is real?
Look it up for yourself, and how does it matter if I believe the tweet is real or not if government figures are showing that people are losing their sight.
You put it up saying poor woman, as if her story was true
Folk scouring the Web looking for anything they think might back up their warped thinking, whether it's factually correct or not is irrelevant.
As opposed to what?..... swallowing every word unquestionably that is uttered by the Likes of Boris Johnson, Varadkar, Hancock and Luke O'Neill?
Quote from: BennyCake on June 23, 2021, 06:16:29 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on June 23, 2021, 01:44:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 01:38:27 PM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:59:18 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 11:51:10 AM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:32:52 AM
all you have to do is check out the different government's adverse reactions reporting schemes. yellow card scheme in uk, vaers in the US etc.
there have been nearly 12,000 eye disorders recorded for the astrazeneca vaccine in the uk alone.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions
How many have lost their sight? and do you believe that tweet is real?
Look it up for yourself, and how does it matter if I believe the tweet is real or not if government figures are showing that people are losing their sight.
You put it up saying poor woman, as if her story was true
Folk scouring the Web looking for anything they think might back up their warped thinking, whether it's factually correct or not is irrelevant.
As opposed to what?..... swallowing every word unquestionably that is uttered by the Likes of Boris Johnson, Varadkar, Hancock and Luke O'Neill?
Us sheeple?
Can you break down the intricate web of world governments and trillionaires that have us all by the short and curlies into a few sentences? Don't forget to include the 10s of thousands of complicit health professionals, virologists etc. Because you haven't so far
Quote from: BennyCake on June 23, 2021, 06:16:29 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on June 23, 2021, 01:44:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 01:38:27 PM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:59:18 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 11:51:10 AM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:32:52 AM
all you have to do is check out the different government's adverse reactions reporting schemes. yellow card scheme in uk, vaers in the US etc.
there have been nearly 12,000 eye disorders recorded for the astrazeneca vaccine in the uk alone.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions
How many have lost their sight? and do you believe that tweet is real?
Look it up for yourself, and how does it matter if I believe the tweet is real or not if government figures are showing that people are losing their sight.
You put it up saying poor woman, as if her story was true
Folk scouring the Web looking for anything they think might back up their warped thinking, whether it's factually correct or not is irrelevant.
As opposed to what?..... swallowing every word unquestionably that is uttered by the Likes of Boris Johnson, Varadkar, Hancock and Luke O'Neill?
Boris Johnson is one of your lads, he has always been a let it rip, anti-science merchant
But he has been somewhat constrained in his lunacy by a wee thing called reality
You are a blowhard in a bedroom and thus have no such constraints
Quote from: BennyCake on June 23, 2021, 06:16:29 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on June 23, 2021, 01:44:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 01:38:27 PM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:59:18 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 11:51:10 AM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:32:52 AM
all you have to do is check out the different government's adverse reactions reporting schemes. yellow card scheme in uk, vaers in the US etc.
there have been nearly 12,000 eye disorders recorded for the astrazeneca vaccine in the uk alone.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions
How many have lost their sight? and do you believe that tweet is real?
Look it up for yourself, and how does it matter if I believe the tweet is real or not if government figures are showing that people are losing their sight.
You put it up saying poor woman, as if her story was true
Folk scouring the Web looking for anything they think might back up their warped thinking, whether it's factually correct or not is irrelevant.
As opposed to what?..... swallowing every word unquestionably that is uttered by the Likes of Boris Johnson, Varadkar, Hancock and Luke O'Neill?
As opposed to Breibart, Buzzfeed, Huff post, Karen on Facebook and a few dodgy click bait sites?
Can't wait to get my 2nd dose next week. I'll be able to travel without quarantine by the sounds of it, even if I can't see where I am going.
Quote from: trailer on June 24, 2021, 01:57:01 PM
Can't wait to get my 2nd dose next week. I'll be able to travel without quarantine by the sounds of it, even if I can't see where I am going.
You couldn't see anything when you were down in Downings a couple of years ago. ;D
Quote from: LeoMc on June 24, 2021, 01:51:14 PM
Quote from: BennyCake on June 23, 2021, 06:16:29 PM
Quote from: JoG2 on June 23, 2021, 01:44:51 PM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 01:38:27 PM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:59:18 AM
Quote from: Milltown Row2 on June 23, 2021, 11:51:10 AM
Quote from: clarshack on June 23, 2021, 11:32:52 AM
all you have to do is check out the different government's adverse reactions reporting schemes. yellow card scheme in uk, vaers in the US etc.
there have been nearly 12,000 eye disorders recorded for the astrazeneca vaccine in the uk alone.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions
How many have lost their sight? and do you believe that tweet is real?
Look it up for yourself, and how does it matter if I believe the tweet is real or not if government figures are showing that people are losing their sight.
You put it up saying poor woman, as if her story was true
Folk scouring the Web looking for anything they think might back up their warped thinking, whether it's factually correct or not is irrelevant.
As opposed to what?..... swallowing every word unquestionably that is uttered by the Likes of Boris Johnson, Varadkar, Hancock and Luke O'Neill?
As opposed to Breibart, Buzzfeed, Huff post, Karen on Facebook and a few dodgy click bait sites?
Who the fcuk is Karen on Facebook? I've seen references to her on here a lot but I haven't a clue who she is.
Quote from: Rudi on June 24, 2021, 02:17:55 PM
Quote from: trailer on June 24, 2021, 01:57:01 PM
Can't wait to get my 2nd dose next week. I'll be able to travel without quarantine by the sounds of it, even if I can't see where I am going.
You couldn't see anything when you were down in Downings a couple of years ago. ;D
I could see it was overrated lol.
Quote from: trailer on June 24, 2021, 01:57:01 PM
Can't wait to get my 2nd dose next week. I'll be able to travel without quarantine by the sounds of it, even if I can't see where I am going.
;D
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693
Quote from: Last Man on June 24, 2021, 10:26:48 PM
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/9/7/693
Anyone that goes to MDPI for expert opinion or scientific studies is looking in the wrong place.
The image falsely claims that there have been 1,102 "vaccine deaths". That figure actually relates to how many people died following a Covid-19 vaccine, not necessarily because of it. Considering that 36 million people have had their first dose, that's how many we would have expected to die from other causes in that time. There is no proof that those deaths were caused by the vaccine.
Quote from: Nanderson on July 04, 2021, 09:00:56 PM
The image falsely claims that there have been 1,102 "vaccine deaths". That figure actually relates to how many people died following a Covid-19 vaccine
Cheers Nanderson - I assume this is what you mean?
https://fullfact.org/online/1102-vaccine-adr-death/
Edit by Mod5 to remove reference to poster whose comments were pulled (along with any reference to them by others).
edit by me - Mod5 - pulling their posts doesn't change the fact they are an idiot though. That observation is still 100% accurate. ;D
Quote from: Nanderson on July 04, 2021, 09:00:56 PM
The image falsely claims that there have been 1,102 "vaccine deaths". That figure actually relates to how many people died following a Covid-19 vaccine, not necessarily because of it. Considering that 36 million people have had their first dose, that's how many we would have expected to die from other causes in that time. There is no proof that those deaths were caused by the vaccine.
And here's me thinking the vaccine would make you live forever. Ffs
Quote from: Armagh18 on July 05, 2021, 04:45:41 PM
Quote from: Nanderson on July 04, 2021, 09:00:56 PM
The image falsely claims that there have been 1,102 "vaccine deaths". That figure actually relates to how many people died following a Covid-19 vaccine, not necessarily because of it. Considering that 36 million people have had their first dose, that's how many we would have expected to die from other causes in that time. There is no proof that those deaths were caused by the vaccine.
And here's me thinking the vaccine would make you live forever. Ffs
You are obviously very ignorant of medicine.
Why are Revenue issuing the Vaccine Certificates, Why is it not the HSE?
I smell a Rat!
Quote from: From the Bunker on July 13, 2021, 08:47:37 PM
Why are Revenue issuing the Vaccine Certificates, Why is it not the HSE?
If you want a job done then you give it to the most competent team you have.
Quote from: armaghniac on July 13, 2021, 09:03:08 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on July 13, 2021, 08:47:37 PM
Why are Revenue issuing the Vaccine Certificates, Why is it not the HSE?
If you want a job done then you give it to the most competent team you have.
that certainly wouldnt be the revenue then.
Quote from: armaghniac on July 13, 2021, 09:03:08 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on July 13, 2021, 08:47:37 PM
Why are Revenue issuing the Vaccine Certificates, Why is it not the HSE?
If you want a job done then you give it to the most competent team you have.
Why do Revenue have my health details now?
Quote from: Armagh18 on July 13, 2021, 09:04:17 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 13, 2021, 09:03:08 PM
Quote from: From the Bunker on July 13, 2021, 08:47:37 PM
Why are Revenue issuing the Vaccine Certificates, Why is it not the HSE?
If you want a job done then you give it to the most competent team you have.
that certainly wouldnt be the revenue then.
It absolutely would be. By far that highest functioning arm of the state.
While the "vaccine-deniers" are probably beyond reason, all "vaccine-hesitants" should consider this from the USA.
"An Associated Press analysis of available government data from May [2021] shows that "breakthrough" infections in fully vaccinated people accounted for fewer than 1,200 of more than 107,000 COVID-19 hospitalizations. That's about 1.1%.
And only about 150 of the more than 18,000 COVID-19 deaths in May were in fully vaccinated people. That translates to about 0.8%, or five deaths per day on average."
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187 (https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-pandemic-health-941fcf43d9731c76c16e7354f5d5e187)
What happens if you get a 3rd jab?
Quote from: Olly on July 19, 2021, 08:06:34 PM
What happens if you get a 3rd jab?
Then you get no Covid at all at all.
The 26 counties are going to give vulnerable people a third jab in a couple on months. This will be a different vaccine, so if got AZ they will give you Pfizer and vice versa
Quote from: armaghniac on July 19, 2021, 08:13:26 PM
Quote from: Olly on July 19, 2021, 08:06:34 PM
What happens if you get a 3rd jab?
Then you get no Covid at all at all.
The 26 counties are going to give vulnerable people a third jab in a couple on months. This will be a different vaccine, so if got AZ they will give you Pfizer and vice versa
how many of these wonderful gene treatments will they be giving to people each year to keep us topped up and healthy.Cant wait.
Quote from: jftj on July 25, 2021, 03:20:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 19, 2021, 08:13:26 PM
Quote from: Olly on July 19, 2021, 08:06:34 PM
What happens if you get a 3rd jab?
Then you get no Covid at all at all.
The 26 counties are going to give vulnerable people a third jab in a couple on months. This will be a different vaccine, so if got AZ they will give you Pfizer and vice versa
how many of these wonderful gene treatments will they be giving to people each year to keep us topped up and healthy.Cant wait.
A few David Icke fans on here.
Quote from: lenny on July 25, 2021, 09:25:32 PM
Quote from: jftj on July 25, 2021, 03:20:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 19, 2021, 08:13:26 PM
Quote from: Olly on July 19, 2021, 08:06:34 PM
What happens if you get a 3rd jab?
Then you get no Covid at all at all.
The 26 counties are going to give vulnerable people a third jab in a couple on months. This will be a different vaccine, so if got AZ they will give you Pfizer and vice versa
how many of these wonderful gene treatments will they be giving to people each year to keep us topped up and healthy.Cant wait.
A few David Icke fans on here.
honest question lenny.how many will you take per year to update your vax passport.Also if the 2 jabs dont work why take anymore.just doesnt make any sense at all.
I've just recovered from covid with symptoms being a sore throat and no taste and smell. I've had one jab and can't get double vaxd for 4 weeks. Is there an advantage of being double vaxxed now only that I can get one of them passports?
Quote from: NotedObserver on July 25, 2021, 11:39:04 PM
I've just recovered from covid with symptoms being a sore throat and no taste and smell. I've had one jab and can't get double vaxd for 4 weeks. Is there an advantage of being double vaxxed now only that I can get one of them passports?
Why not get the second jab?
Quote from: NotedObserver on July 25, 2021, 11:39:04 PM
I've just recovered from covid with symptoms being a sore throat and no taste and smell. I've had one jab and can't get double vaxd for 4 weeks. Is there an advantage of being double vaxxed now only that I can get one of them passports?
As you got the first you're obviously not anti-vax so I'd go ahead and get the second.
Quote from: jftj on July 25, 2021, 11:20:31 PM
Quote from: lenny on July 25, 2021, 09:25:32 PM
Quote from: jftj on July 25, 2021, 03:20:40 PM
Quote from: armaghniac on July 19, 2021, 08:13:26 PM
Quote from: Olly on July 19, 2021, 08:06:34 PM
What happens if you get a 3rd jab?
Then you get no Covid at all at all.
The 26 counties are going to give vulnerable people a third jab in a couple on months. This will be a different vaccine, so if got AZ they will give you Pfizer and vice versa
how many of these wonderful gene treatments will they be giving to people each year to keep us topped up and healthy.Cant wait.
A few David Icke fans on here.
honest question lenny.how many will you take per year to update your vax passport.Also if the 2 jabs dont work why take anymore.just doesnt make any sense at all.
Because viruses mutate and evolve??
Do you ever take antibiotics?
If so, you're mostly likely not taking the same ones they took 50 years ago. Why? Because bacteria mutate and evolve resistance. So they have to come up with new antibiotics. While they do that, we're stuck with MRSA outbreaks and the like.
COVID is probably going to end up like the regular seasonal flu, where you have to get a new jab every year to counter whatever the current or predicted dominant strains are/will be.