Messages

Ah - "according to a mate..."

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?

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....

[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.]

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

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.

[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.]

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...

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...

[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?]

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.

[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?]

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

[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?]

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?

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

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...

[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.]

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.

[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]

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.

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.