FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Covid19 vaccine
Covid19 vaccine
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this?" Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook." To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it | |||
| |||
"Yes definitely me and all my family and it is looking more promising for the oxford uni vaccine as astrazenica are preparing to produce millions of doses of its vaccine.after signing a world wide licencing agreement. I an not a biochemist but if a drug company goes to that length to produce millions of doses and spends £££? I don't think they would if they were not confident it was going to work. If anyone can shed more light please add comments " They have 14 million of Gov Funding to produce at risk. | |||
| |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook." Yeah that 5G is a b*gger. I had the anthrax jab When I was in the military and we actually had to sign a form to say we were happy to get it, and I am fine (apart from my glow in the dark balls). | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. Yeah that 5G is a b*gger. I had the anthrax jab When I was in the military and we actually had to sign a form to say we were happy to get it, and I am fine (apart from my glow in the dark balls)." Oooh. Fun game! Find the balls!  | |||
| |||
| |||
"Yes definitely me and all my family and it is looking more promising for the oxford uni vaccine as astrazenica are preparing to produce millions of doses of its vaccine.after signing a world wide licencing agreement. I an not a biochemist but if a drug company goes to that length to produce millions of doses and spends £££? I don't think they would if they were not confident it was going to work. If anyone can shed more light please add comments " I don’t think some people’s trepidation would be because they thought it might not work. I think it would be based on whether they thought it was 100% safe with being rushed through clinical trials in such a short space of time | |||
"If offered to you, will you accept the Covid19 vaccine, or not?" I don’t trust the mentality of anyone who wouldn’t. | |||
| |||
| |||
I have the flu jab each year with no side effects so i would be happy and eager to have the vaccine.
Herd immunity is important too. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"If offered to you, will you accept the Covid19 vaccine, or not?" Who honestly would say no | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Once I get all the infomation regarding a vaccine. " I think there's a useful distinction which I didn't make clear above, and should have done. I'd listen to the experts on the matter. I'm not a doctor, epidemiologist, immunologist, or virologist. But I have a reasonable idea of how to source reliable information. I'm not going to make a decision based on "this vaccine functions by modulating the spike protein and by using an IL6 inhibitor" etc because my eyes will glaze over. I'm not trained to understand the details. | |||
"Yes definitely me and all my family and it is looking more promising for the oxford uni vaccine as astrazenica are preparing to produce millions of doses of its vaccine.after signing a world wide licencing agreement. I an not a biochemist but if a drug company goes to that length to produce millions of doses and spends £££? I don't think they would if they were not confident it was going to work. If anyone can shed more light please add comments They have 14 million of Gov Funding to produce at risk." But if the vaccine doesn’t work right and causes a lot of problems it will be az who pay the compensation not the gov | |||
| |||
"I am quite firmly pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated beyond the schedule and believe in vaccinating myself to protect myself and others. However, the vaccine development we're seeing at the moment is going at an unprecedented pace, and corners are potentially going to be cut to bring something to market faster. Partly because of the overwhelming need, and partly because of political pressure. If the safety standards are up to the same level as a regular vaccine would be expected to have, I would take the vaccine in a heartbeat. Vaccines are, on a population level, overwhelmingly safe and effective. If they are not, then I would want to know more about the ways in which they are not, and both the potential risk to me and my community." The record for creating and using a vaccine up to now was 4 years and that was mumps. Science has moved on a lot since then, ITs since possible to create and model DNA sequences in the laboratory stage. What hasn't changed is need for human trials. Ebola was first identified in 1975, the first vaccine was approved for conditional use in december 2019. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"No of course. You'd have to be crazy to take it." No, it’s the other way around. | |||
| |||
"I am quite firmly pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated beyond the schedule and believe in vaccinating myself to protect myself and others. However, the vaccine development we're seeing at the moment is going at an unprecedented pace, and corners are potentially going to be cut to bring something to market faster. Partly because of the overwhelming need, and partly because of political pressure. If the safety standards are up to the same level as a regular vaccine would be expected to have, I would take the vaccine in a heartbeat. Vaccines are, on a population level, overwhelmingly safe and effective. If they are not, then I would want to know more about the ways in which they are not, and both the potential risk to me and my community. The record for creating and using a vaccine up to now was 4 years and that was mumps. Science has moved on a lot since then, ITs since possible to create and model DNA sequences in the laboratory stage. What hasn't changed is need for human trials. Ebola was first identified in 1975, the first vaccine was approved for conditional use in december 2019." Understood. The people I'm listening to on this are saying it might be a cause for concern. I trust the process, but the process is compromised (if for good reason) at the moment. | |||
"No of course. You'd have to be crazy to take it." I wonder if that might be projection. | |||
"I am quite firmly pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated beyond the schedule and believe in vaccinating myself to protect myself and others. However, the vaccine development we're seeing at the moment is going at an unprecedented pace, and corners are potentially going to be cut to bring something to market faster. Partly because of the overwhelming need, and partly because of political pressure. If the safety standards are up to the same level as a regular vaccine would be expected to have, I would take the vaccine in a heartbeat. Vaccines are, on a population level, overwhelmingly safe and effective. If they are not, then I would want to know more about the ways in which they are not, and both the potential risk to me and my community. The record for creating and using a vaccine up to now was 4 years and that was mumps. Science has moved on a lot since then, ITs since possible to create and model DNA sequences in the laboratory stage. What hasn't changed is need for human trials. Ebola was first identified in 1975, the first vaccine was approved for conditional use in december 2019. Understood. The people I'm listening to on this are saying it might be a cause for concern. I trust the process, but the process is compromised (if for good reason) at the moment." I would hope devil’s advocacy and transparency of research findings in the public’s interests will prevent political pressure from cutting critical corners. This will be the most acutely, publicly scrutinised vaccine development ever. | |||
"I am quite firmly pro-vaccine. I am vaccinated beyond the schedule and believe in vaccinating myself to protect myself and others. However, the vaccine development we're seeing at the moment is going at an unprecedented pace, and corners are potentially going to be cut to bring something to market faster. Partly because of the overwhelming need, and partly because of political pressure. If the safety standards are up to the same level as a regular vaccine would be expected to have, I would take the vaccine in a heartbeat. Vaccines are, on a population level, overwhelmingly safe and effective. If they are not, then I would want to know more about the ways in which they are not, and both the potential risk to me and my community. The record for creating and using a vaccine up to now was 4 years and that was mumps. Science has moved on a lot since then, ITs since possible to create and model DNA sequences in the laboratory stage. What hasn't changed is need for human trials. Ebola was first identified in 1975, the first vaccine was approved for conditional use in december 2019. Understood. The people I'm listening to on this are saying it might be a cause for concern. I trust the process, but the process is compromised (if for good reason) at the moment. I would hope devil’s advocacy and transparency of research findings in the public’s interests will prevent political pressure from cutting critical corners. This will be the most acutely, publicly scrutinised vaccine development ever." Of course. I fear that the low levels of scientific literacy, and the poisoning of discourse around expertise, will just create a partisan mess. | |||
| |||
"A lot of people will jump for a vaccine to get back to normal. But you have to sign your rights away, government have agreed that them or the manufacturer cannot be held responsible for any side effects or deaths caused. So it's your choice. " If significant numbers of people died following any vaccination programme then I doubt Pfizer (or whoever) would escape unscathed..... | |||
"A lot of people will jump for a vaccine to get back to normal. But you have to sign your rights away, government have agreed that them or the manufacturer cannot be held responsible for any side effects or deaths caused. So it's your choice. " These kind of agreements are standard in vaccine manufacture due to the low profit margin involved in making vaccines and that they're essential for public health. Compensation bodies exist, and serious risk from vaccines is extremely rare. Let's not scaremonger with anti vaccine propaganda. | |||
| |||
"A lot of people will jump for a vaccine to get back to normal. But you have to sign your rights away, government have agreed that them or the manufacturer cannot be held responsible for any side effects or deaths caused. So it's your choice. " That is not true vaccine producers can be sued certainly in the European Union they can. Not the case in the US apparently. | |||
| |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook." Or because of the ingredients some people might have anaphalactic shock and die... Ms x | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. Or because of the ingredients some people might have anaphalactic shock and die... Ms x" This is why I say I vaccinate for others. Those who can't, rely on herd immunity from those who can. | |||
| |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. Or because of the ingredients some people might have anaphalactic shock and die... Ms x This is why I say I vaccinate for others. Those who can't, rely on herd immunity from those who can." Exactly, we all have a responsibility to protect others of possible. | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. Or because of the ingredients some people might have anaphalactic shock and die... Ms x This is why I say I vaccinate for others. Those who can't, rely on herd immunity from those who can."  | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it " The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. | |||
| |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. " Which is one reason why they're testing in Brazil, where it's running rampant. | |||
| |||
| |||
"No they can't even get the flu vaccination right and look how long they have been doing that " The drift with the flu means that it's a very difficult thing to get right. The drift with SARS-Covid-2 has been pretty minimal, and infectivity is reliant upon the spike protein, which is (I believe) where a lot of the vaccine work is focused. They're different viruses with different problems to overcome. | |||
| |||
"No they can't even get the flu vaccination right and look how long they have been doing that " The Flu vaccine has worked really well for me. For years before the pandemic I flew around the world and travelled to lots of places where I might be exposed to the Flu virus and met lots of people, stayed in lots of hotels. I have never had anything but a mild cold in all the years I’ve been advised to have a flu jab. It works pretty well. However COVID is a different type of virus and the vaccine development is based around the cold virus rather than influenza. | |||
" The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. " You do understand how this works right? (of course you don't) You DO know they had volunteer tests cases earlier this year where they took healthy people and infected them deliberately, with consent, so they could use the results to develop a vaccine right? You DO understand that the vaccine being developed has literally nothing to do with whether a large amount of the population is infected right? No... I didn't think you did...  | |||
| |||
" The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. You do understand how this works right? (of course you don't) You DO know they had volunteer tests cases earlier this year where they took healthy people and infected them deliberately, with consent, so they could use the results to develop a vaccine right? You DO understand that the vaccine being developed has literally nothing to do with whether a large amount of the population is infected right? No... I didn't think you did... "Err I don't think that's right. We don't do challenge trials anymore. I think the earlier tests were for safety. | |||
" The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. You do understand how this works right? (of course you don't) You DO know they had volunteer tests cases earlier this year where they took healthy people and infected them deliberately, with consent, so they could use the results to develop a vaccine right? You DO understand that the vaccine being developed has literally nothing to do with whether a large amount of the population is infected right? No... I didn't think you did...
Err I don't think that's right. We don't do challenge trials anymore. I think the earlier tests were for safety."It's not right, I know people who are part of the current trials (they volunteered). | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. Or because of the ingredients some people might have anaphalactic shock and die... Ms x" That is the reason why enough people have to have the vaccine. To protect the small amount of people who unable to have a vaccine due reactions with any ingredient. They would be protected by herd immunity. | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. Which is one reason why they're testing in Brazil, where it's running rampant." That's something I suppose, but there are still problems with that approach. Anyway, don't let me stop you, ya'll fill your boots with it. Still, I won't be taking any risks with my health to bail the government out of this clusterfuck situation they made. | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. Or because of the ingredients some people might have anaphalactic shock and die... Ms x That is the reason why enough people have to have the vaccine. To protect the small amount of people who unable to have a vaccine due reactions with any ingredient. They would be protected by herd immunity." And I appreciate all the people that have done this for other vaccines - they have helped to protect my family. Not all people who don't have vaccines are anti-vaxxers. But some people don't realise that. Ms x | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. Which is one reason why they're testing in Brazil, where it's running rampant. That's something I suppose, but there are still problems with that approach. Anyway, don't let me stop you, ya'll fill your boots with it. Still, I won't be taking any risks with my health to bail the government out of this clusterfuck situation they made. " I doubt Oxford University scientists see it as bailing the Govt out of a clusterfuck | |||
| |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. Which is one reason why they're testing in Brazil, where it's running rampant. That's something I suppose, but there are still problems with that approach. Anyway, don't let me stop you, ya'll fill your boots with it. Still, I won't be taking any risks with my health to bail the government out of this clusterfuck situation they made. " You do realise this infection is likely to become endemic and isn't harmless? | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. Which is one reason why they're testing in Brazil, where it's running rampant. That's something I suppose, but there are still problems with that approach. Anyway, don't let me stop you, ya'll fill your boots with it. Still, I won't be taking any risks with my health to bail the government out of this clusterfuck situation they made. I doubt Oxford University scientists see it as bailing the Govt out of a clusterfuck" Lol, are you being ironic? You know who Sunetra Gupta is right? | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. Which is one reason why they're testing in Brazil, where it's running rampant. That's something I suppose, but there are still problems with that approach. Anyway, don't let me stop you, ya'll fill your boots with it. Still, I won't be taking any risks with my health to bail the government out of this clusterfuck situation they made. You do realise this infection is likely to become endemic and isn't harmless?" It's not a high consequence infectious disease. Governments own words, not mine. | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. Which is one reason why they're testing in Brazil, where it's running rampant. That's something I suppose, but there are still problems with that approach. Anyway, don't let me stop you, ya'll fill your boots with it. Still, I won't be taking any risks with my health to bail the government out of this clusterfuck situation they made. You do realise this infection is likely to become endemic and isn't harmless? It's not a high consequence infectious disease. Governments own words, not mine. " If you believe the way the government has spun this, then whatever you like. | |||
| |||
"Once I get all the infomation regarding a vaccine. I think there's a useful distinction which I didn't make clear above, and should have done. I'd listen to the experts on the matter. I'm not a doctor, epidemiologist, immunologist, or virologist. But I have a reasonable idea of how to source reliable information. I'm not going to make a decision based on "this vaccine functions by modulating the spike protein and by using an IL6 inhibitor" etc because my eyes will glaze over. I'm not trained to understand the details. " Also observing any side effects with the people who get the vaccine first. I know there are many factors that can determined side effects but this, with the amount of understandable infomation. I can only then make my own mind. I wouldn't even call it an educated guess just the most informed guess I can make. But if there is also different options of vaccine then it will perhaps, be the case of finding the most suited to your specific make-up. | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. Which is one reason why they're testing in Brazil, where it's running rampant. That's something I suppose, but there are still problems with that approach. Anyway, don't let me stop you, ya'll fill your boots with it. Still, I won't be taking any risks with my health to bail the government out of this clusterfuck situation they made. You do realise this infection is likely to become endemic and isn't harmless? It's not a high consequence infectious disease. Governments own words, not mine. If you believe the way the government has spun this, then whatever you like." Quite the opposite. I don't believe an damn word they say. By any objective measure we are in the 3 worst handled countries in the world. Hence why I wouldn't believe them if they said a vaccine was safe and since I have no way to fact check the trials myself, then I'll pass. I think they'd do anything to get out of this mess they've made. | |||
| |||
"I will wait and assess the evidence when & if a vaccine is eventually available. I am not in a high risk group, so the risk/benefit analysis isn't easy. Covid is not an especially deadly virus and even with the most rigourous testing any new vaccine or drug carries it's own risks. Everyone has to balance the risk for themselves as everyones situation is unique." I unfortunately caught it, and have been knocked flat for six weeks and counting. Dead isn't the only bad outcome. | |||
| |||
" I unfortunately caught it, and have been knocked flat for six weeks and counting. Dead isn't the only bad outcome." Sorry to hear that & I wish you a speedy recovery. I'm aware of the possible outcomes of contracting Covid and wouldn't seek to dismiss it as a disease without consequence for some. So far though the evidence suggests that serious long term illness is relatively uncommon with the majority making a full recovery in a couple of weeks. That's why I'm undecided - the risk from both the vaccine and the disease are both not completely known. | |||
" I unfortunately caught it, and have been knocked flat for six weeks and counting. Dead isn't the only bad outcome. Sorry to hear that & I wish you a speedy recovery. I'm aware of the possible outcomes of contracting Covid and wouldn't seek to dismiss it as a disease without consequence for some. So far though the evidence suggests that serious long term illness is relatively uncommon with the majority making a full recovery in a couple of weeks. That's why I'm undecided - the risk from both the vaccine and the disease are both not completely known." Sure. The vaccine isn't developed yet so we don't know. But I fear the spin on it has become, it's not scary unless you're particularly physically vulnerable. It's just not true. I too will weigh things up for reasons I've stated above, but I think mass vaccination (with medical exemption only) is our only escape from this. | |||
| |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. Which is one reason why they're testing in Brazil, where it's running rampant. That's something I suppose, but there are still problems with that approach. Anyway, don't let me stop you, ya'll fill your boots with it. Still, I won't be taking any risks with my health to bail the government out of this clusterfuck situation they made. I doubt Oxford University scientists see it as bailing the Govt out of a clusterfuck Lol, are you being ironic? You know who Sunetra Gupta is right? Yep. What is it specifically about Sunetra Gupta that makes you think she is involved in bailing out the Governement’s clusterfuck? I’m wondering if you know something about her involvement in the vaccine development that I don’t." She's extremely critical of the governments approach and Imperial college modelling that it's based on. She disagrees with pretty much all the governments main assertions about how the virus behaves. She advocates a more rapid exit from lockdown, in complete contrast to Chris Whitty saying he can't see an exit without a vaccine. I just don't know why you'd cite oxford university like they are in approval of the governments approach. | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. Which is one reason why they're testing in Brazil, where it's running rampant. That's something I suppose, but there are still problems with that approach. Anyway, don't let me stop you, ya'll fill your boots with it. Still, I won't be taking any risks with my health to bail the government out of this clusterfuck situation they made. I doubt Oxford University scientists see it as bailing the Govt out of a clusterfuck Lol, are you being ironic? You know who Sunetra Gupta is right? " Help me understand why after her advice was ignored in favour of Ferguson’s at Imperial College and SAGE running counter to her study, she is motivated to sort out the Government’s clusterfuck? Do you know somethingI don’t? Of course being Hill’s wife means she is invested in the vaccine development. | |||
"No I wouldnt, especially now when bill gates is involved. I dont buy into all this hysteria and paranoia surrounding covid that the media have hyped up, working on your immune system is all that is needed "Not everyone can do anything to boost their immune system. | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. Which is one reason why they're testing in Brazil, where it's running rampant. That's something I suppose, but there are still problems with that approach. Anyway, don't let me stop you, ya'll fill your boots with it. Still, I won't be taking any risks with my health to bail the government out of this clusterfuck situation they made. I doubt Oxford University scientists see it as bailing the Govt out of a clusterfuck Lol, are you being ironic? You know who Sunetra Gupta is right? Yep. What is it specifically about Sunetra Gupta that makes you think she is involved in bailing out the Governement’s clusterfuck? I’m wondering if you know something about her involvement in the vaccine development that I don’t. She's extremely critical of the governments approach and Imperial college modelling that it's based on. She disagrees with pretty much all the governments main assertions about how the virus behaves. She advocates a more rapid exit from lockdown, in complete contrast to Chris Whitty saying he can't see an exit without a vaccine. I just don't know why you'd cite oxford university like they are in approval of the governments approach. " They aren’t. But they are heading the vaccine development. | |||
| |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. Which is one reason why they're testing in Brazil, where it's running rampant. That's something I suppose, but there are still problems with that approach. Anyway, don't let me stop you, ya'll fill your boots with it. Still, I won't be taking any risks with my health to bail the government out of this clusterfuck situation they made. I doubt Oxford University scientists see it as bailing the Govt out of a clusterfuck Lol, are you being ironic? You know who Sunetra Gupta is right? Yep. What is it specifically about Sunetra Gupta that makes you think she is involved in bailing out the Governement’s clusterfuck? I’m wondering if you know something about her involvement in the vaccine development that I don’t. She's extremely critical of the governments approach and Imperial college modelling that it's based on. She disagrees with pretty much all the governments main assertions about how the virus behaves. She advocates a more rapid exit from lockdown, in complete contrast to Chris Whitty saying he can't see an exit without a vaccine. I just don't know why you'd cite oxford university like they are in approval of the governments approach. They aren’t. But they are heading the vaccine development." They are heading the UK one which should fail because there wasn't enough coronavirus circulating in May and June to make the results meaningful. Sunetra Gupta does not believe we need a vaccine to exit lockdown. Chris Whitty does. Hope that's clear enough. | |||
| |||
 | |||
| |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this?" Because it takes years to produce a safe vaccine, they won't know all the side effects for a long time and some could include heart,liver,kidney problems or even some forms of cancer. | |||
"The government and their associated departments are working their arses off to minimise the effects of this virus. I am very relieved I live in the UK and not some other country where there is little or no effort to deal with the situation. Boris Johnson and his cohorts are successfully dealing with it, and we'll see how other countries have faired when all the statstics are in say a year from now. Thank god it's not Jeremy Covid and his grey cohorts that are trying to deal with it! I will be at the head of the queue to be vaccinated. Those that don't? Well good luck." This is so all true and well said  | |||
"The government and their associated departments are working their arses off to minimise the effects of this virus. I am very relieved I live in the UK and not some other country where there is little or no effort to deal with the situation. Boris Johnson and his cohorts are successfully dealing with it, and we'll see how other countries have faired when all the statstics are in say a year from now. Thank god it's not Jeremy Covid and his grey cohorts that are trying to deal with it! I will be at the head of the queue to be vaccinated. Those that don't? Well good luck." The UK is one of the worst hit countries despite having an excellent healthcare system and high level of preparedness. The government has overseen a clusterfuck of epic proportions. I will likely be vaccinated, I see it as my civic duty. But so is calling these self congratulatory buffoons to account for the blood on their hands. | |||
" It's not right, I know people who are part of the current trials (they volunteered). " yes... that's what the word 'consent' means. i.e you volunteer to do it. They have already tested the virus on people to see how it works on demographics, which help develop a vaccine. They are considering doing challenge trials with several thousand people who have volunteered to do so if they choose to go through with them. | |||
" It's not right, I know people who are part of the current trials (they volunteered). yes... that's what the word 'consent' means. i.e you volunteer to do it. They have already tested the virus on people to see how it works on demographics, which help develop a vaccine. They are considering doing challenge trials with several thousand people who have volunteered to do so if they choose to go through with them." What's your source on this, please? | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because it takes years to produce a safe vaccine, they won't know all the side effects for a long time and some could include heart,liver,kidney problems or even some forms of cancer." Exactly, you'd have to be very foolish to take a fast tracked vaccine designed in a few months with no long term testing. I won't be taking the vaccine but will watch with interest at the side effects/deaths that'll occur. | |||
" It's not right, I know people who are part of the current trials (they volunteered). yes... that's what the word 'consent' means. i.e you volunteer to do it. They have already tested the virus on people to see how it works on demographics, which help develop a vaccine. They are considering doing challenge trials with several thousand people who have volunteered to do so if they choose to go through with them." So when you said they'd already done challenge trials earlier, you were talking shit then? | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. To be honest I would give it some thought, I don’t use Facebook and I don’t read conspiracy theories etc. But a vaccine fast tracked through in record time would give me reason to pause and consider if I wanted it The elephant in the parliament square is that there's simply not enough covid19 around, to draw meaningful data on its effectiveness without directly exposing the test cases to covid19; which they haven't done yet. I'll be happy to have the vaccine... in 2035. Which is one reason why they're testing in Brazil, where it's running rampant. That's something I suppose, but there are still problems with that approach. Anyway, don't let me stop you, ya'll fill your boots with it. Still, I won't be taking any risks with my health to bail the government out of this clusterfuck situation they made. I doubt Oxford University scientists see it as bailing the Govt out of a clusterfuck Lol, are you being ironic? You know who Sunetra Gupta is right? Yep. What is it specifically about Sunetra Gupta that makes you think she is involved in bailing out the Governement’s clusterfuck? I’m wondering if you know something about her involvement in the vaccine development that I don’t. She's extremely critical of the governments approach and Imperial college modelling that it's based on. She disagrees with pretty much all the governments main assertions about how the virus behaves. She advocates a more rapid exit from lockdown, in complete contrast to Chris Whitty saying he can't see an exit without a vaccine. I just don't know why you'd cite oxford university like they are in approval of the governments approach. They aren’t. But they are heading the vaccine development. They are heading the UK one which should fail because there wasn't enough coronavirus circulating in May and June to make the results meaningful. Sunetra Gupta does not believe we need a vaccine to exit lockdown. Chris Whitty does. Hope that's clear enough." I’m still not understanding your point. | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook." 5G?..... mate catch yourself on LOL | |||
"A lot of people will jump for a vaccine to get back to normal. But you have to sign your rights away, government have agreed that them or the manufacturer cannot be held responsible for any side effects or deaths caused. So it's your choice. That is not true vaccine producers can be sued certainly in the European Union they can. Not the case in the US apparently." Because it's being pushed through they are exempt its the deal, or no vaccine the worlds gone mad. But only way to get a vaccine to market in time, or 5 years wait. | |||
" So when you said they'd already done challenge trials earlier, you were talking shit then? " I didn't claim that. Please learn to read. I never claimed they'd done challenge trials (they didn't have a vaccine back then). I said they deliberately infected volunteers to help develop a vaccine. Let's just cut with the sarcasm. You've gotten your facts wrong with every single post so far, and resorted to personal insults and red herrings to change the topic. I don't quite know who you think you're convincing anymore, but they're probably needing help with being fed. | |||
" What's your source on this, please?" The preliminary demographic trials were done by Queen Mary BioEnterprises Innovation Centre in London. It's quite common practice for these things, and the BBC did a short video on it back in March. 1daysooner.org currently lists the volunteers for challenge trials at around 28,000 which you can check on their site. | |||
" So when you said they'd already done challenge trials earlier, you were talking shit then? I didn't claim that. Please learn to read. I never claimed they'd done challenge trials (they didn't have a vaccine back then). I said they deliberately infected volunteers to help develop a vaccine. Let's just cut with the sarcasm. You've gotten your facts wrong with every single post so far, and resorted to personal insults and red herrings to change the topic. I don't quite know who you think you're convincing anymore, but they're probably needing help with being fed." Pot is calling the kettle black. You said: "You DO understand that the vaccine being developed has literally nothing to do with whether a large amount of the population is infected right?" Here's a quote from the BBC in april: "The only way the team will know if the Covid-19 vaccine works is by comparing the number of people who get infected with coronavirus in the months ahead from the two arms of the trial. That could be a problem if cases fall rapidly in the UK, because there may not be enough data." So actually it matters a lot how rampant the virus is in society. | |||
" What's your source on this, please? The preliminary demographic trials were done by Queen Mary BioEnterprises Innovation Centre in London. It's quite common practice for these things, and the BBC did a short video on it back in March. 1daysooner.org currently lists the volunteers for challenge trials at around 28,000 which you can check on their site." ... So they've discussed but not done a challenge trial? | |||
| |||
"We have been officially lowered from a 4 to a stage 3, which means that from what I gather there is the chance of social distancing being lessened, and if we go to stage 2, minimal or or no social distancing needed. I don't really need to see why people need a vaccine at the rate that it seems the virus is burning itself out. Obviously only what I'm thinking personally and I'm sure I can be influenced by more or new information if and when I find some." You're right. The upside of the governments disastrous handling is that most the damage has been done. We aren't like South Korea, Vietnam, Singapore or Taiwan who have done excellent jobs but still have their most vulnerable people around. Roughly 10% of cases of covid19 cause 80% of the next cases, something the media tries very hard not to mention. Meaning that if we hold off on mass gatherings for a bit longer, put a face mask on in public and wash our hands then you can forget all this bullshit about a second wave. There's no reason not to develop a vaccine, but it shouldn't get a pass through the safety checks just because the government fucked up. | |||
| |||
"Not at all lol Ask the doctor what's in it... Mercury cocktail " I assume you don't eat fish or sea food or smoke all these much much more mercury in them. Most food contains more mercury in it than in a single vaccine shot.traffic fumes also contain mercury. Only some vaccines have mercury in them, some poison antedotes have thiomersal in too. Its used as an antifungal / antibacterial agent to improve shelf life. | |||
"Not at all lol Ask the doctor what's in it... Mercury cocktail I assume you don't eat fish or sea food or smoke all these much much more mercury in them. Most food contains more mercury in it than in a single vaccine shot.traffic fumes also contain mercury. Only some vaccines have mercury in them, some poison antedotes have thiomersal in too. Its used as an antifungal / antibacterial agent to improve shelf life."
This is such a boring antivax trope. Ooh mercury. | |||
"Not at all lol Ask the doctor what's in it... Mercury cocktail I assume you don't eat fish or sea food or smoke all these much much more mercury in them. Most food contains more mercury in it than in a single vaccine shot.traffic fumes also contain mercury. Only some vaccines have mercury in them, some poison antedotes have thiomersal in too. Its used as an antifungal / antibacterial agent to improve shelf life.
This is such a boring antivax trope. Ooh mercury. "Everyone talks about Mercury, but what about Venus, Mars and Jupiter?  | |||
"Not at all lol Ask the doctor what's in it... Mercury cocktail I assume you don't eat fish or sea food or smoke all these much much more mercury in them. Most food contains more mercury in it than in a single vaccine shot.traffic fumes also contain mercury. Only some vaccines have mercury in them, some poison antedotes have thiomersal in too. Its used as an antifungal / antibacterial agent to improve shelf life.
This is such a boring antivax trope. Ooh mercury.
Everyone talks about Mercury, but what about Venus, Mars and Jupiter? " | |||
| |||
"Why any sane, responsible person would insist on refusing a vaccine without learning its research evidence is fully beyond me. " But there's just no way for an ordinary person to do that. Remember in 2008 when credit rating agents were giving AAA scores to bundled mortgages full of absolute crap? There's no way for the average person to know that until it's too late. In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times, the CDC lie, the British government lie, the scientists advising the British government lie. Realistically who am I going to trust to tell me the vaccine is fine when we all know it's been rushed. There isn't anyone left. | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. " So, what exactly have they lied about? | |||
| |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook." Have you heard of thalidomide ?  | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. Have you heard of thalidomide ? "Thalidomide is the reason the vaccine isn’t on the market now It’s already been made and could be released They’ve been testing it since April for effects and safety so it’s not been dropped out the second it’s been made | |||
"Of course, why would anyone say no to this? Because of Bill Gates, nanotrackers, 5G and Soros. But the main reason that someone would say no to it would because of some rubbish they read on facebook. Have you heard of thalidomide ? "Also thalidomide is a drug not a vaccine. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Why any sane, responsible person would insist on refusing a vaccine without learning its research evidence is fully beyond me. But there's just no way for an ordinary person to do that. Remember in 2008 when credit rating agents were giving AAA scores to bundled mortgages full of absolute crap? There's no way for the average person to know that until it's too late. In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times, the CDC lie, the British government lie, the scientists advising the British government lie. Realistically who am I going to trust to tell me the vaccine is fine when we all know it's been rushed. There isn't anyone left. " Yes and you could also get worse with vaccines. | |||
| |||
| |||
" ... So they've discussed but not done a challenge trial? " That's correct. You can't just go out and 'do' trials like that. You need various medical boards to sign off on the ethics. eg: If there were a disease that had virtually no infection rate but a 99.99% lethality. It wouldn't get signed off on due to the risk to the subjects. If it were something with a relatively low lethality. Say 7.25% of all people over the age of 60. But with a very high transmissibility, then most likely it will be. You could most likely test it on young healthy people with the ability to treat the odd person who just so happened to get really sick. There are various other factors like being able to screen out other people at risk. | |||
| |||
" ... So they've discussed but not done a challenge trial? That's correct. You can't just go out and 'do' trials like that. You need various medical boards to sign off on the ethics. eg: If there were a disease that had virtually no infection rate but a 99.99% lethality. It wouldn't get signed off on due to the risk to the subjects. If it were something with a relatively low lethality. Say 7.25% of all people over the age of 60. But with a very high transmissibility, then most likely it will be. You could most likely test it on young healthy people with the ability to treat the odd person who just so happened to get really sick. There are various other factors like being able to screen out other people at risk." You'd indicated earlier that they'd done a challenge trial. My understanding is that this is no longer considered ethical for dangerous pathogens. Vaccine trials seem to have taken the usual course on an accelerated route. | |||
"Nope. Definitely not. I'd let all you shouting from the moral high ground that only idiots won't have it have first go. Then make an informed choice when the mass hysteria calms down. " | |||
"We have been officially lowered from a 4 to a stage 3, which means that from what I gather there is the chance of social distancing being lessened, and if we go to stage 2, minimal or or no social distancing needed. I don't really need to see why people need a vaccine at the rate that it seems the virus is burning itself out. Obviously only what I'm thinking personally and I'm sure I can be influenced by more or new information if and when I find some." | |||
"Why any sane, responsible person would insist on refusing a vaccine without learning its research evidence is fully beyond me. But there's just no way for an ordinary person to do that. Remember in 2008 when credit rating agents were giving AAA scores to bundled mortgages full of absolute crap? There's no way for the average person to know that until it's too late. In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times, the CDC lie, the British government lie, the scientists advising the British government lie. Realistically who am I going to trust to tell me the vaccine is fine when we all know it's been rushed. There isn't anyone left. " | |||
| |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? "If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. " I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel." If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. " You accuse them of 'lying' which indicates a deliberate attempt to mislead the world population. Is that what you actually believe? | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. You accuse them of 'lying' which indicates a deliberate attempt to mislead the world population. Is that what you actually believe?" So just to be clear, we're talking about organisations you'd trust and you would trust an organisation that could get something so fundamentally wrong. You want to debate whether they are malicious or stupid, as if you'd trust organisations that are stupid but not malicious | |||
| |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. You accuse them of 'lying' which indicates a deliberate attempt to mislead the world population. Is that what you actually believe? So just to be clear, we're talking about organisations you'd trust and you would trust an organisation that could get something so fundamentally wrong. You want to debate whether they are malicious or stupid, as if you'd trust organisations that are stupid but not malicious. " Anyone who believes that the WHO, and the UK government are deliberately lying to mislead the population, and that they are malicious and stupid, needs to waddle off into a corner and have a serious word with themlselves. | |||
| |||
"Apparently everyone is "lying" except the conspiracy kooks on a swinger forum who like to cherry pick and equivocate on their facts and figures. I know i'm in safe hands here... Coming up next: Why climate change isn't real, vaccines are frauds and why a string of epidemologists were out foxed by a bunch of people who have 'done their research' by reading a few online blogs and headlines from the Daily Mail. Well I can be glad the idiots are at least quarrantined to within an online forum... "You didn’t mention 5G as a way to catch covid  | |||
| |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. You accuse them of 'lying' which indicates a deliberate attempt to mislead the world population. Is that what you actually believe? So just to be clear, we're talking about organisations you'd trust and you would trust an organisation that could get something so fundamentally wrong. You want to debate whether they are malicious or stupid, as if you'd trust organisations that are stupid but not malicious. Anyone who believes that the WHO, and the UK government are deliberately lying to mislead the population, and that they are malicious and stupid, needs to waddle off into a corner and have a serious word with themlselves. "And anyone who thinks there was no evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th has lost touch with reality | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. You accuse them of 'lying' which indicates a deliberate attempt to mislead the world population. Is that what you actually believe? So just to be clear, we're talking about organisations you'd trust and you would trust an organisation that could get something so fundamentally wrong. You want to debate whether they are malicious or stupid, as if you'd trust organisations that are stupid but not malicious. Anyone who believes that the WHO, and the UK government are deliberately lying to mislead the population, and that they are malicious and stupid, needs to waddle off into a corner and have a serious word with themselves.
And anyone who thinks there was no evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th has lost touch with reality.
"Come on then fountain of knowledge, what else have the authorities been lying through their teeth about? | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. " Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. " No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. You accuse them of 'lying' which indicates a deliberate attempt to mislead the world population. Is that what you actually believe? So just to be clear, we're talking about organisations you'd trust and you would trust an organisation that could get something so fundamentally wrong. You want to debate whether they are malicious or stupid, as if you'd trust organisations that are stupid but not malicious. Anyone who believes that the WHO, and the UK government are deliberately lying to mislead the population, and that they are malicious and stupid, needs to waddle off into a corner and have a serious word with themselves.
And anyone who thinks there was no evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th has lost touch with reality.
Come on then fountain of knowledge, what else have the authorities been lying through their teeth about?"I'll wait for you to acknowledge the first lie before proceeding. | |||
"If offered to you, will you accept the Covid19 vaccine, or not? Who honestly would say no" I would. | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. " Feigned derision doesn't change facts. | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. Feigned derision doesn't change facts." I'm sorry, could you just make it clear whether there was evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? You keep waffling so just a yes or no would be lovely. | |||
| |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. " The guinea pigs have already had the vaccine, they’ve been getting it since April | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. Feigned derision doesn't change facts. I'm sorry, could you just make it clear whether there was evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? You keep waffling so just a yes or no would be lovely. " The Wuhan Homicide Organisation WHO were lying from day one. | |||
"I have severe asthma and am shielding, because of that I would be high on the list of people to be offered a vaccine. I would be asking questions about how similar it is to the flu vaccine first before I accepted. The only time I ever had the flu jab I had an anaphylactic reaction to it so I would need to be reassured that it wouldn’t happen with a covid vaccine too. " In order to have an anaphylactic reaction to something you normally need to have been exposed to it at least once before the exposure that causes reaction. Ideally I'd want a test to see if I already had antibodies to Covid. If so then I wouldn't want the vaccine, if not so then definitely YES. | |||
"I have severe asthma and am shielding, because of that I would be high on the list of people to be offered a vaccine. I would be asking questions about how similar it is to the flu vaccine first before I accepted. The only time I ever had the flu jab I had an anaphylactic reaction to it so I would need to be reassured that it wouldn’t happen with a covid vaccine too. In order to have an anaphylactic reaction to something you normally need to have been exposed to it at least once before the exposure that causes reaction. Ideally I'd want a test to see if I already had antibodies to Covid. If so then I wouldn't want the vaccine, if not so then definitely YES." I'm recovering from Covid and will probably want a vaccine, because it's very likely that immunity to it will wane (like other human corona viruses) | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. Feigned derision doesn't change facts. I'm sorry, could you just make it clear whether there was evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? You keep waffling so just a yes or no would be lovely. " On the 12 Jan WHO released a statement https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ in which they say: "The government reports that there is no clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person." On Jan 20 WHO first visited Wuhan and their report includes the following: "Human-to-human transmission is occurring and a preliminary R0 estimate of 1.4-2.5 was presented." The report goes on to state: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO" Context matters as does the fact that knowledge on Covid-19 was and is evolving. If you wish to argue what WHO said or didn't say on a particular date is their definitive and final statement then you certainly may, but such a response is misleading and disingenuous. | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. Feigned derision doesn't change facts. I'm sorry, could you just make it clear whether there was evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? You keep waffling so just a yes or no would be lovely. On the 12 Jan WHO released a statement https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ in which they say: "The government reports that there is no clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person." On Jan 20 WHO first visited Wuhan and their report includes the following: "Human-to-human transmission is occurring and a preliminary R0 estimate of 1.4-2.5 was presented." The report goes on to state: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO" Context matters as does the fact that knowledge on Covid-19 was and is evolving. If you wish to argue what WHO said or didn't say on a particular date is their definitive and final statement then you certainly may, but such a response is misleading and disingenuous. " Was that a yes or no buttercup? January 14th was my question. | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. Feigned derision doesn't change facts. I'm sorry, could you just make it clear whether there was evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? You keep waffling so just a yes or no would be lovely. On the 12 Jan WHO released a statement https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ in which they say: "The government reports that there is no clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person." On Jan 20 WHO first visited Wuhan and their report includes the following: "Human-to-human transmission is occurring and a preliminary R0 estimate of 1.4-2.5 was presented." The report goes on to state: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO" Context matters as does the fact that knowledge on Covid-19 was and is evolving. If you wish to argue what WHO said or didn't say on a particular date is their definitive and final statement then you certainly may, but such a response is misleading and disingenuous. Was that a yes or no buttercup? January 14th was my question. " If you go and check the record you will see no statement from WHO was released on the Jan 14. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen How exactly do you think does name calling help your argument? | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. Feigned derision doesn't change facts. I'm sorry, could you just make it clear whether there was evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? You keep waffling so just a yes or no would be lovely. On the 12 Jan WHO released a statement https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ in which they say: "The government reports that there is no clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person." On Jan 20 WHO first visited Wuhan and their report includes the following: "Human-to-human transmission is occurring and a preliminary R0 estimate of 1.4-2.5 was presented." The report goes on to state: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO" Context matters as does the fact that knowledge on Covid-19 was and is evolving. If you wish to argue what WHO said or didn't say on a particular date is their definitive and final statement then you certainly may, but such a response is misleading and disingenuous. Was that a yes or no buttercup? January 14th was my question. If you go and check the record you will see no statement from WHO was released on the Jan 14. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen How exactly do you think does name calling help your argument? " Except the fact that they tweeted it on that day so there was an announcement. Funny how you asked me for an example of lying but when I give one, you can't confirm what is and isn't true. | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. Feigned derision doesn't change facts. I'm sorry, could you just make it clear whether there was evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? You keep waffling so just a yes or no would be lovely. On the 12 Jan WHO released a statement https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ in which they say: "The government reports that there is no clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person." On Jan 20 WHO first visited Wuhan and their report includes the following: "Human-to-human transmission is occurring and a preliminary R0 estimate of 1.4-2.5 was presented." The report goes on to state: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO" Context matters as does the fact that knowledge on Covid-19 was and is evolving. If you wish to argue what WHO said or didn't say on a particular date is their definitive and final statement then you certainly may, but such a response is misleading and disingenuous. Was that a yes or no buttercup? January 14th was my question. If you go and check the record you will see no statement from WHO was released on the Jan 14. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen How exactly do you think does name calling help your argument? Except the fact that they tweeted it on that day so there was an announcement. Funny how you asked me for an example of lying but when I give one, you can't confirm what is and isn't true. " You mean the excerpt from this tweet? https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217157045318836224 Additional investigation on the novel #coronavirus (2019-nC0V) is needed to ascertain: the presence of human-to-human transmission modes of transmission common source of exposure the presence of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases that are undetected Can you provide a link, please and thanks | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. Feigned derision doesn't change facts. I'm sorry, could you just make it clear whether there was evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? You keep waffling so just a yes or no would be lovely. On the 12 Jan WHO released a statement https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ in which they say: "The government reports that there is no clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person." On Jan 20 WHO first visited Wuhan and their report includes the following: "Human-to-human transmission is occurring and a preliminary R0 estimate of 1.4-2.5 was presented." The report goes on to state: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO" Context matters as does the fact that knowledge on Covid-19 was and is evolving. If you wish to argue what WHO said or didn't say on a particular date is their definitive and final statement then you certainly may, but such a response is misleading and disingenuous. Was that a yes or no buttercup? January 14th was my question. If you go and check the record you will see no statement from WHO was released on the Jan 14. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen How exactly do you think does name calling help your argument? Except the fact that they tweeted it on that day so there was an announcement. Funny how you asked me for an example of lying but when I give one, you can't confirm what is and isn't true. You mean the excerpt from this tweet? https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217157045318836224 Additional investigation on the novel #coronavirus (2019-nC0V) is needed to ascertain: the presence of human-to-human transmission modes of transmission common source of exposure the presence of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases that are undetected Can you provide a link, please and thanks " It'll be the one that says "no clear evidence of human to human transmission", it's not hard to find. So I'll ask again, was there clear evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? Because we know there was clear evidence on November 19th so you can keep trying to spin it however you want, but that was a lie. | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. Feigned derision doesn't change facts. I'm sorry, could you just make it clear whether there was evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? You keep waffling so just a yes or no would be lovely. On the 12 Jan WHO released a statement https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ in which they say: "The government reports that there is no clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person." On Jan 20 WHO first visited Wuhan and their report includes the following: "Human-to-human transmission is occurring and a preliminary R0 estimate of 1.4-2.5 was presented." The report goes on to state: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO" Context matters as does the fact that knowledge on Covid-19 was and is evolving. If you wish to argue what WHO said or didn't say on a particular date is their definitive and final statement then you certainly may, but such a response is misleading and disingenuous. Was that a yes or no buttercup? January 14th was my question. If you go and check the record you will see no statement from WHO was released on the Jan 14. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen How exactly do you think does name calling help your argument? Except the fact that they tweeted it on that day so there was an announcement. Funny how you asked me for an example of lying but when I give one, you can't confirm what is and isn't true. You mean the excerpt from this tweet? https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217157045318836224 Additional investigation on the novel #coronavirus (2019-nC0V) is needed to ascertain: the presence of human-to-human transmission modes of transmission common source of exposure the presence of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases that are undetected Can you provide a link, please and thanks It'll be the one that says "no clear evidence of human to human transmission", it's not hard to find. So I'll ask again, was there clear evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? Because we know there was clear evidence on November 19th so you can keep trying to spin it however you want, but that was a lie." You can't find it? Neither can I. If you check their statement from Jan 12, they repeat what the Chinese govt told that there was no "clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person." Their statement on Jan 23 following their visit to Wuhan confirmed that "Human-to-human transmission is occurring". So to summarise, when they didn't know if human to human transmission was occurring, they said they didn't know. When they definitely knew that human to human transmission was occurring, they said so. | |||
 | |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. Feigned derision doesn't change facts. I'm sorry, could you just make it clear whether there was evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? You keep waffling so just a yes or no would be lovely. On the 12 Jan WHO released a statement https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ in which they say: "The government reports that there is no clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person." On Jan 20 WHO first visited Wuhan and their report includes the following: "Human-to-human transmission is occurring and a preliminary R0 estimate of 1.4-2.5 was presented." The report goes on to state: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO" Context matters as does the fact that knowledge on Covid-19 was and is evolving. If you wish to argue what WHO said or didn't say on a particular date is their definitive and final statement then you certainly may, but such a response is misleading and disingenuous. Was that a yes or no buttercup? January 14th was my question. If you go and check the record you will see no statement from WHO was released on the Jan 14. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen How exactly do you think does name calling help your argument? Except the fact that they tweeted it on that day so there was an announcement. Funny how you asked me for an example of lying but when I give one, you can't confirm what is and isn't true. You mean the excerpt from this tweet? https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217157045318836224 Additional investigation on the novel #coronavirus (2019-nC0V) is needed to ascertain: the presence of human-to-human transmission modes of transmission common source of exposure the presence of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases that are undetected Can you provide a link, please and thanks It'll be the one that says "no clear evidence of human to human transmission", it's not hard to find. So I'll ask again, was there clear evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? Because we know there was clear evidence on November 19th so you can keep trying to spin it however you want, but that was a lie. You can't find it? Neither can I. If you check their statement from Jan 12, they repeat what the Chinese govt told that there was no "clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person." Their statement on Jan 23 following their visit to Wuhan confirmed that "Human-to-human transmission is occurring". So to summarise, when they didn't know if human to human transmission was occurring, they said they didn't know. When they definitely knew that human to human transmission was occurring, they said so." Last reply. You're having a laugh if you say you can't find it. I don't use that hell hole of a platform to send you a link, if you seriously can't find it then it's not wonder you're drawing odd conclusions about their credibility. Just put those words into google and go to images | |||
"Goodness. A brand new disease is discovered and it takes organisations months to figure out things about it. How shocking and surprising. Research needs time and observation to figure things out. Appalling "People like Li Wenliang were screaming warnings to anyone that would listen in December. Funny how Taiwan managed to hear him, but the WHO didn't | |||
| |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. Feigned derision doesn't change facts. I'm sorry, could you just make it clear whether there was evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? You keep waffling so just a yes or no would be lovely. On the 12 Jan WHO released a statement https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ in which they say: "The government reports that there is no clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person." On Jan 20 WHO first visited Wuhan and their report includes the following: "Human-to-human transmission is occurring and a preliminary R0 estimate of 1.4-2.5 was presented." The report goes on to state: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO" Context matters as does the fact that knowledge on Covid-19 was and is evolving. If you wish to argue what WHO said or didn't say on a particular date is their definitive and final statement then you certainly may, but such a response is misleading and disingenuous. Was that a yes or no buttercup? January 14th was my question. If you go and check the record you will see no statement from WHO was released on the Jan 14. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen How exactly do you think does name calling help your argument? Except the fact that they tweeted it on that day so there was an announcement. Funny how you asked me for an example of lying but when I give one, you can't confirm what is and isn't true. You mean the excerpt from this tweet? https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217157045318836224 Additional investigation on the novel #coronavirus (2019-nC0V) is needed to ascertain: the presence of human-to-human transmission modes of transmission common source of exposure the presence of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases that are undetected Can you provide a link, please and thanks It'll be the one that says "no clear evidence of human to human transmission", it's not hard to find. So I'll ask again, was there clear evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? Because we know there was clear evidence on November 19th so you can keep trying to spin it however you want, but that was a lie." I think it's perhaps better to let something rest, when there's clear disagreement between you and others. You're all perhaps unlikely to want a personal discussion of it but it can deflect from the topic of the thread. This comment is for all of us, not solely directed at you, I'm just quoting on from the repeated iterations of the opposing points. | |||
| |||
" In the last 6 months we've seen the WHO lie multiple times. The CDC lie The British government lie The scientists advising the British government lie. So, what exactly have they lied about? If you don't know by now then it's hard to help you. I guess it's more that there's no evidence of them telling the truth. I'm not the one accusing them of lying, you are. You can't give any examples can you? Just hype and drivel. If you think there was no evidence of human to human transmission by January 14th then there's just no hope for you. Here we go with this bullshit and bluster again, lets see how it compares against the factual record. WHO was first notified by their China office of a new disease on Dec31 2019, On Jan 4 WHO released a pandemic preparedness toolkit which advised countries to check PPE stocks and testing equipment. WHO did not gain access to Wuhan until Jan 20 when they first warned of human to human transmission. Their recommendations to the international community included: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO." On Feb 23 WHO released a report warning that the virus is “spreading with astonishing speed” and called for governments to “immediately activate the highest level of national response,” including immediate and extensive testing and planning for closing schools and workplaces. Let me know if you want citations. No I'm just confused which part of that you find impressive. Or how you can use phrases like "did not gain access to wuhan" like it's area 51 or something. I'll save my praise for countries like taiwan who knew damn well it transmits human to human in December and implemented measures on their borders accordingly. Anyway, fill your boots with the vaccine, I may have it eventually so thanks for being the guinea pig. Feigned derision doesn't change facts. I'm sorry, could you just make it clear whether there was evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? You keep waffling so just a yes or no would be lovely. On the 12 Jan WHO released a statement https://www.who.int/csr/don/12-january-2020-novel-coronavirus-china/en/ in which they say: "The government reports that there is no clear evidence that the virus passes easily from person to person." On Jan 20 WHO first visited Wuhan and their report includes the following: "Human-to-human transmission is occurring and a preliminary R0 estimate of 1.4-2.5 was presented." The report goes on to state: "It is expected that further international exportation of cases may appear in any country. Thus, all countries should be prepared for containment, including active surveillance, early detection, isolation and case management, contact tracing and prevention of onward spread of 2019-nCoV infection, and to share full data with WHO" Context matters as does the fact that knowledge on Covid-19 was and is evolving. If you wish to argue what WHO said or didn't say on a particular date is their definitive and final statement then you certainly may, but such a response is misleading and disingenuous. Was that a yes or no buttercup? January 14th was my question. If you go and check the record you will see no statement from WHO was released on the Jan 14. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/events-as-they-happen How exactly do you think does name calling help your argument? Except the fact that they tweeted it on that day so there was an announcement. Funny how you asked me for an example of lying but when I give one, you can't confirm what is and isn't true. You mean the excerpt from this tweet? https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217157045318836224 Additional investigation on the novel #coronavirus (2019-nC0V) is needed to ascertain: the presence of human-to-human transmission modes of transmission common source of exposure the presence of asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic cases that are undetected Can you provide a link, please and thanks It'll be the one that says "no clear evidence of human to human transmission", it's not hard to find. So I'll ask again, was there clear evidence of human to human transmission on January 14th or not? Because we know there was clear evidence on November 19th so you can keep trying to spin it however you want, but that was a lie. I think it's perhaps better to let something rest, when there's clear disagreement between you and others. You're all perhaps unlikely to want a personal discussion of it but it can deflect from the topic of the thread. This comment is for all of us, not solely directed at you, I'm just quoting on from the repeated iterations of the opposing points. " It did actually start with me asking you a genuine question about how you'd verify the safety of the vaccine and I'm still interested in your answer? | |||
| |||
