FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Former Antivaxxer finally getting jabbed
Former Antivaxxer finally getting jabbed
Jump to: Newest in thread
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks. This is one of the few places in my city that only gives Pfizer "I had AZ, no side effects though | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys! "Congrats on seeing sense and getting your jab OP. You are lucky enough to be under 40 so you were never going to be given the AZ vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys! "It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people). Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision. What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting. Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine?" Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
"Scary really. Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped. Boosters coming. Bi annual coming And even monthly jabs. The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10. Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
Scary really.
Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped.
Boosters coming.
Bi annual coming
And even monthly jabs.
The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be ""Totally agree. People can’t see past the covid vaccine itself. It’s the beginning of many boosters (and anything else) in order to participate in society if people let this happen. It’s disgusting. What we must not forget though is that many many vaccinated people are still against domestic passports (social credit system incoming?) and they still believe in medical autonomy. The gullible try to make it about 2 simple “sides” as that’s all they can understand, but of course it’s not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
"A few yeas ago, a close relative on mine 50 years old and overweight had two blood clots at the same time. One heading to the heart and one to the brain. Luckily she survived. She did not have any health issues before. And she is on blood thinining medication now. People including healthy people develop blood clots every year and some of them for no particular reason. Despite her risk of developing blood clots, the doctor gave her the ok to receive a covid jab (Moderna). Also according to stats, there is an increased risk of developing a blood clot even if you get covid and have mild symptoms. The risk of developing a blood clot if you get covid is much higher than the risk of having a blood clot as a result of having the vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification." No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? ----- Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification." Th OP actually described himself as an AntiVaxxer, both in the title of the thread and his opening post  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? ----- Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. Th OP actually described himself as an AntiVaxxer, both in the title of the thread and his opening post "Thank you for this  . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
Scary really.
Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped.
Boosters coming.
Bi annual coming
And even monthly jabs.
The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be ""And if it is, so what? Everyone who has the flu jab each year is quite comfortable with the concept. That a far more virulent virus requires stricter social control over those who put society at risk is also something the majority are comfortable with. It’s worth observing that there are plenty of illnesses that are eliminated via a complete vaccine, and there is no reason to believe that Covid can never be eliminated in a similar way. We are at the very beginnings of our knowledge of a novel virus, and anyone who talks about the future of Covid and/or vaccinations with certainty simply illustrates they are speaking from a position of uninformed speculation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
A few yeas ago, a close relative on mine 50 years old and overweight had two blood clots at the same time. One heading to the heart and one to the brain. Luckily she survived. She did not have any health issues before. And she is on blood thinining medication now.
People including healthy people develop blood clots every year and some of them for no particular reason.
Despite her risk of developing blood clots, the doctor gave her the ok to receive a covid jab (Moderna).
Also according to stats, there is an increased risk of developing a blood clot even if you get covid and have mild symptoms. The risk of developing a blood clot if you get covid is much higher than the risk of having a blood clot as a result of having the vaccine."That’s fine. Perfectly reasonable to have it or not have it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind." I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? ----- Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. Th OP actually described himself as an AntiVaxxer, both in the title of the thread and his opening post "I know. My point exactly. Even in self description people are seeing it as two simple sides. It’s not. It’s full of nuance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
Scary really.
Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped.
Boosters coming.
Bi annual coming
And even monthly jabs.
The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be "
And if it is, so what? Everyone who has the flu jab each year is quite comfortable with the concept. That a far more virulent virus requires stricter social control over those who put society at risk is also something the majority are comfortable with.
It’s worth observing that there are plenty of illnesses that are eliminated via a complete vaccine, and there is no reason to believe that Covid can never be eliminated in a similar way. We are at the very beginnings of our knowledge of a novel virus, and anyone who talks about the future of Covid and/or vaccinations with certainty simply illustrates they are speaking from a position of uninformed speculation."Choosing bot to have the flu vaccine has never excluded anyone from anything. That’s the point of the passport, which was what he was talking about. Boosters are fine. Vaccines are fine. Segregation through digital passports is disgusting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
Scary really.
Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped.
Boosters coming.
Bi annual coming
And even monthly jabs.
The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be "
And if it is, so what? Everyone who has the flu jab each year is quite comfortable with the concept. That a far more virulent virus requires stricter social control over those who put society at risk is also something the majority are comfortable with.
It’s worth observing that there are plenty of illnesses that are eliminated via a complete vaccine, and there is no reason to believe that Covid can never be eliminated in a similar way. We are at the very beginnings of our knowledge of a novel virus, and anyone who talks about the future of Covid and/or vaccinations with certainty simply illustrates they are speaking from a position of uninformed speculation."Your phrase “stricter social control”. Very poignant. It’s shocked me how many people love being controlled, tell them it’s for the greater good and they lap it up. “Govern me harder!”. Covid has given many people a meaning to their life, which is very sad. They feel part of something, Like they’re really doing something for the greater good. It’s sad they had do little else. Get on with your life, do the stuff you’ve always done, ignore the apps that will ping, isolate if you’re ill but otherwise ignore any restrictions, like sensible people did last winter. Or sit around thinking about covid being a “good citizen” waiting for your freedoms to return…. Lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance." I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
Scary really.
Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped.
Boosters coming.
Bi annual coming
And even monthly jabs.
The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be "
Totally agree. People can’t see past the covid vaccine itself. It’s the beginning of many boosters (and anything else) in order to participate in society if people let this happen. It’s disgusting.
What we must not forget though is that many many vaccinated people are still against domestic passports (social credit system incoming?) and they still believe in medical autonomy. The gullible try to make it about 2 simple “sides” as that’s all they can understand, but of course it’s not."Sounds somewhat like a gross oversimplification, a distorted take on things and divisiveness thrown in to boot.
The vaccines strategy for the future hasn't been signed up to ideologically by anyone, as we don't know the future of the virus and its potential impact to life in general.
We're still learning about the immunity that the virus and vaccines deliver, as it pays to be just focused on the research evidence.
As for whether vaccination confirmation status access schemes will start and how the UK fares with the virus this winter - it's the better focus, rather than trying catastrophising about infinite vaccination and passports, when the vaccines are inherently safe and very effective, plus they've allowed you to enjoy the benefits of a more prosperous lifestyle again. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before." The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
Scary really.
Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped.
Boosters coming.
Bi annual coming
And even monthly jabs.
The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be "
Totally agree. People can’t see past the covid vaccine itself. It’s the beginning of many boosters (and anything else) in order to participate in society if people let this happen. It’s disgusting.
What we must not forget though is that many many vaccinated people are still against domestic passports (social credit system incoming?) and they still believe in medical autonomy. The gullible try to make it about 2 simple “sides” as that’s all they can understand, but of course it’s not.
Sounds somewhat like a gross oversimplification, a distorted take on things and divisiveness thrown in to boot.
The vaccines strategy for the future hasn't been signed up to ideologically by anyone, as we don't know the future of the virus and its potential impact to life in general.
We're still learning about the immunity that the virus and vaccines deliver, as it pays to be just focused on the research evidence.
As for whether vaccination confirmation status access schemes will start and how the UK fares with the virus this winter - it's the better focus, rather than trying catastrophising about infinite vaccination and passports, when the vaccines are inherently safe and very effective, plus they've allowed you to enjoy the benefits of a more prosperous lifestyle again. "The future of the virus? Can we please obtain government stamped signed and approved papers of the current situation first? Let us see the documentation for all the rules and guidelines they have set in the last 18 months. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
Scary really.
Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped.
Boosters coming.
Bi annual coming
And even monthly jabs.
The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be "
Totally agree. People can’t see past the covid vaccine itself. It’s the beginning of many boosters (and anything else) in order to participate in society if people let this happen. It’s disgusting.
What we must not forget though is that many many vaccinated people are still against domestic passports (social credit system incoming?) and they still believe in medical autonomy. The gullible try to make it about 2 simple “sides” as that’s all they can understand, but of course it’s not.
Sounds somewhat like a gross oversimplification, a distorted take on things and divisiveness thrown in to boot.
The vaccines strategy for the future hasn't been signed up to ideologically by anyone, as we don't know the future of the virus and its potential impact to life in general.
We're still learning about the immunity that the virus and vaccines deliver, as it pays to be just focused on the research evidence.
As for whether vaccination confirmation status access schemes will start and how the UK fares with the virus this winter - it's the better focus, rather than trying catastrophising about infinite vaccination and passports, when the vaccines are inherently safe and very effective, plus they've allowed you to enjoy the benefits of a more prosperous lifestyle again. "And you’ll be happy with the next thing you have to do that “allows” you to have freedom… I’m so very glad I ignored winter restrictions and continued with my freedoms, so I didn’t have to “buy them back”. I can’t believe anyone still has the covid app that pings, people must be mad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
Scary really.
Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped.
Boosters coming.
Bi annual coming
And even monthly jabs.
The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be "
Totally agree. People can’t see past the covid vaccine itself. It’s the beginning of many boosters (and anything else) in order to participate in society if people let this happen. It’s disgusting.
What we must not forget though is that many many vaccinated people are still against domestic passports (social credit system incoming?) and they still believe in medical autonomy. The gullible try to make it about 2 simple “sides” as that’s all they can understand, but of course it’s not.
Sounds somewhat like a gross oversimplification, a distorted take on things and divisiveness thrown in to boot.
The vaccines strategy for the future hasn't been signed up to ideologically by anyone, as we don't know the future of the virus and its potential impact to life in general.
We're still learning about the immunity that the virus and vaccines deliver, as it pays to be just focused on the research evidence.
As for whether vaccination confirmation status access schemes will start and how the UK fares with the virus this winter - it's the better focus, rather than trying catastrophising about infinite vaccination and passports, when the vaccines are inherently safe and very effective, plus they've allowed you to enjoy the benefits of a more prosperous lifestyle again.
The future of the virus?
Can we please obtain government stamped signed and approved papers of the current situation first?
Let us see the documentation for all the rules and guidelines they have set in the last 18 months.
"Government approvals, guidelines and documentation govern your liberty, society and health in many thousands of ways already, as they did before Covid existed. If they didn’t, you wouldn’t be living in a governed society. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings." So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable "They don’t count, it’s only antivaxxers that matter! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
Scary really.
Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped.
Boosters coming.
Bi annual coming
And even monthly jabs.
The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be "
Totally agree. People can’t see past the covid vaccine itself. It’s the beginning of many boosters (and anything else) in order to participate in society if people let this happen. It’s disgusting.
What we must not forget though is that many many vaccinated people are still against domestic passports (social credit system incoming?) and they still believe in medical autonomy. The gullible try to make it about 2 simple “sides” as that’s all they can understand, but of course it’s not.
Sounds somewhat like a gross oversimplification, a distorted take on things and divisiveness thrown in to boot.
The vaccines strategy for the future hasn't been signed up to ideologically by anyone, as we don't know the future of the virus and its potential impact to life in general.
We're still learning about the immunity that the virus and vaccines deliver, as it pays to be just focused on the research evidence.
As for whether vaccination confirmation status access schemes will start and how the UK fares with the virus this winter - it's the better focus, rather than trying catastrophising about infinite vaccination and passports, when the vaccines are inherently safe and very effective, plus they've allowed you to enjoy the benefits of a more prosperous lifestyle again.
And you’ll be happy with the next thing you have to do that “allows” you to have freedom…
I’m so very glad I ignored winter restrictions and continued with my freedoms, so I didn’t have to “buy them back”. I can’t believe anyone still has the covid app that pings, people must be mad."Living in the city, it’s refreshing seeing the majority ignore the lockdown rules in the winter, get on with life, see family and friends etc. If/when restrictions return in the winter, I suspect it’ll be the same. The difference between the covid tunnel vision on here, compared to people ignoring the rules in the winter in real life in the city is incredible. It’s like a parallel universe. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings." I do not know if it makes sense to you, but as a fully vaxxed. I do not see divisiveness. I get the bus or the tube, I see people with masks and not masks. I do not know who is vaccinated and who is not who is vaxxer and who is antivaxxer. I am wearing my mask and keep my social distance because there is in my opinion some risk. But I do not see divisiveness. I believe some of the measures are good to protect people. But I dont see divisiveness even though I am affected too by the recklessness of some people. I have noticed though that this divisiveness narative is adopted by people who are against the covid vaccine and the covid measures. They see divisiveness and they talk about divissiveness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable "And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. I do not know if it makes sense to you, but as a fully vaxxed. I do not see divisiveness. I get the bus or the tube, I see people with masks and not masks. I do not know who is vaccinated and who is not who is vaxxer and who is antivaxxer. I am wearing my mask and keep my social distance because there is in my opinion some risk. But I do not see divisiveness. I believe some of the measures are good to protect people. But I dont see divisiveness even though I am affected too by the recklessness of some people. I have noticed though that this divisiveness narative is adopted by people who are against the covid vaccine and the covid measures. They see divisiveness and they talk about divissiveness." Because they’re being threatened with being excluded from society simply for having medical autonomy. You say you don’t see divisiveness, but you are literally labelling people into two categories. A bit of self awareness…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly."Ok. Refugees are people. Murderers are people. People who take vaccines are people. People who don't take vaccines are people. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people."I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons. It’s literally no ones business about medical choices. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. I do not know if it makes sense to you, but as a fully vaxxed. I do not see divisiveness. I get the bus or the tube, I see people with masks and not masks. I do not know who is vaccinated and who is not who is vaxxer and who is antivaxxer. I am wearing my mask and keep my social distance because there is in my opinion some risk. But I do not see divisiveness. I believe some of the measures are good to protect people. But I dont see divisiveness even though I am affected too by the recklessness of some people. I have noticed though that this divisiveness narative is adopted by people who are against the covid vaccine and the covid measures. They see divisiveness and they talk about divissiveness." Yes. An inability to recognise their own behaviour, and the ironies inherent in their ‘thoughts’ on these subjects seems common. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices."I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. I do not know if it makes sense to you, but as a fully vaxxed. I do not see divisiveness. I get the bus or the tube, I see people with masks and not masks. I do not know who is vaccinated and who is not who is vaxxer and who is antivaxxer. I am wearing my mask and keep my social distance because there is in my opinion some risk. But I do not see divisiveness. I believe some of the measures are good to protect people. But I dont see divisiveness even though I am affected too by the recklessness of some people. I have noticed though that this divisiveness narative is adopted by people who are against the covid vaccine and the covid measures. They see divisiveness and they talk about divissiveness. Because they’re being threatened with being excluded from society simply for having medical autonomy. You say you don’t see divisiveness, but you are literally labelling people into two categories. A bit of self awareness…." Labelling for the shake of the discussion. Vaccinated, non vaccinated, sceptics, antivaxxers. pro vaxxers. And even if I am pro vaccine because as an adult I have done all kinds of vaccines, I was a bit aprehensive for me and my friends to have the covid vaccine, based on all the scaremongering. But only a bit. I had the covid vaccine for two reasons. Because I wanted to protect myself and because I could see the recklessness of others. I think most of the vaccinated people are between a rock and a hard place with regards to the covid vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings."My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. I do not know if it makes sense to you, but as a fully vaxxed. I do not see divisiveness. I get the bus or the tube, I see people with masks and not masks. I do not know who is vaccinated and who is not who is vaxxer and who is antivaxxer. I am wearing my mask and keep my social distance because there is in my opinion some risk. But I do not see divisiveness. I believe some of the measures are good to protect people. But I dont see divisiveness even though I am affected too by the recklessness of some people. I have noticed though that this divisiveness narative is adopted by people who are against the covid vaccine and the covid measures. They see divisiveness and they talk about divissiveness. Yes. An inability to recognise their own behaviour, and the ironies inherent in their ‘thoughts’ on these subjects seems common." Very much. It's the height of irony, the discussion of division, when they're the ones trying to sentence the vulnerable to house arrest or death. (Vaccines reduce vulnerability, they don't eliminate it) Maybe those preaching against division should consider the log in their eye first. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. I do not know if it makes sense to you, but as a fully vaxxed. I do not see divisiveness. I get the bus or the tube, I see people with masks and not masks. I do not know who is vaccinated and who is not who is vaxxer and who is antivaxxer. I am wearing my mask and keep my social distance because there is in my opinion some risk. But I do not see divisiveness. I believe some of the measures are good to protect people. But I dont see divisiveness even though I am affected too by the recklessness of some people. I have noticed though that this divisiveness narative is adopted by people who are against the covid vaccine and the covid measures. They see divisiveness and they talk about divissiveness. Because they’re being threatened with being excluded from society simply for having medical autonomy. You say you don’t see divisiveness, but you are literally labelling people into two categories. A bit of self awareness…. Labelling for the shake of the discussion. Vaccinated, non vaccinated, sceptics, antivaxxers. pro vaxxers. And even if I am pro vaccine because as an adult I have done all kinds of vaccines, I was a bit aprehensive for me and my friends to have the covid vaccine, based on all the scaremongering. But only a bit. I had the covid vaccine for two reasons. Because I wanted to protect myself and because I could see the recklessness of others. I think most of the vaccinated people are between a rock and a hard place with regards to the covid vaccine." Labelled by society in general, on thousands of threads on here for a start. And in the media. And by the government. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. I do not know if it makes sense to you, but as a fully vaxxed. I do not see divisiveness. I get the bus or the tube, I see people with masks and not masks. I do not know who is vaccinated and who is not who is vaxxer and who is antivaxxer. I am wearing my mask and keep my social distance because there is in my opinion some risk. But I do not see divisiveness. I believe some of the measures are good to protect people. But I dont see divisiveness even though I am affected too by the recklessness of some people. I have noticed though that this divisiveness narative is adopted by people who are against the covid vaccine and the covid measures. They see divisiveness and they talk about divissiveness. Yes. An inability to recognise their own behaviour, and the ironies inherent in their ‘thoughts’ on these subjects seems common. Very much. It's the height of irony, the discussion of division, when they're the ones trying to sentence the vulnerable to house arrest or death. (Vaccines reduce vulnerability, they don't eliminate it) Maybe those preaching against division should consider the log in their eye first." Sentence the vulnerable to house arrest? Lol. Said no one ever before about an infectious disease….. What on earth did you do with your life before covid? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive."So you approve of division? Goodness 
Isn't it divisive to spend billions of pounds holding people, guarding them, feeding them, monitoring them after they've been released?
How very divisive of you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive."Think about it, it is the people who are opposed to the vaccines (or only covid vaccines) and the covid measures who talk about divisiveness, stars of David etc. Not the people who wear masks, had their covid vaccines and do not make fuss over loss of freedom etc. It is the same people who compare apartheid and nazi camps with covid rules and vaccines. They are the ones who talk about divisiveness. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive.
Think about it, it is the people who are opposed to the vaccines (or only covid vaccines) and the covid measures who talk about divisiveness, stars of David etc. Not the people who wear masks, had their covid vaccines and do not make fuss over loss of freedom etc. It is the same people who compare apartheid and nazi camps with covid rules and vaccines. They are the ones who talk about divisiveness."That’s because they are being threatened with being excluded from society!! Those who are up for excluding them aren’t talking about it as they’re happy to segregate. Which is disgusting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive.
Think about it, it is the people who are opposed to the vaccines (or only covid vaccines) and the covid measures who talk about divisiveness, stars of David etc. Not the people who wear masks, had their covid vaccines and do not make fuss over loss of freedom etc. It is the same people who compare apartheid and nazi camps with covid rules and vaccines. They are the ones who talk about divisiveness.
That’s because they are being threatened with being excluded from society!! Those who are up for excluding them aren’t talking about it as they’re happy to segregate. Which is disgusting."I assume you're on the front line helping the women who'll be excluded in Afghanistan? Those with disfiguring diseases in the third world regarded as cursed? Those whose disabilities are not accommodated, all over the world, who sometimes can't even scrape up to the poverty line? Those whose cultural heritage is stamped out and their understandable trauma drives them into poverty or the criminal justice system? The elderly without support at home? There are many crises of exclusion. It's brilliant to see anotger champion for the downtrodden and underrepresented like myself | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course, the antivaxxers didn’t care about segregation when they were proposing the clinically vulnerable be placed under house arrest so the ‘healthy’ could enjoy their freedom. For all the hysterical talk, it comes down to pure self-interest on their part, and nothing else." “The anti vaxxers”… here you go again. I don’t know anyone who proposed the clinically vulnerable should be under house arrest. I have a 90 year old relative who would probably die if she got covid. She takes her own chances, like we’ve always done with infectious disease. That’s life. Get on with it while we’re here. No need for house arrest for anyone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive.
Think about it, it is the people who are opposed to the vaccines (or only covid vaccines) and the covid measures who talk about divisiveness, stars of David etc. Not the people who wear masks, had their covid vaccines and do not make fuss over loss of freedom etc. It is the same people who compare apartheid and nazi camps with covid rules and vaccines. They are the ones who talk about divisiveness.
That’s because they are being threatened with being excluded from society!! Those who are up for excluding them aren’t talking about it as they’re happy to segregate. Which is disgusting.
I assume you're on the front line helping the women who'll be excluded in Afghanistan?
Those with disfiguring diseases in the third world regarded as cursed?
Those whose disabilities are not accommodated, all over the world, who sometimes can't even scrape up to the poverty line?
Those whose cultural heritage is stamped out and their understandable trauma drives them into poverty or the criminal justice system?
The elderly without support at home?
There are many crises of exclusion. It's brilliant to see anotger champion for the downtrodden and underrepresented like myself "Totally agree people should not be excluded. Shame you’re happy to do that on the basis of a vaccine choice. Try and get out more, life’s too short. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive.
Think about it, it is the people who are opposed to the vaccines (or only covid vaccines) and the covid measures who talk about divisiveness, stars of David etc. Not the people who wear masks, had their covid vaccines and do not make fuss over loss of freedom etc. It is the same people who compare apartheid and nazi camps with covid rules and vaccines. They are the ones who talk about divisiveness.
That’s because they are being threatened with being excluded from society!! Those who are up for excluding them aren’t talking about it as they’re happy to segregate. Which is disgusting."You are overthinking. Before covid, you had never been refused entrance to a club? Did you feel being segregated back then? It is unfortunate but this is life and unfortunately nowdays we have a situation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive.
Think about it, it is the people who are opposed to the vaccines (or only covid vaccines) and the covid measures who talk about divisiveness, stars of David etc. Not the people who wear masks, had their covid vaccines and do not make fuss over loss of freedom etc. It is the same people who compare apartheid and nazi camps with covid rules and vaccines. They are the ones who talk about divisiveness.
That’s because they are being threatened with being excluded from society!! Those who are up for excluding them aren’t talking about it as they’re happy to segregate. Which is disgusting.
You are overthinking. Before covid, you had never been refused entrance to a club? Did you feel being segregated back then? It is unfortunate but this is life and unfortunately nowdays we have a situation. "You’re supporting segregation here based on medical autonomy. Yuk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive.
Think about it, it is the people who are opposed to the vaccines (or only covid vaccines) and the covid measures who talk about divisiveness, stars of David etc. Not the people who wear masks, had their covid vaccines and do not make fuss over loss of freedom etc. It is the same people who compare apartheid and nazi camps with covid rules and vaccines. They are the ones who talk about divisiveness.
That’s because they are being threatened with being excluded from society!! Those who are up for excluding them aren’t talking about it as they’re happy to segregate. Which is disgusting.
I assume you're on the front line helping the women who'll be excluded in Afghanistan?
Those with disfiguring diseases in the third world regarded as cursed?
Those whose disabilities are not accommodated, all over the world, who sometimes can't even scrape up to the poverty line?
Those whose cultural heritage is stamped out and their understandable trauma drives them into poverty or the criminal justice system?
The elderly without support at home?
There are many crises of exclusion. It's brilliant to see anotger champion for the downtrodden and underrepresented like myself
Totally agree people should not be excluded. Shame you’re happy to do that on the basis of a vaccine choice.
Try and get out more, life’s too short."I'm out plenty. I'm an advocate for many of the causes I outlined above, and am proud to say that my actions make a real difference in people's lives. Difference like diversion from the justice system, education, food and medical care. Ones I consider vital. For people who have no power to change their situation without support. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Of course, the antivaxxers didn’t care about segregation when they were proposing the clinically vulnerable be placed under house arrest so the ‘healthy’ could enjoy their freedom. For all the hysterical talk, it comes down to pure self-interest on their part, and nothing else. “The anti vaxxers”… here you go again. I don’t know anyone who proposed the clinically vulnerable should be under house arrest. I have a 90 year old relative who would probably die if she got covid. She takes her own chances, like we’ve always done with infectious disease. That’s life. Get on with it while we’re here. No need for house arrest for anyone." Exactly! You just said it. “ That’s life. Get on with it while we’re here.“ Why don’t you just do that and get on despite the hurdles? Do not get upset over labels and divisiveness. I do not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Not read all posts but there seem to be two themes: On the probability of clots etc, my concern is people don't really know how to handle probability and statistics. To make a truely I formed choice you need to know your likelihood of a covid death, the likelihood of a clot, and the reduction in risk from the vaccine. And that is just looking at a individual view. I feat many people go "my fear of covid death is low as I don't know anybody my game that has died. And I'm told thaoe who do have existing conditions.". But don't apply the same logic to clots. "My fear of clots is high because I read about them". There may be an ignorance in what counts as co morbidities. One set of stays included obesity and dyslexia irrc. And using an average for clots but seeking to put covid death into smaller pots ignores the possibility that the same comorbidities affect clots. That's hard to tell as the case numbers are so low. Second is the feat of government abuse. This assumes that all governments are the same (otherwise let's vote them out) and there are no checks and balances. Eg HoL. What amuses me here is I there is more uproar with this than there was with brexit and Henry VIII and prorogation. That felt a slippier path than the argument being presented here. " Entirely agreed. The real crises are being elided. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive."Murderers commit murder in the full knowledge that there will be consequences for their actions and they are locked away because they are a danger to other people, if they weren't they'd be in hi-vis picking up litter off grass verges. It's a good thing that people who are dangerous to others are prevented from putting others in danger. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Totally ridiculous to call people who are against the coronavirus jabs 'anti-vaxxers'. Almost all will have previously had all manner of jabs. Many of them, however, are very dubious about these particular jabs. The phrase seems ignorant and even bullying because it is used to avoid debate while slyly suggesting that people are stupid" The OP described himself as an anti-vaxxer. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive.
Think about it, it is the people who are opposed to the vaccines (or only covid vaccines) and the covid measures who talk about divisiveness, stars of David etc. Not the people who wear masks, had their covid vaccines and do not make fuss over loss of freedom etc. It is the same people who compare apartheid and nazi camps with covid rules and vaccines. They are the ones who talk about divisiveness.
That’s because they are being threatened with being excluded from society!! Those who are up for excluding them aren’t talking about it as they’re happy to segregate. Which is disgusting.
You are overthinking. Before covid, you had never been refused entrance to a club? Did you feel being segregated back then? It is unfortunate but this is life and unfortunately nowdays we have a situation.
You’re supporting segregation here based on medical autonomy. Yuk."What about the medical autonomy of those who cannot have the vaccine for clinical reasons? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. " How do you know the vaccination caused the blood clot ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive.
Think about it, it is the people who are opposed to the vaccines (or only covid vaccines) and the covid measures who talk about divisiveness, stars of David etc. Not the people who wear masks, had their covid vaccines and do not make fuss over loss of freedom etc. It is the same people who compare apartheid and nazi camps with covid rules and vaccines. They are the ones who talk about divisiveness.
That’s because they are being threatened with being excluded from society!! Those who are up for excluding them aren’t talking about it as they’re happy to segregate. Which is disgusting.
You are overthinking. Before covid, you had never been refused entrance to a club? Did you feel being segregated back then? It is unfortunate but this is life and unfortunately nowdays we have a situation.
You’re supporting segregation here based on medical autonomy. Yuk.
What about the medical autonomy of those who cannot have the vaccine for clinical reasons?"Its easy to have medical exceptions. Just a doctors note that feeds thru | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive.
Think about it, it is the people who are opposed to the vaccines (or only covid vaccines) and the covid measures who talk about divisiveness, stars of David etc. Not the people who wear masks, had their covid vaccines and do not make fuss over loss of freedom etc. It is the same people who compare apartheid and nazi camps with covid rules and vaccines. They are the ones who talk about divisiveness.
That’s because they are being threatened with being excluded from society!! Those who are up for excluding them aren’t talking about it as they’re happy to segregate. Which is disgusting.
You are overthinking. Before covid, you had never been refused entrance to a club? Did you feel being segregated back then? It is unfortunate but this is life and unfortunately nowdays we have a situation.
You’re supporting segregation here based on medical autonomy. Yuk.
What about the medical autonomy of those who cannot have the vaccine for clinical reasons?
Its easy to have medical exceptions. Just a doctors note that feeds thru"Yes. It's a category that exists | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some people like to chat a lot about their rights, and very little about their responsibilities. " I wonder why the list of exempt person from tests and jabs regarding travelling is so long? MPs Anyone who works for infrastructure Diplomats? Surely if virus is contagious and so much rules even a computer could 19 legislation .... it would gen irresponsible to have a list so long for exempt people. Why are they exempt? Are they immune? Surely since they are travelling more often than you and I... they should not be exempt they should all be getting more jabs and more tests. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive.
Think about it, it is the people who are opposed to the vaccines (or only covid vaccines) and the covid measures who talk about divisiveness, stars of David etc. Not the people who wear masks, had their covid vaccines and do not make fuss over loss of freedom etc. It is the same people who compare apartheid and nazi camps with covid rules and vaccines. They are the ones who talk about divisiveness.
That’s because they are being threatened with being excluded from society!! Those who are up for excluding them aren’t talking about it as they’re happy to segregate. Which is disgusting.
You are overthinking. Before covid, you had never been refused entrance to a club? Did you feel being segregated back then? It is unfortunate but this is life and unfortunately nowdays we have a situation.
You’re supporting segregation here based on medical autonomy. Yuk.
What about the medical autonomy of those who cannot have the vaccine for clinical reasons?
Its easy to have medical exceptions. Just a doctors note that feeds thru"I was more meaning why should they be forced to stay away from places where un-vaccinated people may be just because they are clinically at risk? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. So are refugees, criminals, and the clinically vulnerable
And infectious disease has never been used to divide people like this before. But this time it’s taken over some peoples thinking to the point they’re too far gone. It’s sad, to be honest. I don’t know what some folk did before covid, not a lot, clearly.
Ok.
Refugees are people.
Murderers are people.
People who take vaccines are people.
People who don't take vaccines are people.
I’m not aware refugees are labelled negatively by most reasonable people. Murderers are for obvious reasons.
It’s literally no ones business about medical choices.
I'm not being divisive. Murderers are human beings.
My point is that there’s good reason for segregating murderers. The labelling of people who choose not to have a vaccine is unprecedented, and disgusting, and divisive.
Think about it, it is the people who are opposed to the vaccines (or only covid vaccines) and the covid measures who talk about divisiveness, stars of David etc. Not the people who wear masks, had their covid vaccines and do not make fuss over loss of freedom etc. It is the same people who compare apartheid and nazi camps with covid rules and vaccines. They are the ones who talk about divisiveness.
That’s because they are being threatened with being excluded from society!! Those who are up for excluding them aren’t talking about it as they’re happy to segregate. Which is disgusting.
You are overthinking. Before covid, you had never been refused entrance to a club? Did you feel being segregated back then? It is unfortunate but this is life and unfortunately nowdays we have a situation.
You’re supporting segregation here based on medical autonomy. Yuk.
What about the medical autonomy of those who cannot have the vaccine for clinical reasons?
Its easy to have medical exceptions. Just a doctors note that feeds thru
I was more meaning why should they be forced to stay away from places where un-vaccinated people may be just because they are clinically at risk?"not what was thinking. You can either have a vaccine passport, or a vaccine exclusion (which sits on your medical records). Allowed in either way. Exclusions can be medical or religious. But of you claim religious then that follows through to all such instances. Not just covid jabs. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys! "90% still alive , have 10% died then ??? That’s one in ten chance of death , not really selling it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thanks. This is one of the few places in my city that only gives Pfizer
I had AZ, no side effects though"I had the AZ no side effects.hollie | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys! "good luck imnot so trusting wot if iam one of the 10% and get blood clot want better odds than that at least 100% wish you ok though m8 but not for me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Why are people who have the right to choose not to be vaccinated the problem? Or gullible? Segregation has been created by the government. "
And those with moral superiority complex | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys! good luck imnot so trusting wot if iam one of the 10% and get blood clot want better odds than that at least 100% wish you ok though m8 but not for me"at least 100pc. Prefer more ? What do you think the odds of dying from Covid are by the way ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some people like to chat a lot about their rights, and very little about their responsibilities. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some people like to chat a lot about their rights, and very little about their responsibilities. "100% I take full responsibility for my own health. Do you? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys! "I'm not a wizz at maths but I've read that so many times and I'm confused, if 90% of 40million people survived the jab. What happened to the other 10% (4 million?  ) presuming that's what you meant?! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
Scary really.
Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped.
Boosters coming.
Bi annual coming
And even monthly jabs.
The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be "
And if it is, so what? Everyone who has the flu jab each year is quite comfortable with the concept. That a far more virulent virus requires stricter social control over those who put society at risk is also something the majority are comfortable with.
It’s worth observing that there are plenty of illnesses that are eliminated via a complete vaccine, and there is no reason to believe that Covid can never be eliminated in a similar way. We are at the very beginnings of our knowledge of a novel virus, and anyone who talks about the future of Covid and/or vaccinations with certainty simply illustrates they are speaking from a position of uninformed speculation.
Choosing bot to have the flu vaccine has never excluded anyone from anything. That’s the point of the passport, which was what he was talking about. Boosters are fine. Vaccines are fine. Segregation through digital passports is disgusting." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Totally ridiculous to call people who are against the coronavirus jabs 'anti-vaxxers'. Almost all will have previously had all manner of jabs. Many of them, however, are very dubious about these particular jabs. The phrase seems ignorant and even bullying because it is used to avoid debate while slyly suggesting that people are stupid" Can I ask why you are dubious about this particular vaccine? Or did you not mean you specifically? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
Scary really.
Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped.
Boosters coming.
Bi annual coming
And even monthly jabs.
The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be "
And if it is, so what? Everyone who has the flu jab each year is quite comfortable with the concept. That a far more virulent virus requires stricter social control over those who put society at risk is also something the majority are comfortable with.
It’s worth observing that there are plenty of illnesses that are eliminated via a complete vaccine, and there is no reason to believe that Covid can never be eliminated in a similar way. We are at the very beginnings of our knowledge of a novel virus, and anyone who talks about the future of Covid and/or vaccinations with certainty simply illustrates they are speaking from a position of uninformed speculation.
Choosing bot to have the flu vaccine has never excluded anyone from anything. That’s the point of the passport, which was what he was talking about. Boosters are fine. Vaccines are fine. Segregation through digital passports is disgusting. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
I'm not a wizz at maths but I've read that so many times and I'm confused, if 90% of 40million people survived the jab. What happened to the other 10% (4 million? ) presuming that's what you meant?!"I suspect that either (a) the over 90% was meant ironically (or do I mean sarcastically?), or (b) yes there are a number of people who have died having being vaccinated for covid at some point previously, but when a lot of the early vaccinations were in the 70+ years age group there are going to be quite a few that have just passed away from old age etc over the last six months (and at least 2, maybe 3 involved in road or parachuting accidents). For comparison, 100% of the people that the first smallpox vaccine was tested on are now dead. Not particularly because of the vaccine, but because they would have to be at least 223 years old to still be around... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some people like to chat a lot about their rights, and very little about their responsibilities. " Beat me to it. Sadly this seems to be the case with a larger and larger portion of society as time goes on. The whole concept of responsibilities going hand-in-hand with rights seems lost on many people now. What I really don't understand is why such a fuss is being kicked up over this particular issue, while other, far less justifiable restrictions on people's rights and liberties are quietly and constantly being imposed with barely a murmur. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
Scary really.
Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped.
Boosters coming.
Bi annual coming
And even monthly jabs.
The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be "
Totally agree. People can’t see past the covid vaccine itself. It’s the beginning of many boosters (and anything else) in order to participate in society if people let this happen. It’s disgusting.
What we must not forget though is that many many vaccinated people are still against domestic passports (social credit system incoming?) and they still believe in medical autonomy. The gullible try to make it about 2 simple “sides” as that’s all they can understand, but of course it’s not.
Sounds somewhat like a gross oversimplification, a distorted take on things and divisiveness thrown in to boot.
The vaccines strategy for the future hasn't been signed up to ideologically by anyone, as we don't know the future of the virus and its potential impact to life in general.
We're still learning about the immunity that the virus and vaccines deliver, as it pays to be just focused on the research evidence.
As for whether vaccination confirmation status access schemes will start and how the UK fares with the virus this winter - it's the better focus, rather than trying catastrophising about infinite vaccination and passports, when the vaccines are inherently safe and very effective, plus they've allowed you to enjoy the benefits of a more prosperous lifestyle again.
And you’ll be happy with the next thing you have to do that “allows” you to have freedom…
I’m so very glad I ignored winter restrictions and continued with my freedoms, so I didn’t have to “buy them back”. I can’t believe anyone still has the covid app that pings, people must be mad.
Living in the city, it’s refreshing seeing the majority ignore the lockdown rules in the winter, get on with life, see family and friends etc. If/when restrictions return in the winter, I suspect it’ll be the same.
The difference between the covid tunnel vision on here, compared to people ignoring the rules in the winter in real life in the city is incredible. It’s like a parallel universe."Keep trying - I'm sure if you boast about looking after Number One in the middle of a global pandemic often enough in the same thread, somebody will take your stirring seriously and bite, rather than chuckling at the childishness of it all, eventually!  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys! "your choice at the end of the day; but can I ask were you an anti vaxer or just vaccine hesitant? why are you now taking it ? Are you afraid the virus will kill you at your age ? Or is it just to join the 90%? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A few yeas ago, a close relative on mine 50 years old and overweight had two blood clots at the same time. One heading to the heart and one to the brain. Luckily she survived. She did not have any health issues before. And she is on blood thinining medication now. People including healthy people develop blood clots every year and some of them for no particular reason. Despite her risk of developing blood clots, the doctor gave her the ok to receive a covid jab (Moderna). Also according to stats, there is an increased risk of developing a blood clot even if you get covid and have mild symptoms. The risk of developing a blood clot if you get covid is much higher than the risk of having a blood clot as a result of having the vaccine." So? The point is, Az not moderna causes blood clots, accepted by Oxford. Of those that get blood clots, 23 percent will die. Accepted by Oxford. Sure in the grand scheme of things it's still a small chance, and if hour run a country you tell people to take the chance. But if someone decides not to, then that should be fine. Your friend having blood clots and surviving does not change the stats of az vaccine. It does not mean suddenly the risk of clot has dropped to zero. It can kill you. Moderna and Pfizer it's not heard of killing people as far as I know, but there are some long term small things popping up. Let's not forget, even at covids a solute worse when it's killing like crazy, odds are you won't even have any severe symptoms. Most people don't. Even if it kills 10 percent of the population. 70 percent won't have any symptoms really So yeah you can die directly from vaccine, you can be double dosed and die from covid or you can not get vaccine and die from covid. So really we should just let people decide themselves. There is no reason for us to force people into it now. It's simply just not a good enough vaccine for that. The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. In an ideal world the vaccines would all be 99 percent and zero symptoms and we could then call people stupid for not getting it, until then, sure just let people decide. People are allowed smoke, that probably costs NHS more. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. " Absolutely false and incorrect. The Oxford-AZ vaccine is not more likely to cause death than Covid in people under 40. The risk-benefit analysis was less in favour of the AZ vaccine than the risk of serious illness from Covid, correct, but it wasn't that "death from blood clots" was on one side of the scale. It remains that the risk of blood clots is somewhere in the order 1-5 in a million (for context, a far greater frequency of births, 1 in 20,000, result in someone with albinism - how many people with albinism have you seen recently?) Those blood clots are not necessarily fatal - they can be successfully treated with the right intervention at the right time. However, to avoid a PR disaster, the decision was taken to simply move to the alternative drugs and not try to argue the facts/data in the feverish environment of the British media. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. Absolutely false and incorrect. The Oxford-AZ vaccine is not more likely to cause death than Covid in people under 40. The risk-benefit analysis was less in favour of the AZ vaccine than the risk of serious illness from Covid, correct, but it wasn't that "death from blood clots" was on one side of the scale. It remains that the risk of blood clots is somewhere in the order 1-5 in a million (for context, a far greater frequency of births, 1 in 20,000, result in someone with albinism - how many people with albinism have you seen recently?) Those blood clots are not necessarily fatal - they can be successfully treated with the right intervention at the right time. However, to avoid a PR disaster, the decision was taken to simply move to the alternative drugs and not try to argue the facts/data in the feverish environment of the British media." So if the risk of getting a blood clot after the AZ vaccine is at most 1 in 200,000 and if you do get a blood clot there is a 23% chance of death that means you have a 1 in 800,000 chance of dying? That would mean you are about 5 or 6 times more likely of being struck by lightning and dying than you are from taking the AZ vaccine? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
Congrats on seeing sense and getting your jab OP. You are lucky enough to be under 40 so you were never going to be given the AZ vaccine."Both of us are under 40 and both have had AZ vaccines | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
"This... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. Absolutely false and incorrect. The Oxford-AZ vaccine is not more likely to cause death than Covid in people under 40. The risk-benefit analysis was less in favour of the AZ vaccine than the risk of serious illness from Covid, correct, but it wasn't that "death from blood clots" was on one side of the scale. It remains that the risk of blood clots is somewhere in the order 1-5 in a million (for context, a far greater frequency of births, 1 in 20,000, result in someone with albinism - how many people with albinism have you seen recently?) Those blood clots are not necessarily fatal - they can be successfully treated with the right intervention at the right time. However, to avoid a PR disaster, the decision was taken to simply move to the alternative drugs and not try to argue the facts/data in the feverish environment of the British media." If someone is that worried about blood clots then just take a 75mg aspirin once a day for a couple of weeks, keeps the blood thinner
(I am not a doctor or medical practitioner) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A few yeas ago, a close relative on mine 50 years old and overweight had two blood clots at the same time. One heading to the heart and one to the brain. Luckily she survived. She did not have any health issues before. And she is on blood thinining medication now. People including healthy people develop blood clots every year and some of them for no particular reason. Despite her risk of developing blood clots, the doctor gave her the ok to receive a covid jab (Moderna). Also according to stats, there is an increased risk of developing a blood clot even if you get covid and have mild symptoms. The risk of developing a blood clot if you get covid is much higher than the risk of having a blood clot as a result of having the vaccine. So? The point is, Az not moderna causes blood clots, accepted by Oxford. Of those that get blood clots, 23 percent will die. Accepted by Oxford. Sure in the grand scheme of things it's still a small chance, and if hour run a country you tell people to take the chance. But if someone decides not to, then that should be fine. Your friend having blood clots and surviving does not change the stats of az vaccine. It does not mean suddenly the risk of clot has dropped to zero. It can kill you. Moderna and Pfizer it's not heard of killing people as far as I know, but there are some long term small things popping up. Let's not forget, even at covids a solute worse when it's killing like crazy, odds are you won't even have any severe symptoms. Most people don't. Even if it kills 10 percent of the population. 70 percent won't have any symptoms really So yeah you can die directly from vaccine, you can be double dosed and die from covid or you can not get vaccine and die from covid. So really we should just let people decide themselves. There is no reason for us to force people into it now. It's simply just not a good enough vaccine for that. The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. In an ideal world the vaccines would all be 99 percent and zero symptoms and we could then call people stupid for not getting it, until then, sure just let people decide. People are allowed smoke, that probably costs NHS more." This reads like: I won't have a vaccine because there is a small risk of death. But am okay with covid as there is only a small risk of death. It's this odd logic that worries me. People may be making ill informed decisions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. Absolutely false and incorrect. The Oxford-AZ vaccine is not more likely to cause death than Covid in people under 40. The risk-benefit analysis was less in favour of the AZ vaccine than the risk of serious illness from Covid, correct, but it wasn't that "death from blood clots" was on one side of the scale. It remains that the risk of blood clots is somewhere in the order 1-5 in a million (for context, a far greater frequency of births, 1 in 20,000, result in someone with albinism - how many people with albinism have you seen recently?) Those blood clots are not necessarily fatal - they can be successfully treated with the right intervention at the right time. However, to avoid a PR disaster, the decision was taken to simply move to the alternative drugs and not try to argue the facts/data in the feverish environment of the British media. So if the risk of getting a blood clot after the AZ vaccine is at most 1 in 200,000 and if you do get a blood clot there is a 23% chance of death that means you have a 1 in 800,000 chance of dying? That would mean you are about 5 or 6 times more likely of being struck by lightning and dying than you are from taking the AZ vaccine?" Something along those lines, yes. The risk is vanishingly small. People's perception of risk seems to have gone out of the window in recent months. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. Absolutely false and incorrect. The Oxford-AZ vaccine is not more likely to cause death than Covid in people under 40. The risk-benefit analysis was less in favour of the AZ vaccine than the risk of serious illness from Covid, correct, but it wasn't that "death from blood clots" was on one side of the scale. It remains that the risk of blood clots is somewhere in the order 1-5 in a million (for context, a far greater frequency of births, 1 in 20,000, result in someone with albinism - how many people with albinism have you seen recently?) Those blood clots are not necessarily fatal - they can be successfully treated with the right intervention at the right time. However, to avoid a PR disaster, the decision was taken to simply move to the alternative drugs and not try to argue the facts/data in the feverish environment of the British media. So if the risk of getting a blood clot after the AZ vaccine is at most 1 in 200,000 and if you do get a blood clot there is a 23% chance of death that means you have a 1 in 800,000 chance of dying? That would mean you are about 5 or 6 times more likely of being struck by lightning and dying than you are from taking the AZ vaccine? Something along those lines, yes. The risk is vanishingly small. People's perception of risk seems to have gone out of the window in recent months." That's easy to say until you're close to the person who's died from it  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A few yeas ago, a close relative on mine 50 years old and overweight had two blood clots at the same time. One heading to the heart and one to the brain. Luckily she survived. She did not have any health issues before. And she is on blood thinining medication now. People including healthy people develop blood clots every year and some of them for no particular reason. Despite her risk of developing blood clots, the doctor gave her the ok to receive a covid jab (Moderna). Also according to stats, there is an increased risk of developing a blood clot even if you get covid and have mild symptoms. The risk of developing a blood clot if you get covid is much higher than the risk of having a blood clot as a result of having the vaccine. So? The point is, Az not moderna causes blood clots, accepted by Oxford. Of those that get blood clots, 23 percent will die. Accepted by Oxford. Sure in the grand scheme of things it's still a small chance, and if hour run a country you tell people to take the chance. But if someone decides not to, then that should be fine. Your friend having blood clots and surviving does not change the stats of az vaccine. It does not mean suddenly the risk of clot has dropped to zero. It can kill you. Moderna and Pfizer it's not heard of killing people as far as I know, but there are some long term small things popping up. Let's not forget, even at covids a solute worse when it's killing like crazy, odds are you won't even have any severe symptoms. Most people don't. Even if it kills 10 percent of the population. 70 percent won't have any symptoms really So yeah you can die directly from vaccine, you can be double dosed and die from covid or you can not get vaccine and die from covid. So really we should just let people decide themselves. There is no reason for us to force people into it now. It's simply just not a good enough vaccine for that. The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. In an ideal world the vaccines would all be 99 percent and zero symptoms and we could then call people stupid for not getting it, until then, sure just let people decide. People are allowed smoke, that probably costs NHS more. This reads like: I won't have a vaccine because there is a small risk of death. But am okay with covid as there is only a small risk of death. It's this odd logic that worries me. People may be making ill informed decisions. " Hold on that’s backward. There is a small risk of death with Covid but no not with blood clots. Yes there is a small risk of getting blood clots but once gotten there’s a much higher risk of dying from one and they’re really difficult to spot. Not being able to breath or coughing your head off is pretty easy to identify. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. Absolutely false and incorrect. The Oxford-AZ vaccine is not more likely to cause death than Covid in people under 40. The risk-benefit analysis was less in favour of the AZ vaccine than the risk of serious illness from Covid, correct, but it wasn't that "death from blood clots" was on one side of the scale. It remains that the risk of blood clots is somewhere in the order 1-5 in a million (for context, a far greater frequency of births, 1 in 20,000, result in someone with albinism - how many people with albinism have you seen recently?) Those blood clots are not necessarily fatal - they can be successfully treated with the right intervention at the right time. However, to avoid a PR disaster, the decision was taken to simply move to the alternative drugs and not try to argue the facts/data in the feverish environment of the British media. So if the risk of getting a blood clot after the AZ vaccine is at most 1 in 200,000 and if you do get a blood clot there is a 23% chance of death that means you have a 1 in 800,000 chance of dying? That would mean you are about 5 or 6 times more likely of being struck by lightning and dying than you are from taking the AZ vaccine? Something along those lines, yes. The risk is vanishingly small. People's perception of risk seems to have gone out of the window in recent months. That's easy to say until you're close to the person who's died from it "This is what fucks me right off. The risk is so so so small everyone says. Yeah so small everyone I know who had Covid is alive and fighting fit. The poor people I know who’ve had blood clots haven’t been so god damn lucky! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. Absolutely false and incorrect. The Oxford-AZ vaccine is not more likely to cause death than Covid in people under 40. The risk-benefit analysis was less in favour of the AZ vaccine than the risk of serious illness from Covid, correct, but it wasn't that "death from blood clots" was on one side of the scale. It remains that the risk of blood clots is somewhere in the order 1-5 in a million (for context, a far greater frequency of births, 1 in 20,000, result in someone with albinism - how many people with albinism have you seen recently?) Those blood clots are not necessarily fatal - they can be successfully treated with the right intervention at the right time. However, to avoid a PR disaster, the decision was taken to simply move to the alternative drugs and not try to argue the facts/data in the feverish environment of the British media. So if the risk of getting a blood clot after the AZ vaccine is at most 1 in 200,000 and if you do get a blood clot there is a 23% chance of death that means you have a 1 in 800,000 chance of dying? That would mean you are about 5 or 6 times more likely of being struck by lightning and dying than you are from taking the AZ vaccine? Something along those lines, yes. The risk is vanishingly small. People's perception of risk seems to have gone out of the window in recent months. That's easy to say until you're close to the person who's died from it "You’re 20 times more likely to die in a car crash this year than you are to die from vaccination, do you stop all the people you are close to getting in a car? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. Absolutely false and incorrect. The Oxford-AZ vaccine is not more likely to cause death than Covid in people under 40. The risk-benefit analysis was less in favour of the AZ vaccine than the risk of serious illness from Covid, correct, but it wasn't that "death from blood clots" was on one side of the scale. It remains that the risk of blood clots is somewhere in the order 1-5 in a million (for context, a far greater frequency of births, 1 in 20,000, result in someone with albinism - how many people with albinism have you seen recently?) Those blood clots are not necessarily fatal - they can be successfully treated with the right intervention at the right time. However, to avoid a PR disaster, the decision was taken to simply move to the alternative drugs and not try to argue the facts/data in the feverish environment of the British media. So if the risk of getting a blood clot after the AZ vaccine is at most 1 in 200,000 and if you do get a blood clot there is a 23% chance of death that means you have a 1 in 800,000 chance of dying? That would mean you are about 5 or 6 times more likely of being struck by lightning and dying than you are from taking the AZ vaccine? Something along those lines, yes. The risk is vanishingly small. People's perception of risk seems to have gone out of the window in recent months. That's easy to say until you're close to the person who's died from it
You’re 20 times more likely to die in a car crash this year than you are to die from vaccination, do you stop all the people you are close to getting in a car?"Stupid example. Getting in their car is a choice they choose to make. Getting a vaccine is their choice to make is my only point. And people spouting out how stupid/selfish they are for making the “wrong” choice is ridiculous. Do you call all your family and friends stupid and selfish for getting in a car and putting themselves and other people at risk on a daily basis? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the govt wanted everyone to have some secret vax put in peoples bodies Why would they not just put it in tattoo ink Cause nobody questions what’s in that " Or Kentucky chicken! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
Scary really.
Pride will stop people from realising they have been duped.
Boosters coming.
Bi annual coming
And even monthly jabs.
The vaccine passport is not for the 2jabs or 2 plus booster. It's for the next 4 5 6 7 8 9 10.
Just as it says on the new 50 quid bank note: "this is just a taste of what's to come and a shadow of what will be "
Totally agree. People can’t see past the covid vaccine itself. It’s the beginning of many boosters (and anything else) in order to participate in society if people let this happen. It’s disgusting.
What we must not forget though is that many many vaccinated people are still against domestic passports (social credit system incoming?) and they still believe in medical autonomy. The gullible try to make it about 2 simple “sides” as that’s all they can understand, but of course it’s not.
Sounds somewhat like a gross oversimplification, a distorted take on things and divisiveness thrown in to boot.
The vaccines strategy for the future hasn't been signed up to ideologically by anyone, as we don't know the future of the virus and its potential impact to life in general.
We're still learning about the immunity that the virus and vaccines deliver, as it pays to be just focused on the research evidence.
As for whether vaccination confirmation status access schemes will start and how the UK fares with the virus this winter - it's the better focus, rather than trying catastrophising about infinite vaccination and passports, when the vaccines are inherently safe and very effective, plus they've allowed you to enjoy the benefits of a more prosperous lifestyle again.
And you’ll be happy with the next thing you have to do that “allows” you to have freedom…
I’m so very glad I ignored winter restrictions and continued with my freedoms, so I didn’t have to “buy them back”. I can’t believe anyone still has the covid app that pings, people must be mad.
Living in the city, it’s refreshing seeing the majority ignore the lockdown rules in the winter, get on with life, see family and friends etc. If/when restrictions return in the winter, I suspect it’ll be the same.
The difference between the covid tunnel vision on here, compared to people ignoring the rules in the winter in real life in the city is incredible. It’s like a parallel universe.
Keep trying - I'm sure if you boast about looking after Number One in the middle of a global pandemic often enough in the same thread, somebody will take your stirring seriously and bite, rather than chuckling at the childishness of it all, eventually! "I’m not trying anything mate. I believe in freedom of choice. Living normally seeing friends and loved ones is not looking after number 1, it’s live and let live. Thank god I and many others have done that over the last 12 months while others sit working their entire life around a disease. Call me names like childish all you want but I’m against government exercising too much control and again segregation. Its vile. I’m also totally pro choice and don’t believe it’s anyone’s business. If you’re fine with that, fair enough, but calling me babes like chilidish could be seen as, errr, childish…. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the govt wanted everyone to have some secret vax put in peoples bodies Why would they not just put it in tattoo ink Cause nobody questions what’s in that Or Kentucky chicken!" Because the government has no interest in doing so. When we say the "government" its not an external and eternal being like "God“ It is a group of people huddled together under an umbrella of ideas who regularly change, deemed to have power to manage the nation for a set period of time. When you think about it boris takes most of his brain power just to button up his shirt in the morning. The idea he could co ordinate a mass (but yet secret) conspiracy, with people (some of whom hate his guys and that in his own cabinet) is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is that they would co ordinate this globally with other world leaders as different as Putin in Russia and Biden or Trump in America is plain nuts. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" A few yeas ago, a close relative on mine 50 years old and overweight had two blood clots at the same time. One heading to the heart and one to the brain. Luckily she survived. She did not have any health issues before. And she is on blood thinining medication now. People including healthy people develop blood clots every year and some of them for no particular reason. Despite her risk of developing blood clots, the doctor gave her the ok to receive a covid jab (Moderna). Also according to stats, there is an increased risk of developing a blood clot even if you get covid and have mild symptoms. The risk of developing a blood clot if you get covid is much higher than the risk of having a blood clot as a result of having the vaccine. So? The point is, Az not moderna causes blood clots, accepted by Oxford. Of those that get blood clots, 23 percent will die. Accepted by Oxford. Sure in the grand scheme of things it's still a small chance, and if hour run a country you tell people to take the chance. But if someone decides not to, then that should be fine. Your friend having blood clots and surviving does not change the stats of az vaccine. It does not mean suddenly the risk of clot has dropped to zero. It can kill you. Moderna and Pfizer it's not heard of killing people as far as I know, but there are some long term small things popping up. Let's not forget, even at covids a solute worse when it's killing like crazy, odds are you won't even have any severe symptoms. Most people don't. Even if it kills 10 percent of the population. 70 percent won't have any symptoms really So yeah you can die directly from vaccine, you can be double dosed and die from covid or you can not get vaccine and die from covid. So really we should just let people decide themselves. There is no reason for us to force people into it now. It's simply just not a good enough vaccine for that. The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. In an ideal world the vaccines would all be 99 percent and zero symptoms and we could then call people stupid for not getting it, until then, sure just let people decide. People are allowed smoke, that probably costs NHS more. This reads like: I won't have a vaccine because there is a small risk of death. But am okay with covid as there is only a small risk of death. It's this odd logic that worries me. People may be making ill informed decisions. Hold on that’s backward. There is a small risk of death with Covid but no not with blood clots. Yes there is a small risk of getting blood clots but once gotten there’s a much higher risk of dying from one and they’re really difficult to spot. Not being able to breath or coughing your head off is pretty easy to identify. " I've not quantified the risks here. Just highlighted that there seems to be an inconsistency of fear/acceptance of a small risk. In practice you need to look at both the probability of catching covid*probability of dying given you have caught it with probability of clotting*probability of dying once clotting. Ignoring the first half of each sum is an error. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the govt wanted everyone to have some secret vax put in peoples bodies Why would they not just put it in tattoo ink Cause nobody questions what’s in that Or Kentucky chicken! Because the government has no interest in doing so. When we say the "government" its not an external and eternal being like "God“ It is a group of people huddled together under an umbrella of ideas who regularly change, deemed to have power to manage the nation for a set period of time. When you think about it boris takes most of his brain power just to button up his shirt in the morning. The idea he could co ordinate a mass (but yet secret) conspiracy, with people (some of whom hate his guys and that in his own cabinet) is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is that they would co ordinate this globally with other world leaders as different as Putin in Russia and Biden or Trump in America is plain nuts. " Yet they all signed up to certain treaties. To say they arent not colluding is naive. Each and every government controls its nation via methods of fear or perceived enemy. Without which government cannot legitimately exert and impose the sort of rules on its citizen. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m not trying anything mate. I believe in freedom of choice. Living normally seeing friends and loved ones is not looking after number 1, it’s live and let live. Thank god I and many others have done that over the last 12 months while others sit working their entire life around a disease. Call me names like childish all you want but I’m against government exercising too much control and again segregation. Its vile. I’m also totally pro choice and don’t believe it’s anyone’s business. If you’re fine with that, fair enough, but calling me babes like chilidish could be seen as, errr, childish…." When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some of the mathematical nonsense spouted on here is mind blowing. Go back to school and do a gsce in probability, we are not talking hard concepts. And don't use terms like high or low they are meaningless. Show the numbers and the working out then you have something to discuss. " Tbf there is a lack of data published to get menaingful numbers. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" I’m not trying anything mate. I believe in freedom of choice. Living normally seeing friends and loved ones is not looking after number 1, it’s live and let live. Thank god I and many others have done that over the last 12 months while others sit working their entire life around a disease. Call me names like childish all you want but I’m against government exercising too much control and again segregation. Its vile. I’m also totally pro choice and don’t believe it’s anyone’s business. If you’re fine with that, fair enough, but calling me babes like chilidish could be seen as, errr, childish…. When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. " Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the govt wanted everyone to have some secret vax put in peoples bodies Why would they not just put it in tattoo ink Cause nobody questions what’s in that Or Kentucky chicken! Because the government has no interest in doing so. When we say the "government" its not an external and eternal being like "God“ It is a group of people huddled together under an umbrella of ideas who regularly change, deemed to have power to manage the nation for a set period of time. When you think about it boris takes most of his brain power just to button up his shirt in the morning. The idea he could co ordinate a mass (but yet secret) conspiracy, with people (some of whom hate his guys and that in his own cabinet) is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is that they would co ordinate this globally with other world leaders as different as Putin in Russia and Biden or Trump in America is plain nuts. Yet they all signed up to certain treaties. To say they arent not colluding is naive. Each and every government controls its nation via methods of fear or perceived enemy. Without which government cannot legitimately exert and impose the sort of rules on its citizen." Nonsense, treaties are openly signed and usually indicate a consensus has been agreed between a number of societies for the wider family of global societies. They are not hatched up in 6 months run from downing Street. As for governments controlling through fear, whilst you can argue that for some societies its certainly not something that is used in the UK. For example, most people wear seat belts not for fear of the police catching them if they don't, but because the health and safety benefits are well established. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the govt wanted everyone to have some secret vax put in peoples bodies Why would they not just put it in tattoo ink Cause nobody questions what’s in that Or Kentucky chicken! Because the government has no interest in doing so. When we say the "government" its not an external and eternal being like "God“ It is a group of people huddled together under an umbrella of ideas who regularly change, deemed to have power to manage the nation for a set period of time. When you think about it boris takes most of his brain power just to button up his shirt in the morning. The idea he could co ordinate a mass (but yet secret) conspiracy, with people (some of whom hate his guys and that in his own cabinet) is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is that they would co ordinate this globally with other world leaders as different as Putin in Russia and Biden or Trump in America is plain nuts. Yet they all signed up to certain treaties. To say they arent not colluding is naive. Each and every government controls its nation via methods of fear or perceived enemy. Without which government cannot legitimately exert and impose the sort of rules on its citizen. Nonsense, treaties are openly signed and usually indicate a consensus has been agreed between a number of societies for the wider family of global societies. They are not hatched up in 6 months run from downing Street. As for governments controlling through fear, whilst you can argue that for some societies its certainly not something that is used in the UK. For example, most people wear seat belts not for fear of the police catching them if they don't, but because the health and safety benefits are well established. " You think fear is not used in the U.K.? Crikey! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the govt wanted everyone to have some secret vax put in peoples bodies Why would they not just put it in tattoo ink Cause nobody questions what’s in that Or Kentucky chicken! Because the government has no interest in doing so. When we say the "government" its not an external and eternal being like "God“ It is a group of people huddled together under an umbrella of ideas who regularly change, deemed to have power to manage the nation for a set period of time. When you think about it boris takes most of his brain power just to button up his shirt in the morning. The idea he could co ordinate a mass (but yet secret) conspiracy, with people (some of whom hate his guys and that in his own cabinet) is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is that they would co ordinate this globally with other world leaders as different as Putin in Russia and Biden or Trump in America is plain nuts. Yet they all signed up to certain treaties. To say they arent not colluding is naive. Each and every government controls its nation via methods of fear or perceived enemy. Without which government cannot legitimately exert and impose the sort of rules on its citizen. Nonsense, treaties are openly signed and usually indicate a consensus has been agreed between a number of societies for the wider family of global societies. They are not hatched up in 6 months run from downing Street. As for governments controlling through fear, whilst you can argue that for some societies its certainly not something that is used in the UK. For example, most people wear seat belts not for fear of the police catching them if they don't, but because the health and safety benefits are well established. You think fear is not used in the U.K.? Crikey!" 100% control through fear. Every governments' main weapon | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If the govt wanted everyone to have some secret vax put in peoples bodies Why would they not just put it in tattoo ink Cause nobody questions what’s in that Or Kentucky chicken! Because the government has no interest in doing so. When we say the "government" its not an external and eternal being like "God“ It is a group of people huddled together under an umbrella of ideas who regularly change, deemed to have power to manage the nation for a set period of time. When you think about it boris takes most of his brain power just to button up his shirt in the morning. The idea he could co ordinate a mass (but yet secret) conspiracy, with people (some of whom hate his guys and that in his own cabinet) is ludicrous. Even more ludicrous is that they would co ordinate this globally with other world leaders as different as Putin in Russia and Biden or Trump in America is plain nuts. Yet they all signed up to certain treaties. To say they arent not colluding is naive. Each and every government controls its nation via methods of fear or perceived enemy. Without which government cannot legitimately exert and impose the sort of rules on its citizen. Nonsense, treaties are openly signed and usually indicate a consensus has been agreed between a number of societies for the wider family of global societies. They are not hatched up in 6 months run from downing Street. As for governments controlling through fear, whilst you can argue that for some societies its certainly not something that is used in the UK. For example, most people wear seat belts not for fear of the police catching them if they don't, but because the health and safety benefits are well established. You think fear is not used in the U.K.? Crikey! 100% control through fear. Every governments' main weapon " I totally agree. The last 18 months has been a plethora of propaganda to scare the hell out of people. Mask up, don’t mix, stay in, worry about covid and forget every other aspect of life and health! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice." Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
" well said. So many righteous people on here. It’s a swinging site - go swing
Btw ‘…90% are still alive’ — Thinking 1/10 dead isn’t good odds  are you sure your stats are right here | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. " I didn’t say choices don’t have consequences. I said to use it to justify segregation on the basis of public health is vile. It could literally be used to coarse anyone to anything. Working in a certain job is hardly like participating in normal society which is what vaccine passports will prevent for some. It’s not ok. It’s segregation. It’s disgusting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. " And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved." This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. " Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. " I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. " I think18 months ago 99.9% of the population would have found vaccine passports excluding people from public places abhorrent. In fact I think they’d have found them unbelievable and said this isn’t North Korea! Now there’s a frighteningly significant proportion who think such segregation is fine. It’s vile. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. Absolutely false and incorrect. The Oxford-AZ vaccine is not more likely to cause death than Covid in people under 40. The risk-benefit analysis was less in favour of the AZ vaccine than the risk of serious illness from Covid, correct, but it wasn't that "death from blood clots" was on one side of the scale. It remains that the risk of blood clots is somewhere in the order 1-5 in a million (for context, a far greater frequency of births, 1 in 20,000, result in someone with albinism - how many people with albinism have you seen recently?) Those blood clots are not necessarily fatal - they can be successfully treated with the right intervention at the right time. However, to avoid a PR disaster, the decision was taken to simply move to the alternative drugs and not try to argue the facts/data in the feverish environment of the British media. So if the risk of getting a blood clot after the AZ vaccine is at most 1 in 200,000 and if you do get a blood clot there is a 23% chance of death that means you have a 1 in 800,000 chance of dying? That would mean you are about 5 or 6 times more likely of being struck by lightning and dying than you are from taking the AZ vaccine? Something along those lines, yes. The risk is vanishingly small. People's perception of risk seems to have gone out of the window in recent months. That's easy to say until you're close to the person who's died from it
You’re 20 times more likely to die in a car crash this year than you are to die from vaccination, do you stop all the people you are close to getting in a car?
Stupid example. Getting in their car is a choice they choose to make. Getting a vaccine is their choice to make is my only point. And people spouting out how stupid/selfish they are for making the “wrong” choice is ridiculous.
Do you call all your family and friends stupid and selfish for getting in a car and putting themselves and other people at risk on a daily basis?
"No, and I don't call people stupid for getting vaccinated either because getting vaccinated is inherently safer than pretty much anything else we do on a daily basis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. " I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh." * lens of Covid | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the lens of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Conspiracy Street is brought to you today by the words vile, disgusting, and segregation. " Conspiracy? How odd of you to say that. Vaccine passports excluding those who aren’t double jabbed, without the option of a test, are set to be brought in in 6 weeks for some premises. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s widely been in the news. And it’s vile segregation. Please let me know where the conspiracy is in anything I’ve said. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Conspiracy Street is brought to you today by the words vile, disgusting, and segregation. Conspiracy? How odd of you to say that. Vaccine passports excluding those who aren’t double jabbed, without the option of a test, are set to be brought in in 6 weeks for some premises. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s widely been in the news. And it’s vile segregation. Please let me know where the conspiracy is in anything I’ve said." Thank you!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. * lens of Covid " Exactly this. The moment you talk about how health passports are immoral and unjust everyone jumps into the Covid narrative. It has NOTHING to do with Covid. If this was something more ‘mainstream’ (again I use the example of forced abortions 1. Because it’s covered by the same type of law and 2. Because it’s highly emotive and really gets people worked up - hopefully to the point they might actually think about it with their non Covid coloured glasses) I doubt there are many people who are ‘for’ forced abortions yet everyone is ‘for’ segregation based on refusing to give up medical autonomy. It’s the same logic just a different extremely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh." You may think that but I doubt it. Most people 18 months ago would have thought everything would be brexit brexit brexit for decades to come. Its hardly a discussion now. I think labelling people as obsessed with covid and having sad lives, is using the same tactics as others calling all people against getting the vaccine as nut jobs. Its not a useful debating tactic as it does not bring people with you it just builds up that you are equally fixed in your views. If you want to bring people with you, you need to find common ground rather than calling them sad or obsessed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. * lens of Covid Exactly this. The moment you talk about how health passports are immoral and unjust everyone jumps into the Covid narrative. It has NOTHING to do with Covid. If this was something more ‘mainstream’ (again I use the example of forced abortions 1. Because it’s covered by the same type of law and 2. Because it’s highly emotive and really gets people worked up - hopefully to the point they might actually think about it with their non Covid coloured glasses) I doubt there are many people who are ‘for’ forced abortions yet everyone is ‘for’ segregation based on refusing to give up medical autonomy. It’s the same logic just a different extremely. " Totally agree. It’s frightening tbh. It turns my stomach. If this happens at the end of sept, there will be a significant proportion of the black population immediately barred from nightclubs, as their take up is lower (for completely understandable reasons). It disgusts me that anyone is ok with that. Not even the option of a test, which would be a reasonable compromise. It’s not just about race, but there’s a crossover here. But the fact is that segregation on this basis is vile. I hope to god this doesn’t happen. Health passports are a “papers please” society and are disgusting. To not even allow a negative test instead is simply criminal, and highlights that this is not just about health. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. You may think that but I doubt it. Most people 18 months ago would have thought everything would be brexit brexit brexit for decades to come. Its hardly a discussion now. I think labelling people as obsessed with covid and having sad lives, is using the same tactics as others calling all people against getting the vaccine as nut jobs. Its not a useful debating tactic as it does not bring people with you it just builds up that you are equally fixed in your views. If you want to bring people with you, you need to find common ground rather than calling them sad or obsessed. " I said there’s a proportion of people who think of everything through a covid lens, and it’s right in front of us all. If you can’t see that, fair enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the understandable reason for low black take up ? " Lack of trust in government and big pharma. Check out some of big pharmas actions in developing countries for a start. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"What's the understandable reason for low black take up ? Lack of trust in government and big pharma. Check out some of big pharmas actions in developing countries for a start." But I’d also point out that any reason for choosing not to have the vaccine is understandable. It’s called medical autonomy. It’s totally reasonable to have it, it’s totally reasonable not to have it. Either is fine and reasonable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Conspiracy Street is brought to you today by the words vile, disgusting, and segregation. Conspiracy? How odd of you to say that. Vaccine passports excluding those who aren’t double jabbed, without the option of a test, are set to be brought in in 6 weeks for some premises. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s widely been in the news. And it’s vile segregation. Please let me know where the conspiracy is in anything I’ve said." You have read what you type, yeah? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Conspiracy Street is brought to you today by the words vile, disgusting, and segregation. Conspiracy? How odd of you to say that. Vaccine passports excluding those who aren’t double jabbed, without the option of a test, are set to be brought in in 6 weeks for some premises. It’s not a conspiracy, it’s widely been in the news. And it’s vile segregation. Please let me know where the conspiracy is in anything I’ve said. You have read what you type, yeah?" Yes. So what’s the conspiracy about a domestic vaccine passport? It’s segregation. It’s due in 6 weeks. It’s common knowledge. What’s the conspiracy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. * lens of Covid Exactly this. The moment you talk about how health passports are immoral and unjust everyone jumps into the Covid narrative. It has NOTHING to do with Covid. If this was something more ‘mainstream’ (again I use the example of forced abortions 1. Because it’s covered by the same type of law and 2. Because it’s highly emotive and really gets people worked up - hopefully to the point they might actually think about it with their non Covid coloured glasses) I doubt there are many people who are ‘for’ forced abortions yet everyone is ‘for’ segregation based on refusing to give up medical autonomy. It’s the same logic just a different extremely. " Just so we're clear, you are directly comparing forced abortions with some restrictions being placed on people who haven't had covid vaacinations? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. * lens of Covid Exactly this. The moment you talk about how health passports are immoral and unjust everyone jumps into the Covid narrative. It has NOTHING to do with Covid. If this was something more ‘mainstream’ (again I use the example of forced abortions 1. Because it’s covered by the same type of law and 2. Because it’s highly emotive and really gets people worked up - hopefully to the point they might actually think about it with their non Covid coloured glasses) I doubt there are many people who are ‘for’ forced abortions yet everyone is ‘for’ segregation based on refusing to give up medical autonomy. It’s the same logic just a different extremely. Just so we're clear, you are directly comparing forced abortions with some restrictions being placed on people who haven't had covid vaacinations?" I think they’re comparing the fact they are both to do with medical autonomy. It’s not a competition which is worse. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. * lens of Covid Exactly this. The moment you talk about how health passports are immoral and unjust everyone jumps into the Covid narrative. It has NOTHING to do with Covid. If this was something more ‘mainstream’ (again I use the example of forced abortions 1. Because it’s covered by the same type of law and 2. Because it’s highly emotive and really gets people worked up - hopefully to the point they might actually think about it with their non Covid coloured glasses) I doubt there are many people who are ‘for’ forced abortions yet everyone is ‘for’ segregation based on refusing to give up medical autonomy. It’s the same logic just a different extremely. Just so we're clear, you are directly comparing forced abortions with some restrictions being placed on people who haven't had covid vaacinations? I think they’re comparing the fact they are both to do with medical autonomy. It’s not a competition which is worse." It is relevant though isn't it? It would be like me comparing fox hunting with the holocaust; both are killing something the killer considers vermin. Or perhaps you'd like to sell me your house for a pound, it may be worth £100k but they're both a unit of currency and it's not a competition to say which is the most. Context and language are important. Which is why I imagine you keep using the same three words over and over, it's hate group level NLP. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. * lens of Covid Exactly this. The moment you talk about how health passports are immoral and unjust everyone jumps into the Covid narrative. It has NOTHING to do with Covid. If this was something more ‘mainstream’ (again I use the example of forced abortions 1. Because it’s covered by the same type of law and 2. Because it’s highly emotive and really gets people worked up - hopefully to the point they might actually think about it with their non Covid coloured glasses) I doubt there are many people who are ‘for’ forced abortions yet everyone is ‘for’ segregation based on refusing to give up medical autonomy. It’s the same logic just a different extremely. Just so we're clear, you are directly comparing forced abortions with some restrictions being placed on people who haven't had covid vaacinations? I think they’re comparing the fact they are both to do with medical autonomy. It’s not a competition which is worse. It is relevant though isn't it? It would be like me comparing fox hunting with the holocaust; both are killing something the killer considers vermin. Or perhaps you'd like to sell me your house for a pound, it may be worth £100k but they're both a unit of currency and it's not a competition to say which is the most. Context and language are important. Which is why I imagine you keep using the same three words over and over, it's hate group level NLP." Nope, because they are both covered my medical autonomy. Whereas the Holocaust and fox hunting are not in the same category at all. Laughable comparison. They even pointed out they are governed by the same laws. You’re the one who is ok with segregation, so I’d question who you think is talking like a hate group….. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The maths says for a healthy 30 year old, death is more likely from az vaccine than covid, hence they stopped giving it to younger people. Absolutely false and incorrect. The Oxford-AZ vaccine is not more likely to cause death than Covid in people under 40. The risk-benefit analysis was less in favour of the AZ vaccine than the risk of serious illness from Covid, correct, but it wasn't that "death from blood clots" was on one side of the scale. It remains that the risk of blood clots is somewhere in the order 1-5 in a million (for context, a far greater frequency of births, 1 in 20,000, result in someone with albinism - how many people with albinism have you seen recently?) Those blood clots are not necessarily fatal - they can be successfully treated with the right intervention at the right time. However, to avoid a PR disaster, the decision was taken to simply move to the alternative drugs and not try to argue the facts/data in the feverish environment of the British media. So if the risk of getting a blood clot after the AZ vaccine is at most 1 in 200,000 and if you do get a blood clot there is a 23% chance of death that means you have a 1 in 800,000 chance of dying? That would mean you are about 5 or 6 times more likely of being struck by lightning and dying than you are from taking the AZ vaccine? Something along those lines, yes. The risk is vanishingly small. People's perception of risk seems to have gone out of the window in recent months. That's easy to say until you're close to the person who's died from it "My Grandad and Stepfather both died of Covid, so I do have a pretty good understanding of such things, unfortunately. No medical intervention is without risk. It's about weighing up risk and making a decision about what level of risk you wish to take, I suppose. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. * lens of Covid Exactly this. The moment you talk about how health passports are immoral and unjust everyone jumps into the Covid narrative. It has NOTHING to do with Covid. If this was something more ‘mainstream’ (again I use the example of forced abortions 1. Because it’s covered by the same type of law and 2. Because it’s highly emotive and really gets people worked up - hopefully to the point they might actually think about it with their non Covid coloured glasses) I doubt there are many people who are ‘for’ forced abortions yet everyone is ‘for’ segregation based on refusing to give up medical autonomy. It’s the same logic just a different extremely. Just so we're clear, you are directly comparing forced abortions with some restrictions being placed on people who haven't had covid vaacinations? I think they’re comparing the fact they are both to do with medical autonomy. It’s not a competition which is worse. It is relevant though isn't it? It would be like me comparing fox hunting with the holocaust; both are killing something the killer considers vermin. Or perhaps you'd like to sell me your house for a pound, it may be worth £100k but they're both a unit of currency and it's not a competition to say which is the most. Context and language are important. Which is why I imagine you keep using the same three words over and over, it's hate group level NLP. Nope, because they are both covered my medical autonomy. Whereas the Holocaust and fox hunting are not in the same category at all. Laughable comparison. They even pointed out they are governed by the same laws. You’re the one who is ok with segregation, so I’d question who you think is talking like a hate group….. " You, the constant repetition of words and phrases is the sort of thing they tell people to do on far right websites. I've just explained to you why Fox hunting and the holocaust are in the same category, in the eyes of the people perpetrating them. Whereas you are trying to say that someone being forced to have an abortion is tyhe same as you choosing not to be vaccinated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. * lens of Covid Exactly this. The moment you talk about how health passports are immoral and unjust everyone jumps into the Covid narrative. It has NOTHING to do with Covid. If this was something more ‘mainstream’ (again I use the example of forced abortions 1. Because it’s covered by the same type of law and 2. Because it’s highly emotive and really gets people worked up - hopefully to the point they might actually think about it with their non Covid coloured glasses) I doubt there are many people who are ‘for’ forced abortions yet everyone is ‘for’ segregation based on refusing to give up medical autonomy. It’s the same logic just a different extremely. Just so we're clear, you are directly comparing forced abortions with some restrictions being placed on people who haven't had covid vaacinations? I think they’re comparing the fact they are both to do with medical autonomy. It’s not a competition which is worse. It is relevant though isn't it? It would be like me comparing fox hunting with the holocaust; both are killing something the killer considers vermin. Or perhaps you'd like to sell me your house for a pound, it may be worth £100k but they're both a unit of currency and it's not a competition to say which is the most. Context and language are important. Which is why I imagine you keep using the same three words over and over, it's hate group level NLP. Nope, because they are both covered my medical autonomy. Whereas the Holocaust and fox hunting are not in the same category at all. Laughable comparison. They even pointed out they are governed by the same laws. You’re the one who is ok with segregation, so I’d question who you think is talking like a hate group….. You, the constant repetition of words and phrases is the sort of thing they tell people to do on far right websites. I've just explained to you why Fox hunting and the holocaust are in the same category, in the eyes of the people perpetrating them. Whereas you are trying to say that someone being forced to have an abortion is tyhe same as you choosing not to be vaccinated." Segregation is literally something the far right have historically supported. Hilarious that you bring that up, when you are literally supporting it. Incredible! Segregation is one of the far right’s favourite subjects, so you’re not in good company. The other poster explained why they are in the same category, as they come under medical intervention laws. Fox hunting and the Holocaust do not, and I’m sure you know this. I’m not saying forced abortion is the same. I’m saying they are both to do with medical autonomy, under the umbrella of laws governing medical intervention. Not exactly the same. Not identical. But both are to do with medical autonomy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. * lens of Covid Exactly this. The moment you talk about how health passports are immoral and unjust everyone jumps into the Covid narrative. It has NOTHING to do with Covid. If this was something more ‘mainstream’ (again I use the example of forced abortions 1. Because it’s covered by the same type of law and 2. Because it’s highly emotive and really gets people worked up - hopefully to the point they might actually think about it with their non Covid coloured glasses) I doubt there are many people who are ‘for’ forced abortions yet everyone is ‘for’ segregation based on refusing to give up medical autonomy. It’s the same logic just a different extremely. Just so we're clear, you are directly comparing forced abortions with some restrictions being placed on people who haven't had covid vaacinations? I think they’re comparing the fact they are both to do with medical autonomy. It’s not a competition which is worse. It is relevant though isn't it? It would be like me comparing fox hunting with the holocaust; both are killing something the killer considers vermin. Or perhaps you'd like to sell me your house for a pound, it may be worth £100k but they're both a unit of currency and it's not a competition to say which is the most. Context and language are important. Which is why I imagine you keep using the same three words over and over, it's hate group level NLP. Nope, because they are both covered my medical autonomy. Whereas the Holocaust and fox hunting are not in the same category at all. Laughable comparison. They even pointed out they are governed by the same laws. You’re the one who is ok with segregation, so I’d question who you think is talking like a hate group….. You, the constant repetition of words and phrases is the sort of thing they tell people to do on far right websites. I've just explained to you why Fox hunting and the holocaust are in the same category, in the eyes of the people perpetrating them. Whereas you are trying to say that someone being forced to have an abortion is tyhe same as you choosing not to be vaccinated. Segregation is literally something the far right have historically supported. Hilarious that you bring that up, when you are literally supporting it. Incredible! Segregation is one of the far right’s favourite subjects, so you’re not in good company. The other poster explained why they are in the same category, as they come under medical intervention laws. Fox hunting and the Holocaust do not, and I’m sure you know this. I’m not saying forced abortion is the same. I’m saying they are both to do with medical autonomy, under the umbrella of laws governing medical intervention. Not exactly the same. Not identical. But both are to do with medical autonomy. " Do you have the choice whether to be vaccinated or not? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. * lens of Covid Exactly this. The moment you talk about how health passports are immoral and unjust everyone jumps into the Covid narrative. It has NOTHING to do with Covid. If this was something more ‘mainstream’ (again I use the example of forced abortions 1. Because it’s covered by the same type of law and 2. Because it’s highly emotive and really gets people worked up - hopefully to the point they might actually think about it with their non Covid coloured glasses) I doubt there are many people who are ‘for’ forced abortions yet everyone is ‘for’ segregation based on refusing to give up medical autonomy. It’s the same logic just a different extremely. Just so we're clear, you are directly comparing forced abortions with some restrictions being placed on people who haven't had covid vaacinations? I think they’re comparing the fact they are both to do with medical autonomy. It’s not a competition which is worse. It is relevant though isn't it? It would be like me comparing fox hunting with the holocaust; both are killing something the killer considers vermin. Or perhaps you'd like to sell me your house for a pound, it may be worth £100k but they're both a unit of currency and it's not a competition to say which is the most. Context and language are important. Which is why I imagine you keep using the same three words over and over, it's hate group level NLP. Nope, because they are both covered my medical autonomy. Whereas the Holocaust and fox hunting are not in the same category at all. Laughable comparison. They even pointed out they are governed by the same laws. You’re the one who is ok with segregation, so I’d question who you think is talking like a hate group….. You, the constant repetition of words and phrases is the sort of thing they tell people to do on far right websites. I've just explained to you why Fox hunting and the holocaust are in the same category, in the eyes of the people perpetrating them. Whereas you are trying to say that someone being forced to have an abortion is tyhe same as you choosing not to be vaccinated. Segregation is literally something the far right have historically supported. Hilarious that you bring that up, when you are literally supporting it. Incredible! Segregation is one of the far right’s favourite subjects, so you’re not in good company. The other poster explained why they are in the same category, as they come under medical intervention laws. Fox hunting and the Holocaust do not, and I’m sure you know this. I’m not saying forced abortion is the same. I’m saying they are both to do with medical autonomy, under the umbrella of laws governing medical intervention. Not exactly the same. Not identical. But both are to do with medical autonomy. Do you have the choice whether to be vaccinated or not?" Medical autonomy includes the point of coercion. So yes you have the choice. Does choosing not to segregate someone from parts of society? (If the covid passports occur without option of a test). Yes they do. That is disgusting and coercive, and results in segregation. You can dress it up in different ways but that’s what it is. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least youve given up on trying to say it’s a conspiracy anyway. That’s a start. It’s due in 6 weeks." Do you think conspiracies becomes true 3 months down the line? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least youve given up on trying to say it’s a conspiracy anyway. That’s a start. It’s due in 6 weeks." You may wish to stand for parliament as your reach on a swinging website is fairly limited and it does appear to be something your passionate about. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. * lens of Covid Exactly this. The moment you talk about how health passports are immoral and unjust everyone jumps into the Covid narrative. It has NOTHING to do with Covid. If this was something more ‘mainstream’ (again I use the example of forced abortions 1. Because it’s covered by the same type of law and 2. Because it’s highly emotive and really gets people worked up - hopefully to the point they might actually think about it with their non Covid coloured glasses) I doubt there are many people who are ‘for’ forced abortions yet everyone is ‘for’ segregation based on refusing to give up medical autonomy. It’s the same logic just a different extremely. Just so we're clear, you are directly comparing forced abortions with some restrictions being placed on people who haven't had covid vaacinations?" Yes I am yes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least youve given up on trying to say it’s a conspiracy anyway. That’s a start. It’s due in 6 weeks. You may wish to stand for parliament as your reach on a swinging website is fairly limited and it does appear to be something your passionate about. " I am passionate about not allowing the segregation of society, yes. Decent people are. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"At least youve given up on trying to say it’s a conspiracy anyway. That’s a start. It’s due in 6 weeks. You may wish to stand for parliament as your reach on a swinging website is fairly limited and it does appear to be something your passionate about. I am passionate about not allowing the segregation of society, yes. Decent people are." I've been having an email exchange with my MP about vaccine mandates. I wouldn't run for parliament, it's not that important to me, but I am making my voice heard | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"So it's been 2 days. I'm still alive. No side effect other than a sore arm a day afterwards. "Brilliant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The vaccine is more dangerous than the "virus"" Sources please. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The vaccine is more dangerous than the "virus" Sources please. " Hunts BBQ and Worcestershire ............and a big splodge of Swisscows | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The vaccine is more dangerous than the "virus" Sources please. " He won't find because it simply not even remotely true. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The vaccine is more dangerous than the "virus"" Gotta love these one line declaration of "facts". No sources, no justification, and the word virus in quotes for added disdain. Hilarious! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Does the flu jab make you feel this way? Remember when people were panicking about the world grinding to a halt when 1999 became 2000, then feeling like tits when nothing happened? This feels similar! If you have a history of thrombosis or are at risk in some way, do what the OP is doing and have the Pfizer. Nobody in India is whining about being controlled and their liberties being infringed. They’re just desperately thankful for the vaccine so the death toll doesn’t reach half a million. And we’re bellyaching about our rights? We're getting more and more like the Americans. It’s bloody embarrassing, people. " Great post in general, although I would point out that the reason "nothing happened" in 2000 was because armies of programmers had been working to fix the problem in the preceding years! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" When you say pro choice, within what constraints? All societies have rules, its why they are called societies. Id rather not be forced to pay tax but I accept its part of living in a society were there are social responsibilities to each other. Tax is legalised theft, so if we all accept that as for the good of the society, then other less impactful rules become secondary. No one is forced to be jabbed, therefore any rules following that are only of consequence if they impact enough in society. If they impact enough people then the rules will be changed. E.g. Poll tax. Pro choice in medical intervention, and that includes not thinking coercion is ok. The choices have consequences stance is nonsense, it could literally be used for ANY form of coercion. Segregation is vile. “Choices have consequences” is an appalling way of legitimising the segregation of people who are making a legitimate choice. Of course choices have consequences, this is well established. If I don't get a hep B jab I can't work in a medical capacity. If I don't get vaccines then insurance companies will not cover certain costs if I become ill abroad. I don't see how you can argue its nonsense, rules are made and enforced and sometimes rules are changed or abandoned. You may not like it but that has always been the way. My point is that if enough people don't like a rule it will be changed. If enough people like it or are not impacted by it, it will remain. How is that nonsense. And on your last point, so if enough people are ok for discrimination against a minority, it will remain? Thank god that’s not the case or minority rights would never have improved. This is the case though, we only legislate against discrimination when enough people are against it. It was only what 50 years ago that being gay was made legal. Only 10 years ago that homosexuals could get married. Where most people against homosexuals getting married? Probably not but it did not matter to enough people to bother changing it until 10 years ago. I don't see how that is not just saying how life is. Well let’s hope to god there’s not enough people to support the vile segregation in society. Trouble is, fear propaganda has caused many to think ideas like this are acceptable, when 18 months ago they’d have found them abhorrent. I don't think 18 months ago many people had a view either way, they were more obsessed with brexit at the time. I'm sure in 18 months time there will be a new thing concerning the public. I hope you’re right about 18 months time. But I genuinely think a certain proportion of the population will never think about anything other than covid again (or at least through the Ken’s of covid). It’s an obsession to some. It’s given a meaning to their life. It’s a shame tbh. * lens of Covid Exactly this. The moment you talk about how health passports are immoral and unjust everyone jumps into the Covid narrative. It has NOTHING to do with Covid. If this was something more ‘mainstream’ (again I use the example of forced abortions 1. Because it’s covered by the same type of law and 2. Because it’s highly emotive and really gets people worked up - hopefully to the point they might actually think about it with their non Covid coloured glasses) I doubt there are many people who are ‘for’ forced abortions yet everyone is ‘for’ segregation based on refusing to give up medical autonomy. It’s the same logic just a different extremely. Just so we're clear, you are directly comparing forced abortions with some restrictions being placed on people who haven't had covid vaacinations? I think they’re comparing the fact they are both to do with medical autonomy. It’s not a competition which is worse. It is relevant though isn't it? It would be like me comparing fox hunting with the holocaust; both are killing something the killer considers vermin. Or perhaps you'd like to sell me your house for a pound, it may be worth £100k but they're both a unit of currency and it's not a competition to say which is the most. Context and language are important. Which is why I imagine you keep using the same three words over and over, it's hate group level NLP. Nope, because they are both covered my medical autonomy. Whereas the Holocaust and fox hunting are not in the same category at all. Laughable comparison. They even pointed out they are governed by the same laws. You’re the one who is ok with segregation, so I’d question who you think is talking like a hate group….. You, the constant repetition of words and phrases is the sort of thing they tell people to do on far right websites. I've just explained to you why Fox hunting and the holocaust are in the same category, in the eyes of the people perpetrating them. Whereas you are trying to say that someone being forced to have an abortion is tyhe same as you choosing not to be vaccinated. Segregation is literally something the far right have historically supported. Hilarious that you bring that up, when you are literally supporting it. Incredible! Segregation is one of the far right’s favourite subjects, so you’re not in good company. The other poster explained why they are in the same category, as they come under medical intervention laws. Fox hunting and the Holocaust do not, and I’m sure you know this. I’m not saying forced abortion is the same. I’m saying they are both to do with medical autonomy, under the umbrella of laws governing medical intervention. Not exactly the same. Not identical. But both are to do with medical autonomy. " Just two problems with your arguments: 1) You treat "medical autonomy" as a black-and-white principle that is either upheld or isn't. Very little in life is like that. If the government were mandatong daily vitamin pills, that would be unreasonable. Imposing restrictions to protect against a disease which has killed many thousands is somewhat different. 2) You talk a lot about segregation. Segregation of people by factors out of their control is indeed unjustifiable. But imposing relevant restrictions according to choices made by an individual is, again, different. By the way, I am actually extremely pro- civil liberties (up to the point where those liberties put others at risk). My support for this particular government policy is not intended to imply that the incumbent politicians are anything other than a bunch of corrupt, underhand, hypocritical, crooks, liars and conmen. However, I do believe any party would be going down the vaccine passport route. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Some people like to chat a lot about their rights, and very little about their responsibilities.
100%
I take full responsibility for my own health. Do you? "The poster meant responsibilities to society; not just to self. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
A few yeas ago, a close relative on mine 50 years old and overweight had two blood clots at the same time. One heading to the heart and one to the brain. Luckily she survived. She did not have any health issues before. And she is on blood thinining medication now.
People including healthy people develop blood clots every year and some of them for no particular reason.
Despite her risk of developing blood clots, the doctor gave her the ok to receive a covid jab (Moderna).
Also according to stats, there is an increased risk of developing a blood clot even if you get covid and have mild symptoms. The risk of developing a blood clot if you get covid is much higher than the risk of having a blood clot as a result of having the vaccine."*"....The risk of developing a blood clot if you get covid is much higher than the risk of having a blood clot as a result of having the vaccine...."* ----------------------------- This | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys!
It won’t turn you into a lizard, correct. But it might give you a blood clot? That in itself makes it very reasonable to be hesitant of this vaccine (doesn’t make you an anti , a lazy term thrown around with the aim of dividing gullible people).
Having the vaccine is a perfectly reasonable decision. Not having it is also a perfectly reasonable decision.
What is not reasonable is divisiveness caused by this and the segregation of society. Let’s hope that doesn’t happen, as it’s vile and disgusting.
Have it, or don’t have it, it’s no ones business. Your medical autonomy is yours.
A few yeas ago, a close relative on mine 50 years old and overweight had two blood clots at the same time. One heading to the heart and one to the brain. Luckily she survived. She did not have any health issues before. And she is on blood thinining medication now.
People including healthy people develop blood clots every year and some of them for no particular reason.
Despite her risk of developing blood clots, the doctor gave her the ok to receive a covid jab (Moderna).
Also according to stats, there is an increased risk of developing a blood clot even if you get covid and have mild symptoms. The risk of developing a blood clot if you get covid is much higher than the risk of having a blood clot as a result of having the vaccine.
*"....The risk of developing a blood clot if you get covid is much higher than the risk of having a blood clot as a result of having the vaccine...."*
-----------------------------
This "Its probably higher taking a flight too but ive never seen people posting they wont go on holiday because of the risk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"People worry about getting blood clots from the jab, but you can get them from Covid itself, as I did - before vaccinations were available. Mr W. " I hope you have recovered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well done for your decision. But what made you see some sense? What made you to change and from an antivaxxer to become a supporter of the covid vaccine? Proves my point of divisiveness perfectly. Someone didn’t have it so they’re an anti vaxxer, even if they’ve had tons of other vaccines? Hilarious over simplification. No divisiveness at all. The OP said that he was an antivaxxer, not me. He did not say he was hesitant but an antivaxxer and he gave a valid reason for being an antivaxxer. His words, not mine. My question is to him and only him, what made him change his mind. I know. And I imagine he’s had many vaccines before. You don’t go from being an anti vaxxer to a vaxxer just over covid. Nuance. I dont know his vaccine history and I dont know his reasons behind his choice. However, a best friend of mine who was not an antivaxxer (he vaxxinated his young son with the usual vaccines), he is an advocate against covid vaccine (thanks to all the nonsense he is reading from various antivaxxers (incl Robert Kennedy) and antivaxxer sites to the extent that he is now questioning the MMR jabs and saying that now he did not know whether it was right for his young son to have the vaccines. In his case (and he is a very bright and educated person otherwise) he is talking as an antivaxxer even though he had done vaccines before. The phrase is used to divide society into two. It’s no ones business whether anyone has it or not. By even labelling people as vaxxers or anti vaxxers, you are falling into that trap. Don’t be divisive. We are all human beings. I do not know if it makes sense to you, but as a fully vaxxed. I do not see divisiveness. I get the bus or the tube, I see people with masks and not masks. I do not know who is vaccinated and who is not who is vaxxer and who is antivaxxer. I am wearing my mask and keep my social distance because there is in my opinion some risk. But I do not see divisiveness. I believe some of the measures are good to protect people. But I dont see divisiveness even though I am affected too by the recklessness of some people. I have noticed though that this divisiveness narative is adopted by people who are against the covid vaccine and the covid measures. They see divisiveness and they talk about divissiveness. Because they’re being threatened with being excluded from society simply for having medical autonomy. You say you don’t see divisiveness, but you are literally labelling people into two categories. A bit of self awareness…. Labelling for the shake of the discussion. Vaccinated, non vaccinated, sceptics, antivaxxers. pro vaxxers. And even if I am pro vaccine because as an adult I have done all kinds of vaccines, I was a bit aprehensive for me and my friends to have the covid vaccine, based on all the scaremongering. But only a bit. I had the covid vaccine for two reasons. Because I wanted to protect myself and because I could see the recklessness of others. I think most of the vaccinated people are between a rock and a hard place with regards to the covid vaccine." Thanks for sharing that you were concerned but still went ahead for good reasons. Diptheria, Typhoid Cholera and Smallpox were irradicated through vaccination programs. At the end of 2019 there was an outbreak of measles in NYC amongst the Jewish community due to a lack of vaccination. Children died because of their parents ignorance. Vaccination works because of the number of people taking the vaccine. If more than 30% of the population opt out herd immunity will never be achieved and the 3,4,5 etc jab could be a reality. Also fyi the annual flu jab is a cocktail of 3 flu variants that change every year. This is not re-tested in a clinical trial after every change otherwise it would be obsolete before its used. Covid is more transmissable and for certain members of the population far more dangerous than the annual flu. For everyone that says they are not taking the jab because it impacts their personal rights. Remember we need 70% of the population immunised otherwise as a society recovery will not be possible and then the Govt may be forced to impose really draconian measures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I am currently in the queue waiting for my Pfizer vaccine. I became an Anti vaxxer when someone from my work place died of blood cloth after taking the AZ vaccine. To all Anti vaxxers; please take the Jab. It won't turn you to a lizard and It doesn't contain any Chip used by the government to control you. If you are scared of taking the AZ one like me, just go for the Pfizer one..
Over 40 million people have had both jabs and over 90% of them are still alive so it can't be that bad now can it...
Wish me luck guys! "Good for you, but I'm still not getting it until I know what the long term plan is vis a vis booster's, whether it's annual or not, how long antibodies last etc I can respect your choice, you can respect mine (especially with the delta variant being as transmissible regardless of vaccination) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
