Vaccine Passport - Plan B

[LondonBristolian]

28 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

WITH is the key word here.

Covid acts like flu in being the "old person's friend" when they are already terminally ill.

At the moment, we don't know anything about the person who died. Generally speaking, each COVID death (prior to Omicron) had knocked an expected average of eleven years off people's lives. People who are "clinically vulnerable" are not necessarily at death's door and could easily live for decades in many cases. 

With this death, I can understand why people are saying "we can't speculate that the person was not very ill already, even without COVID" but we also can't speculate that they were. The short answer is we don't know and, until we have more facts, it's a little bit crass to assume that someone who we know nothing about was "old and would have died anyway" (to quote Morrissey) as it may be completely untrue. 

[lenred]

6 minutes ago, Riaz said:

no deaths elsewhere, including in south africa where it originated from.

But suddenly we have a death from it, at the same time as the government wants to bring in restrictions.

Anyone who believes this shit, would believe anything they are told. Beyond naive.

I repeat what I’ve already said. No one has said there will be no deaths from it. I know that. You know that. The whole world knows that. So again, what’s suspicious? 

Ps not really sure why you think it’s a laughing matter. Odd and in incredibly bad taste to say the least. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by lenred

[LondonBristolian]

2 minutes ago, Riaz said:

no deaths elsewhere, including in south africa where it originated from.

But suddenly we have a death from it, at the same time as the government wants to bring in restrictions.

Anyone who believes this shit, would believe anything they are told. Beyond naive.

The virus was only identified three weeks ago and a lot of countries don't have the facilities we do to test whether quickly test whether a COVID death is Ominicron variant or not. It's not suspicious, in the least. It also doesn't necessarily mean that Omnicron is not a milder variant. It could be and there could still be some deaths. Or it could be that, as Omnicron hits countries with older populations, there are deaths on a comparable level to previous variants. We don't know. 

But it's silly to dismiss as suspicious purely because it's a bit inconvenient. 

[spudski]

56 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

You know? Why post "its a weird one" then? You forever post anti vax shite, so i thought id make it simple for you but apparently you know.......

And you just talk shite.

[Galley is our king]

4 minutes ago, Riaz said:

no deaths elsewhere, including in south africa where it originated from.

But suddenly we have a death from it, at the same time as the government wants to bring in restrictions.

Anyone who believes this shit, would believe anything they are told. Beyond naive.

As we all know virus's thrive and do more damage in the winter months, South Africa is in it's summer.

That's not naivety, that's fact....

[Eddie Hitler]

2 minutes ago, TonyTonyTony said:

What does that statement actually mean though?

The virus still has the potential to knock over the health service. Are you happy for that to happen? Presumably not, in which case there has to be some rules of engagement, which is precisely the situation we are in. You could make the argument that we need more hospitals to cope if we want to be "free" but that is not a short, nor medium term solution is it? You cant just shit out a new hospital and trained staff.

Its you that has the simplistic view

No, it isn't.

Whilst my initial reaction was for herd immunity it became clear that, whilst this could of course be achieved, it wouldn't happen until the NHS had been entirely swamped by cases so causing mass deaths.

So, with new information, I changed my view and supported lockdowns.

I still support lockdowns for the same reason.

With vaccines I regard them as still being in the experimental stage and think it reckless to be injecting the various vaccines into healthy people; especially children.

As I've said if I regarded myself as vulnerable then I would take them on a balance of risks; I'm not so I don't.

I have taken LFTs and see this as the sensible way to prevent spreading by otherwise healthy people rather than including them in the biggest experimental live trial of vaccines ever seen.

I note that you, in seeing that I didn't entirely toe the government line, leaped immediately to the conclusion that I don't agree with any if it.

This is what I meant by the government and media trying, and mostly succeeding, in creating an impression of polar opposite views which really isn't accurate.

 

[Galley is our king]

1 minute ago, spudski said:

And you just talk shite.

Makes two of you then....

[TonyTonyTony]

3 minutes ago, spudski said:

And you just talk shite.

Oh wow you cut me down their with your forensically sharp put down.

You should educate yourself.

[Eddie Hitler]

6 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

At the moment, we don't know anything about the person who died. Generally speaking, each COVID death (prior to Omicron) had knocked an expected average of eleven years off people's lives. People who are "clinically vulnerable" are not necessarily at death's door and could easily live for decades in many cases. 

With this death, I can understand why people are saying "we can't speculate that the person was not very ill already, even without COVID" but we also can't speculate that they were. The short answer is we don't know and, until we have more facts, it's a little bit crass to assume that someone who we know nothing about was "old and would have died anyway" (to quote Morrissey) as it may be completely untrue. 

They had the option, given that it was one individual, to be clear whether they died from or with the omicron variant.

That they used "with" is very telling IMO and it is therefore reasonable to assume that it wasn't the primary cause or the word "from" would have been used.

[Eddie Hitler]

12 minutes ago, Galley is our king said:

Apparently Boris said "FROM"

Not that he's the most trusted source but....

Okay; that changes it.

[Galley is our king]

3 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

Okay; that changes it.

To be fair, some sources now reporting he said "with"

It's a sad day when you can't trust the press eh?

[Selred]

Just now, Galley is our king said:

To be fair, some sources now reporting he said "with"

It's a sad day when you can't trust the press eh?

According to the BBC it's with, not from. 

According to the Daily Mail, he said with, and they decided to headline it from. 

[spudski]

3 minutes ago, Galley is our king said:

To be fair, some sources now reporting he said "with"

It's a sad day when you can't trust the press eh?

Why don't you actually watch the video of him talking. He says 'with'...

[BTRFTG]

1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Of course new medicines would become available because people volunteer for the limited numbers trials leaving the majority as the control group.

This time the trials are topsy turvy because the trial group is the majority and the control group the minority.

If you think that we somehow know the side effects of the several vaccines already then have a look at the complexities of the Dengue fever vaccine which were certainly not foreseen in its first year of issuance.

The human body is an incredibly complex mechanism and viruses mutate unpredictability; the only sure way to be able to call relative safety of these vaccines as I would claim for the influenza vaccine is volume, achieved, and time, and there are years to go yet.

Assuming that the outcomes of the trials lead to identifying which of the competing vaccines is the safest in a few years then I will start having that particular vaccine on a yearly basis as I have done with the influenza vaccine for the last twenty years.

That is hardly being an "anti-vaxxer"; it is following the science.

Ah, you're happy for others to take the risk, just not you.

With your medical insight you also appear to have neglected:

All vaccines issued to date were subject to (as you call them) minority control trials;

Like all viruses the influenza versions mutate, such each season northern and southern hemisphere they're slightly different.

Using your 'science based logic' we might as well not bother developing vaccines at all given for each 5 year testing cycle you consider the safe minimum we'll have passed through a minimum 9 subsequent variations. Strange, therefore, you consent to having a flu vaccine that's barely a few months out of the lab but not one for a corona virus?

[Rebounder]

3 hours ago, 2015 said:

It is rather funny that those who despise the Tories on here and despise Boris Johnson yet still go along with every restriction he puts in place and his 'opposition' support him in doing so. 

I don't believe a word any politician or scientist come out with anymore - they are all corrupted by power, personal agenda's and money in my opinion.

Hardly anyone I know has done anything because Johnson and the Tories have told them too. In fact most have gone further particularly this time last year when it was fairly clear the government were ******* around. Also all the weird rules like being able to go to the pub, but not being able to do something that seemed much less risky. 

Political party didn't really come into it as most of us work in health care and so I guess see it from that angle. It made sense to try and limit the spread as much as possible. There's also that desire to want to help protect vulnerable people, either by stopping the spread, or supporting those that were isolating etc. Worth pointing out that none of us have been perfect in this so it's not a case of "I'm better than you."

I think generally the public have at times taken their own measures that were more proactive than the ones the government were suggesting. 

Of course if society was set up differently in the first place and preparations put in place then it probably wouldn't ever have got as bad. We'll hopefully learn a lot from this. 

Edited December 13, 2021 by Rebounder

[Eddie Hitler]

4 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

Using your 'science based logic' we might as well not bother developing vaccines at all given for each 5 year testing cycle you consider the safe minimum we'll have passed through a minimum 9 subsequent variations. Strange, therefore, you consent to having a flu vaccine that's barely a few months out of the lab but not one for a corona virus?

 

I don't know why that's in quotes; we all have brains and the opportunity to use them if we choose to do so.

The basic mechanism of the influenza vaccine has been in place for decades and is very safe; all that changes each year is the selection of the particular four strains to bundle into it.

There are currently multiple competing Covid vaccines; trials are not even sufficiently far advanced to have selected which is the safest.

They are experimental vaccines by any reasonable standards.

I wear a mask in shops, observe lockdown rules and take a LFT when required.

That I don't wish to form part of a medical experiment is a legitimate personal choice; and also one which you can't unmake when further information comes to light.

[Waconda]

It is not the deaths that is the major issue here (probably) the problem is that Omicron is very likely to make enough people ill due to it's increased transmissibility, that need hospital treatment therefore swamping the NHS.

There will have to be a lock down in January, as they are determined to leave the economy open for Xmas. - IMO.

 

[Kid in the Riot]

29 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

No, it isn't.

Whilst my initial reaction was for herd immunity it became clear that, whilst this could of course be achieved, it wouldn't happen until the NHS had been entirely swamped by cases so causing mass deaths.

So, with new information, I changed my view and supported lockdowns.

I still support lockdowns for the same reason.

With vaccines I regard them as still being in the experimental stage and think it reckless to be injecting the various vaccines into healthy people; especially children.

As I've said if I regarded myself as vulnerable then I would take them on a balance of risks; I'm not so I don't.

I have taken LFTs and see this as the sensible way to prevent spreading by otherwise healthy people rather than including them in the biggest experimental live trial of vaccines ever seen.

I note that you, in seeing that I didn't entirely toe the government line, leaped immediately to the conclusion that I don't agree with any if it.

This is what I meant by the government and media trying, and mostly succeeding, in creating an impression of polar opposite views which really isn't accurate.

You are entitled to your opinion, but certainly can't claim to be "following the science"; you are doing the polar opposite. And to justify it, you have come up with a fabricated belief system referring to the vaccine still being at "the experimental stage" and the rollout being a "live trial". You are using scientific terminology incorrectly to justify your (some might say) selfishness to not assist in society being able to return to a version of normality as quickly as possible.

The point has been made many times before, but thank god everyone didn't think like you, or we really would be in perpetual lockdowns, which oddly you can apparently justify to yourself. 

[Kid in the Riot]

5 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

I don't know why that's in quotes; we all have brains and the opportunity to use them if we choose to do so.

The basic mechanism of the influenza vaccine has been in place for decades and is very safe; all that changes each year is the selection of the particular four strains to bundle into it.

There are currently multiple competing Covid vaccines; trials are not even sufficiently far advanced to have selected which is the safest.

They are experimental vaccines by any reasonable standards.

I wear a mask in shops, observe lockdown rules and take a LFT when required.

That I don't wish to form part of a medical experiment is a legitimate personal choice; and also one which you can't unmake when further information comes to light.

Nearly half the world's population has been double jabbed (3.3bn) and a total of 7.3bn vaccinations have been administered. 

How many more jabs are required for you to consider that the largest roll-out of vaccinations EVER, is not a trial?

[Eddie Hitler]

1 minute ago, Kid in the Riot said:

You are entitled to your opinion, but certainly can't claim to be "following the science"; you are doing the polar opposite. And to justify it, you have come up with a fabricated belief system referring to the vaccine still being at "the experimental stage" and the rollout being a "live trial". You are using scientific terminology incorrectly to justify your (some might say) selfishness to not assist in society being able to return to a version of normality as quickly as possible.

The point has been made many times before, but thank god everyone didn't think like you, or we really would be in perpetual lockdowns, which oddly you can apparently justify to yourself. 

 

I disagree.

If however you wish to regard all the several vaccines only now coming into their second winter season as "safe" then off you go.

They may well be safe, or there could be horrendous long term side effects.

The point is that nobody knows and your accepting the vaccines is an act of faith; not of science.

That you do also think this way is betrayed by your use of the word "selfishness" to describe my refusing to have any of them as yet.

If you didn't think that way then you would be appealing to science rather than trying to shame me into joining the medical trials because it is in your opinion, to quote Tony Blair before his illegal wars, "the right thing to do".

[red panda]

3 hours ago, 2015 said:

It is rather funny that those who despise the Tories on here and despise Boris Johnson yet still go along with every restriction he puts in place and his 'opposition' support him in doing so. 

I don't believe a word any politician or scientist come out with anymore - they are all corrupted by power, personal agenda's and money in my opinion.

Sorry, but you are beneath contempt for lumping politicians and scientists together.  Scientists have saved billions of lives over many many years with their painstaking and often unrecognised work.  They now abide by a rigorous set of procedures to weed out unreliable findings.  They can't eliminate every single charlatan, but these get found out pretty quickly.

Feel free not to believe them, but they are the best hope the human race has at the moment.

[Eddie Hitler]

1 minute ago, Kid in the Riot said:

Nearly half the world's population has been double jabbed (3.3bn) and a total of 7.3bn vaccinations have been administered. 

How many more jabs are required for you to consider that the largest roll-out of vaccinations EVER, is not a trial?

 

Per my earlier post there are two dimensions to trials: numbers and time.

Great on the numbers; can't fault that.

There has however been insufficient time to see what medium or long term side effects may result.

[Rebounder]

3 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

Good points all hence my stressing data informs nothing and it's interpretation in subjective.

You can definitely use data effectively, but there would be better ways to use data about mental health provision than comparing suicide rates. 

[WolfOfWestStreet]

1 minute ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Per my earlier post there are two dimensions to trials: numbers and time.

Great on the numbers; can't fault that.

There has however been insufficient time to see what medium or long term side effects may result.

Not waiting around to find out what the long term effects might be. Could well be dead by then.

I'll take anything over drowning in my own lung fluid got to be one of the shittiest ways to go. 

[LondonBristolian]

7 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

I disagree.

If however you wish to regard all the several vaccines only now coming into their second winter season as "safe" then off you go.

They may well be safe, or there could be horrendous long term side effects.

The point is that nobody knows and your accepting the vaccines is an act of faith; not of science.

That you do also think this way is betrayed by your use of the word "selfishness" to describe my refusing to have any of them as yet.

If you didn't think that way then you would be appealing to science rather than trying to shame me into joining the medical trials because it is in your opinion, to quote Tony Blair before his illegal wars, "the right thing to do".

Could there, though? I'm not so sure.

There's a lot of medications that cause side effects but I struggle to think of any medication that can suddenly produce a side effect months after it was taken, especially given the dosage of vaccines isn't that high. 

If you take something we know to be dangerous - arsenic, for example then we know

a) It will kill if you take a lot of it

b) It will cause a lot of damage if you are regularly exposed to it over a prelonged period of time.

But I'm not aware that you can be exposed to it, be fine for ages and then suddenly get ill. And I struggle to think of other substances where that applies. 

I'm quite happy to be corrected by someone who knows their stuff but I just don't see this "it could have a long-term effect we don't know about" idea making sense. The risk with vaccines - as we know - is someone can have an immediate reaction to it, or that it can - in very rare cases - cause blood clots a few days later. But what would the science actually be where it somehow didn't have an effect and then, once it was no longer in your system, suddenly did? It doesn't make sense to me. 

[BrizzleRed]

1 hour ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

This has happened with influenza every year for centuries.

This idea that Covid rewrites all the rules is simply wrong; it is merely the most recent human virus.

It could equally have been Covid that we had for centuries and then influenza crops up.

Covid is just another virus which a more sensible society would simply learn to live with rather than being the new bogey man to terrify the simple.

You’re overlooking the big difference though. Even the original strain of covid 19 was way more contageous than flu, and each new variant has been more transmissable than the previous one.

That’s why this can’t just be treated like another form of flu.

Edited December 13, 2021 by BrizzleRed

[Eddie Hitler]

5 minutes ago, WolfOfWestStreet said:

Not waiting around to find out what the long term effects might be. Could well be dead by then.

I'll take anything over drowning in my own lung fluid got to be one of the shittiest ways to go. 

Yep, and entirely your own choice.

I don't try to persuade others not to in RL; my parents have had their boosters as would I at their age.

[Eddie Hitler]

4 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

Could there, though? I'm not so sure.

There's a lot of medications that cause side effects but I struggle to think of any medication that can suddenly produce a side effect months after it was taken, especially given the dosage of vaccines isn't that high. 

If you take something we know to be dangerous - arsenic, for example then we know

a) It will kill if you take a lot of it

b) It will cause a lot of damage if you are regularly exposed to it over a prelonged period of time.

But I'm not aware that you can be exposed to it, be fine for ages and then suddenly get ill. And I struggle to think of other substances where that applies. 

I'm quite happy to be corrected by someone who knows their stuff but I just don't see this "it could have a long-term effect we don't know about" idea making sense. The risk with vaccines - as we know - is someone can have an immediate reaction to it, or that it can - in very rare cases - cause blood clots a few days later. But what would the science actually be where it somehow didn't have an effect and then, once it was no longer in your system, suddenly did? It doesn't make sense to me. 

 

Here is where we stray into science and all that I know with regard to Covid is second hand and shallow; I base my objection upon the simple fact that we don't know the likely adverse effects because we can't foretell the future. That's why vaccine trials go on for years.

There is one effect of vaccines known as ADE, and no I don't know what it stands for and it wouldn't be meaningful to me if I did, but what it means is that having a vaccine against one variant of a virus actually makes you more severely infected by the next variant.

It may be this, it may not be, it may be something else, it may be nothing.

Nobody knows and everyone has their fingers crossed.

That isn't good enough for me; though it is good enough for many others.

[GreedyHarry]

30 minutes ago, Eddie Hitler said:

 

Per my earlier post there are two dimensions to trials: numbers and time.

Great on the numbers; can't fault that.

There has however been insufficient time to see what medium or long term side effects may result.

What like side effects twenty years hence??? No thanks. That argument means, that if we agree the volume of vaccine doses administered is large enough, we sit and wait for the last person that has been given it to die ‘naturally’. That could be 50 years or more. And then a card would come along and say, “yes but he could have had side effects if he’d lived just one more day.”

[IAmNick]

4 hours ago, 2015 said:

It is rather funny that those who despise the Tories on here and despise Boris Johnson yet still go along with every restriction he puts in place and his 'opposition' support him in doing so. 

 

Very telling you're so confused that people made a non political judgement of what to do.

I despise Boris, but that's completely separate from whether I agree with the restrictions. That's guided by the data and science.

4 hours ago, Riaz said:

You are a conspiracy theorist if you think for yourself and dont believe EVERYTHING you are told.

But you ARE a conspiracy theorist.

Remember these from a few months ago?

Quote

 In this country, more people have now died from the vaccine, than healthy people have died from covid.

Quote

Deaths from vaccine 1470 and counting.

Quote

In a few years, when birth rates are down, lots of people have suffered from side affects… I will be proven right

Quote

I think birth rates will be down massively tho.

Quote

My suspicion, is that it will make most people infertile.

PLEASE explain to me how that's "thinking for yourself", and not just repeating tired conspiracy theories. You're just blindly believing stuff from another source.

Going against the prevailing opinion is nothing to be proud of, nor any sign that you've thought more.

Edited December 13, 2021 by IAmNick