THE COVID-19 VACCINE: WILL YOU HAVE ONE?

as soon as those pesky MAGA folks in the US just get over it and accept that Dead Votes Matter she'll be all over it.

Glad to see you've finally earned that tin foil hat of yours mate!

It's simple if anyone does not want it , respect there decision but if you come down with the virus and need hospital you will be refused treatment that's fair .

Is there any evidence this is the case?
Or are you been so brainwashed and scared that you now reflecting it on to others.

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?
.

Basically:
Far more money given
Far more people working on it
A lot of technology advancement/availability
Very similar to something they'd been working on recently
The virus is fast spreading which allows trials to end quicker.

the issue is time.... you can not judge the effects of..say smoking for 10 years by giving 520, 30 year olds a weeks cigarettes and going on the result... a year is a year...

That one's easy mate. They're working in Chimp years

Can I ask what specific long term effect you're worried about?

Would you rather we develop a perfectly good vaccine and then wait a decade before giving it to the public? A decade of corona deaths and potentially long term effects of that or a vaccine?

The problem with unknown side effects of a rushed vaccine using a brand new approach is that they are unknown.

As I've said consistently on this topic, for me it is about personal freedoms and personal choice.

It's why I get a bit more passionate when people throw around silly statements like 'if you don't get vaccinated you should lose your access to the NHS' without giving a second thought to the actual implications of what they are saying.

Too much of our thinking today is in the present, without taking the time to learn from the past and think of what our actions might be three, four or five steps down the line. It's empty-headed sloganeering, but that doesn't stop it from becoming a well-versed mantra chanted by the mob with their pitchforks aloft, hunting down the unclean.

Again, I've read enough history to know we are only ever a few steps away from mass hysteria and good people can do all sorts of bad things when they become infused into the mob.

It's why people like Jacinda Ardern, one of the most powerful and influential women on the planet, and her glib rhetoric about locking healthy people who've committed no crime away indefinitely, scare the living shit out of me to be perfectly honest.

The vaccine is there and it is should be a personal choice if you want to take it or not.

If you see more danger in taking an untested drug rushed to market, than in taking your chances with a virus that has a 99.3% survival rate, I don't see why that should be an issue for anyone. Equally, if you fear the virus more than the vaccine then fill your boots.

If it is as effective as they say, against a disease with such a high survival rate, there is no logical reason whatsoever that anyone should be made to take it and as I've said on countless times, mandatory doesn't just mean pinning someone down and jabbing them in the arm, it can be far more subtle than that and enough people on here seem happy to push for such approaches in the name of the greater good - another phrase that will send shivers down the spine of anyone who has spent time reading about the horrors of the 20th century and the rhetoric that led up to them.

The virus, the lockdowns and the vaccine all have felt to be a bit too close to an engineered Hegalian dialectic too me (i..e problem, reaction, resolution), and while that may be seeing monsters lurking in the dark that simply aren't there, I on a personal level, think it is just prudent to wait.

Especially as there is no short supply of people keen to get the vaccine and it will be in limited supply across the near-term anyway, really and truly it is something of a non-issue for me, as long as it isn't mandatory.

As I've said a few times now, I'm not anti-vaccination, but on this occasion, weighing up the odds, I'll take my time hanging around at the back of the queue.

as soon as those pesky MAGA folks in the US just get over it and accept that Dead Votes Matter she'll be all over it.

Glad to see you've finally earned that tin foil hat of yours mate!

I had one before it was cool

On the other hand, the vaccine could work perfectly well and some not willing book a morning out with the undertaker.

book a morning out with the undertaker.

Sounds like a prize you might win on Going Live! back in the day.

Call in now to win a morning out with the Undertaker. Second prize Lunch with Rick Flair!

On the other hand, the vaccine could work perfectly well and some not willing book a morning out with the undertaker.

indeed ..it could work perfectly well and i hope it does... but its hardly a straight choice vaccine or die is it.....
its vacinate or run the risk of getting covid which is considerably different...

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Agree with this. the gov should definitely be clarifying why this is in place. If you google indemnity clauses for vaccinations it looks like this has been something long in the making and something many countries are agreeing to. Looks to me like pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of desperate governments and pushing for these clauses to be in place which isn't something that should be swept under the carpet (even for the 'greater good' that the vaccines may indeed lead to).

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Agree with this. the gov should definitely be clarifying why this is in place. If you google indemnity clauses for vaccinations it looks like thsis has been something long in the making and something many countries are agreeing to. Looks to me like pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of desperate governments and pushing for these clauses to be in place which isn't something that should be swept under the carpet (even for the 'greater good' that the vaccines may indeed lead to).

So basically the goverment gets to play Russian roulette with everyone's health!!

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Agree with this. the gov should definitely be clarifying why this is in place. If you google indemnity clauses for vaccinations it looks like this has been something long in the making and something many countries are agreeing to. Looks to me like pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of desperate governments and pushing for these clauses to be in place which isn't something that should be swept under the carpet (even for the 'greater good' that the vaccines may indeed lead to).

agree
but have to say.... its not something thats been there all along , the indemnity is something new thats been added to the emergency regulations for human medicines....

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Agree with this. the gov should definitely be clarifying why this is in place. If you google indemnity clauses for vaccinations it looks like this has been something long in the making and something many countries are agreeing to. Looks to me like pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of desperate governments and pushing for these clauses to be in place which isn't something that should be swept under the carpet (even for the 'greater good' that the vaccines may indeed lead to).

agree
but have to say.... its not something thats been there all along , the indemnity is something new thats been added to the emergency regulations for human medicines....

Sorry I meant a long time in the making in terms of the COVID vaccine, there was talk of indemnity clauses being negotiated and agreed back in the summer.

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Agree with this. the gov should definitely be clarifying why this is in place. If you google indemnity clauses for vaccinations it looks like this has been something long in the making and something many countries are agreeing to. Looks to me like pharmaceutical companies are taking advantage of desperate governments and pushing for these clauses to be in place which isn't something that should be swept under the carpet (even for the 'greater good' that the vaccines may indeed lead to).

agree
but have to say.... its not something thats been there all along , the indemnity is something new thats been added to the emergency regulations for human medicines....

Sorry I meant a long time in the making in terms of the COVID vaccine, there was talk of indemnity clauses being negotiated and agreed back in the summer.

yes.... but reading on here and listening to people out and about the indemnity clauses dont seem to be something the majority are aware of ..or the fact its being rolled out under emergency regulations... people want to have it.. fine .. but couldnt agree more that it should be clarified by government ... the more open and honest the better...

Some very good and sensible points around the indemnity and emergency regulations above. Finally, a reasonable and sensible conversation rather than all the name calling and conspiracy nutter this/anti vaxxer that.

Hopefully, those that are throwing around that kind of language like some kind of worsd confetti can start to see two things:

A) these are sensible questions to be asked and just because someone is asking them doesnt mean they have 100% decided the vaccine is evil, they are just asking the questions that really we all would ask if we weren't so desperate to end lockdown

B) the people asking these questions come across in their posts as rational and better informed than those trying to dismiss anyone asking these questions as a conspiracy nutter etc

Some very good and sensible points around the indemnity and emergency regulations above. Finally, a reasonable and sensible conversation rather than all the name calling and conspiracy nutter this/anti vaxxer that.

Hopefully, those that are throwing around that kind of language like some kind of worsd confetti can start to see two things:

A) these are sensible questions to be asked and just because someone is asking them doesnt mean they have 100% decided the vaccine is evil, they are just asking the questions that really we all would ask if we weren't so desperate to end lockdown

B) the people asking these questions come across in their posts as rational and better informed than those trying to dismiss anyone asking these questions as a conspiracy nutter etc

Lmao. Love this post. Very elegant at the start congratulating the content of the thread and it’s contributors only at the end to insult the people on the opposite of his opinion as less informed I’m guessing meaning thick. Hats off to you sir on how you’ve slipped an insult in.

Some very good and sensible points around the indemnity and emergency regulations above. Finally, a reasonable and sensible conversation rather than all the name calling and conspiracy nutter this/anti vaxxer that.

Hopefully, those that are throwing around that kind of language like some kind of worsd confetti can start to see two things:

A) these are sensible questions to be asked and just because someone is asking them doesnt mean they have 100% decided the vaccine is evil, they are just asking the questions that really we all would ask if we weren't so desperate to end lockdown

B) the people asking these questions come across in their posts as rational and better informed than those trying to dismiss anyone asking these questions as a conspiracy nutter etc

Lmao. Love this post. Very elegant at the start congratulating the content of the thread and it’s contributors only at the end to insult the people on the opposite of his opinion as less informed I’m guessing meaning thick. Hats off to you sir on how you’ve slipped an insult in.

i dont think he is implying they are thick... i think he knows full well its the opposite as when it comes to the vaccine itself they spin off figures and percentages and can tell you what methods are being used by which companies etc.... but these very same people faced with an article or question regarding clauses or concerns about safety immediately switch over to ignore , dismiss and abuse mode... ...no the answer to why are there indemnity clauses is not because there will be people claiming they caught a cold in the surgery while waiting for the vaccine... or anything to do with lochness...
fear is a terrible thing... media driven fear of even wanting to consider the truth...even worse....

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?
.

Basically:
Far more money given
Far more people working on it
A lot of technology advancement/availability
Very similar to something they'd been working on recently
The virus is fast spreading which allows trials to end quicker.

the issue is time.... you can not judge the effects of..say smoking for 10 years by giving 520, 30 year olds a weeks cigarettes and going on the result... a year is a year...

That one's easy mate. They're working in Chimp years

Can I ask what specific long term effect you're worried about?

Would you rather we develop a perfectly good vaccine and then wait a decade before giving it to the public? A decade of corona deaths and potentially long term effects of that or a vaccine?

The problem with unknown side effects of a rushed vaccine using a brand new approach is that they are unknown.

As I've said consistently on this topic, for me it is about personal freedoms and personal choice.

It's why I get a bit more passionate when people throw around silly statements like 'if you don't get vaccinated you should lose your access to the NHS' without giving a second thought to the actual implications of what they are saying.

Too much of our thinking today is in the present, without taking the time to learn from the past and think of what our actions might be three, four or five steps down the line. It's empty-headed sloganeering, but that doesn't stop it from becoming a well-versed mantra chanted by the mob with their pitchforks aloft, hunting down the unclean.

Again, I've read enough history to know we are only ever a few steps away from mass hysteria and good people can do all sorts of bad things when they become infused into the mob.

It's why people like Jacinda Ardern, one of the most powerful and influential women on the planet, and her glib rhetoric about locking healthy people who've committed no crime away indefinitely, scare the living shit out of me to be perfectly honest.

The vaccine is there and it is should be a personal choice if you want to take it or not.

If you see more danger in taking an untested drug rushed to market, than in taking your chances with a virus that has a 99.3% survival rate, I don't see why that should be an issue for anyone. Equally, if you fear the virus more than the vaccine then fill your boots.

If it is as effective as they say, against a disease with such a high survival rate, there is no logical reason whatsoever that anyone should be made to take it and as I've said on countless times, mandatory doesn't just mean pinning someone down and jabbing them in the arm, it can be far more subtle than that and enough people on here seem happy to push for such approaches in the name of the greater good - another phrase that will send shivers down the spine of anyone who has spent time reading about the horrors of the 20th century and the rhetoric that led up to them.

The virus, the lockdowns and the vaccine all have felt to be a bit too close to an engineered Hegalian dialectic too me (i..e problem, reaction, resolution), and while that may be seeing monsters lurking in the dark that simply aren't there, I on a personal level, think it is just prudent to wait.

Especially as there is no short supply of people keen to get the vaccine and it will be in limited supply across the near-term anyway, really and truly it is something of a non-issue for me, as long as it isn't mandatory.

As I've said a few times now, I'm not anti-vaccination, but on this occasion, weighing up the odds, I'll take my time hanging around at the back of the queue.

You could've stopped writing after your first paragraph tbh

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?
.

Basically:
Far more money given
Far more people working on it
A lot of technology advancement/availability
Very similar to something they'd been working on recently
The virus is fast spreading which allows trials to end quicker.

the issue is time.... you can not judge the effects of..say smoking for 10 years by giving 520, 30 year olds a weeks cigarettes and going on the result... a year is a year...

That one's easy mate. They're working in Chimp years

Can I ask what specific long term effect you're worried about?

Would you rather we develop a perfectly good vaccine and then wait a decade before giving it to the public? A decade of corona deaths and potentially long term effects of that or a vaccine?

The problem with unknown side effects of a rushed vaccine using a brand new approach is that they are unknown.

As I've said consistently on this topic, for me it is about personal freedoms and personal choice.

It's why I get a bit more passionate when people throw around silly statements like 'if you don't get vaccinated you should lose your access to the NHS' without giving a second thought to the actual implications of what they are saying.

Too much of our thinking today is in the present, without taking the time to learn from the past and think of what our actions might be three, four or five steps down the line. It's empty-headed sloganeering, but that doesn't stop it from becoming a well-versed mantra chanted by the mob with their pitchforks aloft, hunting down the unclean.

Again, I've read enough history to know we are only ever a few steps away from mass hysteria and good people can do all sorts of bad things when they become infused into the mob.

It's why people like Jacinda Ardern, one of the most powerful and influential women on the planet, and her glib rhetoric about locking healthy people who've committed no crime away indefinitely, scare the living shit out of me to be perfectly honest.

The vaccine is there and it is should be a personal choice if you want to take it or not.

If you see more danger in taking an untested drug rushed to market, than in taking your chances with a virus that has a 99.3% survival rate, I don't see why that should be an issue for anyone. Equally, if you fear the virus more than the vaccine then fill your boots.

If it is as effective as they say, against a disease with such a high survival rate, there is no logical reason whatsoever that anyone should be made to take it and as I've said on countless times, mandatory doesn't just mean pinning someone down and jabbing them in the arm, it can be far more subtle than that and enough people on here seem happy to push for such approaches in the name of the greater good - another phrase that will send shivers down the spine of anyone who has spent time reading about the horrors of the 20th century and the rhetoric that led up to them.

The virus, the lockdowns and the vaccine all have felt to be a bit too close to an engineered Hegalian dialectic too me (i..e problem, reaction, resolution), and while that may be seeing monsters lurking in the dark that simply aren't there, I on a personal level, think it is just prudent to wait.

Especially as there is no short supply of people keen to get the vaccine and it will be in limited supply across the near-term anyway, really and truly it is something of a non-issue for me, as long as it isn't mandatory.

As I've said a few times now, I'm not anti-vaccination, but on this occasion, weighing up the odds, I'll take my time hanging around at the back of the queue.

You could've stopped writing after your first paragraph tbh

If someone asks me a direct question(s) I'll generally try to show them the courtesy of giving them a thought out response if I have time.

As I write for a living its not like it takes me a long time to put some thoughts down tbh.

Some very good and sensible points around the indemnity and emergency regulations above. Finally, a reasonable and sensible conversation rather than all the name calling and conspiracy nutter this/anti vaxxer that.

Hopefully, those that are throwing around that kind of language like some kind of worsd confetti can start to see two things:

A) these are sensible questions to be asked and just because someone is asking them doesnt mean they have 100% decided the vaccine is evil, they are just asking the questions that really we all would ask if we weren't so desperate to end lockdown

B) the people asking these questions come across in their posts as rational and better informed than those trying to dismiss anyone asking these questions as a conspiracy nutter etc

Lmao. Love this post. Very elegant at the start congratulating the content of the thread and it’s contributors only at the end to insult the people on the opposite of his opinion as less informed I’m guessing meaning thick. Hats off to you sir on how you’ve slipped an insult in.

Always take a compliment when its offered so thankyou

But its not so much that anyone on the other end of an opinion is thick for taking an opposing view, just pointing out that using labels like conspiracy nutter etc to counter reasonable questions is a lazy form of argument that doesn't answer the questions but instead tries to delegitimize the question itself by mocking the person who asked it.

Shouldn't matter who asks a question, it should matter if the question is valid. If someone doesn't think it is they should answer it with a strong counter-argument without needing to undermine the questioner by suggesting they are a wacko.

We'll all do it from time to time, myself included, so not saying anyone better than anyone else, just pointing out that we'd be better off if we didn't

Some very good and sensible points around the indemnity and emergency regulations above. Finally, a reasonable and sensible conversation rather than all the name calling and conspiracy nutter this/anti vaxxer that.

Hopefully, those that are throwing around that kind of language like some kind of worsd confetti can start to see two things:

A) these are sensible questions to be asked and just because someone is asking them doesnt mean they have 100% decided the vaccine is evil, they are just asking the questions that really we all would ask if we weren't so desperate to end lockdown

B) the people asking these questions come across in their posts as rational and better informed than those trying to dismiss anyone asking these questions as a conspiracy nutter etc

Lmao. Love this post. Very elegant at the start congratulating the content of the thread and it’s contributors only at the end to insult the people on the opposite of his opinion as less informed I’m guessing meaning thick. Hats off to you sir on how you’ve slipped an insult in.

Always take a compliment when its offered so thankyou

But its not so much that anyone on the other end of an opinion is thick for taking an opposing view, just pointing out that using labels like conspiracy nutter etc to counter reasonable questions is a lazy form of argument that doesn't answer the questions but instead tries to delegitimize the question itself by mocking the person who asked it.

Shouldn't matter who asks a question, it should matter if the question is valid. If someone doesn't think it is they should answer it with a strong counter-argument without needing to undermine the questioner by suggesting they are a wacko.

We'll all do it from time to time, myself included, so not saying anyone better than anyone else, just pointing out that we'd be better off if we didn't

Totally in agreement with you.

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?
.

Basically:
Far more money given
Far more people working on it
A lot of technology advancement/availability
Very similar to something they'd been working on recently
The virus is fast spreading which allows trials to end quicker.

the issue is time.... you can not judge the effects of..say smoking for 10 years by giving 520, 30 year olds a weeks cigarettes and going on the result... a year is a year...

That one's easy mate. They're working in Chimp years

Can I ask what specific long term effect you're worried about?

Would you rather we develop a perfectly good vaccine and then wait a decade before giving it to the public? A decade of corona deaths and potentially long term effects of that or a vaccine?

i think a vaccine shouldnt be rolled out through emergency regs with a no liability clause attached to it... nobody can be happy about that surely ? what side effects... its impossible to know...

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?
.

Basically:
Far more money given
Far more people working on it
A lot of technology advancement/availability
Very similar to something they'd been working on recently
The virus is fast spreading which allows trials to end quicker.

the issue is time.... you can not judge the effects of..say smoking for 10 years by giving 520, 30 year olds a weeks cigarettes and going on the result... a year is a year...

That one's easy mate. They're working in Chimp years

Can I ask what specific long term effect you're worried about?

Would you rather we develop a perfectly good vaccine and then wait a decade before giving it to the public? A decade of corona deaths and potentially long term effects of that or a vaccine?

i think a vaccine shouldnt be rolled out through emergency regs with a no liability clause attached to it... nobody can be happy about that surely ? what side effects... its impossible to know...

The trouble is mate,they have scared the shit out of enough people,and in a lot of cases,terrified a large percentage of the population.
I read an article somewhere,at the very beginning of the covid outbreak,where the writer pointed to the very thing that is now happening! The government he said,would scare the shit out of the country,enough to get the people begging for help(vaccine)and when its revealed they have one(vaccine)people would be begging to be vaccinated against this terrible virus!!! Making government our saviours against a virus that in truth,kills a very small percentage of those unfortunate enough to catch it.Well this part seems to be coming true to his predictions!!

If this country had lost half a million people to covid,then maybe emergency measures would be required,but for the amount which have died,its a step too far,and no liabilities if it does go tits up? If that doesnt make you worry,then good luck,for some,its too much of a concern,to just line up and accept the risks involved.as ealing has eloquently put(on the vast majority of posts to)it,the choice is down to the individual, and name calling is a weak response,whatever the topic.

Apparently, we who will be vaccinated can still be carriers.It could be up our nose,throat and ond on our hands.
So life will return to some kind of normaility,but the people who havn't had the vaccine could be at more risk.

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?
.

Basically:
Far more money given
Far more people working on it
A lot of technology advancement/availability
Very similar to something they'd been working on recently
The virus is fast spreading which allows trials to end quicker.

the issue is time.... you can not judge the effects of..say smoking for 10 years by giving 520, 30 year olds a weeks cigarettes and going on the result... a year is a year...

That one's easy mate. They're working in Chimp years

Can I ask what specific long term effect you're worried about?

Would you rather we develop a perfectly good vaccine and then wait a decade before giving it to the public? A decade of corona deaths and potentially long term effects of that or a vaccine?

i think a vaccine shouldnt be rolled out through emergency regs with a no liability clause attached to it... nobody can be happy about that surely ? what side effects... its impossible to know...

The trouble is mate,they have scared the shit out of enough people,and in a lot of cases,terrified a large percentage of the population.
I read an article somewhere,at the very beginning of the covid outbreak,where the writer pointed to the very thing that is now happening! The government he said,would scare the shit out of the country,enough to get the people begging for help(vaccine)and when its revealed they have one(vaccine)people would be begging to be vaccinated against this terrible virus!!! Making government our saviours against a virus that in truth,kills a very small percentage of those unfortunate enough to catch it.Well this part seems to be coming true to his predictions!!

If this country had lost half a million people to covid,then maybe emergency measures would be required,but for the amount which have died,its a step too far,and no liabilities if it does go tits up? If that doesnt make you worry,then good luck,for some,its too much of a concern,to just line up and accept the risks involved.as ealing has eloquently put(on the vast majority of posts to)it,the choice is down to the individual, and name calling is a weak response,whatever the topic.

Ok no need for name calling, and maybe people arent following conspiracy nutters I'll take that back

"I read an article somewhere,at the very beginning of the covid outbreak,where the writer pointed to the very thing that is now happening! The government he said,would scare the shit out of the country,enough to get the people begging for help(vaccine)and when its revealed they have one(vaccine)people would be begging to be vaccinated against this terrible virus!!! Making government our saviours against a virus that in truth,kills a very small percentage of those unfortunate enough to catch it.Well this part seems to be coming true to his predictions!!"


So the government tried to scare the shit out of the public just so they could announce a vaccine, which at the time hadn't been made so they would-be saviours, in one to ten years time?


"If this country had lost half a million people to covid,then maybe emergency measures would be required."

So we could have cracked on regardless with no need for any type of emergency measures until 500,0000 people had died with covid, and maybe done something then?

Maybe the fact the country has had to grind to a halt and lost billions of pounds trying to contain the virus, and it's still spreading isn't an emergency?

Maybe it's true that one poster said in the other thread the government are trying to shut down the airlines so that hard working-class people can't go on holiday?

I'm going to think about these alternative views for a few hours, maybe I've got it wrong?

Maybe I should stop listening to doctors, and experts in the medical profession and believe some of these alternative views?

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?
.

Basically:
Far more money given
Far more people working on it
A lot of technology advancement/availability
Very similar to something they'd been working on recently
The virus is fast spreading which allows trials to end quicker.

the issue is time.... you can not judge the effects of..say smoking for 10 years by giving 520, 30 year olds a weeks cigarettes and going on the result... a year is a year...

That one's easy mate. They're working in Chimp years

Can I ask what specific long term effect you're worried about?

Would you rather we develop a perfectly good vaccine and then wait a decade before giving it to the public? A decade of corona deaths and potentially long term effects of that or a vaccine?

The problem with unknown side effects of a rushed vaccine using a brand new approach is that they are unknown.

As I've said consistently on this topic, for me it is about personal freedoms and personal choice.

It's why I get a bit more passionate when people throw around silly statements like 'if you don't get vaccinated you should lose your access to the NHS' without giving a second thought to the actual implications of what they are saying.

Too much of our thinking today is in the present, without taking the time to learn from the past and think of what our actions might be three, four or five steps down the line. It's empty-headed sloganeering, but that doesn't stop it from becoming a well-versed mantra chanted by the mob with their pitchforks aloft, hunting down the unclean.

Again, I've read enough history to know we are only ever a few steps away from mass hysteria and good people can do all sorts of bad things when they become infused into the mob.

It's why people like Jacinda Ardern, one of the most powerful and influential women on the planet, and her glib rhetoric about locking healthy people who've committed no crime away indefinitely, scare the living shit out of me to be perfectly honest.

The vaccine is there and it is should be a personal choice if you want to take it or not.

If you see more danger in taking an untested drug rushed to market, than in taking your chances with a virus that has a 99.3% survival rate, I don't see why that should be an issue for anyone. Equally, if you fear the virus more than the vaccine then fill your boots.

If it is as effective as they say, against a disease with such a high survival rate, there is no logical reason whatsoever that anyone should be made to take it and as I've said on countless times, mandatory doesn't just mean pinning someone down and jabbing them in the arm, it can be far more subtle than that and enough people on here seem happy to push for such approaches in the name of the greater good - another phrase that will send shivers down the spine of anyone who has spent time reading about the horrors of the 20th century and the rhetoric that led up to them.

The virus, the lockdowns and the vaccine all have felt to be a bit too close to an engineered Hegalian dialectic too me (i..e problem, reaction, resolution), and while that may be seeing monsters lurking in the dark that simply aren't there, I on a personal level, think it is just prudent to wait.

Especially as there is no short supply of people keen to get the vaccine and it will be in limited supply across the near-term anyway, really and truly it is something of a non-issue for me, as long as it isn't mandatory.

As I've said a few times now, I'm not anti-vaccination, but on this occasion, weighing up the odds, I'll take my time hanging around at the back of the queue.

It's simple risk analysis, do you know of anyone who has been hospitalised or died from the vaccine?

Do you know of anyone who has died or been hospitalised from the virus?

100% survival rate beats 99.3%.

Granted Covid has been here about 10 months and vaccine testing about 4 months, but so far one looks far safer than the other.

Whilst everybody bangs on about this 96% effective. If it is so successful, so safe, why do they require protection from any legal action? Surely this is a genuine question, that should be looked into and given a proper answer?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 1606930039

Also, I just seen an interview with a BBC news rolled out GP stating that the type vaccine (a new type) usually takes 10 years to go through all the tests/monitoring/etc but this one of the same type of new vacine has acheived this within 8 months ?

She stated that no corners had been cut .

If that is so, why do they normally take 10 years - so in that instance corners must have been cut ?
.

Basically:
Far more money given
Far more people working on it
A lot of technology advancement/availability
Very similar to something they'd been working on recently
The virus is fast spreading which allows trials to end quicker.

the issue is time.... you can not judge the effects of..say smoking for 10 years by giving 520, 30 year olds a weeks cigarettes and going on the result... a year is a year...

That one's easy mate. They're working in Chimp years

Can I ask what specific long term effect you're worried about?

Would you rather we develop a perfectly good vaccine and then wait a decade before giving it to the public? A decade of corona deaths and potentially long term effects of that or a vaccine?

The problem with unknown side effects of a rushed vaccine using a brand new approach is that they are unknown.

As I've said consistently on this topic, for me it is about personal freedoms and personal choice.

It's why I get a bit more passionate when people throw around silly statements like 'if you don't get vaccinated you should lose your access to the NHS' without giving a second thought to the actual implications of what they are saying.

Too much of our thinking today is in the present, without taking the time to learn from the past and think of what our actions might be three, four or five steps down the line. It's empty-headed sloganeering, but that doesn't stop it from becoming a well-versed mantra chanted by the mob with their pitchforks aloft, hunting down the unclean.

Again, I've read enough history to know we are only ever a few steps away from mass hysteria and good people can do all sorts of bad things when they become infused into the mob.

It's why people like Jacinda Ardern, one of the most powerful and influential women on the planet, and her glib rhetoric about locking healthy people who've committed no crime away indefinitely, scare the living shit out of me to be perfectly honest.

The vaccine is there and it is should be a personal choice if you want to take it or not.

If you see more danger in taking an untested drug rushed to market, than in taking your chances with a virus that has a 99.3% survival rate, I don't see why that should be an issue for anyone. Equally, if you fear the virus more than the vaccine then fill your boots.

If it is as effective as they say, against a disease with such a high survival rate, there is no logical reason whatsoever that anyone should be made to take it and as I've said on countless times, mandatory doesn't just mean pinning someone down and jabbing them in the arm, it can be far more subtle than that and enough people on here seem happy to push for such approaches in the name of the greater good - another phrase that will send shivers down the spine of anyone who has spent time reading about the horrors of the 20th century and the rhetoric that led up to them.

The virus, the lockdowns and the vaccine all have felt to be a bit too close to an engineered Hegalian dialectic too me (i..e problem, reaction, resolution), and while that may be seeing monsters lurking in the dark that simply aren't there, I on a personal level, think it is just prudent to wait.

Especially as there is no short supply of people keen to get the vaccine and it will be in limited supply across the near-term anyway, really and truly it is something of a non-issue for me, as long as it isn't mandatory.

As I've said a few times now, I'm not anti-vaccination, but on this occasion, weighing up the odds, I'll take my time hanging around at the back of the queue.

It's simple risk analysis, do you know of anyone who has been hospitalised or died from the vaccine?

Do you know of anyone who has died or been hospitalised from the virus?

100% survival rate beats 99.3%.

Granted Covid has been here about 10 months and vaccine testing about 4 months, but so far one looks far safer than the other.

fair play...
have you got a link to this simple one risk analysis fits all ..... ?
as im pretty sure it should involve a few minor things like age, underlying illnesses , chances of getting covid at all . the 99.3% is across the board but differs considerably from one age group to another as do most things...

Too much in here to use quotes, so I've broken things up with bold to make it easier to follow

The first quote you referenced...

The government he said,would scare the shit out of the country

Rightly or wrongly the government and media's approach has undoubtedly scared a lot of people. You can argue it was necessary to restrict movements to stop the spread that is a valid argument if you believe the virus is as deadly as most would believe. However, it doesn't deny that the government have undoubtedly used fear as a mechanism for achieving that level of control.

Enough to get the people begging for help(vaccine)

Undeniable that people have definitely been desperate for the end of all this and a lockdown and praying/hoping for a vaccine.

and when its revealed they have one(vaccine)people would be begging to be vaccinated against this terrible virus!!!
Again, the number of comments on this forum along the lines of 'sign me up/i'lll be first in line' would suggest this is undeniably true.

Making government our saviours
Exactly how they will portray themselves, after all never let a good crisis go to waste as the lying political elite bastards like to say.

against a virus that in truth,kills a very small percentage of those unfortunate enough to catch it
Again, the morbidity rate for the general population is undeniably exceptionally low.

So everything in the above sounds fairly prescient to me and an accurate description of what has happened. Note that it doesn't say why (at least note in the above quote) but what.

So the government tried to scare the shit out of the public just so they could announce a vaccine, which at the time hadn't been made so they would-be saviours, in one to ten years time?

This is where the why comes in, which comes from your question. The why is editorialising, bringing an opinion into the mix. Perfectly valid thing to do but different from the what, which is just outlining the facts.

Pointing out a timeline of factual events isn't by definition conspiracy as it has demonstrably happened. Asserting why, could be in the realm of a conspiracy theory as it is not provable, just supposition. But in the above, it is your supposition, you tin hat-wearing loon you


The second quote you referenced...

So we could have cracked on regardless with no need for any type of emergency measures until 500,0000 people had died with covid, and maybe done something then?

Yes, at a certain point we absolutely should have cracked back on with life. After the end of the first lockdown, it was clear that this disease wasn't the plague it was alleged to be. It was also clear that all the modelling was grossly inaccurate and that 500K deaths would be a third of the global fatalities.

We could have and should have changed tack at that point to protect the vulnerable and get the rest of the population and the economy moving.

Maybe the fact the country has had to grind to a halt and lost billions of pounds trying to contain the virus, and it's still spreading isn't an emergency?

The country has ground to a halt and lost billions because of our response to the virus, not the virus itself. We are facing an economic crisis because of our overreaction, that is entirely of our own, or at least our governments making.


The third quote you referenced...

Maybe it's true that one poster said in the other thread the government are trying to shut down the airlines so that hard working-class people can't go on holiday?

And maybe this is the end of humanity like another poster said on a different thread?

My belief is that tackling the argument, not the person that makes it an argument far stronger. Just my personal position though.

Equally, because one poster has said something you think far-fetched does that mean any and all people that raise questions regarding the vaccine should be dismissed as 'conspiracy nutters'?

Equally, should all those so vocal about wanting to take the vaccine as soon as they can, be lumped into the same hyperbolic 'the end is nigh' zealotry as someone claiming covid will bring an end to humanity?

I'd say not personally, but others may disagree on either side of the table.



Your last question...

Maybe I should stop listening to doctors, and experts in the medical profession and believe some of these alternative views?


The mistake I'd politely point out your making here is that you're assuming that all medical experts hold the same view and all alternate views are from non-experts.

I'd suggest instead of stopping listen to doctors and experts in the medical profession, you should just broaden the scope of those that you do listen to.

You'll find plenty of alternative views to the mainstream narrative, from medical professionals like Dr Andrew Kaufman, Dr Mike Yeadon, Dr. Henning Bundgaard, Dr. Andreas Noack, Dr. Dolores Cahill to name just a few off the top of my head who all have impeccable CVs but don't tow the party line on COVID.

Listen to what they have to say as well as those that you've already paid attention to and you will get a more balanced viewpoint - from where you can arrive at a more informed decision one way or the other.

If you've never heard of any of these doctors, I'd ask that most important of all questions - why?

End of the day, anyone and everyone who want the virus fill your boots. Happy to let you all go first while I take a more cautious path and see where we are when we get there.

Ignore this post I was trying to fix a typo in the other one and quoted my entire post in a new one by accident and can't work out how to delete

Ignore this post I was trying to fix a typo in the other one and quoted my entire post in a new one by accident and can't work out how to delete

Well put(as per).I noticed your typo(giggled!)someone will pick you up on it no doubt!

Ignore this post I was trying to fix a typo in the other one and quoted my entire post in a new one by accident and can't work out how to delete

Well put(as per).I noticed your typo(giggled!)someone will pick you up on it no doubt!

Cheers buddy, couldn't find a delete button for the life of me, fat thumbs and tired old eyes I guess

So, after a few days of voting, 75% will be having the vaccine when offered. On the basis that not too many very elderly people access this site, of which the majority are likely to have the vaccine as they are most at risk from the virus; it suggests the minimum government target of 70% is likely to be reached. Therefore, on reading the posts, this should get rid of the virus in the next few months, but those who take the vaccine may fall ill or die from its effects in the long term.
At least we have a few years attending matches again before we drop!