comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Robbb (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ruiney (U1005)
posted 49 seconds ago
Having covid doesn’t mean you have better immunity than a vaccinated person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to admit I thought it did, as it doesn't waver like the jabs do, but happy to be proven wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Djokovic got Covid twice in 6 months (according to him) so I wouldn’t have through natural antibodies are quite as great as some think. Different variants will cause different issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would also be pretty irresponsible, I think, to promote ‘natural immunity’ as a sort of vaccine-equivalent even if it were clearly more effective. Quite simply, it encourages people to get themselves infected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This. I remember when anti VAX started. Some people had measles "parties" with their kids visiting an infected kid to get "natural" immunity. Some kids died.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 30 minutes ago
But... with those hospitalised they aren't able to spread it amongst the general public,
—————
Just around the hospital, then (included their unvaccinated anaesthetists&hellipOh, and that’s assuming they didn’t have Covid before they went into hospital.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as people spread it around their family in isolation 😉
Do people still isolate? I guess some won't as they need to work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was just pointing out that saying hospitalised people aren’t able to spread it isn’t really true. They can spread it to the very people you’d least want to get it - doctors, nurses and very vulnerable patients.
With the old and vulnerable all vaccinated and a very high number of the general public vaccinated, the situation is coming under control. Never going to reach 100% vaccination rate and it is not needed. Just like there will never be 0 crime, or 0 accidents. It is about keeping it manageable. The Covid situation wasn't manageable before, but now it pretty much is. No need to be so dramatic towards unvaccinated people accusing them of putting everyone at serious risk.
I go away and climb hills every weekend, often putting myself in risky situations. If everyone did that then the NHS would be facked as large numbers would get injured. I am well equipped to deal with the situation I put myself in though. An 80 year old with a hip replacement wouldn't be so 1000s of those going climbing would make the issue unmanageable. Does it mean climbing hills should be banned?
I am more likely to take up a hospital bed through my lifestyle choice than someone is from not getting vaccinated.
Am I a disgrace for putting everyone at risk?
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm a bit slow, so be friendly. What is the issue against people not wanting the vaccine? Surely it is just themselves that they are risking? Doesn't it just reduce the symptoms?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
just google it.
tell you what i will do it for you....
Vaccines work by stimulating your immune system to produce antibodies, exactly like it would if you were exposed to the disease. After getting vaccinated, you develop immunity to that disease, without having to get the disease first.
++++
So, vaccinated poeple have less chance of being seriously ill to the extent they need hospital treatment...
So they dont take up all the beds in ITC units in NHS hospitals up and down the country....
Thus reducing the chances o infecting professional heathcare workers (doctors and nurses) contracting it from you when the mop your brow and hold your hand during your dying breaths....
And prevent unnecessary absenteeism of essential NHS workers who have to isolate in accordance with the GVTs protocol....
Prevent other poeple (remember them?) having life saving treatment for other illnesses cancelled through lack of NHS resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍
So to sum up, it's just due to hospitalisation numbers and what that encompasses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially yes. But as it suggests you can help that by being a good citizen and doing your bit to ease things.
You also chose to ignore the threat to the health of Doctors and nurses and those of other ill people who also need hospital treatment for other stuff.
Do you even care?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm. I'll ignore the final sentence as it's a bit silly.
Now bear with me... Covid spreads and there is nothing we can really do to stop it completely. Regardless of vaccine or not, would it be fair to assume the number of people with covid will be the same? So the danger of spread is the same. But... with those hospitalised they aren't able to spread it amongst the general public, sooooo spread across the population is reduced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, no, no.
This is why I despise these threads (no offence - this isn’t directed at you!), because there’s going to be so much left on here that’s inaccurate or incomplete.
Vaccination *does in itself* reduce the likelihood of an individual being infected, and it *does in itself* reduce the likelihood that the individual will pass the virus on to the next person.
It doesn’t eliminate those risks, but it does reduce them.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm a bit slow, so be friendly. What is the issue against people not wanting the vaccine? Surely it is just themselves that they are risking? Doesn't it just reduce the symptoms?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
just google it.
tell you what i will do it for you....
Vaccines work by stimulating your immune system to produce antibodies, exactly like it would if you were exposed to the disease. After getting vaccinated, you develop immunity to that disease, without having to get the disease first.
++++
So, vaccinated poeple have less chance of being seriously ill to the extent they need hospital treatment...
So they dont take up all the beds in ITC units in NHS hospitals up and down the country....
Thus reducing the chances o infecting professional heathcare workers (doctors and nurses) contracting it from you when the mop your brow and hold your hand during your dying breaths....
And prevent unnecessary absenteeism of essential NHS workers who have to isolate in accordance with the GVTs protocol....
Prevent other poeple (remember them?) having life saving treatment for other illnesses cancelled through lack of NHS resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍
So to sum up, it's just due to hospitalisation numbers and what that encompasses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially yes. But as it suggests you can help that by being a good citizen and doing your bit to ease things.
You also chose to ignore the threat to the health of Doctors and nurses and those of other ill people who also need hospital treatment for other stuff.
Do you even care?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm. I'll ignore the final sentence as it's a bit silly.
Now bear with me... Covid spreads and there is nothing we can really do to stop it completely. Regardless of vaccine or not, would it be fair to assume the number of people with covid will be the same? So the danger of spread is the same. But... with those hospitalised they aren't able to spread it amongst the general public, sooooo spread across the population is reduced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, no, no.
This is why I despise these threads (no offence - this isn’t directed at you!), because there’s going to be so much left on here that’s inaccurate or incomplete.
Vaccination *does in itself* reduce the likelihood of an individual being infected, and it *does in itself* reduce the likelihood that the individual will pass the virus on to the next person.
It doesn’t eliminate those risks, but it does reduce them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the anger at the unvaccinated does come from the period when the government were getting people to be vaccinated through misinformation. "Get the vaccine and protect everyone else". People thought that they couldn't catch or spread it by getting the vaccine. This is now known not to be the case. So does a small reduction in these things justify the same anger towards unvaccinated as originally when they were thought to be killing everyone else?
Admin
I think that there’s a real question as to whether in a lightly moderated forum such as JA606, given the wealth of expert advice and information out there across the web, given the complexity of the subject, and given the incredible damage that vaccine misinformation (disseminated knowingly and purposefully or otherwise) has done the last 12 months, threads on the topic should still be published.
I know it’s very difficult for you guys to make decisions on and police these things for multiple reasons (and I think we all appreciate you do a top job considering!), but I think there’s legitimate cause for concern here.
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
With the old and vulnerable all vaccinated and a very high number of the general public vaccinated, the situation is coming under control. Never going to reach 100% vaccination rate and it is not needed. Just like there will never be 0 crime, or 0 accidents. It is about keeping it manageable. The Covid situation wasn't manageable before, but now it pretty much is. No need to be so dramatic towards unvaccinated people accusing them of putting everyone at serious risk.
I go away and climb hills every weekend, often putting myself in risky situations. If everyone did that then the NHS would be facked as large numbers would get injured. I am well equipped to deal with the situation I put myself in though. An 80 year old with a hip replacement wouldn't be so 1000s of those going climbing would make the issue unmanageable. Does it mean climbing hills should be banned?
I am more likely to take up a hospital bed through my lifestyle choice than someone is from not getting vaccinated.
Am I a disgrace for putting everyone at risk?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By keeping yourself fit and healthy, you’re helping the NHS. There are very good reasons for you to go hiking etc. We can’t make life risk-free and nor should we want to. Your chosen activity of hiking fares well on the risk/benefit scale.
For a lot of people though, hospitalisation through Covid is increasingly ‘preventable’. And I don’t think ‘not talking a vaccine’ equates easily to ‘walking in the hills’.
It’s not a bad analogy, to be fair, but I don’t think it fits all that well.
Barry
I’m not defending (or attacking) the UK government’s actions, and I’m not interested in getting involved in the discussion about how people think others should view The Unvaccinated.
My concern is only the science being represented on here accurately.
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
Barry
I’m not defending (or attacking) the UK government’s actions, and I’m not interested in getting involved in the discussion about how people think others should view The Unvaccinated.
My concern is only the science being represented on here accurately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop being so melodramatic. Great to have your input, but end it there.👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s probably the least melodramatic comment on the whole thread
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
Hi Rosso.
Overall I think it has been a pretty fair debate. The number of pro vaxxers have far outweighed the antis, but they have been given chance to have their say, and some have made some good points.
In a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 8 minutes ago
Hi Rosso.
Overall I think it has been a pretty fair debate. The number of pro vaxxers have far outweighed the antis, but they have been given chance to have their say, and some have made some good points.
In a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this article might swing the vote though.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-vax-leader-christopher-key-urges-followers-to-drink-their-own-urine-to-fight-covid-19?via=twitter_page
a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
—————
Not sure about ‘handsomely’ - since my booster I look like Sloth from The Goonies
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Hi Rosso.
Overall I think it has been a pretty fair debate. The number of pro vaxxers have far outweighed the antis, but they have been given chance to have their say, and some have made some good points.
In a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that there shouldn’t really be a debate, 52; not on whether the vaccines are net positive or negative anyway.
There’s the evidence in the data and the analysis of the data - which says that everybody should be getting vaccinated, including those who’ve previously been infected and barring a select few for medical reasons - and that’s it.
There are separate debates about the ethics of mandating vaccination, and about restricting the privileges of unvaccinated people in society via vaccine passes, for example, but those aren’t strictly about the vaccines themselves. They’re rather about as a society where we draw the line in terms of the imposition of measures to protect the wider public or the more vulnerable amongst us versus personal freedoms.
The vaccine ‘debate’ is done. Very simply, unless you have a medical reason for not getting vaccinated, you should get vaccinated.
In a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
________
That's what the anti Brexit said
The problem is that there shouldn’t really be a debate, 52; not on whether the vaccines are net positive or negative anyway.
———
Sadly we live in a society where people think that ‘balance’ should be given to a debate where no such debate should exist. We saw the same thing with Brexit and see the same thing with climate change.
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 1 minute ago
In a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
________
That's what the anti Brexit said
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True.
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Hi Rosso.
Overall I think it has been a pretty fair debate. The number of pro vaxxers have far outweighed the antis, but they have been given chance to have their say, and some have made some good points.
In a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that there shouldn’t really be a debate, 52; not on whether the vaccines are net positive or negative anyway.
There’s the evidence in the data and the analysis of the data - which says that everybody should be getting vaccinated, including those who’ve previously been infected and barring a select few for medical reasons - and that’s it.
There are separate debates about the ethics of mandating vaccination, and about restricting the privileges of unvaccinated people in society via vaccine passes, for example, but those aren’t strictly about the vaccines themselves. They’re rather about as a society where we draw the line in terms of the imposition of measures to protect the wider public or the more vulnerable amongst us versus personal freedoms.
The vaccine ‘debate’ is done. Very simply, unless you have a medical reason for not getting vaccinated, you should get vaccinated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My OP was to ask, and find out what and why antivaxxers were against it. I honestly think everyone is entitled to their views, and there were plenty with the ammunition to shoot them down.
So I'm happy with the way it went, and am sorry you aren't
If you were to do a vote you should do it in 5 categories as it is a more complex issue than being pro or anti vaxx.
1. Pro vaccine - vaccines should be mandatory for all
2. Pro vaccine - people should be encouraged to get it but not mandatory for everyone
3. Pro vaccine/neutral - The vaccine is mainly for protecting the individual and therefore someone else not being vaccinated doesn't affect me massively
4. Anti vaccine - believe that natural immunity, health status etc is enough or better than a vaccine, and that it should be a choice
5. Anti vaccine - their trying too inject us with 5g so that they can track are location all a flat the world
One thing that is evident in all these threads about vaccinations
The so called anti vaxxers don’t seem to be so vociferous in the perceived belief that no one should be getting vaccinated, the ones I’ve seen post seem to be happy in their choice and happy for other people to make their choice too
The majority (not all) of pro vaxxers seem also to be happy in their choice but quite unhappy at other people’s choice if it’s different to their own
It was EXACTLY the same on here with Brexit
comment by Jadon The King Sancho (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
The problem is that there shouldn’t really be a debate, 52; not on whether the vaccines are net positive or negative anyway.
———
Sadly we live in a society where people think that ‘balance’ should be given to a debate where no such debate should exist. We saw the same thing with Brexit and see the same thing with climate change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually think there should be a debate but not among us who don't know enough about the topic. I'd happily watch a debate among well respected doctors/immunologists from both sides. Has there been one actually?
comment by IAWT (U10012)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jadon The King Sancho (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
The problem is that there shouldn’t really be a debate, 52; not on whether the vaccines are net positive or negative anyway.
———
Sadly we live in a society where people think that ‘balance’ should be given to a debate where no such debate should exist. We saw the same thing with Brexit and see the same thing with climate change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually think there should be a debate but not among us who don't know enough about the topic. I'd happily watch a debate among well respected doctors/immunologists from both sides. Has there been one actually?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, because >99% of immunologists and virologists are in agreement on the subject.
It’s like having a debate between physicists on flat Earth theory or between climatologists on MMCC. The results are in.
Sign in if you want to comment
Anti vax.
Page 11 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 3 hours, 48 minutes ago
comment by Robbb (U22716)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Alisson Becker, Liverpool's Number 9 (U3979)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Ruiney (U1005)
posted 49 seconds ago
Having covid doesn’t mean you have better immunity than a vaccinated person.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to admit I thought it did, as it doesn't waver like the jabs do, but happy to be proven wrong.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Djokovic got Covid twice in 6 months (according to him) so I wouldn’t have through natural antibodies are quite as great as some think. Different variants will cause different issues.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It would also be pretty irresponsible, I think, to promote ‘natural immunity’ as a sort of vaccine-equivalent even if it were clearly more effective. Quite simply, it encourages people to get themselves infected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This. I remember when anti VAX started. Some people had measles "parties" with their kids visiting an infected kid to get "natural" immunity. Some kids died.
posted on 10/1/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/1/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Clockwork Red: Jadon and the Argonauts (U4892)
posted 30 minutes ago
But... with those hospitalised they aren't able to spread it amongst the general public,
—————
Just around the hospital, then (included their unvaccinated anaesthetists&hellipOh, and that’s assuming they didn’t have Covid before they went into hospital.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as people spread it around their family in isolation 😉
Do people still isolate? I guess some won't as they need to work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I was just pointing out that saying hospitalised people aren’t able to spread it isn’t really true. They can spread it to the very people you’d least want to get it - doctors, nurses and very vulnerable patients.
posted on 10/1/22
With the old and vulnerable all vaccinated and a very high number of the general public vaccinated, the situation is coming under control. Never going to reach 100% vaccination rate and it is not needed. Just like there will never be 0 crime, or 0 accidents. It is about keeping it manageable. The Covid situation wasn't manageable before, but now it pretty much is. No need to be so dramatic towards unvaccinated people accusing them of putting everyone at serious risk.
I go away and climb hills every weekend, often putting myself in risky situations. If everyone did that then the NHS would be facked as large numbers would get injured. I am well equipped to deal with the situation I put myself in though. An 80 year old with a hip replacement wouldn't be so 1000s of those going climbing would make the issue unmanageable. Does it mean climbing hills should be banned?
I am more likely to take up a hospital bed through my lifestyle choice than someone is from not getting vaccinated.
Am I a disgrace for putting everyone at risk?
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm a bit slow, so be friendly. What is the issue against people not wanting the vaccine? Surely it is just themselves that they are risking? Doesn't it just reduce the symptoms?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
just google it.
tell you what i will do it for you....
Vaccines work by stimulating your immune system to produce antibodies, exactly like it would if you were exposed to the disease. After getting vaccinated, you develop immunity to that disease, without having to get the disease first.
++++
So, vaccinated poeple have less chance of being seriously ill to the extent they need hospital treatment...
So they dont take up all the beds in ITC units in NHS hospitals up and down the country....
Thus reducing the chances o infecting professional heathcare workers (doctors and nurses) contracting it from you when the mop your brow and hold your hand during your dying breaths....
And prevent unnecessary absenteeism of essential NHS workers who have to isolate in accordance with the GVTs protocol....
Prevent other poeple (remember them?) having life saving treatment for other illnesses cancelled through lack of NHS resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍
So to sum up, it's just due to hospitalisation numbers and what that encompasses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially yes. But as it suggests you can help that by being a good citizen and doing your bit to ease things.
You also chose to ignore the threat to the health of Doctors and nurses and those of other ill people who also need hospital treatment for other stuff.
Do you even care?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm. I'll ignore the final sentence as it's a bit silly.
Now bear with me... Covid spreads and there is nothing we can really do to stop it completely. Regardless of vaccine or not, would it be fair to assume the number of people with covid will be the same? So the danger of spread is the same. But... with those hospitalised they aren't able to spread it amongst the general public, sooooo spread across the population is reduced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, no, no.
This is why I despise these threads (no offence - this isn’t directed at you!), because there’s going to be so much left on here that’s inaccurate or incomplete.
Vaccination *does in itself* reduce the likelihood of an individual being infected, and it *does in itself* reduce the likelihood that the individual will pass the virus on to the next person.
It doesn’t eliminate those risks, but it does reduce them.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 33 seconds ago
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 54 minutes ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 15 seconds ago
comment by RB&W - What is it now, Ralf? (U21434)
posted 19 seconds ago
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm a bit slow, so be friendly. What is the issue against people not wanting the vaccine? Surely it is just themselves that they are risking? Doesn't it just reduce the symptoms?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
just google it.
tell you what i will do it for you....
Vaccines work by stimulating your immune system to produce antibodies, exactly like it would if you were exposed to the disease. After getting vaccinated, you develop immunity to that disease, without having to get the disease first.
++++
So, vaccinated poeple have less chance of being seriously ill to the extent they need hospital treatment...
So they dont take up all the beds in ITC units in NHS hospitals up and down the country....
Thus reducing the chances o infecting professional heathcare workers (doctors and nurses) contracting it from you when the mop your brow and hold your hand during your dying breaths....
And prevent unnecessary absenteeism of essential NHS workers who have to isolate in accordance with the GVTs protocol....
Prevent other poeple (remember them?) having life saving treatment for other illnesses cancelled through lack of NHS resources
----------------------------------------------------------------------
👍
So to sum up, it's just due to hospitalisation numbers and what that encompasses.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Essentially yes. But as it suggests you can help that by being a good citizen and doing your bit to ease things.
You also chose to ignore the threat to the health of Doctors and nurses and those of other ill people who also need hospital treatment for other stuff.
Do you even care?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmm. I'll ignore the final sentence as it's a bit silly.
Now bear with me... Covid spreads and there is nothing we can really do to stop it completely. Regardless of vaccine or not, would it be fair to assume the number of people with covid will be the same? So the danger of spread is the same. But... with those hospitalised they aren't able to spread it amongst the general public, sooooo spread across the population is reduced.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No, no, no.
This is why I despise these threads (no offence - this isn’t directed at you!), because there’s going to be so much left on here that’s inaccurate or incomplete.
Vaccination *does in itself* reduce the likelihood of an individual being infected, and it *does in itself* reduce the likelihood that the individual will pass the virus on to the next person.
It doesn’t eliminate those risks, but it does reduce them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Most of the anger at the unvaccinated does come from the period when the government were getting people to be vaccinated through misinformation. "Get the vaccine and protect everyone else". People thought that they couldn't catch or spread it by getting the vaccine. This is now known not to be the case. So does a small reduction in these things justify the same anger towards unvaccinated as originally when they were thought to be killing everyone else?
posted on 10/1/22
Admin
I think that there’s a real question as to whether in a lightly moderated forum such as JA606, given the wealth of expert advice and information out there across the web, given the complexity of the subject, and given the incredible damage that vaccine misinformation (disseminated knowingly and purposefully or otherwise) has done the last 12 months, threads on the topic should still be published.
I know it’s very difficult for you guys to make decisions on and police these things for multiple reasons (and I think we all appreciate you do a top job considering!), but I think there’s legitimate cause for concern here.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 3 minutes ago
With the old and vulnerable all vaccinated and a very high number of the general public vaccinated, the situation is coming under control. Never going to reach 100% vaccination rate and it is not needed. Just like there will never be 0 crime, or 0 accidents. It is about keeping it manageable. The Covid situation wasn't manageable before, but now it pretty much is. No need to be so dramatic towards unvaccinated people accusing them of putting everyone at serious risk.
I go away and climb hills every weekend, often putting myself in risky situations. If everyone did that then the NHS would be facked as large numbers would get injured. I am well equipped to deal with the situation I put myself in though. An 80 year old with a hip replacement wouldn't be so 1000s of those going climbing would make the issue unmanageable. Does it mean climbing hills should be banned?
I am more likely to take up a hospital bed through my lifestyle choice than someone is from not getting vaccinated.
Am I a disgrace for putting everyone at risk?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By keeping yourself fit and healthy, you’re helping the NHS. There are very good reasons for you to go hiking etc. We can’t make life risk-free and nor should we want to. Your chosen activity of hiking fares well on the risk/benefit scale.
For a lot of people though, hospitalisation through Covid is increasingly ‘preventable’. And I don’t think ‘not talking a vaccine’ equates easily to ‘walking in the hills’.
It’s not a bad analogy, to be fair, but I don’t think it fits all that well.
posted on 10/1/22
Barry
I’m not defending (or attacking) the UK government’s actions, and I’m not interested in getting involved in the discussion about how people think others should view The Unvaccinated.
My concern is only the science being represented on here accurately.
posted on 10/1/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Michael, this isn't right. 😭 (U10408)
posted 52 seconds ago
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 4 minutes ago
Barry
I’m not defending (or attacking) the UK government’s actions, and I’m not interested in getting involved in the discussion about how people think others should view The Unvaccinated.
My concern is only the science being represented on here accurately.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Stop being so melodramatic. Great to have your input, but end it there.👍
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That’s probably the least melodramatic comment on the whole thread
posted on 10/1/22
Comment deleted by Site Moderator
posted on 10/1/22
Hi Rosso.
Overall I think it has been a pretty fair debate. The number of pro vaxxers have far outweighed the antis, but they have been given chance to have their say, and some have made some good points.
In a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
posted on 10/1/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 8 minutes ago
Hi Rosso.
Overall I think it has been a pretty fair debate. The number of pro vaxxers have far outweighed the antis, but they have been given chance to have their say, and some have made some good points.
In a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think this article might swing the vote though.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/anti-vax-leader-christopher-key-urges-followers-to-drink-their-own-urine-to-fight-covid-19?via=twitter_page
posted on 10/1/22
a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
—————
Not sure about ‘handsomely’ - since my booster I look like Sloth from The Goonies
posted on 10/1/22
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Hi Rosso.
Overall I think it has been a pretty fair debate. The number of pro vaxxers have far outweighed the antis, but they have been given chance to have their say, and some have made some good points.
In a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that there shouldn’t really be a debate, 52; not on whether the vaccines are net positive or negative anyway.
There’s the evidence in the data and the analysis of the data - which says that everybody should be getting vaccinated, including those who’ve previously been infected and barring a select few for medical reasons - and that’s it.
There are separate debates about the ethics of mandating vaccination, and about restricting the privileges of unvaccinated people in society via vaccine passes, for example, but those aren’t strictly about the vaccines themselves. They’re rather about as a society where we draw the line in terms of the imposition of measures to protect the wider public or the more vulnerable amongst us versus personal freedoms.
The vaccine ‘debate’ is done. Very simply, unless you have a medical reason for not getting vaccinated, you should get vaccinated.
posted on 10/1/22
In a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
________
That's what the anti Brexit said
posted on 10/1/22
The problem is that there shouldn’t really be a debate, 52; not on whether the vaccines are net positive or negative anyway.
———
Sadly we live in a society where people think that ‘balance’ should be given to a debate where no such debate should exist. We saw the same thing with Brexit and see the same thing with climate change.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Roy's Keane (U11635)
posted 1 minute ago
In a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
________
That's what the anti Brexit said
----------------------------------------------------------------------
True.
posted on 10/1/22
comment by And... Rosso... Though its... Yeah and... That... (U17054)
posted 3 minutes ago
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 1 minute ago
Hi Rosso.
Overall I think it has been a pretty fair debate. The number of pro vaxxers have far outweighed the antis, but they have been given chance to have their say, and some have made some good points.
In a true debate it would be possible to have a vote, but if we could I'm sure the provaxxers would win handsomely
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem is that there shouldn’t really be a debate, 52; not on whether the vaccines are net positive or negative anyway.
There’s the evidence in the data and the analysis of the data - which says that everybody should be getting vaccinated, including those who’ve previously been infected and barring a select few for medical reasons - and that’s it.
There are separate debates about the ethics of mandating vaccination, and about restricting the privileges of unvaccinated people in society via vaccine passes, for example, but those aren’t strictly about the vaccines themselves. They’re rather about as a society where we draw the line in terms of the imposition of measures to protect the wider public or the more vulnerable amongst us versus personal freedoms.
The vaccine ‘debate’ is done. Very simply, unless you have a medical reason for not getting vaccinated, you should get vaccinated.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
My OP was to ask, and find out what and why antivaxxers were against it. I honestly think everyone is entitled to their views, and there were plenty with the ammunition to shoot them down.
So I'm happy with the way it went, and am sorry you aren't
posted on 10/1/22
If you were to do a vote you should do it in 5 categories as it is a more complex issue than being pro or anti vaxx.
1. Pro vaccine - vaccines should be mandatory for all
2. Pro vaccine - people should be encouraged to get it but not mandatory for everyone
3. Pro vaccine/neutral - The vaccine is mainly for protecting the individual and therefore someone else not being vaccinated doesn't affect me massively
4. Anti vaccine - believe that natural immunity, health status etc is enough or better than a vaccine, and that it should be a choice
5. Anti vaccine - their trying too inject us with 5g so that they can track are location all a flat the world
posted on 10/1/22
One thing that is evident in all these threads about vaccinations
The so called anti vaxxers don’t seem to be so vociferous in the perceived belief that no one should be getting vaccinated, the ones I’ve seen post seem to be happy in their choice and happy for other people to make their choice too
The majority (not all) of pro vaxxers seem also to be happy in their choice but quite unhappy at other people’s choice if it’s different to their own
It was EXACTLY the same on here with Brexit
posted on 10/1/22
comment by Jadon The King Sancho (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
The problem is that there shouldn’t really be a debate, 52; not on whether the vaccines are net positive or negative anyway.
———
Sadly we live in a society where people think that ‘balance’ should be given to a debate where no such debate should exist. We saw the same thing with Brexit and see the same thing with climate change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually think there should be a debate but not among us who don't know enough about the topic. I'd happily watch a debate among well respected doctors/immunologists from both sides. Has there been one actually?
posted on 10/1/22
comment by IAWT (U10012)
posted 1 minute ago
comment by Jadon The King Sancho (U10026)
posted 2 minutes ago
The problem is that there shouldn’t really be a debate, 52; not on whether the vaccines are net positive or negative anyway.
———
Sadly we live in a society where people think that ‘balance’ should be given to a debate where no such debate should exist. We saw the same thing with Brexit and see the same thing with climate change.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I actually think there should be a debate but not among us who don't know enough about the topic. I'd happily watch a debate among well respected doctors/immunologists from both sides. Has there been one actually?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Not really, because >99% of immunologists and virologists are in agreement on the subject.
It’s like having a debate between physicists on flat Earth theory or between climatologists on MMCC. The results are in.
Page 11 of 13
9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13