Yeah but they still need to present something. Could say it's hassle actually taking the test but I do regular ones anyway and it's common sense to take one before being in big crowd. I think jabbed people should have to as well tbh but that's a separate debate.
Ah - well it’s more of a hassle for people who don’t do the regular ones because it isn’t part of the routine and they aren’t always in stock at the pharmacies
This is a coronavirus discussion topic where at least one person in the thread is a skeptic (not me). Is just pulling to “do your own research” card really the best approach here? If you don’t actually know offhand (and that would be completely fine) then just say so. That is fine. You just seem to speak authoritatively on this subject and I happen to be quite busy
Yes card's on the table, read the linked article. You have enough time to take part in this discussion.
Are you aware that the linked article does not answer my question? As in - at all. Maybe the embedded video does. But the words in that link do not answer my question “Not as accurate as PCR testing” is absolutely not an answer Blimey no wonder some people are skeptical if defenders both pull the “do you own research” card (commonly the tactic of someone who hasn’t done the research themselves and does not know the answer) and then fires off a link that does respond to what someone has asked - kind of proving the first part And I am not a skeptic, nor an anti vaxxer. But if I was this approach certainly would be rather unconvincing The “cards on the table” is a weird comment as well. I’m not sure what card you supposedly put on the table. Or if you are aware of how that term is supposed to be used …
What's your problem? “Not as accurate as PCR testing” isn't in my post? But yes if it's in comparison to self testing lateral flow "What kind of COVID-19 tests are available? What are antigens and antibodies? What about the accuracy of these tests? WHO’s Dr Hanan Balkhy explains COVID-19 tests in Science in 5" Something missing from that? Do you dispute the lack of reliability of self testing? Yes do your own research here's another link https://hospitalhealthcare.com/covid-19/covid-19-lateral-flow-tests-comparable-to-pcr/ and https://www.rcpath.org/profession/c...covid-19-tests-for-members-of-the-public.html
That was in your link. It was the only thing I could find when I assumed from the way you were talking that it would say something like - they are 70% reliable. Or they give a 50% false positive. Or, you know, something I definitely recall numbers and percentages being bandied around regarding earlier versions of these tests that weren’t rolled out fully because of things like this Not some vague thing about pcr being better but still not fully reliable And my “problem” is “do your own research” especially when mentioned over subjects like this where one side thinks the other is foolish for not seeing it their way is usually the clarion call of someone who doesn’t know the answer and hasn’t done the research but is just utterly convinced they are right anyway. Both the left and the right do it and everyone in between. But it is definitely more common on issues that are believed to be “settled” And such an approach is simply not going to work on unconvinced people if you are legitimately trying to convince them. Which often people aren’t in such scenarios And considering I am on board with most of what is going on including the vaccines and just thought I would (initially) casually enquire about a few things and was met with the response I got… Try it on, for example, Libby from above who is skeptical about the effectiveness on vaccines. “Do your own research” doesn’t work and is brushed off That being said - it is not incumbent on you to convince anyone. It is not your job (pre-empting this because this is often the next response and is of course technically true anyway) But yeah - I kind of took issue with casually asking someone for some information that I assumed they knew and being told to go away and do my own research. That’s not how to respond to questions. Especially not phrased like that. It’s just dismissive and seemingly assuming bad faith from the questioner
My apologies it is early so I was too brief. I meant “skeptical about the effectiveness/necessity for themselves and people in their age group” Which you have said. Or something pretty close at least. When asked why you hadn’t taken it
I hate the term anti-vaxx, it is bandied about willy nilly to cover anyone who hasn't had the jabs, usually followed by calling them C.T! The truth isn't as black and white as that, some are generally pro vaxx but as this is still in the testing research phase, are not willing to get it. Some could be for health reasons, phobia of needles, religion. Some may have had 1 or 2 jabs but won't be having anymore. The main point I firmly believe is we should be able to live in a pro choice world where the individual can make their own mind up and get it if they are happy to do so, stop getting it when they are happy to do so or never get any if they are happy to do so. If you've had your jab, you really shouldn't be worried about other people's status.if your worried then maybe the vaccine isn't as good as you want it to be. The fact that anyone can get it and pass it on regardless, means that if you've had the jab, and continue to have it, you have done all you can, short of lockdown for life, you have to live life, and everyone deserves that!
This originally started with discussion 25% of footballers who had no intention of getting one vaccine which I for the sake of brevity used the term “anti vax”. As you mention this is a loaded term due to the follow up you mention about CT In the case of THESE footballers I don’t honestly believe : - health reasons - needle phobia - have already have one or two Are viable explanations For 1. They are athletes. For 3. We know this isn’t true For 2 - I have a hard time believing this is 25% of footballers. Or even 5%. As in legit phobia. If you will have an injection for other purposes which I am sure many do then that isn’t a phobia At some point I might indulge my curiosity and see if there are stats out there for an estimate of people who have a phobia of needles. I imagine they will be very unreliable Which leaves religion and of course personal choice I already mentioned that the religion exemption seems to be a right wing US Christian thing (“excuse” - which is fine) more than a Muslim or Catholic or anything like that . I could be wrong on that of course but I haven’t seen anything I saw someone mention somewhere that unvaccinated players should not count towards the positive cases when games are called off. Seems daft since you can get it when vaccinated
Vaccine effectiveness can be judged by the before and after numbers where hospitalisation, people in ICU and deaths are greatly reduced following the roll out. Those who choose not to be vaccinated will have to accept the restrictions that come with that choice.
This the current Dutch regulation other countries differ in some respects but have similar restrictions. I'm trying to verify my understanding that the certificate needs to include the booster to be valid from February onwards. "COVID certificate for travel or activities (for people living in the Netherlands) If you would like to travel within the European Union or go to a restaurant, event or other activity in the Netherlands, you will need to show a COVID Certificate, with a negative test result, proof of vaccination or proof of recovery. People who live in The Netherlands can present these using CoronaCheck."
