Her job mandated it. She works for a care home company. In the recruitment department, so not even in contact with patients. It was just a blanket mandate for all employees. The choice was take the vaccine or lose her job, and now it’s changed her life. You can all bury your heads in the sand about this stuff, and absorb the mainstream media’s view without critically thinking about it. But this stuff is real, important and worth thinking about very deeply. It’s interesting that godders mentioned the dunning Krueger effect, as that’s exactly how I feel about all your responses. You mean well. You want to trust the government and do the right thing. I respect that. But you’re missing the big picture. I respect all your views, but I have seen the other side of this and it isn’t pretty.
Let's get something straight. I haven't called for a mandate, I've said that those who refuse vaccination will have to suffer the consequences of travel and access restrictions. To say the EMA, now based in Amsterdam previously London, is not peer reviewed is way off the mark and the risk/reward is hugely weighed in favour of vaccination. billions of doses given, all stages of clinical trials carried out and ongoing.
You said “I know unvaccinated people who haven't been able to travel or to enter venues. That indeed is the consequence no sympathy from me it's their choice.” Which exactly same thing as saying “unless people take the medical procedure I want them to take, they should be banned from doing the l things that I don’t want them to do”. It’s a terrible way to view the world. A better way to view the world is to allow people their own bodily autonomy and trust them to make decisions in their own & others best interest. Especially in something as fast-moving and important as a pandemic.
Today is the day of straw man arguments it seems. I don’t recall mentioning anything about trusting the government to do the right thing. And who even is “the government” in this discussion. As we are talking about multiple countries.
**** the government, UK or elsewhere the medical evidence is vastly in favour of vaccination. Don't tell me I mean well or trust the sycophantic bunch of arseholes that make up the cabinet following the full on lying bastard that somehow blagged his way to becoming the Prime Minister. The big ****ing picture is that vaccines work and give a way forward for opening society.
I’ve already pointed out how ludicrous it is for Ossie to try and use “it’s not peer reviewed” as a method with which to dismiss an argument. Since his points seem mostly anecdotal. But this is the person whose grand solution for the world going forward is bitcoin (a speculative volatile investment) and some vague libertarian theories with no actual tangible suggestions attached. So there is that
No it isn't it's how it is there are widespread restrictions on travel and access for those who refuse to be vaccinated without good medical reasons. It's a vaccine, not an operation or other medical procedure with benefits that far outway the drawbacks.
Arggh! There you go again, Os, with the "mainstream media" catch-all. You know what, I get your argument, I don't entirely disagree with what you're saying within some contexts. I'm sorry about your relative. But you're saying that it's as a consequence of people deciding to "absorb the mainstream media's view", and then in the same post decide that it's to do with the government. Neither of those are driving these decisions. It's being driven by the medical community who are then informing government. Who between the two of them are informing what the stories are that the media are printing. You're making it sound like it's media driven to get vaccines. It's not. It's really not. Please think about the whole "mainstream media"/MSM thing. It's such lazy thinking, and just belies a lack of understanding of how media outlets work. Like I say, I don't entirely disagree with the points you're making. But you undermine it (for me) by parroting out the "MSM" crap. I'll let you in to something - the media is not a giant cabal.
Exactly. The restrictions are the problem. The government doesn’t have the right to restrict your liberty in this way. Just as they don’t have the right to imprison innocent people until proven guilty
When I say mainstream media and government im distilling a complicated thoughts into a few words for the purposes of the forum. What I actually mean is the propaganda spread by the media which is (as you stated) from the community informing the government. Which may or may not be a cabal, but definitely and probably is incestuous at best and has far too much influence on the country
Yes, governments do have the right to restrict travel worldwide not just in England where so far as I can see all restrictions have been removed.
"Definitely and probably is". Hmm. Media outlets decide on what news they disseminate, generally through editorial committee. It will be informed largely by what is deemed to be important news, and also (and more these days) by what will generate the most 'clicks' through to the sites (basically, clickbait stories) - hence stories about Megan Fox and Machine Gun Kelly, which are bugger all to do with important news (or public interest) but may contain elements of sex, so it'll push the simpler souls to click through. That'll be much more the case with the tabloid style news outlets. Print press is on it's arse, so it's all about pushing people through to websites, to get advertising revenue. It's not a cabal. It's not even incestuous. You're probably thinking about Murdoch's News Corporation when you talk about that, which owns The Sun and The Times. That's it. Those two. And they are edited in a very, very, very, very different way (and Murdoch's influence, particularly in The Times is nowhere near as pernicious as you probably think. The editors of The Times (and in particular the editor of The Sunday Times) are very much their own people. And good people. I won't talk about The Sun because there's no need. Media companies are businesses first. Hence why they need the clicks. Even the more fervently unbiased such as Reuters are commercial enterprises. They'll get revenue from ads and also from selling their news stories on to other outlets. The only one that isn't is the BBC, and their news side in particular has got itself in a bit of a pickle recently, granted (though the corporation itself is still excellent within horrendously constraining boundaries). Every day I sit and listen to Reuters global editors call at lunchtime, because my wife is one of their managing editors. I can't tell you how wrong you are if you think that what is getting reported is in any way influenced by some nefarious overlords. It just isn't. It's the hymn sheet of the conspiracist (I'm not in any way saying you're one, I can see you're not, but you do seem to be falling into this trap regarding the media), and like I say it's a lazy catch-all, and frankly is offensive to all the incredibly good journalists that are out there trying to keep people informed. If you want to say to me "The Sun is dreadful" or "The Mail is best used as toilet paper", well yes, you have my full support. But lumping "the media" all together - you're smarter than that.
Apologies, I typed quickly. Originally wrote definitely then backtracked and wrote probably. Of course, you’re correct. Individuals make up the media. I know some journalists myself. I’m aware that the media isn’t one huge conspiracy. But I do think that it’s possible to shape overall agendas. I do think that there is a huge problem of censorship and aligned incentives of those at the top of the pyramid of society. I have seen honest people being silenced and scientists being discredited by journalists in this pandemic. I’ve seen things which I know for a fact to be 100% lies printed in multiple publications. People were telling me that side effects were non-existent and printing it in the media when I saw them with my own eyes. So please forgive me for my scepticism. But none of that takes away from my beliefs that making people outcasts in society just because they want to wait for more clinical data before taking a protein altering drug against their will is wrong. As I said, I am pro-vaccine and pro-science. But I also think people need to be aware of the other side instead of painting them as insane.
Which government ? Because as mentioned this discussion isn’t about one government Our government is not restricting people travelling. But others can restrict people come in. And they absolutely have the right to do that. Border control and all that. Things that existed long before covid
All of them. Whoever is deciding in these crazy policies. We all accept border policies. It made sense for us all individually and collectively to separate ourselves based on arbitrary lines in the ground. (Though I would argue that technology may that time to an end as people realise they have more in common than they have differences). Fair border policies aren’t a problem. But we didn’t sign up to be tracked by the government 24/7 and told we must take newly-created drugs or be made outcasts from society, especially for what amounts to be a cold for most people. It’s a slippery slope and I refuse to accept any of it. I guess you could say I’m Pro-science, anti-mandate.
From the MHRA, which oversees and regulates medicines and healthcare products in the UK, updated 27 Jan 2022: The overall reporting rate for first, second and third or booster doses is in the order of 2 to 5 Yellow Cards per 1,000 doses administered for the COVID-19 Pfizer/BioNTech Vaccine, COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca and COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna. It is known from the clinical trials that the more common side effects for all vaccines can occur at a rate of more than one in 10 doses (for example, local reactions or symptoms resembling transient flu-like symptoms). (Yellow Cards are the format for reporting adverse reactions of any kind, from mild to severe). For comparison I dug out some stats from the WHO for other common vaccines used worldwide. These are all severe reactions: BCG 1 in 1 000 to 1 in 50 000 doses OPV (oral polio vaccine) 1 in 2–3 million doses (or 1 in 750 000 doses for the first dose) Measles 1 in 1 million doses DTP 1 in 750 000 doses Influenza 1 in 2 or 3 million doses With all vaccines, including others such as MMR, and so on, severe reactions and autoimmune complications such as Guillaume-Barré Syndrome, and of course death, do occur. However, the incidence of severe adverse reactions, and of course death, is always far greater in the viral disease itself. The death rate from flu at between 1,500 to 2,000 per annum is minuscule compared to that from SARS-COV2, which stands today at 155,613 in the UK since March 2020. For the record, I am not in favour of vaccination against Covid being mandatory. I recognise that everyone has a right to choose what they put in their body. I also think it’s reasonable to expect people to take reasonable steps to protect others. Wearing a mask in most indoor public spaces has become second nature for me, and doing regular Lateral Flow Tests is easy. And yes, unless you have a medical or psychological reason not to, you should get vaccinated.
Your data about the flu is massively wrong. From the UK Gov ONS website: Left Column is all flu deaths. So yes, covid is worse than flu. I’m not debating that. But not hugely worse Most of the info you posted is the safety data of the vaccine itself. But that data shouldn’t even matter if covid itself isn’t a danger. I’m debating whether it’s ethical to make young people take vaccines to protect old people. And the answer is absolutely not.
The figures I quoted were flu, yours are for pneumonia, with or without flu. And still, today, people are dying of Covid at the rate of over 2,000 a week in this country, so your premise is rather suspect.
No. I lifted my data from the yearly influenza report. Nothing to do with pneumonia. I’m not trying to be disingenuous and use incorrect data or anything. I genuinely am using uk gov website. Omicron Covid just isn’t that much worse than a normal year
Is everyone here going to just keep getting a vaccine as and when they tell you to? What about if you have an adverse reaction yourself, would you carry on then? 1,2 or 3 a year? More if they recommended it? All that for something that unless you are vulnerable is more than likely not going to kill you. These jabs are not free, they cost money, meaning that some are making money from these constant jabs and boosters, they have been coming for our kids, kids that do not need it, kids that when others were wearing masks in shops etc, the kids didn't have to. The experts they use to get the message across have ulterior motives, they are not impartial, they are making money from all this, as are the doctors, the surgeries etc. Have a listen to the excellent Joe Rogan Podcast with Dr Malone, it's a long one but well worth anyone's time.
