Sorry to hear that Sir Lancelot. Hopefully she receives one soon
J&J Vaccine restricted by FDA
- Thread starter Hugh Gains
- Start date
Sorry to hear that Sir Lancelot. Hopefully she receives one soon
mux
Striker
Yep, irrespective of the posting history, this is more important and I hope she gets one.
Not quite sure how we are comparing enlistment/conscription to vaccine mandates, I mean sure, I see how you got there but neither were/are right and just because the former happened doesn't make the latter palpable or acceptable.
Furthermore the narrative is changing because even in your post you state 'the known risks' but anyone who broadcasted stuff like this early doors was ostracised and ridiculed. Whilst you state that these were known, reported and publicised the 'benefits' were grossly over exaggerated, i mean look at the quote in the following post from 2021 'Regev-Yohai also added that people who received both doses of the vaccine will most likely not become carriers of the virus and will not spread it further due to the high level of antibodies.'The vaccine thread
Thought I'd start a new thread to try and have all news on vaccine in one place. Found this news about Pfizer vaccine in Israel https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/H1jaK7mkdwww.readytogo.net
Also any employer who is requiring vaccination whilst operating in the UK for me must be sitting there with egg on their face. Many a company brought in such policies alongside the NHS but the NHS one fell through due to pressure and negative press, meanwhile they haven't backed down. Sure they have the right to, but let's let pretend that it's not overly protective, unnecessary and ultimately draconian and to be pushing ahead or persisting with it in the current landscape, laughable.
And the words this week from the COVID arbiter.
Sure hindsight is a wonderful thing but the arbiter has stated info was known as of 2020 and yet we proceeded down a path of covid elimination focused on a relentless vaccine campaign across all age groups, lockdowns and excessive covid rules. We'd have come out of this better with less restrictions and a more focused vaccine rollout and it isn't up for debate.
We would most likely not have come out of this better with fewer restrictions.
I’ll ask you what I ask everyone who claims this. There’s a poster who I won’t tag, who is a complete coward on this topic, banging on about how we didn’t need so many restrictions but offering no alternative.
Hopefully you’ve got more guts than him.
We know that COVID passes through social contact between people. Everything from large gatherings to just two people meeting up.
We can also assume with a large degree of confidence that if restrictions on venues opening, people meeting up etc were entirely voluntary, then many millions would ignore them.
This would have led to even more COVID infections, even more spread.
So I ask you - how would have fewer restrictions have improved outcomes, when more infections would have meant more admissions and more deaths?
Please take into account when answering the following points
- More infections in society means that those upon whom the elderly depend, eg carers, family and health professionals, would have been more likely to be off with COVID or asymptomatically spreading it. So there’s no way to isolate the elderly.
- More infections in society means more admissions which places an even greater burden on hospitals, who struggled to cope during the pandemic
- More infections in society means more people either off work, or going to work sick, infecting their colleagues and shutting businesses, closing public services etc.
I implore you or anyone who believes they know how we could have had better outcomes with fewer restrictions, to tell us how. The answer has escaped the greatest public health minds in the country.
Hugh Gains
Winger
Two weeks to stop the spread unfolded into a myriad of totally insane policies, see the first tweet. Completely bonkers and recommended by the so called 'greatest public health minds'.
Ultimately we'll never know how the inverse strategy would have performed because it never transpired, but the idea that the greatest health minds adopted the correct policy outright is mind boggling. It's hap-hazard, staggered and full of contradictions. A targeted vaccination rollout in combination with the likes of isolation when positive would have been greatly more preferable.
The statistics are clear and were known early doors, it's overwhelmingly affected the elderly and compromised with a very low rate of fatality and the response was a total shut down of society and a policy akin to Asia of COVID elimination as opposed to COVID management and the protection of the aforementioned.
The compounding effects of this lunacy are terrifying and we're yet to fully reap the rewards of such actions. From schooling issues, the endless money printing and bailouts, inflation, tax rises, NI rises, cost of living, energy prices and the businesses that have gone under, it really is endless and were going to see a good few years of proper uncertainty/turmoil as a cost of such actions, a cost which will disproportionately be beared by those of a certain class.
Sweden’s Covid death rate among lowest in Europe, despite avoiding strict lockdowns
New WHO figures show pandemic wrought ‘staggering toll’ of almost 15m fatalities, but harsh restrictions were not the key to beating virus
www.telegraph.co.uk
Two weeks to stop the spread unfolded into a myriad of totally insane policies, see the first tweet. Completely bonkers and recommended by the so called 'greatest public health minds'.
Ultimately we'll never know how the inverse strategy would have performed because it never transpired, but the idea that the greatest health minds adopted the correct policy outright is mind boggling. It's hap-hazard, staggered and full of contradictions. A targeted vaccination rollout in combination with the likes of isolation when positive would have been greatly more preferable.
The statistics are clear and were known early doors, it's overwhelmingly affected the elderly and compromised with a very low rate of fatality and the response was a total shut down of society and a policy akin to Asia of COVID elimination as opposed to COVID management and the protection of the aforementioned.
The compounding effects of this lunacy are terrifying and we're yet to fully reap the rewards of such actions. From schooling issues, the endless money printing and bailouts, inflation, tax rises, NI rises, cost of living, energy prices and the businesses that have gone under, it really is endless and were going to see a good few years of proper uncertainty/turmoil as a cost of such actions, a cost which will disproportionately be beared by those of a certain class.
Sweden’s Covid death rate among lowest in Europe, despite avoiding strict lockdowns
New WHO figures show pandemic wrought ‘staggering toll’ of almost 15m fatalities, but harsh restrictions were not the key to beating virus
My reply to you is very long. I've tried to tackle each point that I can, but I understand long posts are boring to read and hard to reply to, so I've written a TLDR section in as few points as I possibly can. In fact, my post was so long it hit the character limit. What you're reading now IS the TLDR of the long, long reply.
1. Two weeks to stop the spread is a straw man. That was never promised.
2. Just because the government's policy wasn't perfect doesn't mean it was a bad policy. It was reactive to an unprecedented situation.
3. If the UK government's policy wasn't the right policy, what was? What approach was less flawed?
4. You claim "a targeted vaccine rollout and isolation when positive" are preferable: we had both of these and you're forgetting the massive part of spread which is asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic people.
5. You say the stats are clear and it mainly impacts the old/vulnerable, with a low fatality rate. Whilst this is true, it does still significantly impact younger groups, and it isn't just all about deaths. 193,000 COVID deaths, 850,000 COVID admissions. You need to factor in that COVID patients are resource intensive, so imagine having 20%, 30% maybe 50% more COVID patients in hospital. How would they have coped?
6. You rightly identify that lockdown has multiple negative impacts - schools, the economy etc. I accept there were things we could have done better, but in addition to more people being in hospital, how would schools, businesses and public services have coped with many more staff, students and pupils being off sick?
7. Sweden. Okay this is a hard one to distil. In a nutshell, that Telegraph article doesn't really flesh out what the headline claims. In fact it specifically mentions that Sweden's advantages were significant in a generally healthier population, and a better-resourced healthcare system. The article simply links "less strict lockdown" with "lower excess deaths" by association, not casually.
8. The Telegraph acknowledges that in terms of excess deaths, Sweden performed worse than Finland, and significantly worse than Norway. This leads to two conclusions - firstly that Sweden was always going to do better than average because it's a healthier country, and secondly that Sweden could have had an even lower rate of excess deaths, if they'd also put actual rules in place. Now, why do I say actual rules?
9. See, Sweden didn't put a lot of RULES in place, but it put a lot of GUIDANCE in place. This guidance was followed pretty closely, likely more closely than we followed our guidance. See Sweden scores very highly on measures of how much they trust each other, and how much they trust the government. The Swedish government could trust its citizenry to do the right thing.
10. Lastly, one final point on Sweden. The Swedish population realised the government didn't actually do that good a job with it's hands-off approach, and so they passed an act in January 2021 with more powers for more restrictions.
A question to you if I may, because I'm really hoping to get an answer to this, but people who argue against lockdown keep ignoring this question for some reason.
COVID is predominately airborne and requires close, social contact to pass it on. Restrictions limited that contact. If we had fewer restrictions, that would have meant more contact, so therefore more infected people, so more cases, more people in hospital and more people dying. Please can you explain to me how fewer restrictions would have led to overall better outcomes, when more people would be dead, and more people would have been admitted to hospital?
Two weeks to stop the spread unfolded into a myriad of totally insane policies, see the first tweet. Completely bonkers and recommended by the so called 'greatest public health minds'.
Ultimately we'll never know how the inverse strategy would have performed because it never transpired, but the idea that the greatest health minds adopted the correct policy outright is mind boggling. It's hap-hazard, staggered and full of contradictions. A targeted vaccination rollout in combination with the likes of isolation when positive would have been greatly more preferable.
The statistics are clear and were known early doors, it's overwhelmingly affected the elderly and compromised with a very low rate of fatality and the response was a total shut down of society and a policy akin to Asia of COVID elimination as opposed to COVID management and the protection of the aforementioned.
The compounding effects of this lunacy are terrifying and we're yet to fully reap the rewards of such actions. From schooling issues, the endless money printing and bailouts, inflation, tax rises, NI rises, cost of living, energy prices and the businesses that have gone under, it really is endless and were going to see a good few years of proper uncertainty/turmoil as a cost of such actions, a cost which will disproportionately be beared by those of a certain class.
Sweden’s Covid death rate among lowest in Europe, despite avoiding strict lockdowns
New WHO figures show pandemic wrought ‘staggering toll’ of almost 15m fatalities, but harsh restrictions were not the key to beating virus
"broke the world"? FFS.
Nobody seems to want to talk about the damage that fewer restrictions would have caused.
Gelan
Winger
They are adults mate.
FootballFan
Striker
True, but its not the jungle, bit of decorum no harm.
Gelan
Winger
I don't care what is what, but why defend yourself about something written on a forum. Rise above it marra...it aint worth shit.
I've been called all sorts on here, no bans, no problem, because I have a life and a spine. I mean you wouldn't go on with these bore fests in the real life man.
Last edited:
alexander
Striker
It is stupid to defend what cannot be defended anyway.
Gelan
Winger
You may comfort yourself that arseholes on forums show their true character, for there is no way they would stay alive coming across like that in the real life. Outside of here they lie every day of their sorry lives, that is true hypocrisy.
ps. Yes, I am a smart arsed mouthy immodest clown in the life too
alexander
Striker
You may comfort yourself that arseholes on forums show their true character, for there is no way they would stay alive coming across like that in the real life. Outside of here they lie every day of their sorry lives, that is true hypocrisy.
ps. Yes, I am a smart arsed mouthy immodest clown in the life too
Nah, you're alright. But you're right, I sometimes wonder as well how some of the people posting on here are able to live in the real world with real, normal people around them.By the way, and this is completely off topic, sorry but I have been meaning to ask you for a while now. Were you stationed in Afghanistan at some point ?
Gelan
Winger
I'm 75, so a bit old, but I was involved in a war when I was 20, hence the hippie agenda
By the way, and this is completely off topic, sorry but I have been meaning to ask you for a while now. Were you stationed in Afghanistan at some point ?
What gave you the idea may I ask?
alexander
Striker
I'm 75, so a bit old, but I was involved in a war when I was 20, hence the hippie agenda
What gave you the idea may I ask?
Ah. It was your username that made me wonder. I watched a documentary on NATO forces in the Ghazni province some time back and Gelan featured a bit.
Gelan
Winger
It's my real name...I was named by way of a scrabble word being knocked on the floor...you can guess what the original word was.
I'm pretty sure Mr Gains won't be interested in a game of "Guess who I'm mad at"
You could interject angst into a wedding speech.
Take some drugs man...they're cool
Last edited:
alexander
Striker
Skippy
Midfield
Was it flange but the F went under the sofa?
Gelan
Winger
No, there wasn't a sofa, just two armchairs, a table and a sideboard. The scrabble letters were cardboard as in home made, so unlikely to go under a sofa if dropped.
Skippy
Midfield
They'd have to have been homemade since the board game didn't arrive in Britain until several years after you were born
