The jab ..

[john-e89]

I don’t smoke....I’m not that stupid.

What are you getting so irate for...? Calm the f**k down...!

I’m assuming you know why we have taxes...? have you any idea how much is paid in taxes for the health service and then not taken by people that don’t get ill...? Enough is paid to care for cancer patients, we just don’t have a cure yet, that’s nothing to do with money, do you really think cancer wouldn’t have been taken care of by now if it was possible...? It all goes in a pot, to be distributed where needed, and if you don’t need it fine, good for you, but you’ve still paid for it. Tbh I’ll take what the scientists say about the vaccine over a chap that has no evidence to back his claims up by grasping an illness out of the air like diabetes. All the evidence says the vaccine is safe, save for a very few that will have side effects, that’s life I’m afraid, I could be one of them and I’ll take whatever it throws at me when the time comes I get it. Do you agree with letting people smoke in public again..? The risks of smoking are known, it affects more than the smoker, same with covid.

Rest assured I'm far from irate it would be a stretch to say I'm even mildly miffed

At no point have I argued for people not to have the vaccine, I have simply stated that I will hold off and am in no rush to get it, which, at the risk of being presumptuous, is more or less the position of the other folks that have said they are wary and will wait.

My argument is one of personal choice, if you fear the virus, get the vaccine, if you dont really then feel free to wait or not have it at all. Whereas yours, as far as you have articulated it, is one of take the vaccine or you're (in effect) a bad person/idiot/shouldn't be treated by the NHS :roll:

Saying FFS and a sanctimonious hubrid sounds miffed to me tbh....btw, what the hell is a ‘Hubrid”...? I’m assuming it’s a Scottish thing....?

Listen, my obvs jokey post, if it’s head scratching which one it had a white shark in it....was aimed at the journalist mgarlane highlighted...not mgarlane. If he got the virus I’d take him to hospital, no issues, i have no segregation on who gets treated in this country or not for whatever. What I’m getting at is my opinion is that we should take as much care as possible in all situations, and that’s coming from someone that has skydived. It’s the journalist I was poking fun at. I don’t agree with not taking the vaccine but that’s choice, I’ve never said anyone SHOULD have it, that’s not my place to say such things.

 

[Stevo1987]

I 100% agree that people have a choice, for eg, in normal circumstances I’ll go for a meaningless drive in a 3 litre twin turbo car, that’s a risk, and if I crash I’d like to be treated. Same goes for rock climbing, motorbike riding, whatever floats your boat in recreation, you can’t put a line on acceptable or not, you have to allow everything. However, if you drive without a seat belt, rock climb without a rope, ride a motorbike without a helmet, that’s pretty questionable imho. As for smoking, you pay in taxes on a packet of fags, same goes for food etc, etc. You pay nothing for covid, eg, I pay the same as mgarlane that won’t have it, so I’m doing my level best to protect myself and therefore the NHS, same goes for using sensible gear if you’re doing something other than sitting in your armchair all day, which isn’t good either, but eg, wearing a life vest on a boat, I pay the same as mgarlane. Smoking is now thankfully banned in public places, it’s not harming anyone but the smoker and the NHS that is hopefully getting funding to pay for the treatment in taxes for people daft enough to smoke. We all know the covid risks, yes tbh I’d be voting for a tax on people that don’t have the vaccine, it’s their choice but they need to pay for it given the risks involved.

You wont pay anywhere near enough tax on fags to cover the costs of a long term lung cancer treatment/life preservation so if that's the case then me, as a never smoker, I should have the right to call for you to be taxed extra for being a smoker?

Also we don't know the long term effects of this vaccine yet (hence this whole issue) say, god forbid, it gives you diabetes or causes some debilitation that requires long term NHS care, should you be taxed more because you took the thing and it was your own choice? Why should the people that didn't take the vaccine pay for you? Should we just let the poor or disabled die because they haven't been able to pay enough tax to afford to be treated for whatever ails them? In fact why don't we just scrap the lot and pay for our own healthcare and screw everyone else?

The whole basis of your argument screams of a sanctimonious hubris.

I don’t smoke....I’m not that stupid.

What are you getting so irate for...? Calm the f**k down...!

I’m assuming you know why we have taxes...? have you any idea how much is paid in taxes for the health service and then not taken by people that don’t get ill...? Enough is paid to care for cancer patients, we just don’t have a cure yet, that’s nothing to do with money, do you really think cancer wouldn’t have been taken care of by now if it was possible...? It all goes in a pot, to be distributed where needed, and if you don’t need it fine, good for you, but you’ve still paid for it. Tbh I’ll take what the scientists say about the vaccine over a chap that has no evidence to back his claims up by grasping an illness out of the air like diabetes. All the evidence says the vaccine is safe, save for a very few that will have side effects, that’s life I’m afraid, I could be one of them and I’ll take whatever it throws at me when the time comes I get it. Do you agree with letting people smoke in public again..? The risks of smoking are known, it affects more than the smoker, same with covid.

Ha Ha - and on that.....I'm oot!

 

[TitanTim]

I wonder how people would feel if the Government rules those who take the vaccine can come out of restrictons, those that choose not too have certain restrictions imposed upon them as still classed as a risk to society.

Give everyone a jab badge to identify the takers

Tim.

 

[john-e89]

I wonder how people would feel if the Government rules those who take the vaccine can come out of restrictons, those that choose not too have certain restrictions imposed upon them as still classed as a risk to society.

Give everyone a jab badge to identify the takers

Tim.

A badge of honour.....like those naughty boy ankle strap curfew thingys....? :wink:

 

[Owdgit]

Ha, there is one

 

[rdgreen]

I wonder how people would feel if the Government rules those who take the vaccine can come out of restrictons, those that choose not too have certain restrictions imposed upon them as still classed as a risk to society.

Give everyone a jab badge to identify the takers

Tim.

Then there would be a market for bogus badges......isn't human nature wonderful?

 

[TitanTim]

I wonder how people would feel if the Government rules those who take the vaccine can come out of restrictons, those that choose not too have certain restrictions imposed upon them as still classed as a risk to society.

Give everyone a jab badge to identify the takers

Tim.

A badge of honour.....like those naughty boy ankle strap curfew thingys....? :wink:

Tim.

 

[TitanTim]

Ha, there is one

37390964-9097535-image-a-38_1609292696546.jpg

Alternatively, "I've had my Covid PRICK"

Just make sure they spell it right

Tim.

 

[Z4C_er]

Well of course she didn't die from the vaccine. She died of Covid, right?
https://opoyi.com/swiss-woman-dies-after-getting-covid-19-vaccine-connection-between-two-highly-unlikely
What raises my ire and skepticism about the above story is that whilst it's OK to brand anyone who dies of anything within 28 days of having a positive Covid test is recorded as having died of Covid, but a person who dies 5 days after receiving a vaccine 'couldn't possibly' have died from it.
Look at the wording in the article. It goes from a definitive 'unrelated' to 'coincidence' to a loose 'highly unlikely' and 'suggest' (a direct causal link).
But the article is flip-flopping around with the glaringly obvious tone of deflecting blame away from the vaccine. So, I ask, will I ever get to see the toxicology report? Will I never. You all know that.
And that's mainly where I am coming from. There is a undeniable, heavily skewed bias towards bathing these companies in a good light. God forbid any MSM outlet to question the vaccine. I could guarantee they would be shut down in no time. Even that Daily mail article didn't go there. He stated facts and left it at that.
My main point is there is no balance. None at all.
I echo the sentiments of fifer, mgrlane, and Old Duckman, to name a few.
I recently ranted about the fact that even Pfizer have walked away from this product. They take the money, our money, with no accountability.
Do you recall a certain 737-Max plane that killed 346 people? Should Boeing be held accountable for that? Sorry, is that a 'no' I heard you say? Should the US government and it's tax payers cop the bill for the deaths, law suits not to mention the development and re-testing work?
...Or should the manufacturer? Thought so.
Have the vaccine, but don't punish me if I don't.

 

[TitanTim]

Well of course she didn't die from the vaccine. She died of Covid, right?
https://opoyi.com/swiss-woman-dies-after-getting-covid-19-vaccine-connection-between-two-highly-unlikely
What raises my ire and skepticism about the above story is that whilst it's OK to brand anyone who dies of anything within 28 days of having a positive Covid test is recorded as having died of Covid, but a person who dies 5 days after receiving a vaccine 'couldn't possibly' have died from it.
Look at the wording in the article. It goes from a definitive 'unrelated' to 'coincidence' to a loose 'highly unlikely' and 'suggest' (a direct causal link).
But the article is flip-flopping around with the glaringly obvious tone of deflecting blame away from the vaccine. So, I ask, will I ever get to see the toxicology report? Will I never. You all know that.
And that's mainly where I am coming from. There is a undeniable, heavily skewed bias towards bathing these companies in a good light. God forbid any MSM outlet to question the vaccine. I could guarantee they would be shut down in no time. Even that Daily mail article didn't go there. He stated facts and left it at that.
My main point is there is no balance. None at all.
I echo the sentiments of fifer, mgrlane, and Old Duckman, to name a few.
I recently ranted about the fact that even Pfizer have walked away from this product. They take the money, our money, with no accountability.
Do you recall a certain 737-Max plane that killed 346 people? Should Boeing be held accountable for that? Sorry, is that a 'no' I heard you say? Should the US government and it's tax payers cop the bill for the deaths, law suits not to mention the development and re-testing work?
...Or should the manufacturer? Thought so.
Have the vaccine, but don't punish me if I don't.

So are you saying the specialists who have confirmed the vaccine as safe to use are lying?

Tim.

 

[Z4C_er]

So are you saying the specialists who have confirmed the vaccine as safe to use are lying?

Tim.

I'm saying, and have always said, that I never ever feel that I'm being presented with a balanced view. It's too pro-vaccine out there in MSM land. It feels like I'm continually getting the Jedi hand wave in my face.
There are many articles like the one I posted. It's worryingly one sided. Read it again. Where is the investigative aspect to it? Where is it mentioned that the reporter intends to follow up or get to the bottom of what has happened?
Covid is the biggest issue that the world currently faces and here we have a patient - and as has been mentioned before - a key patient, smack bang in the bulls-eye of their target group who drops dead 5 days after receiving the jab. But, it must be merely a coincidence.
...And the specialists. Who are you calling the specialists? The developers that want nothing to do with the vaccine save for the cash that it brings, or the Government who are being pressured into delivering a solution?
Honest question. Who are you referring to when you say the specialists?

 

[john-e89]

It’s the journalist I was poking fun at.

Ha ha. I have been called many things in my life but a Journalist

How much is an acceptable amount your side to tax someone for not having the jab John?

About the same as if they brought smoking back to all public places.....same thing really no...? :wink:

 

[Mr Tidy]

Covid is the biggest issue that the world currently faces and here we have a patient - and as has been mentioned before - a key patient, smack bang in the bulls-eye of their target group who drops dead 5 days after receiving the jab. But, it must be merely a coincidence.

But it's all a bit skewed IMHO.

Do we really know the incubation period for Covid? If it's more than 5 days that key patient may have already had it, so the vaccine may have been too late to be effective - after all the vaccine is reportedly much more effective after the 2nd jab, which obviously never happened.

My ex-BIL (66) was in a hospice with terminal cancer and died within 28 days of a positive test in May so it's far more likely he died from cancer, even if he would have been in the Covid stats.

I'll still take my chance with the vaccine if/when I get offered it.

After having flu vaccinations for years I've never had any serious side-effects from them, but I can remember having flu years before that kept me off work for over a week and just left me completely drained for another week or two.

 

[ProfCJJ]

So are you saying the specialists who have confirmed the vaccine as safe to use are lying?

Tim.

I'm saying, and have always said, that I never ever feel that I'm being presented with a balanced view. It's too pro-vaccine out there in MSM land. It feels like I'm continually getting the Jedi hand wave in my face.
There are many articles like the one I posted. It's worryingly one sided. Read it again. Where is the investigative aspect to it? Where is it mentioned that the reporter intends to follow up or get to the bottom of what has happened?
Covid is the biggest issue that the world currently faces and here we have a patient - and as has been mentioned before - a key patient, smack bang in the bulls-eye of their target group who drops dead 5 days after receiving the jab. But, it must be merely a coincidence.
...And the specialists. Who are you calling the specialists? The developers that want nothing to do with the vaccine save for the cash that it brings, or the Government who are being pressured into delivering a solution?
Honest question. Who are you referring to when you say the specialists?

Drug trials are run by clinicians, assessed by statisticians and review by external, non governmental bodies - if a company were hiding/ skewing results for profit it would be soon picked up - it’s virtually impossible that the many people in the chain could be corrupted enough to pull this off.

The amount of preparation before running a trial, the data analysis during and the presentation of results afterwards is highly regimented and a right pain in the behind if I’m honest as a researcher - but the rules are there precisely to avoid what you intimating.

 

[Flyingfifer]

Well of course she didn't die from the vaccine. She died of Covid, right?
https://opoyi.com/swiss-woman-dies-after-getting-covid-19-vaccine-connection-between-two-highly-unlikely
What raises my ire and skepticism about the above story is that whilst it's OK to brand anyone who dies of anything within 28 days of having a positive Covid test is recorded as having died of Covid, but a person who dies 5 days after receiving a vaccine 'couldn't possibly' have died from it.
Look at the wording in the article. It goes from a definitive 'unrelated' to 'coincidence' to a loose 'highly unlikely' and 'suggest' (a direct causal link).
But the article is flip-flopping around with the glaringly obvious tone of deflecting blame away from the vaccine. So, I ask, will I ever get to see the toxicology report? Will I never. You all know that.
And that's mainly where I am coming from. There is a undeniable, heavily skewed bias towards bathing these companies in a good light. God forbid any MSM outlet to question the vaccine. I could guarantee they would be shut down in no time. Even that Daily mail article didn't go there. He stated facts and left it at that.
My main point is there is no balance. None at all.
I echo the sentiments of fifer, mgrlane, and Old Duckman, to name a few.
I recently ranted about the fact that even Pfizer have walked away from this product. They take the money, our money, with no accountability.
Do you recall a certain 737-Max plane that killed 346 people? Should Boeing be held accountable for that? Sorry, is that a 'no' I heard you say? Should the US government and it's tax payers cop the bill for the deaths, law suits not to mention the development and re-testing work?
...Or should the manufacturer? Thought so.
Have the vaccine, but don't punish me if I don't.

So are you saying the specialists who have confirmed the vaccine as safe to use are lying?

Tim.

Thalidomide was confirmed safe by specialists......

 

[ProfCJJ]

Thalidomide was confirmed safe by specialists......

Yes, in 1957! I’d like to think we have advanced medical science a bit since then!

Medical ethics wasn’t really properly formulated until 10 years before that!

 

[flimper]

This thread appears to have gone viral

 

[ProfCJJ]

Thalidomide was confirmed safe by specialists......

Yes, in 1957! I’d like to think we have advanced medical science a bit since then!

Medical ethics wasn’t really properly formulated until 10 years before that!

Pandemrix?

That was deemed safe in 2009.

The increased risk of narcolepsy due to vaccination was 1 in 18400 or 0.005%

Other side effects included Fits, Neurological disorders such as encephalomyelitis, neuritis or Guillain–Barré syndrome temporary paralysis and Anaphylaxis.

Let's hope we have advanced medical science a bit since then!

I’m not sure what your point is? Every drug brings risk with it - are you comparing this to Thalidomide?

Using your own arguments the risks of getting knocked down crossing the road etc. are bigger.

I’m not trying to convince anyone to vaccinate or not - but I do think the argument of “the science hasn’t been done well” etc. Has been clearly shown to be a nonsense!

 

[Z4C_er]

Yes, in 1957! I’d like to think we have advanced medical science a bit since then!

Medical ethics wasn’t really properly formulated until 10 years before that!

Pandemrix?

That was deemed safe in 2009.

The increased risk of narcolepsy due to vaccination was 1 in 18400 or 0.005%

Other side effects included Fits, Neurological disorders such as encephalomyelitis, neuritis or Guillain–Barré syndrome temporary paralysis and Anaphylaxis.

Let's hope we have advanced medical science a bit since then!

I’m not sure what your point is? Every drug brings risk with it - are you comparing this to Thalidomide?

Using your own arguments the risks of getting knocked down crossing the road etc. are bigger.

I’m not trying to convince anyone to vaccinate or not - but I do think the argument of “the science hasn’t been done well” etc. Has been clearly shown to be a nonsense!

Aaah, sorry, I meant to add that to the list of replies. "Nonsense", yes....
Please cite some truly independent studies?

 

[ProfCJJ]

Pandemrix?

That was deemed safe in 2009.

The increased risk of narcolepsy due to vaccination was 1 in 18400 or 0.005%

Other side effects included Fits, Neurological disorders such as encephalomyelitis, neuritis or Guillain–Barré syndrome temporary paralysis and Anaphylaxis.

Let's hope we have advanced medical science a bit since then!

I’m not sure what your point is? Every drug brings risk with it - are you comparing this to Thalidomide?

Using your own arguments the risks of getting knocked down crossing the road etc. are bigger.

I’m not trying to convince anyone to vaccinate or not - but I do think the argument of “the science hasn’t been done well” etc. Has been clearly shown to be a nonsense!

Aaah, sorry, I meant to add that to the list of replies. "Nonsense", yes....
Please cite some truly independent studies?

I’m sure that “independent” and “studies” need further definition - what is considered truly independent? And what do you mean by study? As a researcher I deal with published work - and that means independent, anonymised, peer review from other scientists (who tend not to hold back in their criticisms) - so if results have been published, in the academic sense of the word, then I would deem that output sufficiently independent (not sure about “truly”) - in the sense any biased and inaccuracies will be picked up in the peer review.

I won’t carry on responding as I think I’ve made my point clear - I just find it fascinating how now everyone wants to read the scientific papers whereas before this didn’t seem to be the case. I guess that’s a better informed public for you - I suspect though it’s more a jaundiced public that is having to wade through mountains of fake news and bullshit that don’t know what to think anymore.

My own partner is Spanish, she believes the gospel of YouTube a bit too much - she forwarded me news that the first person in Spain to be vaccinated against covid a few days ago (a 92(?) yo woman) had died unexpectedly less than 24 hours after receiving the vaccine. It didn’t take long to find confirmation that this was indeed fake news and the woman is alive and doing well.