FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Vulnerable shielding or forced vaccination?

Vulnerable shielding or forced vaccination?

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

Anyone not bored by my posts will know by now that I really loathe the tribalist nature of social media because life is not binary and arguments are not black & white but instead many shades of grey.

I often play devil’s advocate to challenge myopic or singular viewpoint arguments or people stating opinion as fact.

So with that in mind I am interested in people’s view on this (BTW I am making up the numbers to be illustrative but my hypothesis is that the number of people who are either anti-vax or vaccine hesitant is significantly larger than those who cannot actually have the vaccines, if anyone can provide actual numbers that would be great)...

Once all the people in vulnerable groups that can be vaccinated have been vaccinated should we:

A) Make it mandatory that c.500k people who cannot have vaccine continue to shield and take extra precautions so that the rest of the UK population and businesses can get back to normal.

B) Make it mandatory that c.2m people (anti-vax and vaccine hesitant) have a vaccine they are not happy to have in their body due to concerns about longterm health impacts so that the 500k vulnerable don’t have to shield.

Please explain your preference and why one is better/fairer or morally more acceptable than the other?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Neither

But I do think if there is a future outbreak among the unvaccinated, regardless of their reason for not having the vaccine, then there should be some sort of control measures and restrictions put in place that apply only to them, when the vaccinated population continue to go about life as normal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anesjhCouple over a year ago

LONDON.

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *oldswarriorMan over a year ago

Falkirk

"Neither

But i thought the vaccine only reduced the chances of catching it?

If the strain is continually mutating, how can it be assumed that the current vaccince being offered will have any effect?

Just thinking aloud, im sure there will be someone along shortly to educate me.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated."

Sorry I should rephrase

An outbreak which results in people being hospitalised/dying (which is what actually matters)

If they found that the vast majority in hospital following said outbreak were unvaccinated (medical records) then there's no logic to locking down the vaccinated population again

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated."

From medical records of hospitalised/deceased individuals

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated."

PCR tests can involve genetic sequencing which links infections from person to person.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

The situation changes rapidly. As we are on our way to wave 3....in a month the world may look very different again. We are a long way from having all those adults who want a jab having 2 jabs. And a long way from understanding how effective and for how long any vaccine is. So I'm thinking given as a nation we lack the ability or appetite to take Continued actions to limit infections... That some vulnerable are either going to become gamblers or stay in a Controlled environment.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ollydoesWoman over a year ago

Shangri-La

Honestly I have a absolutely no idea.. I think everyone who is able to have it should, but then don't believe we should force people to have it, but then there are so many vulnerable who can't makes it seem to others it csmt be that important, but we know it is, but what tje people who won't don't get in their head is they are the reason people will have to continue to shield...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anesjhCouple over a year ago

LONDON.

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated.

PCR tests can involve genetic sequencing which links infections from person to person."

I'm one bricklayer down this week.

He caught covid from his vaccinated mother.

Out of the ten brickies i employ he is the only one vaccinated.

Thank god he's not going to be around the rest of us for a while.

So are you saying only the unvaccinated can cause an outbreak.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated.

PCR tests can involve genetic sequencing which links infections from person to person.

I'm one bricklayer down this week.

He caught covid from his vaccinated mother.

Out of the ten brickies i employ he is the only one vaccinated.

Thank god he's not going to be around the rest of us for a while.

So are you saying only the unvaccinated can cause an outbreak.

No, I'm saying infections can be traced

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated.

PCR tests can involve genetic sequencing which links infections from person to person.

I'm one bricklayer down this week.

He caught covid from his vaccinated mother.

Out of the ten brickies i employ he is the only one vaccinated.

Thank god he's not going to be around the rest of us for a while.

So are you saying only the unvaccinated can cause an outbreak.

Nope

But they are probably a lot more likely to end up in hospital, put a strain on the NHS and die from it

Plus more likely to catch it and spread it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"Honestly I have a absolutely no idea.. I think everyone who is able to have it should, but then don't believe we should force people to have it, but then there are so many vulnerable who can't makes it seem to others it csmt be that important, but we know it is, but what tje people who won't don't get in their head is they are the reason people will have to continue to shield..."

Exactly the moral quandary behind my hypothetical question.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

[Removed by poster at 31/05/21 19:36:59]

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated.

PCR tests can involve genetic sequencing which links infections from person to person.

I'm one bricklayer down this week.

He caught covid from his vaccinated mother.

Out of the ten brickies i employ he is the only one vaccinated.

Thank god he's not going to be around the rest of us for a while.

So are you saying only the unvaccinated can cause an outbreak.

Nope

But they are probably a lot more likely to end up in hospital, put a strain on the NHS and die from it

Plus more likely to catch it and spread it

Hmmm don’t have the figures to hand but if the strain on the NHS was caused by the whole population being exposed and susceptible to the virus, then if the unvaccinated only represent a small proportion of the population, then it follows (statistically) that they won’t put an increased strain on NHS!

It’s not as if the virus can target one group or another. The virus will enter a person due to social contact. There is no reason to think the proportions will change?

Unless the unvaccinated start having special festivals or something?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

I think there's a huge difference between people who cannot have the vaccine and those that choose not to have it.

I don't see how you can force people to have the vaccine but I think those refusing it should face restrictions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated.

PCR tests can involve genetic sequencing which links infections from person to person.

I'm one bricklayer down this week.

He caught covid from his vaccinated mother.

Out of the ten brickies i employ he is the only one vaccinated.

Thank god he's not going to be around the rest of us for a while.

So are you saying only the unvaccinated can cause an outbreak.

Nope

But they are probably a lot more likely to end up in hospital, put a strain on the NHS and die from it

Plus more likely to catch it and spread it

It’s not as if the virus can target one group or another. The virus will enter a person due to social contact. There is no reason to think the proportions will change?

Unless the unvaccinated start having special festivals or something?"

If the majority of people going into hospital are unvaccinated, then of course they are the ones putting strain on the nhs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"I think there's a huge difference between people who cannot have the vaccine and those that choose not to have it.

I don't see how you can force people to have the vaccine but I think those refusing it should face restrictions. "

Why?

Why is that morally more acceptable than those who can’t have it facing restrictions?

I refer you to my OP!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The vaccine isn't guaranteed to stop the virus spreading and even if it did it's not worth sacrificing our ever dwindling freedoms to make them mandatory.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated.

PCR tests can involve genetic sequencing which links infections from person to person.

I'm one bricklayer down this week.

He caught covid from his vaccinated mother.

Out of the ten brickies i employ he is the only one vaccinated.

Thank god he's not going to be around the rest of us for a while.

So are you saying only the unvaccinated can cause an outbreak.

Nope

But they are probably a lot more likely to end up in hospital, put a strain on the NHS and die from it

Plus more likely to catch it and spread it

It’s not as if the virus can target one group or another. The virus will enter a person due to social contact. There is no reason to think the proportions will change?

Unless the unvaccinated start having special festivals or something?

If the majority of people going into hospital are unvaccinated, then of course they are the ones putting strain on the nhs. "

Where is the “strain”?

Early this year we were seeing 60k cases per day! A proportion of those resulted in hospitalisation and of those a proportion died. If the number of cases is smaller then the number of hospitalisations is smaller.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *nnie2009Couple over a year ago

Blackpool

How would you know if someone you meet has refused vaccine and not shielding unless you ask to see their card?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I think there's a huge difference between people who cannot have the vaccine and those that choose not to have it.

I don't see how you can force people to have the vaccine but I think those refusing it should face restrictions.

Why?

Why is that morally more acceptable than those who can’t have it facing restrictions?

I refer you to my OP!"

I think it's a question of what people can do and whether you can help it.

Being vulnerable is not a choice

Being vaccinated is.

I suppose the question is if you see this as a zero sum game.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

"I think there's a huge difference between people who cannot have the vaccine and those that choose not to have it.

I don't see how you can force people to have the vaccine but I think those refusing it should face restrictions.

Why?

Why is that morally more acceptable than those who can’t have it facing restrictions?

I refer you to my OP!"

Well, those not able to have the vaccine have no choice, their lives will be limited through no fault of their own.

From what I've seen on here and other social media, those refusing the vaccine are doing so based upon, quite often, misinformation and an attempt to 'protect their rights'.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"How would you know if someone you meet has refused vaccine and not shielding unless you ask to see their card? "

If they are shielding then why are they meeting?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think there's a huge difference between people who cannot have the vaccine and those that choose not to have it.

I don't see how you can force people to have the vaccine but I think those refusing it should face restrictions.

Why?

Why is that morally more acceptable than those who can’t have it facing restrictions?

I refer you to my OP!"

If covid pretty much fucks off then noone needs to face any restrictions.

If it continues to spread amongst unvaccinated people leading to unvaccinated people ending up in hospital and unvaccinated people dying then it is obvious that the unvaccinated people are the problem

Lots of ifs there

But there is no logic to "locking down" the whole population again if it is only the unvaccinated minority that are putting pressure on the NHS

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anesjhCouple over a year ago

LONDON.

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated.

PCR tests can involve genetic sequencing which links infections from person to person.

I'm one bricklayer down this week.

He caught covid from his vaccinated mother.

Out of the ten brickies i employ he is the only one vaccinated.

Thank god he's not going to be around the rest of us for a while.

So are you saying only the unvaccinated can cause an outbreak.

Nope

But they are probably a lot more likely to end up in hospital, put a strain on the NHS and die from it

Plus more likely to catch it and spread it

His vaccinated mother is in hospital with covid and not doing well.

But i would never use words like putting a strain on the NHS in any case.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I think there's a huge difference between people who cannot have the vaccine and those that choose not to have it.

I don't see how you can force people to have the vaccine but I think those refusing it should face restrictions.

Why?

Why is that morally more acceptable than those who can’t have it facing restrictions?

I refer you to my OP!

Well, those not able to have the vaccine have no choice, their lives will be limited through no fault of their own.

From what I've seen on here and other social media, those refusing the vaccine are doing so based upon, quite often, misinformation and an attempt to 'protect their rights'. "

Yes - I should be clear - those who cannot be vaccinated for genuine medical reasons, or cannot/do not mount an immune response - they're in my "vulnerable" category.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated.

PCR tests can involve genetic sequencing which links infections from person to person.

I'm one bricklayer down this week.

He caught covid from his vaccinated mother.

Out of the ten brickies i employ he is the only one vaccinated.

Thank god he's not going to be around the rest of us for a while.

So are you saying only the unvaccinated can cause an outbreak.

Nope

But they are probably a lot more likely to end up in hospital, put a strain on the NHS and die from it

Plus more likely to catch it and spread it

It’s not as if the virus can target one group or another. The virus will enter a person due to social contact. There is no reason to think the proportions will change?

Unless the unvaccinated start having special festivals or something?

If the majority of people going into hospital are unvaccinated, then of course they are the ones putting strain on the nhs.

Where is the “strain”?

They need to be kept separate from others in the hospital, a proportion will likely end up on ventilators, additional medical staff, additional control measures, additional cleaning staff etc.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"I think there's a huge difference between people who cannot have the vaccine and those that choose not to have it.

I don't see how you can force people to have the vaccine but I think those refusing it should face restrictions.

Why?

Why is that morally more acceptable than those who can’t have it facing restrictions?

I refer you to my OP!

I think it's a question of what people can do and whether you can help it.

Being vulnerable is not a choice

Being vaccinated is.

I suppose the question is if you see this as a zero sum game."

Thanks for actually addressing the OP.

Surely the anti-vax and hesitant would say being forced to be vaccinated (either direct mandation or mandating by stealth) with a drug they have concerns about takes away their choice?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated.

PCR tests can involve genetic sequencing which links infections from person to person.

I'm one bricklayer down this week.

He caught covid from his vaccinated mother.

Out of the ten brickies i employ he is the only one vaccinated.

Thank god he's not going to be around the rest of us for a while.

So are you saying only the unvaccinated can cause an outbreak.

Nope

But they are probably a lot more likely to end up in hospital, put a strain on the NHS and die from it

Plus more likely to catch it and spread it

His vaccinated mother is in hospital with covid and not doing well.

But i would never use words like putting a strain on the NHS in any case."

Nobody is asking you to use any words

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think there's a huge difference between people who cannot have the vaccine and those that choose not to have it.

I don't see how you can force people to have the vaccine but I think those refusing it should face restrictions.

Why?

Why is that morally more acceptable than those who can’t have it facing restrictions?

I refer you to my OP!

I think it's a question of what people can do and whether you can help it.

Being vulnerable is not a choice

Being vaccinated is.

I suppose the question is if you see this as a zero sum game.

Thanks for actually addressing the OP.

Surely the anti-vax and hesitant would say being forced to be vaccinated (either direct mandation or mandating by stealth) with a drug they have concerns about takes away their choice?"

Noone should be forced to take the vaccine in my opinion

But if the unvaccinated population end up being hospitalised in large numbers, putting strain on the NHS, if an outbreak were to occur amongst them, then they should be prepared to face some form of restrictions, until it can be brought under control , just like all of us have over the past 14 months

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

"I think there's a huge difference between people who cannot have the vaccine and those that choose not to have it.

I don't see how you can force people to have the vaccine but I think those refusing it should face restrictions.

Why?

Why is that morally more acceptable than those who can’t have it facing restrictions?

I refer you to my OP!

I think it's a question of what people can do and whether you can help it.

Being vulnerable is not a choice

Being vaccinated is.

I suppose the question is if you see this as a zero sum game.

Thanks for actually addressing the OP.

Surely the anti-vax and hesitant would say being forced to be vaccinated (either direct mandation or mandating by stealth) with a drug they have concerns about takes away their choice?

Noone should be forced to take the vaccine in my opinion

This

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I think there's a huge difference between people who cannot have the vaccine and those that choose not to have it.

I don't see how you can force people to have the vaccine but I think those refusing it should face restrictions.

Why?

Why is that morally more acceptable than those who can’t have it facing restrictions?

I refer you to my OP!

I think it's a question of what people can do and whether you can help it.

Being vulnerable is not a choice

Being vaccinated is.

I suppose the question is if you see this as a zero sum game.

Thanks for actually addressing the OP.

Surely the anti-vax and hesitant would say being forced to be vaccinated (either direct mandation or mandating by stealth) with a drug they have concerns about takes away their choice?"

I'm not getting too much into this topic, sorry.

I'm not sure I'm pro "forced" vaccination, at least not outside certain settings like healthcare.

But I suppose, in the event of an outbreak (in the future when Covid is more like the threat of measles)... I think, who is responsible for this? Is it those who cannot contribute to herd immunity (or tried and failed), or those who chose not to?

Why lock up the vulnerable - or everyone - when we can shield the vulnerable with the vaccinated herd, and contain the unvaccinated?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

Is there anyone that actually thinks those that cannot have the vaccine should face restrictions?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Is there anyone that actually thinks those that cannot have the vaccine should face restrictions?"

Not me. But I've seen people equate can't and won't to try to discredit the idea of mandates.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"Neither

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated.

PCR tests can involve genetic sequencing which links infections from person to person.

I'm one bricklayer down this week.

He caught covid from his vaccinated mother.

Out of the ten brickies i employ he is the only one vaccinated.

Thank god he's not going to be around the rest of us for a while.

So are you saying only the unvaccinated can cause an outbreak.

Nope

But they are probably a lot more likely to end up in hospital, put a strain on the NHS and die from it

Plus more likely to catch it and spread it

It’s not as if the virus can target one group or another. The virus will enter a person due to social contact. There is no reason to think the proportions will change?

Unless the unvaccinated start having special festivals or something?

If the majority of people going into hospital are unvaccinated, then of course they are the ones putting strain on the nhs.

Where is the “strain”?

They need to be kept separate from others in the hospital, a proportion will likely end up on ventilators, additional medical staff, additional control measures, additional cleaning staff etc. "

Yes but the “strain” was caused by volume. The numbers will be proportionately smaller if it is only the unvaccinated being affected going forward.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"Is there anyone that actually thinks those that cannot have the vaccine should face restrictions?"

I suspect there are some people based on posts in the forums. Same as there are those who seemed willing to “sacrifice the elderly”.

They may say “it’s a numbers game”

Hopefully clear from my OP that I am not advocating either?

Not yet seen any anti-vaxxers posting in this one yet!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

"Is there anyone that actually thinks those that cannot have the vaccine should face restrictions?

I suspect there are some people based on posts in the forums. Same as there are those who seemed willing to “sacrifice the elderly”.

They may say “it’s a numbers game”

Hopefully clear from my OP that I am not advocating either?

Not yet seen any anti-vaxxers posting in this one yet!"

That's mostly because they don't want to say that they deserve more rights than medically vulnerable people.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Neither. But the outcome would likely be that something similar to A happens as the vulnerable will be concerned. Not mandatory shielding but many probably would.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

"Neither. But the outcome would likely be that something similar to A happens as the vulnerable will be concerned. Not mandatory shielding but many probably would."

It would be very sad if that were to happen.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"Neither. But the outcome would likely be that something similar to A happens as the vulnerable will be concerned. Not mandatory shielding but many probably would.

It would be very sad if that were to happen. "

Yes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

Don't we need to know if it's a problem or not first before possibly creating an issue where none need exist..? How many? How much if at all they interact and with whom? How many infections. Etc... "most" (how many) hospitalisations are people who have not had both jabs... So how many have had one jab... And by inference does that imply that one jab is efficacious or that it is not? You see you can read the numbers in many ways and arrive at differing conclusions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"Don't we need to know if it's a problem or not first before possibly creating an issue where none need exist..? How many? How much if at all they interact and with whom? How many infections. Etc... "most" (how many) hospitalisations are people who have not had both jabs... So how many have had one jab... And by inference does that imply that one jab is efficacious or that it is not? You see you can read the numbers in many ways and arrive at differing conclusions. "

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I think there's a huge difference between people who cannot have the vaccine and those that choose not to have it.

I don't see how you can force people to have the vaccine but I think those refusing it should face restrictions.

Why?

Why is that morally more acceptable than those who can’t have it facing restrictions?

I refer you to my OP!

I think it's a question of what people can do and whether you can help it.

Being vulnerable is not a choice

Being vaccinated is.

I suppose the question is if you see this as a zero sum game.

Thanks for actually addressing the OP.

Surely the anti-vax and hesitant would say being forced to be vaccinated (either direct mandation or mandating by stealth) with a drug they have concerns about takes away their choice?"

i disagree with that because this is how i see it

people can choose to be vaccinated OR face restrictions, which while perhaps not w palatable choice, is still a choice

vulnerable/ medically unable people would be you you cannot be vaccinated THEREFORE you face restrictions - no choice whatsoever

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

"I think there's a huge difference between people who cannot have the vaccine and those that choose not to have it.

I don't see how you can force people to have the vaccine but I think those refusing it should face restrictions.

Why?

Why is that morally more acceptable than those who can’t have it facing restrictions?

I refer you to my OP!

I think it's a question of what people can do and whether you can help it.

Being vulnerable is not a choice

Being vaccinated is.

I suppose the question is if you see this as a zero sum game.

Thanks for actually addressing the OP.

Surely the anti-vax and hesitant would say being forced to be vaccinated (either direct mandation or mandating by stealth) with a drug they have concerns about takes away their choice?

i disagree with that because this is how i see it

people can choose to be vaccinated OR face restrictions, which while perhaps not w palatable choice, is still a choice

vulnerable/ medically unable people would be you you cannot be vaccinated THEREFORE you face restrictions - no choice whatsoever "

Exactly.

Of course, as noted, this is all hypothetical at the moment

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

my full opinion/ hope is that we will reach enough of the population vaccinated that we actually wont have to resort to either option as both groups will be able to benefit from the immunity of the herd

however i know that isn’t really in the spirit of the OP designed for debate

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Is there anyone that actually thinks those that cannot have the vaccine should face restrictions?"

Only if it were necessary to keep them safe

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Wow, medical fascists, how progressive.

So what happens when the vaccinated start fill the hospitals with cytokine storms through antibody dependent enhancement - shall we lock them down for the rest of their lives??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alcon43Woman over a year ago

Paisley

I like being ‘vaccine hesitant’ rather than being classed as an anti vaxxer.

To be clear my reasons for not getting the covid vaccine is based on previous experience with the MHRA and the FDA’s approval of pelvic mesh without further requirements for medical trials after it was initially approved decades ago and the subsequent issues it has caused which can be found on any goggle search. Their approval of any vaccine in such a short period of time does not fill me with confidence. The MHRA Yellow Card scheme is being used to record side effects from the vaccines. If they are so safe why are there so many follow up research projects being carried out?

What hasn’t been addressed are the people who aren’t registered with a GP or have moved and not registered with a new GP. Many of these will be people not entitled to NHS health care due to their immigration status and won’t receive letters for appointments. Cultural differences need to be addressed. Even in India they are refusing the vaccines.

What we should have done is close the airports and borders and we wouldn’t be in this situation with an Indian or April 21 variant. We are now looking at a variant from Vietnam as well.

As someone who spent 10 weeks visiting my Mum in hospital (not covid related), within 2 days of her being admitted she was put at risk from a patient who had been admitted from A&E who tested positive. She was then put in a side ward and I couldn’t visit her that night. My Mum passed away but not from covid.

Now the biggest risk that I see is people no longer sanitising trolleys and hands as they enter shops. They just walk in with their friends and no one questions them.

So OP unless everyone uses track and trace, keeps the app switched on and only goes to places where track and trace is implemented there cannot be any conclusive cause of any outbreaks. We run the risk of a witch hunt without just cause.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Wow, medical fascists, how progressive.

So what happens when the vaccinated start fill the hospitals with cytokine storms through antibody dependent enhancement - shall we lock them down for the rest of their lives??"

its a hypothetical question based on the scenario described , i haven’t seen anyone saying in current circumstances hold them down and get them jabbed

its as the OP says a moral dilemma , like the trolley/ train with 2 tracks problem

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" What hasn’t been addressed are the people who aren’t registered with a GP or have moved and not registered with a new GP. Many of these will be people not entitled to NHS health care due to their immigration status and won’t receive letters for appointments. Cultural differences need to be addressed. Even in India they are refusing the vaccines. "

i just commented on the walk in vaccine centre thread thinking it seemed odd to mess with what seemed to already be a successful formula toward the end of the process, however this actually hadnt occurred to me ... if walk in centres are allowed to offer vaccination, to undocumented people with no repercussions that would be an excellent use of them

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

I believe they did offer an amnesty for vaccination purposes

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"I like being ‘vaccine hesitant’ rather than being classed as an anti vaxxer.

What we should have done is close the airports and borders and we wouldn’t be in this situation with an Indian or April 21 variant. We are now looking at a variant from Vietnam as well.

Now the biggest risk that I see is people no longer sanitising trolleys and hands as they enter shops. They just walk in with their friends and no one questions them.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igNick1381Man over a year ago

BRIDGEND

"I like being ‘vaccine hesitant’ rather than being classed as an anti vaxxer.

What we should have done is close the airports and borders and we wouldn’t be in this situation with an Indian or April 21 variant. We are now looking at a variant from Vietnam as well.

Now the biggest risk that I see is people no longer sanitising trolleys and hands as they enter shops. They just walk in with their friends and no one questions them.

I top am vaccine hesitant. And specifically this vaccine hesitant. I find it odd that stating this leads to people then classing you as an anti-vaccine granny murderer

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

"I like being ‘vaccine hesitant’ rather than being classed as an anti vaxxer.

What we should have done is close the airports and borders and we wouldn’t be in this situation with an Indian or April 21 variant. We are now looking at a variant from Vietnam as well.

Now the biggest risk that I see is people no longer sanitising trolleys and hands as they enter shops. They just walk in with their friends and no one questions them.

I top am vaccine hesitant. And specifically this vaccine hesitant. I find it odd that stating this leads to people then classing you as an anti-vaccine granny murderer"

My issue is the people that share untrue stories trying to scare people away from the vaccines, there are a few culprits that do it in most of this forums threads. I also have an issue with those that blindly believe those untruths simply because they want to shove two fingers up at the government, there are many people whose view on the vaccines are far too politically motivated.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"I like being ‘vaccine hesitant’ rather than being classed as an anti vaxxer.

What we should have done is close the airports and borders and we wouldn’t be in this situation with an Indian or April 21 variant. We are now looking at a variant from Vietnam as well.

Now the biggest risk that I see is people no longer sanitising trolleys and hands as they enter shops. They just walk in with their friends and no one questions them.

I top am vaccine hesitant. And specifically this vaccine hesitant. I find it odd that stating this leads to people then classing you as an anti-vaccine granny murderer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QAHi3lX3oGM&t=1s

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNKF, FNLA

Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine

Board Certified Internist and Cardiologist

President Cardiorenal Society of America

Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine

Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine

Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

I find it interesting that the usual suspects have not posted in this thread. Could be they weren’t interested in debating a moral dilemma but based on how they post on pretty much every other thread it makes you wonder!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andm300Man over a year ago

guildford

Talking of moral binds has anyone ever heard of the trolly problem in philosophy?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *allySlinkyWoman over a year ago

Leeds

"Talking of moral binds has anyone ever heard of the trolly problem in philosophy?"

The Wonky Wheel ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"My issue is the people that share untrue stories trying to scare people away from the vaccines, there are a few culprits that do it in most of this forums threads. I also have an issue with those that blindly believe those untruths simply because they want to shove two fingers up at the government, there are many people whose view on the vaccines are far too politically motivated. "

Ok but the whole pro/anti argument needs balance so...

Pandemtrix

This is from the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL

pro-vaxxers can’t understand why anti-vaxxers are, well anti, and vaccine hesitant want to wait a bit, perhaps this will go some of the way (and is NOT an easily dismissed tin foil conspiracy theory!

“Eight years after the pandemic influenza outbreak, a lawsuit alleging that GlaxoSmithKline’s Pandemrix vaccine caused narcolepsy has unearthed internal reports suggesting problems with the vaccine’s safety. Peter Doshi asks what this means for the future of transparency during public health emergencies.

In October 2009, the US National Institutes of Health infectious diseases chief, Anthony Fauci, appeared on YouTube to reassure Americans about the safety of the “swine flu” vaccine. “The track record for serious adverse events is very good. It’s very, very, very rare that you ever see anything that’s associated with the vaccine that’s a serious event,”1 he said.

Four months earlier, the World Health Organization had declared H1N1 influenza a pandemic, and by October 2009 the new vaccines were being rolled out across the world. A similar story was playing out in the UK, with prominent organisations, including the Department of Health, British Medical Association, and Royal Colleges of General Practitioners, working hard to convince a reluctant NHS workforce to get vaccinated. “We fully support the swine flu vaccination programme … The vaccine has been thoroughly tested,” they declared in a joint statement.

Except, it hadn’t. Anticipating a severe influenza pandemic, governments around the world had made various logistical and legal arrangements to shorten the time between recognition of a pandemic virus and the production of a vaccine and administration of that vaccine in the population. In Europe, one element of those plans was an agreement to grant licences to pandemic vaccines based on data from pre-pandemic “mock-up” vaccines produced using a different virus (H5N1 influenza). Another element, adopted by countries such as Canada, the US, UK, France, and Germany, was to provide vaccine manufacturers indemnity from liability for wrongdoing, thereby reducing the risk of a lawsuit stemming from vaccine related injury.”

Sound familiar? Similar patterns? I am not saying this is happening again but just putting out something that shows why it is right to question what we put into our bodies.

Back to the moral dilemma - both groups are being forced to do something against their will that will benefit the other group!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *anesjhCouple over a year ago

LONDON.

Ok but the whole pro/anti argument needs balance so...

Pandemtrix

This is from the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL

Sound familiar? Similar patterns? I am not saying this is happening again but just putting out something that shows why it is right to question what we put into our bodies.

Back to the moral dilemma - both groups are being forced to do something against their will that will benefit the other group!"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eavenscentitCouple over a year ago

barnstaple

Congratulations on being brainwashed by this appalling government. Wake up, they were never going to allow our freedom back.

Goal posts are continuing to move.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *an hjCouple over a year ago

Stowmarket

"Neither

(thumb

How would we know the outbreak came from the unvaccinated."

It said "among the unvaccinated " not "from"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rotic desiresWoman over a year ago

Here and there

Ok but the whole pro/anti argument needs balance so...

Pandemtrix

This is from the BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL

Sound familiar? Similar patterns? I am not saying this is happening again but just putting out something that shows why it is right to question what we put into our bodies.

Back to the moral dilemma - both groups are being forced to do something against their will that will benefit the other group!"

Being vaccine hesitant, this is exactly the fear:

-considering the mRNA vaccines, which have never before been licensed

-now have an authorisation for emergency use

-where there are peer reviews which are generally by experts paid by the government or associated with institutions which are heavily funded by the government and/or those who stand to have a massive financial gain and could therefore be likely heavy influencers

-where those who have different opinions with relevant credentials and industry experience are being silenced, censored, disreputed and stand to lose license to practice and/or their livelihoods, in other words are putting everything at stake to speak out

I most certainly would hesitate to have entire populations vaccinated by mandate without knowing more over the longer term by monitoring those who are willing to take the risk and have taken it (I, as a healthy individual and a single mother just would not, based on my own personal risk analysis for me), God forbid, those experts who are advising caution are right?! Just imagine the likes of antibody dependent enhancement or the cytokinetic storm becoming a reality when those who are vaccinated come into contact with the real virus?! And there are millions vaccinated, including the ENTIRE healthcare professionals!!! The next couple of winters would be absolutely terrifying, for EVERYONE!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andm300Man over a year ago

guildford

The legal indemnity granted by our government to the manufacturer of the vaccine was the main cause yes of my vaccine hesitation. I have had a life where my trust In Authorities has been abused by those In positions of power several times (trauma causing). I have also been surprised at the Aggressive mainstream propaganda at play and only one side of a issue is getting represented.

So as someone who has no problem generally with the science of vaccines I have chosen to wait (maybe to the end of the summer). If I get restricted In Any way due to this I have no problem Seeking out counterfeit records.

The elderly have been vaccinated and the Vulnerable mostly Protected and as a fit and healthy 40 year old it seems my odds of Hospitalisation is around 1000 to 1.

I have had chemotherapy A long time ago that required self isolation as my immune was compromised. I didn’t expect the world to isolate to protect me or the world to take a vaccine to eradicate disease so I can go out.

The real issue is trust and it’s not being addressed and instead propaganda and social shaming and threatening freedoms has been seen as a better solution. All to avoid the real issue.....too many have lost trust. Try and get someone who has been abused repetitively to now trust their abuser (like a damaged dog in a shelter) ....is not easy.

So as we are all too selfish to stand together against corruption and tyranny those who can’t have the vaccine are put at risk.

Now of course as things continue to unfold things may change and I may opt for the vaccine by the start of the autumn. But the more manipulation and propaganda I see the more likely I am to pass on the vaccine.

Also considering all the misinformation flying around I am shocked there hasn’t been a be rush to teach critical thinking at schools and to the general public. It’s like they are scared to arm the public with such a skill set.....very strange.

For now I go about opening my heart to all I can muster

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uckandbunnyCouple over a year ago

In your bed

"Anyone not bored by my posts will know by now that I really loathe the tribalist nature of social media because life is not binary and arguments are not black & white but instead many shades of grey.

I often play devil’s advocate to challenge myopic or singular viewpoint arguments or people stating opinion as fact.

Once all the people in vulnerable groups that can be vaccinated have been vaccinated should we:

A) Make it mandatory that c.500k people who cannot have vaccine continue to shield and take extra precautions so that the rest of the UK population and businesses can get back to normal.

Please explain your preference and why one is better/fairer or morally more acceptable than the other?"

I disagree with both the hypothesis and the 2 solutions provided,

I therefore kindly decline the offer to participate in this particular vacinne Royal rumble for the fabswingers WWE audience.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

For the record I don’t advocate either option and would find both highly disagreeable. Nobody in society should be marginalised or disadvantaged.

Therein lies the moral dilemma. However, I put this forward as I have repeatedly seen people from both sides of the argument put forward a variation on one of these two options.

It is similar to this moral dilemma (no offence is meant to anyone, I am simply illustrating the point)...

You have two children.

Child 1 has a life threatening illness that is expected to shorten their lifespan. They are a kind, polite and generous human being.

Child 2 is totally healthy and expected to live to a ripe old age. They are mean, rude and selfish.

Your house catches fire and both children are stuck.

You can only save one!

Which one do you save?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

I often play devil’s advocate to challenge myopic or singular viewpoint arguments or people stating opinion as fact.

Once all the people in vulnerable groups that can be vaccinated have been vaccinated should we:

A) Make it mandatory that c.500k people who cannot have vaccine continue to shield and take extra precautions so that the rest of the UK population and businesses can get back to normal.

Please explain your preference and why one is better/fairer or morally more acceptable than the other?

I disagree with both the hypothesis and the 2 solutions provided,

I therefore kindly decline the offer to participate in this particular vacinne Royal rumble for the fabswingers WWE audience. "

The solutions are indeed grim and hopefully nothing like this would happen. However, are you saying the hypothesis is wrong?

In what way?

I maintain that the number of vaccine hesitant and anti-vaxxers is larger than the number of people who cannot actually have the vaccine. Do you think this is not correct?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rotic desiresWoman over a year ago

Here and there

I often play devil’s advocate to challenge myopic or singular viewpoint arguments or people stating opinion as fact.

Once all the people in vulnerable groups that can be vaccinated have been vaccinated should we:

A) Make it mandatory that c.500k people who cannot have vaccine continue to shield and take extra precautions so that the rest of the UK population and businesses can get back to normal.

Please explain your preference and why one is better/fairer or morally more acceptable than the other?

I disagree with both the hypothesis and the 2 solutions provided,

I therefore kindly decline the offer to participate in this particular vacinne Royal rumble for the fabswingers WWE audience.

The solutions are indeed grim and hopefully nothing like this would happen. However, are you saying the hypothesis is wrong?

In what way?

I maintain that the number of vaccine hesitant and anti-vaxxers is larger than the number of people who cannot actually have the vaccine. Do you think this is not correct?"

Excuse me for butting in...I am of the same opinion that neither hypothesis is the way to go... please define "people who cannot actually have the vaccine" - who decides that? I remember a poster on a different thread who maintained being in the vulnerable category but had advice from 2 different consultants - one advising to get vaccinated, the other recommending against vaccination...which consultant is right?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

Please do “butt in” this is a discussion.

My understanding is there are groups of people, such as those who are immune deficient (possibly undergoing cancer treatment) who should not have these vaccines.

Many of the pro-vaccine people on these forums are of the opinion that everyone else must be vaccinated to protect those who can’t citing moral duty or benefit to society.

Anti-vaxxers take an opposing stance.

Vaccine hesitant are confused and have a dilemma.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rotic desiresWoman over a year ago

Here and there

"Please do “butt in” this is a discussion.

My understanding is there are groups of people, such as those who are immune deficient (possibly undergoing cancer treatment) who should not have these vaccines.

Many of the pro-vaccine people on these forums are of the opinion that everyone else must be vaccinated to protect those who can’t citing moral duty or benefit to society.

Anti-vaxxers take an opposing stance.

Vaccine hesitant are confused and have a dilemma."

Yes, I understand that there are different "categories" of people who would automatically be advised against vaccination or who may not produce the desired immune response (though I would maintain that this is for the traditional attenuated vaccine, which in the case of mRNA may not actually apply - though I am not aware of the science here).

The question of definition above is also interesting because in any case, the doctor advising for or against vaccination - where does his/her opinion stem from? Obviously they are in the medical field but we can see the division - which "side" do they take their information on - can they really be unbiased with the amount of propaganda surrounding the entire situation?

I am also very aware that there are many different opinions on vaccination, regardless of whether pro-vaccine, categorically anti-vaccine or vaccine hesitant for this particular vaccine.

Some pro-vaxxers still believe in freedom of choice and bodily autonomy and others have more extreme views, be that through wanting mandates, imposing additional restrictions on the unvaccinated (who have no "medical excuse" to get vaccinated) or refusing medical treatment for those refusing the vaccine (this is where I would play devil's advocate and ask the vaccinated, will you return the same courtesy by not taking medical treatment in the event of a side effect, regardless of its severity?)

I still maintain that neither of the options you gave in your hypothetical situation is morally right.

Though in a human experiment, it would be interesting to see how such a scenario pans out...will the vulnerable who have restrictions imposed on them go protesting/fighting legal battles to have their "rights" reinstated? Will those who are mandated to be vaccinated do the same? And who will "win"?

I suppose this kind of scenario may very well be coming our way. I understand that Italy wants to impose compulsory vaccination on their health care staff and there is uproar.

In which case, I go back to my previous argument - God forbid the "experts" opposing vaccination are right and they are in fact not only possibly detrimental to health in the long-term but lethal?!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

@Ecstatically_arousing totally agree both scenarios are horrendous to one group or the other.

That is the point of a moral dilemma, hence my horrible children in a fire analogy further up.

There is no right answer but for each of us as individuals there may possibly be one that is less wrong than the other?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andm300Man over a year ago

guildford

Seriously you will love the trolly problem. Youtube it.

There is a trolley On The train tracks and 4 people tied to the tracks who are certain to die if hit. You are next to a lever that diverts the trolly onto another track . Problem is if you pull the lever The divert track has one person tied to it.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

Had a few people private message me about this topic, which is interesting/telling in itself. Really would welcome folks posting their views here in the thread. Compared to some threads, this one seems remarkably civil so far

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andm300Man over a year ago

guildford

Most will pull the lever murdering 1 to save 4.

Yet If you ask them to instead of pulling a lever push a overweight man Off a bridge on the track killing the man but derailing the trolly and Saving the 4 Then most would not commit the deadly push

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *andm300Man over a year ago

guildford

Now add little extra info like the 4 tied are hitler, Fred west, Jack the Ripper and Bill gates????

And the other one some saint. Do you pull the lever now

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"Seriously you will love the trolly problem. Youtube it.

Once you factor in the fat man on the bridge it becomes really fascinating.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"Now add little extra info like the 4 tied are hitler, Fred west, Jack the Ripper and Bill gates????

And the other one some saint. Do you pull the lever now"

Even more interesting would be if the four included 2 villains and 2 saints with the other track just the one saint.

Or the four were elderly but the one was a child.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ollydoesWoman over a year ago

Shangri-La

"The vaccine isn't guaranteed to stop the virus spreading and even if it did it's not worth sacrificing our ever dwindling freedoms to make them mandatory. "

No, but it will reduce the number of deaths.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ollydoesWoman over a year ago

Shangri-La

"I like being ‘vaccine hesitant’ rather than being classed as an anti vaxxer.

What we should have done is close the airports and borders and we wouldn’t be in this situation with an Indian or April 21 variant. We are now looking at a variant from Vietnam as well.

Now the biggest risk that I see is people no longer sanitising trolleys and hands as they enter shops. They just walk in with their friends and no one questions them.

I top am vaccine hesitant. And specifically this vaccine hesitant. I find it odd that stating this leads to people then classing you as an anti-vaccine granny murderer

This^^ Im not being told i have to have the jab, or, they cant control me, they are secretly putting micro chips in us...Those people who want to make a fuss for the sake of making a fuss.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ackformore100Man over a year ago

Tin town

"Seriously you will love the trolly problem. Youtube it.

Once you factor in the fat man on the bridge it becomes really fascinating."

And the fool on the hill

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igNick1381Man over a year ago

BRIDGEND

The whole thought exercise falls apart when you apply it to British rail and realise no one needs to die as there's leaves on the track and all service's have been cancelled

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rotic desiresWoman over a year ago

Here and there

"@Ecstatically_arousing totally agree both scenarios are horrendous to one group or the other.

That is the point of a moral dilemma, hence my horrible children in a fire analogy further up.

There is no right answer but for each of us as individuals there may possibly be one that is less wrong than the other?"

Well, when I read through the virus Forum, I get the feeling that there are quite a number of people who do quite vehemently believe that one of those hypothetical situations is the right one over the other, namely mandate the vaccination for the antis and the hesitants because it's not the vulnerable people's fault they can't have it...

It's not my fault that I am (presumably) healthy and not in the category of "cannot take it"...for argument's sake, would it be true or fair to say that not all "cannot have the vaccine" people are in that category without their own doing - in other words are vulnerable or too ill because of lifestyle choices, smoking, drinking, eating excessively and the wrong foods, not exercising, not keeping healthy sleeping patterns, rather than because of a vulnerability they are born with or acquired by "accident", without wanting to offend or point fingers.

Where the children scenario is concerned...the funny thing is I have 2 children. I love both my children and believe that I would do anything to protect them from harm to the best of my ability. Some parents may identify with me when I say that I have an entirely different relationship with each of my children. This doesn't impact on my love for either of them. And both my children are very, very different - not as you describe above but to an outsider may be perceived as such. My son is very sociable, outgoing and naturally happy, very well liked by all, whereas my daughter is quite the opposite with a diagnosis of ASD, which can come with a less likeable manner. To a by-stander who cannot see that she has a condition, she would probably come across as quiet, possibly even show her extreme self where she might be perceived as rude, pedantic and obsessive. I would hope that most people could see that each relationship comes with its challenges.

I was trying to visualise your scenario. Quite frankly, everyone will put their own surrounding circumstances on it. I could not "see" in my mind's eye which child I would "tend to" if I had to make a snap decision in such an emergency. I doubt any parent can say for sure which child they would choose, unless they have been in that situation and survived, some may even decide to try for both and all perish in the process. I think only the emergency itself would tell.

Hence I think these scenarios are not necessarily comparable as a moral dilemma because they are snapshot decisions under extreme circumstances where adrenaline is pumping...there is a little bit more time available in the vaccination situation.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"Seriously you will love the trolly problem. Youtube it.

Once you factor in the fat man on the bridge it becomes really fascinating.

And the fool on the hill"

That’ll be me spending too much time on a swingers forum trying to have a philosophical debate!!!!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"The whole thought exercise falls apart when you apply it to British rail and realise no one needs to die as there's leaves on the track and all service's have been cancelled"

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rotic desiresWoman over a year ago

Here and there

"Seriously you will love the trolly problem. Youtube it.

Once you factor in the fat man on the bridge it becomes really fascinating."

I was also trying to visualise this scenario. For me, circumstances are always important when trying to imagine something. Do you know the people or not, who are they to you in your decision making process?

I can certainly understand that having to physically push a person to their death, actually touching them, would make a difference in the decision making process to when it is a lever which is pulled. I doubt it would make a difference to a psychopath, depending on his MO.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"@Ecstatically_arousing totally agree both scenarios are horrendous to one group or the other.

That is the point of a moral dilemma, hence my horrible children in a fire analogy further up.

There is no right answer but for each of us as individuals there may possibly be one that is less wrong than the other?

Thank you for such a thought provoking response. I need to consider this for a bit before responding.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *hagTonightMan over a year ago

From the land of haribos.

Neither, it is a tricky one as the survival rate is very high, how about this, shield the vulnerable and keep it business as usual and those others that wants to be vaccinated can do so too, but knowing that they wont get immunity from it and there is no need for restrictions for anyone.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"The legal indemnity granted by our government to the manufacturer of the vaccine was the main cause yes of my vaccine hesitation. I have had a life where my trust In Authorities has been abused by those In positions of power several times (trauma causing). I have also been surprised at the Aggressive mainstream propaganda at play and only one side of a issue is getting represented.

The elderly have been vaccinated and the Vulnerable mostly Protected and as a fit and healthy 40 year old it seems my odds of Hospitalisation is around 1000 to 1.

So as we are all too selfish to stand together against corruption and tyranny those who can’t have the vaccine are put at risk.

For now I go about opening my heart to all I can muster"

Yup, they are trying to gaslight us, and in a lot of cases succeeding, the majority it would appear. The vaccine has a value for the vulnerable, but beyond that the current evidence suggests it is a bad idea.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

The elderly have been vaccinated and the Vulnerable mostly Protected and as a fit and healthy 40 year old it seems my odds of Hospitalisation is around 1000 to 1.

So as we are all too selfish to stand together against corruption and tyranny those who can’t have the vaccine are put at risk.

For now I go about opening my heart to all I can muster

Why is it a 'bad' idea rather than just neutral?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *ark Knight 2017Man over a year ago

Ware

Forced medical procedure.. Hmmmmm

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

The elderly have been vaccinated and the Vulnerable mostly Protected and as a fit and healthy 40 year old it seems my odds of Hospitalisation is around 1000 to 1.

So as we are all too selfish to stand together against corruption and tyranny those who can’t have the vaccine are put at risk.

For now I go about opening my heart to all I can muster

Why is it a 'bad' idea rather than just neutral? "

Because the risk of it's consequences is too high, both for the individual and for society - for only a 1% reduction in risk to the individual.

Even eminent mainstream experts like Dr Peter McCullough, who has 40 peer reviewed papers out on Covid19 alone says the evidence we have now makes him advise his patients not to have the vaccine, and for vaccine rollouts to be halted, especially to low-risk groups who may be more at risk from the vaccine.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *aximumperversionMan over a year ago

Nationwide

What if the vaccinated all start becoming seriously ill and all hospitalised,surely then they should be quarantined?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

"What if the vaccinated all start becoming seriously ill and all hospitalised,surely then they should be quarantined?"

There are some on these forums who advocated removing free healthcare or even any treatment by the NHS to people who refused to be vaccinated. If what you describe happens (I don’t think/hope it will) then I wonder if they will change their stance?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

The elderly have been vaccinated and the Vulnerable mostly Protected and as a fit and healthy 40 year old it seems my odds of Hospitalisation is around 1000 to 1.

So as we are all too selfish to stand together against corruption and tyranny those who can’t have the vaccine are put at risk.

For now I go about opening my heart to all I can muster

Why is it a 'bad' idea rather than just neutral?

Because the risk of it's consequences is too high, both for the individual and for society - for only a 1% reduction in risk to the individual.

He has also blindly promoted hydroxychloroquine which has since been proven for to be effective and one of his 'peer reviewed' papers is under scrutiny as the peer review process was rushed through and contained information that has since been proved false.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

The elderly have been vaccinated and the Vulnerable mostly Protected and as a fit and healthy 40 year old it seems my odds of Hospitalisation is around 1000 to 1.

So as we are all too selfish to stand together against corruption and tyranny those who can’t have the vaccine are put at risk.

For now I go about opening my heart to all I can muster

Why is it a 'bad' idea rather than just neutral?

Because the risk of it's consequences is too high, both for the individual and for society - for only a 1% reduction in risk to the individual.

Not to be effective*

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Open everything, if your not willing to have the vaccination and die that’s on you if your to scared to live life and hide away as if your already dead then you may as well be dead and let the rest of us that miss life go back to it

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

"Open everything, if your not willing to have the vaccination and die that’s on you if your to scared to live life and hide away as if your already dead then you may as well be dead and let the rest of us that miss life go back to it"

Would you say the same if you'd seen someone die from covid or if you had an extremely vulnerable relative?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

The elderly have been vaccinated and the Vulnerable mostly Protected and as a fit and healthy 40 year old it seems my odds of Hospitalisation is around 1000 to 1.

So as we are all too selfish to stand together against corruption and tyranny those who can’t have the vaccine are put at risk.

For now I go about opening my heart to all I can muster

Why is it a 'bad' idea rather than just neutral?

Because the risk of it's consequences is too high, both for the individual and for society - for only a 1% reduction in risk to the individual.

You are simply wrong, you continually make false statements, you listen to too much propaganda. This guy is completely beyond reproach, I suggest you seek out his 1hr43 minute explanation of everything and listen to him.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNKF, FNLA

Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine

Board Certified Internist and Cardiologist

President Cardiorenal Society of America

Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine

Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine

Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

The elderly have been vaccinated and the Vulnerable mostly Protected and as a fit and healthy 40 year old it seems my odds of Hospitalisation is around 1000 to 1.

So as we are all too selfish to stand together against corruption and tyranny those who can’t have the vaccine are put at risk.

For now I go about opening my heart to all I can muster

Why is it a 'bad' idea rather than just neutral?

Because the risk of it's consequences is too high, both for the individual and for society - for only a 1% reduction in risk to the individual.

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNKF, FNLA

Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine

Board Certified Internist and Cardiologist

President Cardiorenal Society of America

Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine

Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine

Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology"

It's pretty easy to find out that it is true.

You talk about posting false statements yet you continually post data as conclusive proof which is actually only reported data, not proven or even accurate.

I don't know how you've got away with it for this long tbh.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

Either was frisky mare, I shall no longer interact with you, I'd appreciate you doing the same.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"Had a few people private message me about this topic, which is interesting/telling in itself. Really would welcome folks posting their views here in the thread. Compared to some threads, this one seems remarkably civil so far

probably because it is hypothetical - people tend to get more heated when they think its their own rights at risk

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

I don't know how you've got away with it for this long tbh. "

Because it's the truth - you may be past help but other people are not.

"This is by far and away the most lethal, toxic biologic agent ever injected...in American History.

4000 dead Americans, 10000 dead in Europe....It has passed all the thresholds [for harm]it is an unsafe drug....

Based on safety data as of now [end May] I can no longer recommend it.

It's like giving the entire world a narrow spectrum antibiotic...don't vaccinate the entire world, all we're going to do is set up for a superbug that's going to REALLY wipe out populations.

It is a horrendous idea...I am extremely concerned."

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNKF, FNLA

Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine

Board Certified Internist and Cardiologist

President Cardiorenal Society of America

Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine

Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine

Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology

Author of 40 odd peer reviewed papers on Covid19, and utterly beyond reproach.

In his opinion vaccinating pregnant women and children at all is madness too, the risk benefit equation is totally wrong.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

I don't know how you've got away with it for this long tbh.

Because it's the truth - you may be past help but other people are not.

"This is by far and away the most lethal, toxic biologic agent ever injected...in American History.

4000 dead Americans, 10000 dead in Europe....It has passed all the thresholds [for harm]it is an unsafe drug....

Based on safety data as of now [end May] I can no longer recommend it.

It's like giving the entire world a narrow spectrum antibiotic...don't vaccinate the entire world, all we're going to do is set up for a superbug that's going to REALLY wipe out populations.

It is a horrendous idea...I am extremely concerned."

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNKF, FNLA

Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine

Board Certified Internist and Cardiologist

President Cardiorenal Society of America

Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine

Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine

Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology

Author of 40 odd peer reviewed papers on Covid19, and utterly beyond reproach.

In his opinion vaccinating pregnant women and children at all is madness too, the risk benefit equation is totally wrong."

This well respected Cardiologist has made many statements about the vaccines, most if which are disputed by the vast majority of the medical & scientific community.

Many of his claims have been proven to be "FALSE", such as "zero transmission from asymptomatic patients" and "under 50s gain no benefit from vaccination".

Being highly intelligent/qualified doesn't prevent people from forming the wrong opinions, and within the scientific community NOBODY'S opinion is beyond reproach.

Cal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

OH and the Lancet paper that discredited HCQ was a total fake, and was retracted. It is part of an arsenal of drugs in successful use for early treatment of Covid19 the world over.

"In the first big research scandal of the COVID-19 era, The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) today retracted two high-profile papers after a company declined to make the underlying data for both available for an independent audit, following questions being raised about the research. The Lancet paper, which claimed an antimalarial drug touted by President Donald Trump for treatment of COVID-19 could cause serious harm without helping patients, had had a global impact, halting trials of one of the drugs by the World Health Organization (WHO) and others."

Dr McCullough said people in the US were literally going to pharmacies with prescriptions for HCQ from frontline doctors and being refused. It was a political move IMO.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't know how you've got away with it for this long tbh.

Because it's the truth - you may be past help but other people are not.

"This is by far and away the most lethal, toxic biologic agent ever injected...in American History.

4000 dead Americans, 10000 dead in Europe....It has passed all the thresholds [for harm]it is an unsafe drug....

Based on safety data as of now [end May] I can no longer recommend it.

It's like giving the entire world a narrow spectrum antibiotic...don't vaccinate the entire world, all we're going to do is set up for a superbug that's going to REALLY wipe out populations.

It is a horrendous idea...I am extremely concerned."

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNKF, FNLA

Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine

Board Certified Internist and Cardiologist

President Cardiorenal Society of America

Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine

Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine

Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology

Author of 40 odd peer reviewed papers on Covid19, and utterly beyond reproach.

In his opinion vaccinating pregnant women and children at all is madness too, the risk benefit equation is totally wrong."

sorry am i misreading? are you claiming 10k dead in europe from vaccination?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *moothCriminal_xMan over a year ago

Redditch

I often play devil’s advocate to challenge myopic or singular viewpoint arguments or people stating opinion as fact.

Once all the people in vulnerable groups that can be vaccinated have been vaccinated should we:

A) Make it mandatory that c.500k people who cannot have vaccine continue to shield and take extra precautions so that the rest of the UK population and businesses can get back to normal.

Please explain your preference and why one is better/fairer or morally more acceptable than the other?"

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

I don't know how you've got away with it for this long tbh.

Because it's the truth - you may be past help but other people are not.

"This is by far and away the most lethal, toxic biologic agent ever injected...in American History.

4000 dead Americans, 10000 dead in Europe....It has passed all the thresholds [for harm]it is an unsafe drug....

Based on safety data as of now [end May] I can no longer recommend it.

It's like giving the entire world a narrow spectrum antibiotic...don't vaccinate the entire world, all we're going to do is set up for a superbug that's going to REALLY wipe out populations.

It is a horrendous idea...I am extremely concerned."

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNKF, FNLA

Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine

Board Certified Internist and Cardiologist

President Cardiorenal Society of America

Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine

Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine

Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology

Author of 40 odd peer reviewed papers on Covid19, and utterly beyond reproach.

In his opinion vaccinating pregnant women and children at all is madness too, the risk benefit equation is totally wrong.

This well respected Cardiologist has made many statements about the vaccines, most if which are disputed by the vast majority of the medical & scientific community.

Many of his claims have been proven to be "FALSE", such as "zero transmission from asymptomatic patients" and "under 50s gain no benefit from vaccination".

Being highly intelligent/qualified doesn't prevent people from forming the wrong opinions, and within the scientific community NOBODY'S opinion is beyond reproach.

Cal"

His reputation is - scientific opinion differs, full stop.

Is there any evidence of asymptomatic transmission? A study of 11 million Chinese patients failed to confirm a single case I understand?

If under healthy under 50's are successfully treated by the early treatment protocols he recommends, they have no need of vaccination.

You cannot compare well managed outcomes with those who are left to rot at home for 2 weeks with a packet of paracetamol, that is negligent.

His whole premise that Covid 19 is a treatable disease is borne out by results the world over.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uenevereWoman over a year ago

Scunthorpe

I don't know how you've got away with it for this long tbh.

Because it's the truth - you may be past help but other people are not.

"This is by far and away the most lethal, toxic biologic agent ever injected...in American History.

4000 dead Americans, 10000 dead in Europe....It has passed all the thresholds [for harm]it is an unsafe drug....

Based on safety data as of now [end May] I can no longer recommend it.

It's like giving the entire world a narrow spectrum antibiotic...don't vaccinate the entire world, all we're going to do is set up for a superbug that's going to REALLY wipe out populations.

It is a horrendous idea...I am extremely concerned."

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNKF, FNLA

Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine

Board Certified Internist and Cardiologist

President Cardiorenal Society of America

Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine

Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine

Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology

Author of 40 odd peer reviewed papers on Covid19, and utterly beyond reproach.

In his opinion vaccinating pregnant women and children at all is madness too, the risk benefit equation is totally wrong.

sorry am i misreading? are you claiming 10k dead in europe from vaccination?"

I'm not sure whether the poster believes it, but seemingly that is what this emminent Cardiologist has stated.

Clearly, that isn't the case, serious side effects are thankfully quite rare.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

I don't know how you've got away with it for this long tbh.

Because it's the truth - you may be past help but other people are not.

"This is by far and away the most lethal, toxic biologic agent ever injected...in American History.

4000 dead Americans, 10000 dead in Europe....It has passed all the thresholds [for harm]it is an unsafe drug....

Based on safety data as of now [end May] I can no longer recommend it.

It's like giving the entire world a narrow spectrum antibiotic...don't vaccinate the entire world, all we're going to do is set up for a superbug that's going to REALLY wipe out populations.

It is a horrendous idea...I am extremely concerned."

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNKF, FNLA

Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine

Board Certified Internist and Cardiologist

President Cardiorenal Society of America

Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine

Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine

Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology

Author of 40 odd peer reviewed papers on Covid19, and utterly beyond reproach.

In his opinion vaccinating pregnant women and children at all is madness too, the risk benefit equation is totally wrong.

sorry am i misreading? are you claiming 10k dead in europe from vaccination?"

That is the reported figure, yes.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

Having done a little research on Peter A. McCullough, MD (etc...) it appears as though he is recognised as a leading protagonist in the AntiVaxx world. Literally all of his Data is misrepresented, incorrect or "out & out lies" according to the recent article published by Science-Based-Medicine.

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *igNick1381Man over a year ago

BRIDGEND

"Having done a little research on Peter A. McCullough, MD (etc...) it appears as though he is recognised as a leading protagonist in the AntiVaxx world. Literally all of his Data is misrepresented, incorrect or "out & out lies" according to the recent article published by Science-Based-Medicine.

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal "

I've just read through the same article after. Ultimately both the writer of that piece and the Doctor in question are more qualified than is here and it eventually comes down to believe what you want to believe ultimately

I mean, the idea of the virus being from a pan leak was conspiracy until just recently so who knows what to believe

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal "

Thankyou, I'm glad there are some people that can read

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal

I mean, the idea of the virus being from a pan leak was conspiracy until just recently so who knows what to believe"

The big difference between the two is:

Peter A. McCullough, MD makes a load of claims but doesn't back them up with solid evidence.

The similarly qualified professionals who are disputing these claims (and there are many of them) are analysing each of these claims and using verified data to ststematically disprove them all.

Cal

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal

I mean, the idea of the virus being from a pan leak was conspiracy until just recently so who knows what to believe"

So you can say that anything is fact if you believe it?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal "

That is not true, he recommended it to all his patients until recently, now the data proecludes that.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal

That is not true, he recommended it to all his patients until recently, now the data proecludes that."

Not the "real" data...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal

I mean, the idea of the virus being from a pan leak was conspiracy until just recently so who knows what to believe

The big difference between the two is:

Peter A. McCullough, MD makes a load of claims but doesn't back them up with solid evidence.

Haha, bullshit, his papers would not be accepted in peer reviewed journals if that was the case. What was it, 40 papers on Covid in peer reviewed journals and all the establishment positions he holds? But he's the nutter? Jesus you people are so brainwashed....

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal

That is not true, he recommended it to all his patients until recently, now the data proecludes that.

Not the "real" data..."

Yes dear, the real data. Vaccine rollouts are usually halted if there are 50 or so deaths reported associated. Covid jabs are now into the thousands and thousands. The risk is too high for low risk groups 'First, do no harm'.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *alandNitaCouple over a year ago

Scunthorpe

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal

I mean, the idea of the virus being from a pan leak was conspiracy until just recently so who knows what to believe

The big difference between the two is:

Peter A. McCullough, MD makes a load of claims but doesn't back them up with solid evidence.

None of his published papers tjat I can find are presenting evidence for his claims, the majority that I've looked at are theoretical analysis of "possible" treatments for people suffering from covid, or heart related observations of covid patients.

The good thing about published papers, is they are all in the public domain for us all to read.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *uenevereWoman over a year ago

Scunthorpe

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal

That is not true, he recommended it to all his patients until recently, now the data proecludes that.

Not the "real" data...

I would rather take note of the opinion of a virologist in respect of a virus than a cardiologist.

I wouldn't see a gynaecologist for brain surgery but both are equally well trained in their field.

I have been unable ti source any virologists who agree with his stance, but many who don't. Examples below:

Olivier Schwartz, head of the Virus and Immunity Unit at the Pasteur Institute, told AFP by phone: “It is obvious that people under 50 who are in good health should be vaccinated” because they can still be affected by the disease.

Bruno Lina, professor of virology at the University of Lyon, said that the aim of a mass vaccination campaign is to reduce the transmission of a virus.

The Pasture Institute also disagree and the Chinese University that he quoted hVe gine on record ssying that he misrepresented their data.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *moothCriminal_xMan over a year ago

Redditch

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal

That is not true, he recommended it to all his patients until recently, now the data proecludes that.

Not the "real" data...

I mean...that's not true on so many levels

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal

I mean, the idea of the virus being from a pan leak was conspiracy until just recently so who knows what to believe

So you can say that anything is fact if you believe it? "

santa claus is real prove me wrong

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

I don't know how you've got away with it for this long tbh.

Because it's the truth - you may be past help but other people are not.

"This is by far and away the most lethal, toxic biologic agent ever injected...in American History.

4000 dead Americans, 10000 dead in Europe....It has passed all the thresholds [for harm]it is an unsafe drug....

Based on safety data as of now [end May] I can no longer recommend it.

It's like giving the entire world a narrow spectrum antibiotic...don't vaccinate the entire world, all we're going to do is set up for a superbug that's going to REALLY wipe out populations.

It is a horrendous idea...I am extremely concerned."

Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH, FACP, FACC, FAHA, FCRSA, FCCP, FNKF, FNLA

Professor of Medicine, Texas A & M College of Medicine

Board Certified Internist and Cardiologist

President Cardiorenal Society of America

Editor-in-Chief, Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine

Editor-in-Chief, Cardiorenal Medicine

Senior Associate Editor, American Journal of Cardiology

Author of 40 odd peer reviewed papers on Covid19, and utterly beyond reproach.

In his opinion vaccinating pregnant women and children at all is madness too, the risk benefit equation is totally wrong.

sorry am i misreading? are you claiming 10k dead in europe from vaccination?

That is the reported figure, yes."

reported where exactly?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal

I mean, the idea of the virus being from a pan leak was conspiracy until just recently so who knows what to believe

So you can say that anything is fact if you believe it?

santa claus is real prove me wrong

He is! Why would anyone think he isn't?!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

It just goes to show that a load of letters after your name doesn't necessarily mean you're credible.

Cal

Thankyou, I'm glad there are some people that can read

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *moothCriminal_xMan over a year ago

Redditch

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks."

The argument/conversation is binary. The problem is that most people are not qualified to understand any of this properly and many people don't fully understand their level of ignorance and so think their google search is good enough.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ? "

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too"

A quote

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote"

It's not a random argument either people want to ostrisize antivaxxers. Because of their beliefs.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote"

False equivalency. Jewish people in germany did no harm. Unvaccinated people do immense harm. Unless medically exempt they should not be accepted by society and their children shouldnt be allowed to put others at risk.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

So when does it escalate? When does the majority of the population turn against the few? Oddly familiar.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *moothCriminal_xMan over a year ago

Redditch

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

So when does it escalate? When does the majority of the population turn against the few? Oddly familiar. "

What do you mean by escalate?

Unvaccinated folk should be turned away by airlines and shops and denied entry to private businesses unless they have a medical exemption. What do you imagine escalation to be? They'll cave and get the vaccine before then. If not, there will be too few of them for it to be problematic

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

So when does it escalate? When does the majority of the population turn against the few? Oddly familiar. "

or it could be seen as the majority of the population , standing with the “few” , that are medically unable to get themselves antibodies and are at risk from the other “few”

and exclusion from society as a consequence of your own choice is still nothing like holocaust

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

So when does it escalate? When does the majority of the population turn against the few? Oddly familiar.

What do you mean by escalate?

So you are saying no one can have a life liberty and the pursuit of happiness because they do not have a vaccine. BRAVO. No rights trust the science do what your told or else.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss SinWoman over a year ago

portchester

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

So when does it escalate? When does the majority of the population turn against the few? Oddly familiar.

What do you mean by escalate?

This is a horrible thing to want

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *moothCriminal_xMan over a year ago

Redditch

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

So when does it escalate? When does the majority of the population turn against the few? Oddly familiar.

What do you mean by escalate?

This is a horrible thing to want "

Why?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks."

It was nice while it lasted.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

So when does it escalate? When does the majority of the population turn against the few? Oddly familiar.

What do you mean by escalate?

This is a horrible thing to want "

Looks like to me it's heading that way. Shunning denying life sustaining things . I had the vaccine I do not take fault because others choose not to. That is thier decision their happiness. Science said so that it works. Like I said a vaccine card is equivalent to a star of David. Religions come in to play.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *moothCriminal_xMan over a year ago

Redditch

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

It was nice while it lasted. "

People are labouring under some illusion that there are varying opinions of equal value and weight when it comes to the covid vaccines and that sinply isn't the case

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

It was nice while it lasted.

People are labouring under some illusion that there are varying opinions of equal value and weight when it comes to the covid vaccines and that sinply isn't the case"

What is the case. Forced vaccinations? To make the population feel like they can say good job ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

“ Religions come in to play.”

which religions?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

It was nice while it lasted.

People are labouring under some illusion that there are varying opinions of equal value and weight when it comes to the covid vaccines and that sinply isn't the case

What is the case. Forced vaccinations? To make the population feel like they can say good job ? "

People not believing all the bullshit they read on social media and actually looking at the situation logically.

What do you think would be happening now if everyone refused the vaccine?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *moothCriminal_xMan over a year ago

Redditch

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

It was nice while it lasted.

People are labouring under some illusion that there are varying opinions of equal value and weight when it comes to the covid vaccines and that sinply isn't the case

What is the case. Forced vaccinations? To make the population feel like they can say good job ? "

Not at all. Optional vaccinations alongside the understanding of the consequences of that choice- you cant use public transport, schools, enter publically owned places like council offices or municipal parks etc...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss SinWoman over a year ago

portchester

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

So when does it escalate? When does the majority of the population turn against the few? Oddly familiar.

What do you mean by escalate?

This is a horrible thing to want

Why? "

It’s not right to penalise people because of their choices, even people who drink and smoke etc deserve treatment. This vaccine is driving a wedge between groups of people and it’s horrible. I would not want to see anyone who had side effects from the vaccine denied treatment either

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

It was nice while it lasted.

People are labouring under some illusion that there are varying opinions of equal value and weight when it comes to the covid vaccines and that sinply isn't the case

What is the case. Forced vaccinations? To make the population feel like they can say good job ?

People not believing all the bullshit they read on social media and actually looking at the situation logically.

What do you think would be happening now if everyone refused the vaccine? "

Same as it is now some take it some do not. They are available. Yet seems like you want people to have it forced. Why?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss SinWoman over a year ago

portchester

I just don’t understand why so many people try to force the vaccine on others. I bet those people won’t only sleep with vaccinated people either at parties or at clubs etc

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

So when does it escalate? When does the majority of the population turn against the few? Oddly familiar.

What do you mean by escalate?

This is a horrible thing to want

Why?

is it right to penalise people who were born without the same medical capabilities as the rest of us?

because that was the purpose of the thread - if we get to a scenario where it is one group or the other who need to be penalised which side would you come down on?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"I just don’t understand why so many people try to force the vaccine on others. I bet those people won’t only sleep with vaccinated people either at parties or at clubs etc"

Choices inherent human rights. Trust the science yet alot are denying People's decisions. That is a dark road once we give up basic rights well what does history tell you.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

It was nice while it lasted.

People are labouring under some illusion that there are varying opinions of equal value and weight when it comes to the covid vaccines and that sinply isn't the case

What is the case. Forced vaccinations? To make the population feel like they can say good job ?

People not believing all the bullshit they read on social media and actually looking at the situation logically.

What do you think would be happening now if everyone refused the vaccine?

Same as it is now some take it some do not. They are available. Yet seems like you want people to have it forced. Why?"

I asked what do you think would be happening if EVERYONE refused the vaccine.

Do you think restrictions would be easing? Deaths and hospitalisations would be staying at low even with easing restrictions?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *moothCriminal_xMan over a year ago

Redditch

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

It was nice while it lasted.

People are labouring under some illusion that there are varying opinions of equal value and weight when it comes to the covid vaccines and that sinply isn't the case

What is the case. Forced vaccinations? To make the population feel like they can say good job ?

People not believing all the bullshit they read on social media and actually looking at the situation logically.

What do you think would be happening now if everyone refused the vaccine?

Same as it is now some take it some do not. They are available. Yet seems like you want people to have it forced. Why?"

Not at all. I just want the consequences of the choice not to have a vaccine when you do not have a medical reason not to have it to be such that the rest of society can function. Anyone choosing not to have the vaccine gets exactly what they want.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *iss SinWoman over a year ago

portchester

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

So when does it escalate? When does the majority of the population turn against the few? Oddly familiar.

What do you mean by escalate?

This is a horrible thing to want

Why?

is it right to penalise people who were born without the same medical capabilities as the rest of us?

because that was the purpose of the thread - if we get to a scenario where it is one group or the other who need to be penalised which side would you come down on? "

I would fight either choice as is my right

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

It was nice while it lasted.

People are labouring under some illusion that there are varying opinions of equal value and weight when it comes to the covid vaccines and that sinply isn't the case

What is the case. Forced vaccinations? To make the population feel like they can say good job ?

People not believing all the bullshit they read on social media and actually looking at the situation logically.

What do you think would be happening now if everyone refused the vaccine?

Same as it is now some take it some do not. They are available. Yet seems like you want people to have it forced. Why?

Exactly rights and choices you strip those rights what is left ? If you took the vaccine it was your choice. Your right to treat yourself you trusted the science it is supposed to work. What are you afraid of ? Seems like let's deny basic human rights because they do not want to I am afraid. Even though the science supposedly proves otherwise.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rotic desiresWoman over a year ago

Here and there

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

Check out Naomi Baumslag. Murderous medicine: Nazi doctors, human experimentation, and Typhus describing how epidemic typhus served in the extermination of Jews.

Jews were labeled disease carriers and a public health risk to justify the creation of ghettos. But ghettoization fueled rather than contained the epidemic, and this, in turn, reinforced the “prevention” strategy, i.e. disinfection/gas chambers.

Baumslag, a pediatrician at Georgetown University School of Medicine with a master of public health degree, chose to focus on typhus because the disease was rampant and the epidemic was used as a weapon of mass destruction with the “silent complicity” of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

This is about using medicine and public health for killing. I can see where some can see a connection.

Ultimately, “there is no medical science without a moral basis.”

I would think there are plenty who will not be coerced into taking the vaccine, either by exclusion from society or by mandating the vaccine. To what extent will they then be contained? Imprisonment? In other words, prison for the unvaccinated... given that the vaccinated can still contact and spread the virus too...

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

is it right to penalise people who were born without the same medical capabilities as the rest of us?

because that was the purpose of the thread - if we get to a scenario where it is one group or the other who need to be penalised which side would you come down on?

I would fight either choice as is my right "

but looking at last year as an example - fighting for your rights is all well and good but nature and science isn’t listening - people protesting n the streets didn’t bring about the end of covid

so if we get into a scenario, where say the virus mutates so that unvaccinated people can pass it around, using vaccinated people as vectors, but the vaccinated people don’t get sick, while the unvaccinated end up almost guaranteed dead , every time unvaccinated people re enter society it springs back up again

to protect people would you

1. ask the unvaccinated by choice to stay home forever

2. ask the unvaccinated by medical requirement to stay home forever

3. ask both to stay home forever

4. ask the anti vaxxers to get jabbed to reduce the risk

5. protest the right for neither to have any restrictions which doesn’t actually do anything to help anyone in any of the groups

ive already said above in the current real situation i hope we will reach herd immunity by enough voluntary uptake that nobody from any group has to face restrictions or a choice they don’t want

but in the OPs hypothetical i absolutely believe it is less immoral to take freedoms away from people who had a choice to help and chose not to participate before you take them away from people born with no choice

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

is it right to penalise people who were born without the same medical capabilities as the rest of us?

because that was the purpose of the thread - if we get to a scenario where it is one group or the other who need to be penalised which side would you come down on?

I would fight either choice as is my right

but looking at last year as an example - fighting for your rights is all well and good but nature and science isn’t listening - people protesting n the streets didn’t bring about the end of covid

to protect people would you

1. ask the unvaccinated by choice to stay home forever

2. ask the unvaccinated by medical requirement to stay home forever

3. ask both to stay home forever

4. ask the anti vaxxers to get jabbed to reduce the risk

5. protest the right for neither to have any restrictions which doesn’t actually do anything to help anyone in any of the groups

ive already said above in the current real situation i hope we will reach herd immunity by enough voluntary uptake that nobody from any group has to face restrictions or a choice they don’t want

Also, your choice could be having a potentially lethal effect on others, what about their rights?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

We'll see now that is how the free world works. Many of men and women perished for the rights we all cherish. Some more then others.Life pursuits to the best of your abilities. Ignore the hive mentality history proves what can happen. It's tragic.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

"We'll see now that is how the free world works. Many of men and women perished for the rights we all cherish. Some more then others.Life pursuits to the best of your abilities. Ignore the hive mentality history proves what can happen. It's tragic."

Some choose to be part of the solution, some choose to be part of the problem, I know which side I'll be on.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Some choose to be part of the solution, some choose to be part of the problem, I know which side I'll be on. "

And that is your inherent right. Same as me I am vaccinated. But that does not strip the others of theirs to the point that they are ostracized. Thier right Thier choices.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

is it right to penalise people who were born without the same medical capabilities as the rest of us?

because that was the purpose of the thread - if we get to a scenario where it is one group or the other who need to be penalised which side would you come down on?

I would fight either choice as is my right

but looking at last year as an example - fighting for your rights is all well and good but nature and science isn’t listening - people protesting n the streets didn’t bring about the end of covid

to protect people would you

1. ask the unvaccinated by choice to stay home forever

2. ask the unvaccinated by medical requirement to stay home forever

3. ask both to stay home forever

4. ask the anti vaxxers to get jabbed to reduce the risk

5. protest the right for neither to have any restrictions which doesn’t actually do anything to help anyone in any of the groups

ive already said above in the current real situation i hope we will reach herd immunity by enough voluntary uptake that nobody from any group has to face restrictions or a choice they don’t want

Also, your choice could be having a potentially lethal effect on others, what about their rights? "

Is the scientific evidence there to support that if you are vaccinated the risks are minimal ?

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *eeleyWoman over a year ago

Dudley

is it right to penalise people who were born without the same medical capabilities as the rest of us?

because that was the purpose of the thread - if we get to a scenario where it is one group or the other who need to be penalised which side would you come down on?

I would fight either choice as is my right

but looking at last year as an example - fighting for your rights is all well and good but nature and science isn’t listening - people protesting n the streets didn’t bring about the end of covid

to protect people would you

1. ask the unvaccinated by choice to stay home forever

2. ask the unvaccinated by medical requirement to stay home forever

3. ask both to stay home forever

4. ask the anti vaxxers to get jabbed to reduce the risk

5. protest the right for neither to have any restrictions which doesn’t actually do anything to help anyone in any of the groups

ive already said above in the current real situation i hope we will reach herd immunity by enough voluntary uptake that nobody from any group has to face restrictions or a choice they don’t want

Also, your choice could be having a potentially lethal effect on others, what about their rights?

Is the scientific evidence there to support that if you are vaccinated the risks are minimal ?

You're far less likely to die, have serious illness, less likely to have any symptoms at all and the latest data is showing that it slows transmission too, so yes, it minimises the risks.

However, the more people that are unvaccinated, the more chance it has to spread which in turn increases the chance of it mutating into a strain that can dodge the vaccines, this puts vaccinated individuals at risk again. The more people that have the vaccine, the more likely we are to get on top of the virus and get some semblance of normality back.

My stance won't change, those not having the vaccine for anything other than medical issues that prevent them having it, are selfish and should face restrictions so that those of us that give a shit about others can enjoy life.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

Thanks for the discussion I pray for the UK everyday . I wish people can find solice in other people's decisions.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

is it right to penalise people who were born without the same medical capabilities as the rest of us?

because that was the purpose of the thread - if we get to a scenario where it is one group or the other who need to be penalised which side would you come down on?

I would fight either choice as is my right

but looking at last year as an example - fighting for your rights is all well and good but nature and science isn’t listening - people protesting n the streets didn’t bring about the end of covid

to protect people would you

1. ask the unvaccinated by choice to stay home forever

2. ask the unvaccinated by medical requirement to stay home forever

3. ask both to stay home forever

4. ask the anti vaxxers to get jabbed to reduce the risk

5. protest the right for neither to have any restrictions which doesn’t actually do anything to help anyone in any of the groups

ive already said above in the current real situation i hope we will reach herd immunity by enough voluntary uptake that nobody from any group has to face restrictions or a choice they don’t want

Also, your choice could be having a potentially lethal effect on others, what about their rights?

Is the scientific evidence there to support that if you are vaccinated the risks are minimal ?

You're far less likely to die, have serious illness, less likely to have any symptoms at all and the latest data is showing that it slows transmission too, so yes, it minimises the risks.

Choices and rights. Your forefathers fought for. Peace.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *xploring_FunWoman over a year ago

Coventry

I often play devil’s advocate to challenge myopic or singular viewpoint arguments or people stating opinion as fact.

Once all the people in vulnerable groups that can be vaccinated have been vaccinated should we:

A) Make it mandatory that c.500k people who cannot have vaccine continue to shield and take extra precautions so that the rest of the UK population and businesses can get back to normal.

Please explain your preference and why one is better/fairer or morally more acceptable than the other?"

How do you plan to deal with the issues raised by Chris Witty when he was asked many months ago why we don’t shield the vulnerable and go on as usual??

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *rotic desiresWoman over a year ago

Here and there

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

Check out Naomi Baumslag. Murderous medicine: Nazi doctors, human experimentation, and Typhus describing how epidemic typhus served in the extermination of Jews.

This is about using medicine and public health for killing. I can see where some can see a connection.

Ultimately, “there is no medical science without a moral basis.”

Seeing as there have been no responses to the analogy of today's "climate" to the Holocaust, I'll take it one step further.

As established above, the Jews were villified under wrong pretences, with society becoming more and more accepting over time that Jews were dirty, disease ridden vermin who were best off being excluded from society.

Now, I'm not sure if you're aware that the CDC has recently changed its reporting strategy of cases. As of May 1 and I quote from their website "Beginning May 1, 2021, CDC transitioned from monitoring all reported COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough infections to investigating only those among patients who are hospitalized or die, thereby focusing on the cases of highest clinical and public health significance."

Previous to that ALL cases, regardless of severity were reported, as seen on their website. Now only the really severe ones get reported, which doesn't give the full picture, bearing in mind the spread of Covid, certainly for those who are convinced that all cases are potential spreaders, regardless of symptom status...

Given the function of the CDC, I find that way of reporting highly questionable - PARTICULARLY when I hear the extreme and totalitarian views within the general population that unvaccinated should face restrictions etc... and PARTICULARLY with the analogy of the Holocaust as described above and PARTICULARLY with the scientific evidence STILL showing that the vaccinated ALSO TRANSMIT the virus!!!

So the idea that the unvaccinated are disease ridden vermin who should be excluded from society is underlined by the way the CDC is reporting Covid breakthrough cases in the vaccinated as a whole. This, by an official institution... bearing in mind the role the Red Cross played in the Holocaust.

There are still Holocaust survivors out there. I have heard one interview and this lady was reporting feeling the similarities and feeling the past rise within her as someone who does not want the vaccine.

I quote a previous poster:

"False equivalency. Jewish people in germany did no harm. Unvaccinated people do immense harm. Unless medically exempt they should not be accepted by society and their children shouldnt be allowed to put others at risk."

At this point, both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated transmit the virus.

I know instinctively whom I don't want my children to associate with but I certainly hope that my children grow up being more tolerant, compassionate and accepting of people where medical choices are concerned without the need to discriminate and shun!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

So when does it escalate? When does the majority of the population turn against the few? Oddly familiar.

What do you mean by escalate?

This is a horrible thing to want

Why?

Yes, that is the irony of their position.,

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

Seeing a lot of people advocating the social exclusion of the unvaccinated for the benefit of those who are vulnerable and cannot have vaccine for medical reasons.

I’m going to quote an interesting point from above by @ecstatically arousing (sorry may have that wrong)...

“It's not my fault that I am (presumably) healthy and not in the category of "cannot take it"...for argument's sake, would it be true or fair to say that not all "cannot have the vaccine" people are in that category without their own doing - in other words are vulnerable or too ill because of lifestyle choices, smoking, drinking, eating excessively and the wrong foods, not exercising, not keeping healthy sleeping patterns, rather than because of a vulnerability they are born with or acquired by "accident", without wanting to offend or point fingers.”

This is clearly correct. It could be argued that only those with hereditary conditions, and those who developed a condition through no actions of their own are legitimately in the group of cannot have the vaccine. The rest brought it on themselves.

With that in mind, my 500k (made up number) is actually substantially smaller.

The same “rights” argument some are putting forward to advocate social exclusion of the unvaccinated can therefore be applied to those who cannot have the vaccine due to the impact of their life choices.

Why should that group be protected? As people like to say, choices have consequences!

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

Check out Naomi Baumslag. Murderous medicine: Nazi doctors, human experimentation, and Typhus describing how epidemic typhus served in the extermination of Jews.

This is about using medicine and public health for killing. I can see where some can see a connection.

Ultimately, “there is no medical science without a moral basis.”

Seeing as there have been no responses to the analogy of today's "climate" to the Holocaust, I'll take it one step further.

I quote a previous poster:

At this point, both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated transmit the virus.

It seems there are Nazis living amongst us, who knew.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *risky_MareWoman over a year ago

...Up on the Downs

"*sigh* so instead if actually debating the moral dilemma we instead resort to the very thing I was exposing - tribalist, binary arguments.

At least some people tried, thanks.

So put something like the Star of David on antivaxxers. Just because they choose not to be vaccinated. It's their choice. What's next concentration camps because they refuse ?

you oddly make this random argument all the time , when nobody else in the thread has even mentioned let alone suggested marking anyone

not to mention how insulting it is to attribute public health to holocaust

Deny vaccine refusers access to public services including child care and schools. Nhs treatment given but hopefully private businesses will deny access too

A quote

Check out Naomi Baumslag. Murderous medicine: Nazi doctors, human experimentation, and Typhus describing how epidemic typhus served in the extermination of Jews.

This is about using medicine and public health for killing. I can see where some can see a connection.

Ultimately, “there is no medical science without a moral basis.”

Seeing as there have been no responses to the analogy of today's "climate" to the Holocaust, I'll take it one step further.

Yup, and it was after 10 000 cases in fully vaccinated people they stopped counting, didn't fit the narrative.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *irldn OP Couple over a year ago

Brighton

And to pick up on another point (to compound the moral dilemma)...

People who choose to have vaccine who experience side effects (short or long term) - should they be denied medical treatment?

Some will argue those people chose to have the vaccine for the good of society - although I argue that many would not have done so if there were no benefits, or disbenefits, to themselves (and some are virtue signalling)!

However, the vaccine hesitant are generally cautious over the lack of long term data and want to wait a bit to see what happens. What if it turns out that the vaccinated begin experiencing longer term side effects? Would the unvaccinated be within their rights to deny treatment or socially exclude those people due to their choices?

Yes that is an “IF” and we don’t know. But people are posing “what if” scenarios to support social exclusion of unvaccinated.

Personally, despite trying to play devil’s advocate for this thread, I do find it hard to reconcile anti-vax arguments.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By (user no longer on site) over a year ago

" This is clearly correct. It could be argued that only those with hereditary conditions, and those who developed a condition through no actions of their own are legitimately in the group of cannot have the vaccine. The rest brought it on themselves. "

what are these medical conditions that our own life choices brought on us that mean we cant be vaccinated?

its not like we are avoiding vaccination because people are obese , its things like allergies or people who don’t create an antibodies

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)

By *naswingdressWoman over a year ago

Manchester (she/her)

what are these medical conditions that our own life choices brought on us that mean we cant be vaccinated?

its not like we are avoiding vaccination because people are obese , its things like allergies or people who don’t create an antibodies "

So now people are arguing that people who can't be vaccinated "brought it on themselves" and so are beneath those who choose not to be?

Oh for the love of God.

Reply privately (closed, thread got too big)