All Covid-19 measures are permanent, don't be a boiling frog!

aido79

GT89 wrote: »

I suspect more people have had the virus the virus than the official figures state considering not everyone who has gotten the virus has been tested. But I take your point.

I'm willing to make that sacrifice as if people dont want to get covid then they can just stay at home and let the rest of us live. Even when the restrictions were eased some decided to stay at home and it seemed to work fine. Personally I'm willing to take the chance and if I catch covid that's on me.

So you're happy enough to catch covid and pass it onto someone who may not deal with it as well as a young lad like yourself?

What exactly is your reason for not taking the vaccine? Have you ever had a vaccine? Are you against vaccinations or is it just from misinformation from Facebook, Twitter or YouTube?

GT89

aido79 wrote: »

So you're happy enough to catch covid and pass it onto someone who may not deal with it as well as a young lad like yourself?

What exactly is your reason for not taking the vaccine? Have you ever had a vaccine? Are you against vaccinations or is it just from misinformation from Facebook, Twitter or YouTube?

If someone has a condition that makes them vulnerable and wants to avoid getting it they can stay home and stay away from me I don't have an issue with that tbh. Some people call that attitude selfish but I think expecting others to make enormous sacrifices to protect their health is selfish.

I don't have any particular reason for not wanting to take the vaccine other than I have no interest in taking one same reason I don't own an iPhone because I have no interest in owning one. I have had the shots you get as a child because I had no choice if I was making the decision now I'd refuse. I am not against vaccines for people who want to get them.

Dohnjoe

GT89 wrote: »

If someone has a condition that makes them vulnerable and wants to avoid getting it they can stay home and stay away from me I don't have an issue with that tbh. Some people call that attitude selfish but I think expecting others to make enormous sacrifices to protect their health is selfish.

You could pass it to an older family member, they could get into difficulty, you are aware of that correct?

Also, how would people know to "stay away from you"?

aido79

GT89 wrote: »

If someone has a condition that makes them vulnerable and wants to avoid getting it they can stay home and stay away from me I don't have an issue with that tbh. Some people call that attitude selfish but I think expecting others to make enormous sacrifices to protect their health is selfish.

I don't have any particular reason for not wanting to take the vaccine other than I have no interest in taking one same reason I don't own an iPhone because I have no interest in owning one. I have had the shots you get as a child because I had no choice if I was making the decision now I'd refuse. I am not against vaccines for people who want to get them.

Imagine if everyone thought like you. Anyone over 65 or vulnerable would have has to avoid contact with anyone under 65 for the past year. Do you actually think that is possible?

You're not against vaccinations but you'd refuse the vaccines given to children if you had have the choice. The contradictions continue.

Are you ready to discuss the topic of the thread yet?

Dohnjoe

aido79 wrote: »

Imagine if everyone thought like you. Anyone over 65 or vulnerable would have has to avoid contact with anyone under 65 for the past year. Do you actually think that is possible?

You're not against vaccinations but you'd refuse the vaccines given to children if you had have the choice. The contradictions continue.

Are you ready to discuss the topic of the thread yet?

I am starting to suspect there aren't any conspiracies, that this is just a place that Covid deniers go when their views aren't wanted or tolerated on normal forums

spring lane jack

Mod snip: feel free to discuss the topic on hand, do not dump and run. Use your own words to back up any Links/videos/Pictures

Dohnjoe

Some people don't like the notion that we aren't in control of everything, so they comfort themselves with theories that everything is part of some "plan". I don't think they really care what the details of the plan are, just a powerful belief that it exists somehow.

runawaybishop

GT89 wrote: »

If someone has a condition that makes them vulnerable

That's 2 million people that we know of, you know that, right? You want them under house arrest for the last year until how long exactly? And what about the people that aren't vulnerable and get very sick anyway, just **** them, not my problem?

As you are aware the brits tired this and it was an abject failure, why on earth would we try it now?

robinph

Well over 50% of the adult population of the UK were in their top priority groups for vaccination. If we all stay locked in our houses it doesn't leave many people available to run the country. Nobody over 50 allowed out of their house and a large proportion of the under 50 population with some underlying condition would also be shut away.

GT89

runawaybishop wrote: »

That's 2 million people that we know of, you know that, right? You want them under house arrest for the last year until how long exactly? And what about the people that aren't vulnerable and get very sick anyway, just **** them, not my problem?

So instead of putting half the population under house arrest put the whole population under house arrest because that's what's happening. Now that has to be the silliest argument in favour of lockdown I have ever heard.

As you are aware the brits tired this and it was an abject failure, why on earth would we try it now?

They didn't try it as they pussied out of herd immunity.

King Mob

GT89 wrote: »

I don't have any particular reason for not wanting to take the vaccine other than I have no interest in taking one same reason I don't own an iPhone because I have no interest in owning one. I have had the shots you get as a child because I had no choice if I was making the decision now I'd refuse. I am not against vaccines for people who want to get them.

You don't want to get the vaccine for no other reason than to be contrarian.

What a ridiculous and selfish line of reason.

King Mob

GT89 wrote: »

They didn't try it as they pussied out of herd immunity.

Again, I don't think you even know what vaccines are.

The only way to actually get herd immunity without a whole bunch of people getting very sick is to use vaccines.

You getting the vaccine would contribute to herd immunity. And this is doubly so as you seem to be ignoring restrictions and taking no measures to stop yourself from potentially spreading the virus more.

So remind us again why you're not getting the vaccine?
Why is it reasonable for you that thousands of vulnerable people to be placed under house arrest, but you don't have to have the inconvenience of getting an injection?

runawaybishop

GT89 wrote: »

So instead of putting half the population under house arrest put the whole population under house arrest because that's what's happening. Now that has to be the silliest argument in favour of lockdown I have ever heard.



They didn't try it as they pussied out of herd immunity.

Think about this logically ffs.

We are in level 5, it sucks but you can still meet a mate for a walk, go outside for a run, go to the shops, kids are at school, construction partially closed but a lot working away and more coming soon. Its crap, but the alternative is 2 million people literally not allowed to leave their houses. Aside from how much worse that is for them, who is going to look after them? What do you do about the vulnerable who live with the 'non-vulnerable'?, shunt them off to an island? Serious question btw.

And say we did that, as the UK did, and then realised that some of the people we thought were not at risk were actually at risk and due to massive spreading because of no restrictions our hospitals reached capacity, as the UK did. What then? The UK didn't pussy out, they realised it didn't work.

Let me be clear - I absolutely detest lockdowns. I just don't think cocooning is a viable alternative.

runawaybishop

King Mob wrote: »

Why is it reasonable for you that thousands of vulnerable people to be placed under house arrest, but you don't have to have the inconvenience of getting an injection?

Question of the thread imo.

aido79

GT89 wrote: »

So instead of putting half the population under house arrest put the whole population under house arrest because that's what's happening. Now that has to be the silliest argument in favour of lockdown I have ever heard.



They didn't try it as they pussied out of herd immunity.

Who is under house arrest?

I'm gonna take a wild guess here but I'm fairly sure the course you've deferred from this year is not related to medicine?

GT89

runawaybishop wrote: »

Think about this logically ffs.

We are in level 5, it sucks but you can still meet a mate for a walk, go outside for a run, go to the shops, kids are at school, construction partially closed but a lot working away and more coming soon. Its crap, but the alternative is 2 million people literally not allowed to leave their houses. Aside from how much worse that is for them, who is going to look after them? What do you do about the vulnerable who live with the 'non-vulnerable'?, shunt them off to an island? Serious question btw.

And say we did that, as the UK did, and then realised that some of the people we thought were not at risk were actually at risk and due to massive spreading because of no restrictions our hospitals reached capacity, as the UK did. What then? The UK didn't pussy out, they realised it didn't work.

Let me be clear - I absolutely detest lockdowns. I just don't think cocooning is a viable alternative.

You do realise the chances of catching covid outdoors are virtually zero. The vulnerable can choose the amount of risk they want to take. If they want to go out and live normally nothing stopping them if they feel the risk is to great then they can take measures that work. Whatever you do no situation is going to eliminate all risk. It works in Florida why wouldn't it work here.

As for the vulnerable living with the non vulnerable they can do whatever the hell they like. Cooconing was only ever advisory it was never intended to be legally enforceable.

King Mob

GT89 wrote: »

You do realise the chances of catching covid outdoors are virtually zero.

Unless of course you meet someone like yourself who takes no precautions and didn't get vaccinated for literally no reason.

GT89 wrote: »

The vulnerable can choose the amount of risk they want to take. If they want to go out and live normally nothing stopping them if they feel the risk is to great then they can take measures that work. Whatever you do no situation is going to eliminate all risk. It works in Florida why wouldn't it work here.

As for the vulnerable living with the non vulnerable they can do whatever the hell they like. Cooconing was only ever advisory it was never intended to be legally enforceable.

Or how about you just get the vaccine and reduce the risk even more and contribute to herd immunity?

runawaybishop

GT89 wrote: »

You do realise the chances of catching covid outdoors are virtually zero. The vulnerable can choose the amount of risk they want to take. If they want to go out and live normally nothing stopping them if they feel the risk is to great then they can take measures that work. Whatever you do no situation is going to eliminate all risk. It works in Florida why wouldn't it work here.

As for the vulnerable living with the non vulnerable they can do whatever the hell they like. Cooconing was only ever advisory it was never intended to be legally enforceable.

You have not addressed my points. So they can go outside, big deal, who is bringing them food?

The vulnerable cocooning also means their 1000s of carers can also go get fcuked? That's what you are saying.

You are regurgitating some sh1te you heard off some antivax/covid grifter. It makes no logical sense. Instead of calling other people sheep maybe think for yourself for once.

Dohnjoe

A lot of this going on in the thread

GT89

King Mob wrote: »

Again, I don't think you even know what vaccines are.

The only way to actually get herd immunity without a whole bunch of people getting very sick is to use vaccines.

You getting the vaccine would contribute to herd immunity. And this is doubly so as you seem to be ignoring restrictions and taking no measures to stop yourself from potentially spreading the virus more.

So remind us again why you're not getting the vaccine?
Why is it reasonable for you that thousands of vulnerable people to be placed under house arrest, but you don't have to have the inconvenience of getting an injection?

I am not getting the vaccine because I do not have any particular interest in taking the shot. Anyway I am probably in the lowest priority category anyway so by the time I am due for it most people who are more vulnerable than me will have gotten it anyway and would be immune.

Vaccines work by producing antibodies in order to protect an individual from illness. So by me not taking a vaccine I'm not putting anyone at risk except myself and others who choose not to take the vaccine.

It is reasonable for me to not take a vaccine because we all have a thing called bodily autonomy which is protected under the Irish constitution just like you have the right not to be circumcised say for example. If you think it is unreasonable for me or anybody else to not take a vaccine does that me you think forcing people to be vaccinated against their will is reasonable?

GT89

runawaybishop wrote: »

You have not addressed my points. So they can go outside, big deal, who is bringing them food?

Their food can be left at the doorstep can't it. Almost every supermarket has being doing no contact delivery since last March.

GT89

King Mob wrote: »

Unless of course you meet someone like yourself who takes no precautions and didn't get vaccinated for literally no reason.

Or how about you just get the vaccine and reduce the risk even more and contribute to herd immunity?

Hold on for a minute there. You do realise I haven't even been offered a vaccine yet. Are the vulnerable not putting themselves in great danger right now if they go for a walk considering the vast majority of people have yet to be vaccinated?

King Mob

GT89 wrote: »

Hold on for a minute there. You do realise I haven't even been offered a vaccine yet. Are the vulnerable not putting themselves in great danger right now if they go for a walk considering the vast majority of people have yet to be vaccinated?

Hold on a minute, you're demanding an answer after dodging who knows how many questions.
That's hypocritical. Why are you doing that? Why are you dodging questions in the first place?

And to answer yours: Yes.

You could reduce this risk by being less selfish and taking more precautions. You can reduce this further by getting the vaccine when it becomes availible to you.

You however have stated that you will not do either of these things for literially no other reason than you can't be bothered.
This is a bizarre stance.

King Mob

GT89 wrote: »

Vaccines work by producing antibodies in order to protect an individual from illness.

Yes. The exact same way that happens when a person is infected by the virus, only without the symptoms that make them sick.

So why do you think this method can't produce herd immunity?

GT89 wrote: »

It is reasonable for me to not take a vaccine because we all have a thing called bodily autonomy

Cool. And what reason are you using to enforce this right? Laziness? Stubbornness? Because you fell for some con artist on bitchute?

You're within your rights to not get the vaccine, as dispite failed predictions from conspiracy theorists, no one is forcing you.
However, people also have the right to point out that your refusal for literally no reason is a bit dumb, selfish and pointless.

Vulnerable people also have a right to freedom of movement, yet you seem to be ok with forcing them to forgo that right so that your rights aren't slightly affected and inconvienced.
So is your logic that it's okay to violate peoples rights as long as it benefits/doesn't effect you?

Dohnjoe

GT89 wrote: »

You do realise the chances of catching covid outdoors are virtually zero.

Are the vulnerable not putting themselves in great danger right now if they go for a walk considering the vast majority of people have yet to be vaccinated?

Well which is it, going for a walk is safe or dangerous?

GT89

King Mob wrote: »

Hold on a minute, you're demanding an answer after dodging who knows how many questions.
That's hypocritical. Why are you doing that? Why are you dodging questions in the first place?

And to answer yours: Yes.

You could reduce this risk by being less selfish and taking more precautions. You can reduce this further by getting the vaccine when it becomes availible to you.

You however have stated that you will not do either of these things for literially no other reason than you can't be bothered.
This is a bizarre stance.

I don't nessecarily have the answers to all of your questions tbh. Anyway this is boards.ie not questions and answers. But back to the topic at hand.

I do not understand how I am being selfish right now. It's not like I even have the choice I cannot do the things I want to do because many of the activities I want to do are closed indefinitely meaning they are not available to me.

Maybe I am selfish if I don't take the shot. I'm perfectly fine with that with some people thinking I am selfish tbh.

King Mob

GT89 wrote: »

I don't nessecarily have the answers to all of your questions tbh. Anyway this is boards.ie not questions and answers. But back to the topic at hand.

Then why not just say that? Why dodge?
And, yes, this is a discussion site. Questions are part of a discussion. If you don't want to answer questions, then maybe you should start a youtube channel where you can rant into a camera.

Dodging questions rather than admit you can't answer them makes you dishonest.

The fact you can't answer a lot of our questions shows that your position isn't very well informed or thought out.

GT89 wrote: »

I do not understand how I am being selfish right now. It's not like I even have the choice I cannot do the things I want to do because many of the activities I want to do are closed indefinitely meaning they are not available to me.

Poor baby.
Over 2 million people have died.

GT89 wrote: »

Maybe I am selfish if I don't take the shot. I'm perfectly fine with that with some people thinking I am selfish tbh.

Yup.
Selfish, dishonest and ill informed.

pearcider

King Mob wrote: »

Again, I don't think you even know what vaccines are.

The only way to actually get herd immunity without a whole bunch of people getting very sick is to use vaccines.

You getting the vaccine would contribute to herd immunity. And this is doubly so as you seem to be ignoring restrictions and taking no measures to stop yourself from potentially spreading the virus more.

So remind us again why you're not getting the vaccine?
Why is it reasonable for you that thousands of vulnerable people to be placed under house arrest, but you don't have to have the inconvenience of getting an injection?

I’m not getting the vaccine because I do not consent to it. Simple as that. You cannot force people to take medication that’s what totalitarian states do. I’d rather die than be forced to take something against my will. The so called “vaccines” only got emergency use authorisation. They were not developed and approved in the normal fashion. Everyone knows they were rushed out. Who knows what the long term effects are? They didn’t do proper trials. I’d rather just get the disease - my chance of dying is 1 in 10,000 and that’s using the US figures where most of the victims are clinically obese. I’ll take those odds. Cheers.

GT89

King Mob wrote: »

Yes. The exact same way that happens when a person is infected by the virus, only without the symptoms that make them sick.

So why do you think this method can't produce herd immunity?

I never said it won't produce herd immunity but with a vaccine I don't think herd immunity is nessecary. Take the vaccine you not going to get sick from covid so it makes no difference to you if the next person is not vaccinated. It is not someone elses concern if you are not vaccinated.

Cool. And what reason are you using to enforce this right? Laziness? Stubbornness? Because you fell for some con artist on bitchute?

You're within your rights to not get the vaccine, as dispite failed predictions from conspiracy theorists, no one is forcing you.
However, people also have the right to point out that your refusal for literally no reason is a bit dumb, selfish and pointless.

Vulnerable people also have a right to freedom of movement, yet you seem to be ok with forcing them to forgo that right so that your rights aren't slightly affected and inconvienced.
So is your logic that it's okay to violate peoples rights as long as it benefits/doesn't effect you?

Stubborness perhaps. I am quite a stubborn person.

Look people are entitled to think that and tbh I could not really give a fcuk what others think of me once I am happy that's all that matters to me.

Yes I agree vulnerable people have a right to freedom of movement. If a new covid law came in that allowed say pubs to open but only for under 70s without an underlying condition I would be against that as I believe that people who are classed as vulnerable are entitled to make their own decisions also.

Cooconing for the vulnerable is a voluntary measure. Some vulnerable people haven't stepped out outside the door since Feburary 2020 others still go about their business as they did pre covid.

GT89

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Well which is it, going for a walk is safe or dangerous?

Safe