Relaxation of Restrictions, Part VI - **Read OP for Mod Warnings**

JDD

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

How do they condense into such a short time-frame trial, the long term effects?

The suspected narcolepsy from the Gardasil vaccine was disproven. The autism issue from the MMR vaccine has obviously been completely debunked now. I'm not aware of any other proven (i.e. peer-reviewed and published) findings of any other long term effects that have resulted from any other vaccine?

Of course there may be long term effects from this vaccine that only show up in five or ten or twenty years time. I mean, I guess it's a risk with pretty much any and every medication that you may take over the course of your life. With everything, from having a local anesthetic at the dentist to taking a particular brand of antibiotic you are taking the chance that your particular physiology or genetic make up will mean that you may get a long term effect from it, that the medical community are unaware of, far into the future. But like everyone you weigh up the extremely small chance of that happening, with the benefit of taking the medicine, and decide from there.

polesheep

JDD wrote: »

The suspected narcolepsy from the Gardasil vaccine was disproven. The autism issue from the MMR vaccine has obviously been completely debunked now. I'm not aware of any other proven (i.e. peer-reviewed and published) findings of any other long term effects that have resulted from any other vaccine?

Of course there may be long term effects from this vaccine that only show up in five or ten or twenty years time. I mean, I guess it's a risk with pretty much any and every medication that you may take over the course of your life. With everything, from having a local anesthetic at the dentist to taking a particular brand of antibiotic you are taking the chance that your particular physiology or genetic make up will mean that you may get a long term effect from it, that the medical community are unaware of, far into the future. But like everyone you weigh up the extremely small chance of that happening, with the benefit of taking the medicine, and decide from there.

Evidence please.

BTW you are on here advocating excluding people who don't take the vaccine and over on the other thread you are telling everyone that you intend to break the restrictions at Christmas. Run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

JDD

As to paying for their own treatment, that argument has been debunked many times with reference to alcohol, smoking, obesity, etc.

Not true. The reason why we don't require treatment for addiction illnesses is that there is a general consensus that sufferers are genetically pre-disposed to these illnesses. In addition, from a public policy perspective, those that come from lower socio-economic backgrounds that may have suffered traumatic upbringings tend to be the majority of sufferers of addiction illnesses, and therefore people are more predisposed to paying for treatment for those illnesses, even if they have little or no risk of suffering from that illness themselves.

I'm not willing to have my tax dollars subsidise your covid treatment just because you didn't feel like the vaccine. Sorry. I'm willing to march for your right to bodily integrity. But in the same way that I'm not willing to pay for someone's face lift or boob job, I'm not willing to pay for your treatment for a completely avoidable illness.

JRant

Waylon Petite Shower wrote: »

Hi, here is the latest in a long list of reports looking at long term impacts. 1 in 17 could be impacted by these disorders which is millions of people worldwide on top of the effects from the virus itself and so on.

Why are you dragging "Long COVID" into a discussion on restrictions. That stuff belongs in the conspiracy forum.

JDD

polesheep wrote: »

Evidence please.

BTW you are on here advocating excluding people who don't take the vaccine and over on the other thread you are telling everyone that you intend to break the restrictions at Christmas. Run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

How are these related? I don't believe Level 3 restrictions are justifiable, both on the basis of the trajectory of infections and the cultural importance of Christmas. I believe the vaccine should be taken by those who can take it as soon as it is available, so that we can return to normality as soon as possible. These aren't mutually exclusive views - I see them as quite compatible.

As for link: https://www.hpra.ie/homepage/medicines/special-topics/hpv-school-immunisation/national-monitoring-experience#:~:text=Adverse%20Reaction%20(side%2Deffect)%20Reports&text=Vaccination%2Drelated%20events%2C%20occurring%20at,dizziness%20and%20injection%20site%20reactions.

charlie14

polesheep wrote: »

I never suggested that you said the bit in bold, so why state it?

Of course those who have not been vaccinated will be isolated if Ticketmaster's example is followed. It's disingenuous to say that they wouldn't be. You aren't in favour of isolating the vulnerable group so how can you say it's okay to isolate any other group? It's hypocrisy.

I also mentioned the other option, but you appear to wish to ignore that in favour of vaccination. Taking a test. Do you believe it is reasonable for people to refuse to take a test during a contagious epidemic before being allowed to mingle in large groups, travel to other countries etc.?

3xh

polesheep wrote: »

BTW you are on here advocating excluding people who don't take the vaccine and over on the other thread you are telling everyone that you intend to break the restrictions at Christmas. Run with the hare and hunt with the hounds.

Yep. I noticed that contradiction too. Had to do a double take on the username to be sure.

3xh

JDD wrote: »

The suspected narcolepsy from the Gardasil vaccine was disproven.

Nobody here mentioned Gardasil. I mentioned Pandemrix and the facts about that are clear and irrefutable.

nofools

mikekerry wrote: »

Let all the politicians , the heads of the pharma companies and bill gates take them first and if no effects for a year I'll happily take it then until then they can take a hike.

I agree, excellent idea.

I am concerned about rushing novel technology as much as everyone else here and i don't think we can get too excited about the vaccine at all (yet).

Equally it might work just fine and end all this smoothly.

Hector Savage

mikekerry wrote: »

Huge pressure will be put on people to take a vaccine that has not being long-term tested to be rolled out to the world to the benefit of a small number of people to make multi trillions profit from it.
I would guess and this is only a guess that after a few months they will drop the test choice and it will be jab only to get into events, travel and maybe worse ( certain jobs).
People that won't submit to jabs will be encouraged to be ostracised from society.
everyone ok with this?

I don't get this ...

Surely the whole crux of the matter is - hospitals collapsing.
This is the reason for lockdowns or any form of stopping the virus, they don't want hospitals collapsing.

So when they have a sufficient amount of vulnerable vaccinated - hospitals won't collapse , therefore no need for restrictions.

Why would they be demanding a vaccine to travel or go to a concert when we are at this stage ?

3xh

Hector Savage wrote: »

So when they have a sufficient amount of vulnerable vaccinated - hospitals won't collapse , therefore no need for restrictions.

Why would they be demanding a vaccine to travel or go to a concert when we are at this stage ?

Because, Mission Creep. Simple as.

mikekerry

Hector Savage wrote: »

I don't get this ...

Surely the whole crux of the matter is - hospitals collapsing.
This is the reason for lockdowns or any form of stopping the virus, they don't want hospitals collapsing.

So when they have a sufficient amount of vulnerable vaccinated - hospitals won't collapse , therefore no need for restrictions.

Why would they be demanding a vaccine to travel or go to a concert when we are at this stage ?

Because this is not about covid.
There is plenty of stuff online about it and whats happening.
google world economic forum, global reset.
Plenty of info there to cheer up your day!

Herb Powell

polesheep wrote: »

If those who are vulnerable take the vaccine then those who are left will mostly be in that category that are not really affected by Covid, at least not to the point of hospitalisation.

As to paying for their own treatment, that argument has been debunked many times with reference to alcohol, smoking, obesity, etc.

This is kind of point of vaccination. Many vulnerable people are not able to take many different kinds of vaccines, not just this. The point is that anyone who can get vaccinated does, and this offers further protection for the vulnerable. This has been the case for every kind of vaccination.

nofools

Someone said it is piss easy to get cases down fast with lockdown therefore level 2 now.

I see it differently.

The more you suppress, the more time you buy before the next lockdown?

I imagine there is a better trade off to be had if we wait longer, otherwise we will be back in the same place in a few weeks.

The other question on skin in the game...mine is I hate living like this as much as the rest of you and I want my industry to be able to reopen properly.

nofools

Herb Powell wrote: »

This is kind of point of vaccination. Many vulnerable people are not able to take many different kinds of vaccines, not just this. The point is that anyone who can get vaccinated does, and this offers further protection for the vulnerable. This has been the case for every kind of vaccination.

Has the question of "can the vulnerable take the vaccine?" been answered yet from trial data?

polesheep

JDD wrote: »

Not true. The reason why we don't require treatment for addiction illnesses is that there is a general consensus that sufferers are genetically pre-disposed to these illnesses. In addition, from a public policy perspective, those that come from lower socio-economic backgrounds that may have suffered traumatic upbringings tend to be the majority of sufferers of addiction illnesses, and therefore people are more predisposed to paying for treatment for those illnesses, even if they have little or no risk of suffering from that illness themselves.

I'm not willing to have my tax dollars subsidise your covid treatment just because you didn't feel like the vaccine. Sorry. I'm willing to march for your right to bodily integrity. But in the same way that I'm not willing to pay for someone's face lift or boob job, I'm not willing to pay for your treatment for a completely avoidable illness.

Addiction illnesses aren't the only 'avoidable' illnesses treated in our hospitals. But it is very kind of you to grant those unfortunate people from the lower classes with their addiction illnesses some level of healthcare.

As for your tax dollars, you can keep them. I pay my taxes through euro and am happy to see them spent on the provision of health care for all who need it, regardless of how they came to need it.

Herb Powell

nofools wrote: »

Has the question of "can the vulnerable take the vaccine?" been answered yet from trial data?

I don't know that, but just countering the point which seemed to present it as a solution, when it usually isn't at all. If it is the case, great, but there are many many people for whom vaccines are a lot riskier generally.

Hector Savage

3xh wrote: »

Because, Mission Creep. Simple as.

mikekerry wrote: »

Because this is not about covid.
There is plenty of stuff online about it and whats happening.
google world economic forum, global reset.
Plenty of info there to cheer up your day!

OK maybe, but assuming conspiracy theories are not correct, let's be optimistic, surely what I said at least makes sense in theory yeah ?

From the start of all this lockdowns were so hospitals won't collapse ?

nofools

Hector Savage wrote: »

I don't get this ...


This is the reason for lockdowns or any form of stopping the virus, they don't want hospitals collapsing.

One of the many reasons.

People take the above statement far too literally.

If we had infinite healthcare available tomorrow we still wouldn't run a herd immunity strategy as it is deeply immoral.

Stormyteacup

Hector Savage wrote: »

I don't get this ...

Surely the whole crux of the matter is - hospitals collapsing.
This is the reason for lockdowns or any form of stopping the virus, they don't want hospitals collapsing.

So when they have a sufficient amount of vulnerable vaccinated - hospitals won't collapse , therefore no need for restrictions.

Why would they be demanding a vaccine to travel or go to a concert when we are at this stage ?

Good point. If vaccination became mandatory then when do they decide sufficient protection from vaccine uptake has been achieved - and drop the demand for a vaccine?

After investing vast resources in vaccine research, production and roll-out, and a possible ‘health passport’ industry created, I can’t see any backtrack on it.

Hector Savage

nofools wrote: »

One of the many reasons.

People take the above statement far too literally.

If we had infinite healthcare available tomorrow we still wouldn't run a herd immunity strategy as it is deeply immoral.

If we had infinite healthcare available tomorrow it would be deeply immoral NOT to open up!!

What are you on ???

nofools

Hector Savage wrote: »

If we had infinite healthcare available tomorrow it would be deeply immoral NOT to open up!!

What are you on ???

I don't think you have a sense for the scale of what would happen.

polesheep

JDD wrote: »

How are these related? I don't believe Level 3 restrictions are justifiable, both on the basis of the trajectory of infections and the cultural importance of Christmas. I believe the vaccine should be taken by those who can take it as soon as it is available, so that we can return to normality as soon as possible. These aren't mutually exclusive views - I see them as quite compatible.

As for link: https://www.hpra.ie/homepage/medicines/special-topics/hpv-school-immunisation/national-monitoring-experience#:~:text=Adverse%20Reaction%20(side%2Deffect)%20Reports&text=Vaccination%2Drelated%20events%2C%20occurring%20at,dizziness%20and%20injection%20site%20reactions.

In other words you will choose which restrictions you wish to adhere to, but you insist that everyone has to take the vaccine. You really can't see the hypocrisy?

JDD

nofools wrote: »

One of the many reasons.

People take the above statement far too literally.

If we had infinite healthcare available tomorrow we still wouldn't run a herd immunity strategy as it is deeply immoral.

This is a really good question. If we cast our minds back to March, the general consensus was that western economies would never be able to impose the kind of lockdown that China did, because our populations simply wouldn't adhere to it and right wing government would never agree to it for policy reasons.

If Italy had infinite hospital resources in March, yes, they would have had less deaths, definitely. There would have been no pictures of army trucks carrying coffins. There would have been no stories of doctors deciding who got treatment and who didn't.

I think the reason why lockdowns did actually work in March was because a) the stories that came from Italy and b) the whole western world was imposing lockdowns at the same time. People were sort of carried along by the wave.

I think if we had infinite hospital resources, we would still have masks, social distancing, and working from home where possible. I think there would have been some restrictions put on indoor gatherings. But that's all. I don't think we would have closed schools and shops and outdoor gatherings (certainly, if we knew then what we know now about transmission). The idea wouldn't have been to get herd immunity - the idea would be that if our health system, and every health system, could cope with the infection numbers, there probably wouldn't have been the political will (and the worldwide consensus) to impose a full lockdown.

Johnboy1951

JDD wrote: »

The suspected narcolepsy from the Gardasil vaccine was disproven. The autism issue from the MMR vaccine has obviously been completely debunked now. I'm not aware of any other proven (i.e. peer-reviewed and published) findings of any other long term effects that have resulted from any other vaccine?

Of course there may be long term effects from this vaccine that only show up in five or ten or twenty years time. I mean, I guess it's a risk with pretty much any and every medication that you may take over the course of your life. With everything, from having a local anesthetic at the dentist to taking a particular brand of antibiotic you are taking the chance that your particular physiology or genetic make up will mean that you may get a long term effect from it, that the medical community are unaware of, far into the future. But like everyone you weigh up the extremely small chance of that happening, with the benefit of taking the medicine, and decide from there.

So your answer is they cannot give any indication of long term or even mid-term effects of this rushed vaccine.

Then you say it is up to the individual to decide for themselves.

Yet, it seems that getting this time-unproven vaccine might well become mandatory in some if not all situations, regardless the individual's preference.

That is close to abuse IMO.

polesheep

charlie14 wrote: »

I also mentioned the other option, but you appear to wish to ignore that in favour of vaccination. Taking a test. Do you believe it is reasonable for people to refuse to take a test during a contagious epidemic before being allowed to mingle in large groups, travel to other countries etc.?

I'm assuming that by the time the vaccine has been rolled out the pandemic will be under control or significantly curtailed. That is the point of a vaccine. If we are going to test for Covid indefinitely then surely we should also be insisting on a flu test or proof of vaccination at Ticketmaster events.

Stormyteacup

nofools wrote: »

I don't think you have a sense for the scale of what would happen.

I think you may have too much faith in our governments morality.

Why do they seem to be acceding to the publics wish for an enjoyable Christmas?

Surely if this virus is so deadly and lives are in danger we should stay locked up properly until complete vaccine roll-out?

It seems very contradictory to me (obviously I’m all for an enjoyable Christmas!).

polesheep

Herb Powell wrote: »

This is kind of point of vaccination. Many vulnerable people are not able to take many different kinds of vaccines, not just this. The point is that anyone who can get vaccinated does, and this offers further protection for the vulnerable. This has been the case for every kind of vaccination.

Then why hasn't Ticketmaster insisted on proof of flu vaccination?

nofools

JDD wrote: »

This is a really good question. If we cast our minds back to March, the general consensus was that western economies would never be able to impose the kind of lockdown that China did, because our populations simply wouldn't adhere to it and right wing government would never agree to it for policy reasons.

If Italy had infinite hospital resources in March, yes, they would have had less deaths, definitely. There would have been no pictures of army trucks carrying coffins. There would have been no stories of doctors deciding who got treatment and who didn't.

I think the reason why lockdowns did actually work in March was because a) the stories that came from Italy and b) the whole western world was imposing lockdowns at the same time. People were sort of carried along by the wave.

I think if we had infinite hospital resources, we would still have masks, social distancing, and working from home where possible. I think there would have been some restrictions put on indoor gatherings. But that's all. I don't think we would have closed schools and shops and outdoor gatherings (certainly, if we knew then what we know now about transmission). The idea wouldn't have been to get herd immunity - the idea would be that if our health system, and every health system, could cope with the infection numbers, there probably wouldn't have been the political will (and the worldwide consensus) to impose a full lockdown.

If we had more foresight we might even have been able to get away with no lockdowns.

Masks plus full testing around travel might have done the trick.

Herb Powell

polesheep wrote: »

Then why hasn't Ticketmaster insisted on proof of flu vaccination?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes: