You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy
May 22 2024 9.44pm

Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

Previous Topic | Next Topic


Page 6 of 271 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

 

View eaglesdare's Profile eaglesdare Flag 09 Jan 23 11.55am Send a Private Message to eaglesdare Add eaglesdare as a friend

Without the vax I have a 99.9 percent chance of survival from covid.

Without the vax I have a 100 percent chance of no side effects.

People who are vaccinated still carry and spread covid just as much as someone who is unvaccinated.

= Science

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 09 Jan 23 1.56pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by eaglesdare

Without the vax I have a 99.9 percent chance of survival from covid.

Without the vax I have a 100 percent chance of no side effects.

People who are vaccinated still carry and spread covid just as much as someone who is unvaccinated.

= Science

This is correct, but as usual on here reductive and overly simplistic

Being vaccinated can help clear the virus from the system faster, therefore reducing the time spent being infectious.

= social benefit

Declaring oneself unvaccinated and encouraging others to do the same assuming everyone will have the same experience as you, ie. light illness, no hospitalisation, no long covid etc.

= selfish and shortsighted

It's not all about you, essentially. Just because the survival rate is so high now that doesn't eliminate the very real chances of being severely impacted by it in a multitude of other ways.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (09 Jan 2023 1.58pm)

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 09 Jan 23 2.34pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

This is correct, but as usual on here reductive and overly simplistic

Being vaccinated can help clear the virus from the system faster, therefore reducing the time spent being infectious.

= social benefit

Declaring oneself unvaccinated and encouraging others to do the same assuming everyone will have the same experience as you, ie. light illness, no hospitalisation, no long covid etc.

= selfish and shortsighted

It's not all about you, essentially. Just because the survival rate is so high now that doesn't eliminate the very real chances of being severely impacted by it in a multitude of other ways.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (09 Jan 2023 1.58pm)


No one in contact with others avoids contracting the virus as evidenced by the anti body count being near 100 percent just a year after covid started. So this idea that the vaccine will result in less chance of someone being infected seems a little pointless. They are going to get infected regardless.

The difference in survival chances between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is also so close that to criticise someone for not being vaccinated seems moot.

If someone is old and/or immune weak I can see the sense of it, but it's always going to be a risk/benefit analysis for the individual. In my view it was always ethically dodgey to tell people to vaccinate for others. It should have been left purely to their own decision without pressure.


Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2023 2.39pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View eaglesdare's Profile eaglesdare Flag 09 Jan 23 2.42pm Send a Private Message to eaglesdare Add eaglesdare as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

This is correct, but as usual on here reductive and overly simplistic

Being vaccinated can help clear the virus from the system faster, therefore reducing the time spent being infectious.

= social benefit

Declaring oneself unvaccinated and encouraging others to do the same assuming everyone will have the same experience as you, ie. light illness, no hospitalisation, no long covid etc.

= selfish and shortsighted

It's not all about you, essentially. Just because the survival rate is so high now that doesn't eliminate the very real chances of being severely impacted by it in a multitude of other ways.

Edited by SW19 CPFC (09 Jan 2023 1.58pm)

That's the exact same as telling someone / forcing someone to be vaccinated! Not everyone will have the same experience being vaccinated! Some people have terrible side effects! Some people die from it and some people don't recover for a long time!

Pretty selfish telling someone to get an experimental drug who don't need nor want it in my opinion.

The best course of action is to respect each and everyone's decision if they want to or not to get it! Regardless a person decision does not affect you!

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View eaglesdare's Profile eaglesdare Flag 09 Jan 23 2.44pm Send a Private Message to eaglesdare Add eaglesdare as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays


No one in contact with others avoids contracting the virus as evidenced by the anti body count being near 100 percent just a year after covid started. So this idea that the vaccine will result in less chance of someone being infected seems a little pointless. They are going to get infected regardless.

The difference in survival chances between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is also so close that to criticise someone for not being vaccinated seems moot.

If someone is old and/or immune weak I can see the sense of it, but it's always going to be a risk/benefit analysis for the individual. In my view it was always ethically dodgey to tell people to vaccinate for others. It should have been left purely to their own decision without pressure.

Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2023 2.39pm)

Completely agree and it should be left at this! :-)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 10 Jan 23 4.55pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by eaglesdare

That's the exact same as telling someone / forcing someone to be vaccinated! Not everyone will have the same experience being vaccinated! Some people have terrible side effects! Some people die from it and some people don't recover for a long time!

Pretty selfish telling someone to get an experimental drug who don't need nor want it in my opinion.

The best course of action is to respect each and everyone's decision if they want to or not to get it! Regardless a person decision does not affect you!

As usual the point is completely missed

I have no personal issue with people deciding not to take the vaccine, nor any desire to force them to do so.

To a rational human what I said is obviously not the 'exact same' (American?) as telling someone to get it.

I do however have an issue with people who don't take it encouraging others not to do so, and even more so if it's based on pocket fluff and whimsey.

The number of people logged with notable vaccine side effects vs. the number of people who have suffered from infection is night and day. Therefore making out like they're equivalent is misguided.

I'd suggest the vaccines (plural, as there are many) are no longer 'experimental'. The sample size and time elapsed alone move us well away from that and will continue to do so.

I also take issue in people continually oversimplifying complex issues as stated the current research indicates that vaccination can reduce the chance of infection due to reducing how long you might be infectious for (social benefit), along with reducing how much viral load the person you are infecting might get (social benefit).

It's that simple.

ALSO PERHAPS GO EASY ON THE EXCLAMATION! MARKS! IT! TENDS! TO! REDUCE! THEIR! IMPACT! WHEN! OVERUSED!

Edited by SW19 CPFC (10 Jan 2023 5.23pm)

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 10 Jan 23 4.56pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by eaglesdare

Completely agree and it should be left at this! :-)

yeah lets not debate anything that warrants debate and go with 'as it's my own decision therefore cancel all other viewpoints'

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View ASCPFC's Profile ASCPFC Flag Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 10 Jan 23 5.04pm Send a Private Message to ASCPFC Add ASCPFC as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

yeah lets not debate anything that warrants debate and go with 'as it's my own decision therefore cancel all other viewpoints'

Current debates are exactly like this 'my body my choice' abortion - fine. 'I can be whatever gender I feel like' Trans, LGBTQ etc, fine. Yet, COVID vaccine - 'choice?' take it or you're far right, if you don't agree with vaccination you're an anti-vaxer. Even recognizing that LOADS of people had bad reactions to the vaccine without labelling them conspiracy theorists would be nice.
Only good thing is that many 'far right, anti- vaxers' were hippy, pro choice types so diminishes the power of this ridiculous, almost blind religious narrative

 


Red and Blue Army!

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 10 Jan 23 5.07pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by Stirlingsays


No one in contact with others avoids contracting the virus as evidenced by the anti body count being near 100 percent just a year after covid started. So this idea that the vaccine will result in less chance of someone being infected seems a little pointless. They are going to get infected regardless.

The difference in survival chances between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is also so close that to criticise someone for not being vaccinated seems moot.

If someone is old and/or immune weak I can see the sense of it, but it's always going to be a risk/benefit analysis for the individual. In my view it was always ethically dodgey to tell people to vaccinate for others. It should have been left purely to their own decision without pressure.


Edited by Stirlingsays (09 Jan 2023 2.39pm)

Ah but it is more nuanced than that. It's certainly not Moot.

For some reason I am always reminding people that viral load is one of the most important factors with COVID, in fact, with any virus really, not whether you get infected or not.

So as per research vaccination increases the speed at which your body can rid itself of the virus, which has the added benefit of reducing how long you're infectious for, which means you're likely to infect less people with less viral load.

It's not as simple as 'well everybody's had it so it's all fine now' or 'everybody will get infected anyway'. It's whether you're more succsptible than others and the amount you get infected with that are the most important factors.

In my view there's nothing wrong with advising people to take a vaccine to provide a wider social benefit. What is wrong is forcing people to take it if they don't want it. What is also wrong is making the decision not to get it and then encouraging others not to do so based on spurious dross that Brian drinking down the 'ol Lion got third hand from his lobotomised Auntie.

Also, final point, even if the government had not pushed vaccination so much (not sure what alternate universe that would happen in, but I'm humouring the suggestion) most people would have taken it and peer pressure would have filled that particular void anyway.

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View SW19 CPFC's Profile SW19 CPFC Flag Addiscombe West 10 Jan 23 5.22pm Send a Private Message to SW19 CPFC Add SW19 CPFC as a friend

Originally posted by ASCPFC

Current debates are exactly like this 'my body my choice' abortion - fine. 'I can be whatever gender I feel like' Trans, LGBTQ etc, fine. Yet, COVID vaccine - 'choice?' take it or you're far right, if you don't agree with vaccination you're an anti-vaxer. Even recognizing that LOADS of people had bad reactions to the vaccine without labelling them conspiracy theorists would be nice.
Only good thing is that many 'far right, anti- vaxers' were hippy, pro choice types so diminishes the power of this ridiculous, almost blind religious narrative

Pretty sure I've not labelled anyone a conspiracy theorist here...

It's public fact that a significant number of people, globally, suffered reactions to the vaccines. What people, yet again, fail to be able to remember or comprehend is that relative to the total number of vaccinated this number is within expectations of pretty much every other vaccine on the market.

LOADS of people suffer reactions to vaccines on a daily basis. These vaccines are no different. For reference, the Shingles vaccine has a far worse side effect rate than any of the mainstream COVID vaccines. The flu vaccine fares slightly better.

Therefore if we all had to take the shingles vaccine tomorrow the numbers would be worse. But the difference is, we don't all take the shingles vaccine at the same time now, do we?

And in the context you just put it, the very definition of being opposed to or against something is to be anti it...

Besides, for me it's the constant wonky and poorly constructed reasoning behind why a lot of people are anti-vax than being anti-vax in and of itself. Again, entirely up to you, your decision. But if you start spouting utter dross as the reason then I'm going to go for you because it's absolutely intolerable.

 


Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons.

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View eaglesdare's Profile eaglesdare Flag 10 Jan 23 5.37pm Send a Private Message to eaglesdare Add eaglesdare as a friend

At the end of the day it should be up to someone if they accept or do not accept the risks of getting a vaccine. The information is there now for anyone who was vaccine hesitant or decided to hold off getting it because of lack of info.

I like many others made an informed decision about my body that I did not need the vaccine. If anyone made the same informed decision to get the vaccine then no problem. I never told anyone to get or not to get it.

Anyways. Back to normal life anyway! I see the amount of people deciding against the booster is high!

Also..... !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :-)

 

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply
View Stirlingsays's Profile Stirlingsays Flag 10 Jan 23 6.57pm Send a Private Message to Stirlingsays Holmesdale Online Elite Member Add Stirlingsays as a friend

Originally posted by SW19 CPFC

Ah but it is more nuanced than that. It's certainly not Moot.

For some reason I am always reminding people that viral load is one of the most important factors with COVID, in fact, with any virus really, not whether you get infected or not.

So as per research vaccination increases the speed at which your body can rid itself of the virus, which has the added benefit of reducing how long you're infectious for, which means you're likely to infect less people with less viral load.

It's not as simple as 'well everybody's had it so it's all fine now' or 'everybody will get infected anyway'. It's whether you're more succsptible than others and the amount you get infected with that are the most important factors.

In my view there's nothing wrong with advising people to take a vaccine to provide a wider social benefit. What is wrong is forcing people to take it if they don't want it. What is also wrong is making the decision not to get it and then encouraging others not to do so based on spurious dross that Brian drinking down the 'ol Lion got third hand from his lobotomised Auntie.

Also, final point, even if the government had not pushed vaccination so much (not sure what alternate universe that would happen in, but I'm humouring the suggestion) most people would have taken it and peer pressure would have filled that particular void anyway.

We would agree on viral load, however due to the reality that vaccinated or not you are going to get infected again I have to say I regard it as moot. The difference between anti bodies from previous infections and vaccines....which are only effective for three or four months and require boosters (who most wouldn't have kept up) means that again I regard it as moot.

The harsh horrible reality of covid, as with all infections, is that those who were going to die of that initial infection did. We are seeing significant excess death now long after vaccines were introduced and that's also due to weakened systems for whatever reasons. Considering most adults vaccinated the reality is that for the young and healthy this is of very doubtful benefit in terms of covid.

We have agree to disagree on the ethics regarding taking injections for a wider social benefit. I have no issues with people doing that if that's what they think they are doing however I do disagree with you on the ethics of this.

Vaccines used to be age appropriate, ie the flu vaccine wasn't offered to all ages and obviously the flu is an infectious pathogen. In my view that's going to be the system going forward and we will see if that's what the system is going to revert to.


Edited by Stirlingsays (10 Jan 2023 7.14pm)

 


'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert Alert a moderator to this post Edit this post Quote this post in a reply

 

Page 6 of 271 < 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

You are here: Home > Message Board > News & Politics > Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy