Once again, being vaccinated does not stop transmission.....despite me being told specifically by a poster on this very website that it did....it was misinformation that actually came from official sources as well, all based on, 'trust me bro'....Having lawyers and editors didn't seem to make a difference...funny that isn't it.

Even if not having the vaccine led to a greater chance of hospitalisation amongst the healthy...which is a stretch....no one is stopped from eating cake or boxing or other activities. People have agency to make their own health decisions.

You constantly went on about the strain on the NHS, but the reality is that it was the lockdowns....of which you were a supporter....which did that far more than covid....creating a backlog which has directly led to god knows how many deaths now.

The Nightingale hospitals built specifically for an increase in covid cases never reached anything near capacity.....before the vaccines nor after.

Edited by Stirlingsays (14 May 2023 12.25pm)

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

No, he failed their credibility test.

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

This was and continues to be, an evolving situation. It was found that the vaccinations did not protect against transmission of the variants, but they do against severe disease, keeping people out of hospital and allowing the NHS to function, albeit with a significant backlog. How bad it would have been without the vaccines doesn't bear thinking about. The Nightingale Hospitals proved to be largely unnecessary, for which we should be thankful, not critical as it proves the other measures taken worked. What we were told evolved too. That's nothing new, or to be ashamed of. Know-it-alls with hindsight can always claim the occasional victory. Even the blind hit the bull every so often.

Not getting vaccinated is not like eating cake for the average. If you ate nothing but several kilos of cake every day it would be. Boxing, smoking or taking part in extreme sports are a reasonable analogy. For these, and for those capable of receiving the vaccines who refuse, there ought to be consequences. If they have the right to take that decision then the rest of society has the right to expect that any additional health care costs which result are taken by those making such a choice. If we were on an insurance-based health care system the premiums demanded would be higher for greater risks. Just because we aren't doesn't change the principle. If I don't want to be around the unvaccinated I have a right to know who isn't.

The lockdowns reduced the strain on the NHS and enabled it to continue to provide most services. For sure there have been knock on impacts but to claim things would have been better without them, is puerile.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Those are genuine personal lifestyle choices, which have little or no impact on others when done legally. We encourage better lifestyles. Few believe they ought not be available to be made.

Refusing a vaccine is hardly a lifestyle choice. If it impacts the NHS it impacts everyone. If persuasion has failed because of disinformation then other ways must be found. Coercion has been rejected, so I would disincentivise and ostracise in the same way smoking has been.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Obesity and alcolism affect the NHS in much greater numbers.

Come on now, you're not that bad!