Coronavirus (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In | RSS Feed
BlueJay  UK 17 Oct 20 11.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
In fact I cannot be bothered to try and debate with such a closed mind as you have Blue Jay. You try to impose your ideas, but don't listen to others. The vaccine will not be safe for years, as stated by Becky. So we will have to lockdown until then according to you. You need help. My mind is not closed at all. If you actually take my stance on covid-19 and all aspects of it, it's balanced and takes multiple factors into account across the board. What you actually don't like, whether you even realise it or not, is that it's not some one dimensional rabble-rousing take of a flavour you prefer. Sorry about that. "the vaccine will not be safe for years" Thanks again for the insight. Sorry chap, but for some in especially at risk groups if results and positive they may elect to have a vaccine that's been through stage 3 testing with good results, over adhering to someone on the internet telling them to avoid covid-19 for the next half a decade. Quote So we will have to lockdown until then according to you. You need help.
Do you make a habit of spouting hysterical lies about people when you have nothing else to say? I have stated, more times than I can even count actually, that I'm not in favour of a nationwide lockdown. Get out of the mindset of thinking that you need to prescribe to some kind of 'off the shelf' batch of beliefs and appreciate that what someone thinks about a lockdown, or a vaccine, or masks is not some kind of bulk buy opt in. Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2020 11.20pm)
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 Tim Gypsy Hill '64  Stoke sub normal 17 Oct 20 11.18pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
Give it a rest. You have very effete sensitivities for someone who routinely lays it down like you're reading from a stone tablet whenever you reply to anyone. "You questioned my numeracy, it's bullying". *hands over tissue* Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2020 10.54pm) Just read this. Butt out of other peoples business. Who the f*** do you think you are? Just mind your own business. But not you, you have to make it personal. Time and again, you resort to low tactics. You really are a nasty person.
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 17 Oct 20 11.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
It's this kind of reasoning that unleashed Thalidomide on the world. (Did you ever encounter the results?) In your small mind, that's ok. You can waste your time as much as you like, but you cannot state that a vaccine developed in record time can be considered safe. It cannot. I gave a worst case scenario. You dismiss it. Which is what is causing these restrictions. But you seem fine with those. Also, you have started to resort to talking down to me. Again. Once you start to talk down to people, you lose all respect. Can you not see that it might be possible that the vaccine that is presented to the public might be flawed? Or are you clinging to your own "safety blanket"? Because after all, we are all talking if's, maybe's and perhaps? Nothing is known. Strangely enough Thalidomide, which is now registered for use in specific circumstances, might be found useful in the treatment of C19! Our understanding of, and methodology for, drug trials has moved on a lot in the last decades. Confidence has a long way to go before being fully restored though, so I can well understand Becky's reticence. The beauty of the most promising of these vaccines seems to be that the safety has already been assessed, as they are using a material developed for other purposes, and only genetic modification is the difference which has no impact on safety. I guess there will have to be a lot of explaining done to reassure people though.
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. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 17 Oct 20 11.26pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
What's 'the vaccine' when it's at home? There are 11 stage three vaccines in mass testing, a few of which are being tested in this country. I'm not saying that they are being handed over by Christ himself. If you live on the same planet as the rest of us you'll await the study results that are out in a month or so and then deduce from that whether the vaccines appear to be a non starter of something that will potentially save countless lives. And then from there, if people are especially at risk they can make a choice. Is it pointless argument day for you? If someone feels they will benefit they can have it, if they don't then don't. We can all play 'what if' in either direction. unf***ingbelievable. Read it back
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BlueJay UK 17 Oct 20 11.29pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
Just read this. Butt out of other peoples business. Who the f*** do you think you are? Just mind your own business. But not you, you have to make it personal. Time and again, you resort to low tactics. You really are a nasty person. Once again it's self awareness zero. You 'butted in' when I made a comment about vaccines, with a preening 'not a criticism' line to boot to get a reply. Then when I take that at complete face value, and give a full and considered reply, I get a glib and snarky one liner back about how it might 'kill them in a slow and painful manner' followed by my kind of outlook being to blamed for 'unleashing Thalidomide on the world'. Tone down the profanity, the hysteria, and think about your own behaviour rather than only other peoples. If you're going to contribute in the style that you do it doesn't work with the woe is me tagged on. I'm perfectly able and frequently am considered and thoughtful when I get the same back.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 17 Oct 20 11.30pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Strangely enough Thalidomide, which is now registered for use in specific circumstances, might be found useful in the treatment of C19! Our understanding of, and methodology for, drug trials has moved on a lot in the last decades. Confidence has a long way to go before being fully restored though, so I can well understand Becky's reticence. The beauty of the most promising of these vaccines seems to be that the safety has already been assessed, as they are using a material developed for other purposes, and only genetic modification is the difference which has no impact on safety. I guess there will have to be a lot of explaining done to reassure people though. You really think genetic modification has no impact? It was genetic modification that was the problem with Thalidomide.
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BlueJay UK 17 Oct 20 11.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
You really think genetic modification has no impact? It was genetic modification that was the problem with Thalidomide. It's a wild suggestion I know, but have you considered that in waitng for the results of the stage 3 studies in a month or so, that we might be in a better position to deduce whether or not they are looking good, and take it from there? You do realise that for any vaccine to ever come to the market some people have to be on the front line (as many tens of thousands already have been in the stage 3 studies).. In a time sensitive situation such as this where some are especially at risk they will surely be able to make their own decision either way as to whether they have it. Do you feel that your input is especially important in their decision making process, or perhaps we can leave it up to the individual? Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2020 11.42pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 17 Oct 20 11.51pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
Once again it's self awareness zero. You 'butted in' when I made a comment about vaccines, with a preening 'not a criticism' line to boot to get a reply. Then when I take that at complete face value, and give a full and considered reply, I get a glib and snarky one liner back about how it might 'kill them in a slow and painful manner' followed by my kind of outlook being to blamed for 'unleashing Thalidomide on the world'. Tone down the profanity, the hysteria, and think about your own behaviour rather than only other peoples. If you're going to contribute in the style that you do it doesn't work with the woe is me tagged on. I'm perfectly able and frequently am considered and thoughtful when I get the same back.
The conversation was about vaccines when I offered my response. It had nothing to do with another poster. It was the topic being discussed. Unlike the response I got from the another poster. However, you chose to get involved with something which you were previously uninvolved with. That makes it personal. You may attack my posts as much as you wish, but you don't, you, like this other poster, constantly snipe at the poster. You are not worth trying to debate with. If you feel you are losing ground, you get personal. My skin is thick enough to take any insults thrown. By the way, I just feel the need to call out bullying when I see it. If you think that is "effete", more power to you thug!
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 17 Oct 20 11.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by BlueJay
It's a wild suggestion I know, but have you considered that in waitng for the results of the stage 3 studies in a month or so, that we might be in a better position to deduce whether or not they are looking good, and take it from there? You do realise that for any vaccine to ever come to the market some people have to be on the front line (as many tens of thousands already have been in the stage 3 studies).. In a time sensitive situation such as this where some are especially at risk they will surely be able to make their own decision either way as to whether they have it. Do you feel that your input is especially important in their decision making process, or perhaps we can leave it up to the individual? Edited by BlueJay (17 Oct 2020 11.42pm) Here's a wild suggestion. Have you considered how many children were damaged by a drug that was tested over a longer period and approved? I'm guessing not.
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BlueJay UK 18 Oct 20 12.06am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
The conversation was about vaccines when I offered my response. It had nothing to do with another poster. It was the topic being discussed.
You are not worth trying to debate with. If you feel you are losing ground, you get personal. My skin is thick enough to take any insults thrown. By the way, I just feel the need to call out bullying when I see it. If you think that is "effete", more power to you thug! It was certainly a topic I was discussing yes. As stated you chimed in "when I made a comment about vaccines. Then when I take that at complete face value, and give a full and considered reply, I get a glib and snarky one liner back about how it might 'kill them in a slow and painful manner' followed by my kind of outlook being to blamed for 'unleashing Thalidomide on the world'." Since your behaviour was so ludicrous and clearly aimed at trying to have a pop rather than have a point, I'm not sure you get to decide who contributes when you're on a flounce with someone else. Conduct yourself with decency and you'll get the same back from others. Don't and I don't suppose you will, will you. Thems the breaks. You throw your weight around then pull outthe woe is me card when it's not going your way. Just go to bed.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 18 Oct 20 12.09am |
|
|---|---|
|
Here's an ideal scenario. A vaccine is made available by mid november. Who will it be given to? Probably old and vulnerable people. Nice. They need it most. Nothing wrong with that. Get them all innoculated. Job done. Ohhh, wait a moment, some younger people feel they need it too. Deny them? Well, we have tons of the stuff. If they want it, let them have it. Have a national vaccine programme. All is good, no side effects, the world is a happy place. Here's a scare tactic scenario. A vaccine is made available by mid november. Who will it be given to? Probably old and vulnerable people. Nice. They need it most. Nothing wrong with that. Get them all innoculated. Job done. Ohhh, wait a moment, some younger people feel they need it too. Deny them? Well, we have tons of the stuff. If they want it, let them have it. Have a national vaccine programme. Why are these mothers having childbirth issues. Why are generally healthy young men dying from common colds? Why is everyone dying? World not so happy. Just a thought.
Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| BlueJay UK 18 Oct 20 12.14am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64
Here's a wild suggestion. Have you considered how many children were damaged by a drug that was tested over a longer period and approved? I'm guessing not. It's a different drug, at a different time in a different situation. No matter how many times you're determined to highlight disabled children to win an argument, the fact of the matter is that, as stated, we're in a time sensitive situation. We know that those in certain groups are at no great risk. We know that those in some demographics are. Based on results of mass stage 3 studies it is by no means unreasonable to give people in those groups the option to have the vaccine, rather than your suggestion of waiting several years. It will be pointless in several years. I can't believe that saying something so blindingly obvious has to be endlessly explained again and again. Are you seriously saying that, upon stage 3 results, you feel it should be withheld from those it would be most likely benefit greatly for multiple years even if they want it, its been safe during stuides and may well be a life saver? If yes, how nice of you to feel that you should have such control over others lives. If no, then there's no argument to be had in the first place Edited by BlueJay (18 Oct 2020 12.14am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / Register
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2023 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.