Stay at Home where possible - Wear a Mask - Get vaccinated x


twitter

support the forums by visiting these sites

support the forums by visiting this site

shortcuts

Gossip
Poofery
Showbiz
Back Page

support the forums by visiting these sites

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

support the forums by visiting this site

Vaccine - Side effects
(05-06-2021, 12:08 PM)James57464 Wrote: Hence why many thousands in the UK still snuff it of Polio each year

Huh? According to the NHS website:
Quote:There hasn't been a case of polio caught in the UK since the mid-80s.
source
minimalist sig
Reply
Quote:Europe has been certified as 'polio free' since 2002
Reply
I am literally beyond surprised, although I guess I shouldn't be, that anyone outside the US, other than in a third world nation, is an anti-vaxxer for anyone in any situation other than if the person can't take it. I don't understand, especially in what's supposed to be a far more civilized nation, how any British person can think this way.
[+] 1 user Likes Jwb52z's post
Reply
If these anti-vaxers would have been around 30 years ago, smallpox (which had killed millions) would never have been eradicated.
Reply
(01-06-2021, 04:44 AM)jdcyl Wrote: There’s no mystery to the Australian government’s policy.  Googling tells us only 14% of their population has had one dose of vaccine, and 2% are fully vaccinated.  New Zealand and Australia managed to effectively control the spread of the virus in their countries even before anyone in the world had a vaccine, simply through controlling their borders and effective lockdowns and social distancing.  It would be utterly stupid for their governments at this point to let people go for holidays abroad and come back, potentially ruining what they’ve achieved.  It is very problematic for any western democracy to bar citizens from entry into their own country, so the government’s safest option is to prevent residents from going out of the country.i

I’m catching up on this thread and I want to thank you for writing this. There was some stupid comparison to East Germany! It’s irritating and unpleasant and we’ll need to rethink things at some point but I’m not being oppressed!

The ultimate COVID-19 success story is having a similar problem. It’s Taiwan and I would like to visit!
Reply
But the longer the (non-)vaccination goes on, the greater the risk. And quite frankly, it could go on forever, all these restrictions.

Aussies can’t travel either way unless they get permission. So that means children have missed their dying parents last days, or funerals. People haven’t been able to return home for life events, or because they’ve been away for many months.

Unless folks get over their aversion to getting jabbed, it could stretch to 2030 and beyond. I’m not even exaggerating.
Reply
(01-06-2021, 04:19 AM)Jwb52z Wrote: I think it is mainly since, and I definitely could be wrong here, Australia is literally so far away from the rest of the world population, their government might actually be scared of bringing more infection in, so their solution is to stop all travel entirely.  I think it would make sense to say that if you leave you can't come back unvaccinated, and with proof, but it's not my decision and I'm not Australian either.

Australia is closer to more people than the UK.
Reply
Erm… even Asia is an 8-hour flight away. NZ is half that. Dodgy
Reply
(07-06-2021, 11:53 PM)jumbler Wrote: Unless folks get over their aversion to getting jabbed, it could stretch to 2030 and beyond. I’m not even exaggerating.


Indeed.

But...  you need to remember that this is a flu like virus.. its not like smallpox or polio. It mutates.
Unless a new miracle cure is discovered we're going to need ongoing yearly vaccines.. tweaked each year for the common variants.

One issue is convincing everyone to get jabbed.
The next is unconvincing everybody that once everyone is jabbed its over. Cos it isnt.
[+] 1 user Likes ladsnet's post
Reply
So far, so good. But then you need to look at what we’re doing, and why. Mutations actually weaken over time. I think they can only mutate around 10 times before they fundamentally break down and weaken.

A lot of the thrust for lockdown has been based around concepts like “the vaccine doesn’t work against xxx mutant”, and “cases are inevitably linked to hospital admissions”.

Without wanting to get too strident about it, that is not selling the idea of vaccines well to the public. Why would you admit that the vaccine isn’t effective without really clear, 100% evidence of that??

And why are we aiming for 100% vaccine effectiveness now?? Just a few months ago, the health leaders were saying that AZ was “pretty good” at 70% effectiveness. Now, they’re saying nothing less than 100% will do. Which sounds like aiming for elimination again.

And cases vs admissions, that is just going to affect people’s access to the NHS. You may have protected A&E, and ICU, but what the other departments and specialists that people need to visit??

When people need treatment, they need referrals, they need to see consultants. That backlog is just growing, and growing and growing. My mum’s referral has been delayed more than a year already. If we have another lockdown, it might be delayed again.

You will basically end up shutting people out of the NHS because “we need to stop cases turning into admissions”. Which means not allowing people to see their doctors in person, limiting access and so on.

The government’s idea of how we should “live with” COVID is pretty far apart from how we live with other problems, like long-term health conditions. You don’t isolate, and lock things down forever.

You learn the steps that you need to take to manage the situation effectively. Elimination may not be feasible without making millions of people poorer and less healthy. The obsession with protecting critical care, and having 100% effective vaccines against all variants has got to stop.
[+] 1 user Likes jumbler's post
Reply
(07-06-2021, 11:54 PM)Ligotti Wrote:
(01-06-2021, 04:19 AM)Jwb52z Wrote: I think it is mainly since, and I definitely could be wrong here, Australia is literally so far away from the rest of the world population, their government might actually be scared of bringing more infection in, so their solution is to stop all travel entirely.  I think it would make sense to say that if you leave you can't come back unvaccinated, and with proof, but it's not my decision and I'm not Australian either.

Australia is closer to more people than the UK.

Yes, but Australia, Tasmania, and New Zealand are collectively basically away from the rest of the world's population in its entirety.  That's what I was saying.

You can't "manage" virus mutations the way you manage other difficult or bad situations and just live with them in the same way either until you have a handle on and full willing participation in the necessary yearly, or however many times you need to take it, booster shots/injections. You don't have to have perfect proof to know a vaccine is lacking and not 100 percent effective once you understand/know how a virus mutates. Your vaccine is based upon building immunity to the virus in the body, but if the virus mutates, the reason the vaccine might no longer be effective is that the mutation finds its way, so to speak, around the vaccine.
Reply
Quote:Mutations actually weaken over time. I think they can only mutate around 10 times before they fundamentally break down and weaken.

The prosecution calls "flu"

The prosecution rests m'lord.


I've not heard any expert or scientist anywhere saying the mutations will eventually weaken and break down. Surely if this was the case they'd be shouting it from the rooftops. "Get through a year of variants and we'll be home and dry"
[+] 3 users Like ladsnet's post
Reply
That would not suit their case to do so.’

Remember, the health leaders are only interested in cases. Because “the must be linked” to hospital admissions.

The goalposts keep changing. First it was vaccinate all the over 70s and above, then all the vulnerable groups. Now they want 100% of over 50s and above to be vaccinated before they’ll think of advising for restrictions to be lifted.

Originally they said if the vaccine was 70% effective or above, that’d do. Now it’s got to be 100% effective - and against all variants too.

I can see them eventually saying they want 100% of everyone over 12 to be vaccinated. And if a vaccine proves less effective against one variant, to have a separate booster (for everyone) against other variants too. Probably as many as are required too.

I’m not saying that’s a bad aim, just that it’ll take a long time to get there. Longer than we’ve got. And longer than we can properly afford. The health leaders are looking to eliminate the disease. But that would involve years of lockdowns and cause millions of people to lose their jobs or give up on non-emergency hospital treatments.

I don’t believe the government is serious about “not wanting to” go back into lockdown again. Their own words, and past actions show they are too ready to use public health laws to do the dirty work; because they don’t need to be debated in parliament, and basically bypass constitutional safeguards (because public health is seen as a priority).

Hitler would’ve been proud of that (bypassing parliament at least).
Reply
I am tempted to invoke Godwin's Law
minimalist sig
[+] 1 user Likes Tiuri's post
Reply
There's so much nonsense there I literally don't know where to begin.

Hitler was just the cherry on top.
Reply
I've never seen someone combine cynicism, Hitler, and a form of conspiracy theory like this until now.
[+] 1 user Likes Jwb52z's post
Reply
(08-06-2021, 04:58 PM)Jwb52z Wrote: I've never seen someone combine cynicism, Hitler, and a form of conspiracy theory like this until now.

Welcome to England. It's doubtful you will enjoy your stay.
Reply
(08-06-2021, 04:06 PM)Tiuri Wrote: I am tempted to invoke Godwin's Law
I did make it clear that was only in relation to bypassing the government. Normal procedures aren’t being followed.

Getting the Health Secretary making Health Protection Regulations may seem basic or irrelevant, but they hardly get debated. By anyone, let alone MP’s. And here we are with £1000 fines.

Doesn’t it bother you that laws aren’t being debated properly?? When they have massive fines attached?? If people are willing to follow the rules so willingly, why do you still need massive fines??

(08-06-2021, 04:18 PM)ladsnet Wrote: There's so much nonsense there I literally don't know where to begin.
Again, does it not bother you that people are just thinking “cases >>> hospital admissions”?? It’s just being taken as read, no analysis?? No studies??

A case is just someone who has a positive COVID test. That is all. Unless everyone is signed up to Track and Trace, you’re not able to monitor if they’re passing it on, or even making someone unwell enough to go to hospital.

Even Matt Hancock has said that vaccination means cases are not leading to hospital admissions. Yet he and the health leaders have yet to move on.

Even today Whitty and Vallance were saying the outlook was “very bad”. Why?? What aspects make it so?? Do they just mean there are likely to be more “cases”??

The whole debate seems “we need lockdown, we need lockdown“. How many months do we need?? We’ve had 15 already. If you keep saying we need more, aren’t you holding out some hope we can eliminate the disease??

Even posters on here have pointed out eliminating diseases is quite difficult, if not impossible. You would be asking for an indefinite (as in years long) lockdown to do that in a way the health professionals feel comfortable with.
Reply
Just ignore him. Unless he's an elected official. Then expose and remove him from office.

My life on here has dramatically improved by not engaging with the Mary Sunshine Brigade.
Reply
Even doctors and academics are not sure if there’s a link between cases and hospital admissions, it seems.

Let’s try and firm this up a little bit. The whole concept of lockdown seems to float around in a vacuum. It exists, therefore it is. There don’t seem to be any parameters to it (how far it should go, how much people should do, how long it should last for).

Government has not responded in a way that would address those shortcomings. Essentially, lockdown is based on a balance of probabilities. There is no strong evidence that any particular measure will be conclusive, or effective - but as a whole, it might just swing the balance.

That line of argument just isn’t convincing enough. If it was presented about anything else (global carbon emissions, or air quality, for instance), people would dismiss it. In other areas the evidence has been already been gathered and analysed. Targeted measures, like going carbon-neutral are evidence-based.

There’s very little clear, unambiguous evidence for lockdown. Or what (or who) exactly we're trying to protect. And that’s why doubts exist. And if you advocate strongly for lockdown, you’re at least partly overlooking if there are any negative consequences to it.

These will have to be faced up to sooner or later.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)

important

Please read the rules and blacklist BEFORE posting

No porn, fakes, models, leaked sex/nudes, personal ads, spam, petitions or selling on the board. Pictures should be of famous male celebrities over 18.
We reserve the right to ban you from the service if the rules are broken.
No images are hosted on this site. All are hosted on individual members webspace. We do not claim any rights over images posted and assume the poster has permission to do so.
If you believe an image should not be displayed here please contact us to request removal.

By posting on the forums, you agree that you remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold us harmless with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your messages. We reserve the right to reveal your identity (or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you.

links

famousmalesfamousmales.com
twitter@famousmales
facebookfamousmales
instagram@famousmales_com
britishmade in the UK

 

contactcontact us
teamthe staff
cybersocket