30 somethings - are you going to vax?
Discussion
davey83 said:
superlightr said:
you just dont get it do you?
Its overstepped the mark -its oppressive and coercion. Its no longer "encouragement".
Its against basic human rights. Healthy people are being portrayed as bio-terrorists and as such must be put down and restricted. Its abhorrent.
Its been done before a recurrent theme in Nazi antisemitic propaganda was that Jews spread diseases. A sure fire way to turn people against each other. The same is taking shape now. New variants are being spread by the un-vaccinated, to justify force medication or loose your job. Its overstepped the mark -its oppressive and coercion. Its no longer "encouragement".
Its against basic human rights. Healthy people are being portrayed as bio-terrorists and as such must be put down and restricted. Its abhorrent.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/...
Nobody thinks unvaccinated people spread disease as we know that you can spread the virus even if you are vaccinated but unvaccinated people may end up in hospital on a ventilator adding to the daily figures and stopping us from getting back to normal.
Get the vax if you haven't. If there are huge side effects then we will all suffer from them and die together but if there aren't then we can all drink mojitos on the beach.
superlightr said:
It is now coercion and thats the rub isnt it - to silence others, to control them.
Nope I wont be silent when I see injustice and immoral things occur. You are free to cross the road and not help if you want - bit of a coward but your not going to tell me to be silent.
You may one day wake up and see the the real danger in what the govt are doing to the population.
You are free to sit there fretting about this great conspiracy. You protest in the streets and fight the government if you want. No one is stopping you.Nope I wont be silent when I see injustice and immoral things occur. You are free to cross the road and not help if you want - bit of a coward but your not going to tell me to be silent.
You may one day wake up and see the the real danger in what the govt are doing to the population.
Others, like me, have had the vaccine, forgotten about it, are getting on with life, and looking forward to the future. The whole ‘vaccine thing’ just isn’t a feature of our daily lives. 80-90% of people I know, young and old, have had it now, and have moved on to chatting about other stuff. It’s done and dusted.
We view it as just another vaccination alongside the others we have already had against 15 other illnesses/diseases/viruses.
The only time I even think about it is when I end up on PH in threads like this, which I sometimes regret getting involved in.
Lord Marylebone said:
You are free to sit there fretting about this great conspiracy. You protest in the streets and fight the government if you want. No one is stopping you.
Others, like me, have had the vaccine, forgotten about it, are getting on with life, and looking forward to the future. The whole ‘vaccine thing’ just isn’t a feature of our daily lives. 80-90% of people I know, young and old, have had it now, and have moved on to chatting about other stuff. It’s done and dusted.
We view it as just another vaccination alongside the others we have already had against 15 other illnesses/diseases/viruses.
The only time I even think about it is when I end up on PH in threads like this, which I sometimes regret getting involved in.
Except it isn’tOthers, like me, have had the vaccine, forgotten about it, are getting on with life, and looking forward to the future. The whole ‘vaccine thing’ just isn’t a feature of our daily lives. 80-90% of people I know, young and old, have had it now, and have moved on to chatting about other stuff. It’s done and dusted.
We view it as just another vaccination alongside the others we have already had against 15 other illnesses/diseases/viruses.
The only time I even think about it is when I end up on PH in threads like this, which I sometimes regret getting involved in.
Boosters next and still restrictions like masks and travel dragging on and on and on...
Brave Fart said:
Not at all. With respect, you're the one who's totally missing the point. A reductionist argument that just says "oh well, everything is unknown in the long term" is absurd. Not least because trainers, TV's and the like have been around for the long term already. The argument about covid vaccines, one which you must be aware of, is that it's a new type of technology; therefore not tested in the long term. Unlike energy drinks, or footwear. And it's irreversible. Unlike one's choice of mobile phone. And some people don't need the vaccine, as they see it, because they've had covid already and/or are young and healthy. Unlike a new TV, which actually has a benefit.
I think those who say "I'll wait a couple more years to see if there are any risks from this new technology that we don't yet know about, because the virus is no threat to me anyway" have a perfectly understandable viewpoint, and one that I respect.
Nope.I think those who say "I'll wait a couple more years to see if there are any risks from this new technology that we don't yet know about, because the virus is no threat to me anyway" have a perfectly understandable viewpoint, and one that I respect.
Vaccines have been around for a "long time". mRNA technology has been around for a "long time". Similar technologies have been around for a "long time".
And using a television, wearing a pair of trainers, or using a mobile phone is equally "irreversible", in so much as you've done it. Vaccines also do have objective benefits to the young and healthy (although at what point it's unnecessary is up for debate) so that's just non-sense.
Without qualifying why, it's not a viewpoint I respect anymore than someone "waiting to see" if their [insert item less than 20 years old here] sprouts wings and flies away.
Why would it do so? If you don't know why, why on Earth would you forgo something to wait for it?
sevensfun said:
Except it isn’t
Boosters next and still restrictions like masks and travel dragging on and on and on...
I’m sure there will be boosters, the same as there are annual flu shots for people.Boosters next and still restrictions like masks and travel dragging on and on and on...
It is in no ones interest, especially not the government, to prolong the mandating of masks, restrictions, and travel restrictions. It isn’t paying the bills.
The government need us all back out there working and playing in order for the economy to begin to recover.
I accept that these restrictions are an attempt to keep as many people out of hospital as possible, until pretty much everyone is vaccinated and hospital numbers fall.
I have no doubt that restrictions and masks will disappear in a few months. I’m not concerned in the slightest.
Prof Prolapse said:
Nope.
Vaccines have been around for a "long time". mRNA technology has been around for a "long time". Similar technologies have been around for a "long time".
And using a television, wearing a pair of trainers, or using a mobile phone is equally "irreversible", in so much as you've done it. Vaccines also do have objective benefits to the young and healthy (although at what point it's unnecessary is up for debate) so that's just non-sense.
Without qualifying why, it's not a viewpoint I respect anymore than someone "waiting to see" if their [insert item less than 20 years old here] sprouts wings and flies away.
Why would it do so? If you don't know why, why on Earth would you forgo something to wait for it?
Nope.Vaccines have been around for a "long time". mRNA technology has been around for a "long time". Similar technologies have been around for a "long time".
And using a television, wearing a pair of trainers, or using a mobile phone is equally "irreversible", in so much as you've done it. Vaccines also do have objective benefits to the young and healthy (although at what point it's unnecessary is up for debate) so that's just non-sense.
Without qualifying why, it's not a viewpoint I respect anymore than someone "waiting to see" if their [insert item less than 20 years old here] sprouts wings and flies away.
Why would it do so? If you don't know why, why on Earth would you forgo something to wait for it?
Remind me again what mRNA vaccines have been used on the public before? A quick Google brings up squillions of articles trumpeting the "new technology", this "breakthrough technology" and so on. So, anyone thinking they should be cautious about such new tech deserves respect, in my opinion. I'm referring to the thought process of the vaccine hesitant.
Tv's, trainers, mobiles are typically short-life assets. Vaccines are for life. It's a strange comparison to make.
How can a vaccine have any benefit to someone whose covid risk is absolutely tiny? Bear in mind the stories about blood clots, myocarditis or even feeling ill post injection. Again, think about the perspective of the hesitant. As my 20 year old son said to me yesterday "why is it OK to have the vaccine at 20, but not at 17?" He is not talking non-sense (sic); he has a very fair point.
As for "qualifying why": fears of infertility, cancer, dementia and auto immune responses are all fears I've seen expressed. You might say "they're unfounded fears" but the truth is that no-one yet knows. My 21 year old daughter asked me this: "Dad, might the vaccine make me infertile?" My answer "no one knows, because not enough time has elapsed yet". I respect her question, even if you don't.
So I'm sorry but I completely reject your lofty dismissal of some people's fears. You are convinced you're right, and I respect your opinion. The least I expect in return is respect for those whose opinion differs from yours.
Brave Fart said:
SiH said:
Arrogant appeal to authority, followed by:
they're also there to prevent you from being the individual that hosts a new mutation which turns out to be much more hazardous than the strains we currently have.
Since the vaccine does not stop you becoming infected, it's hard to see your logic. In fact, some argue that having very many vaccinated people will actually increase the chance of an "escape variant" precisely because that is the only way the virus can continue to multiply.they're also there to prevent you from being the individual that hosts a new mutation which turns out to be much more hazardous than the strains we currently have.
Oh, and don't forget the billions of people on the planet outside the UK. That's where your "much more hazardous" variant will come from, if anywhere. Like, I dunno, India perhaps?
I fail to see why a much more hazardous variant would, by definition, come from somewhere outside the UK. You may recall that up until recently the most prevalent variant across Western Europe was first discovered in Kent. The Danish mink farmers had their own variant for a while and then there were 2 from Brazil and a couple from South Africa too. Yes, the most common variant at present is the Delta/Delhi one and there's also a Nepalese variant floating round too. All it takes is one person to create a mutation and the virus doesn't care if they're in Calcutta or Coventry.
Harrison Bergeron said:
SiH said:
Christ, this kind of thread really winds me up. I can see how BV72, agtlaw and others must feel on the S,P&L forum when dealing with the amateur lawyers. While I can understand the thought processes that lead to the conclusion of 'it's my body and I'll do what I want' I'm afraid that I don't agree with it and I also don't sympathise with that point of view. COVD vaccinations aren't just there to stop you from dying from the current strains of the virus, they're there to help prevent you from suffering potentially life-changing long-term symptoms and they're also there to prevent you from being the individual that hosts a new mutation which turns out to be much more hazardous than the strains we currently have.
Potentially but the odds are massively in your favour if you’re young and healthy.
ks to everyone else then? The old and infirm can sod right off?davey83 said:
superlightr said:
you just dont get it do you?
Its overstepped the mark -its oppressive and coercion. Its no longer "encouragement".
Its against basic human rights. Healthy people are being portrayed as bio-terrorists and as such must be put down and restricted. Its abhorrent.
Its been done before a recurrent theme in Nazi antisemitic propaganda was that Jews spread diseases. A sure fire way to turn people against each other. The same is taking shape now. New variants are being spread by the un-vaccinated, to justify force medication or loose your job. Its overstepped the mark -its oppressive and coercion. Its no longer "encouragement".
Its against basic human rights. Healthy people are being portrayed as bio-terrorists and as such must be put down and restricted. Its abhorrent.
https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/...
davey83 said:
You can choose to add an image to a dating profile? I thought this was a free country and people can do as they please? Or should be ban stickers for the Good of Humanity?
SiH said:
Being vaccinated reduces the likelihood of transmission of infection by ~50%, in part because the vaccine will reduce the viral load of the infected individual. If we apply that across a population it's a good way of eradicating, or at least strongly supressing, an infective disease.
I fail to see why a much more hazardous variant would, by definition, come from somewhere outside the UK. You may recall that up until recently the most prevalent variant across Western Europe was first discovered in Kent. The Danish mink farmers had their own variant for a while and then there were 2 from Brazil and a couple from South Africa too. Yes, the most common variant at present is the Delta/Delhi one and there's also a Nepalese variant floating round too. All it takes is one person to create a mutation and the virus doesn't care if they're in Calcutta or Coventry.
I'm sorry I really don't get your point. In fact, I think we're agreeing. I'm saying that worrying about vaccinating every last person in the UK is misguided, because there's billions elsewhere on the planet without vaccination.I fail to see why a much more hazardous variant would, by definition, come from somewhere outside the UK. You may recall that up until recently the most prevalent variant across Western Europe was first discovered in Kent. The Danish mink farmers had their own variant for a while and then there were 2 from Brazil and a couple from South Africa too. Yes, the most common variant at present is the Delta/Delhi one and there's also a Nepalese variant floating round too. All it takes is one person to create a mutation and the virus doesn't care if they're in Calcutta or Coventry.
You say you "fail to see why a much more hazardous variant would, by definition, come from somewhere outside the UK", but then go on to list all the well known variants, all except one of which has originated abroad.
In a nutshell: when it comes to variants, there's no point worrying about, say, five million adults in the UK who decline the vaccines, when there's billions on the planet who haven't had the vaccines in the first place.
Brave Fart said:
Not at all. With respect, you're the one who's totally missing the point. A reductionist argument that just says "oh well, everything is unknown in the long term" is absurd. Not least because trainers, TV's and the like have been around for the long term already. The argument about covid vaccines, one which you must be aware of, is that it's a new type of technology; therefore not tested in the long term. Unlike energy drinks, or footwear. And it's irreversible. Unlike one's choice of mobile phone. And some people don't need the vaccine, as they see it, because they've had covid already and/or are young and healthy. Unlike a new TV, which actually has a benefit.
I think those who say "I'll wait a couple more years to see if there are any risks from this new technology that we don't yet know about, because the virus is no threat to me anyway" have a perfectly understandable viewpoint, and one that I respect.
Which simply isn't true, and a gross oversimplification of the severity of the disease across every age group. I think those who say "I'll wait a couple more years to see if there are any risks from this new technology that we don't yet know about, because the virus is no threat to me anyway" have a perfectly understandable viewpoint, and one that I respect.
I entirely agree an individual can make their choice and refuse the vaccine. However they should do so knowing that it will mean parts of society will not be able to tolerate the risk of spreading the infection, and it significantly contributes to increased likelihood that restrictions will have to be extended to suppress the increased transmission resulting from a smaller proportion of the population having been vaccinated.
I have yet to see a credible alternative to large scale vaccinating. If your position is ultimately denying that the virus is even an issue, then I'm afraid I have no time or respect for your assertions.
Pappyjohn said:
Isn't the thought here that the hospitals are full of mostly unvaccinated people (some to young to have had it and some anti-vax), and that if everyone gets a vaccine then we can all get back to normal. As long as the infection rates and deaths stay high we will be in some sort of lockdown so if we all get the vaccine we will all be free.
Nobody thinks unvaccinated people spread disease as we know that you can spread the virus even if you are vaccinated but unvaccinated people may end up in hospital on a ventilator adding to the daily figures and stopping us from getting back to normal.
Get the vax if you haven't. If there are huge side effects then we will all suffer from them and die together but if there aren't then we can all drink mojitos on the beach.
Nobody thinks unvaccinated people spread disease as we know that you can spread the virus even if you are vaccinated but unvaccinated people may end up in hospital on a ventilator adding to the daily figures and stopping us from getting back to normal.
Get the vax if you haven't. If there are huge side effects then we will all suffer from them and die together but if there aren't then we can all drink mojitos on the beach.
sutoka said:
In my local hospital there is nobody in ICU with Covid, but dozens in wards with adverse reactions to the vaccine. This is straight from someone that works in the hospital in a senior position.
Pappyjohn - Are you speaking from experience? Yes or No......Edited by sutoka on Friday 25th June 05:54
Bought of covid going round our store. On hearing people symptoms it is basically halfway between a bad cold and flu. For the two asthma people, myself and another we both thought it was our hay-fever and asthma making it hard to breath and sneezing runny nose. If this is it then it is a joke we still have so many restrictions. I was unwell but at work the whole time. (Only realised it was covid after others were tested then found out their symptoms. I'd had my first jab as well 4 weeks ago.
Brave Fart said:
Nope.
Remind me again what mRNA vaccines have been used on the public before? A quick Google brings up squillions of articles trumpeting the "new technology", this "breakthrough technology" and so on. So, anyone thinking they should be cautious about such new tech deserves respect, in my opinion. I'm referring to the thought process of the vaccine hesitant.
Tv's, trainers, mobiles are typically short-life assets. Vaccines are for life. It's a strange comparison to make.
How can a vaccine have any benefit to someone whose covid risk is absolutely tiny? Bear in mind the stories about blood clots, myocarditis or even feeling ill post injection. Again, think about the perspective of the hesitant. As my 20 year old son said to me yesterday "why is it OK to have the vaccine at 20, but not at 17?" He is not talking non-sense (sic); he has a very fair point.
As for "qualifying why": fears of infertility, cancer, dementia and auto immune responses are all fears I've seen expressed. You might say "they're unfounded fears" but the truth is that no-one yet knows. My 21 year old daughter asked me this: "Dad, might the vaccine make me infertile?" My answer "no one knows, because not enough time has elapsed yet". I respect her question, even if you don't.
So I'm sorry but I completely reject your lofty dismissal of some people's fears. You are convinced you're right, and I respect your opinion. The least I expect in return is respect for those whose opinion differs from yours.
"...a quick google confirms". Remind me again what mRNA vaccines have been used on the public before? A quick Google brings up squillions of articles trumpeting the "new technology", this "breakthrough technology" and so on. So, anyone thinking they should be cautious about such new tech deserves respect, in my opinion. I'm referring to the thought process of the vaccine hesitant.
Tv's, trainers, mobiles are typically short-life assets. Vaccines are for life. It's a strange comparison to make.
How can a vaccine have any benefit to someone whose covid risk is absolutely tiny? Bear in mind the stories about blood clots, myocarditis or even feeling ill post injection. Again, think about the perspective of the hesitant. As my 20 year old son said to me yesterday "why is it OK to have the vaccine at 20, but not at 17?" He is not talking non-sense (sic); he has a very fair point.
As for "qualifying why": fears of infertility, cancer, dementia and auto immune responses are all fears I've seen expressed. You might say "they're unfounded fears" but the truth is that no-one yet knows. My 21 year old daughter asked me this: "Dad, might the vaccine make me infertile?" My answer "no one knows, because not enough time has elapsed yet". I respect her question, even if you don't.
So I'm sorry but I completely reject your lofty dismissal of some people's fears. You are convinced you're right, and I respect your opinion. The least I expect in return is respect for those whose opinion differs from yours.
You want me to respect your opinion, then don't form a stupid one. You're repeatedly employing obviously faulty reasoning and ignorance, then holding yourself as having viable alternative to giants in their fields. You're at the point of making an extraordinary claim, but you're providing zero evidence. You're claiming something exists, a long term risk, you're making this claim, not me, so the burden of proof is on you, where is your proof?
Vaccines aren't necessarily "for life", in this instance the biggest problem with the vaccine is probably it's lack of longevity.
The benefits? You know what they are. You've read them here loads of times. You've been shown the expert analysis. You don't care, you've ignored it and formed you own. I'm not going around in circles but I'll say it again, lower risk of hospitalisation, lower risk of serious illness, lower chance of spreading.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
I don't even know what the guidance is for those under 30. That isn't the thread, personally I'll be advising my kids based on best guidance provided by the JCVI when it appears (has it?), and experts in the field. Personally I won't be making s
t up and unnecessarily worrying them. You should of told her the truth, "there's no evidence of that despite having dosed over a billion people". If you'll excuse me I've decided to employ your specious reasoning and will spend the now afternoon in terror of the Stay Puff marshmallow man reigning fresh sugary hell upon the Scottish central belt as I'm pretty sure I saw a documentary about it in the early 90s, and my opinion about it happening is all I need to live in fear.
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Friday 25th June 16:22
Prof Prolapse said:
Brave Fart said:
Nope.
Remind me again what mRNA vaccines have been used on the public before? A quick Google brings up squillions of articles trumpeting the "new technology", this "breakthrough technology" and so on. So, anyone thinking they should be cautious about such new tech deserves respect, in my opinion. I'm referring to the thought process of the vaccine hesitant.
Tv's, trainers, mobiles are typically short-life assets. Vaccines are for life. It's a strange comparison to make.
How can a vaccine have any benefit to someone whose covid risk is absolutely tiny? Bear in mind the stories about blood clots, myocarditis or even feeling ill post injection. Again, think about the perspective of the hesitant. As my 20 year old son said to me yesterday "why is it OK to have the vaccine at 20, but not at 17?" He is not talking non-sense (sic); he has a very fair point.
As for "qualifying why": fears of infertility, cancer, dementia and auto immune responses are all fears I've seen expressed. You might say "they're unfounded fears" but the truth is that no-one yet knows. My 21 year old daughter asked me this: "Dad, might the vaccine make me infertile?" My answer "no one knows, because not enough time has elapsed yet". I respect her question, even if you don't.
So I'm sorry but I completely reject your lofty dismissal of some people's fears. You are convinced you're right, and I respect your opinion. The least I expect in return is respect for those whose opinion differs from yours.
"...a quick google confirms". Remind me again what mRNA vaccines have been used on the public before? A quick Google brings up squillions of articles trumpeting the "new technology", this "breakthrough technology" and so on. So, anyone thinking they should be cautious about such new tech deserves respect, in my opinion. I'm referring to the thought process of the vaccine hesitant.
Tv's, trainers, mobiles are typically short-life assets. Vaccines are for life. It's a strange comparison to make.
How can a vaccine have any benefit to someone whose covid risk is absolutely tiny? Bear in mind the stories about blood clots, myocarditis or even feeling ill post injection. Again, think about the perspective of the hesitant. As my 20 year old son said to me yesterday "why is it OK to have the vaccine at 20, but not at 17?" He is not talking non-sense (sic); he has a very fair point.
As for "qualifying why": fears of infertility, cancer, dementia and auto immune responses are all fears I've seen expressed. You might say "they're unfounded fears" but the truth is that no-one yet knows. My 21 year old daughter asked me this: "Dad, might the vaccine make me infertile?" My answer "no one knows, because not enough time has elapsed yet". I respect her question, even if you don't.
So I'm sorry but I completely reject your lofty dismissal of some people's fears. You are convinced you're right, and I respect your opinion. The least I expect in return is respect for those whose opinion differs from yours.
You want me to respect your opinion, then don't form a stupid one. You're repeatedly employing obviously faulty reasoning and ignorance, then holding yourself as having viable alternative to giants in their fields. You're at the point of making an extraordinary claim, but you're providing zero evidence. You're claiming something exists, a long term risk, you're making this claim, not me, so the burden of proof is on you, where is your proof?
Vaccines aren't necessarily "for life", in this instance the biggest problem with the vaccine is probably it's lack of longevity.
The benefits? You know what they are. You've read them here loads of times. You've been shown the expert analysis. You don't care, you've ignored it and formed you own. I'm not going around in circles but I'll say it again, lower risk of hospitalisation, lower risk of serious illness, lower chance of spreading.
I don't even know what the guidance is for those under 30. That isn't the thread, personally I'll be advising my kids based on best guidance provided by the JCVI when it appears (has it?), and experts in the field. Personally I won't be making s
t up and unnecessarily worrying them. You should of told her the truth, "there's no evidence of that despite having dosed over a billion people". If you'll excuse me I've decided to employ your specious reasoning and will spend the now afternoon in terror of the Stay Puff marshmallow man reigning fresh sugary hell upon the Scottish central belt as I'm pretty sure I saw a documentary about it in the early 90s, and my opinion about it happening is all I need to live in fear.
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection
A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines
The antiparasitic ivermectin, with antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties, has now been tested in numerous clinical trials.
I would sooner have Ivermectin than the vaccine. Why is this not being used in the UK? Its been peer reviewed.
The reason why I believe is that there is little money in it.
The whole push for everyone to have a vaccine stinks.
Edited by superlightr on Friday 25th June 16:27
Prof Prolapse said:
"...a quick google confirms".
You want me to respect your opinion, then don't form a stupid one. You're repeatedly employing obviously faulty reasoning and ignorance, then holding yourself as having viable alternative to giants in their fields. You're at the point of making an extraordinary claim, but you're providing zero evidence. You're claiming something exists, a long term risk, you're making this claim, not me, so the burden of proof is on you, where is your proof?
Vaccines aren't necessarily "for life", in this instance the biggest problem with the vaccine is probably it's lack of longevity.
The benefits? You know what they are. You've read them here loads of times. You've been shown the expert analysis. You don't care, you've ignored it and formed you own. I'm not going around in circles but I'll say it again, lower risk of hospitalisation, lower risk of serious illness, lower chance of spreading.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
I don't even know what the guidance is for those under 30. That isn't the thread, personally I'll be advising my kids based on best guidance provided by the JCVI when it appears (has it?), and experts in the field. Personally I won't be making st up and unnecessarily worrying them. You should of told her the truth, "there's no evidence of that despite having dosed over a billion people".
If you'll excuse me I've decided to employ your specious reasoning and will spend the now afternoon in terror of the Stay Puff marshmallow man reigning fresh sugary hell upon the Scottish central belt as I'm pretty sure I saw a documentary about it in the early 90s, and my opinion about it happening is all I need to live in fear.
Trying to explain science with an anti-vaxxers is like trying to play chess with a pigeon. They'll just knock everything over and sYou want me to respect your opinion, then don't form a stupid one. You're repeatedly employing obviously faulty reasoning and ignorance, then holding yourself as having viable alternative to giants in their fields. You're at the point of making an extraordinary claim, but you're providing zero evidence. You're claiming something exists, a long term risk, you're making this claim, not me, so the burden of proof is on you, where is your proof?
Vaccines aren't necessarily "for life", in this instance the biggest problem with the vaccine is probably it's lack of longevity.
The benefits? You know what they are. You've read them here loads of times. You've been shown the expert analysis. You don't care, you've ignored it and formed you own. I'm not going around in circles but I'll say it again, lower risk of hospitalisation, lower risk of serious illness, lower chance of spreading.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/governmen...
I don't even know what the guidance is for those under 30. That isn't the thread, personally I'll be advising my kids based on best guidance provided by the JCVI when it appears (has it?), and experts in the field. Personally I won't be making s
t up and unnecessarily worrying them. You should of told her the truth, "there's no evidence of that despite having dosed over a billion people". If you'll excuse me I've decided to employ your specious reasoning and will spend the now afternoon in terror of the Stay Puff marshmallow man reigning fresh sugary hell upon the Scottish central belt as I'm pretty sure I saw a documentary about it in the early 90s, and my opinion about it happening is all I need to live in fear.
Edited by Prof Prolapse on Friday 25th June 16:22
t on the board.All you need to do is accept that they are on the lunatic fringe and very few people think like them. They are so loud and ignorant because they know they're a lunatic fringe and fear being ignored.
The best thing you can do is give them the same amount of attention you give the frothy, shouty man on the train because they are the online equivalent.
As of the 23rd of June, over 46.5 million of the UKs population over 18 (52.6 million) have had their first dose, over 31.9 have had their second.
The anti-vaxxers have lost... They're just having a cry now.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff