This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Coronavirus (LOCKED)
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 14 Dec 21 12.52pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Vaibow
That's why when a nurse speaks out, saying she is seeing more adverse reactions than cases of covid..... and cases of covid in the jabbed.... and that her colleagues spent the best part of 2020 making til tk dance routines, you listen.... End of the day, the vaccine is still in trials until 2023, then the data will be released, but not to the public, the FDA have a 75 year gag on it. Why? Also, this new variant, going through the vaccinated as if they were not vaccinated... and now a booster is the official accepted amount... for now.. if people cannot see where this is going... 2020 they had a Christmas party... they were not afraid of covid then..... even with the 'scary' data they had... yes, covid is real, yes this new vaccine may work for some..... but it's not one size fits all and there is def no need to mandate it, unless ofcourse, you want that product sold. This is so wrong on so many levels, it's almost a parody. My wife works in A & E. She is surrounded by other Health Care Professionals, doctors and nurses and spends time in the "Red" zones. I can assure you that whatever some disaffected person might be saying, it is simply untrue. There are no significant adverse reactions locally here (and the RCH is a big hospital serving all of Cornwall) which require hospitalisation. The majority of those now requiring ICU beds for Covid are unvaccinated patients. The vaccines are not "in trials". They have been tested, approved and released. On top of that, there is now extensive real life experience which has confirmed their safety and that the benefits outweigh any downsides by huge margins. Just because the vaccines are still being monitored doesn't mean they aren't safe. It is normal and required for monitoring of a vaccine to continue after it has been approved. This is known as ‘phase 4’ of clinical research, or post-marketing surveillance, and the aim is to continue to improve our understanding of the long-term uses, benefits, and risks of the vaccine. The new variant is not yet fully understood, hence the need for caution, but the expectation is that whilst the existing vaccines will limit transmission by a lesser degree they will still to some extent, but, more importantly, continue to protect against severe illness and death. Thus, the unvaccinated remain at greater risk personally, and will also demand a greater proportion of the NHS resource. So get vaccinated. Not just for your own good, but for everyone's good.
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 |
 |
 georgenorman 14 Dec 21 12.53pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Mapletree
Explain your sentence construction point. It is indeed true. Which virologist is saying any of this nonsense? Neil Ferguson is still churning out his wild predictions.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Dec 21 12.58pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
(Taps desk waiting for when it’s time to reverse all of this) The R rate in SA is dropping fast so the cases chart is levelling off at what hopefully is the top. Unfortunately we’ll have to wait to see that the elderly, clinically vulnerable, and the fatties aren’t ringing 999 or worse. It’s those who know they’re more at risk who don’t get vaccinated make me shake my head. Most other vaccinated who aren’t likely to suffer aren’t really the issue, but of course they show up in the numbers and the political parties are shying away from tackling or addressing where the unvaccinated numbers are a risk, and that’s while Starmer tries to appeal to the public he’s patriotic and getting vaccinated is the patriotic thing to do. There is a break in the thinking here, but I won’t say it just as the politicians won’t address some of the more at risk groups not interested in vaccination. It could yet turn out to be a blessing in disguise. If we all catch a mild disease which threatens no-one and accelerates herd immunity, it might. Right now, we don't know. Until we do, caution is the sensible course. Prepare for the worst, hope for the best. Expect nothing.
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 |
|
Teddy Eagle  14 Dec 21 1.04pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
It is interesting, but how on earth you reach your conclusion beats me. It is simply arguing that the way the social media companies are filtering out misinformation is catching some things that are actually valuable and valid contributions to the debate. It calls for refinement, not abandonment. It’s also questioning who decides what is and isn’t “misinformation”. Any theory which challenges accepted fact could be so labelled unless it’s proved at which point previous fact becomes misinformation.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 14 Dec 21 1.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
(Taps desk waiting for when it’s time to reverse all of this) The R rate in SA is dropping fast so the cases chart is levelling off at what hopefully is the top. Unfortunately we’ll have to wait to see that the elderly, clinically vulnerable, and the fatties aren’t ringing 999 or worse. It’s those who know they’re more at risk who don’t get vaccinated make me shake my head. Most other vaccinated who aren’t likely to suffer aren’t really the issue, but of course they show up in the numbers and the political parties are shying away from tackling or addressing where the unvaccinated numbers are a risk, and that’s while Starmer tries to appeal to the public he’s patriotic and getting vaccinated is the patriotic thing to do. There is a break in the thinking here, but I won’t say it just as the politicians won’t address some of the more at risk groups not interested in vaccination. What is wrong with being fat then. If fattism isn't a thing I'm sure it will be one day.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| m/k mick milton keynes 14 Dec 21 1.16pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Just received an e mail from box office, from Wednesday all spectators must show proof of jabs to gain entry, except of course those who are excused. So how come apparently some players are refusing to have jabs and yet are still being allowed into the stadium
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| DanH SW2 14 Dec 21 1.21pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Interesting findings coming out of 3 weeks of data from South Africa on Omicron: [Tweet Link]
Summary here: [Tweet Link]
I’ve had 2 doses of Pfizer and pretty sure I had the Omicron variant. It wasn’t much fun so not surprised it is giving lower levels of protection.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| SW19 CPFC Addiscombe West 14 Dec 21 1.23pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by m/k mick
Just received an e mail from box office, from Wednesday all spectators must show proof of jabs to gain entry, except of course those who are excused. So how come apparently some players are refusing to have jabs and yet are still being allowed into the stadium Probably because they have registered a negative lateral flow? The guidance is proof of double vaxx OR negative PCR OR negative LFT. Direct from the NHS/GOV website Throughout this guidance, valid COVID-19 status means any of the following apply: a person is vaccinated with 2 doses of an approved vaccine (or one of the single-dose Janssen vaccine) – we will keep this under review as boosters are rolled out Accepted proof can be any of the following: the NHS COVID Pass if the club aren't making this clear then they need to, as it's clear on the government website. EDIT They have. I have not been vaccinated; can I still attend? Yes, but you will be required to have a negative lateral flow test and obtain a COVID Pass.
Did you know? 98.0000001% of people are morons. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Rudi Hedman Caterham 14 Dec 21 1.42pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Hopefully that is correct although the other day I saw a report that said they had mislaid many thousands of cases so there numbers may be suspect. Stirling said he didn’t trust the SA cases and thought they were exaggerated. I’ve seen some think SA have hidden the danger of omicron to save tourism during their summer.
COYP |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 14 Dec 21 2.55pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
It’s also questioning who decides what is and isn’t “misinformation”. Any theory which challenges accepted fact could be so labelled unless it’s proved at which point previous fact becomes misinformation. I know, but the social media companies are free to decide that for themselves. It's their platforms. In fact, they try to keep a lot at arms length, but someone has to decide, and as soon as they do, someone else will disagree. Most times misinformation is pretty obvious, but there will always be fuzzy edges.
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 |
|
| Badger11 Beckenham 14 Dec 21 3.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
Stirling said he didn’t trust the SA cases and thought they were exaggerated. I’ve seen some think SA have hidden the danger of omicron to save tourism during their summer. Yup that is my suspicion as well.
One more point |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| georgenorman 14 Dec 21 3.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Badger11
Yup that is my suspicion as well. Why would anyone want to go to South Africa, the state it is in these days.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.