No it hasn't been found to be incorrect. You just prefer the sources that confirm your opinions.

Secondly, the vaccines are more akin to treatments in their effectiveness....the difference between what people were promised and the reality is significant. Also, the points made in the declaration are hardly based upon your assumptions but on general policy towards outbreaks.

You are referring to the sponsor and looking to demonise them when the signatures of this declaration are amongst the highest qualified out there.

Sunetra Gupta is a Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the Oxford University Department of Zoology.
Jay Bhattacharya is a professor of medicine at Stanford University.
Martin Kulldorff is a professor of medicine and biostatistician at Harvard University.

You said these people didn't exist and mocked that surgeon. Frankly you deserve this rebuttal.

You were wrong and were spreading misinformation.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Dec 2021 5.25pm)

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

Seeing as you like to put words into people's mouths Maple....did you perhaps help write Andrew Lawrence's script for him?

[Link]

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

You do realise that the population is near 70 million don't you?

When you look at how many people have been seriously ill, that figure is tiny and that was when the virus has at its height even before vaccines.

Going back to the start of this I'm on here with others recommending measures be taken to reduce risks....so it's hardly as if I ignore them.

However, for the average healthy person the sense of proportionality of risk and hence fear has been heighted deliberately...by the government's behaviourial division. So yes, statistically for most people it is a small increased risk.

I have no issues with you taking vaccines, and I'm not saying that no risk exists. It's context specific to the individual. In fact if you are elderly or have health problems and feel vulnerable I would recommend it.....though obviously I don't need to in your case.

Edited by Stirlingsays (22 Dec 2021 6.01pm)

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

It's a very big "if" though, at the moment, so we need to stay cautious until we achieve certainty.

It isn't though the only consideration. Whether Omicron is a killer, or not, if it puts the unvaccinated into hospital in great numbers then getting them vaccinated matters. Vaccination protects against severe disease. The NHS matters.

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.

Not commented on this thread yet, but I know a few frontline doctors so am influenced by them…

Currently the hospitals are packed with people who are unvaccinated. Vaccinated people are generally ok with the rare case of those with underlying conditions being ill. The knock on is that hospitals can’t cope which is why social restrictions are being implemented. I believe it’s everyone’s moral duty to get vaccinated so we can we return to normal.

This is perhaps a bit strong, but those refusing, in my opinion, fall into one of three categories; those who believe conspiracy theories which make them either mental or thick. Those who are social recluses and enjoy the way we now live. Or those who are plain selfish and/or stubborn and not willing to do their bit for society.

I know a bloke who doesn’t even believe covid exists and is massive anti vax. He also thinks the world is flat and that US Pesidents eat babies. He falls under the mental or thick category. Thankfully he is only one of two anti vaxxers I know.

I’ve heard a couple of stories in the last week of friends of friends who have been anti vax and are now on their death beds (probably dead by now). I’ve no sympathy for them, clogging up hospital space.

Rant over.

Here we go again! Yet another ad hominem. This one though is really very revealing. As well as avoiding answering the criticism.

It comes from a passionate advocate of free speech. Yet who doesn't want someone's opinions to be aired.

It comes from a fierce critic of "cancel culture". Yet who wants to cancel someone.

Hypocrisy on fire!

In any event what would "blocking" achieve? It would only stop personal messages being sent. As none have ever been exchanged with this poster what possible benefit could accrue?

I post in open on the message board where no-one is obliged to either read my posts, or respond to them. Unless and until I transgress the rules sufficiently to warrant a ban, I will post here so those who wish to read them can do so.

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.