This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
georgenorman 25 Jan 22 8.02pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
That's true, historically. The trouble is that history is now moving at an ever faster pace. Travel by so many people to so many places means local outbreaks quickly spread elsewhere. I think we might have actually been lucky so far, but we live in a different world to that of only a few years ago. I think we need to be prepared. Yes, we should be in permanent lockdown. Abolish all jobs that cannot be carried out at home. Close all pubs forever. Close all sporting venues to the public. Turn all school buildings in Nightingale Hospitals and give everyones' money to the NHS. Ban all travel (apart from cycling of course.) People refusing injections of substances into their bodies should be tied down and injected. Edited by georgenorman (25 Jan 2022 8.06pm)
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 25 Jan 22 10.00pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by georgenorman
Yes, we should be in permanent lockdown. Abolish all jobs that cannot be carried out at home. Close all pubs forever. Close all sporting venues to the public. Turn all school buildings in Nightingale Hospitals and give everyones' money to the NHS. Ban all travel (apart from cycling of course.) People refusing injections of substances into their bodies should be tied down and injected. Edited by georgenorman (25 Jan 2022 8.06pm) Being prepared is what I am advocating. Being prepared will avoid all of the things you are, sarcastically, suggesting. Avoiding the worst of the economic and social hits we have had to endure is what it's all about.
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 |
Mapletree Croydon 25 Jan 22 11.00pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
Being prepared is what I am advocating. Being prepared will avoid all of the things you are, sarcastically, suggesting. Avoiding the worst of the economic and social hits we have had to endure is what it's all about. He was being sarcastic?
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 25 Jan 22 11.26pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Mapletree
He was being sarcastic? Are you?
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 |
BlueJay UK 25 Jan 22 11.40pm | |
---|---|
I wonder how many anti-vaxxers would be in such a state of panic about the idea of taking a daily aspirin or the pill? [Link]
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 26 Jan 22 3.43am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman
This I agree with, and all the lockdowns and restrictions were too long. Also, see how this Autumn 2021 we didn’t have the problems of infection Europe had because we opened up earlier in spring/summer 2021. The problem with shielding the elderly and vulnerable is that there’s so many, or so many households with at least one in, who’ll therefore never be able to go out for the most part of 24 months. This isn’t helped by however many who’ve never given a sh1te about their own health. Remember my obesity idea if you made no effort to lose weight? Probably not what a responsible society should do, but here we are. You can’t get everyone healthy instantly because of covid as some would like and shout opposing any restrictions, but also many haven’t done anything to get healthier since March 2020 either. What ever changes on this in the west now? So many sloths. Predictably many tv and radio presenters are claiming the government should face criticism for raising fear levels, yet this is what they were doing by either following the government’s memo or going after viewers/listeners and advertising. Hopefully these hypocrites will be exposed to enough people. Fat chance of that. Edited by Rudi Hedman (23 Jan 2022 5.13pm) Good points. When I'm talking about action to protect the vulnerable I'm referring to those under the state's charge, such as those in carehomes or hospitals.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 26 Jan 22 4.12am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by BlueJay
Papers taken as a whole I'd say that there are more unknowns about natural infection re: protection levels, but that if this paper ends up being the consensus it's clearly very good news. Logically it would seem that vaccination + natural infection (in that order) is pretty optimal. According to the data...if I'm remembering the video correctly, the opinion that having both increases protection over vaccination or natural immunity itself doesn't seem to be supported. Originally posted by BlueJay
A very important thing to remember is that if from a point of no covid, you either vaccinated the entire population or exposed them to covid, one would lead to much, much higher level of deaths than the other (as the vaccine is a 'heads up' conclusively demonstrated to prompt the body to recognise covid and prevent serious illness much of the time). That they would have been higher has never been contested, not by me at least....though what those death figures would have been is very contested. You saying 'much, much higher' sounds like you're putting yourself in the Professor Ferguson camp, which I certainly am not. However, it should also be noted that this virus had/has an average death average over eighty....where that vast majority of those dying also had other complications and where the recovery rate was always in the nineties even when we didn't have a vaccine. At what point has there been an over emphasis upon stopping society and causing probable generational economic damage over an illness where the death risk is focused upon the vulnerable....and where most of them will recover. At the very least people should have always have had their personal health decisions respected and the encouragement of demonisation and ostracization is quite wrong...the commentary of the guy you consider a 'good bloke' being an example in point. The level of hysteria promoted by the state has convinced a huge number of people into thinking death is at their door when in reality it wasn't for the vast number of them. Is it ethical to mislead people? People were forced off the streets, liberties taken away, fined....Their personal freedoms cancelled. Originally posted by BlueJay
It's good news that in those unvaccinated people it doesn't impact to a grave extent, they have good protection going forward, but it's important not to paint natural infection in a generalised way as a 'like for like' substitute when it clearly wasn't during the course of this virus and isn't being stated as such by this study or doctor (he calls not getting vaccinated 'dangerous'). He only calls it dangerous for those without prior infection. It should be remembered that we had this virus for over a year before the first vaccines came out. If you had the virus before the vaccines you don't fall into that 'dangerous' description....Yet people were hammered for it and called every name under the sun. For those who weren't infected in that first year or so yet still decided not to have vaccines, that comes under personal choice in my view. We aren't in a communist state where no one gets personal choice...though sometimes it certainly feels that way. Originally posted by BlueJay
Even with Delta we're talking about risk of death of ten times+ greater in the unvaccinated vs vaccinated (again slotting that into this video that is likely due to this who still hadn't been exposed to the virus previously). Indeed Dr Campbell acknowledges that those naive to the virus are at 'massively more risk' compared to those vaccinated. The good news conveyed here if it holds true is that in the unvaccinated if your first bout of covid doesn't do much damage, you're effectively in a round about way been vaccinated (naturally) anyway, and assuming that exposure becomes almost routine that may impact the relevance of getting boosters in certain demographics. We are in agreement. Originally posted by BlueJay
I think people intuitively follow the impact of the virus on society and act accordingly. Hence why the booster take up is a fair bit less than second vaccination (especially in groups that relatively speaking were always at much, much smaller risk to begin with - university students etc. If we're largely untroubled going forward that will likely continue and the vaccine will most likely be bundled in with the flu one for the elderly and most at risk. With so many unknowns as this panned out, the vaccination proved to be a very good strategy for most safely getting over these first hurdles. Omicron though, may well be a positive in terms of spreading far and wide with less impact on the population at a time where there is already good protection against serious illness. Good video, certainly on the objective side. I think you regard the behaviour of the state during this period as fair enough where I regarded it as fear mongering and demonisation. On this we appear to differ....I also have scepticism over corporate behaviour during this time, though you have been relatively quiet over that. However, while we might have made different personal choices there isn't that much we disagree on....more the extent of scepticism and what we choose to emphasize.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 26 Jan 22 4.21am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by BlueJay
. It always get me when they do a tour of intensive care units. Even now with the vast majority vaccinated there's always a starkly disproportionate number of unvaccinated in there. What prize prats many of them must end up feeling like to be on deaths door due to something that would've likely taken them 10 seconds effort to avoid. 'Me' mentality. Edited by BlueJay (25 Jan 2022 3.04pm) Do you call other people in hospital for their lifestyle choices 'prize prats'?
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 26 Jan 22 4.26am | |
---|---|
The idea that people should get vaccinated for covid because of future viruses makes no sense.
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
georgenorman 26 Jan 22 8.09am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by BlueJay
I wonder how many anti-vaxxers would be in such a state of panic about the idea of taking a daily aspirin or the pill? [Link] Surely the time has come to introduce euthanasia for these anti-vaxxers to protect them from themselves. Anti-vax cyclists can of course carry on doing whatever they like.
|
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Stirlingsays 26 Jan 22 8.15am | |
---|---|
Originally posted by BlueJay
I wonder how many anti-vaxxers would be in such a state of panic about the idea of taking a daily aspirin or the pill? [Link] I had to stop taking aspirin due to stomach problems....I'd been taking it for a few years. Also in the article he writes, 'severe side effects are exceedingly rare', but where are the figures on that? I'm not saying that this might not be true but he just states it without backing it. Personally I haven't seen any independent figures....indeed, how does this guy know this? Also, the use of the term 'anti-vaxxer' is a bit of an issue as your mate thinks it includes those who aren't anti vaccines but just pro choice. He thinks it's fine that it's an all inclusive term. Utterly bizarre in my view. Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Jan 2022 8.50am)
'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen) |
|
Alert a moderator to this post |
Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Jan 22 1.24pm | |
---|---|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
I had to stop taking aspirin due to stomach problems....I'd been taking it for a few years. Also in the article he writes, 'severe side effects are exceedingly rare', but where are the figures on that? I'm not saying that this might not be true but he just states it without backing it. Personally I haven't seen any independent figures....indeed, how does this guy know this? Also, the use of the term 'anti-vaxxer' is a bit of an issue as your mate thinks it includes those who aren't anti vaccines but just pro choice. He thinks it's fine that it's an all inclusive term. Utterly bizarre in my view. Edited by Stirlingsays (26 Jan 2022 8.50am) In any battle, and make no mistake fighting the pandemic is a series of battles in a long war, it has always been the case that "those who aren't with us, are against us". There is no room for neutrality. You have to choose your side. Resist the decisions of your generals, and you become aligned with the enemy. Personal freedoms take the backseat in such situations. Thus, those who refuse vaccination, or encourage others to refuse, without a medical justification, can correctly be described as anti-vaxxers. The rest of us have every right to exert pressure and to ostracise.
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 |
Registration is now on our new message board
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.