Topic

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Coronavirus (LOCKED)

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 1164 of 1255 < 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 >

Topic Locked

Stirlingsays 21 Feb 22 8.14pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I am talking about the precedent for health, not the detail. The detail is what matters. It's irrational to compare a situation of blood transfusion, where a child is at very high to certain risk of death to a child receiving a covid jab where their risk of death is very rare.....and then say the state should disregard the parent's opinion in both. '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

21 Feb 22 8.14pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am talking about the precedent for health, not the detail.

The detail is what matters.

It's irrational to compare a situation of blood transfusion, where a child is at very high to certain risk of death to a child receiving a covid jab where their risk of death is very rare.....and then say the state should disregard the parent's opinion in both.

'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 21 Feb 22 8.20pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Fair point. It ought to be. The car is an established part of modern lifestyles. Mitigating its potential harm, whilst enjoying its benefits makes sense. Getting vaccinated only brings benefits. There is no harm to mitigate, only self-righteousness to placate. Vaccine passports bring benefits to the many, whilst disadvantaging a few. A few who can easily, quickly and painlessly join the many. Nothing the least dramatic, drastic or threatening involved. Other than in a few minds who are behaving unreasonably and unpatriotically. While I agree that smoking while pregnant is morally wrong....banning people is about as realistic as prohibition. Cars kill people....cars aren't always necessary. Yet you have accepted that risk of death. Once you have accepted the principle of risk for convenience the core of your argument is dead. You can carry on of course but your argument is a limp lettuce. '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

21 Feb 22 8.20pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Fair point. It ought to be.

The car is an established part of modern lifestyles. Mitigating its potential harm, whilst enjoying its benefits makes sense.

Getting vaccinated only brings benefits. There is no harm to mitigate, only self-righteousness to placate.

Vaccine passports bring benefits to the many, whilst disadvantaging a few. A few who can easily, quickly and painlessly join the many. Nothing the least dramatic, drastic or threatening involved. Other than in a few minds who are behaving unreasonably and unpatriotically.

While I agree that smoking while pregnant is morally wrong....banning people is about as realistic as prohibition.

Cars kill people....cars aren't always necessary.

Yet you have accepted that risk of death.

Once you have accepted the principle of risk for convenience the core of your argument is dead.

You can carry on of course but your argument is a limp lettuce.

'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 21 Feb 22 8.21pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays You are stating claims, not facts. Again, there is no standardised 'fading' time limit for natural immunity and it will vary dependent on the individual. In reality, unless a person is locking themselves away, a person's system will be meeting and fighting the naturally evolving virus regularly which extends the natural immunity....We see this with flu, with on average a person contracting the virus two times a decade....however on average those system would have beaten off flu many times over. We know that vaccination fades quicker on average with I think 20 weeks being stated as maximum safe limit. The reality is that the state isn't going to give you three free jabs a year. People will end up with one jab before the winter months and in effect the mass of the population will be unvaccinated for half the year.....the same as it was for flu. You are living in an unrealistic bubble....unless you pay for it....it's likely you will be unvaccinated for half the year. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Feb 2022 8.09pm) If I find a spare hour tomorrow, which is far from certain, I will find the series of exchanges and post a reference to it. Then people can judge for themselves. We know vaccination fades, whilst continuing to provide an important base protection against severe disease. That's why the booster was rushed out. We know natural immunity fades faster, and doesn't protect so well anyway, and we know why that is. What a future programme will look like is unknown, to me anyway. Speculation is cheap and easy, but unlikely to be accurate. 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

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 22 8.21pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

You are stating claims, not facts.

Again, there is no standardised 'fading' time limit for natural immunity and it will vary dependent on the individual. In reality, unless a person is locking themselves away, a person's system will be meeting and fighting the naturally evolving virus regularly which extends the natural immunity....We see this with flu, with on average a person contracting the virus two times a decade....however on average those system would have beaten off flu many times over.

We know that vaccination fades quicker on average with I think 20 weeks being stated as maximum safe limit.

The reality is that the state isn't going to give you three free jabs a year. People will end up with one jab before the winter months and in effect the mass of the population will be unvaccinated for half the year.....the same as it was for flu.

You are living in an unrealistic bubble....unless you pay for it....it's likely you will be unvaccinated for half the year.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Feb 2022 8.09pm)

If I find a spare hour tomorrow, which is far from certain, I will find the series of exchanges and post a reference to it.

Then people can judge for themselves.

We know vaccination fades, whilst continuing to provide an important base protection against severe disease. That's why the booster was rushed out. We know natural immunity fades faster, and doesn't protect so well anyway, and we know why that is.

What a future programme will look like is unknown, to me anyway. Speculation is cheap and easy, but unlikely to be accurate.

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

Stirlingsays 21 Feb 22 8.26pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle If I find a spare hour tomorrow, which is far from certain, I will find the series of exchanges and post a reference to it. Then people can judge for themselves. We know vaccination fades, whilst continuing to provide an important base protection against severe disease. That's why the booster was rushed out. We know natural immunity fades faster, and doesn't protect so well anyway, and we know why that is. What a future programme will look like is unknown, to me anyway. Speculation is cheap and easy, but unlikely to be accurate. From the evidence I've seen several times now this just isn't true. Here is the last link I saw on it from ten days ago. [Link] They have practically the same strength with natural immunity on average lasting longer. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Feb 2022 8.28pm) '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

21 Feb 22 8.26pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

If I find a spare hour tomorrow, which is far from certain, I will find the series of exchanges and post a reference to it.

Then people can judge for themselves.

We know vaccination fades, whilst continuing to provide an important base protection against severe disease. That's why the booster was rushed out. We know natural immunity fades faster, and doesn't protect so well anyway, and we know why that is.

What a future programme will look like is unknown, to me anyway. Speculation is cheap and easy, but unlikely to be accurate.

From the evidence I've seen several times now this just isn't true. Here is the last link I saw on it from ten days ago.

[Link]

They have practically the same strength with natural immunity on average lasting longer.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Feb 2022 8.28pm)

'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

Rudi Hedman Caterham 21 Feb 22 8.26pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle We have. Causing harm to yourself is nobody's business but you. Causing harm to others is everyone's business. Smoking in public places, where it can impact others, is banned. Driving under the influence of drink or drugs is illegal. Cars could not be banned without a complete lifestyle change, so we have made them as safe as possible. Cycling rarely hurts anyone but the cyclist. Eating badly only harms yourself. Playing sport is already a personal choice, with the safety of others mitigated by protective clothing. Not long ago you were using covid hospitalisations as a reason. But those activities and lifestyle choices are allowed under your dictatorship. COYP
Alert a moderator to this post

Rudi Hedman

Caterham 21 Feb 22 8.26pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

We have. Causing harm to yourself is nobody's business but you. Causing harm to others is everyone's business. Smoking in public places, where it can impact others, is banned. Driving under the influence of drink or drugs is illegal. Cars could not be banned without a complete lifestyle change, so we have made them as safe as possible. Cycling rarely hurts anyone but the cyclist. Eating badly only harms yourself. Playing sport is already a personal choice, with the safety of others mitigated by protective clothing.

Not long ago you were using covid hospitalisations as a reason. But those activities and lifestyle choices are allowed under your dictatorship.

COYP

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 22 8.34pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays While I agree that smoking while pregnant is morally wrong....banning people is about as realistic as prohibition. Cars kill people....cars aren't always necessary. Yet you have accepted that risk of death. Once you have accepted the principle of risk for convenience the core of your argument is dead. You can carry on of course but your argument is a limp lettuce. Full compliance being impossible does not mean making it illegal is undesirable. If it discouraged one mother to stop, whose baby would otherwise die, would that be worthwhile? Or is freedom of choice more important than the death of babies? Of course, I accept the risk of death. This is a complete strawman argument. The actual point is whether vaccination causes harm, which it does not, compared to delivering benefits, which is does. Not just personal benefits, which an individual can rightly accept or reject themselves, but societal benefits on which society, being a stakeholder, also has a right to decide. 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

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 22 8.34pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

While I agree that smoking while pregnant is morally wrong....banning people is about as realistic as prohibition.

Cars kill people....cars aren't always necessary.

Yet you have accepted that risk of death.

Once you have accepted the principle of risk for convenience the core of your argument is dead.

You can carry on of course but your argument is a limp lettuce.

Full compliance being impossible does not mean making it illegal is undesirable. If it discouraged one mother to stop, whose baby would otherwise die, would that be worthwhile? Or is freedom of choice more important than the death of babies?

Of course, I accept the risk of death. This is a complete strawman argument.

The actual point is whether vaccination causes harm, which it does not, compared to delivering benefits, which is does. Not just personal benefits, which an individual can rightly accept or reject themselves, but societal benefits on which society, being a stakeholder, also has a right to decide.

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

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 22 8.43pm
Originally posted by Rudi Hedman Not long ago you were using covid hospitalisations as a reason. But those activities and lifestyle choices are allowed under your dictatorship. This has been debunked as an argument so many times already it really ought not be required again. The NHS has evolved to cope with our established lifestyles. It has A & E departments to handle accidents, and beds treating patients with lung cancer. It runs education campaigns to try to reduce the need for both, rather than coerce people, which should always be a last resort in any democracy. Pandemic's are emergencies. Unplanned for and requiring extreme responses to avoid the total failure of the health care system. Chalk and cheese! Not a dictatorship! 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

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 22 8.43pm

Originally posted by Rudi Hedman

Not long ago you were using covid hospitalisations as a reason. But those activities and lifestyle choices are allowed under your dictatorship.

This has been debunked as an argument so many times already it really ought not be required again.

The NHS has evolved to cope with our established lifestyles. It has A & E departments to handle accidents, and beds treating patients with lung cancer. It runs education campaigns to try to reduce the need for both, rather than coerce people, which should always be a last resort in any democracy.

Pandemic's are emergencies. Unplanned for and requiring extreme responses to avoid the total failure of the health care system.

Chalk and cheese! Not a dictatorship!

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 21 Feb 22 8.46pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Full compliance being impossible does not mean making it illegal is undesirable. If it discouraged one mother to stop, whose baby would otherwise die, would that be worthwhile? Or is freedom of choice more important than the death of babies? Of course, I accept the risk of death. This is a complete strawman argument. The actual point is whether vaccination causes harm, which it does not, compared to delivering benefits, which is does. Not just personal benefits, which an individual can rightly accept or reject themselves, but societal benefits on which society, being a stakeholder, also has a right to decide. How are the unvaccinated 10% a danger to society when vaccination doesn’t prevent transmission?
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

21 Feb 22 8.46pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Of course, I accept the risk of death. This is a complete strawman argument.

How are the unvaccinated 10% a danger to society when vaccination doesn’t prevent transmission?

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 21 Feb 22 8.50pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Full compliance being impossible does not mean making it illegal is undesirable. If it discouraged one mother to stop, whose baby would otherwise die, would that be worthwhile? Or is freedom of choice more important than the death of babies? As you are pro abortion using the current 24 weeks I regard that answer citing concern for the unborn child as an extremely dubious one. Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Of course, I accept the risk of death. This is a complete strawman argument. The actual point is whether vaccination causes harm, which it does not, compared to delivering benefits, which is does. Not just personal benefits, which an individual can rightly accept or reject themselves, but societal benefits on which society, being a stakeholder, also has a right to decide. As predicted you carry on holding the limp lettuce. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Feb 2022 8.50pm) '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

21 Feb 22 8.50pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

As you are pro abortion using the current 24 weeks I regard that answer citing concern for the unborn child as an extremely dubious one.

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Of course, I accept the risk of death. This is a complete strawman argument.

As predicted you carry on holding the limp lettuce.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Feb 2022 8.50pm)

'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 21 Feb 22 8.51pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays From the evidence I've seen several times now this just isn't true. Here is the last link I saw on it from ten days ago. [Link] They have practically the same strength with natural immunity on average lasting longer. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Feb 2022 8.28pm) I'll try to look tomorrow, but I think this is the Mail revisiting Israeli data that predates Omicron which has been superseded by more recent studies. I think this has already been disproved. In any event it actually says "the jury is out", so even this doesn't support these ideas. 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

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 22 8.51pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

From the evidence I've seen several times now this just isn't true. Here is the last link I saw on it from ten days ago.

[Link]

They have practically the same strength with natural immunity on average lasting longer.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Feb 2022 8.28pm)

I'll try to look tomorrow, but I think this is the Mail revisiting Israeli data that predates Omicron which has been superseded by more recent studies. I think this has already been disproved. In any event it actually says "the jury is out", so even this doesn't support these ideas.

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

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 22 8.58pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle How are the unvaccinated 10% a danger to society when vaccination doesn’t prevent transmission? Three ways. Firstly, being unvaccinated means they are more likely to require a bed for Covid that could be used for someone else needing other care. Secondly, they are more likely to become infected and infect others. Thirdly, it sets up an undesirable pattern for future pandemics. We need everyone to expect to be vaccinated as part of a national effort. We don't want people thinking, "if he doesn't, I won't either". 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

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 22 8.58pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

How are the unvaccinated 10% a danger to society when vaccination doesn’t prevent transmission?

Three ways.

Firstly, being unvaccinated means they are more likely to require a bed for Covid that could be used for someone else needing other care.

Secondly, they are more likely to become infected and infect others.

Thirdly, it sets up an undesirable pattern for future pandemics. We need everyone to expect to be vaccinated as part of a national effort. We don't want people thinking, "if he doesn't, I won't either".

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

Stirlingsays 21 Feb 22 8.59pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I'll try to look tomorrow, but I think this is the Mail revisiting Israeli data that predates Omicron which has been superseded by more recent studies. I think this has already been disproved. In any event it actually says "the jury is out", so even this doesn't support these ideas. So dishonest. If people go to where it says 'Jury is out' that isn't on the stats that natural immunity lasts longer or saying that it is weaker....that's what you said..... it's simply on which form is better, the fact was that natural immunity lasted longer. As for Omicron, the number of deaths being experienced is in line with flu....For you to suggest that natural immunity is somehow not working is just ignoring reality. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Feb 2022 8.59pm) '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

21 Feb 22 8.59pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

So dishonest.

If people go to where it says 'Jury is out' that isn't on the stats that natural immunity lasts longer or saying that it is weaker....that's what you said..... it's simply on which form is better, the fact was that natural immunity lasted longer.

As for Omicron, the number of deaths being experienced is in line with flu....For you to suggest that natural immunity is somehow not working is just ignoring reality.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Feb 2022 8.59pm)

'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

Topic Locked

Page 1164 of 1255 < 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Coronavirus (LOCKED)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors