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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 1165 of 1255 < 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 >

Topic Locked

Stirlingsays 21 Feb 22 9.03pm
Anyway I'm done for the night arguing with Maple's 'granite shoreline'.....seems to me to have a few holes in it. '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 9.03pm

Anyway I'm done for the night arguing with Maple's 'granite shoreline'.....seems to me to have a few holes in it.

'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 9.07pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays 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. I was asking a question and not inviting a comment on my own position. A pre-viability termination is totally different to a child dying because a mother abuses her body by smoking. So forget my position, and answer the question. Is personal freedom more important than a baby's life? Originally posted by Stirlingsays As predicted you carry on holding the limp lettuce. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Feb 2022 8.50pm) As expected a silly answer which does not even attempt to deal with the points made. I can only suppose because there is no answer to them, because they are all true. Edited by Wisbech Eagle (21 Feb 2022 9.08pm) 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 9.07pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays
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.

I was asking a question and not inviting a comment on my own position. A pre-viability termination is totally different to a child dying because a mother abuses her body by smoking.

So forget my position, and answer the question. Is personal freedom more important than a baby's life?

Originally posted by Stirlingsays
As predicted you carry on holding the limp lettuce.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Feb 2022 8.50pm)

As expected a silly answer which does not even attempt to deal with the points made. I can only suppose because there is no answer to them, because they are all true.

Edited by Wisbech Eagle (21 Feb 2022 9.08pm)

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 9.15pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays 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. No it's not. Because I am not The two scenarios are undoubtedly very different. No argument. It's the establishment of a principle, and thereby a precedent, that the state has a duty of care over a child's health, alongside its parents or guardians. That has been established. Now we will see where that leads. 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 9.15pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

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.

No it's not. Because I am not

The two scenarios are undoubtedly very different. No argument.

It's the establishment of a principle, and thereby a precedent, that the state has a duty of care over a child's health, alongside its parents or guardians. That has been established. Now we will see where that leads.

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 9.20pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Anyway I'm done for the night arguing with Maple's 'granite shoreline'.....seems to me to have a few holes in it. Convenient exit stage left, without even clearing the throat to sing the last aria. Which reaches a climax with an answer to the question "is freedom of choice more important than a baby's life"? We will see whether this reaches the high notes tomorrow, or whether the pianist gets shot for playing the wrong melody. 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 9.20pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Anyway I'm done for the night arguing with Maple's 'granite shoreline'.....seems to me to have a few holes in it.

Convenient exit stage left, without even clearing the throat to sing the last aria. Which reaches a climax with an answer to the question "is freedom of choice more important than a baby's life"?

We will see whether this reaches the high notes tomorrow, or whether the pianist gets shot for playing the wrong melody.

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 9.35pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays 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) For the third time, if I get a chance tomorrow, and I have a busy day, I will try to find the exchanges and reference them. From memory the up-to-date data, post Omicron, was done by a study in Germany which looked at anti-bodies in a newer, more sophisticated way, which determined their effectiveness in preventing severe disease and long Covid. This was unequivocal in stating that 3 vaccines, including a booster, was vastly superior to natural infection alone, or natural infection and one or two vaccinations. Natural immunity confers some protection. Just not for so long or in the same way. This is being promoted as an excuse by the non-vaccinated in order not to comply. It's nonsense, because even if it were true that it's equal or even better, which seems very unlikely and is certainly unproven, no-one at all is suggesting vaccinations would make things worse. So why avoid them, and risk it? Personal choice is as worthless a commodity as pride is, and very much related in these circumstances. 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 9.35pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

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)

For the third time, if I get a chance tomorrow, and I have a busy day, I will try to find the exchanges and reference them. From memory the up-to-date data, post Omicron, was done by a study in Germany which looked at anti-bodies in a newer, more sophisticated way, which determined their effectiveness in preventing severe disease and long Covid. This was unequivocal in stating that 3 vaccines, including a booster, was vastly superior to natural infection alone, or natural infection and one or two vaccinations.

Natural immunity confers some protection. Just not for so long or in the same way. This is being promoted as an excuse by the non-vaccinated in order not to comply. It's nonsense, because even if it were true that it's equal or even better, which seems very unlikely and is certainly unproven, no-one at all is suggesting vaccinations would make things worse. So why avoid them, and risk it? Personal choice is as worthless a commodity as pride is, and very much related in these circumstances.

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 9.48pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle 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". That might be true if we were dealing with 50% but we’re not. It’s ironic that the unvaccinated percentage of NHS staff is the same as for the rest of the population.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

21 Feb 22 9.48pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

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".

That might be true if we were dealing with 50% but we’re not.
It’s ironic that the unvaccinated percentage of NHS staff is the same as for the rest of the population.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Feb 22 11.54pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle That might be true if we were dealing with 50% but we’re not. It’s ironic that the unvaccinated percentage of NHS staff is the same as for the rest of the population. I don't see why any percentage creates a threshold. It's either right, or it's wrong. The unvaccinated demand more beds per capita than the vaccinated do. That's enough, without the other reasons. Nor is it strange that the NHS % is the same. I think it could easily be higher. A high number of NHS support staff come from the ethnic minority communities, who have been more impacted than most by disinformation, culture and suspicion. That's also true of front-line staff, but they are better informed, and personally aware, of the way the virus has hit and what vaccines do. 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 11.54pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

That might be true if we were dealing with 50% but we’re not.
It’s ironic that the unvaccinated percentage of NHS staff is the same as for the rest of the population.

I don't see why any percentage creates a threshold. It's either right, or it's wrong. The unvaccinated demand more beds per capita than the vaccinated do. That's enough, without the other reasons.

Nor is it strange that the NHS % is the same. I think it could easily be higher.

A high number of NHS support staff come from the ethnic minority communities, who have been more impacted than most by disinformation, culture and suspicion. That's also true of front-line staff, but they are better informed, and personally aware, of the way the virus has hit and what vaccines do.

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 22 Feb 22 12.24am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I don't see why any percentage creates a threshold. It's either right, or it's wrong. The unvaccinated demand more beds per capita than the vaccinated do. That's enough, without the other reasons. Nor is it strange that the NHS % is the same. I think it could easily be higher. A high number of NHS support staff come from the ethnic minority communities, who have been more impacted than most by disinformation, culture and suspicion. That's also true of front-line staff, but they are better informed, and personally aware, of the way the virus has hit and what vaccines do. The percentage obviously matters or one person not getting jabbed would have the same effect as 10 million. It’s strange in that we’ve been told for two years that it’s our duty to protect the NHS but their own staff are no better at getting vaccinated than anyone else. Who’s to say that more people haven’t been infected in hospital than in pubs which were made to close for months on end.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

22 Feb 22 12.24am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I don't see why any percentage creates a threshold. It's either right, or it's wrong. The unvaccinated demand more beds per capita than the vaccinated do. That's enough, without the other reasons.

Nor is it strange that the NHS % is the same. I think it could easily be higher.
A high number of NHS support staff come from the ethnic minority communities, who have been more impacted than most by disinformation, culture and suspicion. That's also true of front-line staff, but they are better informed, and personally aware, of the way the virus has hit and what vaccines do.

The percentage obviously matters or one person not getting jabbed would have the same effect as 10 million.
It’s strange in that we’ve been told for two years that it’s our duty to protect the NHS but their own staff are no better at getting vaccinated than anyone else. Who’s to say that more people haven’t been infected in hospital than in pubs which were made to close for months on end.

Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 22 Feb 22 4.46am
just to clarify the vaccination point. A vaccination will not stop you contracting Covid A vaccination will not stop you spreading it A vaccination will reduce the personal impact Covid has to you, especially if you are vulnerable. This reduces the impact on the NHS, so allowing other disease /condition treatments to continue Vaccination passports are a red herring. They were there to gather personal data, as was Track and Trace and the Lateral Flow Test kits. On a personal level , I would rather people around me were vaccinated. But i do recognise people have a choice. I disengage, I turn the page.
Alert a moderator to this post

Forest Hillbilly

in a hidey-hole 22 Feb 22 4.46am

Send a Private Message to Forest Hillbilly

just to clarify the vaccination point.

A vaccination will not stop you contracting Covid
A vaccination will not stop you spreading it

A vaccination will reduce the personal impact Covid has to you, especially if you are vulnerable.

This reduces the impact on the NHS, so allowing other disease /condition treatments to continue

Vaccination passports are a red herring. They were there to gather personal data, as was Track and Trace and the Lateral Flow Test kits.

On a personal level , I would rather people around me were vaccinated. But i do recognise people have a choice.

I disengage, I turn the page.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Feb 22 10.44am
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly just to clarify the vaccination point. A vaccination will not stop you contracting Covid A vaccination will not stop you spreading it A vaccination will reduce the personal impact Covid has to you, especially if you are vulnerable. This reduces the impact on the NHS, so allowing other disease /condition treatments to continue Vaccination passports are a red herring. They were there to gather personal data, as was Track and Trace and the Lateral Flow Test kits. On a personal level , I would rather people around me were vaccinated. But i do recognise people have a choice. That's not all actually true, is it? A vaccination might not stop you contracting Covid, but it can stop you contracting Covid. A vaccination might not stop you spreading it, but it can stop you spreading it, and will, if it has stopped you contracting it. A vaccination not only reduces the personal impact on you, it protects others from getting it, especially the vulnerable. This all reduces the impact on the NHS. Vaccine passports, if used pro-actively, could protect the vaccinated from being exposed to the unvaccinated. I would rather everyone around me were vaccinated. I recognise people have a choice, but believe making a choice which impacts others ought to have consequences which protect the others from that choice. 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 22 Feb 22 10.44am

Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly

just to clarify the vaccination point.

A vaccination will not stop you contracting Covid
A vaccination will not stop you spreading it

A vaccination will reduce the personal impact Covid has to you, especially if you are vulnerable.

This reduces the impact on the NHS, so allowing other disease /condition treatments to continue

Vaccination passports are a red herring. They were there to gather personal data, as was Track and Trace and the Lateral Flow Test kits.

On a personal level , I would rather people around me were vaccinated. But i do recognise people have a choice.

That's not all actually true, is it?

A vaccination might not stop you contracting Covid, but it can stop you contracting Covid.

A vaccination might not stop you spreading it, but it can stop you spreading it, and will, if it has stopped you contracting it.

A vaccination not only reduces the personal impact on you, it protects others from getting it, especially the vulnerable.

This all reduces the impact on the NHS.

Vaccine passports, if used pro-actively, could protect the vaccinated from being exposed to the unvaccinated.

I would rather everyone around me were vaccinated. I recognise people have a choice, but believe making a choice which impacts others ought to have consequences which protect the others from that choice.

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 22 Feb 22 10.46am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle That's not all actually true, is it? A vaccination might not stop you contracting Covid, but it can stop you contracting Covid. A vaccination might not stop you spreading it, but it can stop you spreading it, and will, if it has stopped you contracting it. A vaccination not only reduces the personal impact on you, it protects others from getting it, especially the vulnerable. This all reduces the impact on the NHS. Vaccine passports, if used pro-actively, could protect the vaccinated from being exposed to the unvaccinated. I would rather everyone around me were vaccinated. I recognise people have a choice, but believe making a choice which impacts others ought to have consequences which protect the others from that choice. Stop living in the past. Embrace change. '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

22 Feb 22 10.46am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That's not all actually true, is it?

A vaccination might not stop you contracting Covid, but it can stop you contracting Covid.

A vaccination might not stop you spreading it, but it can stop you spreading it, and will, if it has stopped you contracting it.

A vaccination not only reduces the personal impact on you, it protects others from getting it, especially the vulnerable.

This all reduces the impact on the NHS.

Vaccine passports, if used pro-actively, could protect the vaccinated from being exposed to the unvaccinated.

Stop living in the past.

Embrace change.

'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 22 Feb 22 10.53am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle The percentage obviously matters or one person not getting jabbed would have the same effect as 10 million. It’s strange in that we’ve been told for two years that it’s our duty to protect the NHS but their own staff are no better at getting vaccinated than anyone else. Who’s to say that more people haven’t been infected in hospital than in pubs which were made to close for months on end. The higher the % the better but whether 50% or 99% isn't relevant to the argument. We need everyone to participate, because anyone who doesn't is a risk which was avoidable. I tried to explain why I think the NHS staff are no better than average in my last post, so won't repeat it. Infection control measures are always in place in hospitals, Covid or no Covid. They have just increased in the last couple of years, which anyone attending one, or working there will realise. So much higher than pubs, but need to be as the level of risk is also much higher. 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 22 Feb 22 10.53am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

The higher the % the better but whether 50% or 99% isn't relevant to the argument. We need everyone to participate, because anyone who doesn't is a risk which was avoidable.

I tried to explain why I think the NHS staff are no better than average in my last post, so won't repeat it. Infection control measures are always in place in hospitals, Covid or no Covid. They have just increased in the last couple of years, which anyone attending one, or working there will realise. So much higher than pubs, but need to be as the level of risk is also much higher.

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

Topic Locked

Page 1165 of 1255 < 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Coronavirus (LOCKED)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors