This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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
 Teddy Eagle  22 Feb 22 11.55am |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech 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. It is relevant because even though 100% isn’t practical the higher the percentage the closer we get to herd immunity.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
 becky  over the moon 22 Feb 22 12.05pm |
 |
|---|---|
|
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. You cannot make that statement. No-one knows (yet) what any long-term effects from this vaccination will be. It is the first time that this 'new' DNA technology has been used, so there is no data to prove that it is safe or otherwise - this can take many years and sometimes even more than one generation to come to light. If you don't believe that, look up 'DES Daughters' and see what a 'safe' treatment for miscarriage did to vast numbers of the children it saved.
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 22 Feb 22 2.37pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by becky
You cannot make that statement. No-one knows (yet) what any long-term effects from this vaccination will be. It is the first time that this 'new' DNA technology has been used, so there is no data to prove that it is safe or otherwise - this can take many years and sometimes even more than one generation to come to light. If you don't believe that, look up 'DES Daughters' and see what a 'safe' treatment for miscarriage did to vast numbers of the children it saved. With the greatest respect I don't think that is correct. It's a common enough concern, but is a misconception and misunderstanding. The science is well understood and thoroughly tested. People believe that describing them as "DNA" technology means that they are dependent on some kind of genetic modification. This just isn't true. The principles involved are just the same as all vaccines. It's only the route taken to get there which is new. Read this for reassurance. If the WHO and NICE are convinced they are safe, then they are safe. These aren't new drugs. They are vaccines.
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 4.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
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. So I have looked back a long way, and there are many pages to trawl through, and I have limited time. These subjects have been addressed several times already and to reference them all again a waste of time. If anyone really wants to read them I am sure they can find them. You will need a lot of time, and patience! The main claim was that herd immunity exists, which it does not. This is an attempt to redefine what is meant by herd immunity. Anyone wanting to read the most authoritative definition, from the WHO, can do so here:- It also shows why vaccines provide herd immunity more quickly and effectively than natural infection.
Further information on why natural infection plus vaccination, is more protective than infection alone, which also discusses the Israeli study being referenced, can be found here:- I have not yet retraced the German study I remember, which indicated that the mRNA vaccines develop additional immunity outside of antibodies. If I have time I will continue looking, as this was interesting.
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 5.48pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
So I have looked back a long way, and there are many pages to trawl through, and I have limited time. These subjects have been addressed several times already and to reference them all again a waste of time. If anyone really wants to read them I am sure they can find them. You will need a lot of time, and patience! The main claim was that herd immunity exists, which it does not. This is an attempt to redefine what is meant by herd immunity. Anyone wanting to read the most authoritative definition, from the WHO, can do so here:- It also shows why vaccines provide herd immunity more quickly and effectively than natural infection.
Further information on why natural infection plus vaccination, is more protective than infection alone, which also discusses the Israeli study being referenced, can be found here:- I have not yet retraced the German study I remember, which indicated that the mRNA vaccines develop additional immunity outside of antibodies. If I have time I will continue looking, as this was interesting. Unless someone else does it I will go over WE's claims on this material tomorrow. I would be surprised if the absolute claims he makes are actually supported.
'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 |
|
 grumpymort  US/Thailand/UK 22 Feb 22 6.39pm |
|
|---|---|
|
I have not been on here for a while and I see the same people are still at it. Why are people responding to Wisbech Eagle the guy is here to argue with you nothing else. This person keeps making claims which are not backed up by real science and likes to keep using the same authority people who we know full well are corrupt WHO/CDC. I expect he has even recommended what the FDA has stated as well. A person who claims these vaccines offer longer and better protection compared to natural is clueless no point even wasting your time to discus with a person like this you could show them clear facts and they wont listen which we have already seen from this person.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Stirlingsays 22 Feb 22 6.50pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by grumpymort
I have not been on here for a while and I see the same people are still at it. Why are people responding to Wisbech Eagle the guy is here to argue with you nothing else. This person keeps making claims which are not backed up by real science and likes to keep using the same authority people who we know full well are corrupt WHO/CDC. I expect he has even recommended what the FDA has stated as well. A person who claims these vaccines offer longer and better protection compared to natural is clueless no point even wasting your time to discus with a person like this you could show them clear facts and they wont listen which we have already seen from this person. You're not wrong of course. I'll go over these links tomorrow and then call an end to replying to him on this. He can continue his calls for punishing people over personal health decisions I just won't answer them.
'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 7.22pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by grumpymort
I have not been on here for a while and I see the same people are still at it. Why are people responding to Wisbech Eagle the guy is here to argue with you nothing else. This person keeps making claims which are not backed up by real science and likes to keep using the same authority people who we know full well are corrupt WHO/CDC. I expect he has even recommended what the FDA has stated as well. A person who claims these vaccines offer longer and better protection compared to natural is clueless no point even wasting your time to discus with a person like this you could show them clear facts and they wont listen which we have already seen from this person. On what possible basis do you make these nonsensible claims? Other than that you watched a YouTube video, or read it on InfoWars or some other internet source of conspiracy theories. I despair when people don't trust genuine science, which is peer reviewed and obviously authentic, and then suggest they are "corrupt". Anyone who posts such garbage isn't just wasting time, they are encouraging dangerous beliefs. This is a scourge of modern life, where truth is seen as lies, and lies as truth. If anyone ever wonders why I post comments here, just remember this. It mustn't stand unchallenged.
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 7.59pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Stirlingsays
You're not wrong of course. I'll go over these links tomorrow and then call an end to replying to him on this. He can continue his calls for punishing people over personal health decisions I just won't answer them. He is completely wrong. In every possible way. There is no doubt whatsoever that getting vaccinated, whether or not you have previously caught the virus, is preferable to not being vaccinated, according to every analysis I have read. Those who claim otherwise are selecting particular passages from lengthy texts and taking them out of context in the pursuit of support for a predetermined position. This is a conclusion in search of data, and not data on which to reach a conclusion. Until a consensus of expert opinion says otherwise I will hold to that view. I have no wish to punish anyone. That is a complete misrepresentation of my approach. I have as much desire for everyone to enjoy the freedom to make their own decisions as the next person. The difference is "everyone". When a decision impacts only the individual making it, then that's their business alone. They are free to do whatever they like, even if I think it's crazy. When a decision impacts the freedom of others, then the others have a right to a view, and a right to take their own actions. When the right under threat is as important as the right to life, then that right trumps any personal rights of the dissenter. The others therefore have the right to determine who they associate with, and who they exclude from their events. That's not to punish. It's to protect. Our government have decided, unwisely in my view, not to follow this logic and to allow a dangerous precedent to be established. I hope it doesn't backfire.
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 |
|
Forest Hillbilly  in a hidey-hole 23 Feb 22 4.39am |
|
|---|---|
|
Chris Whitty , to my mind, is a totally discredited 'scientist' with his taking of the wonga£££ to issue diluted guidance to Government and the public. Like I said. Just my opinion.
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Forest Hillbilly in a hidey-hole 23 Feb 22 4.42am |
|
|---|---|
|
And removing Covid restrictions is timed perfectly to deflect any criticism coming BJ's way over alcohol-fuelled working events. It ain't science. It's politics
I disengage, I turn the page. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Feb 22 9.50am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Forest Hillbilly
Chris Whitty , to my mind, is a totally discredited 'scientist' with his taking of the wonga£££ to issue diluted guidance to Government and the public. Like I said. Just my opinion. I haven't heard any "whispers". Where have you? He was at the press conference 2 days ago with Johnson and Vallance and the 2 scientific advisers put quite some distance between themselves and the political decision. So no sense of diluted guidance there. Rather the opposite, there was a sense their guidance was being ignored.
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 |
|
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.