Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 159 of 289 < 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 >

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Aug 23 8.46am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Some of whom will spend their entire working life contributing to paying off the debt incurred by closing the country down to protect the NHS. The selfish so-and-so's. Non sequitur! The whole country will bear the costs involved in trying to mitigate the impact of the pandemic yet some of them refused to participate in the efforts to reduce those costs. 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 Aug 23 8.46am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Some of whom will spend their entire working life contributing to paying off the debt incurred by closing the country down to protect the NHS. The selfish so-and-so's.

Non sequitur!

The whole country will bear the costs involved in trying to mitigate the impact of the pandemic yet some of them refused to participate in the efforts to reduce those costs.

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 Aug 23 8.51am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It wouldn’t, but that’s again not the point. The purpose of the vaccines was to protect both against infection by the original virus and against severe disease from the anticipated variants. I remember the lady working at Oxford on what became the AstraZeneca vaccine saying that they were confident their vaccine would continue to protect against severe disease when the mutations began to circulate. She was proved correct. Many of us, vaccinated or not, caught the variants and thus gained some immunity as a consequence. However the unvaccinated were more at risk of severe disease and then tying up NHS resources unnecessary. Now we have reached the point where it looks we will adopt a similar strategy to that we use for flu. Whether it’s enough, time alone will tell. The unvaccinated 7% would have tied up the NHS? How? A lot of them would've caught it before the vaccine was available. The country closed down for months to protect the NHS. It didn't work out well.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

21 Aug 23 8.51am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It wouldn’t, but that’s again not the point.

The purpose of the vaccines was to protect both against infection by the original virus and against severe disease from the anticipated variants. I remember the lady working at Oxford on what became the AstraZeneca vaccine saying that they were confident their vaccine would continue to protect against severe disease when the mutations began to circulate. She was proved correct. Many of us, vaccinated or not, caught the variants and thus gained some immunity as a consequence. However the unvaccinated were more at risk of severe disease and then tying up NHS resources unnecessary.

Now we have reached the point where it looks we will adopt a similar strategy to that we use for flu. Whether it’s enough, time alone will tell.

The unvaccinated 7% would have tied up the NHS? How? A lot of them would've caught it before the vaccine was available.
The country closed down for months to protect the NHS. It didn't work out well.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 21 Aug 23 8.54am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Non sequitur! The whole country will bear the costs involved in trying to mitigate the impact of the pandemic yet some of them refused to participate in the efforts to reduce those costs. Except those most at risk won't bear the cost for the next 50 years when those hundreds of billions could have been spent more beneficially.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

21 Aug 23 8.54am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Non sequitur!

The whole country will bear the costs involved in trying to mitigate the impact of the pandemic yet some of them refused to participate in the efforts to reduce those costs.

Except those most at risk won't bear the cost for the next 50 years when those hundreds of billions could have been spent more beneficially.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Aug 23 9.20am
Originally posted by eaglesdare I made an informed decision to remain unvaccinated for health reasons. My decision affected absolutely no one else. I don't care if you got vaccinated or did not get vaccinated or even got your 12th Booster at the weekend. I fully support anyone's decision. As I have said to you countless times you did not make an “informed” decision. You made a disinformed decision. One based on, at best, misinterpretations of the situation. That was your right, but it was still selfish of you to take it and, in my opinion, it should have had greater consequences than it did. Those who did get vaccinated also have rights, no less important than yours. One of those is the right to be informed of who was, and who was not, vaccinated so an informed decision could be made by them on whether they wanted any association with the unvaccinated. Therefore vaccine passports to enter venues should have been introduced, in my opinion. Society as a whole also has a right to expect people to support the efforts of the NHS if they expect it to support them. There should also have been consequences for those who wilfully ignore their duty to provide that support. That you, and the few who think and behave as you do, get upset because this behaviour is being called out is besides the point. It needs to be pointed out. If you feel ashamed as a consequence that’s your responsibility. I somehow doubt those here will, given the degree of irrationality normally seen in their posts. We don’t live in a society in which everyone can take whatever decision they want. We live in a democracy in which decision making is shared for the common interests of us all. One governed by laws, rules and common standards of behaviour. You advocate for anarchism. That’s not what we have. That some of the measures taken in the early days of the pandemic proved to be superfluous is yet another diversionary argument. It’s what happens when you are in unknown territory surrounded by jeopardy on all sides. You tend to reach for both your belt and your braces. That was a response by government. I am talking about individual, personal responsibilities to society. 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 Aug 23 9.20am

Originally posted by eaglesdare

I made an informed decision to remain unvaccinated for health reasons. My decision affected absolutely no one else.

I don't care if you got vaccinated or did not get vaccinated or even got your 12th Booster at the weekend. I fully support anyone's decision.

As I have said to you countless times you did not make an “informed” decision. You made a disinformed decision. One based on, at best, misinterpretations of the situation.

That was your right, but it was still selfish of you to take it and, in my opinion, it should have had greater consequences than it did. Those who did get vaccinated also have rights, no less important than yours. One of those is the right to be informed of who was, and who was not, vaccinated so an informed decision could be made by them on whether they wanted any association with the unvaccinated. Therefore vaccine passports to enter venues should have been introduced, in my opinion. Society as a whole also has a right to expect people to support the efforts of the NHS if they expect it to support them. There should also have been consequences for those who wilfully ignore their duty to provide that support.

That you, and the few who think and behave as you do, get upset because this behaviour is being called out is besides the point. It needs to be pointed out. If you feel ashamed as a consequence that’s your responsibility. I somehow doubt those here will, given the degree of irrationality normally seen in their posts.

We don’t live in a society in which everyone can take whatever decision they want. We live in a democracy in which decision making is shared for the common interests of us all. One governed by laws, rules and common standards of behaviour. You advocate for anarchism. That’s not what we have.

That some of the measures taken in the early days of the pandemic proved to be superfluous is yet another diversionary argument. It’s what happens when you are in unknown territory surrounded by jeopardy on all sides. You tend to reach for both your belt and your braces. That was a response by government. I am talking about individual, personal responsibilities to society.

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 Aug 23 9.34am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Except those most at risk won't bear the cost for the next 50 years when those hundreds of billions could have been spent more beneficially. Are you suggesting that the elderly have less rights than the young? It’s been the same throughout history. We all inherit the consequences of what our forefathers did and need to work with the hand we have. When you are faced with a problem you deal with the problem. In this case it was always likely to incur a heavy debt, but the country has borne debt before. There seems to be an assumption that if another strategy had been adopted that debt would have been smaller, but there is no evidence at all to support that. It is just an assumption. It’s also a waste of time because it wasn’t the decision taken by those who had the actual responsibility to take it. Such considerations are the territory of the enquiry. 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 Aug 23 9.34am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Except those most at risk won't bear the cost for the next 50 years when those hundreds of billions could have been spent more beneficially.

Are you suggesting that the elderly have less rights than the young?

It’s been the same throughout history. We all inherit the consequences of what our forefathers did and need to work with the hand we have.

When you are faced with a problem you deal with the problem. In this case it was always likely to incur a heavy debt, but the country has borne debt before. There seems to be an assumption that if another strategy had been adopted that debt would have been smaller, but there is no evidence at all to support that. It is just an assumption. It’s also a waste of time because it wasn’t the decision taken by those who had the actual responsibility to take it. Such considerations are the territory of the enquiry.

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 Aug 23 9.51am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle The unvaccinated 7% would have tied up the NHS? How? A lot of them would've caught it before the vaccine was available. The country closed down for months to protect the NHS. It didn't work out well. Not would. Did. At one point of the pandemic, after the vaccination roll out was well established, the majority of patients requiring hospitalisation in the specialised wards devoted to the purpose were unvaccinated. Those wards consumed huge amounts of NHS resources, resulting in the postponement of lots of the work normally done there and in the waiting list lengthening we have witnessed. If 7% of us can have that kind of impact, because of hesitancy, is it not reasonable to question why it exists? Some was fear based on culture, for which reassurance was needed. Other was based on misinformation spread by those with agendas. That needs to be exposed. 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 Aug 23 9.51am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

The unvaccinated 7% would have tied up the NHS? How? A lot of them would've caught it before the vaccine was available.
The country closed down for months to protect the NHS. It didn't work out well.

Not would. Did.

At one point of the pandemic, after the vaccination roll out was well established, the majority of patients requiring hospitalisation in the specialised wards devoted to the purpose were unvaccinated. Those wards consumed huge amounts of NHS resources, resulting in the postponement of lots of the work normally done there and in the waiting list lengthening we have witnessed.

If 7% of us can have that kind of impact, because of hesitancy, is it not reasonable to question why it exists? Some was fear based on culture, for which reassurance was needed. Other was based on misinformation spread by those with agendas. That needs to be exposed.

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

eaglesdare 21 Aug 23 10.16am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle As I have said to you countless times you did not make an “informed” decision. You made a disinformed decision. One based on, at best, misinterpretations of the situation. That was your right, but it was still selfish of you to take it and, in my opinion, it should have had greater consequences than it did. Those who did get vaccinated also have rights, no less important than yours. One of those is the right to be informed of who was, and who was not, vaccinated so an informed decision could be made by them on whether they wanted any association with the unvaccinated. Therefore vaccine passports to enter venues should have been introduced, in my opinion. Society as a whole also has a right to expect people to support the efforts of the NHS if they expect it to support them. There should also have been consequences for those who wilfully ignore their duty to provide that support. That you, and the few who think and behave as you do, get upset because this behaviour is being called out is besides the point. It needs to be pointed out. If you feel ashamed as a consequence that’s your responsibility. I somehow doubt those here will, given the degree of irrationality normally seen in their posts. We don’t live in a society in which everyone can take whatever decision they want. We live in a democracy in which decision making is shared for the common interests of us all. One governed by laws, rules and common standards of behaviour. You advocate for anarchism. That’s not what we have. That some of the measures taken in the early days of the pandemic proved to be superfluous is yet another diversionary argument. It’s what happens when you are in unknown territory surrounded by jeopardy on all sides. You tend to reach for both your belt and your braces. That was a response by government. I am talking about individual, personal responsibilities to society. Like I said I made an informed decision based on the available information or lack there of at the time. You and me both looked at this information and decided to get it or not get based on how it would affect our health. Both of our decisions only affected ourselves. The only selfish person would be you who expects everyone else to get an experimental treatment and risk their own health for no reason at all just so you can come out from hiding behind the sofa.
Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare

21 Aug 23 10.16am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

As I have said to you countless times you did not make an “informed” decision. You made a disinformed decision. One based on, at best, misinterpretations of the situation.

Like I said I made an informed decision based on the available information or lack there of at the time. You and me both looked at this information and decided to get it or not get based on how it would affect our health.

Both of our decisions only affected ourselves.

The only selfish person would be you who expects everyone else to get an experimental treatment and risk their own health for no reason at all just so you can come out from hiding behind the sofa.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 21 Aug 23 11.24am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Are you suggesting that the elderly have less rights than the young? It’s been the same throughout history. We all inherit the consequences of what our forefathers did and need to work with the hand we have. When you are faced with a problem you deal with the problem. In this case it was always likely to incur a heavy debt, but the country has borne debt before. There seems to be an assumption that if another strategy had been adopted that debt would have been smaller, but there is no evidence at all to support that. It is just an assumption. It’s also a waste of time because it wasn’t the decision taken by those who had the actual responsibility to take it. Such considerations are the territory of the enquiry. No. If that's what I was suggesting then that's what I would have said. It isn't an assumption that everyone's life was put on hold and jobs were lost when most were at very little risk and now you're criticising those who don't fit in with your idea that everyone should be vaccinated. That is the definition of selfishness.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

21 Aug 23 11.24am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Are you suggesting that the elderly have less rights than the young?

It’s been the same throughout history. We all inherit the consequences of what our forefathers did and need to work with the hand we have.

No. If that's what I was suggesting then that's what I would have said. It isn't an assumption that everyone's life was put on hold and jobs were lost when most were at very little risk and now you're criticising those who don't fit in with your idea that everyone should be vaccinated. That is the definition of selfishness.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 21 Aug 23 11.33am
Originally posted by eaglesdare Like I said I made an informed decision based on the available information or lack there of at the time. You and me both looked at this information and decided to get it or not get based on how it would affect our health. Both of our decisions only affected ourselves. The only selfish person would be you who expects everyone else to get an experimental treatment and risk their own health for no reason at all just so you can come out from hiding behind the sofa. The constant repetition of a defence when it has patiently been explained as false many times, including in the post you are responding to, indicates either an incapability to read or understand the point, or wilfull blindness to it. It did not only impact us. Every action we take impacts others, some more, some less. In this case, it had a significant and long-lasting impact. The vaccines were NOT experimental. That is a fallacy spread by the misinformed and believed by the gullible, cynical, and distrustful. Or used by the selfish as an excuse for their selfishness. You can decide how many of those caps fit 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

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 21 Aug 23 11.33am

Originally posted by eaglesdare

Both of our decisions only affected ourselves.

The only selfish person would be you who expects everyone else to get an experimental treatment and risk their own health for no reason at all just so you can come out from hiding behind the sofa.

The constant repetition of a defence when it has patiently been explained as false many times, including in the post you are responding to, indicates either an incapability to read or understand the point, or wilfull blindness to it.

It did not only impact us. Every action we take impacts others, some more, some less. In this case, it had a significant and long-lasting impact.

The vaccines were NOT experimental. That is a fallacy spread by the misinformed and believed by the gullible, cynical, and distrustful. Or used by the selfish as an excuse for their selfishness. You can decide how many of those caps fit 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

eaglesdare 21 Aug 23 11.37am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle The constant repetition of a defence when it has patiently been explained as false many times, including in the post you are responding to, indicates either an incapability to read or understand the point, or wilfull blindness to it. It did not only impact us. Every action we take impacts others, some more, some less. In this case, it had a significant and long-lasting impact. The vaccines were NOT experimental. That is a fallacy spread by the misinformed and believed by the gullible, cynical, and distrustful. Or used by the selfish as an excuse for their selfishness. You can decide how many of those caps fit you! I have also patiently explained to you in posts gone by that our decisions to get on not get the vaccine affects only ourselves. To force someone who hase already made an informed decision about their own health to do the opposite is very selfish.
Alert a moderator to this post

eaglesdare

21 Aug 23 11.37am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It did not only impact us. Every action we take impacts others, some more, some less. In this case, it had a significant and long-lasting impact.

I have also patiently explained to you in posts gone by that our decisions to get on not get the vaccine affects only ourselves. To force someone who hase already made an informed decision about their own health to do the opposite is very selfish.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 21 Aug 23 11.45am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Not would. Did. At one point of the pandemic, after the vaccination roll out was well established, the majority of patients requiring hospitalisation in the specialised wards devoted to the purpose were unvaccinated. Those wards consumed huge amounts of NHS resources, resulting in the postponement of lots of the work normally done there and in the waiting list lengthening we have witnessed. If 7% of us can have that kind of impact, because of hesitancy, is it not reasonable to question why it exists? Some was fear based on culture, for which reassurance was needed. Other was based on misinformation spread by those with agendas. That needs to be exposed. And according to Fact Check The latest data from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) suggests that the proportion of unvaccinated Covid-19 cases being admitted after presenting to emergency care within 28 days of a positive test in England is now about 35%.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

21 Aug 23 11.45am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Not would. Did.

And according to Fact Check

The latest data from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA) suggests that the proportion of unvaccinated Covid-19 cases being admitted after presenting to emergency care within 28 days of a positive test in England is now about 35%.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 21 Aug 23 11.56am
Once again, none of the hospitals created for this pandemic ever reached anywhere near capacity. People have a right to personal health decisions just as they have a right to eat cake rather than lettuce. No one broke any laws by choosing whether they took a vaccine or not. This guy supported lockdowns, all deliberately led by fear campaigns, which not only have wasted a generation of money, which the next generation have to pay down...most of whom were never at threat....but have contributed to massive and excess deaths over two times those that are attributed to covid, massive mental health problems....massive small business loss....untold damage to children's education. Some might say that is criminal and selfish behaviour....worthy of a suspended sentence. Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Aug 2023 12.23pm) '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 Aug 23 11.56am

Once again, none of the hospitals created for this pandemic ever reached anywhere near capacity.

People have a right to personal health decisions just as they have a right to eat cake rather than lettuce. No one broke any laws by choosing whether they took a vaccine or not.

This guy supported lockdowns, all deliberately led by fear campaigns, which not only have wasted a generation of money, which the next generation have to pay down...most of whom were never at threat....but have contributed to massive and excess deaths over two times those that are attributed to covid, massive mental health problems....massive small business loss....untold damage to children's education.

Some might say that is criminal and selfish behaviour....worthy of a suspended sentence.

Edited by Stirlingsays (21 Aug 2023 12.23pm)

'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

Page 159 of 289 < 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Coronavirus and the impact of Lockdown policy

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors