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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 263 of 289 < 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 >

Stirlingsays 10 May 24 7.13am
Looks like the excellent Mark Steyn is now going after Ofcom....who of course went after him over Covid. [Tweet Link] '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

10 May 24 7.13am

Looks like the excellent Mark Steyn is now going after Ofcom....who of course went after him over Covid.

[Tweet Link]

'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 10 May 24 7.58am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Why wouldn't they want to mix though when vaccination didn't stop transmission? Those who were vaccinated benefited from the likelihood that the effects would be less severe but could still catch it from other vaccinated people. Was “at the beginning” missed? That transmission of the variants was possible by the vaccinated wasn’t known in the early days. In any case as vaccination continues to protect against severe disease the more who are vaccinated helps to ensure a functioning economy and reduced pressures on health services. So societal encouragement to get people over their hesitancy and counter the anti-vax hysteria was sensible. 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 10 May 24 7.58am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Why wouldn't they want to mix though when vaccination didn't stop transmission? Those who were vaccinated benefited from the likelihood that the effects would be less severe but could still catch it from other vaccinated people.

Was “at the beginning” missed? That transmission of the variants was possible by the vaccinated wasn’t known in the early days. In any case as vaccination continues to protect against severe disease the more who are vaccinated helps to ensure a functioning economy and reduced pressures on health services. So societal encouragement to get people over their hesitancy and counter the anti-vax hysteria was sensible.

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 10 May 24 8.14am
Originally posted by ASCPFC I always wondered how the drugs were even labelled as vaccines? Surely the idea of a vaccine is that you don't catch the disease? Obviously, I must be mistaken. How is even less COVID calculated? You get a bit less COVID with a vaccine? Doesn't seem particularly scientific. Give it a few years and there will be the admittance that the vaccines were insufficiently tested, rushed and ineffective. Give it a few more years and the drugs companies might even admit that side-effects were more widespread than expected and not presented fairly to patients. The God like trust in these vaccines is like a cult. There's no balance in a debate with the brain washed. That’s because they are vaccines and not “drugs”! Drugs treat people who have a disease. Vaccines train the immune system to recognise an infection and fight it. These might be a newer way of achieving the desired effect but they are still vaccines. That they keep needing to be modified is no different to the fact that the flu vaccines do too. Both viruses keep mutating and the variants that become dominant are those which are able to overcome the vaccines to some degree. So boosters are regularly required to respond to the dominant variant, whilst the original continues to protect against severe disease. So you are not getting a “bit less Covid”! You are getting a slightly different Covid. The only brain washing involved in this is that being done by the anti-vax nut cases on those who are susceptible to conspiracy theories. 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 10 May 24 8.14am

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I always wondered how the drugs were even labelled as vaccines? Surely the idea of a vaccine is that you don't catch the disease? Obviously, I must be mistaken.
How is even less COVID calculated? You get a bit less COVID with a vaccine? Doesn't seem particularly scientific.
Give it a few years and there will be the admittance that the vaccines were insufficiently tested, rushed and ineffective. Give it a few more years and the drugs companies might even admit that side-effects were more widespread than expected and not presented fairly to patients.
The God like trust in these vaccines is like a cult. There's no balance in a debate with the brain washed.

That’s because they are vaccines and not “drugs”! Drugs treat people who have a disease. Vaccines train the immune system to recognise an infection and fight it.

These might be a newer way of achieving the desired effect but they are still vaccines.

That they keep needing to be modified is no different to the fact that the flu vaccines do too. Both viruses keep mutating and the variants that become dominant are those which are able to overcome the vaccines to some degree. So boosters are regularly required to respond to the dominant variant, whilst the original continues to protect against severe disease.

So you are not getting a “bit less Covid”! You are getting a slightly different Covid.

The only brain washing involved in this is that being done by the anti-vax nut cases on those who are susceptible to conspiracy theories.

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 10 May 24 8.17am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Was “at the beginning” missed? That transmission of the variants was possible by the vaccinated wasn’t known in the early days. In any case as vaccination continues to protect against severe disease the more who are vaccinated helps to ensure a functioning economy and reduced pressures on health services. So societal encouragement to get people over their hesitancy and counter the anti-vax hysteria was sensible. No it wasn't missed. It's just evidence that Hancock's plan to "scare the pants off everyone" worked. The only hysteria was from those convinced they were at dread risk. By the time the vaccine became available many thousands had contracted, and recovered, from Covid so weren't as worried about it. I had the jabs because the threat at the time was that they were necessary to avoid this social exclusion (the vaccine passport - which by the way I never had to show once). In light of subsequent discoveries about transmission vaccine hesitancy doesn't seem as hysterical.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

10 May 24 8.17am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

No it wasn't missed. It's just evidence that Hancock's plan to "scare the pants off everyone" worked. The only hysteria was from those convinced they were at dread risk. By the time the vaccine became available many thousands had contracted, and recovered, from Covid so weren't as worried about it.
I had the jabs because the threat at the time was that they were necessary to avoid this social exclusion (the vaccine passport - which by the way I never had to show once).
In light of subsequent discoveries about transmission vaccine hesitancy doesn't seem as hysterical.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 10 May 24 8.25am
Originally posted by eaglesdare The survival rate after catching covid was 99 percent. Put another way, that is a mortality rate of 1%. With the UK population of 68 million that’s 680,000 deaths. Is that acceptable? That’s without considering all those who would be infected, needed hospital treatment and survived. What would the consequences have been for health services provision and the impact on other illnesses? It’s been bad enough already. How much worse would it have been? How many more deaths as a result of delayed diagnosis and treatment? 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 10 May 24 8.25am

Originally posted by eaglesdare

The survival rate after catching covid was 99 percent.

Put another way, that is a mortality rate of 1%.

With the UK population of 68 million that’s 680,000 deaths. Is that acceptable?

That’s without considering all those who would be infected, needed hospital treatment and survived. What would the consequences have been for health services provision and the impact on other illnesses? It’s been bad enough already. How much worse would it have been? How many more deaths as a result of delayed diagnosis and treatment?

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 10 May 24 8.44am
Originally posted by Lombardinho I gave up on this thread many moons ago. On returning, to my surprise, there are a few posters who now seem to talk a little sense. Guess what? You are not one of them. You're probably the one who recently changed the meaning of the word "vaccine"in the dictionary. What's most laughable is this "news"( only because the mainstream media are finally reporting on it ) about AZ is just the beginning. You're going to be working flat-out from now on trying to deflect away all the info that proves you've posted nothing but poppycock all these years. I am unaware of any dictionary changes although am that the CDC has expanded its description to include the new ways of producing them. The Covid vaccines are indeed vaccines. They stimulate a response in the immune system. AZ have done a wonderful job and saved millions of lives but now there are better alternatives. So it makes commercial sense for them to cease production. Anyone who has genuinely suffered from a side effect has been very unlucky and ought to be properly compensated. Unfortunately that requires a lot of investigation to determine not just an effect but the cause. Those jumping to conclusions and assuming that this means that not only that these side effects not rare but are caused by every vaccine are doing serious harm to the future health of all of the people by undermining confidence. The anti-vax lobby is a cancer in society, eating away at us and destroying us from the inside. So much so I question who is funding it. 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 10 May 24 8.44am

Originally posted by Lombardinho

I gave up on this thread many moons ago.
On returning, to my surprise, there are a few posters who now seem to talk a little sense.
Guess what?
You are not one of them.
You're probably the one who recently changed the meaning of the word "vaccine"in the dictionary.
What's most laughable is this "news"( only because the mainstream media are finally reporting on it ) about AZ is just the beginning.
You're going to be working flat-out from now on trying to deflect away all the info that proves you've posted nothing but poppycock all these years.

I am unaware of any dictionary changes although am that the CDC has expanded its description to include the new ways of producing them.

The Covid vaccines are indeed vaccines. They stimulate a response in the immune system.

AZ have done a wonderful job and saved millions of lives but now there are better alternatives. So it makes commercial sense for them to cease production. Anyone who has genuinely suffered from a side effect has been very unlucky and ought to be properly compensated. Unfortunately that requires a lot of investigation to determine not just an effect but the cause. Those jumping to conclusions and assuming that this means that not only that these side effects not rare but are caused by every vaccine are doing serious harm to the future health of all of the people by undermining confidence. The anti-vax lobby is a cancer in society, eating away at us and destroying us from the inside. So much so I question who is funding it.

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 10 May 24 8.46am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Put another way, that is a mortality rate of 1%. With the UK population of 68 million that’s 680,000 deaths. Is that acceptable? That’s without considering all those who would be infected, needed hospital treatment and survived. What would the consequences have been for health services provision and the impact on other illnesses? It’s been bad enough already. How much worse would it have been? How many more deaths as a result of delayed diagnosis and treatment? Really? Three times the mortality rate of Spanish flu for which there was no effective treatment at all.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

10 May 24 8.46am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Put another way, that is a mortality rate of 1%.

With the UK population of 68 million that’s 680,000 deaths. Is that acceptable?

Really? Three times the mortality rate of Spanish flu for which there was no effective treatment at all.

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 10 May 24 8.47am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I am unaware of any dictionary changes although am that the CDC has expanded its description to include the new ways of producing them. The Covid vaccines are indeed vaccines. They stimulate a response in the immune system. AZ have done a wonderful job and saved millions of lives but now there are better alternatives. So it makes commercial sense for them to cease production. Anyone who has genuinely suffered from a side effect has been very unlucky and ought to be properly compensated. Unfortunately that requires a lot of investigation to determine not just an effect but the cause. Those jumping to conclusions and assuming that this means that not only that these side effects not rare but are caused by every vaccine are doing serious harm to the future health of all of the people by undermining confidence. The anti-vax lobby is a cancer in society, eating away at us and destroying us from the inside. So much so I question who is funding it. Ah, another conspiracy theory.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

10 May 24 8.47am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am unaware of any dictionary changes although am that the CDC has expanded its description to include the new ways of producing them.

The Covid vaccines are indeed vaccines. They stimulate a response in the immune system.

Ah, another conspiracy theory.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 10 May 24 8.58am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle No it wasn't missed. It's just evidence that Hancock's plan to "scare the pants off everyone" worked. The only hysteria was from those convinced they were at dread risk. By the time the vaccine became available many thousands had contracted, and recovered, from Covid so weren't as worried about it. I had the jabs because the threat at the time was that they were necessary to avoid this social exclusion (the vaccine passport - which by the way I never had to show once). In light of subsequent discoveries about transmission vaccine hesitancy doesn't seem as hysterical. It wasn’t “Hancock’s” plan. It was the government’s decision, supported by their primary health advisors, that in the face of an unknown threat that this was the only viable course of action until vaccines became available. Getting compliance was necessary in the public interest. That demanded encouragement and pressure. It was only as understanding grew and experience mounted that a more nuanced and measured response became possible. It may well seem different in the light of subsequent discoveries but hindsight isn’t available at the beginning of events. I am no fan of Johnson. I think he is a self serving chancer but that he managed this event very well. His personal adherence to the rules aside! 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 10 May 24 8.58am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

It wasn’t “Hancock’s” plan. It was the government’s decision, supported by their primary health advisors, that in the face of an unknown threat that this was the only viable course of action until vaccines became available. Getting compliance was necessary in the public interest. That demanded encouragement and pressure.

It was only as understanding grew and experience mounted that a more nuanced and measured response became possible. It may well seem different in the light of subsequent discoveries but hindsight isn’t available at the beginning of events.

I am no fan of Johnson. I think he is a self serving chancer but that he managed this event very well. His personal adherence to the rules aside!

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 10 May 24 9.03am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It wasn’t “Hancock’s” plan. It was the government’s decision, supported by their primary health advisors, that in the face of an unknown threat that this was the only viable course of action until vaccines became available. Getting compliance was necessary in the public interest. That demanded encouragement and pressure. It was only as understanding grew and experience mounted that a more nuanced and measured response became possible. It may well seem different in the light of subsequent discoveries but hindsight isn’t available at the beginning of events. I am no fan of Johnson. I think he is a self serving chancer but that he managed this event very well. His personal adherence to the rules aside! I think it was Hancock's plan. [Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

10 May 24 9.03am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am no fan of Johnson. I think he is a self serving chancer but that he managed this event very well. His personal adherence to the rules aside!

I think it was Hancock's plan.

[Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 10 May 24 9.11am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Really? Three times the mortality rate of Spanish flu for which there was no effective treatment at all. It wasn’t me who suggested the 99% survival rate! I just extrapolated the result. 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 10 May 24 9.11am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Really? Three times the mortality rate of Spanish flu for which there was no effective treatment at all.

It wasn’t me who suggested the 99% survival rate! I just extrapolated the result.

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 10 May 24 9.19am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle I think it was Hancock's plan. [Link] More likely the mouthpiece. He was after all the responsible Minister. Jim Hacker usually did what Sir Humphrey thought. Whether he realised it or not. 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 10 May 24 9.19am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

I think it was Hancock's plan.

[Link]

More likely the mouthpiece. He was after all the responsible Minister. Jim Hacker usually did what Sir Humphrey thought. Whether he realised it or not.

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

Page 263 of 289 < 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 >

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