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This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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 945 of 1255 < 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 >

Topic Locked

BlueJay UK 14 Sep 21 3.12pm
Originally posted by DANGERCLOSE [Tweet Link] [Tweet Link] He makes it sound like a miracle if you've not experienced some kind of legitimate harm as result of getting double vaccinated. While I of course get the argument against children getting vaccinated, beyond that, anyone 60+ (and possibly younger) should just drown out the social media noise get on with it. Thankfully almost all already did anyway.. not as though you'd think so from this guy or some here. Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 3.19pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 14 Sep 21 3.12pm

Originally posted by DANGERCLOSE

[Tweet Link]

He makes it sound like a miracle if you've not experienced some kind of legitimate harm as result of getting double vaccinated.

While I of course get the argument against children getting vaccinated, beyond that, anyone 60+ (and possibly younger) should just drown out the social media noise get on with it. Thankfully almost all already did anyway.. not as though you'd think so from this guy or some here.

Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 3.19pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 14 Sep 21 10.25pm
Originally posted by BlueJay It's pointless to give 12 - 15 year olds the vaccine, and that efforts would be better spent giving the booster jab to the elderly (preferably alongside the flu jab). It's important to add though that it's incorrect to state that the parent solely gets to decide on the matter. In fact the suggestion is that where the parent and child disagree, the child will for the most part have final say [Link] [Link] . The inference of your post is that you want children to have a say, however also be aware that this will bring about the scenario where a parent may strongly disagree with the child being vaccinated and the child will go ahead with it anyway. Thems the breaks if we're leaving it down to the individual. Well, true to form, you say nothing here. You say that the parent doesn't get to solely make the choice, and that the child will have the final say. You then go on to say that this brings about the scenario of parents disagreeing and children going ahead regardless. Which is the same thing. All the while stating that I "made the inference .. that I want children to have a say" which I didn't. I asked a question. In my opinion they should not be offered it. Problem solved. I mean, there are 11 yr old and 12 yr old children in the same class at school, how does that even equate? As usual, nobody is thinking this through. And that's without going into the increased risk of death from having the vaccine at that age. Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (14 Sep 2021 10.26pm) Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 14 Sep 21 10.25pm

Send a Private Message to Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Originally posted by BlueJay

It's pointless to give 12 - 15 year olds the vaccine, and that efforts would be better spent giving the booster jab to the elderly (preferably alongside the flu jab).

It's important to add though that it's incorrect to state that the parent solely gets to decide on the matter. In fact the suggestion is that where the parent and child disagree, the child will for the most part have final say [Link] [Link] . The inference of your post is that you want children to have a say, however also be aware that this will bring about the scenario where a parent may strongly disagree with the child being vaccinated and the child will go ahead with it anyway. Thems the breaks if we're leaving it down to the individual.

Well, true to form, you say nothing here. You say that the parent doesn't get to solely make the choice, and that the child will have the final say. You then go on to say that this brings about the scenario of parents disagreeing and children going ahead regardless. Which is the same thing. All the while stating that I "made the inference .. that I want children to have a say" which I didn't. I asked a question.

In my opinion they should not be offered it. Problem solved. I mean, there are 11 yr old and 12 yr old children in the same class at school, how does that even equate? As usual, nobody is thinking this through.

And that's without going into the increased risk of death from having the vaccine at that age.

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (14 Sep 2021 10.26pm)

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 14 Sep 21 10.31pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC In all fairness, the vaccine has only been offered to 12-15 year old. It hasn't been like the days when we went to school and you just lined up and got jabbed by some district nurse. I don't remember anyone having a say. I think the days of "Drop and cough" are far behind us. At least in the circles I mix. Honest M'Lud... Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 14 Sep 21 10.31pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

In all fairness, the vaccine has only been offered to 12-15 year old. It hasn't been like the days when we went to school and you just lined up and got jabbed by some district nurse. I don't remember anyone having a say.

I think the days of "Drop and cough" are far behind us. At least in the circles I mix. Honest M'Lud...

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay UK 14 Sep 21 10.32pm
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Well, true to form, you say nothing here. Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (14 Sep 2021 10.26pm) And true to form, you realise that what you said was a hole heap of steaming nonsense and so you go on the attack. I was just pointing out that what you stated was completely wrong (that parents get to decide -> they do not), and corrected it. I don't particularly care what you think about the additional points raised because you don't know whether you're coming or going at the best of times, so I'd be wasting my breath. Go and have a rest. You need it. Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 10.38pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 14 Sep 21 10.32pm

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Well, true to form, you say nothing here.

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (14 Sep 2021 10.26pm)

And true to form, you realise that what you said was a hole heap of steaming nonsense and so you go on the attack. I was just pointing out that what you stated was completely wrong (that parents get to decide -> they do not), and corrected it. I don't particularly care what you think about the additional points raised because you don't know whether you're coming or going at the best of times, so I'd be wasting my breath. Go and have a rest. You need it.

Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 10.38pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 14 Sep 21 10.38pm
I think the only time that the state should have the right to veto the parent's say on what goes into a child's body is if the child is at risk of death. This clearly isn't the case here.....So frankly I regard the whole episode as societally vampiric. '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

14 Sep 21 10.38pm

I think the only time that the state should have the right to veto the parent's say on what goes into a child's body is if the child is at risk of death.

This clearly isn't the case here.....So frankly I regard the whole episode as societally vampiric.

'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

BlueJay UK 14 Sep 21 10.45pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays I think the only time that the state should have the right to veto the parent's say on what goes into a child's body is if the child is at risk of death. This clearly isn't the case here.....So frankly I regard the whole episode as societally vampiric. I don't particularly disagree with this, being that the risk is so small. My issue was mainly with the idea of a think of the voiceless children! take when the poster thought that parents could decide that the child is vaccinated, but suddenly did away with that whole outlook the moment it became clear that children could actually decide to get vaccinated on their own volition. Principles shouldn't be instant throw aways based on preferred outcome. I'd say in this case, as a sensible balance and compromise to a low risk virus (for kids at least) that needing the approval of 'both' child and parent before going ahead would be the most sensible move.
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 14 Sep 21 10.45pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

I think the only time that the state should have the right to veto the parent's say on what goes into a child's body is if the child is at risk of death.

This clearly isn't the case here.....So frankly I regard the whole episode as societally vampiric.

I don't particularly disagree with this, being that the risk is so small.

My issue was mainly with the idea of a think of the voiceless children! take when the poster thought that parents could decide that the child is vaccinated, but suddenly did away with that whole outlook the moment it became clear that children could actually decide to get vaccinated on their own volition. Principles shouldn't be instant throw aways based on preferred outcome.

I'd say in this case, as a sensible balance and compromise to a low risk virus (for kids at least) that needing the approval of 'both' child and parent before going ahead would be the most sensible move.

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 14 Sep 21 10.47pm
Originally posted by BlueJay He makes it sound like a miracle if you've not experienced some kind of legitimate harm as result of getting double vaccinated. While I of course get the argument against children getting vaccinated, beyond that, anyone 60+ (and possibly younger) should just drown out the social media noise get on with it. Thankfully almost all already did anyway.. not as though you'd think so from this guy or some here. Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 3.19pm) That's good, that makes me laugh. You dismiss, off-hand, a question raised in the House of Commons as "social media noise". People have died as a direct result of having the vaccine. You really don't like the fact that the vaccine isn't as safe as you said it was. Ask yourself, why does it take a question in the HoC to even bring this to the attention of the public? 47 acknowledged deaths caused by the vaccine in the UK. 1632 deaths within 3 months of receiving the vaccine. But you maintain that it is safe. Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 14 Sep 21 10.47pm

Originally posted by BlueJay

He makes it sound like a miracle if you've not experienced some kind of legitimate harm as result of getting double vaccinated.

Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 3.19pm)

That's good, that makes me laugh. You dismiss, off-hand, a question raised in the House of Commons as "social media noise". People have died as a direct result of having the vaccine. You really don't like the fact that the vaccine isn't as safe as you said it was. Ask yourself, why does it take a question in the HoC to even bring this to the attention of the public?

47 acknowledged deaths caused by the vaccine in the UK.

1632 deaths within 3 months of receiving the vaccine.

But you maintain that it is safe.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 14 Sep 21 10.56pm
Originally posted by BlueJay And true to form, you realise that what you said was a hole heap of steaming nonsense and so you go on the attack. I was just pointing out that what you stated was completely wrong (that parents get to decide -> they do not), and corrected it. I don't particularly care what you think about the additional points raised because you don't know whether you're coming or going at the best of times, so I'd be wasting my breath. Go and have a rest. You need it. Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 10.38pm) You are wrong. I didn't state anything incorrect. Read it back, I said parents have the choice to decide whether have a jab or not. I then asked the question whether children should be able to go against their parents wishes. You, however, see evil and wrongdoing in anyone who questions the vaccine. Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 14 Sep 21 10.56pm

Originally posted by BlueJay

Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 10.38pm)

You are wrong. I didn't state anything incorrect. Read it back, I said parents have the choice to decide whether have a jab or not. I then asked the question whether children should be able to go against their parents wishes. You, however, see evil and wrongdoing in anyone who questions the vaccine.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay UK 14 Sep 21 11.01pm
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 That's good, that makes me laugh. You dismiss, off-hand, a question raised in the House of Commons as "social media noise". People have died as a direct result of having the vaccine. You really don't like the fact that the vaccine isn't as safe as you said it was. Ask yourself, why does it take a question in the HoC to even bring this to the attention of the public? 47 acknowledged deaths caused by the vaccine in the UK. 1632 deaths within 3 months of receiving the vaccine. But you maintain that it is safe. Oh I see. Your back is up over the other incorrect info you posted so you're on the warpath. 1) I was very clear in the post that the vaccine should be primarily targeted at the elderly 2) Very obviously vastly more people have died through not having the vaccine than having it. 3) Joining points one and two, it is patently obvious that it's a wise decision for certainly demographics to get vaccinated and likely not unwise for even under 60s to. Amusing also that once again, your stated principle goes flying out of the window. As in you're happy to endlessly go with a mantra that those who die within 30 days of covid often died of something else.. and yet now cling to the idea that the number of deaths within 'three months' of receiving the vaccine is vitally important. It's one of the other I'm afraid. All over the place once again. Likely tens of millions of people were vaccinated within that three month period. Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 11.10pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 14 Sep 21 11.01pm

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

47 acknowledged deaths caused by the vaccine in the UK.

1632 deaths within 3 months of receiving the vaccine.

But you maintain that it is safe.

Oh I see. Your back is up over the other incorrect info you posted so you're on the warpath.

1) I was very clear in the post that the vaccine should be primarily targeted at the elderly

2) Very obviously vastly more people have died through not having the vaccine than having it.

3) Joining points one and two, it is patently obvious that it's a wise decision for certainly demographics to get vaccinated and likely not unwise for even under 60s to.

Amusing also that once again, your stated principle goes flying out of the window. As in you're happy to endlessly go with a mantra that those who die within 30 days of covid often died of something else.. and yet now cling to the idea that the number of deaths within 'three months' of receiving the vaccine is vitally important. It's one of the other I'm afraid. All over the place once again. Likely tens of millions of people were vaccinated within that three month period.

Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 11.10pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay UK 14 Sep 21 11.04pm
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 You, however, see evil and wrongdoing in anyone who questions the vaccine. Please come back to reality for a brief moment, rather than the usual hysteria. In my post directly above yours I stated "I'd say in this case, as a sensible balance and compromise to a low risk virus (for kids at least) needing the approval of 'both' child and parent before going ahead would be the most sensible move." Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 11.05pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

BlueJay

UK 14 Sep 21 11.04pm

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

You, however, see evil and wrongdoing in anyone who questions the vaccine.

Please come back to reality for a brief moment, rather than the usual hysteria. In my post directly above yours I stated "I'd say in this case, as a sensible balance and compromise to a low risk virus (for kids at least) needing the approval of 'both' child and parent before going ahead would be the most sensible move."

Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 11.05pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 14 Sep 21 11.11pm
Originally posted by BlueJay Oh I see. Your back is up over the other incorrect info you posted so you're on the warpath. 1) I was very clear in the post that the vaccine should be primarily targeted at the elderly 2) Very obviously vastly more people have died through not having the vaccine than having it. 3) Joining points one and two, it is patently obvious that it's a wise decision for certainly demographics to get vaccinated and likely not unwise for even under 60s to. Amusing also that once again, your stated principle goes flying out of the window. As in you're happy to endlessly go with a mantra that those who die within 30 days of covid often died of something else.. and yet now cling to the idea that the number of deaths within 'three months' of receiving the vaccine is vitally important. It's one of the other I'm afraid. All over the place once again. Literally tens of millions of people were vaccinated within that three month period. Show me this "mantra that those who die within 30 days of covid often died of something else" which I posted endlessly. As I keep saying to you, stop making up stuff. I haven't attacked you as a poster, but you have attacked me, as a poster, frequently. Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 14 Sep 21 11.11pm

Originally posted by BlueJay

Oh I see. Your back is up over the other incorrect info you posted so you're on the warpath.

1) I was very clear in the post that the vaccine should be primarily targeted at the elderly

2) Very obviously vastly more people have died through not having the vaccine than having it.

3) Joining points one and two, it is patently obvious that it's a wise decision for certainly demographics to get vaccinated and likely not unwise for even under 60s to.

Amusing also that once again, your stated principle goes flying out of the window. As in you're happy to endlessly go with a mantra that those who die within 30 days of covid often died of something else.. and yet now cling to the idea that the number of deaths within 'three months' of receiving the vaccine is vitally important. It's one of the other I'm afraid. All over the place once again. Literally tens of millions of people were vaccinated within that three month period.

Show me this "mantra that those who die within 30 days of covid often died of something else" which I posted endlessly. As I keep saying to you, stop making up stuff. I haven't attacked you as a poster, but you have attacked me, as a poster, frequently.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 14 Sep 21 11.21pm
Originally posted by BlueJay Please come back to reality for a brief moment, rather than the usual hysteria. In my post directly above yours I stated "I'd say in this case, as a sensible balance and compromise to a low risk virus (for kids at least) needing the approval of 'both' child and parent before going ahead would be the most sensible move." Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 11.05pm) How about you answering my initial question. Rather than modifying your replies. And I'll put it as plainly as I can, so that you can comprehend. Should children have the final say about receiving/refusing the vaccine if their parent/guardian disagrees with their decision. How difficult is that? You really need to wind your neck in pal. It's you that gets aggressive, as evidenced by the card. Stop making s*** up when you don't like what is posted. Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 14 Sep 21 11.21pm

Originally posted by BlueJay

Edited by BlueJay (14 Sep 2021 11.05pm)

How about you answering my initial question. Rather than modifying your replies. And I'll put it as plainly as I can, so that you can comprehend.

Should children have the final say about receiving/refusing the vaccine if their parent/guardian disagrees with their decision.

How difficult is that?

You really need to wind your neck in pal. It's you that gets aggressive, as evidenced by the card. Stop making s*** up when you don't like what is posted.

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

Topic Locked

Page 945 of 1255 < 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Coronavirus (LOCKED)

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors