Rank: Super forum user 
|
SLord80 My English master at school was a stickler for proper grammar, spelling, sentences, paragraphs and such like. Usually I am quite relaxed about those who cannot rite proper on these Forums. But your repeated diatribes are virtually impossible to comprehend. You seem incapable of keeping sentences short and using the return key (or mobile phone equivalent) to put in a paragraph spacing. I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that every person who points to there being risks (as well as benefits) in vaccination is an Antivaxxer. Nor has there been an outpouring of anyone on this thread suggesting that vaccines are 100% effective (quite the opposite - there has been discussion as to how long effectiness might last), or any claim as to how effective vaccination is in stopping the spread from person A (vaccinated) to person B. So, perhaps you might be polite and stop translating contributors' comments into complete untruths.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user 
|
Mrs F., my mum's 77yo friend, was vaccinated (both doses) at the very start of the roll-out in early December on the advice of her GP as she suffers with polymyalgia. Her GP did not give her any information on potential benefits or harms. Shortly afterward, she noticed government propaganda was warning that even if you have been vaccinated you should still continue uing face coverings, social distancing, handwashing, etc. This was her particular 'red-pill' moment, when she realised this is about controlling people not a virus. Welcome to 'Conspiracy Theorist' world, Mrs F - goodness me, we are everywhere now!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: biker1  I think this will be an argument that rumbles on. There is an intuitive argument for mandatory vaccination to protect society, but on the other hand there is an obstacle regarding medical ethics, since it is essentially an invasive procedure, which therefore needs patient consent. I see that the lawyers have got involved, so here comes months of legal arguments. My own view is that unless you have a valid medical reason for not getting the vaccination, there is a compelling argument for it to be mandatory. The situation we are in with the pandemic is unprecedented in living memory, so all bets are off.
It's the government psy-op that is unprecedented in living memory...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: biker1 As for mandatory vaccination, it is an extremely thorny issue. I read that employers are starting to develop the mindset of 'no jab, no job'. Sections 7 and 8 of HASAWA could arguably be used to support this. I think it will probably become compulsory by stealth, as has been observed by others, as indeed it became for some foreign travel.
The Vaccination Act 1867 (removed from legislation in 1946) could be resurrected !
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: peter gotch SLord80My English master at school was a stickler for proper grammar, spelling, sentences, paragraphs and such like.Usually I am quite relaxed about those who cannot rite proper on these Forums.But your repeated diatribes are virtually impossible to comprehend. You seem incapable of keeping sentences short and using the return key (or mobile phone equivalent) to put in a paragraph spacing.I don't think anyone on this thread has suggested that every personwho points to there being risks (as well as benefits) in vaccination is an Antivaxxer.Nor has there been an outpouring of anyone on this thread suggesting that vaccines are 100% effective (quite the opposite - there has been discussion as to how long effectiness might last), or any claim as to how effective vaccination is in stopping the spread from person A (vaccinated) to person B.So, perhaps you might be polite and stop translating contributors' comments into complete untruths.
Sit down Peter. The tab key doesn’t work in mobile phones, as someone else previously pointed out. You would have seen this, which tells me you forgot it.
I guess memory loss is a normal part of aging.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
The following vaccines are approved for use in the UK: Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine- an RNA vaccine COVID-19 Vaccine Moderna vaccine- also an RNA vaccine COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca- based on genetically modified chimp Adeno virus. The approval comes from the MHRA- Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency who take advice from the JCVI - Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation But perhaps you don’ t trust these people as they might be part of the conspiracy : so who do you trust to approve of the new vaccine or run the country or to do anything at all really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
"is it right that 10 people should die to save 100"
So 1 in 10 people that get the vaccine will die from it? And you have the nerve to question anyone elses on this forum. SSLord and Iron Chicken give it a rest, you just look like a pair of idiots!
|
 1 user thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: SLord80
Please don’t spread misinformation.
You’ve said the vaccine reduces death by 85% and referenced Pfizer - this is categorically false.
Additionally, how you can claim its ‘irrelevant’ that a vaccine is licensed is astounding.
The vaccine literally doesn’t have a license because of a lack of safety data - yet that’s irrelevant? Seriously?
The figures for patients in hospital with covid are not so reliable - if I go on a run tonight, fall over and break my arm, and then test positive for covid on my arrival to hospital I’m included in the statistics, although zero symptoms.
The actual figure of patients in hospital with covid19 will inevitable be a lower number.
Completely agree - the choice should be based on facts. That’s why my mind boggles that if you dare mention that a vaccine may lead to death or serious harm/injury your an anti vaxxer, even though this is undisputed fact.
I don't say that the virus reduces death by 85%, the studies say that. I assume you looked at the study linked? The virus has passed the safety checks, it just has been through the paperwork for licensing. They are two separate things. (how vaccines are licensed) . The vaccine is constantly being monitored for saftey as part of the rolling review. If we were to wait for licensing it could have delayed the distribution by 200 days or more. The vaccine still had to go through all the reviews and testing, to say otherwise is factually incorrect. If you have COVID-19, you have COVID 19. It is irrelevant that it may not be why you are in hospital. The numbers are still accurate. I think you mean less people are being treated for COVID-19 than the figures, which is possibly true. I would imagine that this figure does not vary much though, but i have no data to support this, likewise you have no data to support your view. The number people so far have been confirmed to have had a serious reactions is negligable, (also only 372 per million for non-serious reaction) unless you have evidence to the contrary. You are far more likely to have complications with the disease than the cure. This holds true for all age groups. As always I link to facts. These are not my opinions.
|
6 users thanked CptBeaky for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Originally Posted by: SLord80
Please don’t spread misinformation.
You’ve said the vaccine reduces death by 85% and referenced Pfizer - this is categorically false.
Additionally, how you can claim its ‘irrelevant’ that a vaccine is licensed is astounding.
The vaccine literally doesn’t have a license because of a lack of safety data - yet that’s irrelevant? Seriously?
The figures for patients in hospital with covid are not so reliable - if I go on a run tonight, fall over and break my arm, and then test positive for covid on my arrival to hospital I’m included in the statistics, although zero symptoms.
The actual figure of patients in hospital with covid19 will inevitable be a lower number.
Completely agree - the choice should be based on facts. That’s why my mind boggles that if you dare mention that a vaccine may lead to death or serious harm/injury your an anti vaxxer, even though this is undisputed fact.
I don't say that the virus reduces death by 85%, the studies say that. I assume you looked at the study linked?The virus has passed the safety checks, it just has been through the paperwork for licensing. They are two separate things. ( how vaccines are licensed) . The vaccine is constantly being monitored for saftey as part of the rolling review. If we were to wait for licensing it could have delayed the distribution by 200 days or more. The vaccine still had to go through all the reviews and testing, to say otherwise is factually incorrect.If you have COVID-19, you have COVID 19. It is irrelevant that it may not be why you are in hospital. The numbers are still accurate. I think you mean less people are being treated for COVID-19 than the figures, which is possibly true. I would imagine that this figure does not vary much though, but i have no data to support this, likewise you have no data to support your view.The number people so far have been confirmed to have had a serious reactions is negligable, (also only 372 per million for non-serious reaction)unless you have evidence to the contrary. You are far more likely to have complications with the disease than the cure. This holds true for all age groups.As always I link to facts. These are not my opinions.
Are you claiming someone under 18 year old have a higher likelihood of problems from covid than the vaccine? Surely you can’t be, as that would be utterly ridiculous and proves you haven’t looked at the statistics.
Of course the figure of people in hospital with actual covid symptoms matters. How you can disregard this is bordering stupidity.
If you believe the vaccine hasn’t been through licensing because they haven’t been through the ‘paperwork’ yet then you are an idiot. It hasn’t been licensed yet because they don’t have sufficient safety data. Paperwork Lol. That made me giggle, thanks.
https://assets.publishin...e_Analysis_Print__1_.pdf
Do some research and try to think for yourself for once. To reiterate, to claim the vaccine is definitely better for everyone of all age groups is astounding, and is false. If your under 40 with no underlying health conditions then it certain the risks would not outweigh the benefits.
Or don’t. Go back to gaping at the tv taking it what ever matt wancock tells you.(ps, he said himself last year masks should be worn by the general population)
Oh and one more thing for everyone here who is religiously following our idiotic government as they strip us of our basic human freedoms, most of us would be back in tier 1 now, using the old system. Yet we’re in lockdown for many more months?
People like Desmond Dwayne, sir Charles Walker, really do restore my faith in MPs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: SLord80 Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Originally Posted by: SLord80
Please don’t spread misinformation.
You’ve said the vaccine reduces death by 85% and referenced Pfizer - this is categorically false.
Additionally, how you can claim its ‘irrelevant’ that a vaccine is licensed is astounding.
The vaccine literally doesn’t have a license because of a lack of safety data - yet that’s irrelevant? Seriously?
The figures for patients in hospital with covid are not so reliable - if I go on a run tonight, fall over and break my arm, and then test positive for covid on my arrival to hospital I’m included in the statistics, although zero symptoms.
The actual figure of patients in hospital with covid19 will inevitable be a lower number.
Completely agree - the choice should be based on facts. That’s why my mind boggles that if you dare mention that a vaccine may lead to death or serious harm/injury your an anti vaxxer, even though this is undisputed fact.
I don't say that the virus reduces death by 85%, the studies say that. I assume you looked at the study linked?The virus has passed the safety checks, it just has been through the paperwork for licensing. They are two separate things. ( how vaccines are licensed) . The vaccine is constantly being monitored for saftey as part of the rolling review. If we were to wait for licensing it could have delayed the distribution by 200 days or more. The vaccine still had to go through all the reviews and testing, to say otherwise is factually incorrect.If you have COVID-19, you have COVID 19. It is irrelevant that it may not be why you are in hospital. The numbers are still accurate. I think you mean less people are being treated for COVID-19 than the figures, which is possibly true. I would imagine that this figure does not vary much though, but i have no data to support this, likewise you have no data to support your view.The number people so far have been confirmed to have had a serious reactions is negligable, (also only 372 per million for non-serious reaction)unless you have evidence to the contrary. You are far more likely to have complications with the disease than the cure. This holds true for all age groups.As always I link to facts. These are not my opinions.
Are you claiming someone under 18 year old have a higher likelihood of problems from covid than the vaccine? Surely you can’t be, as that would be utterly ridiculous and proves you haven’t looked at the statistics.
Of course the figure of people in hospital with actual covid symptoms matters. How you can disregard this is bordering stupidity.
If you believe the vaccine hasn’t been through licensing because they haven’t been through the ‘paperwork’ yet then you are an idiot. It hasn’t been licensed yet because they don’t have sufficient safety data. Paperwork Lol. That made me giggle, thanks.
https://assets.publishin...e_Analysis_Print__1_.pdf
Do some research and try to think for yourself for once. To reiterate, to claim the vaccine is definitely better for everyone of all age groups is astounding, and is false. If your under 40 with no underlying health conditions then it certain the risks would not outweigh the benefits.
Or don’t. Go back to gaping at the tv taking it what ever matt wancock tells you.(ps, he said himself last year masks should be worn by the general population)
Oh and one more thing for everyone here who is religiously following our idiotic government as they strip us of our basic human freedoms, most of us would be back in tier 1 now, using the old system. Yet we’re in lockdown for many more months?
People like Desmond Dwayne, sir Charles Walker, really do restore my faith in MPs.
Reported for breach of Forum Rules 2,3,4&5
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Quote:If your under 40 with no underlying health conditions then it certain the risks would not outweigh the benefits
Under 18's aren't being offered the vaccine until more trials are done. Lets look at age group 18-29. We probably can all agree this is probably the lowest risk group from those being vaccinated. In the US 36m of the populaiton is in this age bracket. Let us be generous and say 50% have had COVID-19, so around 18m. 1,684 have died of COVID, a death rate of 0.009%. (I use the US to get a large enough sample, and I struggled to find the UK numbers by age). Ok lets now look at the page you linked to. As of the dates of that paper, 17,247,442 people in the UK (since that is what it is measuring) were vaccinated, let's be generous and say only 50% were the Pfizer vaccine (it should be higher), so roughly 8.5m people. Of those 197 died (which may have been unrelated, but let us assume they are not). A death rate overall of 0.002%. This is not even taking into account that the vaccines were all given to high risk people. So even assuming the deathrate for the vaccine remains constant in ALL age/risk groups, it is still better than COVID-19, by a factor of at least 4. The data you linked to showed 26,823 reports of reactions. Put those numbers through and you get 0.3% having a reaction (which again may or may not be related to the vaccine), again a lot less than the 83% that get symptoms when infected with COVID-19 I fudged all the numbers in your favour and still you are wrong. You may argue "underlying health issues" etc. but let's be honest, it doesn't look good for you, since the same arguement can be made for the reactions to the vaccine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Holliday42333. Thank you for specifying the reasons for reporting a recent thread. P
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard "is it right that 10 people should die to save 100"
So 1 in 10 people that get the vaccine will die from it? And you have the nerve to question anyone elses on this forum. SSLord and Iron Chicken give it a rest, you just look like a pair of idiots!
It’s saddening and embarrassing when a fully grown adult can’t understand simple maths.
Re read what I said, then go to bbc bite size to learn how percentages work.
My 10 year old can do it, surely you can.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: CptBeaky Quote:If your under 40 with no underlying health conditions then it certain the risks would not outweigh the benefits
Under 18's aren't being offered the vaccine until more trials are done.Lets look at age group 18-29. We probably can all agree this is probably the lowest risk group from those being vaccinated. In the US 36m of the populaiton is in this age bracket. Let us be generous and say 50% have had COVID-19, so around 18m. 1,684 have died of COVID, a death rate of 0.009%. (I use the US to get a large enough sample, and I struggled to find the UK numbers by age).Ok lets now look at the page you linked to. As of the dates of that paper, 17,247,442 people in the UK (since that is what it is measuring) were vaccinated, let's be generous and sayonly 50% were the Pfizer vaccine (it should be higher), so roughly 8.5m people. Of those 197 died (which may have been unrelated, but let us assume they are not). A death rate overall of 0.002%. This is not even taking into account that the vaccines were all given to high risk people.So even assuming the deathrate for the vaccine remains constant in ALL age/risk groups, it is still better than COVID-19, by a factor of at least 4.The data you linked to showed 26,823 reports of reactions. Put those numbers through and you get 0.3% having areaction (which again may or may not be related to the vaccine), again a lot less than the 83%that get symptoms when infected with COVID-19I fudged all the numbers in your favour and still you are wrong. You may argue "underlying health issues" etc. but let's be honest, it doesn't look good for you, since thesame arguement can be made for the reactions to the vaccine.
First and foremost, the vaccine is given to every single person in that age. However, not every single person will get covid. So that hd to be factored in.
Additionally, what it sounds like your saying (I know your figures are estimates and I agree they won’t be entirely accurate, but let’s go with them) Is that it’s okay to kill 0.002% (720 real human beings) of people in order to save 0.009% (approximately 1296 human beings, educated calculation) of people? This is completely, utterly unethical. Immoral.
What about if all 0.002% of people would’ve survived covid?
The only point I’m making here is simply that vaccines should be optional, That’s it.
I read in the news today that 200,000 NHS staff haven’t had the vaccine, even though they’ve been offered it.
Are people really believing we should force these doctors and nurses to be vaccinated against their will? Really?
Who would you rather treat you, an obese doctor with Diabetes (type 2) whose had the vaccine or a doctor who hasn’t had the vaccine and has absolutely no underlying conditions?
Come on people. It’s simple body autonomy. Just as woman have when they are pregnant. It is one right that shouldn’t be take away from any human (the only way it can be legally taken away at the moment is via the MHA, but this can’t be used to vaccinate, and rightfully so)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: SLord80
It’s saddening and embarrassing when a fully grown adult can’t understand simple maths.
Re read what I said, then go to bbc bite size to learn how percentages work.
My 10 year old can do it, surely you can.
Reported; breach of Forum Rules 2 & 4
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Originally Posted by: SLord80
It’s saddening and embarrassing when a fully grown adult can’t understand simple maths.
Re read what I said, then go to bbc bite size to learn how percentages work.
My 10 year old can do it, surely you can.
Reported; breach of Forum Rules 2 & 4
thank you Holiday - but S Lord is correct my maths are out. Hes states "is it right 10 people should die to save 100" - so for every 110 people reacieving the vacine 10 will die thats actualy 11% not 10 as i suggested - so we have had over 21,000,000 peope vacinated so far (roughly) so by SLord theory we should have had 2,310,000 deaths - but then i need a 10 year old to check my maths!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Originally Posted by: SLord80
It’s saddening and embarrassing when a fully grown adult can’t understand simple maths.
Re read what I said, then go to bbc bite size to learn how percentages work.
My 10 year old can do it, surely you can.
Reported; breach of Forum Rules 2 & 4
thank you Holiday - but S Lord is correct my maths are out. Hes states "is it right 10 people should die to save 100" - so for every 110 people reacieving the vacine 10 will die thats actualy 11% not 10 as i suggested - so we have had over 21,000,000 peope vacinated so far (roughly) so by SLord theory we should have had 2,310,000 deaths - but then i need a 10 year old to check my maths!
LoL i ready do need a 10 year old to check my maths it 10 out of 110 is 9.09% (what am i like) so 2,079,000 deaths
its been a long week!
|
1 user thanked HSSnail for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
If this forum allowed me to insert a smiley without cutting and pasting from elsewhere I would do it! But, Holliday either way that's a lot of deaths. P
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Originally Posted by: SLord80
It’s saddening and embarrassing when a fully grown adult can’t understand simple maths.
Re read what I said, then go to bbc bite size to learn how percentages work.
My 10 year old can do it, surely you can.
Reported; breach of Forum Rules 2 & 4
thank you Holiday - but S Lord is correct my maths are out. Hes states "is it right 10 people should die to save 100" - so for every 110 people reacieving the vacine 10 will die thats actualy 11% not 10 as i suggested - so we have had over 21,000,000 peope vacinated so far (roughly) so by SLord theory we should have had 2,310,000 deaths - but then i need a 10 year old to check my maths!
Cute response Brian. However your utter incompetence is now really glowing.
The ridiculous assumption you’ve made is that the vaccine ‘saves’ somebody? What a strange thing to assume. You do realise that, according to Pfizer, no one died in the vaccine group or the placebo group, 44,000 people in the trial and not a single death. To say this virus is meant to be a really scary deadly virus, surely we could expect atleast a SINGLE death in trials that included 44,000 people?
You’ve then done a strange calculation and interpreted what I said to mean the vaccines will kill 9% of people who take them, again what a stupid thing to say.
The fact is that the vaccine will kill some people, as we can already see in the governments statistics. This number is small, approximately 0.002%. If we forcibly vaccinate everyone in the country, this would equate to around 1320 deaths directly due to the vaccine. More lives will of course be saved, but does that make it ethical? Are we really condoning killing over a thousand people to potentially save thousands more?
For the people who choose to take it, that’s of course their risk. But being in favour of mandatory vaccination is abhorrent, to put it lightly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: SLord80 Originally Posted by: Brian Hagyard Originally Posted by: Holliday42333 Originally Posted by: SLord80
It’s saddening and embarrassing when a fully grown adult can’t understand simple maths.
Re read what I said, then go to bbc bite size to learn how percentages work.
My 10 year old can do it, surely you can.
Reported; breach of Forum Rules 2 & 4
thank you Holiday - but S Lord is correct my maths are out. Hes states "is it right 10 people should die to save 100" - so for every 110 people reacieving the vacine 10 will die thats actualy 11% not 10 as i suggested - so we have had over 21,000,000 peope vacinated so far (roughly) so by SLord theory we should have had 2,310,000 deaths - but then i need a 10 year old to check my maths!
Cute response Brian. However your utter incompetence is now really glowing.
The ridiculous assumption you’ve made is that the vaccine ‘saves’ somebody? What a strange thing to assume. You do realise that, according to Pfizer, no one died in the vaccine group or the placebo group, 44,000 people in the trial and not a single death. To say this virus is meant to be a really scary deadly virus, surely we could expect atleast a SINGLE death in trials that included 44,000 people?
You’ve then done a strange calculation and interpreted what I said to mean the vaccines will kill 9% of people who take them, again what a stupid thing to say.
The fact is that the vaccine will kill some people, as we can already see in the governments statistics. This number is small, approximately 0.002%. If we forcibly vaccinate everyone in the country, this would equate to around 1320 deaths directly due to the vaccine. More lives will of course be saved, but does that make it ethical? Are we really condoning killing over a thousand people to potentially save thousands more?
For the people who choose to take it, that’s of course their risk. But being in favour of mandatory vaccination is abhorrent, to put it lightly.
Oh and to add, we still don’t have concrete evidence that the vaccines reduce deaths, only that they reduce severe disease. Which means the vaccine may actually kill more people than it saves.
Unlikely of course, but here’s a direct quote from Pfizer ‘we don’t have enough evidence to conclude the vaccine reduces the risk of mortality’
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
SLord80 - while we wait on more data, I for one am quite content with evidence that vaccination reduces the incidence of severe disease.
It is a reasonable presumption that if we reduce that then we reduce the incidence of mortality which will be largely a sub-set of severe disease. Do a Venn diagram. We know that about 10 people die as an immediate effect (or within a limited period afterwards)* of working on roofs in the UK each year. Almost all fall from height. Far more fall and do NOT die, but do sustain serious injury. Even more fall and sustain less serious injury. So on a Venn diagram you could count the number of people working at risk. Then you could count the sub-set who fall. Then you could count the sub-set who are injured. Then you could count the sub-sets who get away lightly, are severely injured and those who die. You could apply similar logic to those who are at risk of exposure to Covid virus. *Before anyone takes issue with my stats, FAR MORE roofers die prematurely due to exposure to dangerous materials, primarily asbestos but not in the same time frame.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
More disgusting NHS emotional blackmail propaganda aimed at young people ^^^ Full document here.
All paid for by taxpayers' money of course.
|
2 users thanked The Iron Chicken for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Thanks for that - very clear document- cant understand why you dont understand it - is it something to do with the brain size of chickens?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Yes, Iron Chicken, thanks for that.... Transmission lost in a bit in cut and past as no columns but... "Don’t be dismissive, the conspiracies are resonating because trust has been lost “There are many conspiracy theories across social media.
Our leading scientists and medical experts recommend vaccination because of the robust evidence that it works.” Note: NHS messages will be more trusted than Government messages"
Document looked to me to be properly thought out and taxpayers' money well spent. But may be that's due to my having a brain the size of a chicken? Edited by user 07 March 2021 13:58:01(UTC)
| Reason: Corrected typo
|
1 user thanked peter gotch for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: Alan Haynes Thanks for that - very clear document- cant understand why you dont understand it - is it something to do with the brain size of chickens?
Oh, I understand EXACTLY what's going on here thank you.
You, on the other hand...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
2 quotes from SLord
You’ve then done a strange calculation and interpreted what I said to mean the vaccines will kill 9% of people who take them, again what a stupid thing to say. The fact is that the vaccine will kill some people, as we can already see in the governments statistics. This number is small, approximately 0.002%
is it right to kill 10 to save 100
But its me who is incompitent etc (this forum badly needs moderating.)
Im not sure I have seen any reliable information that anyone had died as a direct result of the vacine - while i have seen plenty of evidance of thousands of extra people dieing during the covid pandemic in the UK. No vaccine is 100% safe that everyone knows, but i accepted my flu vaccine as i thought the risk of death from that was less than the risk from flu. And i have booked my Covid vaccine as i think my chances are better with it than without out, plus my chances of passing on Covid if i catch it are also reduced. Happy to do my bit to try and get us out of this mess rather than just sit back and let people die.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
shouldn't we take the opportunity to ensure all new employees are fit and healthy? Too many go for the quick fix and don't consider the long term, in my opinion!
|
1 user thanked james655 for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Brian:
You are reasoning with a troll.
It never works.
They always alter the terms you are arguing against.
They fill space and occupy people to no point.
ALWAYS starve them off a site.
There are large “factories” of trolls engaged in lying and distorting facts to confuse the issues.
Re: Brexit/US elections/UK elections.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
As I said, ignore all trolls. Look up the meaning of sh*tlord. Loads of new ones will appear, ignore them too. This is a form of service denial...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Originally Posted by: james655 shouldn't we take the opportunity to ensure all new employees are fit and healthy?
Fit - by whose standards? Healthy - devoid of any physical or mental infirmity? Neither word is as black and white as you perceive.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
achrn on 08/03/2021(UTC), achrn on 08/03/2021(UTC)
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: james655 shouldn't we take the opportunity to ensure all new employees are fit and healthy?
Fit - by whose standards? Healthy - devoid of any physical or mental infirmity? Neither word is as black and white as you perceive.
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
achrn on 08/03/2021(UTC), achrn on 08/03/2021(UTC)
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: John Murray <p>As I said, ignore all trolls. Look up the meaning of sh*tlord. Loads of new ones will appear, ignore them too. This is a form of service denial...
</p>
It’s interesting John that you choose to ignore instead of debate, this is a really bad trait to have as a human being.
The fact your mind is well and truely made up and no facts of figures could change should ring alarm bells.
You seem to have a lot of the within you also, I hope everything alright at home matey. Good luck to you pal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Originally Posted by: SLord80
Originally Posted by: chris42 So, at 99.77% survival, would mean 0.23% die. Now according to internet UK population is 67,886,011 (mid-year), so once everyone has had it once that would give us a death toll of 156,138 people (Rounded up). The current death toll is 53,274, so we have 102,864 to go. Originally Posted by: SLord80
So many wrong assumptions here. Firstly, not everyone in the uk would contract the virus, many already have T cell immunity (Yeadon 2020).
Secondly, 99.77% is the overall statistics but this is inaccurate on an individual level (obviously). If your below 25 your survival rate is approximately 99.998%. Under 15 99.999%. Over 80 then 95%. So to use your equation we’d have to know the age of each person in the population to actually work out the predicted total deaths.
Ironic then, that we keep telling you that you are wrong SLord, but you don't change your mind. Looking at the above post you argued that the death toll would be nowhere near Chris's estimate, yet here we are 5 months later only 40k away, and the virus hasn't run it's course (estimated at most 25% of the population has been infected), and we have a vaccine now which will bring that number down. The Yeadon "study" was obviously seriously flawed, as I pointed out at the time. Are you willing to admit you were wrong, or willyou have to change the goal posts again and claim that the numbers are faked, despite them being exactly what was predicted. This is why people should ignore the trolls. They have been shown to be worn countless times, and yet they continue to spout nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Thanks John for introducing me to a new word and I guess that you were NOT referring to this definition:. "A mythical, supernatural figure in German and Scandinavian folklore who leads a group of sentient feces in eternal song and dance in forests. According to legend, the S...lord is a malevolent character who lures young children into the forests before consuming them."
Apologies for the American spelling. P
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: John Murray Brian:
You are reasoning with a troll.
It never works.
They always alter the terms you are arguing against.
They fill space and occupy people to no point.
ALWAYS starve them off a site.
There are large “factories” of trolls engaged in lying and distorting facts to confuse the issues.
Re: Brexit/US elections/UK elections.
dont agree so is a troll ... original
|
1 user thanked N Hancock for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Originally Posted by: N Hancock Originally Posted by: John Murray Brian:
You are reasoning with a troll.
It never works.
They always alter the terms you are arguing against.
They fill space and occupy people to no point.
ALWAYS starve them off a site.
There are large “factories” of trolls engaged in lying and distorting facts to confuse the issues.
Re: Brexit/US elections/UK elections.
dont agree so is a troll ... original
Makes a change from 'Conspiracy Theorist' though ;)
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.