You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Freedom works for everyone. Someone is free to refuse a vaccine - someone else is free not to allow that first person into their shop, bar, restaurant or school.
Just seems a bit rich coming from a bunch of socialists talking about removing some of benefits of society if you don't do as you are told.
Think about it
Scotroute's point about some doctors not engaging with worried parents about individual injections is a good one. I had friends who paid for single injections privately (I didn't) because they were worried and could afford it.
One of the good things about the Covid vaccines is that all the major religions have pre-emptively stated that people of their faith can take the vaccines. Getting the problems (e.g. origin of the cell line used to produce the vaccine) out in the open is the best way to build consensus. Consensus is the best way to stop anti vaxxers.
Should we also scrap speed limits then? They're for the benefit of us all but limit our freedoms to do what we want. Most of the time the impact is on the speeders themselves, occasionally some collateral damage.
The anti-vaxxers are a different breed, they’re basically a cult, hitting the streets trying to kill as many people as they can.
The pubic hare joke was very funny to be fair, but this isn’t. There are plenty of people who quietly choose not to vaccinate and do not try to influence others.
Out of interest, can you tell me how many people these murderers actually kill?
I understand that any attempt to bring perspective to the debate will be dismissed as whataboutery, but every time we buy something for our bikes we are choosing not to feed or inoculate kids in the developing world who will then die. Does that make us murderers? Of course, this is a false equivalence. We are knowingly being selfish, whereas the antivaxxers for all their faults are trying to do the right thing.
As someone just said, it’s not black and white. I am not an antivaxxer but I am dealing with someone who is, and you still haven’t convinced me that I should join the baying mob.
Boris just needs to man up and do what Jacinda Ardern has done and pass a law that makes mandatory vaccinations possible.
Which ‘law’ is that please? I had a quick search(to no avail) but thought that maybe if you had a link then it could/would save me/others considerable time trying to locate/guess which law you’re referencing?
Just seems a bit rich coming from a bunch of socialists talking about removing some of benefits of society if you don’t do as you are told.
You mean, like paying taxes?
I am not an antivaxxer but I am dealing with someone who is, and you still haven’t convinced me that I should join the baying mob.
Assuming you are talking about the new vaccines… leave them to it, we’re a long way off having enough. If it’s the older vaccines, keep them the hell away from anyone who can’t have those vaccines for medical reasons.
You mean, like paying taxes?
Eh?
Paying your taxes… that’s something you do to benefit society, not just yourself, and there are social penalties for not doing so. You’ll find “socialists”, which seems to be the label for anyone to the left of Raab these days, are keen on people being encouraged to pay their taxes.
Erm, ok.....
Just seems a bit rich coming from a bunch of socialists talking about removing some of benefits of society if you don’t do as you are told.
It just seems a bit rich for individualists to think they should get all the benefits of society with none of the responsibilities.
I understand that any attempt to bring perspective to the debate will be dismissed as whataboutery, but every time we buy something for our bikes we are choosing not to feed or inoculate kids in the developing world who will then die.
Not just whataboutery but some kind of slippery slope/whataboutery/straw man hybrid - bravo!
Looking down on people because of socioeconomic status is probably one of the things that drives them to believing conspiracies in the first place.
If you want respect then don’t do/say stupid things.
The doing or saying stupid things comes after not before. Also plenty of people who say and do stupid things have respect. Trump, reality stars etc all have respect from some quarters. Belittling people doesn’t help them come around to your way of thinking. Far from it in fact, it seems to entrench existing views.
Not just whataboutery but some kind of slippery slope/whataboutery/straw man hybrid – bravo!
Thank you!
But are you not at all concerned about the double standard? (Not that you should live life according to my extreme example, but perhaps that the hatred of non-vaxxers is perhaps inappropriate/disproportionate?)
What's non-vax?
It's that like an anti-vaxxer trying earnestly not to look like they're against vaccination?
You're either for/compliant or against. There isn't room for nuances and shades in this debate.
There are plenty of people who quietly choose not to vaccinate and do not try to influence others.
They are not the anti-vaxxers that were being referred to. It's the incredibly vocal ones that insult or abuse anyone who disagrees with their misguided sense of self importance that are being talked about
It just seems a bit rich for individualists to think they should get all the benefits of society with none of the responsibilities.
Just so we are clear, you think that social benefits should be removed for people that don't stand up and take responsibilities for things?
Ooh, goodo, as long as this can be applied to a broader spectrum and not just the bits of life that suit your agenda
Who’s agenda? The agenda of those wanting the current medical emergency over, so that we can get society, the economy, families, travel, medical care… back to full strength? A pandemic can only be dealt with and done away with by most people talking their share of responsibility.
Or the agenda of those who want to protect those in society who can’t be vaccinated from age old viruses, by the rest of us ensuring we and our children are vaccinated?
Which “agenda”?
Which “agenda”?
Whichever agenda it is on any given day when you are applying your double standards.
I'll ask the question again. Are you advocating removing existing social benefits and liberties for people who don't do what they are told. Subject matter irrelevant, are you wanting to go down that road, because you are setting a precedent if you do?
Sounds a bit like communism to me
Just so we are clear, you think that social benefits should be removed for people that don’t stand up and take responsibilities for things?
If you don’t mind me saying, that has more than a whiff of...
...about it! Wouldn’t you say?
Are you advocating removing existing social benefits and liberties for people who don’t do what they are told. Subject matter irrelevant, are you wanting to go down that road, because you are setting a precedent if you do?
Is it a precedent? Just thinking of the speeding analogy again.
Ah, the strawman card when you can't be arsed to think of an argument. Well done.
If you don’t mind me saying, that has more than a whiff of…
…about it! Wouldn’t you say?
Not at all, we are talking about restricting social benefits (or at least that was mentioned) for people who won't do as they are told.
I've decided that anyone who can't find a job can go and do a bit of community work for their benefits. Don't want to - ok, let's remove your benefits, or some other social liberty. No? That would be against your human rights, or some other twaddle.
The speeding analogy isn't the same, you may as well just drag up any law you can think of.
Ah, the strawman card when you >>another strawman goes here<<
🙄
Subject matter irrelevant
Please explain why subject matter/specifics aren’t relevant? For example (to entertain the emerging ‘commulism’ dialogue) - I had to get jabs in order to apply for a US residency. This ‘allowed me the social benefits’ ie - I could work, buy a home, use domestic travel services, go to stores and bars, get healthcare, etc etc. But unless I had those vaccinations all of that would be unavailable to me.
(Amusing anecdote) the building I had to attend for the medical interview and document stamping was No. 777. I am generally skeptical of conspiracy and illuminati stuff but it gave me momentary pause for just long enough to imagine how a less skeptical mind might have processed that simple fact.
Q. Can I be forced to be vaccinated for immigration purposes?
A. If you refuse to receive the vaccines required for immigration purposes, as mandated by the immigration laws of the United States, your application for legal permanent resident status may be denied.https://www.uscis.gov/tools/designated-civil-surgeons/vaccination-requirements
Just seems a bit rich coming from a bunch of socialists talking about removing some of benefits of society if you don’t do as you are told.
The problem being that if you don't do as you're told in this instance there will be no society to benefit/milk funds from.
As long as the recalcitrant accept that they will not be permitted to rejoin society until they comply with the new rules I personally have no problem with them rejecting the vaccine. To be clear that goes for those also recovered from the virus as we are not sure that this confers long term immunity.
As long as the recalcitrant accept that they will not be permitted to rejoin society until they comply with the new rules I personally have no problem with them rejecting the vaccine.
Just f***ing wow
Just seems a bit rich coming from a bunch of socialists talking about removing some of benefits of society if you don’t do as you are told.
Think about it
If you think about it, some of the worst abuses of human rights have been under the cover of "socialist" regimes.
It's as if any policy or thought, taken to the extremes, might be dangerous.
But going along with a sensible middle of the road interpretation for the benefit of the majority will never catch on in this place. Too much fun to be had arguing from one extreme or the other 😀
I had to get jabs in order to apply for a US residency. This ‘allowed me the social benefits’ ie – I could work, buy a home, use domestic travel services, go to stores and bars, get healthcare, etc etc. But unless I had those vaccinations all of that would be unavailable to me.
You are adopting a set of pre-existing rules to make a change to your life. If you can't see the difference, then there is no point discussing.
Sounds a bit like communism to me
Well, the countries I know about that require vaccinations for full social rights are Australia and the USA… neither of which have a history of having much truck for communism. Public health isn’t really a left/right thing. Not sure why you think mass-vaccination is some kind of left wing conspiracy.
So if vaccination should be compulsory in the UK, why isn’t it?
You are adopting a set of pre-existing rules to make a change to your life. If you can’t see the difference, then there is no point discussing.
No, of course I’m aware of the difference. Ironically, what you missed was my ‘point’. Which is that there *is possibly no point* discussing if we do not discuss ‘specifics’. I gave you an instance of a specific, not of an equivalent. Now you can discuss how or not my requirement to be vaccinated was ‘communism’ or ‘not communism’. In fact please do. Without specifics this discussion is heading to the youtube comment thread where every antiwokewoker accuses everyone else of commulism or nazism
So if vaccination should be compulsory in the UK, why isn’t it?
Not one person in this thread has said that it should be, or needs to be. Have they?
If uptake is too low for a vaccine, then the only way to get some to change their mind is for their families, local community, employers, or maybe even the government, to give them obvious personal gains for getting the vaccine. Explaining the need to act in the interest of others isn’t enough for some people.
The speeding analogy isn’t the same, you may as well just drag up any law you can think of.
But you said
Are you advocating removing existing social benefits and liberties for people who don’t do what they are told. Subject matter irrelevant
Isn't speeding a good example then?
So if vaccination should be compulsory in the UK, why isn’t it?
Please quote your reference?
So if vaccination should be compulsory in the UK, why isn’t it?
Not one person in this thread has said that it should be, or needs to be. Have they?
Really?! That's certainly the message I got from it all...
Why don't you want compulsory vaccination then?
If you don't want everyone vaccinated, and you don't think it necessary for everyone to be vaccinated, why are you so upset that some people don't get vaccinated?
^ chrispo, again, maybe it would help if you quoted directly the portion of a post which gave you this ‘message’, and then the respondent may clarify?
I think you might be painting yourself into a corner none of us can help you out of chrispo. What do you want to know that hasn’t already been said?
Do I think people should be forced to be vaccinated - no.
Do I think people should feel morally obliged to have the vaccine - yes, I do.
Why do I think this - because as a scientist I trust my fellow scientists, I don't subscribe to the theories that they are bad for us, and I believe that any risks created by the vaccine are far outweighed by the benefits.
Do I understand why some don't want it. In a sense, yes. Because they don't feel the same obligation, or they don't trust the science/scientists. Do I think they're right - absolutely not. I've given reasons before why they may believe this, or may choose to act in this way, but ultimately I strongly believe they are wrong / have been misled. Whether by accident or design is moot, they're still wrong and if they refuse to countenance being convinced otherwise I can't spend the time trying.
Do I think people should be penalised for not having the vaccine - in a way yes. Because I believe that the benefits are multiplied by the more people having it, and on a selfish level I don't want to share my space with people who may be putting me and others at risk by not having the vaccine. Even if I have it it's not 100% effective and so the less people carrying the lower the chance of getting it. So if they cannot travel on public transport, use cinemas, etc. then I don't have a major problem with that. Would I deny healthcare to them - no I wouldn't, that's too far.
again, maybe it would help if you quoted directly the portion of a post which gave you this ‘message’
No specific post; the consensus. So it's been dressed up as "making social benefits dependent on vaccination", but when those benefits include entering shops and using public transport, you are effectively making it compulsory, unless you plan to put these people on reservations.
What do you want to know that hasn’t already been said?
Not sure if any of my questions have been answered directly. But now you're asking:
Why don’t you want compulsory vaccination?
If you don’t want compulsory vaccination, or think it is necessary, why the outrage when a few people don’t get vaccinated?
How many people do the unvaccinated actually kill?
How is not getting vaccinated a worse crime than spending money on our bikes rather than saving lives in the developing world?
The anti-vaxxers are a different breed, they’re basically a cult, hitting the streets trying to kill as many people as they can.
The pubic hare joke was very funny to be fair, but this isn’t. There are plenty of people who quietly choose not to vaccinate and do not try to influence others.
We're at angry dolphins. Those people you describe aren't what I'd call anti-vaxxers. I'm specifically talking about people who don't do what you describe. I literally said as much in the post you quoted, highlighted here now.
I mean, those people are usually still morons, but they're nowhere near as insidious or dangerous as the ones who are having pox parties.
How many people do the unvaccinated actually kill?
Just unvaccinated outcasts who have it coming anyway?
Wait. What?
Are you advocating removing existing social benefits and liberties for people who don’t do what they are told.
Let's consider wearing a mask, as it's more obvious.
We all have a responsibility for our own safety. Me wearing a mask protects your safety. You wearing a mask protects my safety. It is, if you like, a Nice Thing To Do.
Say I own a shop. If you wear a mask, you are welcome to enter my shop. My safety and that of other customers is protected.
You are of course perfectly at liberty to not wear a mask. Free country something something blue passports something. However, if you choose to reject taking any responsibility for society's safety then you force me into having to protect myself. Ergo I have no choice but to either put myself at avoidable risk or bar you from my shop. So, no masky, no shoppy.
Now cross out masks and replace it with vaccinations.
Does this genuinely sound unjust to anyone? Would you genuinely walk into a shop with weeping Ebola sores whilst screaming about personal freedoms or communism?
Just cos it's invisible doesn't make it less dangerous; quite the opposite in fact.
Subject matter irrelevant, are you wanting to go down that road, because you are setting a precedent if you do?
And in case you missed it, this is where your logical fallacy lies. Because no, it does not set any such thing.
We have many many laws and restrictions both nationally and internationally. The driving analogy is a good one but it's even simpler than that; if you want to drive, you must have a licence. No licency, no drivey. Are we infringing the rights of non-licence holders by not allowing them you use the roads?
Just unvaccinated outcasts who have it coming anyway?
Wait. What?
They are many people who can’t have the existing vaccines (I know little about the Covid19 ones)… should we let well understood easily avoided viruses harm them, if the anti-vax movement grows?
Just unvaccinated outcasts who have it coming anyway?
Wait. What?
Not everyone is able to have vaccinations. Suppose immunocompromised people are just collateral damage though, hey.
Not everyone is able to have vaccinations. Suppose immunocompromised people are just collateral damage though, hey.
Vaccinations need a % uptake to 'starve out infections'. People who genuinely can't have the vaccinations effectively increase the onus on those who 'can take it' to do their bit for the whole population.
But this is the problem with a 'society' where massive numbers of people actually think they are something special, a society that has 'had enough of experts' and where government advisors can treat the rest of us with contempt by telling ludicrous lies about a family jolly to Barnard Castle.
I suggested:
again, maybe it would help if you quoted directly the portion of a post which gave you this ‘message’
You responded:
No specific post;
😎
No? Must admit, I anticipated such an answer was distinctly likely
the consensus.
A strawman. There has been no ‘consensus’, less still a consensus saying that which you say that posters are saying.
So it’s
It? It? What’s ‘it’? Your mysterious ‘consensus’? Is that ‘it’?
been dressed up as “making social benefits dependent on vaccination”
You appear to working backwards from a ‘solution’. And that ‘solution’ seems to be your strawman of a ‘consensus’ which just somehow resembles a cartoon of a communistic conspiracy against antivaxxers
but when those benefits include entering shops and using public transport, you are effectively making it compulsory, unless you plan to put these people on reservations.
‘Unless you plan’?
Who plans? Me? The royal ‘you’ as in, well, who? Mr Sensus of the Consensus conspiracy? Who plans?
What do you want to know that hasn’t already been said?
Not sure if any of my questions have been answered directly.
Because you don’t seem to ask direct questions of a direct comment/commenter. Nor do you providing a direct quote for clarification. You seem only to attack strawmen and then ask questions (which incidentally read like rhetorical ‘questions’) of the same strawmen. That group of strawmen that you and Mr Sensus propped up?
But at least you seem to be addressing a certain commenter when you respond here:
‘But now you’re asking:’
So you answer:
‘Why don’t you want compulsory vaccination?’
Wait, I thought you were just saying that the (sic) ‘consensus’ was, quote: ‘that vaccination should be compulsory in the UK’
??????
If you don’t want compulsory vaccination, or think it is necessary, why the outrage when a few people don’t get vaccinated?
This has to be you trolling? Seriously?
Thank you p7eaven for dissecting my post in such detail. It’s really helped me see where I’m going wrong. I fully understand now that you can’t bring yourself to answer any of those hazy indirect rhetorical questions in my last post. What was I thinking?
I fully understand now thatmay I ask, would you answer any of those hazy indirect rhetorical questions in my last post.
FTFY.
And yes, fire away. I’ll do my best to answer but if the rhetoric keeps being propped up - then I may just as well answer the following hazy rhetorical ‘question’
‘Why don’t you like standing in an aircraft carrier full of penguins? Isn’t that penguinist? Doesn’t that mean that your type are back-door cormorantists?
well, you know what chrispo? i thought quite a few of these questions about the vaccine got answered for you but i guess not. so this person who's vaccine hesitant - how about you list their concerns and we'll see if they can be addressed? if not - TBH you're probably wasting your time, as it's going to be an emotional thing rather than a logic thing, and in this day and age frankly i'm not sure have the energy for it.
let's put the question of compulsion to one side. certainly this government will never do that. they can barely get their shit together to tell people to stay at home. this is an unproductive dead-end.
BTW. someone who is 'vaccine hesitant' is an average jo(e) who has legitimate concerns, founded or unfounded they're still concerns that need to be addressed. someone who is an 'anti-vaxxer' is one spreading/disseminating factually incorrect 'information' with a view to spreading concern about vaccines. the former are probably a reasonable number of the general population (in the region of 20-30% was the number i heard quoted, IIRC). the latter a small minority of the population (<5% again IIRC). listen to 'how to vaccinate the world' for more information.
P7eaven for president!
It’s a common trait with many ‘left leaning’ folk, I’ve found – and I’m far from alone in my thoughts. They hammer kindness and compassion down your throats and then viciously attack anyone that doesn’t toe their virtue signalling line
You automatically assume I’m ‘left-leaning’, but that’s by-the-by, from those very words, it’s implying that ‘right-leaning’ lack empathy, are very much ‘let the devil take the hindmost, every man for himself’, and that’s not too far off the mark, ‘virtue-signaling’ is a very right-wing insult to throw at people who give a shit about the welfare of others. Isn’t it?
For the benefit of new readers: you would do well to listen to dannyh (generally, not just here) for he is wise.
Chris, you've had an account for a good while now but you don't really seem to understand how this forum works. If you ask a direct question, I promise you absolutely that you will get a direct answer. If you don't then you need to ask better questions. If you start making handwavy generalisations of no substance then you will get mauled.
Thank you p7eaven for dissecting my post in such detail. It’s really helped me see where I’m going wrong. I fully understand now that you can’t bring yourself to answer any of those hazy indirect rhetorical questions in my last post. What was I thinking?
This sort of circular ‘ask hazy rhetorical question’ gets snarky because nobody answers said ‘ hazy rhetorical question’, rinse and repeat reminds me so much of a former regular visitor to this parish...
You automatically assume I’m ‘left-leaning’, but that’s by-the-by, from those very words, it’s implying that ‘right-leaning’ lack empathy, are very much ‘let the devil take the hindmost, every man for himself’, and that’s not too far off the mark, ‘virtue-signaling’ is a very right-wing insult to throw at people who give a shit about the welfare of others. Isn’t it?
It was a general response to chrispo's comment. However, by it's own admission, this forum is very much leftytrackworld.
I've no issue with people caring for others. I do have issues with people who hold a moral high ground and then viciously attack people that don't pander to their demands. You can skirt around it as much as you wan't, but it's quite prevalent on social media. I'm not 'every man for themselves' per se, but don't suffer nonsense gladly and have little time for people that don't help themselves.
As for virtue signalling, genuinely caring for the welfare of others is not virtue signalling. Taking the absolute moral high ground to give yourself a perceived image of caring, without actually backing it up with actions however, is. Accept it or not, there is a hell of a lot of virtue signalling goes off these days - and that's not necessarily true of anyone on here, just a broader observation.
I actually started a thread on here a while back asking for examples of how people played out their wonderfully caring for others personas in the real world (just voting labour doesn't count, I'm afraid). It was shut down within minutes.
All countries will hopefully mandate vaccination as a condition of entry. As soon as that happens the anti vaxxers will be queuing down round block to get jabbed so they can get over to Benidorm in August.
the anti vaxxers will be queuing down round block to get jabbed so they can get over to Benidorm in August.
^ Lazy stereotyping doesn’t help, honestly.
*Polling was conducted by Yonder between 4th and 6th December 2020, on a representative online sample of 2,076 UK adults.
Edit: I’m no statistician but that seems like a really small sample of ‘UK adults’?
In the political/social media/talkbolx arena, OTOH, it’s fairly easy to see where the preponderance of more rabid ‘antivaccine/anti-BBC/anti-‘globalist/‘plandemic’ etc etc rhetoric and conspiracy is fomented/encouraged. Tabloidism didn’t die with the growth of internet, it is still a fast growing business in the digital age and is adapting to take advantage of social media
Plus if people are mandated to get a vaccine for travel then the rest of the world outside the developed nations are screwed as every bugger will want the vaccine now.
None of us are protected until we all are.
I actually started a thread on here a while back asking for examples of how people played out their wonderfully caring for others personas in the real world (just voting labour doesn’t count, I’m afraid). It was shut down within minutes.
I’d wager that you were Cancelled By Commulists™
Wear it as a badge of honour. They’re just mad with you because you’re right*, and so they delete you. Go give yourself a pat on the back.
You stumbled (?) upon a little known fact, and that is that the best way to call out lefties/commies is of course on a chat forum for cyclists. Bicycles being The Known Commulist Transport Method
Simply fire off a specific question (disguised as a hazy, rhetorical passive-aggressive, trollish pseudo-request) asking ‘them’ (unnamed champagne-socialist individuals/mass-mind of lockstep Commulists) to step out of their champagne bubbles/Audi Sportswagens and to publicly list all of their real-life Good Works™ for you to then either accuse them of virtue-signalling or of boasting about their being ‘caring’. Genius. Not least because (as we all know) Commulists only pretend to care about stuff like vaccinating themselves For The Greater Good™, or Disseminating Disinformation For The People™, so you done right by calling them out on their personal lives. Again, genius. You done smoked ‘em like a ‘kipper! Guaranteed they won't be happy until the lumpen proletariat have all been forcibly inoculated, while the Commulists themselves quietly refuse vaccinations for themselves. They don’t require them anyway as they ‘work’ alone in super-sekrit rural locations, from hot-tubs, outdoor offices, from behind The People’s Proper Pizza Oven, drinking the State-Approved Single Malt in much the same fashion as normal folk drink water. It should be called CONulism, because it’s a con from the first to the last.
*Source: the internets
P7, have you considered putting your wit to constructive use?
P7, have you considered putting your wit to constructive use?
^ It helps me personally in skirting The Beckoning Void. And also with this cheapcold tea that I have now to buy from Amazin Tax Dodgers Online, because us (near-permanently) indoors share a co-morbidity, as do both sets of parents. I sent for Commulist Tea but the bastards were too busy partying so they sent me a bag of limp rocket from the food bank.
Have you considered putting your constructs to witty use? 😉
Have you considered putting your constructs to witty use?
Sadly it is my civic duty not to undermine the stereotype to which I have been assigned.
P7, have you considered putting your wit to constructive use?
Dont encourage him(?), he's not even a fraction of the funny he thinks he is
Dont encourage him*(?)
^ Comment reported (for pre-emptive misgendering). Mods, please remove Citizen FormerlyKnownAsSTR’s posting privileges until he completes 500 hours of Communisty Service.
^ Satire. It’s satire.
*OKaaaaay, I‘ll behave myself. See you (here) next Wednesday? As you were.
Sadly it is my civic duty not to undermine the stereotype to which I have been assigned
he’s not even a fraction of the funny he thinks he is
I don’t know, it made me laugh.
I suspect you found it a little too close to the bone...
he’s not even a fraction of the funny he thinks he is
too close to the truth for comfort? Let’s be honest, funnier than you at least.
I do have issues with people who hold a moral high ground and then viciously attack people that don’t pander to their demands.
You can use all the emotive language you like, but this isn't "pandering to demands," it's doing the right thing. Now, you can if you like choose not to, such is the land of hope and glory in which reside, but I'll tell you right now that every time I see someone shouting across the aisles whilst wearing a surgical mask, I quietly think to myself "oh look, yet another selfish ****."
Because this is where your logic falls down. You're treating the "virtues" of wearing / not wearing of masks to be equivalent to something like donating / not donating to charity. But they are not. Donating to charity is going above and beyond the default; not wearing a mask is going beneath it. Donating to charity is something you could be proud of; not wearing a mask is something you should be ashamed of.
It's this sort of bullshit "me me me" attitude that's got us to where we are today. Tier 3 lockdown at Christmas and a newly created Tier 4 in places, rumblings of "Tier 5" whatever form that might take, at the rate we're going we're all going to be under house arrest with the army patrolling the streets. Whereas if we'd taken it seriously when all this kicked off and acted responsibly it might all have been over by now or at least not shuffling ever closer to DEFCON 1. Because I don't know about you but I really want to do an escape room and then go for a pint. Hell, at this juncture I'd go to a Wetherspoons.
So to all the chin-warmers out there: grow the **** up and wear your goddamn masks.
Whereas if we’d taken it seriously when all this kicked off and acted responsibly it might all have been over by now or at least not shuffling ever closer to DEFCON 1
There does seem to be a link on social media between people who complain about the restrictions - and there's lots to complain about, tbf - and those who haven't been following the basic advice.
The need for one follows on from the failure to do the other.
too close to the truth for comfort? Let’s be honest, funnier than you at least.
Where have I tried to be funny?
Poor attempt at kicking the bloke that might disagree with some of you
So, now I’ve had the virus, any need for me to have the vaccine?
Apart from big brother telling me I can’t do shit unless I have it?
previously having had the virus does not (AFAIK) confer immunity.
big brother is not telling you to have [the vaccine] it.
Just a little PSA, for certain people on here. Please read it carefully, from top to bottom, then, if you have any concerns about the information provided, I’m sure the grownups on here, like TiRed, will happily help you with your homework.
I'm a bit concerned that there is nothing left.
What is there to say that has not already been said?
Over on the 'Rona thread i thought the post by @batfink - laying out point by point the reason why 'normal' timeframes for vaccine development had been shrunk - was hugely informative. So much so that it was pretty much the end word for me. As soon as they ask me to roll up my sleeve, i'm on it.
It all comes down to trust in the end.
We have been remarkably fortunate, given that we only come here firstly because we ride bicycles, to find voices that we feel we can trust.
If i held a gun to your head right now, and insisted you make a binary choice on the advice of TiRed or Matt Hancock - that would not lead to the kind of outcome that Matt Hancock would like to read.
I don't argue with anyone on facebook, but i did have an interesting contretemps with my Sister-in-Law - three kids (11-15-18), none of them vaccinated - on Xmas day. I think she's starting to doubt, and i think i might have nudged her along the way. Props again to people like TiRed and thecaptain and batfink for giving me the strength - i think we have made real progress.
Ultimately we have to recommission an older idea - if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.
Just a little PSA, for certain people on here. Please read it carefully, from top to bottom, then, if you have any concerns about the information provided, I’m sure the grownups on here, like TiRed, will happily help you with your homework.
You should probably name names to be fair.
The thread’s been running for a while, but I can’t remember any anti-vaxxers having contributed?
The argument that the vaccine has been properly tested, yes it has, no doubt about it, trust me I’m a scientist, no corners have been cut, it’s gone through everything every other drug goes through, you’re an idiot if you don’t believe it, etc, is a bit weak though and doesn’t really do anyone any favours. They’d do better to say “needs must”. The caveat that long-term side-effects are highly unlikely isn’t very scientific. The vaccines haven’t been tested for as long as other drugs, fact. So there is a lie or at least a twisting here, and it will only feed the fire.
trust me I’m a scientist, no corners have been cut, it’s gone through everything every other drug goes through, you’re an idiot if you don’t believe it, etc, is a bit weak though and doesn’t really do anyone any favours.
If you trust and have faith in scientists, then this is the evidence you need - which you can take at face value or review for yourself if you have the ability to interpret. If you don't (and the gov has a huge share of the blame if 'we' don't any more, with statement's like Gove's in the past) then I'm sorry but what do you want to see?
there is a lie or at least a twisting here
On behalf of scientists who have been working on this tirelessly all year, and indeed on vaccines and medicine safety for many years, bollocks.
As for 'needs must' - if someone's against vaccines this is the sort of evidence that is seized on with glee - if they think they're being lied to over the safety then surely they'd also think they're being lied to with this?
The vaccines haven’t been tested for as long as other drugs, fact.
not a fact. In order to be passed this vaccine had to have the same patient exposure as every other vaccine has.
TBH I don’t think you’re really interested. Take it or don’t take it, I don’t care, just try not to convince anyone else not too, as Mr Thatcher once said. “Better to remain silent and let them think you’re an idiot, then open your mouth and remove all doubt” and right now I think you’re as dumb as ****.
not a fact. In order to be passed this vaccine had to have the same patient exposure as every other vaccine has.
No. Most drugs have ten or more years of data behind them.
TBH I don’t think you’re really interested. Take it or don’t take it, I don’t care, just try not to convince anyone else not too, as Mr Thatcher once said. “Better to remain silent and let them think you’re an idiot, then open your mouth and remove all doubt” and right now I think you’re as dumb as ****.
You’re now taking the anti-vaxxer approach to debate. Come in with a fixed idea and ignore and ridicule everything that is said, even when it hasn’t been said. And get downright unpleasant.
If you want to call me names, please first go back and read everything I have written and fact-check whether I have said what you currently think I have said.
if you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.
I find this approach works in a lot of arguments - establish the desired end result, and then make them think if they are helping move towards this or not.
and right now I think you’re as dumb as ****.
Or just has an opinion that differs to yours?
The drug has years of data behind you dumb ****. What do you think SARS or MERS has been treated with?
TBH Chrispo not taking vaccines causes death, me calling you a rude name is just a bit unpleasant. I’m done trying to convince you, there plenty of evidence, if you don’t understand any of it, that’s not anything I can help with, you’re a walking talking example of Dunning-Kruger
Or just has an opinion that differs to yours?
and the entirety of modern international medical research. That’s a level of dumb ****ery that a bike forum can help with I’m afraid
Last word from me. As an anti vaxxer, you’re either complicit in causing unnecessary death, or you’re too stupid to realise you’re complicit in causing unnecessary death, chose which one of those applies to you.