Coronavirus

[SydneyRover]

''Who cares what you think Wheatley, you're not making any sense, you either follow the available science or not, you can apply your illogical reasoning to any amount of things but scientists have long understood how to present fact and risk and have subjected their finding to peer review, you have CDH in support is all''

400% increased chance of death without a vaccine trumps everything you have said.

[normal rules]

Ah yes the Michael Yeadon Who falsely claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom was "effectively over" in October 2020, that there would be no "second wave" of infections, and that healthy people could not spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus. He has claimed without evidence that COVID-19 vaccines were unnecessary, unsafe,  and could cause infertility in women.
The bloke is an utter crackpot.

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

''Who cares what you think Wheatley, you're not making any sense, you either follow the available science or not, you can apply your illogical reasoning to any amount of things but scientists have long understood how to present fact and risk and have subjected their finding to peer review, you have CDH in support is all''

400% increased chance of death without a vaccine trumps everything you have said.

There isn't a 400% chance of death without a vaccine in MOST people. You can't just trot out a line like that and apply it to the whole population, because it isn't accurate.

As i've said before, a 25 year old does not have a 400% chance of death if they don't have a vaccine. The chances of death are actually next to zero. Now an 80 year old with many co-morbidities and i'd accept that figure but get some bloody context please.

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

There a plenty of scientists out there warning against this vaccine that aren't funded by financially interested parties, but you have to look outside of Google, YouTube and Facebook, as they're are censoring this information.

If you're only going to take, and I will use your guys favourite buzz word "The Science" from one side, then that is not science is it.
And it's not hard to find! all it takes is a search on freedom platforms and you can find it.

No there aren't. The are very, very few scientists speaking out against the vaccine. The overwhelming majority of scientists and science based publications are promoting the vaccines and vaccination.

There is a fascinaing podcast currently running on Radio 4 - The Coming Storm - which looks at the origin of these 'dark web; chatboards, 4Chan, QAnon and the like, and how they create and spread mis-information - for the sake of creating and spreading mis-information.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001324r

He quotes the BBC and wonders why he thinks the way he does. lol

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Looks like no jabs for NHS! Hallelujah.

Looks like all you lot fearful of uncertainty will have to have your hospital appointments not knowing which docs and nurses are unjabbed, even though it barely makes any difference. How will you handle it? 

Suck it up. Nazis.

[WheatleyRover]

Ah yes the Michael Yeadon Who falsely claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom was "effectively over" in October 2020, that there would be no "second wave" of infections, and that healthy people could not spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus. He has claimed without evidence that COVID-19 vaccines were unnecessary, unsafe,  and could cause infertility in women.
The bloke is an utter crackpot.

How do you know what the side effects could be, when there isn't any long term data?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

I can see people's points on vaccines a little though, even triple jabbed people who've had covid before picking it up with symptoms too.  I know quite a lot in that bracket now.

[Filo]

Looks like no jabs for NHS! Hallelujah.

Looks like all you lot fearful of uncertainty will have to have your hospital appointments not knowing which docs and nurses are unjabbed, even though it barely makes any difference. How will you handle it? 

Suck it up. Nazis.

Grow up

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Looks like no jabs for NHS! Hallelujah.

Looks like all you lot fearful of uncertainty will have to have your hospital appointments not knowing which docs and nurses are unjabbed, even though it barely makes any difference. How will you handle it? 

Suck it up. Nazis.

 

I wonder what would have happened if the NHS staff working on Covid wards before vaccines were available refused to treat the patients just because the patients had Covid and hadn't been vaccinated?

One rule again.

Also. These idiots moaning about being treated in hospital by an unjabbed NHS worker and worried about getting Covid. Then these very same people go to a show or a football match or a pub which are frequented potentially by unvaccinated people.

Stupid idiots. Just face it. Everyone is going to get Covid. Like they did flu. Just get on with it.

Grow up

[BillyStubbsTears]

Dr Ryan Cole?

Dr Ryan Cole?

Oh yes! He's the one who had 5 mins fame on YouTube claiming that vaccines give you cancer and appearing very authoritative because he quoted a research paper.

Except the authors of the paper said they had never said anything of the sort in the paper.

This is what I mean about folk not understanding science. Just because a "scientist" says something you want to hear, it doesn't make it right. There's a process whereby claims are rigourously checked and tested. And wrong claims are rejected by true scientists.

But wrong claims are regularly recycled on social media by people claiming to be "scientists". They aren't scientists. They are f**king with the truth for their own reasons.

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

In addition. They say that the first 2 vaccines don't work now against Omicron and future variants.

So what is the point in NHS having them? They would have the 1st jab this week, then the 2nd in about 3 months or so. Then the booster in about 6 months. So they will still be allowed to work technically not fully vaccinated for over a year anyway!

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Dr Ryan Cole?

Dr Ryan Cole?

Oh yes! He's the one who had 5 mins fame on YouTube claiming that vaccines give you cancer and appearing very authoritative because he quoted a research paper.

Except the authors of the paper said they had never said anything of the sort in the paper.

This is what I mean about folk not understanding science. Just because a "scientist" says something you want to hear, it doesn't make it right. There's a process whereby claims are rigourously checked and tested. And wrong claims are rejected by true scientists.

But wrong claims are regularly recycled on social media by people claiming to be "scientists". They aren't scientists. They are f**king with the truth for their own reasons.

You mean like SAGE, MSM and Big Pharma?

Everyone has their own agenda. Which is why misinformation is rife. The BBC and SKY are the biggest perpetrators of misinformation and bias.

If the MSM told the truth and were impartial and didn't censor anyone with an alternative view, then people wouldn't maybe feel the need to source other views or information from elsewhere and thus go to the other extreme of buying into wacky theories. 

The MSM are criminals.

There is a balance to be had and it doesn't come from loons on facebook nor does it come from the MSM either.

[WheatleyRover]

Project Veritas - Pfizer Whistleblower
https://youtu.be/FUXGB5FzhPc

Dr. Fauci - Gain of function
https://youtu.be/_zgoENmeddA

Pfizer Scientist - Antibodies Are Better than Vaccination
https://youtu.be/On5RYFbcxWY

[BillyStubbsTears]

In addition. They say that the first 2 vaccines don't work now against Omicron and future variants.

So what is the point in NHS having them? They would have the 1st jab this week, then the 2nd in about 3 months or so. Then the booster in about 6 months. So they will still be allowed to work technically not fully vaccinated for over a year anyway!

Who says that?

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

In addition. They say that the first 2 vaccines don't work now against Omicron and future variants.

So what is the point in NHS having them? They would have the 1st jab this week, then the 2nd in about 3 months or so. Then the booster in about 6 months. So they will still be allowed to work technically not fully vaccinated for over a year anyway!

Who says that?

You seriously have not heard anywhere, including on the MSM and radio adverts by the actual NHS that the first two vaccines don't work?

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Looks like the Government will say that the Omicron variant is milder and so that's the reason why they will row back on the NHS jab mandate. Instead of being honest and saying that they don't want to lose 80 thousand workers and they made a mistake.

[SydneyRover]

''Who cares what you think Wheatley, you're not making any sense, you either follow the available science or not, you can apply your illogical reasoning to any amount of things but scientists have long understood how to present fact and risk and have subjected their finding to peer review, you have CDH in support is all''

400% increased chance of death without a vaccine trumps everything you have said.

There isn't a 400% chance of death without a vaccine in MOST people. You can't just trot out a line like that and apply it to the whole population, because it isn't accurate.

As i've said before, a 25 year old does not have a 400% chance of death if they don't have a vaccine. The chances of death are actually next to zero. Now an 80 year old with many co-morbidities and i'd accept that figure but get some bloody context please.

You also told us you were a scientist

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Ah yes the Michael Yeadon Who falsely claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom was "effectively over" in October 2020, that there would be no "second wave" of infections, and that healthy people could not spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus. He has claimed without evidence that COVID-19 vaccines were unnecessary, unsafe,  and could cause infertility in women.
The bloke is an utter crackpot.

How do you know what the side effects could be, when there isn't any long term data?

One of the side effects of the vaccine is death. I think people should have the choice of taking a vaccine where a rare but not uncommon side effect is death. Then there is the subject of long term health issues caused by the vaccine, as you say there is no data yet.

Anyone mandated to take the jab by the Government who dies of the vaccine, their family should be able to see the Prime Minister locked away for manslaughter IMO.

[WheatleyRover]

Ah yes the Michael Yeadon Who falsely claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom was "effectively over" in October 2020, that there would be no "second wave" of infections, and that healthy people could not spread the SARS-CoV-2 virus. He has claimed without evidence that COVID-19 vaccines were unnecessary, unsafe,  and could cause infertility in women.
The bloke is an utter crackpot.

How do you know what the side effects could be, when there isn't any long term data?

One of the side effects of the vaccine is death. I think people should have the choice of taking a vaccine where a rare but not uncommon side effect is death. Then there is the subject of long term health issues caused by the vaccine, as you say there is no data yet.

Anyone mandated to take the jab by the Government who dies of the vaccine, their family should be able to see the Prime Minister locked away for manslaughter IMO.

The problem also, if the vaccines do cause things such as autism, autoimmune diseases, blood clotting, cancers etc. in the future, It will never be linked to the vaccine, it's a slippery slope to ever make vaccinations mandatory, it should always be upto the patient what treatment they receive. And definitely shouldn't stop them from ever participating in society, as you know that is called coercion.

Also it should send alarm bells ringing that you can't sue any of these companies if you're caused harm by vaccination, and the fact the FDA filed to have vaccine research data to be kept hidden for review for the next 55 years until release, luckily, I believe it was overturned by a judge.

[Ldr]

Where there is risk, there MUST be choice

[SydneyRover]

It's funny you know the scientists I've occasionally had to deal with and still do sometimes build structured arguments and if asked they can support what they say, they don't jump around all over the place and avoid answering questions, just sayin' like.

[WheatleyRover]

So you just ignored anything I posted then, that includes scientists, DOD data, whistleblowers from within these companies, the fact long term data doesn't exist, that Fauci is a lying untrustworthy criminal that funded studies in Wuhan!

[Bentley Bullet]

Where there is risk, there MUST be choice

There is a choice. People have chosen not to have the vaccine. If that choice is deemed to be of risk to others, they also should have the choice to not be put at risk by them.

[WheatleyRover]

Where there is risk, there MUST be choice

There is a choice. People have chosen not to have the vaccine. If that choice is deemed to be of risk to others, they also should have the choice to not be put at risk by them.

So you support a vaccine that doesn't stop a virus or spreading a virus, and you also support coercion and discrimination?

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Where there is risk, there MUST be choice

There is a choice. People have chosen not to have the vaccine. If that choice is deemed to be of risk to others, they also should have the choice to not be put at risk by them.

The NHS staff who treated Covid patients when the pandemic hit had a choice to treat people who were a risk to them or not. They decided to stick it out and treat those with rampant Covid and saved many lives. Those people who ended up in ITU could have been anyone. You, me, our family members, yet we wanted those NHS staff to be there for us if we did get ill with Covid when they could have quite easily jacked it all in if they deemed it too much of a risk to them.

Maybe we all should afford them the same courtesy and treat them as equals and respect their choices regardless?

You are all selfish hypocrites.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

The vaccines don't seem to be preventing much if any infection from my experience now.  I guess it's still positive that they're preventing serious infection.

[Bentley Bullet]

Where there is risk, there MUST be choice

There is a choice. People have chosen not to have the vaccine. If that choice is deemed to be of risk to others, they also should have the choice to not be put at risk by them.

So you support a vaccine that doesn't stop a virus or spreading a virus, and you also support coercion and discrimination?

No. I support a vaccine that has saved thousands of lives by reducing the chances of getting and spreading Covid.

[ColinDouglasHandshake]

Where there is risk, there MUST be choice

There is a choice. People have chosen not to have the vaccine. If that choice is deemed to be of risk to others, they also should have the choice to not be put at risk by them.

So you support a vaccine that doesn't stop a virus or spreading a virus, and you also support coercion and discrimination?

No. I support a virus that has saved thousands of lives by reducing the chances of getting and spreading Covid.

So what would your reasoning be if we all got jabbed and yet people still got Covid and spread it? Which factually will still happen. Who will you be castigating then?

[BillyStubbsTears]

In addition. They say that the first 2 vaccines don't work now against Omicron and future variants.

So what is the point in NHS having them? They would have the 1st jab this week, then the 2nd in about 3 months or so. Then the booster in about 6 months. So they will still be allowed to work technically not fully vaccinated for over a year anyway!

Who says that?

You seriously have not heard anywhere, including on the MSM and radio adverts by the actual NHS that the first two vaccines don't work?

No, I haven't.

I've heard plenty about how the effectiveness of vaccines drops off with time and needs boosting. I've seen plenty on how having three doses gives you more protection than having two, having two gives you more protection than having one and having one gives you more protection than having none.

I suspect you've been interpreting that in a way that supports your preexisting prejudices.

[Bentley Bullet]

Where there is risk, there MUST be choice

There is a choice. People have chosen not to have the vaccine. If that choice is deemed to be of risk to others, they also should have the choice to not be put at risk by them.

So you support a vaccine that doesn't stop a virus or spreading a virus, and you also support coercion and discrimination?

No. I support a virus that has saved thousands of lives by reducing the chances of getting and spreading Covid.

So what would your reasoning be if we all got jabbed and yet people still got Covid and spread it? Which factually will still happen. Who will you be castigating then?

People might still get Covid after being jabbed, just like they might get Flu despite being jabbed every year. Vaccines work for the vast majority. Sometimes new variations require new vaccines, but that doesn't mean that the old vaccines didn't work. It was never claimed that the vaccines worked 100%.