BristolUK

It's not the belief impacting on someone else, it's the consequence of the belief impacting on someone else.

Almost Canadian

Maybe. But there is lots of evidence now that having the virus protects one as well as the vaccine does, and for a longer period so, once one can show that they have had it, why should they not be treated in a similar way those that have been vaccinated?

I accept that one has to survive having the virus, but for most of the population, that is not an issue.

I accept that, from a moral perspective, you believe that they should be burnt at the stake but, from a from a, "What current risk do they pose to society from a C-19 perspective?" they are no greater risk than someone that is double vaccinated.

BristolUK

Again, you should be providing sources for that just as I previously supplied the source for a study that was interpreted by some exactly as you state but which actually said no such thing.

The source I posted was a study from California only that showed that those infected and recovered had less waning of protection than those vaccinated but as was pointed out by the researchers the recoveries from covid were more recent than the vaccinations so the latter protection had more time to wane.

Almost Canadian

Insofar as what I was saying above is concerned, the point is moot unless, of course, you are able to produce data that shows that those whose immunity was acquired through infection, lose that protection faster than those whose immunity was acquired through vaccination.

BristolUK

I haven't made such a claim. You made the claim that immunity through infection lasted longer than that provided by vaccination. You did this here, just now and also in the other thread. Just because I dispute your claim does not mean I claim the opposite.

I posted the CDC research previously that showed your claim to be inaccurate.

dbd33

Yes, fair enough. I'd be open to a mechanism granting covid survivors the same exemptions as the fully vaccinated. At a slight tangent I'm currently working with someone called Jeanne D'Arc. I dare not ask.

Almost Canadian

This is a link to the CDC's research, not a journalist's interpretation of that research: COVID-19 Cases and Hospitalizations by COVID-19 Vaccination Status and Previous COVID-19 Diagnosis — California and New York, May–November 2021 | MMWR (cdc.gov)

I suggest that it does not invalidate its findings for the reason you wish to put forward but, in any event, it is completely irrelevant to the main point I was making above.

It is relatively simple to find opinions and comments that support a whole range of views on what the actual data actually means. That is not data, it is an opinion.

There is also lots of research (mentioned in that piece) that deals with the waning effect of the vaccine and how it compares with immunity acquired through infection. That is the reason why boosters are being recommended but, as I have said, that is not particularly relevant to the main point I was making.

BristolUK

The quotes were direct from the research and not a journalist's interpretation.

Even your link says
It also specifically mentions the part I have referred to.
It's a total waste of time discussing anything with you. You either fail to provide sources or you provide sources and make claims that the researchers don't, presumably trusting that people won't check them

dbd33

Try ArthurBrit, mate.

Pollyana

I suffered heart failure as the result of vaccine injection, aged 18 months. Was revived by an ambulance crew. Are you seriously suggesting that I should have been left to die? I did not inject it into myself, at 18 months I didn't even know what was happening. My parents had me vaccinated because they believed it was a good thing to do.

Almost Canadian

I feel the same way about debating with you too. You take pieces that were not part of the main point I was trying to make, move the goalposts and then accuse me of doing so.

The data supports what I said above. The fact that the benefit of boosters was not considered was not mentioned by me. If you care to re-read what I stated, I was comparing those with two vaccinations with those that had immunity acquired through infection.

BristolUK

That's the trouble though. You make invalid comparisons.

I'm also not sure whether you are deceitful or forgetful.
Two very recent posts of yours with absolutely no mention of the number of jabs involved.

I'm now putting you back on ignore because my willpower alone isn't enough to keep me from looking at your misleading statements.

bats

I had a seizure after the smallpox jab. No huge fuss was made, maybe my mum should have started a convoy to Westminster

ArthurBrit

I'm not seriously suggesting that you shouldn't have received care but it was in response to an idiotic discussion of someone wanting to take healthcare away from people because of a life choice. I always get a little irritated by people that want to use the healthcare system as a way of controlling people's decisions/lifestyles, it simply upsets me.

Some real world examples
We share the same healthcare system therefore you shouldn't receive care if you drink.
We share the same healthcare system therefore you shouldn't receive care if you smoke.
We share the same healthcare system therefore you shouldn't receive care if you don't get a vaccine.
We share the same healthcare system therefore you shouldn't receive care if you take drugs.
We share the same healthcare system therefore you shouldn't receive care if your fat.

It irritates me because there's no need for it, sure we can all live 'purer' lifestyles but at the end of the day a persons health is predominantly determined by luck odds do change with choices though. That's why I like to come up with a little more stupid arguments that are still logically valid.

We share the same healthcare system therefore you cannot receive care if you run marathons.
We share the same healthcare system therefore you cannot receive care if you injure yourself playing football.
We share the same healthcare system therefore you cannot receive care if you go on a trendy diet and it causes problems.
We share the same healthcare system therefore you cannot receive care if you have complications from a vaccines/medications.
We share the same healthcare system therefore you cannot receive care if you live longer than the average lifespan.

Just to be clear these are not my real views but said in jest and also to point out that for every 'bad habit' that produces a bill for the healthcare system there are also 'good habits' that also costs the system.

It's truly best to remove as many discriminations away as possible(which overall is where the world is headed). But the minute something new and scary comes along (COVID). The majority go back to the same response that has always come beforehand and failed. Such as discriminating against HIV/AIDS, gay people, drug users, any race, & trans people.

I really hope that one day our reaction to events like this, as a society doesn't always resort to dividing, discrimination, and name calling. I don't think this will happen in my lifetime however.

Please be aware in this pandemic I have personally witnessed the following people discriminated against:

Filipinos
Chinese (Asian/oriental people(do English people still use this term?))
Black people
Poor people
Mennonites
Catholics &
'anti vaxxers'

I get it, COVID is scary but again I repeat if you want to force your views on 100% of people because you want a 0% chance of exposure, don't take the chance, stay home, stop dictating, because believe me, I can't get 10 people around me to agree on anything, you want 7.6 billion people to agree, (or if you only care about the UK 68.5 million, or in Canada 38.3 million). Either way, you live an impossible dream.

dbd33

That's a long post of false equivalence. Still, you're vaxxed, right? That's all that matters.