Norm_uk

It's odd how your position is one of care for others but mine (which takes into account side effects, denial of human rights, enrichment of private multinationals with questionable track records in vaccinations, and the role of the State cherry picking experts and the media's divisive rhetoric) is has nothing to do with caring about others but is somehow just a veiled selfish, 'anti-vax' agenda. No matter how many times I say I have had the jabs this keeps being asserted - that's it's all about me. Ad Hominem's aren't good debate tactics.

As for burdening healthcare systems - this headline strikes me as rather interesting: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...tential-cases/

Cancer costs a LOT more to treat and manage than covid - if it's about saving healthcare systems my diet and exercise regime is already doing more to help than my covid shots. But I'm apparently a selfish, anti-vaxxer for suggesting people have the right to choose what they put in their bodies, right?

As I recall the many emergency facilities built in western nations were never used for the flood of covid patients and most have closed. Orders for ventilators were never needed either. I'm sure the massive profits big pharmaceuticals have made since March 2020 could see some extra taxation to cover any weak spots in healthcare systems should politicians wish to start using business to serve the people rather than themselves and their lobby groups.

weasel decentral

OK fair enough I made an assumption, so are you against it or not?

No idea what you are actually referring to here - where is this happening

I didn't actually say trust these organisations, you are making a straw man argument here. I said will it help me and help others YES or NO - that was my point. If we are adding debate items schoolboy style your wife's expertise is anecdotal

This seems like a general rant rather than anything specific, 500 people are hospitalised with COVID of that number 250 are vaccinated and 250 unvaccinated. The rest of the hospital population are there for unrelated medical reasons - I fail to see your point?

scrubbedexpat141

I think I agree with a lot of what you say, although I'm happy to judge or mock people for their choices, nobody is perfect.
My Mother hasn't had the jab. She's an armchair / facebook expert and is an utter moron for not doing it. I've had explosive arguments with her about it - because I think she's wrong at her age and with her health history to not have it.

I understand it makes no difference to anyone else if she is or isn't jabbed, a stadium full of jabbed people will still get ill if 1% spread throughout have the virus....but it should stop the vast majority from being hospitalised. That's the important bit to me - the hospitals being overrun and shutting off to normality brings the country to a lockdown.

I'm 'pro-vaccine' because it's clearly been identified as the route out of this pandemic. It's the way we can try and get back to some sort of normal; which in the UAE I think we've all been fortunate to enjoy for a lot longer than other places.

Austria(?) recently making vaccines mandatory by law and Greece fining people every month (if over 60 and not jabbed) both strike me differently. I think, like you, it's a step too far and dubious at best. Let people choose. As above, I understand that vaccines don't stop transmission but people will end up being marginalised if they don't have one. Most places seem to accept a negative test for entry (Expo, other attractions) in lieu of a vaccine certificate. So in fairness, the unjabbed are tested and checked more than me.

Ultimately, everyone has the choice, I think the choice is fairly simple. The early reading and information was obvious that a lot of the jabs come from decades of research around these sorts of viruses. They're adjusting long standing vaccines to suit a new strain, not making some new cocktail off the cuff.

Claims it's about feelings not reason.
Calls people closet Commies and Fascists and uses phrases like 'vaccine apartheid'.

I want to go to your debating school. We're a half-step away from Bill Gates microchips AND/OR Hitler being referenced.

Norm_uk

Communism and Fascism have in common a totalitarian state controlling many aspects of everyday life, often with the elites being exempt or getting much lighter punishments when they break the rules the masses have to follow (which already happens in most countries - 'us and them' is very much a thing) - how is it inaccurate to label nations with these terms, that currently allow low paid workers to go to their jobs in cafes, bars and restaurants all day but deny them access after work if they haven't had the jab? (I suppose I could just call them tyrannical and clearly not acting out of public health interests alone if that makes it clearer for you?)

Austria is currently doing this and has stated that from next year people who refuse the jab will be fined, and if they don't pay their fines they will go to jail (Imagine thinking it's about health when you can spend all day with the public while working but not go out at night like a free citizen).Macron suggested the same for France and no doubt we'll this roll out in other countries. People have already lost their jobs or face losing their jobs over this - New York said they would refuse unemployment benefits to people who were sacked for refusing a vaccine. The saying she sees vaccinated and unvaccinated people have different rights - which is a form of apartheid by definition just not based on race or ethnicity.

Hospitals in some places are stating they will refuse life-saving organ transplants to the unvaccinated - but we're told this is about health.

You're using the slippery slope logical fallacy now by citing microchips. The Hitler reference would be Godwin's Law.

Norm_uk

There are millions of people from all walks of life, including healthcare, doctors, scientists etc who have refused the vaccine for all sorts of reasons.

I certainly don't think calling them stupid helps people sitting on the fence to get vaccinated - how would you convince a doctor, nurse or scientist who doesn't want to take the jab (many have refused and some have already lost their jobs) - call them names while blaming them for government policies that directly affect your life?

Norm_uk

Given I am double jabbed what 'anti-vax' agenda do I have exactly? People who know me know I am a straight shooter and will tell things as they are - if I was against vaccines I would say so openly and state my reasons why. If I have serious doubts about a specific vaccine I would say so. If I have doubts about State or Corporate policies on vaccines I will also say so.

You'll need to be a lot more specific in your accusations than "anti covid vax agenda masked by smoke". Despite these exchanges do you even know where our disagreements actually lie yet or are more interested in who you're exchanging ideas with and what you think their motivations might be rather than the ideas themselves?

scrubbedexpat141

So we're moving away from vaccines being untested / unknown to 'new world order' concerns? Are we just in a matrix? Is there more to the fact DELTA OMICRON is 'MEDIA CONTROL' in anagram?
See my post above re; Austria etc.
Godwin's Law - thank you. Forgot that.
Pretty sure apartheid is focused on race, but it's just the perfect example of using extreme language (with massive emotional impact) to make a point. Exactly what you were saying it was not about - 'feelings'. That was all I was saying about that.

Yeah definitely. You could be a total genius and not be able to get a straw out of a bottle. Being a Doctor or Lawyer or Scientist and a trusted, senior professional doesn't mean you're right. Your own wife agrees.

So what makes the minority who are against jabs, the right ones?

As above, again - I'm not perfect. If I think someone's an idiot, I'll say it or think it. Anyone who pretends they don't is most likely telling porkies. I think not getting the jab is stupid.

Norm_uk

I don't think I can be any clearer than stating I am vaccinated and I have no problem with the principle of vaccinations in general. If people cannot comprehend that one can have doubts about one vaccine or the policies surrounding it but not another that becomes their issue not mine. Asking questions about vaccines or the policies surrounding them is not a 'for or against' question that can leave you emotionally satisfied you have uncovered a monster or hero who agrees with you either unfortunately.

I have already filled another post with examples and won't repeat myself when we all have access to search engines. Despite the rise in paywalls many journals still show at least the summary of their studies as well.

By definition there would have to be trust in these organisations in order to take the jab unless coercion is a factor. Trust in producers of the vaccines, trust in regulators who approve them, and trust in policy makers who are restricting liberties based on if they have been taken or not.

The only really argument for helping others would be if the shots reduce symptoms and thus a need to visit a doctor - which is still not an argument to endorse compulsion via threats of fines, inability to travel or job less. Nor label millions who don't want to get vaccinated with these particular jabs as stupid when we have a very broad range of people from experienced doctors and scientists to the tin-foil hate types who it seems everyone wants to think are the only ones refusing these particular vaccines.

My point would be that if the rates of hospitalisation are about the same for the vaccinated and unvaccinated there should be questions about their effectiveness. If they are even only half I would want to question effectiveness, especially in light of policies pertaining to regular testing, restrictions on travel and work, and the divisive rhetoric from individuals and the media separating people into the vaccinated and unvaccinated.

In the case of most longstanding vaccines we know that once a certain level of vaccination is reached in the population it effectively makes everyone immune as it tends to stop the spread almost entirely - the spread of Covid has not been effectively stopped even in nations of millions that are double vaccinated with tight controls and regular testing. We still see some governments rushing to impose more lockdowns even on those who fully complied. Pharma companies must be very happy at the prospect of third and forth jabs or quarterly jabs indefinitely as well. We still see media fearmongering and using emotive language vs calm facts and letting people decide for themselves (we're ok letting people make other healthcare decisions which cause far more burden on healthcare systems like their diet and lifestyle). If raising these issues as a concern is now 'anti-vaxx' I charge that the term 'anti-vaxx' is now a meaningless ad hominem designed to shut down questioning and debate and separate people to ultimately shame them into compliance or lay the ground for their oppression and dehumanisation should shame not work - no different to 'witch' or 'heretic' in centuries past .

Ultimately what this comes down to is who decides what is best for individuals and groups, and how will their decisions be enforced. Last century was littered with examples of crushing millions beneath the might of the State in the name of "it's for your own good" or to save whatever system they decided was under threat from which group they deemed undesirable. I used to be baffled at how so many people could be marched off to camps without regular folk doing nothing - but after two years of covid I am not baffled and see how easily many people either keep quiet and ask no questions, or who join in the denouncing of the people they have been told are stupid and must hate.

Norm_uk

Aside from massive ethical issues, especially where people pay tax for healthcare I think people whose lifestyle and diet choices cost healthcare systems billions each year are more of a threat to taking up bedspaces in places where they are a premium.

We know most Covid deaths and hospitalisations are due to co-morbidities. Even when things like age are excluded people are simply fatter, less active and consume terrible foods, too much booze etc a regular basis in most developed nations.

A fit young person who isn't vaccinated is by definition less of a drain on healthcare than an overweight person who can't put down their pint glass or donuts even for a few days....but if the obese person has their shot it seems you're suggesting they should have priority. So the one who routinely bad lifestyle choices is kept alive a bit longer, developing more obesity related illnesses which cost more to treat than covid and can take years to kill someone...while the fit healthy person should be left to die.

And if we're getting into saving resources why provide healthcare at all outside of things people have no control over? Nature takes care of these issues rather well, and rather brutally. And it leaves the strong to survive and propagate. How cold and rational is the selective 'save the healthcare' system going to be, because there are far bigger strains on healthcare that are lifestyle choice related we seem quite ok to see continue without denial of service.

Millhouse

somebody woke up Norm...

weasel decentral

I'm regretting my involvement now, I have broken my own rule about engaging with people on the internet and the futility of the ensuing debate or arguments.

csdf

I agree, though something rankles me about incorrect or misleading statements being frozen "for ever" on the internet and thus potentially causing other people to be misled and make poor choices.

Norm_uk

Both the lack of long term data about new vaccines AND concerns about the overstep of authority by the State are legitimate concerns. Let's keep this relatively sensible and serious and stop the comments about the 'matrix', word games about variant names or 'new world order' please.

As for apartheid - race was the metric used to separate people into certain areas, and create a two tiered society. If there's a better way to explain policies which may end up with people denied basic rights of movement, work in comparison with other citizens based on a metric like being jabbed or not I'm all ears so you can cease with the accusations of emotive language, if you're serious about exchanging ideas.

Yet here we are questioning those who dare to question a fairly narrow range of experts who have the ear of those with political and economic power over the majority and the majority of the media, calling them stupid conspiracy theorists regardless of what they say or if they have taken their jabs and been compliant or not. Ironic.

There are millions against specific jabs for many reasons. A majority agreeing to something doesn't make it right, or indeed wrong. I'd suggest asking a broad range of them, including the medical professionals and scientists to get an idea of why they think they are right. There's more scientific opinion and data out there that what is approved by social media factcheckers that is far from tin foil hat territory, although a lot is behind paywalls these days. It's not my place to say if they are right as most people can make up their own minds when it comes to their own health in my view. I do know that people who are for forced medical procedures, who are happy demonising people who don't comply with government mandates, and who are happy to see restrictions of fellow citizens on travel and work for years will not end up on the right side of history, in the name of a pandemic that has killed around 5million people in nearly two years on a planet with nearly 8 billion, especially when the majority of people at risk have pre-existing co-morbidities.

I think there are ways of explaining we disagree with others that are constructive, and ways that are not constructive.

scrubbedexpat141

The classic; patronising internet man is arguably more boring. That being said, I'm happy to 'cease accusations of emotive language', but first, what sort of 'camps' are you talking about?

Apartheid is specifically about race. Not having a jab does not make an individual a different race. But yeah, get your point, it's needed to make it more victim-like and oppressed. Works perfectly at getting all riled up and emotional to avoid the logic.

If they can all be wrong how do we know who's right? I don't know?
Just because a doctor is perceived (and probably) very intelligent with regards to certain topics, doesn't mean they're always right, does it? So why are the minority claiming jabs are bad the ones who are right when the overwhelming majority of doctors don't agree? (Note - Overwhelming majority is an assumption from me, given that I make an educated guess that the educated doctors probably agree that jabs are good ideas. I'm happy to go away and see if there's some research on this, but you'd have to be pretty obtuse to disagree in my opinion).

I'm seeing several Docs at the moment, incidentally and treatment suggestions are varying. Fortunately, I'm listening to them and trying to be objective rather than googling it and reading the first post from social media - this seems to be the course of vaccine information for some.

The condition I have, my Mother adamantly claimed was caused by the vaccine. Not realising all the links she sent me were linked to a specific type of jab, that I didn't have. She convinced herself it was from the jab, despite the fact it wasn't possible. Took a while to come down from that idea as well. Took a while to accept it was wrong, still doesn't fully accept it's not possible, just that maybe the research doesn't show it yet.......however she calls me closed minded? Despite not accepting that her medical knowledge is zero, experience is zero and assumption completely wrong and won't accept it.....yet I'm closed minded for saying the issue suggested can't be correct because I didn't have the jab they say has the issue.


I disagree with laws for jabs, I disagree with lockdowns in places like the UK where vaccination is so high, but I also disagree with people going to Old Trafford in a number upwards of 70,000 and the overwhelming majority not wearing a mask - in the same way I think masks being mandatory on transport or in shops is a good idea for the time being. I'm comfortable with making my own decisions though, when I go back in a few weeks, I'll be wearing a mask in public - partly to protect myself so I can travel back here for work etc and partly to protect myself from getting Covid. Even if 'just a flu', I'd rather not get it and spoil family time.

Being inclined to get jabbed, doesn't mean you're pro-lockdown or pro 'restrictions of citizens' or whatever. I don't think your all if you're one. But not sure if that's what you were trying to say or not.

Millhouse

Can we also extend this to correcting grammatical and spelling mistakes?