Coronavirus (COVID-19)

[D Angelo Barksdale]

Why don't the pair of you address his points rather than crying about being called boomers ?

[Lyle Lanley]

[Monkey Tennis]

3 minutes ago, Proposition Joe said:

Why don't the pair of you address his points rather than crying about being called boomers ?

I doubt if anyone was calling me a Boomer.

Generation X, me.

[Andy Dufresne]

My nephew has been confirmed as having Covid

[Thorongil]

I don’t care if numbers are rising again or not. They can keep rising for all I care. We have a vaccine which protects those who are vulnerable to become seriously ill and dying from the virus. Young and healthy people must be allowed to live their lives and enjoy the freedoms and opportunities the older generation has had for their entire lives. 
 

I’m 41 so sit somewhere in the middle but under no circumstances will I obey another coronavirus lockdown not any more restrictions for me, my wife or my children. 
 

immunity will increase, treatments will improve, vaccines will improve. No more restrictions. 

[welshbairn]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I doubt if anyone was calling me a Boomer.

Generation X, me.

Not sure if @Frankie S would describe himself as a boomer, but as a nightclub owner his concern for the freedoms and duties of the young may not be entirely altruistic. This part of his post I find dubious.

Quote

When the JVCI can’t make a convincing case that the benefits of vaccination for under 30s outweighs the potential risks, even when the risk of a dangerous adverse reaction to the vaccines is vanishingly small (1.1 cases per 100k in age group 20-29 suffering serious harm from vaccination (AZ) compared to 0.8 cases per 100k ICU admissions prevented by vaccines in the same age group, according to JVCI’s own data) then it’s crystal clear that there is very little compelling evidence to suggest that the under 30s need to be vaccinated for their own good. Indeed the evidence suggest the opposite - that vaccination is riskier for under 30s than contacting the virus, contrasting sharply with the clear benefits offered by vaccination to older cohorts.

Had a look for the JVCI data to support this with no success, but I don't doubt it exists, just not in a form that states it's safer for under 30s not to be jagged. 1. I believe all the vanishingly few serious adverse affects of vaccination occurred before they stopped AZ being prescribed for U30s. 2. Not all hospitalised for covid U30s who didn't need ICU were trivial cases. 3. Unsure what counts as serious harm from vaccination. 

I'd need more information before telling u30s that it's safer not to be vaccinated.

Edited August 26, 2021 by welshbairn

[Monkey Tennis]

7 hours ago, Bairnardo said:

8 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

Wow.
59 greenies for a well constructed post that's supportive of young adults choosing not to get vaccinated.
There are a great many on here that don't really know what they think, but if fed the red meat of a disparaging reference to "boomers", jump aboard anyway.

Maybe you should argue the well constructed points, rather than this snivelling, Granny Danger esque nothing of a post?

It's more a question of being surprised that the message that he'd be supportive of young adults rejecting a vaccine, and that nobody has the right to criticise 'hesitancy', was so rapturously received.

I'm a reasonably frequent visitor here, but I certainly don't read every post.   The impression I've gathered, however, is one that extols the vaccines' virtues and is critical of those, such as footballers, who've seen fit not to take it.

The trick here, though, was to frame the case in adversarial terms whereby a demographic group - one to which most posters don't belong - was 'othered' and demonised.  The applause for such a tactic was deafening enough to drown out some of what was being said.

[Granny Danger]

12 minutes ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It's more a question of being surprised that the message that he'd be supportive of young adults rejecting a vaccine, and that nobody has the right to criticise 'hesitancy', was so rapturously received.

I'm a reasonably frequent visitor here, but I certainly don't read every post.   The impression I've gathered, however, is one that extols the vaccines' virtues and is critical of those, such as footballers, who've seen fit not to take it.

The trick here, though, was to frame the case in adversarial terms whereby a demographic group - one to which most posters don't belong - was 'othered' and demonised.  The applause for such a tactic was deafening enough to drown out some of what was being said.

Don’t be surprised.  The contradictions on here are nothing new.  The same group of posters who have been bawling their eyes out about restrictions (as if said restrictions don’t effect all of us) are the same ones who have a downer on any measures that mitigate the virus from mask wearing to encouraging every age cohort to get inoculated.

The good thing is their views are not widely shared.

[Marshmallo]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It's more a question of being surprised that the message that he'd be supportive of young adults rejecting a vaccine, and that nobody has the right to criticise 'hesitancy', was so rapturously received.

I'm a reasonably frequent visitor here, but I certainly don't read every post.   The impression I've gathered, however, is one that extols the vaccines' virtues and is critical of those, such as footballers, who've seen fit not to take it.

The trick here, though, was to frame the case in adversarial terms whereby a demographic group - one to which most posters don't belong - was 'othered' and demonised.  The applause for such a tactic was deafening enough to drown out some of what was being said.

Look at the post he replied to and you can see who was separating the population into groups and demonising them.

[Michael W]

Seriously trying to claim this thread doesn't encourage vaccination. Desperate stuff. 

Edited August 27, 2021 by Michael W

[Monkey Tennis]

3 minutes ago, Michael W said:

Seriously trying to claim this thread doesn't encourage vaccination. Desperate stuff. 

Who claimed that?

[Monkey Tennis]

22 minutes ago, Marshmallo said:

Look at the post he replied to and you can see who was separating the population into groups and demonising them.

Presumably, you're referring to this?

"If more in the lower age groups acted more responsibly and got vaccinated then the problem wouldn’t be so bad."

 

Ok, even if we call that demonising, wouldn't it be quite a weak attack on the practice, that merely mimics it?

[BigDoddyKane]

The cases spiking must of been expected with opening up, when this many are vaccinated better to leave things as they are and ride it out. Than put in restrictions again this early from opening up. It wouldnt make any sense imo. Review things in a month from now and decide then give it a good chance to level out first 

 

 

[scottsdad]

1 minute ago, BigDoddyKane said:

The cases spiking must of been expected with opening up, when this many are vaccinated better to leave things as they are and ride it out. Than put in restrictions again this early from opening up. It wouldnt make any sense imo. Review things in a month from now and decide then give it a good chance to level out first 

 

 

[anotherchance]

18 minutes ago, Michael W said:

Seriously trying to claim this thread doesn't encourage vaccination. Desperate stuff. 

The ones who feed into anti vaxx narratives are the ones who downplay the effectiveness of the vaccines - Devi lied about them and said they don’t work against Delta.

The vaccines are incredible. The issue we have is that the political decision making doesn’t give due faith to them. Trust in the vaccines and let them do the work..

[scottsdad]

The only person I have seen recently on this thread spouting bollocks about the vaccine is @Lochdown

[AsimButtHitsASix]

18 hours ago, oaksoft said:

Sigh!

I'm saying that HIS story was bollocks from start to finish.

But even if he was talking shite that doesn't mean masks don't work.

[Bairnardo]

I like that Frankies post is now being framed as encouraging young folk not to get jaghed rather than saying they shouldnt be demonised if they dont.

There seems to be an attitude, and iv saod this all along, of "I have a right not to catch this virus" even from people who have been afforded a staggeringly effective vaccine.

Despite having this vaccine, the costs they seem to be willing to meet include making sure people cant travel, go to football, have any form of nightlife, have a job, have an education, have people in their homes.... This is not an exhaustive list clearly, but it has now extended to calling as selfish, someone who doesnt want to be injected with something that isnt actually even for that persons own benefit, but for the benefit of the person who is doing the complaining. Its absolutely mental.

All of this despite the fact that Delta appears perfectly capable of transmitting despite vaccination, and therefore the benefit of the vaccine lies entirely with the fact that once you catch it, theres a very minimal chance it will result in much more than a bad cold.

[D.V.T.]

Gov briefing today according to the Record. Hooray.

[Sherrif John Bunnell]

12 minutes ago, scottsdad said:

The only person I have seen recently on this thread spouting bollocks about the vaccine is @Lochdown

That's just wunfy doing his usual attention seeking routine before he is banned for the umpteenth time.. Best ignored.