O/T:- Vaccines: Pro/Anti & Conspiracy Theories [Originally Covid Pass and Meadow Ln.]

[upthemaggies]

I think it's been an engaging thread. People might not change their minds, but it's still interesting to read what people are thinking and why.

Am not one of the people messaging Swale btw.

I never imagined you would be.
There's three I'm quite certain about. If I found out that one of them wasn't, I would un-ignore button him.

[Elite_Pie]

Nor should those in the private sector who enforce these rules if they struggle or go bust, turning away the very same people who were supporting them against lockdowns.

I don't think anyone has ever wanted lockdowns, but I think they were a necessary evil. I think history shows that those countries that imposed early and strict lockdowns fared much better in death numbers than those (like us) who adopted a dithering, ambiguous approach.

There might be a case for 'it's here, let's just face up to it', but I dread to think the misery that would have caused. If you're happy with a 'survival of the fittest' approach, I would prefer to try and consider those who aren't the fittest.

[magpie_mania]

I think it's been an engaging thread. People might not change their minds, but it's still interesting to read what people are thinking and why.

Am not one of the people messaging Swale btw.

Agreed, and it's not me either!

[Elite_Pie]

I think it's been an engaging thread. People might not change their minds, but it's still interesting to read what people are thinking and why.

Me too. I always think the best way to reach a conclusion is to listen to differing opinions, and while I haven't changed my mind I have been given food for thought by some posts. It's something that isn't cut and dried, and we'll only find out who was right later.

Am not one of the people messaging Swale btw.

Nor me, in all my years on here I've only used the 'complain' button twice. The first was when a Forest fan call Jimmy Sirrel a p aedophile, and the second was when a post named a family member.

[Robertomac]

I don't think anyone has ever wanted lockdowns, but I think they were a necessary evil. I think history shows that those countries that imposed early and strict lockdowns fared much better in death numbers than those (like us) who adopted a dithering, ambiguous approach.

There might be a case for 'it's here, let's just face up to it', but I dread to think the misery that would have caused. If you're happy with a 'survival of the fittest' approach, I would prefer to try and consider those who aren't the fittest.

I guess we'll never know if lockdowns were successful really as we'd need a control to compare against. I think the first was probably the right call in the face of the unknown.

However, I think the reality is lockdowns are a short term measure that only delay the inevitable and are not a medium or long term strategy. I'm beyond doubt that they inflict a larger scale of broader harm to society than that posed by the virus.

[upthemaggies]

Agreed, and it's not me either!

Fair play.
Un-ignored.

[magpie_mania]

Me too. I always think the best way to reach a conclusion is to listen to differing opinions, and while I haven't changed my mind I have been given food for thought by some posts. It's something that isn't cut and dried, and we'll only find out who was right later.



Nor me, in all my years on here I've only used the 'complain' button twice. The first was when a Forest fan call Jimmy Sirrel a p aedophile, and the second was when a post named a family member.

Will we ever find out? BJ said there will be an independent enquiry after it's over. Doubt he will be PM then.

[SaltySeaDog]

I guess we'll never know if lockdowns were successful really as we'd need a control to compare against. I think the first was probably the right call in the face of the unknown.

However, I think the reality is lockdowns are a short term measure that only delay the inevitable and are not a medium or long term strategy. I'm beyond doubt that they inflict a larger scale of broader harm to society than that posed by the virus.

I think Sweden didn't go into a hard lockdown, and off the top of my head they weren't too badly affected.

But I agree that they certainly seemed necessary at the time to nip transmissions in the bud.

[drillerpie]

People are now being sacked from their jobs for refusing to take this vaccine. Some countries are telling people they won't be allowed to work at all if they don't get the shot, being threatened with fines or refused entry to food outlets. We're on the cusp of literally starving people to death or making them homeless for not complying. Last week we had a man hunt for three people who had escaped an isolation camp in Australia. If we can do this to people for not having a vaccine, then why not extend it to people who won't say "Trans women are women" for example. That might sound far fetched in the here and now, but look how quickly institutions and businesses are now being captured. If we end up with a social credit system similar to China, us being rewarded with basic freedoms will not solely depend on vaccination status.

I think there's a fair amount of hyperbole in that. For example, I don't know of any countries where governments have said people aren't allowed to enter food shops without proof of vaccine, in fact they always seem to be quite keep to avoid that sort of problem.

In the unlikely case that these people had neither an internet connection nor a telephone to order a delivery, and had no friends or family to pick food up for them, and preferred to do nothing while their health deteriorated or had literally no other way of getting hold of food, and all of this was happening happening on a significant scale, then we could reasonably say that we are on the cusp of literally starving people to death.

The trans issue you and I agree about, and I don't think anybody wants a Chjnese style social credit system.

I still haven't seen anything that has changed my mind that we are so far away from the Holocaust that any comparisons are unwise.

On a broader note, I would disagree with Swale (while appreciative of his hard work) that this thread has become like the Brexit threads. So far there have been some interesting exchanges of views and very little antagonism.

I think it's a myth that people never changed their views. Ok, people with very entrenched views are unlikely to change, but I personally have changed some of my opinions due at least in part to conversations on here with Bohinen. We need to respect each other, obviously, and not everyone will agree about everything, but when we stop talking and listening to each other is when we end up with divided societies.

[i961pie]

If someone really doesn't want to risk having the vaccine then I think that is their absolute right. If the rules then decide that they are not allowed to go to footy matches, theatres, cinemas, pubs, restaurants or travel abroad I hope they don't complain.

This