Jump to content

Don't Miss a Beat

Join the UK's most passionate festival community. Keep up with the latest conversations, line-up rumours, and music news.

250,000+ Members

Connect with a massive network of fellow festival-goers.

Lively Discussions

Thousands of active topics on music, campsites, and tips.

Hot Rumours & News

Hear about secret sets and lineup drops before anyone else.

Create Free Account
OR
  • Sign Up!

    Join our friendly community of music lovers and be part of the fun 😎

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, duke88 said:

Who cares about people who refuse vaccines? Their choice, they have to live with the consequences. 

The government care and are going to keep restrictions longer than is necessary by the look of it to try to get everyone jabbed, there are going to be consequences for everyone, this battle is just beginning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

The government care and are going to keep restrictions longer than is necessary by the look of it to try to get everyone jabbed, there are going to be consequences for everyone, this battle is just beginning.

The vast, vast majority of those that refuse the vaccine are going to only display mild, if any, symptoms if they do catch Covid.
As long as the most vulnerable are protected should they the pass this on, then I don’t see why any particular focus should be given to those that refuse it. It is their right to choose after all, and the more it’s forced upon them, then the more they’re likely to resist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Fuzzy Afro said:

Vaccines should be mandatory. 

They absolutely should not.

But at the point everyone has been offered one, it's becomes pretty simple - if you're able to take a vaccine and have refused, then any illness or consequences you suffer from it can be considered to be entirely self inflicted. It should be treated exactly the same as a smoker who gets lunger cancer or a skydiver who breaks a leg - provide medical care, of course, but don't expect the rest of society to inconvenience themselves in their daily lives because someone else took a risky decision that backfired.

8 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

The government care and are going to keep restrictions longer than is necessary by the look of it to try to get everyone jabbed, there are going to be consequences for everyone, this battle is just beginning.

There's absolutely no indication that they're going to do anything even remotely like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, st dan said:

The vast, vast majority of those that refuse the vaccine are going to only display mild, if any, symptoms if they do catch Covid.
As long as the most vulnerable are protected should they the pass this on, then I don’t see why any particular focus should be given to those that refuse it. It is their right to choose after all, and the more it’s forced upon them, then the more they’re likely to resist. 

Yup. We dont lockdown to stop smoking deaths. Anyone who refuses a vaccine and catches it, with a bad outcomes, then its their own fool fault

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, JoeyT said:

Certainly a point worth thinking about. The top 3 areas are at least double the rate of the SW...

 

 

I thought tiers were a good thing in theory but poorly implemented. The fact that there was no real restriction on travel between high and low tiers was a problem. And yes, the narrative of 'this is a punishment' really didn't help

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

"Kinda defines what type of person you are." Judgemental and intolerant? Is it OK for me to refuse to be a friend of a muslim (as an example) because I don't agree with their views on women's role in society or homosexuality?

If you take the fact that they're a Muslim out of it, because it's not really relevant:

"Is it OK for me to refuse to be a friend of someone because I don't agree with their views on women's role in society or homosexuality?"

Yes. Absolutely yes. I'd imagine if you were either gay or a woman you'd find that choice even easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, dotdash79 said:

The leaks are go!

I do feel for all of the primary school teachers & staff.

Not considered at risk enough to be bumped up the vaccine list even though the children of that age don't do social distancing nor will wear masks. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, fraybentos1 said:

Best way to protect them is for everyone (who can) to get the vaccine

Exactly. The numbers who can't have a vaccine must be tiny. If everyone who could have a vaccine did, that would afford them lots of protection, especially as we know vaccines reduce substantially reduce transmission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once we open up, aren't the people refusing to take the vaccine quite likely to get the virus? So hopefully building up some immunity that way, pushing us further to herd immunity. And if they don't want to take the vaccine or get the virus then they likely won't be out much to spread it or catch it.

The more people who have immunity the better it protects those who can't take it (or those that can but might find it less effective because immunocompromised).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, st dan said:

The vast, vast majority of those that refuse the vaccine are going to only display mild, if any, symptoms if they do catch Covid.
As long as the most vulnerable are protected should they the pass this on, then I don’t see why any particular focus should be given to those that refuse it. It is their right to choose after all, and the more it’s forced upon them, then the more they’re likely to resist. 

I agree 100%, but there is now a growing theory that the unvaccinated are going to incubate new deadly variants even though viruses usually get weaker as they mutate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gizmoman said:

I agree 100%, but there is now a growing theory that the unvaccinated are going to incubate new deadly variants even though viruses usually get weaker as they mutate.

Is there? I haven't seen that theory. Everything I've seen concerned about variants suggests that the more it spreads the more likely it is to mutate (which we've seen in evidence). The unvaccinated aren't going to be able to spread it widely enough among themselves for that to happen. It will struggle to find new hosts with most people vaccinated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So with the question now turning to people not vaccinating and focus being shifted away from number of cases to serious cases, do we know what % of people who get the virus get a serious illness broken down by group (e.g. clinically vulnerable, over 80s etc).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

If you take the fact that they're a Muslim out of it, because it's not really relevant:

"Is it OK for me to refuse to be a friend of someone because I don't agree with their views on women's role in society or homosexuality?"

Yes. Absolutely yes. I'd imagine if you were either gay or a woman you'd find that choice even easier.

It's relevant because we are talking about treating a group of people differently because of their perceived views, not all vaccine refusers have the same reasons or are followers of conspiracy theories, just as not all muslims hold the same views re: women and gays, though quite a few do. But this is a distraction from my original point which is we will all be affected by the response to the unvaccinated it will be one of the most divisive subjects ever, things are going to get ugly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Latest Activity

    • Is anything said we need to be aware of?
    • Just listened to the new Madonna album, it would be a catastrophe if that isn't played on the pyramid!
    • Restore getting more than Lib Dems is not good.
    • https://x.com/amirtibon/status/2083054470871535853   Some thoughts on the Gaza agreement announced overnight, which despite my reservations and concerns, I hope will be implemented. 1. Donald Trump is trying to collect "wins" and "achievements" ahead of the midterm elections. His party is entering that election at a disadvantage, but because Democrats may choose weak and unpopular candidates in specific states, much like Republicans did in 2022, there's a reason for Trump to at least try achieving a surprising result like the one Biden secured four years ago.   2. The will to provide Trump such a "win" was an important motivation for all sides involved in this agreement: Hamas, Netanyahu, Qatar, Egypt, UAE and Turkey. All of them hope, each for their own reasons, that the transactional president will remember their role in the agreement and the positive media coverage it has generated and will continue to generate. You can like it or not, but that's the nature of diplomacy, especially in the Middle East, under Trump.   3. Netanyahu and his band of liars in the Israeli media (and the last few suckers in the American media still buying his spin) are already trying to oversell the agreement and present it in terms that contradict the Board of Peace statements and briefings. Of course, the October 7 Prime Minister can't just say the truth on this one, which goes something like: "I'm trying to stay on good terms with Trump ahead of an election here in Israel that will determine my personal fate and whether or not I go to jail in 2027."   4. For Hamas, the agreement is a way to buy time and survive, which is basically the organization's overarching goal since October 7. They lost most of their leadership and thousands of their fighters; they will also, I believe, give up some of their weapons to the new Gaza-based Palestinian government, which is a good thing. But at the bottom of all their decisions is a simple calculation: being able to say, "we committed the most deadly and humiliating attack against Israel since the start of the conflict, and survived as a movement and an organization to tell about it."   5. Hamas was able to say that yesterday, before the agreement was signed, and it can also say that today, after the conclusion of the negotiations. So in that regard, the agreement is preferable to the murky post-war reality that preceded it, in which Hamas was recruiting again thousands of young fighters, holding on to all its weapons, and controlling 99% of Gaza's population, making money off people buying fuel and cigarettes. Changing even a part of that terrible reality, by collecting some of the weapons and allowing progress on reconstruction under a non-Hamas government, is better. It means coming to terms with the fact that Israel under this government failed to dismantle Hamas and allowed its survival even before this agreement was signed.   6. Do I think the agreement will be fully implemented over the next 300 days, as I understand the timeline? I'm highly skeptical. But I'm also asking: what are the alternatives? Netanyahu, in his quest for political survival at all costs, ignored David Ben-Gurion's national security strategy of seeking short and decisive wars, which was based on Israel's unique internal and external challenges that make it dangerous for this country to have long wars of attrition. The result is an Israel that is hated, isolated and denounced around the world like never before, and is totally reliant on the support of one man (TRUMP) to avoid crushing international sanctions. Going to war in Gaza once again based on the same promise of "finishing Hamas," which this government failed to achieve after three long years, would have been suicidal unless Trump promised his full backing. And Trump, for good reasons, can't give such a commitment after his bitter experience with Netanyahu in Iran and Lebanon.   7. For me and my family, these are all very personal, not only political, questions. My six-year-old daughter will start school on the Gaza border in exactly one month, as we rebuild our life in the same home where Hamas tried to murder us on October 7. We've learned over the years to be highly skeptical of premature victory announcements and diplomatic celebrations. When these things collapse under the cynical realities of the conflict, most of those announcing them are not around to face the consequences. Still, I don't see a better alternative to the 20-Point Plan that Trump presented last year, at least not with Israel's current position of isolation and exhaustion under this government. So I have some hope that the agreement will succeed, even partially, and deliver a period of quiet. For us on the border, that would be significant after three years of war and trauma. And maybe in the long run, with different Israeli and Palestinian leadership, this will become a first step in a broader positive change for the region.
    • Until they're through the first round of votes there's no point believing any reports about who'll win.
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...