Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, DeanoL said:

 

(I guess the one exception I'd give here is people who have already had COVID - in which case they already have already taken on the risk of having COVID so why take on the risk of having the vaccine too - there's some logic to that - still flawed as we have even less data on the long term effects of multiple COVID infections)

 

 

This was actually my Mam's argument at the weekend, she was like I've had covid and my immune system coped, so why should I take a vaccine that may alter this?

She doesn't trust the vaccine as she's weary of the long terms effects and wants to know what's in It (toilet duck kindly pointed me in right direction)

I've just said I wish they would get the vaccine and said my piece, but ultimately it's there choice so not going to push it's not an argument I'm gonna win

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

@Copperface Was it yourself I was discussing this with yesterday? The PM will only offer a vote on the roadmap at the different stages not on the whole thing. 
 

https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/roadmap-boris-johnson-covid-tory-attacks-883559

Ha... yep. It's secondary legislation and he can make it non binding as well but doubt anyone is going to vote against reducing restrictions so it's  a win/win for him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, shoptildrop said:

This was actually my Mam's argument at the weekend, she was like I've had covid and my immune system coped, so why should I take a vaccine that may alter this?

She doesn't trust the vaccine as she's weary of the long terms effects and wants to know what's in It (toilet duck kindly pointed me in right direction)

I've just said I wish they would get the vaccine and said my piece, but ultimately it's there choice so not going to push it's not an argument I'm gonna win

what did they say when you told them toilet duck had told you that the ingredients were ....?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Copperface said:

Ha... yep. It's secondary legislation and he can make it non binding as well but doubt anyone is going to vote against reducing restrictions so it's  a win/win for him. 

The only potential issue would be if he needs to push back any of the steps then he could have a revolt on his hands. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

Christina Pagel is picking this up as well, hopefully it’s a false alarm pointing out regardless.

 

Of course she is .. she’ll be all over news like this as soon as it breaks. Must be so draining being such a doom mongerer like her all the time - bet she’s great fun at parties. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ozanne said:

The only potential issue would be if he needs to push back any of the steps then he could have a revolt on his hands. 

Doesn't have to be debated and it's a simple House majority to annul it so even if the provisional CRG do vote against it their vote would be lost amongst the overall vote. And voting against a reduction in restrictions is cutting their nose off to spite their face so a bit pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, st dan said:

Of course she is .. she’ll be all over news like this as soon as it breaks. Must be so draining being such a doom mongerer like her all the time - bet she’s great fun at parties. 

Or she’s just trying to alert people to a potential new threat, which might make governments be more aware in case any action might need to taken. Not all scientists who’s opinions we don’t agree with are doom mongers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Havors said:

Short answer.... No its impossible

it's not really zero covid...it's controlling and suppressing it as much as possible, so getting cases down as much as possible, and then doing the quarantine thing at borders, a bit like they're trying to do with SA/Brazil variants...but yeah, consensus is that it is probably impossible here anyway, or maybe anywhere over time, too much of it about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ozanne said:

Or she’s just trying to alert people to a potential new threat, which might make governments be more aware in case any action might need to taken. Not all scientists who’s opinions we don’t agree with are doom mongers. 

A thread looking into the article in more detail, which shows reports haven’t even been published on it yet.
It may well turn out to be an issue, but let’s wait until an official report into it before sharing headlines about a ‘devil’ variant that evades all vaccines. Its irresponsible to just share any articles like this at this stage. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

19 minutes ago, crazyfool1 said:

what did they say when you told them toilet duck had told you that the ingredients were ....?

Don't want them misreading that and assuming it contains toilet duck...

17 minutes ago, zahidf said:

He's a bit of a doomonger. Calls himself a doctor when isn't one. 

More the LA Times article i was going for - all he's doing is breaking it down. it would be prudent for us to make sure people from California don't end up here for a while! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, st dan said:

A thread looking into the article in more detail, which shows reports haven’t even been published on it yet.
It may well turn out to be an issue, but let’s wait until an official report into it before sharing headlines about a ‘devil’ variant that evades all vaccines. Its irresponsible to just share any articles like this at this stage. 

 

Fine I'll just share happy stuff then. If it's irresponsible to share news from a major newspaper without a scientific paper then let's just close the thread down 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, st dan said:

A thread looking into the article in more detail, which shows reports haven’t even been published on it yet.
It may well turn out to be an issue, but let’s wait until an official report into it before sharing headlines about a ‘devil’ variant that evades all vaccines. Its irresponsible to just share any articles like this at this stage. 

 

I’m not sure it’s irresponsible, I think she’s trying to help make people aware of a potential issue. I don’t think she’s doom mongering either, she has been quite positive over yesterday’s news whilst on the whole being critical of our response. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, efcfanwirral said:

Fine I'll just share happy stuff then. If it's irresponsible to share news from a major newspaper without a scientific paper then let's just close the thread down 

Wasn’t on about you sharing it - I was on about Christiana Pagel retweeting it, and her role as a member of Independent SAGE. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, steviewevie said:

We're going to get news about scary variants popping up a lot, better get used to it. Hopefully eventually we'll have vaccines to cover any potential variant, that possible?

They are starting to be tested anytime now I think. 
 

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/society/2021/feb/21/scientists-say-clinical-trials-for-variant-proof-vaccines-could-start-very-soon

Edited by Ozanne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, steviewevie said:

We're going to get news about scary variants popping up a lot, better get used to it. Hopefully eventually we'll have vaccines to cover any potential variant, that possible?

It is pretty scary, particularly after yesterday’s wave of optimism, guess it’s just a reality check more than anything, for me anyway... ah well, had my moment yesterday that high will keep me going some more 

  • Like 2
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.



×
×
  • Create New...