Jump to content

When will this shit end?


Chrisp1986

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, gizmoman said:

Zero Covid can only be achieved by locking down permanently, that is clearly not feasible so why would anyone suggest it? When you say anti-vaxxer I assume you mean someone who doesn't want to take it but is happy for others to do so. If so it's quite possible to believe  that vaccines should be offered to the most vunerable and those less at risk can choose for themselves. As you say they are taking a gamble on Covid but for most people it isn't a serious issue (as far as we know at the moment, it's entirely possible you could have a mild disease but have unknown long term effects).

Your argument can be reversed, pro-vaxxers are for the most part zero-Coviders, they should be saying get vaccinated and then lets get back to normal, but they cannot accept any risks from Covid even after vaccination, they want to have continuous testing, passports, masks etc. instead of accepting that Covid is going to be with us and has to be lived with.  They are willing to change society completely to try to protect the small minority that cannot have the vaccine or for whom the vaccine isn't effective. This seems to be the way it's going, so the benefit of getting the vaccine is diminished, your life will be restricted whether you get the vax or not.

 

I'm not sure why you think people who are pro vaccine are also zero Covid proponents. Don't think there are any here that suggest that, maybe one or two at most.

I don't think zero Covid is possible at this point and I am very pro vaccine. I've had loads of vaccines so one more doesn't bother me at all as I believe in the science behind them. I don't think people should be forced to have them, though, and I'm not really a fan of vaccine passports for domestic settings. Makes total sense internationally though. But I've had the yellow fever vaccine so that's not a new one on me either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

I know that this has been done to death but have been reading a debate on another forum I browse where the vast majority of posters were in favour of a vaccine passport before everyone had been offered a vaccine. How can that possibly be defensible? Young people would be excluded from society through no fault of their own simply by virtue of the fact they had not yet had their turn, despite sacrificing an awful lot over the last year to protect older people who are at greater risk. It is extremely likely that a vaccine passport before everyone has been offered one will never happen but just thought it was quite wild how so many posters supported the idea.

Theyll only launch them once everyone has received a second dose so cant see it before the autumn, as you say it would create a great divide amongst generations 

15 minutes ago, zahidf said:

 

This is genuinely huge and a huge boost of optimism for us all 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

I know that this has been done to death but have been reading a debate on another forum I browse where the vast majority of posters were in favour of a vaccine passport before everyone had been offered a vaccine. How can that possibly be defensible? Young people would be excluded from society through no fault of their own simply by virtue of the fact they had not yet had their turn, despite sacrificing an awful lot over the last year to protect older people who are at greater risk. It is extremely likely that a vaccine passport before everyone has been offered one will never happen but just thought it was quite wild how so many posters supported the idea.

Don't agree with this.

Yes, older people would be fortunate under this scenario, but really this proposal would be about INCLUDING them on the basis they happen to be safe - not about excluding others. Just because young people can't enjoy freedoms because it's not safe, it would be churlish to then in turn stop older people from enjoying theirs. Let them enjoy their lives.

And the idea that younger people have valiantly been "sacrificing a lot to protect" older people really is, with very few exceptions, a load of old guff. 

If you want to know about true sacrifices, they are the ones made year after year by young people's mums! 

Edited by xxialac
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

I know that this has been done to death but have been reading a debate on another forum I browse where the vast majority of posters were in favour of a vaccine passport before everyone had been offered a vaccine. How can that possibly be defensible? Young people would be excluded from society through no fault of their own simply by virtue of the fact they had not yet had their turn, despite sacrificing an awful lot over the last year to protect older people who are at greater risk. It is extremely likely that a vaccine passport before everyone has been offered one will never happen but just thought it was quite wild how so many posters supported the idea.

Well, playing devil's advocate, the "passport" would confirm vaccine status or negative test, so it could be put into operation on that basis, those not yet vaccinated could get a test instead. This idea that the passport is the route to freedom though is totally wrong, it's a route to total control. If you agree to have the vaccine and the passport you are agreeing to a lifetime of having the government decide what vaccines you should have and when, they are already suggesting a 6 month booster for Covid, what if they decide the Flu vaccine is essential? the NHS are under pressure each winter, if everyone got the Flu shot that would reduce demand. If your "passport" isn't up to date you can't go anywhere. If any new threat comes along you could be forced to get any new vaccine whether you were convinced it had been tested enough or not. The people happy to have a passport are just desperate to get back to "normal", they haven't thought about the consequences.

  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Zoo Music Girl said:

I'm not sure why you think people who are pro vaccine are also zero Covid proponents. Don't think there are any here that suggest that, maybe one or two at most.

I don't think zero Covid is possible at this point and I am very pro vaccine. I've had loads of vaccines so one more doesn't bother me at all as I believe in the science behind them. I don't think people should be forced to have them, though, and I'm not really a fan of vaccine passports for domestic settings. Makes total sense internationally though. But I've had the yellow fever vaccine so that's not a new one on me either.

Many on here are pro vaccine passports and the reasons they give are pretty much the zero-covid arguments, (you have to protect everyone), that isn't really possible unless you restrict people forever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, gizmoman said:

Many on here are pro vaccine passports and the reasons they give are pretty much the zero-covid arguments, (you have to protect everyone), that isn't really possible unless you restrict people forever.

You are Ian Brown and I'd like my five pounds

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

I know that this has been done to death but have been reading a debate on another forum I browse where the vast majority of posters were in favour of a vaccine passport before everyone had been offered a vaccine. How can that possibly be defensible? Young people would be excluded from society through no fault of their own simply by virtue of the fact they had not yet had their turn, despite sacrificing an awful lot over the last year to protect older people who are at greater risk. It is extremely likely that a vaccine passport before everyone has been offered one will never happen but just thought it was quite wild how so many posters supported the idea.

 

23 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Don't agree with this.

Yes, older people would be fortunate under this scenario, but really this proposal would be about INCLUDING them on the basis they happen to be safe - not about excluding others. Just because young people can't enjoy freedoms because it's not safe, it would be churlish to then in turn stop older people from enjoying theirs. Let them enjoy their lives.

And the idea that younger people have valiantly been "sacrificing a lot to protect" older people really is, with very few exceptions, a load of old guff. 

If you want to know about true sacrifices, they are the ones made year after year by young people's mums! 

I personally am against vaccine passports as a concept, but taking that away in the world where they exist the only thing I'd have against them happening now would be if the government were to withdraw support and make businesses open to just those vaccinated. But because that isn't how hospitality and events work it can't happen 

Morally I don't see the problem BUT it brings forward the idea that the vaccine is for yourself, which isn't the case (quite the opposite imo) and would maybe stop people getting it 

Edited by efcfanwirral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, efcfanwirral said:

 

I personally am against vaccine passports as a concept, but taking that away in the world where they exist the only thing I'd have against them happening now would be if the government were to withdraw support and make businesses open to just those vaccinated. But because that isn't how hospitality and events work it can't happen 

Morally I don't see the problem BUT it brings forward the idea that the vaccine is for yourself, which isn't the case (quite the opposite imo)  

I'm against them too, but feels inevitable to help certain events and businesses to survive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Don't agree with this.

Yes, older people would be fortunate under this scenario, but really this proposal would be about INCLUDING them on the basis they happen to be safe - not about excluding others. Just because young people can't enjoy freedoms because it's not safe, it would be churlish to then in turn stop older people from enjoying theirs. Let them enjoy their lives.

And the idea that younger people have valiantly been "sacrificing a lot to protect" older people really is, with very few exceptions, a load of old guff. 

If you want to know about true sacrifices, they are the ones made year after year by young people's mums! 

 

41 minutes ago, hodgey123 said:

I know that this has been done to death but have been reading a debate on another forum I browse where the vast majority of posters were in favour of a vaccine passport before everyone had been offered a vaccine. How can that possibly be defensible? Young people would be excluded from society through no fault of their own simply by virtue of the fact they had not yet had their turn, despite sacrificing an awful lot over the last year to protect older people who are at greater risk. It is extremely likely that a vaccine passport before everyone has been offered one will never happen but just thought it was quite wild how so many posters supported the idea.

The way around this is to replace the vaccine passport with a covid status passport. You can either present proof of vaccination or a negative lateral flow test. That way no one is excluded based on not being vaccinated yet. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Don't agree with this.

Yes, older people would be fortunate under this scenario, but really this proposal would be about INCLUDING them on the basis they happen to be safe - not about excluding others. Just because young people can't enjoy freedoms because it's not safe, it would be churlish to then in turn stop older people from enjoying theirs. Let them enjoy their lives.

And the idea that younger people have valiantly been "sacrificing a lot to protect" older people really is, with very few exceptions, a load of old guff. 

If you want to know about true sacrifices, they are the ones made year after year by young people's mums! 

Ok, boomer 

Edited by Fuzzy Afro
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, zahidf said:

You are Ian Brown and I'd like my five pounds

 

 

While i agree with him, once I inevitably drop my anti vaccine passport views for an easier life it looks like I'll be getting a different and hopefully better headliner at my local festival the Neighborhood Weekender this year (when they move to September) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, efcfanwirral said:

I'm with you but posting twitter accounts like that is just going to turn people off from it all 

? That thread is a series of links to the organisations promoting the ID passports, it's entirely factual. If people are turned off by the truth it says more about their mindset than mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, xxialac said:

Don't agree with this.

Yes, older people would be fortunate under this scenario, but really this proposal would be about INCLUDING them on the basis they happen to be safe - not about excluding others. Just because young people can't enjoy freedoms because it's not safe, it would be churlish to then in turn stop older people from enjoying theirs. Let them enjoy their lives.

And the idea that younger people have valiantly been "sacrificing a lot to protect" older people really is, with very few exceptions, a load of old guff. 

If you want to know about true sacrifices, they are the ones made year after year by young people's mums! 

Why is it a load of old guff that young people have sacrificed a lot? They are the generation least at risk with most to lose (social restrictions, more likely to be on furlough, less likely to have outdoor space etc.) and we were all lectured beforehand about ‘Blitz spirit’ and all in it together. The vaccine passport would be another example of the older generation pulling the ladder up behind them, like affordable housing perhaps 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, xxialac said:

Genius! You got any other comedy material of this quality?

I'll take your comment at face value, then, and dissect why it's such a ridiculous comment.

For over 11 months and counting, under 30's in the UK have spent large periods of time legally banned from socialising with their friends, millions have lost work and been plunged into poverty, millions have missed out on significant life events and rites of passage including weddings, going to university for the first time, graduations and many, many more. Some have been split apart from their families or significant other. All of this is in the name of suppressing the spread of a virus which poses no discernible risk to under 30's and very little risk even to their parents. They're essentially being forced to do this to protect people two generations older than them.

Data shows that they have done so impeccably well. Given how non-existent the enforcement is, there is no explanation for this other than pure altruism, which is all the more impressive when those being protected by this altruism are the generation who turn out in their millions who turn out to fuck us over every election. If Covid-19 mainly affected younger people like Spanish flu did, there's no way you'd get the boomers staying home to suppress the spread.

The younger generations are now being deprioritised for the vaccine, and rightly so, because as I said, they're not at risk. It then follows that the only reason to prevent them entering public venues when they reopen is to stop them spreading the virus, in which case a negative LFT would be sufficient. 

  • Upvote 8
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

    • We’re after 1 Oxfam spot for my wife, having secured one myself back in Feb.   We’ve been weighing up whether to stick or twist with the cutoff coming up.    Your words sound encouraging though so we might have to stick it out and hammer the Oxfam site for that 1 spot! 
    • This gives us hope! We're lucky enough to work on our laptops all day so this is all possible!
    • So long as you requested your bus via the transport survey before April 15th, you're all good - there haven't been any confirmation emails yet 
    • Did some digging online. Well, you did ask.   There isn't much there that's very recent. An application for planning permission for "use of land for siting of up to 16 low impact residential shelters within a woodland garden setting and associated operational development comprising car park, telephone box, and children's play structure" was rejected in 1999 - though apparently there was a "legal breakthrough" in 2001. This is from 1995:   Clearly it's still in use. A resident called Theo Simon stood for election to the local council (for the Green Party) in 2017. His band, Seize the Day, seems to play Glastonbury every year (at Toad Hall, Small World, sometimes other sets elsewhere). This is a video of their 2019 set:     There's an interview with him, probably filmed at Kings Hill, here. He sounds pretty cool if you ask me.   https://www.futurelearn.com/info/courses/why-religion-matters/0/steps/73899   This is from a university thesis submitted in 1999:   The King’s Hill Collective The King’s Hill Collective can be seen as solution to increasing pressures of living on the road for Travellers who were bringing up children and as a solution to (and rejection of) mainstream consumerist society by non Travellers many of whom were originally city dwellers. Nevertheless because many of the members had direct travelling experience, this community provided an example of one extreme in a continuum between those Travellers for whom the tag ‘New Age’ is a complete irrelevance and those for whom it is at least understandable if not desirable. This group is on the ‘New Age’, ecologically aware, ideologically ‘hippie’ and ‘sorted’ end of the New Age Traveller continuum discussed in the previous chapter. The site, which overlooks Pilton farm (the site of the Glastonbury Festival), is slowly maturing now with numerous trees, vegetables and a fully functioning water bore hole which supplies the site with drinking water. Water is extracted on a weekly basis using an old petrol engine and pump. The water, which is filtered by a series of sand traps, is inspected on an annual basis. The collective is concerned to demonstrate its willingness to 243adhere to regulations were this is possible and not contrary to its collective ideology. There are 16 plots, each at some stage of the development of the site, having a bender.   The benders are almost exclusively constructed of light green Tarpaulin over a hazel wood matrix. Stainless steel flexi-vents lead from stoves in the benders. These act as chimneys supported by a single branch driven into the earth. The stoves are usually home-made conversions of gas cylinders which have been cut and welded into shape although there was an solid fuel Rayburn installed in one bender during the study period. Inside the benders bedding is arranged on wooden pallets or platforms and there is often an additional gas stove for cooking. Water is supplied either directly from the holding tank or stored in water barrels. Lighting is almost exclusively by candles or ‘hurricane lamps’. Twelve volt batteries and in one case a wind generator supplies electricity for radios and in one case a small black and white television. Some of the more established benders had a variety of trees and shrubs around the canvass construction including apple, pear and fig trees as well as a variety of fruits.   The collective is serviced by a pay telephone located in an old red telephone box. Its position, in the middle of a field, is as incongruous as the lamp post in C.S. Lewis’s Narnia books and is in a way reminiscent of the TARDIS of Doctor Who, adding to the slightly surreal or magical atmosphere of the place. Inside a small domestic pay phone is installed and managed by one of the community.   At the centre of the site is a clearing of grass that acts as a communal area surrounded by a small circular mound inside of which runs a circular ditch in the fashion of a place of worship. In the centre of the circle is a small collection of sea stones collected from a nearby shoreline. There are four gaps in the mound representing the solstices and equinoxes, which correspond to the cardinal points of the compass. Each section of the mound was constructed during the period of the year that it represents. There are symbols representing Beltane and other significant calendar dates placed appropriately on the circle. The King’s Hill site owes its existence to Chris Black, a man who was broadly sympathetic to alternative lifestyles and provided initial financial support to the project. Chris Black purchased the field and ‘loaned’ sixteen plots to a number of Travellers and bender dwellers. The newly formed community developed a ‘constitution’ and organised a system whereby the loan of the plots was paid back over a period of two years through weekly contributions to a central fund. Thus after two years the land belonged to sixteen stakeholders.
    • K.O.G. were one of my favourite acts at EOTR a couple of years ago. Just a joyful afrobeat danceathon
  • Featured Products

  • Hot Topics

  • Latest Tourdates

×
×
  • Create New...