comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 3 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 26 seconds ago
Making a lot of assumptions without any evidence there. First prove that the reduction in transmission is only 10%. Then prove that people behave nore recklessly when vaccinated than the unvaccinated do. Otherwise you are just making things up.
Definitely a strong attempt to retain your title.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
10% was just an example to get you thinking about the subjectivity of the word "reduce". If drinking a beer once a month "reduced" my life by one day, would it make a big difference. By not having a beer, I ate 10 pies instead.
Here is an example explaining in different words what my point is:
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-irelands-co-waterford-has-one-of-the-highest-vaccination-rates-in-the-world-so-why-are-cases-surging-12461642
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No 10% was just a number you picked out of things air to back up your ramblings. You have picked an example of one area, outside of the UK, that saw an increase in transmissions of delta (we already knew 2 doses of the vaccine was less effective against delta) but actually saw a decrease in hospitalizations and deaths (the key metric for the vaccine).
You have then tried to suggest that this is representative of the wider UK, which doesn't really work. You still haven't shown that vaccinated people are behaving more recklessly than unvaccinated. You still haven't shown how little you believe the reduction is, or why this woild have no effect.
You are simply making things up to justify your anti-vax position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You just argued my point. Also from the article:
"Some scientists feel that any public frustration with the high incidence rates is based on a misunderstanding of what the vaccines were supposed to achieve.
"The function of the vaccine is to stop illness and death, that's the primary goal, and the vaccines are holding up, it's great." That's the view of Professor Luke O'Neill, an immunologist at Trinity College Dublin, and one of the country's best-known scientific figures during the pandemic."
I am not arguing against the vaccine in any way. It's primary purpose is to stop people from getting ill and being hospitalised. My point is how much blame should we really put on young, healthy people who may have had one less jab than an older person, but also may be just as well protected? What real danger are they posing. If you could answer that, it would be nice.
The "you must have 3 jabs to enter" policy is highly immoral and completely flawed based on jab timings and the fact that covid still spreads amongst the vaccinated. Testing better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's all because young people pass it on, not because they are in danger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the science says that kids that have recently had 2 jabs, carry the same risk of passing it on as an old person who has just had their 3rd. Is it morally right to require people to have had 3 jabs to enter an event when they are the same level of risk to the public? This is a likely scenario in the near future. If both are similar risk of spreading it, does the old person being more vulnerable not make them more of a risk overall? Genuine questions
"But if the science says that kids that have recently had 2 jabs, carry the same risk of passing it on as an old person who has just had their 3rd"
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 2 minutes ago
"But if the science says that kids that have recently had 2 jabs, carry the same risk of passing it on as an old person who has just had their 3rd"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is very likely. The studies that have come out about Omicron tend to point towards being less protected against Omicron, the longer ago you had the vaccine. But they are not telling you directly that it is because it was a while since you had your second vaccine. Things can be spun different ways depending on the agenda. The agenda is to get your booster, so the the message is that 2 jabs doesn't sufficiently protect you against Omicron. The reality is far more likely that having had your 2nd jab not long ago. You are fine. This correlation ties up with ages and effectiveness of the 2nd against Omicron (older people less effective because got it longer ago).
A theoretical scenario masquerading as 'the science' then
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 17 seconds ago
A theoretical scenario masquerading as 'the science' then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said "if the science", to pose the question. The only study that has come out suggests that two vaccines give adequate protection? It is also proven that you are less protected the longer it has been since you had your last vaccine. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that a kid having just had their 2nd vaccine is around the same risk as an old person having their 3rd. The timescale is just different which is why young people are on their 2nd vaccine and old people on their 3rd.
So is it morally right to ban young folk from places a week after their 2nd jab (for not being boosted) and not old people a week after their 3rd? That's the way it will head with passports.
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 4 minutes ago
A theoretical scenario masquerading as 'the science' then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty much all culer has offered in the discussion.
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 17 seconds ago
A theoretical scenario masquerading as 'the science' then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said "if the science", to pose the question. The only study that has come out suggests that two vaccines give adequate protection? It is also proven that you are less protected the longer it has been since you had your last vaccine. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that a kid having just had their 2nd vaccine is around the same risk as an old person having their 3rd. The timescale is just different which is why young people are on their 2nd vaccine and old people on their 3rd.
So is it morally right to ban young folk from places a week after their 2nd jab (for not being boosted) and not old people a week after their 3rd? That's the way it will head with passports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is. Because it is impossible to take all the nuances into effect. It is simpler to have one rule that gives good protection to all.
I am asking you questions about morals and ethics using hypothetical scenarios, yes. Also asking questions about whether behavioural differences associated with having or not having symptoms affects the spread of the disease? All very interesting questions to discuss. What are your thoughts?
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 17 seconds ago
A theoretical scenario masquerading as 'the science' then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said "if the science", to pose the question. The only study that has come out suggests that two vaccines give adequate protection? It is also proven that you are less protected the longer it has been since you had your last vaccine. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that a kid having just had their 2nd vaccine is around the same risk as an old person having their 3rd. The timescale is just different which is why young people are on their 2nd vaccine and old people on their 3rd.
So is it morally right to ban young folk from places a week after their 2nd jab (for not being boosted) and not old people a week after their 3rd? That's the way it will head with passports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is. Because it is impossible to take all the nuances into effect. It is simpler to have one rule that gives good protection to all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are your views on making kids have a flu vaccine as they are the main spreaders of this? There are many parallels with the current covid situation, but no will to get the kids vaccinated against that. It is an interesting one. It was very different before, but now very similar to the flu situation, so what is the right thing to do?
I’m sorry Barry, but this isn’t up to the standard of your LOL article.
(Ricardo Calder is Barry, not MU52, the OP.)
(Ricardo Calder is Barry and Culer, not MU52, the OP.)
I shall be moving on from the culer charade as he filtered me. Was getting boring anyway. Although don't pretend you weren't fooled
I wasn’t. You can’t disguise your number whatever you change your name to.
Barry's Culer and Fake Culer
comment by Beeb - Legacy Fan (U1841)
posted 1 minute ago
I wasn’t. You can’t disguise your number whatever you change your name to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I changed my name to culer on that account
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Beeb - Legacy Fan (U1841)
posted 1 minute ago
I wasn’t. You can’t disguise your number whatever you change your name to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I changed my name to culer on that account
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean this account. My only account. Not the other one.
Just think, if Quantum physics is right, there’s an alternative universe out there wherein Barry is not even Barry.
comment by Beeb - Legacy Fan (U1841)
posted 1 minute ago
Just think, if Quantum physics is right, there’s an alternative universe out there wherein Barry is not even Barry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's another one where everyone's Barry except Barry.
That's the most annoying one.
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Beeb - Legacy Fan (U1841)
posted 1 minute ago
Just think, if Quantum physics is right, there’s an alternative universe out there wherein Barry is not even Barry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's another one where everyone's Barry except Barry.
That's the most annoying one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be Barry’s sorter nightmare, or heaven. Can’t decide.
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Beeb - Legacy Fan (U1841)
posted 1 minute ago
Just think, if Quantum physics is right, there’s an alternative universe out there wherein Barry is not even Barry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's another one where everyone's Barry except Barry.
That's the most annoying one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be Barry’s sorter nightmare, or heaven. Can’t decide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What would you rather, everyone else is me, or just you are me? That's my situation. Also you started all of this Baz.
Sign in if you want to comment
Game off
Page 6 of 6
6
posted on 14/12/21
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 11 minutes ago
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 3 hours, 4 minutes ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 30 seconds ago
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 45 seconds ago
comment by welshpoolfan (U7693)
posted 26 seconds ago
Making a lot of assumptions without any evidence there. First prove that the reduction in transmission is only 10%. Then prove that people behave nore recklessly when vaccinated than the unvaccinated do. Otherwise you are just making things up.
Definitely a strong attempt to retain your title.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
10% was just an example to get you thinking about the subjectivity of the word "reduce". If drinking a beer once a month "reduced" my life by one day, would it make a big difference. By not having a beer, I ate 10 pies instead.
Here is an example explaining in different words what my point is:
https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-irelands-co-waterford-has-one-of-the-highest-vaccination-rates-in-the-world-so-why-are-cases-surging-12461642
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No 10% was just a number you picked out of things air to back up your ramblings. You have picked an example of one area, outside of the UK, that saw an increase in transmissions of delta (we already knew 2 doses of the vaccine was less effective against delta) but actually saw a decrease in hospitalizations and deaths (the key metric for the vaccine).
You have then tried to suggest that this is representative of the wider UK, which doesn't really work. You still haven't shown that vaccinated people are behaving more recklessly than unvaccinated. You still haven't shown how little you believe the reduction is, or why this woild have no effect.
You are simply making things up to justify your anti-vax position.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You just argued my point. Also from the article:
"Some scientists feel that any public frustration with the high incidence rates is based on a misunderstanding of what the vaccines were supposed to achieve.
"The function of the vaccine is to stop illness and death, that's the primary goal, and the vaccines are holding up, it's great." That's the view of Professor Luke O'Neill, an immunologist at Trinity College Dublin, and one of the country's best-known scientific figures during the pandemic."
I am not arguing against the vaccine in any way. It's primary purpose is to stop people from getting ill and being hospitalised. My point is how much blame should we really put on young, healthy people who may have had one less jab than an older person, but also may be just as well protected? What real danger are they posing. If you could answer that, it would be nice.
The "you must have 3 jabs to enter" policy is highly immoral and completely flawed based on jab timings and the fact that covid still spreads amongst the vaccinated. Testing better.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It's all because young people pass it on, not because they are in danger
----------------------------------------------------------------------
But if the science says that kids that have recently had 2 jabs, carry the same risk of passing it on as an old person who has just had their 3rd. Is it morally right to require people to have had 3 jabs to enter an event when they are the same level of risk to the public? This is a likely scenario in the near future. If both are similar risk of spreading it, does the old person being more vulnerable not make them more of a risk overall? Genuine questions
posted on 14/12/21
"But if the science says that kids that have recently had 2 jabs, carry the same risk of passing it on as an old person who has just had their 3rd"
posted on 14/12/21
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 2 minutes ago
"But if the science says that kids that have recently had 2 jabs, carry the same risk of passing it on as an old person who has just had their 3rd"
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is very likely. The studies that have come out about Omicron tend to point towards being less protected against Omicron, the longer ago you had the vaccine. But they are not telling you directly that it is because it was a while since you had your second vaccine. Things can be spun different ways depending on the agenda. The agenda is to get your booster, so the the message is that 2 jabs doesn't sufficiently protect you against Omicron. The reality is far more likely that having had your 2nd jab not long ago. You are fine. This correlation ties up with ages and effectiveness of the 2nd against Omicron (older people less effective because got it longer ago).
posted on 14/12/21
A theoretical scenario masquerading as 'the science' then
posted on 14/12/21
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 17 seconds ago
A theoretical scenario masquerading as 'the science' then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said "if the science", to pose the question. The only study that has come out suggests that two vaccines give adequate protection? It is also proven that you are less protected the longer it has been since you had your last vaccine. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that a kid having just had their 2nd vaccine is around the same risk as an old person having their 3rd. The timescale is just different which is why young people are on their 2nd vaccine and old people on their 3rd.
So is it morally right to ban young folk from places a week after their 2nd jab (for not being boosted) and not old people a week after their 3rd? That's the way it will head with passports.
posted on 14/12/21
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 4 minutes ago
A theoretical scenario masquerading as 'the science' then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty much all culer has offered in the discussion.
posted on 14/12/21
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 17 seconds ago
A theoretical scenario masquerading as 'the science' then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said "if the science", to pose the question. The only study that has come out suggests that two vaccines give adequate protection? It is also proven that you are less protected the longer it has been since you had your last vaccine. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that a kid having just had their 2nd vaccine is around the same risk as an old person having their 3rd. The timescale is just different which is why young people are on their 2nd vaccine and old people on their 3rd.
So is it morally right to ban young folk from places a week after their 2nd jab (for not being boosted) and not old people a week after their 3rd? That's the way it will head with passports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is. Because it is impossible to take all the nuances into effect. It is simpler to have one rule that gives good protection to all.
posted on 14/12/21
I am asking you questions about morals and ethics using hypothetical scenarios, yes. Also asking questions about whether behavioural differences associated with having or not having symptoms affects the spread of the disease? All very interesting questions to discuss. What are your thoughts?
posted on 14/12/21
comment by manusince52 (U9692)
posted 9 seconds ago
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 17 seconds ago
A theoretical scenario masquerading as 'the science' then
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I said "if the science", to pose the question. The only study that has come out suggests that two vaccines give adequate protection? It is also proven that you are less protected the longer it has been since you had your last vaccine. Therefore it is reasonable to suggest that a kid having just had their 2nd vaccine is around the same risk as an old person having their 3rd. The timescale is just different which is why young people are on their 2nd vaccine and old people on their 3rd.
So is it morally right to ban young folk from places a week after their 2nd jab (for not being boosted) and not old people a week after their 3rd? That's the way it will head with passports.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes it is. Because it is impossible to take all the nuances into effect. It is simpler to have one rule that gives good protection to all.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What are your views on making kids have a flu vaccine as they are the main spreaders of this? There are many parallels with the current covid situation, but no will to get the kids vaccinated against that. It is an interesting one. It was very different before, but now very similar to the flu situation, so what is the right thing to do?
posted on 14/12/21
I’m sorry Barry, but this isn’t up to the standard of your LOL article.
posted on 14/12/21
(Ricardo Calder is Barry, not MU52, the OP.)
posted on 14/12/21
(Ricardo Calder is Barry and Culer, not MU52, the OP.)
posted on 14/12/21
I shall be moving on from the culer charade as he filtered me. Was getting boring anyway. Although don't pretend you weren't fooled
posted on 14/12/21
I wasn’t. You can’t disguise your number whatever you change your name to.
posted on 14/12/21
Barry's Culer and Fake Culer
posted on 14/12/21
comment by Beeb - Legacy Fan (U1841)
posted 1 minute ago
I wasn’t. You can’t disguise your number whatever you change your name to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I changed my name to culer on that account
posted on 14/12/21
comment by Ricardo Calder (U1734)
posted 1 second ago
comment by Beeb - Legacy Fan (U1841)
posted 1 minute ago
I wasn’t. You can’t disguise your number whatever you change your name to.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I changed my name to culer on that account
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I mean this account. My only account. Not the other one.
posted on 14/12/21
Just think, if Quantum physics is right, there’s an alternative universe out there wherein Barry is not even Barry.
posted on 14/12/21
comment by Beeb - Legacy Fan (U1841)
posted 1 minute ago
Just think, if Quantum physics is right, there’s an alternative universe out there wherein Barry is not even Barry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's another one where everyone's Barry except Barry.
That's the most annoying one.
posted on 14/12/21
posted on 14/12/21
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Beeb - Legacy Fan (U1841)
posted 1 minute ago
Just think, if Quantum physics is right, there’s an alternative universe out there wherein Barry is not even Barry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's another one where everyone's Barry except Barry.
That's the most annoying one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be Barry’s sorter nightmare, or heaven. Can’t decide.
posted on 14/12/21
comment by Ole dirty Baztard - penited and penandes (U19119)
posted 2 minutes ago
comment by Der Post Nearly Mann. Rangnificent (U1270)
posted 12 minutes ago
comment by Beeb - Legacy Fan (U1841)
posted 1 minute ago
Just think, if Quantum physics is right, there’s an alternative universe out there wherein Barry is not even Barry.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
There's another one where everyone's Barry except Barry.
That's the most annoying one.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
That would be Barry’s sorter nightmare, or heaven. Can’t decide.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
What would you rather, everyone else is me, or just you are me? That's my situation. Also you started all of this Baz.
Page 6 of 6
6