Mask or no mask

[Alpha1]

Reading through these posts, one thing is very clear to me. Chuck is a very special kind of person.

Ain't that the truth!

That made me laugh. Yes he certainly is.

[Chuck]

#119 Post by Plecotus » Sat Sep 18, 2021 12:48 pm
Reading through these posts, one thing is very clear to me. Chuck is a very special kind of person.

Yes I am,I am not a sheep and can think for myself - and Scottish! Jealousy gets you nowhere!

If someone thinks that being jabbed with an unproven, rushed through quaccine makes them immune they are seriously mis-informed.

And NO Alpha 1, I have not missed my meds....oh wait a mo'!

[Pippin89]

PIPPIN -Which constituents of the vaccine in particular do you feel are not suitable for children?

ALL of it!

Really? All of it? Even potassium chloride? Because you also find that in bananas so better take those away from the kids.
Sodium Chloride? Oops no more salt on the chips kids and stay out the sea!
Sucrose? Damn that's basically all fruit and veg! Those 5-a-day campaigns must have been trying to kill our kids.
Polyethylene Glycol? You should stop brushing your teeth then buddy!
Lipids? You going vegan then? Oh wait you can't do that because of the sucrose....
That just leaves us with Disodium Phosphate which rules you out from condensed milk, jelly, and tap water....

Good luck with life after you've given up all of that lot.

[Chuck]

"As global vaccination efforts continue to accelerate and more people gain protection from this dreadful disease" Grant Shapps - err WHAT Protection! There is little or NO protection, only it makes people FEEL safe!

Pippin,

Sarcasm is not the rapier of with its wielders seem to believe it to be, but merely a club: it may, by dint of brute force, occasionally raise bruises, but it never cuts or pierces. Sarcasm is the refuge of a shallow mind.

Where did you dream up all that nonsense? No need to answer, i don't care. Once again though, jabbing kids - and by the looks of it FIVE YEAR OLDS - for no need is CRUEL ABUSE, something you seem to relish Pippin. What else do you abuse, kittens, puppies - your other half, yourself????

You are of course entitled to run free and get jabbed. God knows what it will do to you and when over time. It may or may NOT give you some protection, you are certainly not immune. You have your chemical comfort blanked, good for you - that is your choice because you are scared and happy to do as ordered, others are NOT! Covid is OUT of my body - that crap is in you for LIFE!

I feel sorry for you - more sorry for your kids who MIGHT grow up to hate you over time after you jabbed them needlessly! Anyway, there's no point in respnding to any more of your verbal dysentry.

Turning to the more sensible people on here: had my check up today: ALL CLEAR! No covid, no chest heart or lung issues etc! All in all I was down for THREE weeks tops! NO BIGGIE!

[lapua338]

If someone is 'vaccinated', why should they care if someone else isn’t? We never had these arguments before about the flu jab. Either the vaccine works to protect the vaccinated, or it doesn’t. Nor were those who decided not to have a flu vaccine labelled 'anti-vaxxers'. You can be generally pro-vaccination, but have rational 'wait and see' reservations about the new-on-the-market Coronavirus ones, especially if your chances of becoming ill or indeed dying from Covid are extremely low. But that nuanced position is simply not recognised in the current, coercive 'Just take the bloody jab' hysteria. Vilifying so-called Covid vaccine 'refuseniks' comes with establishment approval these days.

The establishment have just made big pharma and their cronies even wealthier.

Don't get me started on so-called 'vaccine passports'. The deluded seem happy to accept the cretinous (and worthless) vaccine passport. The free citizen is declared a 'Covid risk', a danger to others; the person with a green 'Covid status' is declared 'clean', of no risk to others. Proof of vaccination is not an act of noble altruism and does not halt the spread. It only provides state approved vaccination status and is simply another form of control. People may think that a vaccine passport is a small price to pay for certain activities, but this is a dangerous bargain. Agreeing to the vaccine passport means that you have sold your freedom in exchange for ‘permission slip’ officialdom; it would revoke any presumed rights of citizens to participate in civic life.

The CV19 'crisis' has given governments worldwide a golden opportunity to roll out a new system of control over their citizens under the guise of protecting their health. Covid jabs don’t prevent contamination or transmission and have provided the ruling classes with the perfect pretext to introduce state-issued QR codes to access aspects of daily life which our overlords apparently deem 'non-essential' – including certain means of transport, food services, or health and fitness venues whilst the oligarchy and Davos elite remain unaffected by societal restrictions.

We would have sold our freedom for a measly price, and would find out the consequences of this deal in the months and years ahead, ie., a dystopian Chinese style social-credit system. We will look back in a few years and wonder how life might have been different if more people had bothered to fight the QR-code ushered in circa 2021/2022 to the hurrahs of bedwetters duped by the illusion of government protection from a relatively benign virus.

[Pippin89]

"As global vaccination efforts continue to accelerate and more people gain protection from this dreadful disease" Grant Shapps - err WHAT Protection! There is little or NO protection, only it makes people FEEL safe!

Very much wrong! You see, people like you have decided that vaccines are supposed to make you immune and then jumped up and down with glee when you find out they don't do that and you can tell everyone how they're pointless and how everyone is lying.

The problem is, no one ever said they make you fully immune. That's not what vaccines do, or have ever done. What they do is limit your symptoms, and more importantly, reduce the amount of time you are infectious for. Epidemiologists don't give a flying monkeys how an individual such as you or me are affected when they introduce preventative measures. They care about the population as a whole. If you spend 5 minutes studying epidemiology, you will see that lessening the amount of time someone is infectious for, has a vast impact on the rate of transmission of the infection.

Therefore, having that reduced infectious period offered by the vaccine, dramatically reduces the rate of infection and therefore, gets the virus under control. The added side benefit of reducing ones symptoms also takes the pressure of the NHS as less people are hospitalised.

Where did you dream up all that nonsense?

The chemical constituents of a vaccine are easily accessible by anyone online. They even give you an information sheet with them on when you have the vaccine. As for where those are found elsewhere, most of it is comment knowledge, the rest can be looked up without much trouble at all.

As for your comments on abusing kittens etc.... Well I mean, that's just a desperate attempt to get out of a conversation you're obviously not equipped to participate in.

[Pippin89]

If someone is 'vaccinated', why should they care if someone else isn’t?

That is a very common argument and is mis-guided. As my comment to Chuck said, vaccines aren't designed to work on an individual, they are designed to work on the population as a whole.

To put it into context, if I'm not drink driving, why should I care if someone else is? An unvaccinated person can still infect a vaccinated person, also those who are allergic to the vaccine or can't have it for other reasons, and those that it is not effective for. But most of all, it stunts the attempts to reduce the virus to the point where we can all get back to normal lives.

[Blackstuff]

"As global vaccination efforts continue to accelerate and more people gain protection from this dreadful disease" Grant Shapps - err WHAT Protection! There is little or NO protection, only it makes people FEEL safe!

Very much wrong! You see, people like you have decided that vaccines are supposed to make you immune and then jumped up and down with glee when you find out they don't do that and you can tell everyone how they're pointless and how everyone is lying.

The problem is, no one ever said they make you fully immune. That's not what vaccines do, or have ever done. What they do is limit your symptoms, and more importantly, reduce the amount of time you are infectious for.

The problem is (for me anyway), NO ONE, not the government, not the NHS brass, not the swathe of scientists that are brought out like lambs to the slaughter are saying this either!

I'd have to disagree with the first statement as well, i've seen it said on television and read it in papers. Not necessarily an outright statement that "The vaccinne is a 100% bio-shield", but certainly without any 'negative' or even balanced statement/caveat such as your latter. And that omission is extremely important IMO.

If someone is 'vaccinated', why should they care if someone else isn’t?

That is a very common argument and is mis-guided. As my comment to Chuck said, vaccines aren't designed to work on an individual, they are designed to work on the population as a whole.

To put it into context, if I'm not drink driving, why should I care if someone else is? An unvaccinated person can still infect a vaccinated person, also those who are allergic to the vaccine or can't have it for other reasons, and those that it is not effective for. But most of all, it stunts the attempts to reduce the virus to the point where we can all get back to normal lives.

Well thats not a very good example really though is it. While a vaccinated person may be infectious for less time, they are still fully able to both catch and spread the virus. Using your example it would need to be one drink driver thats twice the legal limit, and one that is 4 times the legal limit. Both still dangerous, but one for a longer period of time.

[Pippin89]

Well thats not a very good example really though is it. While a vaccinated person may be infectious for less time, they are still fully able to both catch and spread the virus. Using your example it would need to be one drink driver thats twice the legal limit, and one that is 4 times the legal limit. Both still dangerous, but one for a longer period of time.

My intended effect not being 100% effective in that analogy was that a sober driver could still crash and kill someone. Its just far less likely...

[Blackstuff]

Well thats not a very good example really though is it. While a vaccinated person may be infectious for less time, they are still fully able to both catch and spread the virus. Using your example it would need to be one drink driver thats twice the legal limit, and one that is 4 times the legal limit. Both still dangerous, but one for a longer period of time.

My intended effect not being 100% effective in that analogy was that a sober driver could still crash and kill someone. Its just far less likely...

Understood, but I thought the difference between an unvaccinated and vaccinated person, and a drunk and sober driver wasn't an accurate comparative. More that they're both over the limit, both just as able to kill someone, but one will be back under the legal limit/less likely to kill someone in a shorter time. Suggesting the difference is between drunk and sober to me smacks of the 'vaccine invincibility syndrome' lie peddled by the government.