The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

RDC wrote:

Airbrush wrote:

knewmans wrote:I'm immunosuppressed. Luckily I had my jabs beforehand. Having jabs while immunosuppressed means you are very likely not to develop any protection from covid. There is a whole population of people who quite rightly are scared (possibly to death) by the free for all.

I simply won't be going anywhere I can be exposed to non-mask wearing asymptomatic (or symptomatic who wont get tested or isolate) f**ks who don't give a sh*t about anyone else around them.

Sorry to hear that, but are you seriously suggesting everyone should change the way they live for a tiny minority of the community?

Tbf that’s been the norm for several years now anyway.

They have said they are changing their own way of living to protect themselves... How is that asking everyone else to change?

Yep, early morning post obviously didn’t sink in.

I'm not asking anyone to change. If after more than a year a sense of social responsibility is beyond you nothings changing now.

knewmans wrote:I'm not asking anyone to change. If after more than a year a sense of social responsibility is beyond you nothings changing now.

The most effective way to protect people like knewmans is herd immunity. Everyone who can, gets the vaccine, builds up their own immunity so that immunocompromised people are less likely to come into contact with infected people. If we all did that we would all live a bit happier. "Social responsibility" is a great way of putting it. It should be seen as our responsibility to do what is necessary. Sadly some people only care about their right to be an idiot.

Pippin89 wrote:

knewmans wrote: Sadly too many people only care about their right to be an idiot.

A minor edit to your post ...

Pippin89 wrote:

knewmans wrote:I'm not asking anyone to change. If after more than a year a sense of social responsibility is beyond you nothings changing now.

The most effective way to protect people like knewmans is herd immunity. Everyone who can, gets the vaccine, builds up their own immunity so that immunocompromised people are less likely to come into contact with infected people. If we all did that we would all live a bit happier. "Social responsibility" is a great way of putting it. It should be seen as our responsibility to do what is necessary. Sadly some people only care about their right to be an idiot.

It could said that rather than exercising "their right to be an idiot" there are people who would rather exercise their freedom of choice not to have a vaccine that was rushed into production and for which no one takes responsibility for in the event of any serious side effects that may only appear further down the line.

I have had both jabs (Astrazeneca) but I am starting to think that I'd rather have taken my chances as since having the second jab nearly two months ago my muscles constantly ache like hell, I have started to suffer from headaches and generally feel like crap whereas I felt perfectly fine before having it!.....some of the people I work with and others I know socially also feel the same since being jabbed so it isn't just me.

If you look at photos of the protests in Paris, Rome and elsewhere around the world the vast majority of people taking part in these protests are just ordinary people of all ages that believe in freedom of choice rather than having a vaccine they don't want forced upon them by their governments......they aren't all conspiracy theorists.

Just how far would a government have to go before a significant proportion of the population had the fortitude to say no?

You don't have to have the vaccine.

Equally you don't have the right to impose your enhanced probability of being infected on the vast majority who have exercised their choice to protect themselves and everyone else. If we can come out of the EU with a 1% majority. This 70% double vaccinated majority has a good case in its favour to make democratic decisions.

snayperskaya wrote: there are people who would rather exercise their freedom of choice not to have a vaccine that was rushed into production

The problem here is that people who claim it was "rushed into production" cannot answer how long vaccine development takes, why it takes the time it does, the limitations of vaccine testing and how they can be overcome. They have just cottoned onto this "vaccines take years to develop" and run with it.

The truth is that the flu jab is developed, tested and rolled out every year in a matter of a few months. This is because it is existing developments that need relatively simple modifications to the change in active strains each year.
This is also true of the Covid-19 vaccine. Coronavirus vaccines have been in development for decades and minor tweaks were needed to adapt it to the current Coronavirus that we need to fight. Add in huge financing and cross company result sharing and you will see that it absolutely was not rushed....

knewmans wrote:You don't have to have the vaccine.

Equally you don't have the right to impose your enhanced probability of being infected on the vast majority who have exercised their choice to protect themselves and everyone else. If we can come out of the EU with a 1% majority. This 70% double vaccinated majority has a good case in its favour to make democratic decisions.

Exactly this! Everyone has the right to refuse the vaccine. But they must live with the consequences of that decision. And that includes not forcing their decision on everyone else by insisting on being near them.

At the moment everyone has the right to refuse it but what happens if, hypothetically, that right is taken away and vaccination becomes mandatory?.That would open up a whole can of worms and what else would become mandatory?.It appears that gradually more and more freedom of choice is being eroded, people are told it is for their own good and the good of others but where will it end?.

I understand those that are vunerable health-wise need protecting, and I agree with that and have no problem wearing a mask/social distancing around someone that is vunerable, but at the same time the rest of us, which is the majority of people, need to get back to normal and not just "the new normal"!.

snayperskaya wrote:
I understand those that are vunerable health-wise need protecting, and I agree with that and have no problem wearing a mask/social distancing around someone that is vulnerable .

So, there are some choices you are OK with being taken away as long as you already agree with them. But the vulnerable should make themselves known to you so you know when to wear a mask. Perhaps a sign round their neck or a yellow star somewhere.