4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Are not the COVID vaccines modern medicine?

 

Have you missed the reports of people refusing to accept them?

I have read of people exercising their RIGHTS to refuse a medicine they don't trust.

24 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Let me guess.

 

No health insurance either.

Wrong. I have insurance mainly because the roads are dangerous here and I'm not going to go bankrupt because of some idiot. As I said, I'm prudent. If my leg got broken, I'd have it fixed. The principle I am talking about relates to natural illness and the avoidance of becoming psychologically dependent on the ever-more bloated techniques of modern medicine. That's a matter of being strong-minded but is beyond most people, apparently.

 

A post linking to twitter in a foreign language has been removed, also a most leading post.

On 1/18/2022 at 7:09 AM, cdemundo said:

What is your problem?

You are having a coronary because you have a connotative meaning for the word exploit which is a neutral term.

That is why I posted the definition of exploit.

I posted this because I consider this to be a positive political trend.

My second post was to make sure it didn't get deleted as "non-Thailand related."

You are arguing with yourself.

'Exploit' is not a neutral word. 

3 hours ago, scorecard said:

'Exploit' is not a neutral word. 

To exploit a person has a negative meaning.

To exploit an opportunity or a resource does not have a negative meaning...

2 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have read of people exercising their RIGHTS to refuse a medicine they don't trust.

So yes, turning down modern medicine (that’s been demonstrated to be safe and effective).

9 hours ago, Mr Derek said:

How about this anti-vax argument: people who cling on and on and on to life by obsessive dependence on medical intervention are selfish and part of the problem with all that is wrong with the world, which is over-population, over-consumption, over-indulgence.

 

I reason it thusly: The best, most meaningful time of life is when you are young, most fit, most healthy, most idealistic, when everything is a new experience. Meaningfulness tails off over the age of 50 once you have seen and done enough and your powers wane. You are just eking life out for no particular reason than to have a few more beers, repeat stuff you have done before, go places that are less and less worth visiting, using up space and the earth's resources. If you are lucky enough to stay in natural good health and get a long life, congratulations, but you should have no automatic right to perpetuate yourself by unnatural medical means. When your body packs up for whatever reason, the decent thing is to call it a day and resign with your natural integrity and dignity intact. You should take the hint: nature intends you to die; illness is natural population control and by denying it you are making a mess of things. A lot of old people have died due to Covid. That is nature's plan. The population will emerge from this leaner and fitter, as it did after the Black Death, which led to the Renaissance. You see the principle involved?

 

That's my philosophy of life. I never run to a doctor at the first sign of illness. I never take pills if I'm having a bad day. The body has a miraculous ability to heal most things itself and medicine only gets in the way. If something more dangerous gets me, then so be it. If I get cancer I won't be doing chemo. I consider everyone over a certain age who relies on the medical industry to drag out their lives until they are piece of dried fruit to be egotistic, weak and pathetic. Call it the Hemingway principle.

 

It seems the whole of society has become so precious it has become running scared of death. I am generally prudent but am prepared to take reasonable risks. I evaluate those risks intellectually and enact them according to my principles. I don't automatically believe everything I am fed by authorities - they put that stuff out for the masses because the masses are idiotic and need herding like cats. I'm not one of the masses.

 

I'm not getting vaxxed because of this principle. I take reasonable natural precautions, but if this virus takes me down, let it, and if you're soiling your pants because you want to live for eternity, that's your choice. Live hoping, die crapping.

 

A very extensive argument against vaccination, easy to make when one is healthy. As there are records of unvaccinated COVID patients being wheeled into ICU's with breathing difficulties, and begging to be vaccinated, permit me to doubt you will be as strong-minded as you claim if the crunch comes.

Tell me, have you similarly endorsed Mother Nature by eschewing polio, tetanus, typhoid and hepatitis vaccinations?

I was vaccinated, had COVID, recovered in 3 days. I'm 78. I don't need some [deleted] telling me how long I should live, I have more to do.

7 hours ago, placeholder said:

Before, it could have been that you were deceived. But now, it's clear that you are being dishonest. . 

I showed that definitvely for Walensky. The quote in full is:  Whereas your quote reads 

"Our data from the CDC today suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick, and that it's not just in the clinical trials, but it's also in real-world data."

 

Whereas your quote reads"

"Vaccinated people do not carry the virus, don't get sick"

The truncation is obviously designed to deceive. It left out a crucial qualification. Your quote is a snippet of a sentence she said, but represents what she said as a full sentence. That is flat-out dishonest.

 

As for Fauci, given that your source is dishonest about Walensky, why should anyone believe that it has accurately represented Fauci's statement? 

 

 

 

 

It's amazing how some people just can't admit they are wrong.

 

6 hours ago, ozimoron said:

I searched hard for the quote from Fauci and was unable to find it. I believe that you probably lied. I note that you have not attributed this statement with a link. That's usually a red flag.

Actually if you pay attention you will notice a hyperlink entitled "Covid narrative evolution". Please go to 0:35 for Fauci.

 

I posted this in response to a claim that authorities had never suggested or asserted vaccinations would get us out of this mess one year ago. They did, and any attempt to deny this is not relevant.

17 hours ago, placeholder said:

What " inevitable suffering?" What is the percentage of covid deaths Australia is currently experiencing compared to the USA?

You missed the point

More ensuing debate/replies on a misleading/disallowed social media post regarding COVID have been removed, along with an extended off-topic diversion relating to elder care facilities.

 

7 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I have read of people exercising their RIGHTS to refuse a medicine they don't trust.

Bet they trust Viagra......????

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Well and truly in NZ. Any talk of the "team of 5 million" has vanished. Now it's "us against them". I hope the next election will educate them that encouraging fear of and anger against fellow citizens is not a good way to rule.

Starting with ‘we are all in this together’ is commendable, but when a small but vociferous minority announce they aren’t willing to do their part and be in this together, well yes they are making it an ‘us against them’ issue.

 

Under such circumstances it is absolutely understandable that the government will act in favour of the majority who are doing their bit for the good of all.

 

 

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Starting with ‘we are all in this together’ is commendable, but when a small but vociferous minority announce they aren’t willing to do their part and be in this together, well yes they are making it an ‘us against them’ issue.

 

Under such circumstances it is absolutely understandable that the government will act in favour of the majority who are doing their bit for the good of all.

 

 

"Long COVID" is sufficient for me to give the virus respect, and happily accept vaccination. Whatever it takes.

I am just wondering how many anti-vaxxers have seen this photo, taken some decades ago. IMO their resistance to vaccination doesn't go that far.

 

9 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps they closed ward beds to be able to staff intensive care beds. If there are not enough staff something has to change.

NB I said "perhaps". I'm not in France to know for sure.

Yes, the article says the intensive care beds are temporary and that nursing staff are reassigned to intensive care units. It is also said that 27,000 beds have been closed over the past seven years, which is massive and is the real core of the problem.

9 hours ago, Jeffr2 said:

 

This might help.

https://www.businessinsider.com/cdc-director-data-vaccinated-people-do-not-carry-covid-19-2021-3

 

Walensky was referring to a new CDC study of nearly 4,000 front-line workers, some vaccinated and some not, who tested themselves weekly for COVID-19 infections between December and March. 

 

Among fully vaccinated people in the study, there were only three "break-through" COVID-19 infections detected. In stark contrast, unvaccinated participants in the study logged 161 COVID-19 cases.

 

In other words, two shots of Pfizer or Moderna's vaccines, followed by two full weeks for them to take effect, nearly zeroed out all detectable infections — including asymptomatic ones.

Please be honest. The issue debated here was whether people in authority had initially said that massive inoculation of two shots would be enough to stop infections and therefore the pandemic. The headline reads "CDC director says data 'suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus'", therefore my stance (that these claims had indeed been made) was correct.

 

From the article:

 

In other words, two shots of Pfizer or Moderna's vaccines, followed by two full weeks for them to take effect, nearly zeroed out all detectable infections — including asymptomatic ones. The CDC concluded, based on those results, that Pfizer and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines are roughly 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections in the real world, even the asymptomatic kind. This is a great sign, because it means that vaccinated people likely don't pose a risk of spreading the virus to those around them.

 

The CDC of course refuted those claims later but they did initially make them.

14 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Please be honest. The issue debated here was whether people in authority had initially said that massive inoculation of two shots would be enough to stop infections and therefore the pandemic. The headline reads "CDC director says data 'suggests that vaccinated people do not carry the virus'", therefore my stance (that these claims had indeed been made) was correct.

 

From the article:

 

In other words, two shots of Pfizer or Moderna's vaccines, followed by two full weeks for them to take effect, nearly zeroed out all detectable infections — including asymptomatic ones. The CDC concluded, based on those results, that Pfizer and Moderna's COVID-19 vaccines are roughly 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 infections in the real world, even the asymptomatic kind. This is a great sign, because it means that vaccinated people likely don't pose a risk of spreading the virus to those around them.

 

The CDC of course refuted those claims later but they did initially make them.

Who gives a flying care?

 

None of those comments caused anyone to not take the vaccine (unlike the flip side of the vaccine misinformation that was and continues to be spread).

 

The vaccines are safe and effective, they have saved countless numbers of people from serious illness, hospitalization and death, together with the associated costs in human misery and impact on health services.

 

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Who gives a flying care?

 

None of those comments caused anyone to not take the vaccine (unlike the flip side of the vaccine misinformation that was and continues to be spread).

 

The vaccines are safe and effective, they have saved countless numbers of people from serious illness, hospitalization and death, together with the associated costs in human misery and impact on health services.

 

They weren't comments but an erroneous premise repeated ad nauseam for months on end by the world's top health authorities.

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

They weren't comments but an erroneous premise repeated ad nauseam for months on end by the world's top health authorities.

Get over it already.

 

Tge vaccines have saved countless people from serious illness, hospitalization and death, together with the associated costs in human misery and impact on health service.

 

The vaccines have done this effectively and safely (ad nauseam if you like).

 

Why not focus on the misinformation that has cost lives?!

 

 

22 hours ago, placeholder said:

Really, that was what was sold to the public? What public health authorities claimed that? Stop making things up.

The fact is that these vaccines dramatically reduce the death rate for those who have been vaccinated and the rate of serious illness.

Whether or not that was really what was sold to the public, it would appear that’s what most of them thought they were buying. I remember having arguments with friends and family at this time last year, trying to show them articles written by scientists who said that the vaccines could not realistically be expected to stop the spread and put and end to covid. They were all planning vacations, weddings, and family reunions for the summer, and I was “just being negative”. 

(I was also accused of “being negative” and “making things up” when I said that these vaccines would be like a flu shot, and require periodic boosters to keep up with new mutations)
 

If health authorities weren’t selling the idea that the vaccines would end covid altogether, they should have been a lot more clear about it to the average news consumer, who doesn’t read medical journals. 
 

This is not to say that the vaccines don’t reduce serious illness and death (gotta throw that in there). What I’m saying, is that politicians would have had a much less patient populace on their hands if they’d been more honest, and told us that the masks and social restrictions would quite possibly have to remain for months, or even years after the vaccines were rolled out. 

3 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

Whether or not that was really what was sold to the public, it would appear that’s what most of them thought they were buying. I remember having arguments with friends and family at this time last year, trying to show them articles written by scientists who said that the vaccines could not realistically be expected to stop the spread and put and end to covid. They were all planning vacations, weddings, and family reunions for the summer, and I was “just being negative”. 

(I was also accused of “being negative” and “making things up” when I said that these vaccines would be like a flu shot, and require periodic boosters to keep up with new mutations)
 

If health authorities weren’t selling the idea that the vaccines would end covid altogether, they should have been a lot more clear about it to the average news consumer, who doesn’t read medical journals. 
 

This is not to say that the vaccines don’t reduce serious illness and death (gotta throw that in there). What I’m saying, is that politicians would have had a much less patient populace on their hands if they’d simply been honest and told us that the masks and social restrictions would quite possibly have to remain for months, or even years after the vaccines were rolled out. 

FACT.

 

The vaccine dramatically reduced serious illnesses, hospitalizations and deaths.

 

So what ‘most thought they were buying’ turned out to be true.

 

But do get your point.

 

What might have been said in error about the vaccines is all you’ve got.

 

Or rather, one side of what was said about the vaccines is all you’ve got.

 

You don’t address the other sides outright lies and Q-duff misinformation.

7 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

Whether or not that was really what was sold to the public, it would appear that’s what most of them thought they were buying. I remember having arguments with friends and family at this time last year, trying to show them articles written by scientists who said that the vaccines could not realistically be expected to stop the spread and put and end to covid. They were all planning vacations, weddings, and family reunions for the summer, and I was “just being negative”. 

(I was also accused of “being negative” and “making things up” when I said that these vaccines would be like a flu shot, and require periodic boosters to keep up with new mutations)
 

If health authorities weren’t selling the idea that the vaccines would end covid altogether, they should have been a lot more clear about it to the average news consumer, who doesn’t read medical journals. 
 

This is not to say that the vaccines don’t reduce serious illness and death (gotta throw that in there). What I’m saying, is that politicians would have had a much less patient populace on their hands if they’d been more honest, and told us that the masks and social restrictions would quite possibly have to remain for months, or even years after the vaccines were rolled out. 

Nobody should ever have gained the impression that masks or social restrictions were in any way related to the vaccines or wouldn't be required until the virus infections reached a low point which would be declared by medical experts. I certainly was always of this opinion. l Anything else is false right wing political garbage.

5 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

 

What might have been said in error about the vaccines is all you’ve got.

 

Or rather, one side of what was said about the vaccines is all you’ve got.

 

 

Was it said in error, or was it said because it was politically beneficial? 
 

There were scientists at the time pointing to the effectiveness of flu shots; showing that while they do reduce serious illness and deaths in those who are most vulnerable, they are not (and should not be expected to be) capable of eradicating the disease itself. These scientists (the other side) were pushed to the back of the room where nobody would hear them, IMO. 
 

The impression I get from the VAST MAJORITY of people I talk to, is that they were never all that scared of covid to begin with, but did hope that the vaccines would put an end to all the misery that it has caused. That’s why many of them got vaccinated to begin with. Not necessarily because they thought they’d die if they didn’t get it. 
 

 

2 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

Was it said in error, or was it said because it was politically beneficial? 
 

There were scientists at the time pointing to the effectiveness of flu shots; showing that while they do reduce serious illness and deaths in those who are most vulnerable, they are not (and should not be expected to be) capable of eradicating the disease itself. These scientists (the other side) were pushed to the back of the room where nobody would hear them, IMO. 
 

The impression I get from the VAST MAJORITY of people I talk to, is that they were never all that scared of covid to begin with, but did hope that the vaccines would put an end to all the misery that it has caused. That’s why many of them got vaccinated to begin with. Not necessarily because they thought they’d die if they didn’t get it. 
 

 

Rubbish. Anybody who was listening knew that Delta when unvaccinated was extremely dangerous and not so much if vaccinated. It was only the advent of omicron which allowed people to consider they would survive regardless of vaccine status. Yes, I know most people recover anyway but only the foolhardy wanted to chance it.

9 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

Was it said in error, or was it said because it was politically beneficial? 
 

There were scientists at the time pointing to the effectiveness of flu shots; showing that while they do reduce serious illness and deaths in those who are most vulnerable, they are not (and should not be expected to be) capable of eradicating the disease itself. These scientists (the other side) were pushed to the back of the room where nobody would hear them, IMO. 
 

The impression I get from the VAST MAJORITY of people I talk to, is that they were never all that scared of covid to begin with, but did hope that the vaccines would put an end to all the misery that it has caused. That’s why many of them got vaccinated to begin with. Not necessarily because they thought they’d die if they didn’t get it. 
 

 

OK, let’s not argue and agree the statements were ‘politically beneficial’.

 

Now explain how those statements prevented or discouraged anyone from taking the vaccines which have been proved to be safe and effective in saving countless numbers of people from serious illness, hospitalization and death, together with the immense costs in human misery and impacts on health services ?

 

 

Focus hard before answering.

 

Poor old Piers Corbyn

19 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

 

 

You don’t address the other sides outright lies and Q-duff misinformation.

I don’t address Q because I haven’t met anyone in real life who actually subscribes to all that nonsense; the same as how I don’t know any white supremacists, even though the media would have me believe that I’m surrounded by them, and they are the latest “greatest threat” to our way of life. 
 

Some people think the world is flat, and plenty of people still believe in god. There’s nothing I can do about them, but I don’t think they have the power to change any thinking person’s mind. 
All I see is politicians looking for a scapegoat because the plan hasn’t gone quite as well as people were led to believe it would.
Western countries are well ahead of the vaccination targets that politicians and health authorities themselves set, and implied repeatedly, would be enough to get us out of this mess. They were wrong.  Now that their credibility is being questioned by a good chunk of their constituents, they need someone to put the blame on, and who better to blame than a small segment of the population who is already inherently anti-government?

2 minutes ago, Ryan754326 said:

I don’t address Q because I haven’t met anyone in real life who actually subscribes to all that nonsense; the same as how I don’t know any white supremacists, even though the media would have me believe that I’m surrounded by them, and they are the latest “greatest threat” to our way of life. 
 

Some people think the world is flat, and plenty of people still believe in god. There’s nothing I can do about them, but I don’t think they have the power to change any thinking person’s mind. 
All I see is politicians looking for a scapegoat because the plan hasn’t gone quite as well as people were led to believe it would.
Western countries are well ahead of the vaccination targets that politicians and health authorities themselves set, and implied repeatedly, would be enough to get us out of this mess. They were wrong.  Now that their credibility is being questioned by a good chunk of their constituents, they need someone to put the blame on, and who better to blame than a small segment of the population who is already inherently anti-government?

And yet the science and the data says otherwise.

7 minutes ago, The Hammer2021 said:

I wish the loud mouthed unvaccinated ťw❧ at my local would f*** **f. People are sick to death of these you tube bores gushing statistics and elderly rebellion. Ban them! Not because  they are unvaccinated but because their position, like anti maskers makes them insufferable,  thick bores. We have better things to argue about at the pub.

I’m only surprised anyone believing  Q-duff reveals themselves in public.

 

On the upside, at least it’s obvious who to avoid.

5 hours ago, ozimoron said:

Nobody should ever have gained the impression that masks or social restrictions were in any way related to the vaccines or wouldn't be required until the virus infections reached a low point which would be declared by medical experts. I certainly was always of this opinion. l Anything else is false right wing political garbage.

we were led to believe that 70-80% of the population being vaccinated would be enough to get those numbers down to an acceptable level, and end the social restrictions and masks. Nothing “right wing” about it.

At one point I even remember an American politician saying that the pandemic could be over in a month if people would just wear their masks. 
 

You might have been aware that the vaccines wouldn’t neutralize covid completely. I was aware, but was called a pessimist (among others things) for trying to tell anyone or show them the evidence.
The mainstream media sure didn’t make it very clear to the general public.