Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
How Likely Are You To Take The Covid Vaccine?
Comments
-
Flu just like Covid-19 is always going to be dangerous for some individuals. Influenza is contagious but nowhere near as contagious as Covid-19 (Delta). Last winter “flu season” effectively never happened due to the mitigation’s brought in to combat Covid. Lockdowns, social distancing, better hand hygiene and mask wearing. This coming winter / flu season there will be no mitigation’s in place as far as we know. That will mean the 2021/22 flu virus will again be able to spread and off the back of a previous season where hardly anyone was infected either seriously or otherwise there will be significant reduction in the herds immunity response to the circulating flu virus. That’s likely to cause more infections causing some illness and consequently more people needing hospitalisation and potentially dying. Remember that a bad flu season can prove fatal for around 30k individuals. Everything points towards this being a challenging flu season especially with Covid - 19 still in high prevalence. Get jabbed for flu and for third booster Covid-19 if offered. You can pay to be vaccinated at most high street chemists if you are ineligible for a free shot. Not sure if that will be the same this year due to supply / demand. Get vaccinated even if you have to pay.SoundAsa£ said:
Not heard that Stu……in what way do they mean worse?Charltonstu said:The experts are saying that the flu will be worse than the covid this winter .
So take the Jab .
More cases or a more life threatening variant?3 -
It's worrying that the 'flu vaccine delivery is going to be delayed due to delivery problems.0
-
Found on the net:“I'm vaccinated and, no, I don't know what's in it - neither this vaccine, the ones I had as a child, nor in the burger or hot dog, or any medical treatments…whether it's for cancer, AIDS, the one for polyarthritis, or headache. I trust my doctor when she says it’s needed and safe.I also don't know what's in Ibuprofen, Tylenol, or other meds, it just cures my headaches & my pains. And I’m good with that.I don't know what's in the ink for tattoos, or every ingredient in my soap or shampoo or deodorants. I don’t know the long term effect of cell phone use or whether or not that restaurant I just ate at REALLY used clean food and washed their hands.In short ...There's a lot of things I don't know and never will…I just know one thing: life is short, very short, and I still want to do something other than just going to work every day or staying locked in my home. I still want to travel and hug people without fear and find a little feeling of my life "before” this all happened.As a child and as an adult I've been vaccinated for mumps, measles, rubella, polio, yellow fever, and quite a few others; my parents and I trusted the science and never had to suffer through or transmit any of said diseases.I'm vaccinated, not to please the government but:* To not die from Covid-19.* To NOT occupy a hospital bed if I get sick.* To hug my loved ones* To not lose another parent* To live my life.* For Covid-19 to be an old memory.* To protect you, yours, me and mine.”25
-
I think what they are saying, is that because there were very few flu cases last winter , they are expecting a reasurgence this winter . I contacted my GP . And he said they are only vaccinating the age group 50 to 65 at present . So if your not in that age group you will have to wait .0
-
That’s strange…..you’d have thought they would have jabbed older groups before 50 to 65?Charltonstu said:I think what they are saying, is that because there were very few flu cases last winter , they are expecting a reasurgence this winter . I contacted my GP . And he said they are only vaccinating the age group 50 to 65 at present . So if your not in that age group you will have to wait .
Hard to believe what he told you.🤔0 -
I agree ,
Also checked it on the government website.
Perhaps they are trying to kill the old ones off 😷0 -
2 -
Anyone over fifty plus those who are clinically vulnerable0 -
Where does it say the 50 to age 65 group will be done first Stu?Charltonstu said:I agree ,
Also checked it on the government website.
Perhaps they are trying to kill the old ones off 😷0 -
Flu jab early is not always best. The vaccines tend to wane in effectiveness over six months. The flu virus is with us most of the year and peaks in Dec to Feb. Therefore having the vaccine at the end of September, early October maybe advantageous.0
- Sponsored links:
-
It actually doesn’t say that. Last year for obvious reasons the lower age limit for free NHS flu vaccines was extended downwards from 65 to include those over 50. This will be continued this coming flu season. Anyone over the age of 50 will be offered a flu vaccine and anyone regarded as immunosuppressed or clinically vulnerable under age 50 will also be offered the vaccine. Certain other groups will also be eligible.SoundAsa£ said:
Where does it say the 50 to age 65 group will be done first Stu?Charltonstu said:I agree ,
Also checked it on the government website.
Perhaps they are trying to kill the old ones off 😷1 -
Agree Tel ... this role out has been disjointed, confusing and with lack of supply we are now playing catch up. As a nation we locked down fast and by April 2020 did not have the impact that UK experienced. That led to a distinct lack of urgency and complacency. To date we've had about 1000 deaths. There was no plan to get vaccine delivered promptly. Because UK, Europe and US were experiencing such mortality our government stepped aside and joined a queue. That has been Australia's downfall. Cases are now at 1500 a day in NSW and we're scrabbling to jab people asap. We all want to return to 'normal' and like Tel, I'm extremely keen to head to UK and The Valley.1
-
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.3 -
I hate vat because sometimes it makes me 20% more expensive than my competitorsaddick1956 said:I really don't understand anti vat brigade . There are countries that will not let you in without a whole host of vaccination certs plus malaria defences too. They are '3rd world' countries and they think our stance on letting in people willy nilly is stupid in the extreme and strange at best.
I hope that vaccine passports are introduced. It will be a wake up call for the people who think they have the right to let others try to control thus by vaccination but opt out themselves.
That goes for those who have chosen to ignore wearing masks 😷 where instructed to.
This is a civil emergency really , no one is excluded . What a shambles that people put personal rights before civic duty .2 -
Not the same, better. The sick, the old and most of the population have tested it now.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Lets hope that you and all the people you may have infected are alive to read those results in 2023.
May I also point out that in any trial, some humans have to volunteer to test a vaccine. I guess when the call came, you were hiding behind the settee.
Its safe now, you can come out.6 -
Perhaps we should have spent 10 years testing the vaccines just to please the antivaxxers. The fact that loads of people would have died in the meantime isn't really an issue.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
It's really tedious hearing the same utterly pointless arguments trotted out by those who have no answers.9 -
I did kind of get the "rushed" arguments, and personally had lot of sympathy with people with those views early on.
But surely if people are going to be growing extra limbs/serious birth defects/have integrated 5g (sign me up), we would have some indication by now?4 -
I have an A or B question.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Who do you think is best qualified to say whether the vaccine was trialed enough to be rolled out to the public?
A. The medical experts who’ve studied and practiced in the field their entire lives.
or
B. The sceptical unqualified public.
Ill wait.7 -
I don't get why some of those making these arguments are happy to use untested meds to treat covid? Seems they pick and choose when it comes to the need for clinical trials.Huskaris said:I did kind of get the "rushed" arguments, and personally had lot of sympathy with people with those views early on.
But surely if people are going to be growing extra limbs/serious birth defects/have integrated 5g (sign me up), we would have some indication by now?8 -
Yeah it's bizarre isn't it.hoof_it_up_to_benty said:
I don't get why some of those making these arguments are happy to use untested meds to treat covid? Seems they pick and choose when it comes to the need for clinical trials.Huskaris said:I did kind of get the "rushed" arguments, and personally had lot of sympathy with people with those views early on.
But surely if people are going to be growing extra limbs/serious birth defects/have integrated 5g (sign me up), we would have some indication by now?
Here's something that almost every recognised expert is saying is safe and ready to go, and here is something that some loon on YouTube is suggesting.
I can have sympathy with saying no to both, but to go with the YouTube loon....
I think it's a contrarian attitude that many automatically default to, not just on vaccines, and certainly not just people of that ilk.
1 - Sponsored links:
-
“Rushed” doesn’t have to mean, not done properly.
It could mean, (and I think I’m correct), finances, resources and the will to collaborate were all in place in a timely manner.
11 -
Given there was a global pandemnic normal timescales were never going to apply. Imagine if anti vaxxers were put in charge of public health?charltonkeston said:“Rushed” doesn’t have to mean, not done properly.
It could mean, (and I think I’m correct), finances, resources and the will to collaborate were all in place in a timely manner.0 -
Oh dear. This is 100% trolling to get a reaction. You know full well that most processes including clinical trials follow a well defined pattern and in the case of clinical trials the outcome is then independently scrutinised (peer reviewed) by whom ever wishes to do so. When I paint a room it follows a process. Depending on how much time and resources I throw at it, will impact on the time the job takes. The keener I am to get it done the sooner it’s completed. That doesn’t mean in any way shape or form that I’ve skipped parts of the process. The independent scrutiny of the trial results was also completed in quick time. The reason was that there was a pandemic. Resources and money not usually available were provided in spades. From the way you express yourself you’re obviously not a stupid person. There was no need for me to use a child friendly analogy to explain it to you but that’s not why you posted your drivel.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.4 -
You are right it doesn't mean you have "....skipped part of the process". But it CAN mean that you have.ShootersHillGuru said:
Oh dear. This is 100% trolling to get a reaction. You know full well that most processes including clinical trials follow a well defined pattern and in the case of clinical trials the outcome is then independently scrutinised (peer reviewed) by whom ever wishes to do so. When I paint a room it follows a process. Depending on how much time and resources I throw at it, will impact on the time the job takes. The keener I am to get it done the sooner it’s completed. That doesn’t mean in any way shape or form that I’ve skipped parts of the process. The independent scrutiny of the trial results was also completed in quick time. The reason was that there was a pandemic. Resources and money not usually available were provided in spades. From the way you express yourself you’re obviously not a stupid person. There was no need for me to use a child friendly analogy to explain it to you but that’s not why you posted your drivel.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Btw do you have the results to the trials you mention? I was lead to believe that the clinical trials are to be completed in 2023.
Not "trolling", no. Just interested in both sides of the argument. As stated before ~ in order to trust (and everything about this covid situation is based on trust) ~ those that are telling us what to do, must show integrity, consistency and transparency.
Among other traits. It is because these traits have been absent in various incidences throughout this pandemic that has lead to some people to question various points. That is all.
To call such enquiries "trolling" "drivel" "f***wits" and all the other names bandied around seems to point more to someone who is not standing on firm ground with regard this issue.
I also learned, during these enquiries, that it is a myth that everyone who questions some of the Covid policies being implemented are "covidiots" and "numbskulls". Apparently the demographics are that yes, a large proportion of those uneducated choose to not present themselves for the jab. That is absolutely correct. As the education level increases (to Bachelor degree) the uptake of the jab increases enormously.
But in those with post-graduate degrees and PHD, those numbers fall greatly and such persons choose not to present themselves for the jab in significant numbers. This would indicate that simply labelling those persons, as yet unvaccinated, as morons and idiots, is factually incorrect. And, dare I say it, perhaps idiotic.4 -
VoT can you answer my post please mate.BR7_addick said:
I have an A or B question.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Who do you think is best qualified to say whether the vaccine was trialed enough to be rolled out to the public?
A. The medical experts who’ve studied and practiced in the field their entire lives.
or
B. The sceptical unqualified public.
Ill wait.0 -
Can you provide evidence of this?ValleyOfTears said:
You are right it doesn't mean you have "....skipped part of the process". But it CAN mean that you have.ShootersHillGuru said:
Oh dear. This is 100% trolling to get a reaction. You know full well that most processes including clinical trials follow a well defined pattern and in the case of clinical trials the outcome is then independently scrutinised (peer reviewed) by whom ever wishes to do so. When I paint a room it follows a process. Depending on how much time and resources I throw at it, will impact on the time the job takes. The keener I am to get it done the sooner it’s completed. That doesn’t mean in any way shape or form that I’ve skipped parts of the process. The independent scrutiny of the trial results was also completed in quick time. The reason was that there was a pandemic. Resources and money not usually available were provided in spades. From the way you express yourself you’re obviously not a stupid person. There was no need for me to use a child friendly analogy to explain it to you but that’s not why you posted your drivel.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Btw do you have the results to the trials you mention? I was lead to believe that the clinical trials are to be completed in 2023.
Not "trolling", no. Just interested in both sides of the argument. As stated before ~ in order to trust (and everything about this covid situation is based on trust) ~ those that are telling us what to do, must show integrity, consistency and transparency.
Among other traits. It is because these traits have been absent in various incidences throughout this pandemic that has lead to some people to question various points. That is all.
To call such enquiries "trolling" "drivel" "f***wits" and all the other names bandied around seems to point more to someone who is not standing on firm ground with regard this issue.
I also learned, during these enquiries, that it is a myth that everyone who questions some of the Covid policies being implemented are "covidiots" and "numbskulls". Apparently the demographics are that yes, a large proportion of those uneducated choose to not present themselves for the jab. That is absolutely correct. As the education level increases (to Bachelor degree) the uptake of the jab increases enormously.
But in those with post-graduate degrees and PHD, those numbers fall greatly and such persons choose not to present themselves for the jab in significant numbers. This would indicate that simply labelling those persons, as yet unvaccinated, as morons and idiots, is factually incorrect. And, dare I say it, perhaps idiotic.3 -
Fascinating to know that the highly educated are declining the jab - obviously there is loads of evidence to back this up.ME14addick said:
Can you provide evidence of this?ValleyOfTears said:
You are right it doesn't mean you have "....skipped part of the process". But it CAN mean that you have.ShootersHillGuru said:
Oh dear. This is 100% trolling to get a reaction. You know full well that most processes including clinical trials follow a well defined pattern and in the case of clinical trials the outcome is then independently scrutinised (peer reviewed) by whom ever wishes to do so. When I paint a room it follows a process. Depending on how much time and resources I throw at it, will impact on the time the job takes. The keener I am to get it done the sooner it’s completed. That doesn’t mean in any way shape or form that I’ve skipped parts of the process. The independent scrutiny of the trial results was also completed in quick time. The reason was that there was a pandemic. Resources and money not usually available were provided in spades. From the way you express yourself you’re obviously not a stupid person. There was no need for me to use a child friendly analogy to explain it to you but that’s not why you posted your drivel.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Btw do you have the results to the trials you mention? I was lead to believe that the clinical trials are to be completed in 2023.
Not "trolling", no. Just interested in both sides of the argument. As stated before ~ in order to trust (and everything about this covid situation is based on trust) ~ those that are telling us what to do, must show integrity, consistency and transparency.
Among other traits. It is because these traits have been absent in various incidences throughout this pandemic that has lead to some people to question various points. That is all.
To call such enquiries "trolling" "drivel" "f***wits" and all the other names bandied around seems to point more to someone who is not standing on firm ground with regard this issue.
I also learned, during these enquiries, that it is a myth that everyone who questions some of the Covid policies being implemented are "covidiots" and "numbskulls". Apparently the demographics are that yes, a large proportion of those uneducated choose to not present themselves for the jab. That is absolutely correct. As the education level increases (to Bachelor degree) the uptake of the jab increases enormously.
But in those with post-graduate degrees and PHD, those numbers fall greatly and such persons choose not to present themselves for the jab in significant numbers. This would indicate that simply labelling those persons, as yet unvaccinated, as morons and idiots, is factually incorrect. And, dare I say it, perhaps idiotic.4 -
In my experience the most highly qualified people often have little common sense.1
-
I have a post grad degreeValleyOfTears said:
You are right it doesn't mean you have "....skipped part of the process". But it CAN mean that you have.ShootersHillGuru said:
Oh dear. This is 100% trolling to get a reaction. You know full well that most processes including clinical trials follow a well defined pattern and in the case of clinical trials the outcome is then independently scrutinised (peer reviewed) by whom ever wishes to do so. When I paint a room it follows a process. Depending on how much time and resources I throw at it, will impact on the time the job takes. The keener I am to get it done the sooner it’s completed. That doesn’t mean in any way shape or form that I’ve skipped parts of the process. The independent scrutiny of the trial results was also completed in quick time. The reason was that there was a pandemic. Resources and money not usually available were provided in spades. From the way you express yourself you’re obviously not a stupid person. There was no need for me to use a child friendly analogy to explain it to you but that’s not why you posted your drivel.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Btw do you have the results to the trials you mention? I was lead to believe that the clinical trials are to be completed in 2023.
Not "trolling", no. Just interested in both sides of the argument. As stated before ~ in order to trust (and everything about this covid situation is based on trust) ~ those that are telling us what to do, must show integrity, consistency and transparency.
Among other traits. It is because these traits have been absent in various incidences throughout this pandemic that has lead to some people to question various points. That is all.
To call such enquiries "trolling" "drivel" "f***wits" and all the other names bandied around seems to point more to someone who is not standing on firm ground with regard this issue.
I also learned, during these enquiries, that it is a myth that everyone who questions some of the Covid policies being implemented are "covidiots" and "numbskulls". Apparently the demographics are that yes, a large proportion of those uneducated choose to not present themselves for the jab. That is absolutely correct. As the education level increases (to Bachelor degree) the uptake of the jab increases enormously.
But in those with post-graduate degrees and PHD, those numbers fall greatly and such persons choose not to present themselves for the jab in significant numbers. This would indicate that simply labelling those persons, as yet unvaccinated, as morons and idiots, is factually incorrect. And, dare I say it, perhaps idiotic.2 -
ME14addick said:
Can you provide evidence of this?ValleyOfTears said:
You are right it doesn't mean you have "....skipped part of the process". But it CAN mean that you have.ShootersHillGuru said:
Oh dear. This is 100% trolling to get a reaction. You know full well that most processes including clinical trials follow a well defined pattern and in the case of clinical trials the outcome is then independently scrutinised (peer reviewed) by whom ever wishes to do so. When I paint a room it follows a process. Depending on how much time and resources I throw at it, will impact on the time the job takes. The keener I am to get it done the sooner it’s completed. That doesn’t mean in any way shape or form that I’ve skipped parts of the process. The independent scrutiny of the trial results was also completed in quick time. The reason was that there was a pandemic. Resources and money not usually available were provided in spades. From the way you express yourself you’re obviously not a stupid person. There was no need for me to use a child friendly analogy to explain it to you but that’s not why you posted your drivel.ValleyOfTears said:
In which case it HASNT been trialed in the same way. This hasn't been 10+ years as is the case for ALL treatments called vaccines.. And I understand ALL Coronavirus clinical trials were abandoned previously. The one point you make that is true is yes ~ this one was pushed through quicker. I will be keen to read the findings when the clinical trial is completed in 2023.Dippenhall said:
It has been trialed in the same way as all other vaccines, it's just that it was done under emergency conditions quicker. It's only an argument for the misinformed.
On one extreme you have those who think people should have a jab that has only been trialed for a 5th(?) of the time new meds are usually tested.
Btw do you have the results to the trials you mention? I was lead to believe that the clinical trials are to be completed in 2023.
Not "trolling", no. Just interested in both sides of the argument. As stated before ~ in order to trust (and everything about this covid situation is based on trust) ~ those that are telling us what to do, must show integrity, consistency and transparency.
Among other traits. It is because these traits have been absent in various incidences throughout this pandemic that has lead to some people to question various points. That is all.
To call such enquiries "trolling" "drivel" "f***wits" and all the other names bandied around seems to point more to someone who is not standing on firm ground with regard this issue.
I also learned, during these enquiries, that it is a myth that everyone who questions some of the Covid policies being implemented are "covidiots" and "numbskulls". Apparently the demographics are that yes, a large proportion of those uneducated choose to not present themselves for the jab. That is absolutely correct. As the education level increases (to Bachelor degree) the uptake of the jab increases enormously.
But in those with post-graduate degrees and PHD, those numbers fall greatly and such persons choose not to present themselves for the jab in significant numbers. This would indicate that simply labelling those persons, as yet unvaccinated, as morons and idiots, is factually incorrect. And, dare I say it, perhaps idiotic.
Can I invite you to listen to a presentation by someone called Brian Holdsworth on YT and the presentation is entitled
"Forced compliance is wrong"
Now before you explode with "some poxy video from an antivax moron called Brian"
I suggested this because ~ it has just been aired ~ I believe it is a sincere presentation of Covids many points of discussion. It omits the usual antagonistic and patronising and loaded language and isn't coming from any one of the doctors that are generally demonised or discredited for being on the wrong side of orthodoxy and thus the accusation of 'personal gain or interest" cannot be levelled with this clearly well researched and fair presentation.
It is also helpful because he doesn't state "I'm right and you're wrong so shut up". As I see it, he is simply looking to explore the many points of the pandemic that are seldom explored because of scapegoating and ignorance.
As the saying goes " ...the first casualty in any war is the truth".
And I like the fact that at no point is he saying my getting the jab means I am now the loser or worthy of ridicule.2
This discussion has been closed.
