Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

All things Rugby
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by UncleFB »

Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:00 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:25 am
Clogs wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:06 am

A private company trying to make you get a vaccine because they are afraid of lawsuits, well they can go fvck themselves.
Private companies aren't making you do anything, you can choose not to use their services or buy from the company.

Unless you need to get from Sydney to Paris to see a sick relative/funeral/wedding etc and Qantas is the only way to get there.
When Airlines open up again that is not going to be the only way to get there. It might be the only direct route. If you want to take the direct route stop being a whiny bitch and get the vaccine.
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by UncleFB »

MungoMan wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:42 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:19 am
Sensible Stephen wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:40 am
UncleFB wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:38 am Just fly on another airline you fucking princesses. :D
Meh, governments are going to mandate it anyway, so the rule will be redundant. I just think Joyce is a egotistical twat. Thats all.
Hey Israel, how are things back in bogan rugby? :lol:
What is your folau-on question?
How's the wife, can you divorce her so we can go back to thinking of her as a national treasure?
User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 4593
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Clogs »

UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:24 am
Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:00 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:25 am
Clogs wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:06 am

A private company trying to make you get a vaccine because they are afraid of lawsuits, well they can go fvck themselves.
Private companies aren't making you do anything, you can choose not to use their services or buy from the company.

Unless you need to get from Sydney to Paris to see a sick relative/funeral/wedding etc and Qantas is the only way to get there.
When Airlines open up again that is not going to be the only way to get there. It might be the only direct route. If you want to take the direct route stop being a whiny bitch and get the vaccine.

Oh I am getting the vaccine. I am not fvcking around there. But I will defend a person's right to not get the vaccine no matter how much I disagree with them. However if it is law then everyone gets it. I have no problem there. But a private company dictating that you have to get it is way off the charts wrong. And part of the service they provide is an essential service no matter how much people try and down play it. Not everyone is travelling for adventure/relaxation.

Once the nuff nuffs think this is ok, then we really are on the slippery slope. Next thing your local supermarket will be demanding it otherwise they will not serve you. And the argument will be, well you let Qantas do it in order to keep people safe, so will we. Then your local pharmacy won't let you in unless you have a vaccine, because Qantas and the supermarket. From there it is only a few more justifications and it's a micro chip for tracking you to make sure you are safe and can be contacted in the event there is a catastrophe...

If the government (ie. the people) make it a lawful requirement then the people have decided that is what they want, and that should be respected. Or should we just do away with government and let private companies decide what is in our best interests?
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by UncleFB »

Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:45 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:24 am
Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:00 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:25 am
Clogs wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:06 am

A private company trying to make you get a vaccine because they are afraid of lawsuits, well they can go fvck themselves.
Private companies aren't making you do anything, you can choose not to use their services or buy from the company.

Unless you need to get from Sydney to Paris to see a sick relative/funeral/wedding etc and Qantas is the only way to get there.
When Airlines open up again that is not going to be the only way to get there. It might be the only direct route. If you want to take the direct route stop being a whiny bitch and get the vaccine.

Oh I am getting the vaccine. I am not fvcking around there. But I will defend a person's right to not get the vaccine no matter how much I disagree with them. However if it is law then everyone gets it. I have no problem there. But a private company dictating that you have to get it is way off the charts wrong. And part of the service they provide is an essential service no matter how much people try and down play it. Not everyone is travelling for adventure/relaxation.

Once the nuff nuffs think this is ok, then we really are on the slippery slope. Next thing your local supermarket will be demanding it otherwise they will not serve you. And the argument will be, well you let Qantas do it in order to keep people safe, so will we. Then your local pharmacy won't let you in unless you have a vaccine, because Qantas and the supermarket. From there it is only a few more justifications and it's a micro chip for tracking you to make sure you are safe and can be contacted in the event there is a catastrophe...

If the government (ie. the people) make it a lawful requirement then the people have decided that is what they want, and that should be respected. Or should we just do away with government and let private companies decide what is in our best interests?
So you'll defend the right of a person to not get a vaccine, but you wont defend the right of a private company to institute safety measures to protect their customers, their staff and their business.

I defend the right of a person not to get a vaccine (but not the right of a parent to not vaccinate their children, they can get fucked) but I don't defend them believing they have the right to do whatever they want to because of it.

The private companies aren't deciding what's in your best interests, they're deciding what's in theirs - their's aren't always going to align with yours.
User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 4593
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Clogs »

UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:50 am
Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:45 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:24 am
Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:00 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:25 am
Private companies aren't making you do anything, you can choose not to use their services or buy from the company.

Unless you need to get from Sydney to Paris to see a sick relative/funeral/wedding etc and Qantas is the only way to get there.
When Airlines open up again that is not going to be the only way to get there. It might be the only direct route. If you want to take the direct route stop being a whiny bitch and get the vaccine.

Oh I am getting the vaccine. I am not fvcking around there. But I will defend a person's right to not get the vaccine no matter how much I disagree with them. However if it is law then everyone gets it. I have no problem there. But a private company dictating that you have to get it is way off the charts wrong. And part of the service they provide is an essential service no matter how much people try and down play it. Not everyone is travelling for adventure/relaxation.

Once the nuff nuffs think this is ok, then we really are on the slippery slope. Next thing your local supermarket will be demanding it otherwise they will not serve you. And the argument will be, well you let Qantas do it in order to keep people safe, so will we. Then your local pharmacy won't let you in unless you have a vaccine, because Qantas and the supermarket. From there it is only a few more justifications and it's a micro chip for tracking you to make sure you are safe and can be contacted in the event there is a catastrophe...

If the government (ie. the people) make it a lawful requirement then the people have decided that is what they want, and that should be respected. Or should we just do away with government and let private companies decide what is in our best interests?
So you'll defend the right of a person to not get a vaccine, but you wont defend the right of a private company to institute safety measures to protect their customers, their staff and their business.

I defend the right of a person not to get a vaccine (but not the right of a parent to not vaccinate their children, they can get fucked) but I don't defend them believing they have the right to do whatever they want to because of it.

The private companies aren't deciding what's in your best interests, they're deciding what's in theirs - their's aren't always going to align with yours.
So you defend the rights of a person to not get a vaccine, except when a private company wants you to, and you then go on to highlight that the private company is not acting in your best interest, but rather their best interest. And you still want to go on with this?
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by UncleFB »

Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:24 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:50 am
Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:45 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:24 am
Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:00 am


Unless you need to get from Sydney to Paris to see a sick relative/funeral/wedding etc and Qantas is the only way to get there.
When Airlines open up again that is not going to be the only way to get there. It might be the only direct route. If you want to take the direct route stop being a whiny bitch and get the vaccine.

Oh I am getting the vaccine. I am not fvcking around there. But I will defend a person's right to not get the vaccine no matter how much I disagree with them. However if it is law then everyone gets it. I have no problem there. But a private company dictating that you have to get it is way off the charts wrong. And part of the service they provide is an essential service no matter how much people try and down play it. Not everyone is travelling for adventure/relaxation.

Once the nuff nuffs think this is ok, then we really are on the slippery slope. Next thing your local supermarket will be demanding it otherwise they will not serve you. And the argument will be, well you let Qantas do it in order to keep people safe, so will we. Then your local pharmacy won't let you in unless you have a vaccine, because Qantas and the supermarket. From there it is only a few more justifications and it's a micro chip for tracking you to make sure you are safe and can be contacted in the event there is a catastrophe...

If the government (ie. the people) make it a lawful requirement then the people have decided that is what they want, and that should be respected. Or should we just do away with government and let private companies decide what is in our best interests?
So you'll defend the right of a person to not get a vaccine, but you wont defend the right of a private company to institute safety measures to protect their customers, their staff and their business.

I defend the right of a person not to get a vaccine (but not the right of a parent to not vaccinate their children, they can get fucked) but I don't defend them believing they have the right to do whatever they want to because of it.

The private companies aren't deciding what's in your best interests, they're deciding what's in theirs - their's aren't always going to align with yours.
So you defend the rights of a person to not get a vaccine, except when a private company wants you to, and you then go on to highlight that the private company is not acting in your best interest, but rather their best interest. And you still want to go on with this?
Are you really pretending to be this dense?

The private company aren't forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

Why should a private company act in the best interests of some random individual private person?
User avatar
Enzedder
Posts: 20207
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Enzedder »

The private company aren't forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

Why should a private company act in the best interests of some random individual private person?
What happens if my best interests (that my fellow passengers be vaccinated) clashes with theirs (that they don't have to)?
User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 4593
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Clogs »

UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:35 am
Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:24 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 6:50 am
Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:45 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:24 am
When Airlines open up again that is not going to be the only way to get there. It might be the only direct route. If you want to take the direct route stop being a whiny bitch and get the vaccine.

Oh I am getting the vaccine. I am not fvcking around there. But I will defend a person's right to not get the vaccine no matter how much I disagree with them. However if it is law then everyone gets it. I have no problem there. But a private company dictating that you have to get it is way off the charts wrong. And part of the service they provide is an essential service no matter how much people try and down play it. Not everyone is travelling for adventure/relaxation.

Once the nuff nuffs think this is ok, then we really are on the slippery slope. Next thing your local supermarket will be demanding it otherwise they will not serve you. And the argument will be, well you let Qantas do it in order to keep people safe, so will we. Then your local pharmacy won't let you in unless you have a vaccine, because Qantas and the supermarket. From there it is only a few more justifications and it's a micro chip for tracking you to make sure you are safe and can be contacted in the event there is a catastrophe...

If the government (ie. the people) make it a lawful requirement then the people have decided that is what they want, and that should be respected. Or should we just do away with government and let private companies decide what is in our best interests?
So you'll defend the right of a person to not get a vaccine, but you wont defend the right of a private company to institute safety measures to protect their customers, their staff and their business.

I defend the right of a person not to get a vaccine (but not the right of a parent to not vaccinate their children, they can get fucked) but I don't defend them believing they have the right to do whatever they want to because of it.

The private companies aren't deciding what's in your best interests, they're deciding what's in theirs - their's aren't always going to align with yours.
So you defend the rights of a person to not get a vaccine, except when a private company wants you to, and you then go on to highlight that the private company is not acting in your best interest, but rather their best interest. And you still want to go on with this?
Are you really pretending to be this dense?

The private company aren't forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

Why should a private company act in the best interests of some random individual private person?
They don't. That is why they should never make it a condition of carriage that you have to have a medical procedure.
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by UncleFB »

Enzedder wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:38 am
The private company aren't forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

Why should a private company act in the best interests of some random individual private person?
What happens if my best interests (that my fellow passengers be vaccinated) clashes with theirs (that they don't have to)?
Clearly in Clogs world people who choose to not get vaccinated have better best interests than yours.
User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 4593
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Clogs »

Enzedder wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:38 am
The private company aren't forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

Why should a private company act in the best interests of some random individual private person?
What happens if my best interests (that my fellow passengers be vaccinated) clashes with theirs (that they don't have to)?
You mean something you encounter every single day of your waking life? Is that not how a normal functioning society works?
Or are you also advocating now that private companies can dictate whether or not you should have a vaccine?

But hey, if you guys are all for it and believe private companies should be dictating health policy to the masses then have at it. It won't be too long before the CEO of a large pharmaceutical company offers incentives to the airlines to get them to make it mandatory that anyone that wishes to fly on their airline needs a dose of a drug that only his pharmaceutical company produces and the same old nuff nuffs that are supporting what is going on now will probably support that too.

Slippery. Fvcking. Slope. And there seem to be many that are happily getting their ski boots on...
User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 4593
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Clogs »

UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:49 am
Enzedder wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:38 am
The private company aren't forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

Why should a private company act in the best interests of some random individual private person?
What happens if my best interests (that my fellow passengers be vaccinated) clashes with theirs (that they don't have to)?
Clearly in Clogs world people who choose to not get vaccinated have better best interests than yours.
And again, for the sake of clarity because you seem intent on distorting things. I am 100% supporting vaccines. I think vaccines have been one of mankind's greatest medical breakthroughs. I cannot force someone to take a vaccine. I can follow the proper channels by voting for a government that want to make it mandatory. But if it isn't law then I have to respect that there are people out there that do not/will not get a vaccine.

A private company, or a group of private companies (multiple airlines) collaborating to force people to a medical procedure against their will is profoundly disturbing. What happens if they decide it is the Pfizer vaccine only? Where do you draw the line?
bimboman
Posts: 67467
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:54 am
Enzedder wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:38 am
The private company aren't forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

Why should a private company act in the best interests of some random individual private person?
What happens if my best interests (that my fellow passengers be vaccinated) clashes with theirs (that they don't have to)?
You mean something you encounter every single day of your waking life? Is that not how a normal functioning society works?
Or are you also advocating now that private companies can dictate whether or not you should have a vaccine?

But hey, if you guys are all for it and believe private companies should be dictating health policy to the masses then have at it. It won't be too long before the CEO of a large pharmaceutical company offers incentives to the airlines to get them to make it mandatory that anyone that wishes to fly on their airline needs a dose of a drug that only his pharmaceutical company produces and the same old nuff nuffs that are supporting what is going on now will probably support that too.

Slippery. Fvcking. Slope. And there seem to be many that are happily getting their ski boots on...

Clogs, the collective madness of this is inexplicable, but as you’ve seen real. The Nuremberg code is consigned to history. And it’s very dangerous for the future.
User avatar
AND-y
Posts: 16198
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by AND-y »

:lol:
bimboman
Posts: 67467
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

AND-y wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 9:20 am :lol:


See my modernist friend, there’s more important principles for humanity discovered through the horrors of history.

I realise these lessons are uncomfortable for you but they’re there none the less.
User avatar
Farva
Posts: 17418
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: STRAYA PLUM

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Farva »

Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:59 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:49 am
Enzedder wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:38 am
The private company aren't forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

Why should a private company act in the best interests of some random individual private person?
What happens if my best interests (that my fellow passengers be vaccinated) clashes with theirs (that they don't have to)?
Clearly in Clogs world people who choose to not get vaccinated have better best interests than yours.
And again, for the sake of clarity because you seem intent on distorting things. I am 100% supporting vaccines. I think vaccines have been one of mankind's greatest medical breakthroughs. I cannot force someone to take a vaccine. I can follow the proper channels by voting for a government that want to make it mandatory. But if it isn't law then I have to respect that there are people out there that do not/will not get a vaccine.

A private company, or a group of private companies (multiple airlines) collaborating to force people to a medical procedure against their will is profoundly disturbing. What happens if they decide it is the Pfizer vaccine only? Where do you draw the line?
Monopolistic behaviour like that is illegal.
However, there is not a group of airlines forcing people to take vaccines.
a) you aren’t forced to fly. Flying is a privilege not a right
b) if you don’t want to take a vaccine find another airline
c) we can’t fly at all at the moment without a quarantine period. The issues you raise are just as relevant now.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 30488
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

Millions get Vitamin D for free in the UK. Greta news.A shame it's taken so long to recognise what many of us discussed near the start of the Pandemic. A shame the BBC is still claiming there is no evidence that Vitamin D supports protection, there is is lots:

Image

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55108613
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 30488
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:25 am
MungoMan wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:42 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:19 am
Sensible Stephen wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:40 am
UncleFB wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:38 am Just fly on another airline you fucking princesses. :D
Meh, governments are going to mandate it anyway, so the rule will be redundant. I just think Joyce is a egotistical twat. Thats all.
Hey Israel, how are things back in bogan rugby? :lol:
What is your folau-on question?
How's the wife, can you divorce her so we can go back to thinking of her as a national treasure?
Why do you want to treat a bigot as a national treasure?
bimboman
Posts: 67467
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by bimboman »

There’s a damm site more evidence that Vit D has efficacy than Mask, the BBC would never run a headline saying that though.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 30488
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:59 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:49 am
Enzedder wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:38 am
The private company aren't forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

Why should a private company act in the best interests of some random individual private person?
What happens if my best interests (that my fellow passengers be vaccinated) clashes with theirs (that they don't have to)?
Clearly in Clogs world people who choose to not get vaccinated have better best interests than yours.
And again, for the sake of clarity because you seem intent on distorting things. I am 100% supporting vaccines. I think vaccines have been one of mankind's greatest medical breakthroughs. I cannot force someone to take a vaccine. I can follow the proper channels by voting for a government that want to make it mandatory. But if it isn't law then I have to respect that there are people out there that do not/will not get a vaccine.

A private company, or a group of private companies (multiple airlines) collaborating to force people to a medical procedure against their will is profoundly disturbing. What happens if they decide it is the Pfizer vaccine only? Where do you draw the line?
They aren't forcing anyone to take a Vaccine, They are either incentivising people to do so or using their right to withdrawn their services to protect their other customers, clients and staff.

Using the "Oh it's bad if a private company does it" argument is bad, they are supporting public health, supporting the saving of lives and backing widespread undisputed medical advice. Sure private companies aren't always to be trusted. But in this case it is clear and obviously not a sinister act. It is an action that could, you know, prevent the spread of a sometimes deadly global infection that is wreaking the global economy.

The sinister part of this to me is the private customer with such selfish motivations and idiotic anti Vaccination stance who cares no shits of saving their fellow humans lives.
User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 4593
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Clogs »

eldanielfire wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:33 am
Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:59 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:49 am
Enzedder wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:38 am
The private company aren't forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

Why should a private company act in the best interests of some random individual private person?
What happens if my best interests (that my fellow passengers be vaccinated) clashes with theirs (that they don't have to)?
Clearly in Clogs world people who choose to not get vaccinated have better best interests than yours.
And again, for the sake of clarity because you seem intent on distorting things. I am 100% supporting vaccines. I think vaccines have been one of mankind's greatest medical breakthroughs. I cannot force someone to take a vaccine. I can follow the proper channels by voting for a government that want to make it mandatory. But if it isn't law then I have to respect that there are people out there that do not/will not get a vaccine.

A private company, or a group of private companies (multiple airlines) collaborating to force people to a medical procedure against their will is profoundly disturbing. What happens if they decide it is the Pfizer vaccine only? Where do you draw the line?
They aren't forcing anyone to take a Vaccine, They are either incentivising people to do so or using their right to withdrawn their services to protect their other customers, clients and staff.

Using the "Oh it's bad if a private company does it" argument is bad, they are supporting public health, supporting the saving of lives and backing widespread undisputed medical advice. Sure private companies aren't always to be trusted. But in this case it is clear and obviously not a sinister act. It is an action that could, you know, prevent the spread of a sometimes deadly global infection that is wreaking the global economy.

The sinister part of this to me is the private customer with such selfish motivations and idiotic anti Vaccination stance who cares no shits of saving their fellow humans lives.
If nation states, governments, declare the vaccine as a requirement for entry, then no issue with the private companies supporting it. The alternative. Not so much for the reasons I have already outlined. Private companies requiring you get medical treatments from other private companies before you can use their service? Slippery. Fvcking. Slope.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 30488
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 12:15 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:33 am
Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:59 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:49 am
Enzedder wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:38 am

What happens if my best interests (that my fellow passengers be vaccinated) clashes with theirs (that they don't have to)?
Clearly in Clogs world people who choose to not get vaccinated have better best interests than yours.
And again, for the sake of clarity because you seem intent on distorting things. I am 100% supporting vaccines. I think vaccines have been one of mankind's greatest medical breakthroughs. I cannot force someone to take a vaccine. I can follow the proper channels by voting for a government that want to make it mandatory. But if it isn't law then I have to respect that there are people out there that do not/will not get a vaccine.

A private company, or a group of private companies (multiple airlines) collaborating to force people to a medical procedure against their will is profoundly disturbing. What happens if they decide it is the Pfizer vaccine only? Where do you draw the line?
They aren't forcing anyone to take a Vaccine, They are either incentivising people to do so or using their right to withdrawn their services to protect their other customers, clients and staff.

Using the "Oh it's bad if a private company does it" argument is bad, they are supporting public health, supporting the saving of lives and backing widespread undisputed medical advice. Sure private companies aren't always to be trusted. But in this case it is clear and obviously not a sinister act. It is an action that could, you know, prevent the spread of a sometimes deadly global infection that is wreaking the global economy.

The sinister part of this to me is the private customer with such selfish motivations and idiotic anti Vaccination stance who cares no shits of saving their fellow humans lives.
If nation states, governments, declare the vaccine as a requirement for entry, then no issue with the private companies supporting it. The alternative. Not so much for the reasons I have already outlined. Private companies requiring you get medical treatments from other private companies before you can use their service? Slippery. Fvcking. Slope.
Airlines for decades have declined allowing people to fly on medical reasons until you are certified fit. I don't see the problem.
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by UncleFB »

Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:59 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:49 am
Enzedder wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:38 am
The private company aren't forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

Why should a private company act in the best interests of some random individual private person?
What happens if my best interests (that my fellow passengers be vaccinated) clashes with theirs (that they don't have to)?
Clearly in Clogs world people who choose to not get vaccinated have better best interests than yours.
And again, for the sake of clarity because you seem intent on distorting things. I am 100% supporting vaccines. I think vaccines have been one of mankind's greatest medical breakthroughs. I cannot force someone to take a vaccine. I can follow the proper channels by voting for a government that want to make it mandatory. But if it isn't law then I have to respect that there are people out there that do not/will not get a vaccine.

A private company, or a group of private companies (multiple airlines) collaborating to force people to a medical procedure against their will is profoundly disturbing. What happens if they decide it is the Pfizer vaccine only? Where do you draw the line?
I've never once said you don't support vaccines and I didn't infer that, you're muddling that up yourself.
User avatar
UncleFB
Posts: 13234
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by UncleFB »

eldanielfire wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:25 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:25 am
MungoMan wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:42 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:19 am
Sensible Stephen wrote: Wed Nov 25, 2020 7:40 am

Meh, governments are going to mandate it anyway, so the rule will be redundant. I just think Joyce is a egotistical twat. Thats all.
Hey Israel, how are things back in bogan rugby? :lol:
What is your folau-on question?
How's the wife, can you divorce her so we can go back to thinking of her as a national treasure?
Why do you want to treat a bigot as a national treasure?
I'm hoping that she'll return to sanity after getting away from her idiot husband.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 30488
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:02 pm
eldanielfire wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 11:25 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 5:25 am
MungoMan wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:42 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 4:19 am
Hey Israel, how are things back in bogan rugby? :lol:
What is your folau-on question?
How's the wife, can you divorce her so we can go back to thinking of her as a national treasure?
Why do you want to treat a bigot as a national treasure?
I'm hoping that she'll return to sanity after getting away from her idiot husband.
Maybe she believed in the same things as her husband all along? Didn't see bring him into their church after his wild years?
User avatar
Clogs
Posts: 4593
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Clogs »

UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:01 pm
Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:59 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:49 am
Enzedder wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:38 am
The private company aren't forcing anyone to get a vaccine.

Why should a private company act in the best interests of some random individual private person?
What happens if my best interests (that my fellow passengers be vaccinated) clashes with theirs (that they don't have to)?
Clearly in Clogs world people who choose to not get vaccinated have better best interests than yours.
And again, for the sake of clarity because you seem intent on distorting things. I am 100% supporting vaccines. I think vaccines have been one of mankind's greatest medical breakthroughs. I cannot force someone to take a vaccine. I can follow the proper channels by voting for a government that want to make it mandatory. But if it isn't law then I have to respect that there are people out there that do not/will not get a vaccine.

A private company, or a group of private companies (multiple airlines) collaborating to force people to a medical procedure against their will is profoundly disturbing. What happens if they decide it is the Pfizer vaccine only? Where do you draw the line?
I've never once said you don't support vaccines and I didn't infer that, you're muddling that up yourself.
My apologies. I got that wrong. I was reading too much into it. You haven't once said I dont support vaccines and nor did you infer it. :thumbup:
User avatar
MungoMan
Posts: 13593
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Coalfalls

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by MungoMan »

Clogs wrote: Sun Nov 29, 2020 12:42 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 2:01 pm
Clogs wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:59 am
UncleFB wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:49 am
Enzedder wrote: Sat Nov 28, 2020 7:38 am

What happens if my best interests (that my fellow passengers be vaccinated) clashes with theirs (that they don't have to)?
Clearly in Clogs world people who choose to not get vaccinated have better best interests than yours.
And again, for the sake of clarity because you seem intent on distorting things. I am 100% supporting vaccines. I think vaccines have been one of mankind's greatest medical breakthroughs. I cannot force someone to take a vaccine. I can follow the proper channels by voting for a government that want to make it mandatory. But if it isn't law then I have to respect that there are people out there that do not/will not get a vaccine.

A private company, or a group of private companies (multiple airlines) collaborating to force people to a medical procedure against their will is profoundly disturbing. What happens if they decide it is the Pfizer vaccine only? Where do you draw the line?
I've never once said you don't support vaccines and I didn't infer that, you're muddling that up yourself.
My apologies. I got that wrong. I was reading too much into it. You haven't once said I dont support vaccines and nor did you infer it. :thumbup:
Good on you for the apology.

Myself, I didn't think UFB had said or implied you were anti-vax, but OTOH I haven't followed every exchange between the two of you.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 30488
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

On the subject of anti-Vacc idiots, I see the Thalidomide case is being brought up, as if Science trials and our ability to test for and observe a variety of results hasn't moved on 60 years later. Also Thalidomide isn't even a Vaccine :lol:

The Oxford version of the Vaccine has been tested on 43,000 people and Vaccinations and medical advances have been increasing life spans for over century. It's amazing people are droning on about a potential problem and to fear it as opposed to COVID which actually is a killer problem.
User avatar
CM11
Posts: 60130
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by CM11 »

Vaccines are an example of something working so well that people start thinking they're unnecessary. Transport any anti vaxxer back even 60 years and they'd come running back with arms out for every vaccine going.
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 12708
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

Unfortuntely, the media being as it is, they will highlight anything they can find - and they'll be trawling around for bad shit from the very start.
Hopefully someone will have the guts to prosecute them if they start a scare story that affects take-up of a vaccine.
Santa
Posts: 11275
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Santa »

Is it moral for anyone in New Zealand, which has the world's lowest risk, to get the vaccine before anyone in a high risk country?
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 12708
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

Santa wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:59 am Is it moral for anyone in New Zealand, which has the world's lowest risk, to get the vaccine before anyone in a high risk country?
They aren't a low risk country, they're higher risk because few have had it, making the whole population vulnerable.
ukjim
Posts: 2098
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by ukjim »

Santa wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:59 am Is it moral for anyone in New Zealand, which has the world's lowest risk, to get the vaccine before anyone in a high risk country?
Interesting.

Should a life long chronic alcoholic get a liver transplant before a marathon runner with hepatocellular carcinoma?
Last edited by ukjim on Wed Dec 02, 2020 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
eldanielfire
Posts: 30488
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by eldanielfire »

CM11 wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:52 am Vaccines are an example of something working so well that people start thinking they're unnecessary. Transport any anti vaxxer back even 60 years and they'd come running back with arms out for every vaccine going.
Agreed. People seem to think advanced civilization, long healthy lifespans and safer mostly disease free lives is the default status of life and not the product of thousands of years of development and actions taken to make it that way.
User avatar
kiap
Posts: 20051
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by kiap »

Sorry if it's a red rebel, but this looks like pretty good news for the Brits:
  • https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-02/ ... k/12944362

    Britain has become the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for use and says it will be rolled out from early next week.

    Key points:
    • Britain is also considering a vaccine made by Astrazeneca and Oxford University
    • It is not clear how many doses will be available this year, or who will be vaccinated
    • The vaccine has shown strong protection in trials, but questions remain around long-term efficacy, side effects and safety for pregnant women
    "The Government has today accepted the recommendation from the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to approve Pfizer-BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine for use," the Government said in a statement.

    ... Pfizer said it would immediately begin shipping limited supplies to the UK and has been gearing up for even wider distribution if given a similar nod by the US Food and Drug Administration, a decision expected as early as next week.

    But doses everywhere are scarce and initial supplies will be rationed until more is manufactured in the first several months of next year.
User avatar
Frodder
Posts: 10527
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2015 1:25 pm
Location: Leafy Cheshire (West)

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Frodder »

eldanielfire wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 11:42 am On the subject of anti-Vacc idiots, I see the Thalidomide case is being brought up, as if Science trials and our ability to test for and observe a variety of results hasn't moved on 60 years later. Also Thalidomide isn't even a Vaccine :lol:

The Oxford version of the Vaccine has been tested on 43,000 people and Vaccinations and medical advances have been increasing life spans for over century. It's amazing people are droning on about a potential problem and to fear it as opposed to COVID which actually is a killer problem.
Thalidomide wasn't a vaccine and the issue was caused by failure to isolate the isotope of the active ingredient. That issue was fixed over 40 years ago. The comparison is complete bollocks
User avatar
message #2527204
Posts: 12708
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: Ultracrepidaria

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by message #2527204 »

kiap wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:27 pm Sorry if it's a red rebel, but this looks like pretty good news for the Brits:
  • https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-02/ ... k/12944362

    Britain has become the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for use and says it will be rolled out from early next week.

    Key points:
    • Britain is also considering a vaccine made by Astrazeneca and Oxford University
    • It is not clear how many doses will be available this year, or who will be vaccinated
    • The vaccine has shown strong protection in trials, but questions remain around long-term efficacy, side effects and safety for pregnant women
    "The Government has today accepted the recommendation from the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to approve Pfizer-BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine for use," the Government said in a statement.

    ... Pfizer said it would immediately begin shipping limited supplies to the UK and has been gearing up for even wider distribution if given a similar nod by the US Food and Drug Administration, a decision expected as early as next week.

    But doses everywhere are scarce and initial supplies will be rationed until more is manufactured in the first several months of next year.
800 000 doses next week going to care home staff, and anyone discharged to care homes first.

Hancock reckons 1m doses a week in the new year - I guess once the Oxford vaccine is ready - I still make that 120+ weeks to vaccinate everyone??
User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 6227
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Location: 'ertfordshire

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by SaintK »

message #2527204 wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:19 pm
kiap wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:27 pm Sorry if it's a red rebel, but this looks like pretty good news for the Brits:
  • https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-12-02/ ... k/12944362

    Britain has become the first country in the world to approve the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for use and says it will be rolled out from early next week.

    Key points:
    • Britain is also considering a vaccine made by Astrazeneca and Oxford University
    • It is not clear how many doses will be available this year, or who will be vaccinated
    • The vaccine has shown strong protection in trials, but questions remain around long-term efficacy, side effects and safety for pregnant women
    "The Government has today accepted the recommendation from the independent Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) to approve Pfizer-BioNTech's COVID-19 vaccine for use," the Government said in a statement.

    ... Pfizer said it would immediately begin shipping limited supplies to the UK and has been gearing up for even wider distribution if given a similar nod by the US Food and Drug Administration, a decision expected as early as next week.

    But doses everywhere are scarce and initial supplies will be rationed until more is manufactured in the first several months of next year.
800 000 doses next week going to care home staff, and anyone discharged to care homes first.

Hancock reckons 1m doses a week in the new year - I guess once the Oxford vaccine is ready - I still make that 120+ weeks to vaccinate everyone??
Just heard on the radio that they are not sure if everyone will need to be re-vaccinated within 12 months!
Could be a long old job!
User avatar
MrDominator
Posts: 4407
Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 3:14 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by MrDominator »

So the Northern Irish will get vaccinated before the Irish all because the UK has left the EU.

And they say Brexit has no upsides.

:smug: :thumbup:
User avatar
EverReady
Posts: 34127
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by EverReady »

EU note it hasn't fully looked at the data to decide if the vaccine can give you hairy tits yet https://www.rte.ie/news/coronavirus/202 ... accine-eu/
User avatar
Duff Paddy
Posts: 37470
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am

Re: Coronavirus Thread. Virus v humans

Post by Duff Paddy »

MrDominator wrote: Wed Dec 02, 2020 2:36 pm So the Northern Irish will get vaccinated before the Irish all because the UK has left the EU.

And they say Brexit has no upsides.

:smug: :thumbup:
Yep it’s a special type of phase III trial where we trial the vaccine on people with special genetics - your average Nordie basically
Post Reply