Coronavirus

[manboobs109]

Just now, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

I couldn't tell which one you meant. 
 

I read the one about the coppers and the article about the complex reasons folk won't get the vaccine. 

I was meaning the one relevant to the thing we were discussing. I've been saying from the start that if efforts were concentrated on stopping vulnerable people getting it instead of keeping everyone locked up but leaving folk to fend for themselves we'd have been much better off.

[Studebaker-90]

I’ll back the moobz man here. I don’t think he’s wavered in his argument. Not to say he’s correct, but he has been consistent in his approach. I understand why restrictions happened initially amongst an unvaccinated population, but there is absolutely no justification for them now. 

[Guest]

That's a good read. 
 

Is worth noting he was totally against the complete opening of society, so, some restrictions, and it's also worth noting that at the very start of it we didn't have tests, PPE etc as readily available as it was now. I read it as he was ok with measures, but not OK with the length of them. 
 

That's a fair point to make, and not one I would necessarily disagree with. 
 

This is certainly not what you said at the start, though. I feel like you've read that article and decided "aye, that's what I've felt all along too" 

 

And now we can't prove otherwise. 
 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Studebaker-90 said:

I’ll back the moobz man here. I don’t think he’s wavered in his argument. Not to say he’s correct, but he has been consistent in his approach. I understand why restrictions happened initially amongst an unvaccinated population, but there is absolutely no justification for them now. 

Something I totally agree with.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, NEM said:

Didn’t bother to read that link did you? 

Which one?

[Studebaker-90]

Just now, Sooper-hanz said:

Like Adolf Hitler ?

One of the most charismatic leaders of our time  Would you rather have moobs of hitler round for dinner? 

[NEM]

1 minute ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Which one?

The one you repeatedly asked Eugenefani for then didn’t bother to open.

The adverse reactions are all listed by category 

[manboobs109]

1 minute ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

That's a good read. 
 

Is worth noting he was totally against the complete opening of society, so, some restrictions, and it's also worth noting that at the very start of it we didn't have tests, PPE etc as readily available as it was now. I read it as he was ok with measures, but not OK with the length of them. 
 

That's a fair point to make, and not one I would necessarily disagree with. 
 

This is certainly not what you said at the start, though. I feel like you've read that article and decided "aye, that's what I've felt all along too" 

 

And now we can't prove otherwise. 
 

 

I've said "protect the vulnerable" from the start and I've said none of the measures should've criminalised people.

Anyone saying I haven't is lying.

 

[manboobs109]

6 minutes ago, Studebaker-90 said:

I’ll back the moobz man here. I don’t think he’s wavered in his argument. Not to say he’s correct, but he has been consistent in his approach. I understand why restrictions happened initially amongst an unvaccinated population, but there is absolutely no justification for them now. 

Cheers. I've admitted where I've been proven wrong and I also admit that there is no way of proving my approach would've been better but saying I've not been consistent is just lies.

[Ke1t]

1 hour ago, Eugenefani said:

Are you concluding that refusing a brand new drug which has over 1 million reported adverse reactions means you don’t give a fuck about anyone else? ?

It's not a brand new drug, tryhard.

[Guest]

Just now, NEM said:

The one you repeatedly asked Eugenefani for then didn’t bother to open.

The adverse reactions are all listed by category 

Yes. 
 

And I mentioned a specific one, even the specific reactions, and all their sorts, are absolutely minuscule. 
 

 

"A report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine, only that the reporter has a suspicion it may have been. Underlying or previously undiagnosed illness unrelated to vaccination can also be factors in such reports. The relative number and nature of reports should therefore not be used to compare the safety of the different vaccines. The MHRA may also refer to ‘cases’ as opposed to ‘reports’ within the analysis of the Yellow Card data; these typically refer to ADR reports that have undergone medical assessment and are considered to meet certain criteria for diagnosis of the reported event and have at least a plausible association with the vaccine. All cases and reports are kept under continual review in order to identify possible new risks"

 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

Cheers. I've admitted where I've been proven wrong and I also admit that there is no way of proving my approach would've been better but saying I've not been consistent is just lies.

You have been consistently wrong. 
 

Fair point.

[NEM]

3 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Yes. 
 

And I mentioned a specific one, even the specific reactions, and all their sorts, are absolutely minuscule. 
 

 

"A report of a suspected ADR to the Yellow Card scheme does not necessarily mean that it was caused by the vaccine, only that the reporter has a suspicion it may have been. Underlying or previously undiagnosed illness unrelated to vaccination can also be factors in such reports. The relative number and nature of reports should therefore not be used to compare the safety of the different vaccines. The MHRA may also refer to ‘cases’ as opposed to ‘reports’ within the analysis of the Yellow Card data; these typically refer to ADR reports that have undergone medical assessment and are considered to meet certain criteria for diagnosis of the reported event and have at least a plausible association with the vaccine. All cases and reports are kept under continual review in order to identify possible new risks"

 

 

You claimed they weren’t defined, they are 

[Studebaker-90]

2 minutes ago, Sooper-hanz said:

Can't I have both?

No

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, NEM said:

The one you repeatedly asked Eugenefani for then didn’t bother to open.

The adverse reactions are all listed by category 

Yeah. See that now. 
 

Still doesn't say much to not taking the vaccine. 
 

 

[cheesepipes]

Theres far too much

 

"provide me a link" 

"can you prove that" 

"you said this, he said that" 

What happened to be able to just chat unregulated shit. 

 

[Studebaker-90]

2 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

You have been consistently wrong. 
 

Fair point.

Who is wrong and who is right? Yellow, brown, black or white 

[NEM]

1 minute ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Yeah. See that now. 
 

Still doesn't say much to not taking the vaccine. 
 

 

Doesn’t say much to taking it either 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, NEM said:

Doesn’t say much to taking it either 

Tells yi it's pretty much safe ti take unless you're really unfortunate. 
 

But that's abdys individual choice 

[NEM]

1 minute ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Tells yi it's pretty much safe ti take unless you're really unfortunate. 
 

 

Bit like catching Covid then 

[Guest]

Just now, NEM said:

Bit like catching Covid then 

It also tells you that COVID side effects and health issues, are far more prevalent than ones brought on by the vaccine.

 

 

[manboobs109]

9 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

You have been consistently wrong. 
 

Fair point.

They're all coming round to Moobs way of thinking.

[NEM]

22 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

It also tells you that COVID side effects and health issues, are far more prevalent than ones brought on by the vaccine.

 

 

In older folk maybe and you’re not guaranteed to catch covid.

The elderly and vulnerable by all means should be vaccinated. Forcing the young and healthy? Mental 

[NEM]

14 minutes ago, Grays Babylon 1875 said:

Are thalidomides at risk from the vaccine?

 

Doesn’t seem to have affected you 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, NEM said:

In older folk maybe and you’re not guaranteed to catch covid.

The elderly and vulnerable by all means should be vaccinated. Forcing the young and healthy? Mental 

We live in a country of fat bastards

[NEM]

6 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

We live in a country of fat bastards

Which part of “healthy” do they fall under? ?

[Simply Red]

1 hour ago, NEM said:

Which part of “healthy” do they fall under? ?

Healthy appetite

[BrianFaePerth]

Eh stand with moobs ??

[manboobs109]

32 minutes ago, Sooper-hanz said:

Adolf then

Fuck you then.

[manboobs109]

I maintain them, I don't sell them.