• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Vaccine Progress, Approval, and Deployment

Status
Not open for further replies.

LowLevel

Established Member
Joined
26 Oct 2013
Messages
7,543
Having woken up to the news that another person that I know's wife has died in the night at the age of 45 (yes, they might well have had underlying conditions, but no reason why they wouldn't have lived another several decades otherwise with them under control until they contracted this virus) I am quite keen to get as many people vaccinated as logistically possible.

Let's face it - if there is a long term problem with the number of vaccinations occurring we are going to be very much in it together.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
Not in my experience.

Those I've seen who would prefer not to have the vaccine - like myself - are of the opinion that it is entirely unnecessary to vaccinate *everyone*, a fairly logical extension to the argument that lockdowns, masks, social distancing, etc. were also a very bad idea. A natural extension of the idea of the Great Barrington declaration - protect those at risk, while everyone else should just get on with it.



You can see the reported adverse reactions (via the yellow card system) here, up to Feb 14

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...irus-vaccine-summary-of-yellow-card-reporting


There's lots more information to be found there, if you're interested.
I get more uncomfortable about Great Barrington the more I see of it, and particularly the more that it's sponsoring body (AIER) and cheerleaders start moving towards a robustly anti-vaccination position.

However, more specifically, I also note that, on the link provided to the yellow card scheme, it first reminds the reader that:
The nature of Yellow Card reporting means that reported events are not always proven side effects. Some events may have happened anyway, regardless of vaccination. This is particularly the case when millions of people are vaccinated, and especially when most vaccines are being given to the most elderly people and people who have underlying illness.
It then clarifies the nature of those already very low numbers of reactions as follows:
For both vaccines, the overwhelming majority of reports relate to injection-site reactions (sore arm for example) and generalised symptoms such as ‘flu-like’ illness, headache, chills, fatigue (tiredness), nausea (feeling sick), fever, dizziness, weakness, aching muscles, and rapid heartbeat. Generally, these happen shortly after the vaccination and are not associated with more serious or lasting illness.

These types of reactions reflect the normal immune response triggered by the body to the vaccines. They are typically seen with most types of vaccine and tend to resolve within a day or two. The nature of reported suspected side effects is broadly similar across age groups, although, as was seen in clinical trials and as is usually seen with other vaccines, they may be reported more frequently in younger adults.
Unfortunately, concerns over vaccine safety and benefits of the kind you describe are not just expressed by pro-lockdown/zero Covid types, but are also used extensively by a growing alliance between anti-vax and right wing libertarian campaigners, including the likes of Stacey Rudin (an AIER cheerleader for Great Barrington) and Naomi Wolf (famous/notorious feminist author) to spread fear and doubt about vaccines in general.

Ultimately, I am neither a doubter in vaccine safety, nor do I accept the AIER/GBD view of society that what happens to me is solely my responsibility. That kind of Randian outlook denies the existence of wider societal benefits from working together, for example in using vaccination to achieve a herd immunity that protects all, regardless of personal risk.

When offered the vaccine, I shall gladly take it both for it's benefits to me and because in having immunity for myself, I will be helping limit the impact and transmissibility of Covid. There is much in this area that @yorkie and I disagree fundamentally on, but I agree with him on the importance of being vaccinated.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
I get more uncomfortable about Great Barrington the more I see of it, and particularly the more that it's sponsoring body (AIER) and cheerleaders start moving towards a robustly anti-vaccination position.

I'd agree insofar as that the AIER are very far from the sort of organisation I'd have been approvingly quoting from a year or so ago, when I was still a Corbyn-supporting Labour party member! Quite possibly their underlying *reasons* for reaching their position differ from mine, but I still believe that position to be correct as far as the GBD goes. If we'd followed that approach, we would be in a much better place now.

However, more specifically, I also note that, on the link provided to the yellow card scheme, it first reminds the reader that:

It then clarifies the nature of those already very low numbers of reactions as follows:

No disagreement from me - I was just pointing out where to find this data, not telling anyone how to interpret it.

Unfortunately, concerns over vaccine safety and benefits of the kind you describe are not just expressed by pro-lockdown/zero Covid types, but are also used extensively by a growing alliance between anti-vax and right wing libertarian campaigners, including the likes of Stacey Rudin (an AIER cheerleader for Great Barrington) and Naomi Wolf (famous/notorious feminist author) to spread fear and doubt about vaccines in general.

Perhaps some with less desireable ideas are on the same track on this one issue, but that's the same issue many here faced when trying to campaign against lockdown. You don't have to agree with everything that eg. David Icke says, in order to oppose lockdowns.

Ultimately, I am neither a doubter in vaccine safety, nor do I accept the AIER/GBD view of society that what happens to me is solely my responsibility. That kind of Randian outlook denies the existence of wider societal benefits from working together, for example in using vaccination to achieve a herd immunity that protects all, regardless of personal risk.

I'm certainly no lover of Rand or her approaches, but everything is a balance. I don't believe people do things for wider society 'regardless of personal risk' - perhaps with very very few exceptions (some Catholic saints, for example). You may well assess that the personal risk of an action is small, and that therefore the balance is strongly in favour of doing something with small perceived risk to you and of benefit to society as a whole. But not 'regardless', no.

When offered the vaccine, I shall gladly take it both for it's benefits to me and because in having immunity for myself, I will be helping limit the impact and transmissibility of Covid. There is much in this area that @yorkie and I disagree fundamentally on, but I agree with him on the importance of being vaccinated.

Which, as I said yesterday, is no problem to me. Allowing people to make their own decisions as to what is best - balancing what is best for them and what is best for society - is precisely what those of us opposed to all these laws and mandates being enforced rather than just being given sensible public health advice, have been arguing for all along.
 
Last edited:

XAM2175

Established Member
Joined
8 Jun 2016
Messages
3,469
Location
Glasgow
Allowing people to make their own decisions as to what is best - balancing what is best for them and what is best for society - is precisely what those of us opposed to all these laws and mandates being enforced rather than just being given sensible public health advice, have been arguing for all along.
I have a certain level of uneasiness when it comes to the "I'm not at risk from COVID so I don't want to chance the vaccine" perspective because it sounds a lot like it's favouring the individual. Considering that there is now considerable confidence that the vaccines cause a significant reduction in transmission, things broadly play out two ways:
  1. Few people feel the way you do and so vaccine uptake throughout society is generally high - you then benefit from a further reduction in your risk of being negatively affected by contracting COVID because the number of potentially-contagious people circulating in society is reduced, or;
  2. Many people feel the way you do and so vaccine uptake throughout society is comparatively low - you then experience no significant change in your risk of being negatively affected by contracting COVID, but because the number of potentially-contagious people circulating in society decreases much more slowly vulnerable people experience an increase in their risk that can only be mitigated by their voluntarily restricting their lives for longer, or by prolonged restrictions on society as a whole.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
I have a certain level of uneasiness when it comes to the "I'm not at risk from COVID so I don't want to chance the vaccine" perspective because it sounds a lot like it's favouring the individual. Considering that there is now considerable confidence that the vaccines cause a significant reduction in transmission, things broadly play out two ways:
  1. Few people feel the way you do and so vaccine uptake throughout society is generally high - you then benefit from a further reduction in your risk of being negatively affected by contracting COVID because the number of potentially-contagious people circulating in society is reduced, or;
  2. Many people feel the way you do and so vaccine uptake throughout society is comparatively low - you then experience no significant change in your risk of being negatively affected by contracting COVID, but because the number of potentially-contagious people circulating in society decreases much more slowly vulnerable people experience an increase in their risk that can only be mitigated by their voluntarily restricting their lives for longer, or by prolonged restrictions on society as a whole.
More generally for vaccines that is certainly true. For the Covid vaccine it doesn't hold as true, primarily because the vaccines don't seem to be capable of providing enough immunity to eliminate the virus from society. Against a disease which spreads extremely effectively, the response they generate is probably too short-lived, too slow acting and not quite effective enough against mutations to provide full herd immunity.

If the deliberately-unvaccinated are the only people capable of spreading an illness, and form the only effective path to the vulnerable, then their actions are quite arguably anti-social. In the case of Covid though, they are only a bit more likely to pass it on than a vaccinated person, and they could easily be doing just as much to prevent the spread by just not being as outgoing or avoiding the elderly.

The benefits of the vaccine are primarily personal, reducing the risk of death in vulnerable people. On a secondary level they help society by reducing hospital admissions. In both these cases the vast majority of the benefit is obtained by giving the vaccine to the vulnerable. Whether before or after the vaccination effort, and for that matter irrespective of all the actions taken to control the spread, a healthy 30 year-old has always been very unlikely to get a serious dose of the disease, and diminishingly unlikely to die of it. Personally I think the risks from the vaccine are probably even lower, but I fully respect any healthy 30 year who doesn't feel that the personal risk is worth mitigating against, and doesn't feel that the tiny possible benefit to society of them getting the vaccine isn't worth considering.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
The benefits of the vaccine are primarily personal, reducing the risk of death in vulnerable people. On a secondary level they help society by reducing hospital admissions. In both these cases the vast majority of the benefit is obtained by giving the vaccine to the vulnerable. Whether before or after the vaccination effort, and for that matter irrespective of all the actions taken to control the spread, a healthy 30 year-old has always been very unlikely to get a serious dose of the disease, and diminishingly unlikely to die of it. Personally I think the risks from the vaccine are probably even lower, but I fully respect any healthy 30 year who doesn't feel that the personal risk is worth mitigating against, and doesn't feel that the tiny possible benefit to society of them getting the vaccine isn't worth considering.
This, this & thrice this.

It is, and should remain a personal choice to have the vaccine. If most of the vulnerable are vaccinated, the risk of serious illness, hospitalisation & death reduces dramatically. I wish people would get that into perspective instead of yet again trying to guilt others into compliance. By all means go for it if you wish, I will probably do so myself, but people need to stop with the guilt tripping once and for all.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
I thought I'd seen it reported that the vaccines do actually reduce transmission. Not completely, but to a significant extent.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
I have a certain level of uneasiness when it comes to the "I'm not at risk from COVID so I don't want to chance the vaccine" perspective because it sounds a lot like it's favouring the individual.

Perhaps so, but at some point the rights of the individual are more important than the obligations of that individual to society.

The right of a healthy person to refuse to undergo medical treatment - even if for a purely selfish reason - is a very fundamental line that must never be crossed. Where does it end? Will I be called selfish for not donating one of my kidneys to some random stranger in order to help get the donor list down? Or one of my corneas? This is one area where there really isn't a spectrum of acceptable answers - it is my body, not the states, not societys.

We've had many attempts over the last century to create societies where the state is more important than the individual. I don't want to live in such a place.

[*]Few people feel the way you do and so vaccine uptake throughout society is generally high - you then benefit from a further reduction in your risk of being negatively affected by contracting COVID because the number of potentially-contagious people circulating in society is reduced, or;
[*]Many people feel the way you do and so vaccine uptake throughout society is comparatively low - you then experience no significant change in your risk of being negatively affected by contracting COVID, but because the number of potentially-contagious people circulating in society decreases much more slowly vulnerable people experience an increase in their risk that can only be mitigated by their voluntarily restricting their lives for longer, or by prolonged restrictions on society as a whole.

It seems you're hoping to live in a society where everyone has equal risks, and an overarching responsibility to mitigate risks to others. We've never tried to do that before this year, not least because it just isn't possible in anything approximating to a free country. This *is* the exact argument used to justify lockdowns, which is one of the many reasons they are deeply problematic. To have a properly functioning, free society, we have to accept that sometimes people will do things that could potentially have some negative effect on others. And vulnerable people are, unfortunately, vulnerable - by definition. That doesn't justify recklessness or malice, but in my book the bar is very low after that.

If a person who has no reason to believe they are ill is going around and inadvertently spreading a disease, I can't say I care. That's how things have always worked, we accept it as part of living in a free society. There's no blame to attribute to them for living their life in a normal fashion. Unless they are eg. deliberately coughing in the face of grannies, which would be rather unreasonable, they clear my bar to qualify as a functioning member of society.

For what it is worth, I'm understating a little when I say I'm not at risk from Covid. I'm on the 'vulnerable' list - for a handful of reasons - which is why I've already been offered vaccination. Part of the reason I'm not keen is that I have no way of knowing what the effect of vaccination would be on someone with my particular collection of medical issues, at least not until we have a lot more data. But there's a bigger issue here than that.
 
Last edited:

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
I thought I'd seen it reported that the vaccines do actually reduce transmission. Not completely, but to a significant extent.
It does reduce transmission, by up to 2/3rds or something against the prevalent strains in mid-2020, and somewhat less against various of the mutations. The point is that at that level of protection there are plenty of other things you can do in life which will have as much impact on the spread, such as washing/not washing your hands, staying in a lot of the time, or being a gregarious huggy person. If you want to be angry with vaccine refusers because of the risk that they pose society, you'd have to be equally angry with outgoing friendly people.
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
38,818
Location
Yorks
It does reduce transmission, by up to 2/3rds or something against the prevalent strains in mid-2020, and somewhat less against various of the mutations. The point is that at that level of protection there are plenty of other things you can do in life which will have as much impact on the spread, such as washing/not washing your hands, staying in a lot of the time, or being a gregarious huggy person. If you want to be angry with vaccine refusers because of the risk that they pose society, you'd have to be equally angry with outgoing friendly people.

I think that given the choice of staying in all the time and having a jab, I'll take the jab !
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,038
I think that given the choice of staying in all the time and having a jab, I'll take the jab !
Oh I'll certainly be having the jab, and more generally I'm not particularly against requiring most childhood vaccinations. I just think that this set of vaccines is more like the flu vaccine - it isn't effective enough at reducing transmission to justify bringing out the big guns. It shouldn't be forced or guilted onto young healthy people who won't particularly benefit from it personally.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
This, this & thrice this.

It is, and should remain a personal choice to have the vaccine. If most of the vulnerable are vaccinated, the risk of serious illness, hospitalisation & death reduces dramatically. I wish people would get that into perspective instead of yet again trying to guilt others into compliance. By all means go for it if you wish, I will probably do so myself, but people need to stop with the guilt tripping once and for all.
It absolutely is a matter of personal choice. But that doesn’t mean those of us who judge that the benefits are collective and personal should not make the case, respectfully. I disagree strongly with @MikeWM but that doesn’t mean I dispute his right to his decision.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
It absolutely is a matter of personal choice. But that doesn’t mean those of us who judge that the benefits are collective and personal should not make the case, respectfully. I disagree strongly with @MikeWM but that doesn’t mean I dispute his right to his decision.
You keep proving my concerns about coercion. We know that statistically the vast majority of people will not become seriously ill if infected, indeed there is the potential to have had millions of people had it without even knowing it. We also know the groups of people most likely to become seriously ill, and have taken steps to protect them with the vaccine. So the risk to society as a whole is diminishing rapidly, meaning that there is no longer a need to compel to take it to "save lives". Yet what I am starting to see out there are people falling over themselves to praise people that have had it, thanking them for being hero's by saving us all, compelling others to do the same whilst increasingly demanding that they get the vaccine next.

So every time I see someone argue that vaccination is for the greater good, I consider the effect that is having on society's psyche. We have already had a year of the dangerous messaging that our simple interactions might be the cause of someone's death, so the last thing we need to be told that not having the vaccine will have a similar effect. It may not be the intention of people to guilt others into getting the vaccine, but it certainly could be the result. And we don't want a society where guilt is used every time for some "greater good". So perhaps it is simply enough to say "I will be getting it", and leave it at that?
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
Having woken up to the news that another person that I know's wife has died in the night at the age of 45 (yes, they might well have had underlying conditions, but no reason why they wouldn't have lived another several decades otherwise with them under control until they contracted this virus) I am quite keen to get as many people vaccinated as logistically possible.

Let's face it - if there is a long term problem with the number of vaccinations occurring we are going to be very much in it together.
Sorry to hear that.

Fortunately, vaccine scepticism is a relatively niche pursuit in the UK and the proportion of people who say they will have the vaccine when offered (well over 80%) is more than sufficient for herd immunity.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295
You keep proving my concerns about coercion. We know that statistically the vast majority of people will not become seriously ill if infected, indeed there is the potential to have had millions of people had it without even knowing it. We also know the groups of people most likely to become seriously ill, and have taken steps to protect them with the vaccine. So the risk to society as a whole is diminishing rapidly, meaning that there is no longer a need to compel to take it to "save lives". Yet what I am starting to see out there are people falling over themselves to praise people that have had it, thanking them for being hero's by saving us all, compelling others to do the same whilst increasingly demanding that they get the vaccine next.

So every time I see someone argue that vaccination is for the greater good, I consider the effect that is having on society's psyche. We have already had a year of the dangerous messaging that our simple interactions might be the cause of someone's death, so the last thing we need to be told that not having the vaccine will have a similar effect. It may not be the intention of people to guilt others into getting the vaccine, but it certainly could be the result. And we don't want a society where guilt is used every time for some "greater good". So perhaps it is simply enough to say "I will be getting it", and leave it at that?
I completely agree; it should be enough to just keep it as a simple statement of intent.

However, I disagree on other aspects of what you say. There is an issue of vaccine hesitancy, particularly in certain groups - my local news yesterday had interesting statistics from Leicester, where 80+% uptake masks significant differences, including only ~50% in one ethnic group (black, I think, but I’m not 100% sure). For a measure that relies for its full effect on mass compliance, reinforcing the message of collective benefit seems a reasonable trade off to me.

More generally, I feel the interpretation of this in terms of “coercion” stretches the term beyond breaking point. It’s certainly a form of persuasion, and could be taken too far, but I find the lens of “coercion” stretches credulity. Back to 1984, Big Brother’s use of propaganda as a technique of persuasion doesn’t mean that propaganda is inherently coercive, even though it undoubtedly is in that situation.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I completely agree; it should be enough to just keep it as a simple statement of intent.

However, I disagree on other aspects of what you say. There is an issue of vaccine hesitancy, particularly in certain groups - my local news yesterday had interesting statistics from Leicester, where 80+% uptake masks significant differences, including only ~50% in one ethnic group (black, I think, but I’m not 100% sure). For a measure that relies for its full effect on mass compliance, reinforcing the message of collective benefit seems a reasonable trade off to me.

More generally, I feel the interpretation of this in terms of “coercion” stretches the term beyond breaking point. It’s certainly a form of persuasion, and could be taken too far, but I find the lens of “coercion” stretches credulity. Back to 1984, Big Brother’s use of propaganda as a technique of persuasion doesn’t mean that propaganda is inherently coercive, even though it undoubtedly is in that situation.
I'm not going to get into another discussion on 1984, the mods have asked us not to. However with regards to ethnic groups not taking up vaccinations the issue is far more complex than most people understand. Often it comes down to a distrust between communities and authorities, and sending a message that they must for the "greater good" will drive more avoidance not less.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
However with regards to ethnic groups not taking up vaccinations the issue is far more complex than most people understand. Often it comes down to a distrust between communities and authorities, and sending a message that they must for the "greater good" will drive more avoidance not less.

And when the people supposedly representing them say things like this:

https://www.theguardian.com/society...-nhs-and-care-workers-on-mandatory-covid-jabs
Yvonne Coghill, a British NHS manager who currently serves on the NHS Equality and Diversity Council... said she could not envisage a scenario where NHS staff would quit in disproportionate numbers due to being forced to take the vaccine.

“Most people are pragmatic and will weigh up the pros and cons of any decision to leave the service in terms of how it would ultimately impact them and their families. People have mortgages to pay and mouths to feed,” she said.
(bold mine)

ie. do what we tell you to do, or your family can starve on the streets. Sounds rather like coercion to me.
 

35B

Established Member
Joined
19 Dec 2011
Messages
2,295

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,036
Location
No longer here
Mandatory vaccines are almost certainly discriminatory - some disabled people are unable to have one as well as people with severe allergies.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
You need to quote the whole of what she said - her argument is against mandatory vaccination on principle, but she acknowledges that the downside of it in practice will be limited.

Yes, you're correct in that she is describing the coercion rather than recommending the coercion herself. Still a very crass thing to say though if she is trying to instill confidence in the people she is presumably supposed to represent ('this probably shouldn't be done, but if it is they'll get away with it without serious consequences, and this is why, so it is all a bit hopeless if you want to keep putting food on the table').
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,025
Location
West Wiltshire
Mandatory vaccines are almost certainly discriminatory - some disabled people are unable to have one as well as people with severe allergies.

It is a separate debate where interactions with other conditions or medical problems mean can’t be given, to the debate on those who choose not to have a vaccine (but medically could)

I’m in the camp that if someone chooses to decline a free vaccine, then NHS shouldn’t be burdened with treating the illness if they get it. If they then want treatment should pay for it, as why should NHS have to pick up extra cost, and utilise one of their scarce beds that could be treating someone else.

Might sound tough to some, but why should someone who needs treatment for another condition have hospital admission delayed because of someone else’s selfishness.
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
It is a separate debate where interactions with other conditions or medical problems mean can’t be given, to the debate on those who choose not to have a vaccine (but medically could)

I’m in the camp that if someone chooses to decline a free vaccine, then NHS shouldn’t be burdened with treating the illness if they get it. If they then want treatment should pay for it, as why should NHS have to pick up extra cost, and utilise one of their scarce beds that could be treating someone else.

Might sound tough to some, but why should someone who needs treatment for another condition have hospital admission delayed because of someone else’s selfishness.
That's not how the NHS works. If someone climbs a mountain and falls off, would you tell them tough too? Or if someone crosses the road and doesn't look properly? Or if someone doesn't have a perfectly balanced diet?

Quite honestly I am getting sick and tired of the nastiness that covid-mania is creating. And it needs to stop.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
It is a separate debate where interactions with other conditions or medical problems mean can’t be given, to the debate on those who choose not to have a vaccine (but medically could)

I’m in the camp that if someone chooses to decline a free vaccine, then NHS shouldn’t be burdened with treating the illness if they get it. If they then want treatment should pay for it, as why should NHS have to pick up extra cost, and utilise one of their scarce beds that could be treating someone else.

Might sound tough to some, but why should someone who needs treatment for another condition have hospital admission delayed because of someone else’s selfishness.

Well, why not indeed. But then I hope the next time I need hospital treatment I'm not delayed by people being treated for conditions such as diabetes (selfish to eat that many pies), smoking (selfish to have had all those cigarettes), broken limbs (selfish to go on that skiing holiday), various childrens diseases (selfish to have too many children in a world where we are supposed to care about the environment), liver issues (selfish to have gone out drinking every day), injuries from car crashes (selfish to have been driving when you could have walked or taken public transport), and so forth and so forth.

Sounds a fun society to live in, doesn't it, where we all point fingers at each other and criticise the choices people make?
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
Vaccines shouldn't be mandatory, but what IS wrong is when people like Ian Brown use their influence in the media to cast doubt on the vaccine, purely for their own agendas. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-56278140

He's cancelling a show, because he says 'I refuse to accept vaccination proof as condition of entry.'

As it sounds like he'll lose money from it, it seems like a principled stand. Good for him, we need more to do the same.

Someone should shut this guy up, these comments of his have ensured a fair extra number of people will now refuse to have the vaccine.

'Someone should shut this guy up'? We're at that stage now are we?
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,646
Location
Manchester
He's cancelling a show, because he says 'I refuse to accept vaccination proof as condition of entry.'

As it sounds like he'll lose money from it, it seems like a principled stand. Good for him, we need more to do the same.



'Someone should shut this guy up'? We're at that stage now are we?

He has also questioned the administration of the vaccines full stop on social media. Yes, if he can't be responsible for what he comes out with then he needs quietening down...twitter removing his account or whatever. It is ironic because he has also been firmly against lockdown on social media, yet he is doing his best here to help bring down the thing that is the biggest weapon against lockdown and the pandemic, the vaccine!
 

Dent

Member
Joined
4 Feb 2015
Messages
1,106
He has also questioned the administration of the vaccines full stop on social media. Yes, if he can't be responsible for what he comes out with then he needs quietening down...twitter removing his account or whatever. It is ironic because he has also been firmly against lockdown on social media, yet he is doing his best here to help bring down the thing that is the biggest weapon against lockdown and the pandemic, the vaccine!

So you are advocating that someone "needs quietening down" for daring to ask a question? That doesn't sound much like the actions of a civilised, democratic society!
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,438
Location
Yorkshire
I linked to an excellent interview with lord Sumption in the following thread :


There is a really good section of this interview that is relevant to the subject of vaccines which I strongly recommend listening to, around the 27 1/2 minute mark:


"The Government is doing its best to pretend that the vaccine makes a difference and at the same time that it doesn't make a difference. This is a position that is internally irreconcilable..."

I strongly believe in the vaccines, but there are two main threats (ignoring the fringe anti-vax lobbyists):

1) The Government trying to tell people that the vaccines are not sufficiently effective that they can go back to normal after being vaccinated (notwithstanding the obvious fact that people should wait 3 weeks after vaccination for it to take effect)
2) The Government and the media scaring people about variants to the point where people are mislead into thinking the vaccines are effective against some variants

The vaccination programme is going remarkably well so far but I really hope the incompetence of the Government, and the irresponsibility of the media, along with the usual scaremongering by the hysterical brigade does not deter people from being vaccinated.
 

Philip

On Moderation
Joined
27 May 2007
Messages
3,646
Location
Manchester
So you are advocating that someone "needs quietening down" for daring to ask a question? That doesn't sound much like the actions of a civilised, democratic society!

He's not 'asking a question', he is using the situation and social media to further his own agenda against authority. If someone abuses social media like he has been doing in this way, then there should be every right for his access rights to be removed, as he is potentially threatening the whole vaccine programme as there will be some who take his word as gospel, and so refuse the vaccine. These same people (and the singer himself) will be hypocrites if they then start complaining about continuing restrictions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top