| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! 09:50 - Feb 22 with 3097 views | homer_123 |
'The work led by Public Health Scotland found by the fourth week after the first dose hospitalisations were reduced by 85% and 94% for the Pfizer and AstraZeneca jabs respectively.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-56153600 |  |
| |  |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:16 - Feb 22 with 647 views | StokieBlue |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:15 - Feb 22 by Darth_Koont |
Yeah, that wasn’t as clear as it should have been.
I’m responding to the mentality you describe, and I agree with you that it’s flawed thinking. And it’s a regressive type of thinking that’s all too common nowadays in lots of areas. |
We are in agreement then :).
SB |  | | |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:20 - Feb 22 with 641 views | Darth_Koont |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:08 - Feb 22 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Do I?
I want to believe they are not, I am open to the possibility we do not know all possible consequences just yet!
Hope you can see the difference. |
Sure. But there is a context of an ongoing pandemic here and it seems that reasonable precautions were taken along with a lot of testing in a short space of time.
And strictly speaking there are flaws and anomalies with almost any medical treatment. Or indeed anything you put in your body like food and liquids. |  |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:21 - Feb 22 with 639 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:09 - Feb 22 by StokieBlue |
I've not said that we have reached any such state. I could easily respond by asking why you feel things are exactly the same now as they were 50+ years ago? Science has moved on a long way since then.
The issue I have is that you cite things that are over half a century old without taking into account all the thousands of successful medicines and treatments that have helped millions of people in the 50+ years since your example.
It's cherry picking bad things in order to discredit new treatments that are entirely unrelated. I expect it on something like FB which is a one of the many reasons I don't go there but was hoping for more on here.
SB |
You certainly imply as much.
Conveniently skipping the more recent example !
Do you really want me to search out all the other more recent failings too? |  |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:24 - Feb 22 with 633 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:12 - Feb 22 by StokieBlue |
Once again though, you're ignoring the thousands of successful medicines and treatments to focus on something which wasn't as hoped and is being dealt with.
SB |
OK so I get it now, you only want me compare something that we hope will be successful with successful things! Got it! | |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:28 - Feb 22 with 625 views | StokieBlue |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:21 - Feb 22 by BanksterDebtSlave |
You certainly imply as much.
Conveniently skipping the more recent example !
Do you really want me to search out all the other more recent failings too? |
I don't believe I've implied anything of the sort. I've simply commented on the science and you've expanded it to society.
Sure, find more recent examples as long as you also cite all the successes in that time. Let's see the percentage of success against issues as well as the lives saved from the successes against the lives lost to the mistakes. Anything else would be cherry picking bad results to give the impression it's a more common occurrence that the underlying numbers highlight.
SB | | | |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:30 - Feb 22 with 617 views | StokieBlue |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:24 - Feb 22 by BanksterDebtSlave |
OK so I get it now, you only want me compare something that we hope will be successful with successful things! Got it! |
Well you clearly don't get it because that is nothing like what I said in my posts.
SB | | | |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:33 - Feb 22 with 613 views | Eireannach_gorm |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 14:32 - Feb 22 by clive_baker |
I won’t believe it until Macron tells me it’s true. |
For a second, I thought that was Marcus. |  | | |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:33 - Feb 22 with 613 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:13 - Feb 22 by BlueBadger |
Post-surgical complications, particularly in urology, are not unknown and will never be. the point is, every precaution will have been taken prior to surgery for these particularly unfortunate individuals involved. Complications post surgery of any kind, particularly if if in involves something being implanted are sadly, an ongoing occupational hazard and can be far more difficult to mitigate against, particularly when rolled out on mass in a such a complicated patient group such as those suffering abdominal prolapses.
It certainly doesn't justify your tedious dog-whistle antivaxxing. |
All I am hearing there is...."yeah but." If anything the likely pitfalls of such a procedure should be way simpler to anticipate than all the unknowable possible interactions of various chemicals/medicines within the human ecosystem. Why are some people so threatened by healthy scepticism and asking questions?
Your capacity to throw labels around is, as ever, spectacularly pathetic! | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:38 - Feb 22 with 603 views | BlueLikeJazz |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:13 - Feb 22 by BlueBadger |
Post-surgical complications, particularly in urology, are not unknown and will never be. the point is, every precaution will have been taken prior to surgery for these particularly unfortunate individuals involved. Complications post surgery of any kind, particularly if if in involves something being implanted are sadly, an ongoing occupational hazard and can be far more difficult to mitigate against, particularly when rolled out on mass in a such a complicated patient group such as those suffering abdominal prolapses.
It certainly doesn't justify your tedious dog-whistle antivaxxing. |
It's also at least partly down to a societal issue that women don't get listened to, which is cr*p, but also doesn't justify tedious dog-whistle antivaxxing. |  | | |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:38 - Feb 22 with 602 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:20 - Feb 22 by Darth_Koont |
Sure. But there is a context of an ongoing pandemic here and it seems that reasonable precautions were taken along with a lot of testing in a short space of time.
And strictly speaking there are flaws and anomalies with almost any medical treatment. Or indeed anything you put in your body like food and liquids. |
So I wouldn't disagree with any of that, but the way in which you can be shouted down for suggesting anything other than hope for the desired for outcome is blinkered and ultimately counter productive....a little like pretending there were no valid criticisms of the EU!!
That turned out well. [Post edited 22 Feb 2021 16:39]
| |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:42 - Feb 22 with 595 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:28 - Feb 22 by StokieBlue |
I don't believe I've implied anything of the sort. I've simply commented on the science and you've expanded it to society.
Sure, find more recent examples as long as you also cite all the successes in that time. Let's see the percentage of success against issues as well as the lives saved from the successes against the lives lost to the mistakes. Anything else would be cherry picking bad results to give the impression it's a more common occurrence that the underlying numbers highlight.
SB |
I believe you have....I am happy to detect a more nuanced, less fundamentalist, tone in your response now. | |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:44 - Feb 22 with 588 views | BlueLikeJazz |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:38 - Feb 22 by BanksterDebtSlave |
So I wouldn't disagree with any of that, but the way in which you can be shouted down for suggesting anything other than hope for the desired for outcome is blinkered and ultimately counter productive....a little like pretending there were no valid criticisms of the EU!!
That turned out well. [Post edited 22 Feb 2021 16:39]
|
But you're continually banging on about unrelated things. It's like saying deathcap mushrooms are poisonous therefore you shouldn't eat chestnut mushrooms, it makes no logical sense. And vaccines don't tend to have long-term unforeseen consequences that suddenly appear years later because that isn't really how they work and there's no biological mechanism by which they might do so, so pointing to the unforeseen longterm consequences of some completely different medical treatment isn't terribly pointful. [Post edited 22 Feb 2021 16:45]
| | | |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:46 - Feb 22 with 578 views | StokieBlue |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:42 - Feb 22 by BanksterDebtSlave |
I believe you have....I am happy to detect a more nuanced, less fundamentalist, tone in your response now. |
So in the interests of balance you'll now be making thousands of post highlighting the successful medicines and treatments which have helped millions since your example picked from the 1960s?
You say people don't want to hear about past failures but all you do is cite past failures or false equivalences. That's not the way to go about things either.
SB [Post edited 22 Feb 2021 16:48]
| | | |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:50 - Feb 22 with 573 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:44 - Feb 22 by BlueLikeJazz |
But you're continually banging on about unrelated things. It's like saying deathcap mushrooms are poisonous therefore you shouldn't eat chestnut mushrooms, it makes no logical sense. And vaccines don't tend to have long-term unforeseen consequences that suddenly appear years later because that isn't really how they work and there's no biological mechanism by which they might do so, so pointing to the unforeseen longterm consequences of some completely different medical treatment isn't terribly pointful. [Post edited 22 Feb 2021 16:45]
|
Congrats on the inaccurate antivaxxer dog whistle btw!
Magic mushrooms aren't poisonous but I wouldn't have them for dinner every day. All I have pointed out is that not everything coming from the temple of science comes as the packaging might want you to believe.
Edit...I would like to think it was obvious that at the point I entered the thread that my comments were of a broader nature about science rather than specific to vaccines! [Post edited 22 Feb 2021 16:53]
| |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:51 - Feb 22 with 570 views | Darth_Koont |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:38 - Feb 22 by BanksterDebtSlave |
So I wouldn't disagree with any of that, but the way in which you can be shouted down for suggesting anything other than hope for the desired for outcome is blinkered and ultimately counter productive....a little like pretending there were no valid criticisms of the EU!!
That turned out well. [Post edited 22 Feb 2021 16:39]
|
Sure. But it’s the same problem.
That in a straight choice between A and the much worse B by all objective measures, then picking holes in A is counter-productive because it enables B.
Vaccines, like the EU, are an imperfect solution to an imperfect world. Suggesting they should be perfect while the alternatives themselves are in fact deeply f@cked up isn’t a helpful approach. | |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:53 - Feb 22 with 561 views | BlueLikeJazz |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:50 - Feb 22 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Congrats on the inaccurate antivaxxer dog whistle btw!
Magic mushrooms aren't poisonous but I wouldn't have them for dinner every day. All I have pointed out is that not everything coming from the temple of science comes as the packaging might want you to believe.
Edit...I would like to think it was obvious that at the point I entered the thread that my comments were of a broader nature about science rather than specific to vaccines! [Post edited 22 Feb 2021 16:53]
|
"All I have pointed out is that not everything coming from the temple of science comes as the packaging might want you to believe. "
Well if you want to spend your time pointing out the bleeding obvious and pretending that you're the only one who has this special knowledge, then knock yourself out, but seeing as literally no-one has been saying 'science is perfect and never gets things wrong', it seems like a bit of a waste of your time.
I've no idea what the rest of your post even means, so whatever. | | | |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:55 - Feb 22 with 557 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:51 - Feb 22 by Darth_Koont |
Sure. But it’s the same problem.
That in a straight choice between A and the much worse B by all objective measures, then picking holes in A is counter-productive because it enables B.
Vaccines, like the EU, are an imperfect solution to an imperfect world. Suggesting they should be perfect while the alternatives themselves are in fact deeply f@cked up isn’t a helpful approach. |
Maybe healthy debate leads to more mutually beneficial options C and D! | |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:56 - Feb 22 with 549 views | m14_blue |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:51 - Feb 22 by Darth_Koont |
Sure. But it’s the same problem.
That in a straight choice between A and the much worse B by all objective measures, then picking holes in A is counter-productive because it enables B.
Vaccines, like the EU, are an imperfect solution to an imperfect world. Suggesting they should be perfect while the alternatives themselves are in fact deeply f@cked up isn’t a helpful approach. |
Ahem.
Starmer = A
Tories = B | | | |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! (n/t) on 16:58 - Feb 22 with 547 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:53 - Feb 22 by BlueLikeJazz |
"All I have pointed out is that not everything coming from the temple of science comes as the packaging might want you to believe. "
Well if you want to spend your time pointing out the bleeding obvious and pretending that you're the only one who has this special knowledge, then knock yourself out, but seeing as literally no-one has been saying 'science is perfect and never gets things wrong', it seems like a bit of a waste of your time.
I've no idea what the rest of your post even means, so whatever. |
| |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:58 - Feb 22 with 545 views | J2BLUE |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:55 - Feb 22 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Maybe healthy debate leads to more mutually beneficial options C and D! |
You'd still be desperate to find fault and be wanting E and F. |  |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:59 - Feb 22 with 544 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:56 - Feb 22 by m14_blue |
Ahem.
Starmer = A
Tories = B |
My point exactly! | |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 17:02 - Feb 22 with 534 views | BanksterDebtSlave |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:58 - Feb 22 by J2BLUE |
You'd still be desperate to find fault and be wanting E and F. |
Quite probably....what a great world that would be! | |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 17:04 - Feb 22 with 525 views | J2BLUE |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 17:02 - Feb 22 by BanksterDebtSlave |
Quite probably....what a great world that would be! |
Nothing wrong with questioning but you picked a side early and have been desperate to justify it ever since. | |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 17:07 - Feb 22 with 524 views | Darth_Koont |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:56 - Feb 22 by m14_blue |
Ahem.
Starmer = A
Tories = B |
Haha. Starmer certainly isn’t the vaccine. He’s a milder variant of the disease.
I want a vaccine and the end to unnecessary suffering. And there’s still time before 2024 or Scotland büggers off for good. | |
| |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 17:18 - Feb 22 with 515 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| Bloody vaccines....who need 'em! on 16:11 - Feb 22 by The_Flashing_Smile |
You can say what ifs and buts about anything. What's the point in scaremongering? I could get hit by a bus tomorrow, should I not leave my house?
I'm not really sure what your point is. I presume you're not suggesting people don't have the vaccine, so if that's the case what do you want us to do with your pessimistic view? |
You want to answer this Banksy? |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
