frankblack Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 19 minutes ago, Taffin said: This just keeps being ignored over and over again. "Them unvaccinated are selfish and spread the virus more" "So do those with a high BMI AGE, in fact the young are least likely to spread it which happen to make up most of the unvaccinated" ***fingers in ears*** "Lalalalalalalala, please allow me to ignore your point...it was the wrong science which told you that" 😂😂 Selective quoting of out of date surveys with low sample sizes? So what about smokers and drinkers? Don't they fit into your mentalist argument too? All miles of topic and completely irrelevant to vaccine passports because your prejudices are not going to affect the outcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beni Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 27 minutes ago, Taffin said: This just keeps being ignored over and over again. "Them unvaccinated are selfish and spread the virus more" "So do those with a high BMI AGE, in fact the young are least likely to spread it which happen to make up most of the unvaccinated" ***fingers in ears*** "Lalalalalalalala, please allow me to ignore your point...it was the wrong science which told you that" 😂😂 4 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said: Can you imagine the aerosols being expelled by the rather portly gentlemen of advancing years struggling their way up to the back of the wheatfield pie and bovril in hand Follow the science Have you chaps read the correction letter at the top of the linked research? Here's a couple of fairly significant excerpts. "The correlation coefficients are very small and do not support the authors’ view (1) about a significant correlation. For superspreaders (both deciles), the SD of the slope is much larger than the fitted value of the slope (already for k = 1). Therefore, we must draw the conclusion that there is no correlation between the number of exhaled particle counts per liter in humans and the BMI-years. The BMI-years of the NHPs are expected to be below 200, and a high number of exhaled particles per liter of 1,000 or more (see figure 4 in ref. 1) disfavors the claimed “strong correlation” even more". "The answer to the question raised in the title should therefore be no. There is no statistically relevant correlation in the data, but, even if it exists, this would not imply any causality". https://www.pnas.org/content/118/27/e2106088118 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoncurMacdonaldMercer Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 14 minutes ago, Beni said: Have you chaps read the correction letter at the top of the linked research? Here's a couple of fairly significant excerpts. "The correlation coefficients are very small and do not support the authors’ view (1) about a significant correlation. For superspreaders (both deciles), the SD of the slope is much larger than the fitted value of the slope (already for k = 1). Therefore, we must draw the conclusion that there is no correlation between the number of exhaled particle counts per liter in humans and the BMI-years. The BMI-years of the NHPs are expected to be below 200, and a high number of exhaled particles per liter of 1,000 or more (see figure 4 in ref. 1) disfavors the claimed “strong correlation” even more". "The answer to the question raised in the title should therefore be no. There is no statistically relevant correlation in the data, but, even if it exists, this would not imply any causality". https://www.pnas.org/content/118/27/e2106088118 is that the only relevant evidence you’ve quoted - is it all done and dusted all studies agree there’s no connection? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beni Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 4 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said: is that the only relevant evidence you’ve quoted - is it all done and dusted all studies agree there’s no connection? The link is in my post. The authors made a correction, and the letter explains what this means. Probably safer to read it yourself then there's no room for communication mix-ups. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoncurMacdonaldMercer Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 15 minutes ago, Beni said: The link is in my post. The authors made a correction, and the letter explains what this means. Probably safer to read it yourself then there's no room for communication mix-ups. There are generally multiple studies on these things - is the one you linked the only one in this case or the overriding one? you’ll note in my original post I did caveat that subsequent findings may have occurred so I wouldn’t be overly surprised if the current conclusion is different to a previous conclusion just wondering if the study you’ve quoted is the only one or are there possibly others (with different findings) or is it done and dusted ie no further study required if you’re not aware of other studies (or you know they don’t exist ) that’s fine - but that’s the question I’m asking - which you can choose to answer or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taffin Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, frankblack said: Selective quoting of out of date surveys with low sample sizes? So what about smokers and drinkers? Don't they fit into your mentalist argument too? All miles of topic and completely irrelevant to vaccine passports because your prejudices are not going to affect the outcome. Edit: see Beni's post 👍 Edited September 7, 2021 by Taffin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taffin Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 (edited) 57 minutes ago, Beni said: Have you chaps read the correction letter at the top of the linked research? Here's a couple of fairly significant excerpts. "The correlation coefficients are very small and do not support the authors’ view (1) about a significant correlation. For superspreaders (both deciles), the SD of the slope is much larger than the fitted value of the slope (already for k = 1). Therefore, we must draw the conclusion that there is no correlation between the number of exhaled particle counts per liter in humans and the BMI-years. The BMI-years of the NHPs are expected to be below 200, and a high number of exhaled particles per liter of 1,000 or more (see figure 4 in ref. 1) disfavors the claimed “strong correlation” even more". "The answer to the question raised in the title should therefore be no. There is no statistically relevant correlation in the data, but, even if it exists, this would not imply any causality". https://www.pnas.org/content/118/27/e2106088118 I hadn't, as I read it months ago and only have reposted it. This could all have been avoided if someone else had pointed the correction out when I caveated posting it by saying it may well now be out of date. Instead they just wanted. Good post 👍 Edit: I've just had a read of it and it's a response from another author, not a correction from the authors of the original article? Edited September 7, 2021 by Taffin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taffin Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 5 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said: There are generally multiple studies on these things - is the one you linked the only one in this case or the overriding one? you’ll note in my original post I did caveat that subsequent findings may have occurred so I wouldn’t be overly surprised if the current conclusion is different to a previous conclusion just wondering if the study you’ve quoted is the only one or are there possibly others (with different findings) or is it done and dusted ie no further study required The study he's linked is the one I posted I believe. So he's spot on TBF. There were others at the time I read but may well have just been piggybacking that one. 5 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said: if you’re not aware of other studies (or you know they don’t exist ) that’s fine - but that’s the question I’m asking - which you can choose to answer or not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howdy Doody Jambo Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 1 minute ago, Taffin said: If you're just going to discard scientific studies out of hand there's no point in engaging with it. If you can provide a more up to date one that disproves, then go ahead and share it. We either accept scientific studies or we don't. I generally thought the non-tinfoil wearers were in favour of that. Smokers probably do spread more bioaerosol particles. No idea, you tell me. Why would drinkers? Drinkers of lager and ales pass wind more whereby air sprays are often used to neutralise the atmosphere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beni Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 8 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said: There are generally multiple studies on these things - is the one you linked the only one in this case or the overriding one? you’ll note in my original post I did caveat that subsequent findings may have occurred so I wouldn’t be overly surprised if the current conclusion is different to a previous conclusion just wondering if the study you’ve quoted is the only one or are there possibly others (with different findings) or is it done and dusted ie no further study required if you’re not aware of other studies (or you know they don’t exist ) that’s fine - but that’s the question I’m asking - which you can choose to answer or not I couldn't say if there are other studies or not, I only looked at that one because @Taffin posted it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taffin Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Beni said: I couldn't say if there are other studies or not, I only looked at that one because @Taffin posted it. I just edited my response to your post. It isn't a correction by the original authors, it's a letter of response from another individual scientist I think. Who'd have thought just like all of us, they couldn't agree 😂😂 Edit: I'm editing left right and centre here. The correction that's listed is for fig 2 I think 🤷🏻♂️ Edited September 7, 2021 by Taffin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gizmo Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 I know our "new friend"* is a troll, but some right shameful opinions shared on this thread. We will be back to the Logan's Run themed shite soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoncurMacdonaldMercer Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 5 minutes ago, Beni said: I couldn't say if there are other studies or not, I only looked at that one because @Taffin posted it. Yeah fair point I never realised taffins post was a specific study I’d be surprised if that was the only study - it was reported quite generally but I’m not sure of the original source (hence the caveat in my original post) would expect all the big universities like Oxford etc would be analysing transmission drivers of the virus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoncurMacdonaldMercer Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 8 minutes ago, Gizmo said: I know our "new friend"* is a troll, but some right shameful opinions shared on this thread. We will be back to the Logan's Run themed shite soon enough. in your opinion of course when people were dying of covid and it was pointed out they were old and were in Ill-health already it was perceived this meant they didn’t matter - shameful etc now when similar people are unfortunately dying post vaccine it’s being pointed out that they were old and sick and would have died anyway - by the same people who previously said such context was shameful (for the avoidance of doubt dying with-vaccine not necessarily due to the vaccine) as someone said on one of the threads there’s been a hypocrisy pandemic and its showing even less sign of disappearing than the covid one Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoncurMacdonaldMercer Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 19 minutes ago, Taffin said: I just edited my response to your post. It isn't a correction by the original authors, it's a letter of response from another individual scientist I think. Who'd have thought just like all of us, they couldn't agree 😂😂 Edit: I'm editing left right and centre here. The correction that's listed is for fig 2 I think 🤷🏻♂️ do they agree or not - have you decided? - as you say the bigger shock would be to hear of scientists agreeing on stuff (not a criticism of them) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taffin Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 30 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said: do they agree or not - have you decided? - as you say the bigger shock would be to hear of scientists agreeing on stuff (not a criticism of them) Absolutely not a clue I'm afraid. Its partially why I was reluctant to post it again in the first place as it's a few months old now and a small sample. The original authors seemed a pretty reputable bunch...based entirely on their titles 😂😂 The letter that's been added I don't think is based on recent developments though so either the original lot for it wrong or (s)he has it wrong. They've just both interpreted the base data differently. I'd like to think I'm not too hardened either way on the subject other than persistently questioning everything that gets stated definitively and I'm not sure the above does anything to suggest that is any other than a sensible idea...no matter how much more qualified or intelligent the originator of a study is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beni Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 52 minutes ago, Taffin said: I just edited my response to your post. It isn't a correction by the original authors, it's a letter of response from another individual scientist I think. Who'd have thought just like all of us, they couldn't agree 😂😂 Edit: I'm editing left right and centre here. The correction that's listed is for fig 2 I think 🤷🏻♂️ Yeah it's not by the authors, but is a response to the error that the authors corrected. I don't know how these journals work, but wouldn't think they just publish random letters unless they think there's some merit in it. That said, if the authors or the journal thought there was a fatal flaw in the paper it would probably have been withdrawn. As this study was about exhaled droplet size rather than Covid itself, perhaps any difference in droplet exhalation could be mitigated against by people wearing some sort of face covering. 😷🤔 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taffin Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 2 minutes ago, Beni said: Yeah it's not by the authors, but is a response to the error that the authors corrected. I don't know how these journals work, but wouldn't think they just publish random letters unless they think there's some merit in it. That said, if the authors or the journal thought there was a fatal flaw in the paper it would probably have been withdrawn. Yes, it would be good/interesting if the authors addressed the response. Quote As this study was about exhaled droplet size rather than Covid itself, perhaps any difference in droplet exhalation could be mitigated against by people wearing some sort of face covering. 😷🤔 What to stop people eating so much? (Tongue firmly in cheek) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoncurMacdonaldMercer Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 4 minutes ago, Taffin said: Absolutely not a clue I'm afraid. Its partially why I was reluctant to post it again in the first place as it's a few months old now and a small sample. The original authors seemed a pretty reputable bunch...based entirely on their titles 😂😂 The letter that's been added I don't think is based on recent developments though so either the original lot for it wrong or (s)he has it wrong. They've just both interpreted the base data differently. I'd like to think I'm not too hardened either way on the subject other than persistently questioning everything that gets stated definitively and I'm not sure the above does anything to suggest that is any other than a sensible idea...no matter how much more qualified or intelligent the originator of a study is. Yeah let’s be honest these things are so difficult to interpret and are rarely the full picture (ie other studies etc) anyone claiming to have definitive answer on here (to any of this) should be treated with caution that said I think there is enough doubt here to justify that there’s some evidence that those fatties might be higher-risk spreaders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoncurMacdonaldMercer Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 9 minutes ago, Beni said: Yeah it's not by the authors, but is a response to the error that the authors corrected. I don't know how these journals work, but wouldn't think they just publish random letters unless they think there's some merit in it. That said, if the authors or the journal thought there was a fatal flaw in the paper it would probably have been withdrawn. As this study was about exhaled droplet size rather than Covid itself, perhaps any difference in droplet exhalation could be mitigated against by people wearing some sort of face covering. 😷🤔 Plenty conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of face coverings (even if worn properly) as I’m sure you are aware its all a bit light/gallows humour albeit there is/may be a genuine point in there - hopefully no-ones taking it too seriously Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beni Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 29 minutes ago, Taffin said: What to stop people eating so much? (Tongue firmly in cheek) We had a similar discussion on the main thread where I think we were in rough agreement that more could have been done early in the pandemic to encourage people to lose weight after it became known that obesity and Covid severity were closely linked. And to be fair to Boris Johnson he did launch some sort of a campaign after he'd recovered using his own weight to highlight the dangers, but it didn't seem to gather much momentum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beni Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 30 minutes ago, MoncurMacdonaldMercer said: Plenty conflicting evidence on the effectiveness of face coverings (even if worn properly) as I’m sure you are aware its all a bit light/gallows humour albeit there is/may be a genuine point in there - hopefully no-ones taking it too seriously Aye, probably not much point in taking the mask debate out for another spin round the block. I've had a look for other studies and there doesn't seem to be much published at the moment, other than anecdotes about superspreader events. Although I did see one that had modelled the features that might be common to superspreaders, and they included a full set of teeth! Folk with good dental hygiene will be next on the passport naughty step. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoncurMacdonaldMercer Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 1 hour ago, Beni said: Aye, probably not much point in taking the mask debate out for another spin round the block. I've had a look for other studies and there doesn't seem to be much published at the moment, other than anecdotes about superspreader events. Although I did see one that had modelled the features that might be common to superspreaders, and they included a full set of teeth! Folk with good dental hygiene will be next on the passport naughty step. good dental hygiene - absolute scum Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boab Posted September 7, 2021 Share Posted September 7, 2021 2 hours ago, Beni said: We had a similar discussion on the main thread where I think we were in rough agreement that more could have been done early in the pandemic to encourage people to lose weight after it became known that obesity and Covid severity were closely linked. And to be fair to Boris Johnson he did launch some sort of a campaign after he'd recovered using his own weight to highlight the dangers, but it didn't seem to gather much momentum. Because he’s a prick and no one trusts a word he says ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 Scotland's vaccine passport scheme set to come into force from October 1 https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19569213.scotlands-vaccine-passport-scheme-set-come-force-october-1/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indianajones Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 9 minutes ago, Awbdy Oot said: Scotland's vaccine passport scheme set to come into force from October 1 https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/19569213.scotlands-vaccine-passport-scheme-set-come-force-october-1/ WTF is the point in it? The damage has already been done surely? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Gin Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 4 minutes ago, indianajones said: WTF is the point in it? The damage has already been done surely? The virus is not done by any means. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 7 minutes ago, indianajones said: WTF is the point in it? The damage has already been done surely? The damage is still being done is it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boab Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 Debate before the vote this afternoon. I hope the right questions are asked. The main one being, who comes up with the figures ? They are either needed or not needed, regardless of a game hosting 9K( not needed ) and 10K ( needed ). They even mentioned the dictionary definition of a nightclub in their proposal, issued this morning but are still working with stakeholders on what defines a nightclub ! Shambles ? Very well might be ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indianajones Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 5 minutes ago, Ray Gin said: The virus is not done by any means. 4 minutes ago, Awbdy Oot said: The damage is still being done is it not? If you havent got a vaccine passport you might have covid and be passing it on to others. If you do have a vaccine passport you might have covid and be passing it on to others. The idea is criminal and hugely immoral. By all means make mandatory negative tests before entering events/whatever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indianajones Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 1 minute ago, jonesy said: Deep down, I think part of it is to ensure governmental influence in as many areas of our lives as possible. Not always with nefarious intent, mind you. However, just a wee reminder as to who's in charge and that they are a big part of your life. Papers please! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 1 minute ago, indianajones said: If you havent got a vaccine passport you might have covid and be passing it on to others. If you do have a vaccine passport you might have covid and be passing it on to others. The idea is criminal and hugely immoral. By all means make mandatory negative tests before entering events/whatever. But if you have a vaccine passport you're way less likely to end up in hospital or worse. You're also not going to pass it on to an unvaccinated , more likely to end up in hospital or worse person if there aren't any there to pass it on to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 19 minutes ago, indianajones said: WTF is the point in it? The damage has already been done surely? The reason for it is they think its the best way to encourage younger people to get vaccinated. To get to the safe percentage of vaccinated people that will save lives. Though what I'd reading today suggests they could do that by vaccinating 12-15 year olds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
escobri Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 If passed this scheme will go live at the same time as the permanent digital solution for vaccination certification, anyone shed more light on this ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Gin Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 They should just make the vaccine mandatory to save all this pissing about. Worked for smallpox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 Absolutely Ludicrous really as you can get your passport one day then the next get covid ! Probes zilch . How can they not define a “ nightclub “ my conspiracy head is on with that one ! Probably end up staying pubs open after 11 will be classed as “ nightclubs” even if they only serve until 12 or 1. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 5 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: The reason for it is they think its the best way to encourage younger people to get vaccinated. To get to the safe percentage of vaccinated people that will save lives. Though what I'd reading today suggests they could do that by vaccinating 12-15 year olds. And then 5-12 years old ! That’s how it’ll go Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 1 minute ago, Ray Gin said: They should just make the vaccine mandatory to save all this pissing about. Worked for smallpox. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Gin Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 Strangely enough following the mandatory smallpox vaccine, the country didn't fall under fascist rule and we actually went to war against the nazis instead of gleefully joining them. Weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, jonesy said: No, the vaccine does that. The vaccine passport is a means of coercion to promote compliance when the government know they'd never get mandatory vaccinations past the human rights laws that they otherwise adore for their own 'just' causes. I'm neither for nor against it all, really, just find it funny how everyone is willing to bend, shape or break their own moral values to carry on what has essentially become a very binary argument. Groucho Marx comes to mind. I agree with your first sentence, the vaccine does do that, the vaccine passport is the means of proving your vaccine status. The rest of your post is just nonsense made up in your own mind Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Burgundy Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 6 minutes ago, Ray Gin said: Strangely enough following the mandatory smallpox vaccine, the country didn't fall under fascist rule and we actually went to war against the nazis instead of gleefully joining them. Weird. Smallpox was a little bit different to covid. . Most people with covid need to take a test to find out they have it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 So Livingston on the 24th September could be a fair chunk of our supports last game for a wee while. 😟 Hopefully they'll get streams if they are season ticket holders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 5 minutes ago, Awbdy Oot said: I agree with your first sentence, the vaccine does do that, the vaccine passport is the means of proving your vaccine status. The rest of your post is just nonsense made up in your own mind Yes the vaccine passport only proves your vaccine status . It does not prove that at that moment in time you are covid free . So it’s a waste of time really Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikey1874 Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 5 minutes ago, Awbdy Oot said: I agree with your first sentence, the vaccine does do that, the vaccine passport is the means of proving your vaccine status. The rest of your post is just nonsense made up in your own mind It's to encourage younger people to get the vaccine. UK wide research that it's the number 1 factor to change behaviour. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
escobri Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 5 minutes ago, Awbdy Oot said: I agree with your first sentence, the vaccine does do that, the vaccine passport is the means of proving your vaccine status. The rest of your post is just nonsense made up in your own mind In addition, the need to be vaccinated is expected to encourage the remaining sections of the eligible population yet to be vaccinated to take up the offer of the vaccine. Pure coercion . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boab Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, Awbdy Oot said: I agree with your first sentence, the vaccine does do that, the vaccine passport is the means of proving your vaccine status. The rest of your post is just nonsense made up in your own mind I may sound like a broken record here as we have been over this, but they can’t introduce a passport that only covers some events and not others. That is the perfect definition of nonsensical ! No wonder certain businesses are scratching their heads. Either bring it in across the board or not at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 1 minute ago, Ron Burgundy said: Smallpox was a little bit different to covid. . Most people with covid need to take a test to find out they have it. Only 1/3 of people with Covid have no symptoms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beni Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 7 minutes ago, Ray Gin said: Strangely enough following the mandatory smallpox vaccine, the country didn't fall under fascist rule and we actually went to war against the nazis instead of gleefully joining them. Weird. Yeah, but Germany had a mandatory smallpox vaccination program shortly before Hitler's rise to power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudyJudyJudy Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, Mikey1874 said: It's to encourage younger people to get the vaccine. UK wide research that it's the number 1 factor to change behaviour. Coercion and blackmail more like . Morally wrong and unethical medically too . 3 minutes ago, escobri said: In addition, the need to be vaccinated is expected to encourage the remaining sections of the eligible population yet to be vaccinated to take up the offer of the vaccine. Pure coercion . Exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
graygo Posted September 9, 2021 Share Posted September 9, 2021 3 minutes ago, JamesM48 said: Yes the vaccine passport only proves your vaccine status . It does not prove that at that moment in time you are covid free . So it’s a waste of time really Like I said in my earlier post if everyone in the crowd has been vaccinated then the chances of infecting someone and them becoming ill or worse is greatly reduced. It's either this or closure according to the SG. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.