The News

[welshbairn]

Here you go, apparently vaccinating anyone under 18 goes against the natural order and will carry huge unspecified risks.

 

[Dawson Park Boy]

18 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

Here you go, apparently vaccinating anyone under 18 goes against the natural order and will carry huge unspecified risks.

 

Thanks

i suppose it’s a fair point as that group are not in any great danger.

Personally, I just don’t know what’s best?

[NotThePars]

14 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Thanks

i suppose it’s a fair point as that group are not in any great danger.

Personally, I just don’t know what’s best?

What's best is you continuing to post so we can all laugh at your dumb baby brain

[welshbairn]

21 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Thanks

i suppose it’s a fair point as that group are not in any great danger.

Personally, I just don’t know what’s best?

We're expected to do stuff all the time for the collective good that doesn't necessarily benefit ourselves as individuals.

If children were carrying a bug that they were immune to but directly killed the adults around them, and there was a vaccine that would sort it

with zero evidence that it would be dangerous for the children, nobody would claim that it would be against the natural order for them to take it.

So it's a balance of risk and reward. The benefits of vaccinating children in the current situation would be a big boost in herd immunity which would 

benefit everyone, versus a risk to children in later life that nobody has been able to pinpoint, even vaguely with any kind of precedent. It's a legitimate 

discussion as to whether the wider benefit outweighs any imagined risk, but the fearmongering rant from Oliver isn't the way to make a rational evaluation.

[BigDoddyKane]

Its a more difficult question to answer than vaccinating adults thats for sure, I dont know at the moment what I think on that. I would need to hear more of the argument I dont think its been discussed enough as I havent read or heard anything thats putting the full picture out with pros and cons

Edited July 4, 2021 by BigDoddyKane

[Dawson Park Boy]

40 minutes ago, NotThePars said:

What's best is you continuing to post so we can all laugh at your dumb baby brain

Okay. What’s your take on it, then?

[Dawson Park Boy]

35 minutes ago, welshbairn said:

We're expected to do stuff all the time for the collective good that doesn't necessarily benefit ourselves as individuals.

If children were carrying a bug that they were immune to but directly killed the adults around them, and there was a vaccine that would sort it

with zero evidence that it would be dangerous for the children, nobody would claim that it would be against the natural order for them to take it.

So it's a balance of risk and reward. The benefits of vaccinating children in the current situation would be a big boost in herd immunity which would 

benefit everyone, versus a risk to children in later life that nobody has been able to pinpoint, even vaguely with any kind of precedent. It's a legitimate 

discussion as to whether the wider benefit outweighs any imagined risk, but the fearmongering rant from Oliver isn't the way to make a rational evaluation.

Yes, I agree. It’s  a very finely balanced decision and not one for ‘ranting’ either way.

[Cyclizine]

57 minutes ago, Dawson Park Boy said:

Thanks

i suppose it’s a fair point as that group are not in any great danger.

Personally, I just don’t know what’s best?

It's not just about individuals, it's about populations. I know your world view is based on individualism, but we also have a responsibility to society as individuals, you will probably disagree. Vaccinating less vulnerable groups is likely to reduce transmission of disease to more vulnerable groups as there are fewer hosts. A good example is the fact we  vaccinate boys against HPV, when they're extremely unlikely to have issues from this virus, but in women it is the major cause of cervical cancer. We also aim to vaccinate as many who can take vaccines to protect those who can't have them for medical reasons.

[pandarilla]

Could you clarify please?
Was he ranting for or against vaccinating children and what were his reasons for that POV?
What fake news are you talking about?

He was appalled that it's even being considered, as the long term effects of the vaccine are unknown. But he was fully going for it.

[Dawson Park Boy]

19 minutes ago, Cyclizine said:

It's not just about individuals, it's about populations. I know your world view is based on individualism, but we also have a responsibility to society as individuals, you will probably disagree. Vaccinating less vulnerable groups is likely to reduce transmission of disease to more vulnerable groups as there are fewer hosts. A good example is the fact we  vaccinate boys against HPV, when they're extremely unlikely to have issues from this virus, but in women it is the major cause of cervical cancer. We also aim to vaccinate as many who can take vaccines to protect those who can't have them for medical reasons.

I agree with you about ‘the greater good’ and we’ve certainly had our kids fully vaccinated against all the usual stuff but this is a case where youngsters aren’t themselves in any great danger and the safety aspects haven’t really been finalised.

However, on balance, I’d probably go with it.

Its a decision you can only make as a parent and one that needs to be considered carefully.

[JamieThomas]

As soon as a news outlet shares opinion, then it becomes no more news than Loose Women is.

Beyond anything else, why the f**k would I need anyone else's opinion on the matters of the day? I've many of my own, some of which I'd even share in public.

[alta-pete]

2 hours ago, NotThePars said:

What's best is you continuing to post so we can all laugh at your dumb baby brain

This is v poor.

There are lots of people on here I don’t necessarily agree with and some can be more articulate than others (and DPB is IMHO at the more articulate end of the spectrum) but the idea that only those in alignment with your own views are on the same intellectual plane as yourself marks  you out as the one with the shortcomings I’m afraid. 

[NotThePars]

5 minutes ago, alta-pete said:

This is v poor.

There are lots of people on here I don’t necessarily agree with and some can be more articulate than others (and DPB is IMHO at the more articulate end of the spectrum) but the idea that only those in alignment with your own views are on the same intellectual plane as yourself marks  you out as the one with the shortcomings I’m afraid. 

The guy is clearly at it mate and not even entertaining with it like Kincy.

[Salt n Vinegar]

Neil Oliver advising people on immunology?

When considering sources of information and advice about major public (and personal) health issues, it never occurred to me to place much value on the opinions of someone whose only significant 'qualification' appears to be that he is a freelance archaeologist. 

Still, each to his/her own, I suppose. 

[coprolite]

17 hours ago, alta-pete said:

This is v poor.

There are lots of people on here I don’t necessarily agree with and some can be more articulate than others (and DPB is IMHO at the more articulate end of the spectrum) but the idea that only those in alignment with your own views are on the same intellectual plane as yourself marks  you out as the one with the shortcomings I’m afraid. 

I disagree that it was v poor.

I greenied the original because i found it funny, particularly the phrase "dumb baby brain". In retrospect, though, that metaphor bears little scrutiny as babies learn a lot, really fast. 

[jimmer]

Many on here think they are or have been "vaccinated". They have not. They have been injected with an mRNA gene altering DRUG. The long term effects are unknown and the timescale for testing (5-10 years) has been ignored under "emergency" legislation, when in fact there was no "emergency". This medical fraud will continue until you lose all your freedoms and civil rights.

[Clown Job]

1 minute ago, jimmer said:

Many on here think they are or have been "vaccinated". They have not. They have been injected with an mRNA gene altering DRUG. The long term effects are unknown and the timescale for testing (5-10 years) has been ignored under "emergency" legislation, when in fact there was no "emergency". This medical fraud will continue until you lose all your freedoms and civil rights.

Even if they are taking the piss, can we ban anti vaxxers please

[Jacksgranda]

On 04/07/2021 at 13:01, welshbairn said:

Here you go, apparently vaccinating anyone under 18 goes against the natural order and will carry huge unspecified risks.

 

Does this just apply to the covid vaccines, or vaccinations in general?

[BigDoddyKane]

Ive had both vaccines and will take the booster but if im honest I wouldnt be surprised if some f**k up with the vaccines comes out, however unlikely it seems

Edited December 13, 2021 by BigDoddyKane

[Highlandmagar]

20 minutes ago, jimmer said:

Many on here think they are or have been "vaccinated". They have not. They have been injected with an mRNA gene altering DRUG. The long term effects are unknown and the timescale for testing (5-10 years) has been ignored under "emergency" legislation, when in fact there was no "emergency". This medical fraud will continue until you lose all your freedoms and civil rights.

Go and boil your head.