Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
 Share
filbertway

Coronavirus Thread

By filbertway, in General Chat

Recommended Posts

Buce

Buce

Posted
Posted

Group of NHS medics launch legal bid against compulsory Covid jabs

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2022/jan/28/group-of-nhs-medics-launch-legal-bid-against-compulsory-covid-jabs-england

 

Joni Mitchell joins Neil Young in demanding Spotify remove her music

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/jan/29/joni-mitchell-joins-neil-young-in-demanding-spotify-remove-her-music

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soup

Soup

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think it would be nice to know conclusively either way, but I think Snopes have it right when they say the total is probably a couple thousand tops, for the logistical reasons they suggest. I guess it comes down to which source one chooses, at the end of the day when it comes to second-hand information you're relying on someone being trustworthy.

 

With respect to the second line, I unreservedly apologise for sounding like a broken record but I think it's an argument that those who go on about freedom of choice don't seem to consider - they look at only their own freedom of choice, not anyone else's, and if one truly believes in such freedom of choice then everyone's freedom of choice should be equally valid. It's logically inconsistent.

 

To answer the question directly, I think that government mandated vaccines could be a rather slippery slope in terms of personal freedoms and I wish that people were more inclined to be altruistic for its own sake and for the sake of the future. However, I also think that private businesses should be equally eligible to turn away unvaccinated customers as a potential public health hazard (and to forestall a possible response, this is discrimination based on choice, not on inherent qualities such as race or sexual orientation). Also, when you're dealing with a force of nature that has a mind of its own (of a sort) and cannot be bargained, reasoned or negotiated with and a collective response is called for, then the situation is what it is.

 

And (I've said this before too) using such a force of nature as a vehicle for a control-related conspiracy is both unlikely and stupid on the part of those who might try, because such acts of nature are pretty damn hard to control. Look at the way the different variants of Covid have caused us grief, for instance.

 

Finally, (said this before too) this is a mere candle flicker to the bonfire nature can and one day will throw our way. On that day, mankind will have the very simple choice of fighting united, or falling apart and warring among itself divided. The latter would be a great shame, considering we are the first species to be aware of the "rules" of evolution in the first place and so perhaps be able to subvert them.

 

NB. I appreciate the respect, and I hope I deliver likewise respect in these responses. Believe me, I want to see a freer future - but sometimes nature decides that we're not going to have that privilege, at least for a while. And it is simply more powerful than we are. For now, anyway.

Ok mate thanks for your reply, you're a good guy and I respect what you say. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soup

Soup

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, FoxesDeb said:

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada/theres-a-lot-of-trucks-in-freedom-convoy-2022-but-not-nearly-50000

 

A convoy passing through Thunder Bay, Ont. on Thursday contained just 113 trucks and 276 private cars , according to a count by the Ontario Provincial Police.

When one of the bigger convoys passed through Kingston, Ont., the Kingston Police counted 17 full tractor trailers and 104 tractors without trailers. When adding in passenger vehicles and RVs, the convoy’s total size was 551 vehicles.

Thus far, Ottawa Police is expecting that the total number of Freedom Convoy vehicles will top out at between 1,000 and 2,000.

A Police report? Haha ok. 

 

I think we'll have to put this to bed as we'll never know. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Carl the Llama

Carl the Llama

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Soup said:

A Police report? Haha ok. 

 

I think we'll have to put this to bed as we'll never know. 

I don't know why you're laughing at people's attempts to provide factual information when you came on here to claim with a straight face that there was a line of trucks 50,000 strong.  50,000 lol 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soup

Soup

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I don't know why you're laughing at people's attempts to provide factual information when you came on here to claim with a straight face that there was a line of trucks 50,000 strong.  50,000 lol 

Yeah ok 50k may be a stretch haha I'll admit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo

Julian Joachim Jr Shabadoo

Posted
Posted
26 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

I don't know why you're laughing at people's attempts to provide factual information when you came on here to claim with a straight face that there was a line of trucks 50,000 strong.  50,000 lol 

 

Because it's not the factual information that a "free thinker" wants to hear, if someone put a photo of 20 trucks (from an angle where all you can see is trucks) and claimed the convoy was precisely 47,804 trucks, that figure would start getting used

 

113 and a bunch of cars is almost certainly a hell of a lot more accurate

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
47 minutes ago, Soup said:

Massive protest in Ottawa this weekend. I hope that's better.

 

Incidentally I noticed I didn't get any comments on Maddie de Garay.

You're right. Allow me to oblige:

 

Her point of view, along with anyone else, whoever they may be, is not more trustworthy than the peer reviewed output of the scientific consensus. It should not be considered as such. If her viewpoint is the scientific fact, that same consensus will back her up. Until then, no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
filbertway

filbertway

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Just reading the CDC guidance on vaccinating 5-11 year olds. I quite like this line "The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for children is over 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 in children ages 5 through 11 years." 

 

I feel like being 5 through 11 probably is good enough already. 

 

The cynic in me feels that big pharma may be playing a role within policy making, they're certainly rich and powerful enough to. Better to sell doses to rich countries who will offer them to people who probably don't need them. Rather than sell cheaper or give doses to poorer countries who need them.

 

I'm just waiting for the announcement that fertile men can get their testicles vaccinated to protect their unborn.

 

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, filbertway said:

Just reading the CDC guidance on vaccinating 5-11 year olds. I quite like this line "The Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for children is over 90% effective at preventing COVID-19 in children ages 5 through 11 years." 

 

I feel like being 5 through 11 probably is good enough already. 

 

The cynic in me feels that big pharma may be playing a role within policy making, they're certainly rich and powerful enough to. Better to sell doses to rich countries who will offer them to people who probably don't need them. Rather than sell cheaper or give doses to poorer countries who need them.

 

I'm just waiting for the announcement that fertile men can get their testicles vaccinated to protect their unborn.

 

This is a conspiracy that makes much more sense than what usually pops up here tbh. The companies who marketed the vaccine are certainly greedy, that's for sure - and if we're actually going to stop this thing, those poorer countries need to get their rounds of vaccinations in.

 

Doesn't have any bearing on the necessity of the vaccination in terms of sorting all this out itself, though.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
st albans fox

st albans fox

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This is a conspiracy that makes much more sense than what usually pops up here tbh. The companies who marketed the vaccine are certainly greedy, that's for sure - and if we're actually going to stop this thing, those poorer countries need to get their rounds of vaccinations in.

 

Doesn't have any bearing on the necessity of the vaccination in terms of sorting all this out itself, though.

 

 

Why is no one speaking about a covid tax on pharma profits from the vaccines. Of course you also have to take into account those companies who have failed and lost - perhaps they should be allowed to offset their specific covid vaccine losses against tax.

 

whilst the free market makes windfall taxes generally difficult  to justify, the unique circumstances around a global pandemic should be taken into context here. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Soup

Soup

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, leicsmac said:

You're right. Allow me to oblige:

 

Her point of view, along with anyone else, whoever they may be, is not more trustworthy than the peer reviewed output of the scientific consensus. It should not be considered as such. If her viewpoint is the scientific fact, that same consensus will back her up. Until then, no.

She took part in the trial mate and now she's being ignored with her life ruined. I get angry at that sort of stuff 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
leicsmac

leicsmac

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, Soup said:

She took part in the trial mate and now she's being ignored with her life ruined. I get angry at that sort of stuff 

And I can see why it would make one hot under the collar. However, scientific fact is objective and a matter of consensus. If she is being ignored, either it's because she is wrong or she will be vindicated by the scientific method one day.

 

But until that day dawns, if it ever does, the words of one person, or even a few, do not overrule what is scientific fact compared to what has been arrived at by empiricism and peer-reviewed consensus. Basing decision and policymaking on the former rather than the latter stands a higher chance of bad consequences, simply because such solo actors are wrong more often than the proper scientific method is.

 

That is a matter of logic.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
SpacedX

SpacedX

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Is that irony or is he really stoopid ?? 

He's a physician and public health writer satirising the supposed and self-proclaimed 'free thinkers'. 

 

EDIT TO ADD: I particularly liked the "do your own meteorology" part. 

Edited by Line-X
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...