Coronavirus

[Studebaker-90]

2 hours ago, redstrummer said:

what's the rules if someone in your household tests positive but you are double jabbed ? still have to isolate ? having a debate with a mate who reckons you don't have to after the 9th but don't see anything saying that online close contact yes you don't have to isolate as long as you take a test and show no symptoms . Bit annoyed with him as he came round to my house to tell me his step son had tested positive , putting me at risk !!

It’s really imperative you never leave the house again lest you become struck down by this terrible affliction. Should probably stop posting on here whilst you’re at it. 

[Joe pike]

1 minute ago, Studebaker-90 said:

It’s really imperative you never leave the house again lest you become struck down by this terrible affliction. Should probably stop posting on here whilst you’re at it. 

I realise you're used to posting twice but you have done it with the same account.

[Redforever86]

3 hours ago, NEM said:

We were repeatedly told the vaccine would prevent or vastly reduce transmission.  Turns out it doesn't ergo there's no valid argument for covid passports or any restrictions being placed on anyone turning it down.  

*scarred of needles

[Parklife]

11 hours ago, redstrummer said:

what's the rules if someone in your household tests positive but you are double jabbed ? still have to isolate ? having a debate with a mate who reckons you don't have to after the 9th but don't see anything saying that online close contact yes you don't have to isolate as long as you take a test and show no symptoms . Bit annoyed with him as he came round to my house to tell me his step son had tested positive , putting me at risk !!

If you're double jabbed and get a negative PCR test you don't have to isolate. I think you're also meant to do daily lateral flow tests too. 

[Parklife]

9 hours ago, NEM said:

We were repeatedly told the vaccine would prevent or vastly reduce transmission.  Turns out it doesn't 

Looks like it does to me, going by the statistics and published research. 

Why you saying it doesn't? 

[NEM]

41 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Looks like it does to me, going by the statistics and published research. 

Why you saying it doesn't? 

Latest studies from the CDC etc showing the viral load is exactly the same in the vaccinated as it is the unvaccinated 

[NEM]

7 hours ago, Redforever86 said:

*scarred of needles

*by

[BrianFaePerth]

12 minutes ago, NEM said:

Latest studies from the CDC etc showing the viral load is exactly the same in the vaccinated as it is the unvaccinated 

Are the CDC parky approved? No. Fake news.

[Parklife]

29 minutes ago, NEM said:

Latest studies from the CDC etc showing the viral load is exactly the same in the vaccinated as it is the unvaccinated 

So you're ignoring every piece of data that shows the vaccine does reduce transmission and focussing on a single piece of data that relates to one thing that impacts transmission? 

Doesn't seem a very logical approach. 

[Parklife]

19 minutes ago, BrianFaePerth said:

Are the CDC parky approved? No. Fake news.

Good to see you're still a sad ignorant wank, Bri. 

[The Boofon]

7 hours ago, Redforever86 said:

*scarred of needles

*scared. 

[NEM]

26 minutes ago, Parklife said:

So you're ignoring every piece of data that shows the vaccine does reduce transmission and focussing on a single piece of data that relates to one thing that impacts transmission? 

Doesn't seem a very logical approach. 

No I'm talking the latest studies and guidance over what was previously thought.  Seems wholly logical to me

[Parklife]

2 minutes ago, NEM said:

No I'm talking the latest studies and guidance over what was previously thought.  Seems wholly logical to me

Using a study that involved 469 people, while ignoring real world data based on tens of millions of people, doesn't seem very logical to me. 

 

[NEM]

13 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Using a study that involved 469 people, while ignoring real world data based on tens of millions of people, doesn't seem very logical to me. 

 

Which studies that?  The CDC or the Oxford Uni one?  358k people analysed for the Oxford one.

 

Try again

[jamiesd]

Selected hearing ahoy, wasting your time NEM

[redstrummer]

2 hours ago, Parklife said:

If you're double jabbed and get a negative PCR test you don't have to isolate. I think you're also meant to do daily lateral flow tests too. 

cheers , yeah just figured that out , tests in the post 

[Fridge]

57 minutes ago, Parklife said:

Using a study that involved 469 people, while ignoring real world data based on tens of millions of people, doesn't seem very logical to me. 

 

What are the stats saying on the amount of folks lives and businesses ruined by a complete and utter over reaction to basically the flu as proven because the only folk dying were old and vulnerable 

[dazzy_deff]

49 minutes ago, redstrummer said:

cheers , yeah just figured that out , tests in the post 

Daft min. 

[Parklife]

1 hour ago, NEM said:

Which studies that?  The CDC or the Oxford Uni one?  358k people analysed for the Oxford one.

 

Try again

The CDC one you referenced. Why would I be referencing  something completely different that hadn't been raised? That'd be a bloody weird way to have a discussion. 

I don't need to try again, it's you that's looking a bit simple here. 

31 minutes ago, Fridge said:

What are the stats saying on the amount of folks lives and businesses ruined by a complete and utter over reaction to basically the flu as proven because the only folk dying were old and vulnerable 

Dunno man. You best go conduct a study of your own on that. 

[NEM]

1 hour ago, NEM said:

No I'm talking the latest studies and guidance over what was previously thought.  Seems wholly logical to me

Plural

Only a simpleton would go by data which has been superseded but if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling thinking you've made some big sacrifice to help others who am I to judge

[Fridge]

5 minutes ago, Parklife said:

The CDC one you referenced. Why would I be referencing  something completely different that hadn't been raised? That'd be a bloody weird way to have a discussion. 

I don't need to try again, it's you that's looking a bit simple here. 

Dunno man. You best go conduct a study of your own on that. 

I will do once you build this bar in your backgarden

[Parklife]

2 hours ago, NEM said:

Latest studies from the CDC etc showing the viral load is exactly the same in the vaccinated as it is the unvaccinated 

 

3 minutes ago, NEM said:

Plural

Yeah. Plural from CDC. 

Your grasp of English is abysmal. 

3 minutes ago, NEM said:

Only a simpleton would go by data which has been superseded but if it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling thinking you've made some big sacrifice to help others who am I to judge

That's not how science and research works man. One thing doesn't generally "supersede" everything that's gone before. We've got real world data of vaccines significantly reducing transmission and, more importantly, the incidence of serious disease from covid. 

It's a bizarre position you find yourself in, desperately hoping the vaccines don't work well, despite them being the only thing that's stopping us going back to loads of restrictions. 

 

[NEM]

Just now, Parklife said:

 

Yeah. Plural from CDC. 

Your grasp of English is abysmal. 

That's not how science and research works man. One thing doesn't generally "supersede" everything that's gone before. We've got real world data of vaccines significantly reducing transmission and, more importantly, the incidence of serious disease from covid. 

It's a bizarre position you find yourself in, desperately hoping the vaccines don't work well, despite them being the only thing that's stopping us going back to loads of restrictions. 

 

Did you miss the "etc"?  Your selective reading and comprehension is abysmal man.

I'd say that's exactly how it works when reviewing a trial drug. 

Which real world data is this?  Why are cases running rampant compared to the same time last year when we had no vaccine? Is that not "real world data"?

Nope try again man.  My position is there shouldn't be any restrictions placed on folk turning down the vaccine given they don't work very well.

The vaccines aren't the only way out of this man.  The government learning to live with it is another.  There are no need for restrictions man

[BrianFaePerth]

Yeah was watching the YouTubes of the ITN takeover yet total silence about it in the media

[Howard Marks]

40 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

A friend and his son caught Covid at a stagger down south at the weekend, for a wedding supposed to happen at the weekend. Symptoms a plenty despite double jabbed.

The only other guy I know personally who definitely had it - daughter thinks she had it in December 2019 when it wasn't widely known in Europe - was hospitalised and almost died of it in January this year.

I no longer know what the rules are for isolating etc. and won't care about them until  or if it affects me. The figures they report on the news don't interest me either, suffering from Covid-fatigue as I am, tired of the panic, the fear-inducing and the illogicality of the whole pandemic management rather than the virus itself.

What is of great concern is that there has been no MSM reporting of the anti-vaxxers demos this last week, including them getting into the offices of a TV station (ITV, I think). I have no idea what the anti-vaccine position actually is and I'm not interested enough to look into it any more but it appears to me that nae cunt knows what's going on, including those who are running the show, those reporting on it and those protesting about it. Selective reporting though, that will never do. It's like the same old, same old, marginalising voices that don't fit a murky narrative and doesn't fit an agenda that we've not been told about.

Knowing only 2 (or 3) people who have had it doesn't appear to be a killer virus to me, especially when the death figures clearly included old people who were dying anyway, including of other viruses e.g. flu as they do every year. If any of you have any certainty that I don't, I'm wondering where you get it from? Some of the "studies" have been agenda-driven and can't be taken as gospel, given how much dissent and argument is going on in the scientific community. It would therefore be unlikely that posters on the hat would have all the answers.

Aye it's been an interesting "pandemic" for sure. I know absolutely no one that has (knowingly) has it, yet I know many who have lost jobs, income and suffered mentally as a result of it. All this chat of "possible deadly variants" is designed to keep us living in fear. I don't think Sturgeon etc really know how this whole nonsense is affecting the person on the street. They do know how easy it is to control an entire population and will not be giving up these powers in a hurry.

We were told in no uncertain terms that the vaccine was "our way out of this." Yet the messaging seems to be gradually changing to "hmmm it might not actually be."

There is a large percentage of the population that appear to support reimposing restrictions and would support anything that comes out of the mouth of Sturgeon. That is concerning.

I've done my bit. Furlough for most of last year, been vaccinated. I'm over it. If I die, I die.

[Parklife]

 

 

Quote

Which real world data is this?  Why are cases running rampant compared to the same time last year when we had no vaccine? Is that not "real world data"?

Because we've much greater interaction now than we did this time last year. You know that. 

Quote

Nope try again man.  My position is there shouldn't be any restrictions placed on folk turning down the vaccine given they don't work very well.

They work very well. Hence why much fewer people are dying than they were previously. 

Quote

The vaccines aren't the only way out of this man.  The government learning to live with it is another.  There are no need for restrictions man

We don't have all that many restrictions just now. Mainly because the vaccines have broken the link between infections and hospital admissions/deaths. If the NHS is having to treat many thousands of people with Covid, it won't be able to run all the essential services it needs to. 

You don't want a vaccine. That's fine. No one is making you get it. I don't think many on here support things like vaccine passports either. I don't get your apparent willingness/hope for the vaccines not to work though. Given all the shit we've put up with, it seems bizarre to me that you want the thing that is putting an end to it all to fail. 

[Fridge]

42 minutes ago, rocket_scientist said:

A friend and his son caught Covid at a stagger down south at the weekend, for a wedding supposed to happen at the weekend. Symptoms a plenty despite double jabbed.

The only other guy I know personally who definitely had it - daughter thinks she had it in December 2019 when it wasn't widely known in Europe - was hospitalised and almost died of it in January this year.

I no longer know what the rules are for isolating etc. and won't care about them until  or if it affects me. The figures they report on the news don't interest me either, suffering from Covid-fatigue as I am, tired of the panic, the fear-inducing and the illogicality of the whole pandemic management rather than the virus itself.

What is of great concern is that there has been no MSM reporting of the anti-vaxxers demos this last week, including them getting into the offices of a TV station (ITV, I think). I have no idea what the anti-vaccine position actually is and I'm not interested enough to look into it any more but it appears to me that nae cunt knows what's going on, including those who are running the show, those reporting on it and those protesting about it. Selective reporting though, that will never do. It's like the same old, same old, marginalising voices that don't fit a murky narrative and doesn't fit an agenda that we've not been told about.

Knowing only 2 (or 3) people who have had it doesn't appear to be a killer virus to me, especially when the death figures clearly included old people who were dying anyway, including of other viruses e.g. flu as they do every year. If any of you have any certainty that I don't, I'm wondering where you get it from? Some of the "studies" have been agenda-driven and can't be taken as gospel, given how much dissent and argument is going on in the scientific community. It would therefore be unlikely that posters on the hat would have all the answers.

Sorry to hear that RS

But I still maintain that Nicola was making  a political statement that she cared more about Scotland than Boris and selected Aberdeen as she knew most folk here don’t vote for her

And for the record I did vote for her but never will again because it was posturing pure and simple - she did fuck all when mayhem was happening all over the rest of the place where she gets most of her votes 

Will never forgive her for that 

 

[Parklife]

2 minutes ago, Fridge said:

selected Aberdeen as she knew most folk here don’t vote for her

 

 

Despite the SNP having almost all the MP's and constituency MSP's, aye? 

Why do folk keep repeating this dross? ?

[BrianFaePerth]

Thank fuck fans are allowed back in the stands ??

 

 

[Parklife]

2 minutes ago, BrianFaePerth said:

Thank fuck fans are allowed back in the stands ??

 

 

Saw that the other day. Looks like she got what she deserved.