Coronavirus

[manboobs109]

1 minute ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

To be fair your attitude is essentially "let them die" with regards to the vulnerable. 
 

Lost count of the amount of times you've said we should've let 'nature take its course' or some other such shite. 

Rubbish. I've said all along to protect the vulnerable.

You and your mate definitely have reading and comprehension problems.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

Rubbish. I've said all along to protect the vulnerable.

You and your mate definitely have reading and comprehension problems.

You've said you wanted to protect the vulnerable, but totally against the first lockdown? 
 

How would that protect the vulnerable? 
 

 

[manboobs109]

4 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

You've said you wanted to protect the vulnerable, but totally against the first lockdown? 
 

How would that protect the vulnerable? 
 

 

I can't be bothered arguing about that again. Did you read the link I posted, the first one?

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

I can't be bothered arguing about that again. Did you read the link I posted, the first one?

How would allowing the virus to run rampant, with no restrictions, help the vulnerable? 

[Guest]

You can't say "I always said protect the vulnerable" then suggest the initial lockdown was a farce, because the reason for it, was to protect the vulnerable. This was before any vaccine etc. 

[cheesepipes]

Every little anemic tom dick n harry claims to be vulnerable these days. 

[manboobs109]

14 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

How would allowing the virus to run rampant, with no restrictions, help the vulnerable? 

I've never said let it "run rampant" there's no point arguing this if you are just making stuff up.

[Ke1t]

59 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/02/understanding-not-judgement-unjabbed-uk-vaccination-gap

Very interesting. Hopefully it'll put paid to the "let them die" brigade.

If you have no medical reason to not get vaxxed, and you choose not to get vaxxed,  then it makes sense that those who did get vaxxed, but perhaps got a breakthrough variant, should be prioritised over non-vaxxed.

I'm still of the let them die mindset, to be fair. 

It's not really just a lack of compassion, but rather active spite against those who dont give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

Let them die.

 

[NEM]

3 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

If you have no medical reason to not get vaxxed, and you choose not to get vaxxed,  then it makes sense that those who did get vaxxed, but perhaps got a breakthrough variant, should be prioritised over non-vaxxed.

I'm still of the let them die mindset, to be fair. 

It's not really just a lack of compassion, but rather active spite against those who dont give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

Let them die.

 

Still peddling that shite? ?

[Ke1t]

Just now, NEM said:

Still peddling that shite? ?

Sorry, I should have included bams who think it has magnetic GPS in it, as well as the selfish pricks.

They can die, too.

[RedArmyFakshun]

98% of people who have died of covid have done so with an average of four co-morbidities 

Most were also already at an advanced age

The "vaccine" does not prevent infection or transmission

The popular conception that we are all at risk of dying from this cornavirus is a bad joke

[Ke1t]

2 minutes ago, RedArmyFakshun said:

98% of people who have died of covid have done so with an average of four co-morbidities 

Most were also already at an advanced age

The "vaccine" does not prevent infection or transmission

The popular conception that we are all at risk of dying from this cornavirus is a bad joke

Is there anyone who thinks any of that, though?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

I've never said let it "run rampant" there's no point arguing this if you are just making stuff up.

No, that's not what I said you said. 
 

Not having a first lockdown would've been effectively doing so. 

[RedArmyFakshun]

2 minutes ago, Ke1t said:

Is there anyone who thinks any of that, though?

i dunno man.  lot of people now lining up for a fourth jab.  its not going to end well.

[manboobs109]

Just now, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

No, that's not what I said you said. 
 

Not having a first lockdown would've been effectively doing so. 

No it wouldn't. There were lots of things we could've done without keeping people in the house for 23 hours a day.

Like I say I've went through all this before possibly hundreds of times and I've never said "let it rip" or any of that nonsense.

You are maybe mistaking me saying laws and regulations can't control viruses for saying that, I'm not.

[Parklife]

3 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

No, that's not what I said you said. 
 

Not having a first lockdown would've been effectively doing so. 

He's always been against every restriction, wanted us copying Sweden (whose approach he didn't understand in the first place), never thought we'd have vaccines of any kind and wanted us all ignoring Covid apart from we were also to protect the "vulnerable" only. 

He now spends his time claiming to have been right about everything, despite being the pandemic's wrongest man. 

No point engaging with him tbh. 

[manboobs109]

3 minutes ago, Parklife said:

He's always been against every restriction, wanted us copying Sweden (whose approach he didn't understand in the first place), never thought we'd have vaccines of any kind and wanted us all ignoring Covid apart from we were also to protect the "vulnerable" only. 

He now spends his time claiming to have been right about everything, despite being the pandemic's wrongest man. 

No point engaging with him tbh. 

Like I say, reading and comprehension difficulties.

I see you ignored the link I posted.

Strange.

 

Not.

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

No it wouldn't. There were lots of things we could've done without keeping people in the house for 23 hours a day.

Like I say I've went through all this before possibly hundreds of times and I've never said "let it rip" or any of that nonsense.

You are maybe mistaking me saying laws and regulations can't control viruses for saying that, I'm not.

Nobody said you said let it rip? You've definitely suggested nature should take its course, though. 
 

Which is in effect saying 'leave it be' 

 

What would you have done to stop the vulnerable being harmed with no vaccine first lockdown? 

[manboobs109]

50 minutes ago, Captain Caveman said:

Moobs are you saying you were not against the 1st lockdown? calling folk thick and saying they can’t read doesn’t back up your viewpoint.

 

Yes I was against it but it was more nuanced than either lockdown or do fuck all. I did a big post detailing what I thought we should do instead, even bookmarked it, but it's been lost on the original thread.

Parky's claim that I was against every measure is simply a lie, I've been against the criminalising of things such as visiting relatives etc.

[manboobs109]

43 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Nobody said you said let it rip? You've definitely suggested nature should take its course, though. 
 

Which is in effect saying 'leave it be' 

 

What would you have done to stop the vulnerable being harmed with no vaccine first lockdown? 

Nature will take it's course. What I've said is that laws and regulations can't control a virus, only people's behaviour can change to slow it to a degree and I've never thought criminalising normal behaviour was the correct course, advising people and helping them buy into the behaviour required would've been more helpful.

Ludicrous rules like the "substantial meal" and the farce where you could go into people gardens but not use their toilet just turned folk off and meant more and more have ignored it through time.

[Guest]

29 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

Nature will take it's course. What I've said is that laws and regulations can't control a virus, only people's behaviour can change to slow it to a degree and I've never thought criminalising normal behaviour was the correct course, advising people and helping them buy into the behaviour required would've been more helpful.

Ludicrous rules like the "substantial meal" and the farce where you could go into people gardens but not use their toilet just turned folk off and meant more and more have ignored it through time.

Living in a fantasy land if you think people would've taken heed. 
 

Edit; 

 

Yea. They can slow it to a degree. 
 

That's literally the fucking point in restrictions. 
 

That's why they ramp them up when cases are high, to slow the spread. 
 

There are certainly arguments to be made now with vaccine etc how necessary it is, but we're talking about the first lockdown here, where there was no defence, but restrictions. 
 

 

[cheesepipes]

My neighbour, Jake the Noose had the right idea during the first lockdown. 

Started riding his neighbour then moved in with her when his wife found out. 

 

[manboobs109]

6 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Living in a fantasy land if you think people would've taken heed. 
 

 

Loads of people are still doing the 3 households thing, LFT's and none of that is law just now.

I've made my position more than clear no matter how much you and Parky choose to misrepresent me.

I was wrong initially when I said a lockdown was impossible, I was wrong when I said there would not be an effective vaccine(although it's still debatable tbf) and I was wrong when I said they wouldn't get it rolled out as quickly as they did. Happy to admit all that. There's been plenty I've been right about though and stuff I've been saying has been appearing bring said by various "experts" recently.

[Studebaker-90]

2 hours ago, Ke1t said:

If you have no medical reason to not get vaxxed, and you choose not to get vaxxed,  then it makes sense that those who did get vaxxed, but perhaps got a breakthrough variant, should be prioritised over non-vaxxed.

I'm still of the let them die mindset, to be fair. 

It's not really just a lack of compassion, but rather active spite against those who dont give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

Let them die.

 

I reckon I agree. Let folk choose to not be vaccinated but I couldn’t give one fuck if they die or not. Their own decisions. You have the right to do so. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

Loads of people are still doing the 3 households thing, LFT's and none of that is law just now.

I've made my position more than clear no matter how much you and Parky choose to misrepresent me.

I was wrong initially when I said a lockdown was impossible, I was wrong when I said there would not be an effective vaccine(although it's still debatable tbf) and I was wrong when I said they wouldn't get it rolled out as quickly as they did. Happy to admit all that. There's been plenty I've been right about though and stuff I've been saying has been appearing bring said by various "experts" recently.

Ok. That's their personal choice. What does this prove with regards to your argument about lockdowns not being effective? 
 

You're not saying anything. 

[Parklife]

4 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

You're not saying anything. 

???

[Guest]

I don't have to wipe my arse by law but it's pretty considerate to do so I don't walk around making others smell my shite. 

[Eugenefani]

2 hours ago, Ke1t said:

If you have no medical reason to not get vaxxed, and you choose not to get vaxxed,  then it makes sense that those who did get vaxxed, but perhaps got a breakthrough variant, should be prioritised over non-vaxxed.

I'm still of the let them die mindset, to be fair. 

It's not really just a lack of compassion, but rather active spite against those who dont give a fuck about anyone but themselves.

Let them die.

 

Are you concluding that refusing a brand new drug which has over 1 million reported adverse reactions means you don’t give a fuck about anyone else? ?

[manboobs109]

8 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Ok. That's their personal choice. What does this prove with regards to your argument about lockdowns not being effective? 
 

You're not saying anything. 

Because I've said it all multiple times.

You think people need threatened and criminalised to do the right thing, I don't and I've given you an example of people doing it.

We could've done things a different way is all I have been saying. Unfortunately most of it has been lost now so you can choose to misrepresent me as much as you want but I've been consistent in what I've been suggesting from the start and I can't be arsed going over it again.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Eugenefani said:

Are you concluding that refusing a brand new drug which has over 1 million reported adverse reactions means you don’t give a fuck about anyone else? ?

1.) If you're saying shit like that, provide the fucking source. Fed up of the baseless shit you nutters come away with. 
 

2.) Over 1,000,000 reported cases from 133,000,000 global doses? That doesn't sound like a worry to me. All medicines have potential side effects.