Coronavirus

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

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. (1.) 

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.

1.) What you described aren't lockdowns though? They are pretty basic measures and there's no way of knowing who exactly is following them or how many are following them. 
 

2.) Ok big man.

[manboobs109]

3 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

1.) What you described aren't lockdowns though? They are pretty basic measures and there's no way of knowing who exactly is following them or how many are following them. 
 

2.) Ok big man.

What did you make of the points the guy in the link I posted made?

[Parklife]

"I've been consistently right about everything and  you can't read"

 

[NEM]

5 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

What did you make of the points the guy in the link I posted made?

You’re being daft if you think he’s bothered to read any links properly ?

[manboobs109]

Just now, Parklife said:

"I've been consistently right about everything and  you can't read"

 

I've admitted being wrong on things. You'll have read that yeah?

[Eugenefani]

9 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

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. 
 

 

 

Sure, go to gov.uk adverse reactions you’ll see a heading ‘documents’ and from there you’ll get a list of analysis for each vaccine manufacturer. 
 

 

[manboobs109]

1 minute ago, NEM said:

You’re being daft if you think he’s bothered to read any links properly ?

Yeah I'm presuming him and Parky have ignored it since they have pointedly failed to comment on it despite being asked.

[NEM]

1 minute ago, manboobs109 said:

I've admitted being wrong on things. You'll have read that yeah?

 

2 minutes ago, NEM said:

You’re being daft if you think he’s bothered to read anything properly ?

 

[manboobs109]

2 minutes ago, Sooper-hanz said:

You were of the opinion that old folk had already lived their lives so it was ok for them to die. 

Lol I was wanting resources put into protecting them properly instead of leaving them to their fate like we did.

We even put infectious people into care homes which was obviously wrong and was being said at the time.

[Guest milne_afc]

3 minutes ago, Sooper-hanz said:

You were of the opinion that old folk had already lived their lives so it was ok for them to die. 

I look forward to them contributing to the rebuild of the country.

[manboobs109]

Just now, Sooper-hanz said:

You were happy for them to die at the selfish expense of younger folk carrying on as normal.

Yeah, nice try Hanzo.

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

What did you make of the points the guy in the link I posted made?

About people not taking the vaccine? 
 

I've only ever said that I think people should take it, I've never agreed with passports. I respect it's people's right to make their own decisions, even if I don't agree. 
 

I've been consistent with that, stop misrepresenting me. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Eugenefani said:

Sure, go to gov.uk adverse reactions you’ll see a heading ‘documents’ and from there you’ll get a list of analysis for each vaccine manufacturer. 
 

 

Sees the link. The exact one that made you say this. 

[Eugenefani]

16 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

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. 
 

 

 

For point “2.)” - that’s a high number for only administering within the year. I’m not too clued up on exact numbers of reactions previous trials for new drugs were halted at. 
 

As an example off the top of my head It took five years for the connection to be made between pregnant woman taking thalidomide and severe birth defects in their kids. 
 

Being cautious means I don’t give a fuck about anyone else though etc etc zzz. 

[Guest]

Just now, Eugenefani said:

For point “2.)” - that’s a high number for only administering within the year. I’m not too clued up on exact numbers of reactions previous trials for new drugs were halted at. 
 

As an example off the top of my head It took five years for the connection to be made between pregnant woman taking thalidomide and severe birth defects in their kids. 
 

Being cautious means I don’t give a fuck about anyone else though etc etc zzz. 

I've heard a lot of this thalidomide tragedy, in reference to people being sceptical. 
 

We're 50 years on. Medicine has developed, the way we understand medicine has developed, it's safer now than its ever been to take medicine as we know so much more about it. 

[Eugenefani]

2 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

About people not taking the vaccine? 
 

I've only ever said that I think people should take it, I've never agreed with passports. I respect it's people's right to make their own decisions, even if I don't agree. 
 

I've been consistent with that, stop misrepresenting me. 

You just called me a nutter? Lol

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

Lol I was wanting resources put into protecting them properly instead of leaving them to their fate like we did.

We even put infectious people into care homes which was obviously wrong and was being said at the time.

Ok, and what would that look like?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Eugenefani said:

You just called me a nutter? Lol

And I'll defend your right to be one until the day I die. 
 

 

[Eugenefani]

5 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Sees the link. The exact one that made you say this. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Eugenefani said:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions

"The Yellow Card scheme is a mechanism by which anybody can voluntarily report any suspected adverse reactions or side effects to the vaccine. It is very important to note that a Yellow Card report does not necessarily mean the vaccine caused that reaction or event"
 

 

Cheers

[Poodler]

Could someone read back through all of Moobs posts to confirm he is speaking shite? 

[Eugenefani]

1 minute ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

"The Yellow Card scheme is a mechanism by which anybody can voluntarily report any suspected adverse reactions or side effects to the vaccine. It is very important to note that a Yellow Card report does not necessarily mean the vaccine caused that reaction or event"
 

 

Cheers

Case closed then ?

[manboobs109]

11 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

About people not taking the vaccine? 
 

I've only ever said that I think people should take it, I've never agreed with passports. I respect it's people's right to make their own decisions, even if I don't agree. 
 

I've been consistent with that, stop misrepresenting me. 

It's obvious that you and Parky are so desperate to have a go at me you don't even read my posts. 

[Eugenefani]

I don’t blame you for clinging onto every crumb of reassurance, I’d do the same.

[manboobs109]

1 minute ago, Poodler said:

Could someone read back through all of Moobs posts to confirm he is speaking shite? 

Unfortunately we've lost loads of them. I don't think anyone can deny I was saying from the start that instead of paying perfectly fit and healthy people at miniscule risk public money to sit at home instead of using it to properly protect elderly and vulnerable people properly was stupid.

[Guest]

Also there's no clarification on what an "adverse reaction is" and it's all reported voluntarily. I had an adverse reaction both times, felt like shit for a few days after. That's technically an adverse reaction, if I was a total fud, I'd have reported it. 
 

If you're talking about more serious reactions, like Mycoarditis Infraction, those numbers are in the hundreds out tens of millions of doses. 
 

 
 

So, your assertion that an "adverse reaction" which has no definition, and is a voluntarily reported thing, is a good enough reason not to get it, is daft. 
 

 

 

[NEM]

2 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Also there's no clarification on what an "adverse reaction is" and it's all reported voluntarily. I had an adverse reaction both times, felt like shit for a few days after. That's technically an adverse reaction, if I was a total fud, I'd have reported it. 
 

If you're talking about more serious reactions, like Mycoarditis Infraction, those numbers are in the hundreds out tens of millions of doses. 
 

 
 

So, your assertion that an "adverse reaction" which has no definition, and is a voluntarily reported thing, is a good enough reason not to get it, is daft. 
 

 

 

Didn’t bother to read that link did you? 

[manboobs109]

On 12/15/2021 at 3:38 PM, Parklife said:

Scoffing at doing tests, from a man who espoused a man unachievable & unworkable "protect the vulnerable" strategy... 
 

LOL 

 

11 hours ago, manboobs109 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/02/britain-got-it-wrong-on-covid-long-lockdown-did-more-harm-than-good-says-scientist

"Instead, the country should have put far more effort into protecting the vulnerable. Well over 30,000 people died of Covid-19 in Britain’s care homes. On average, each home got an extra £250,000 from the government to protect against the virus, he calculates. “Much more should have been spent on providing protection for care homes,” says Woolhouse, who also castigates the government for offering nothing more than a letter telling those shielding elderly parents and other vulnerable individuals in their own homes to take precautions"

@Parklife

You'll have to get on to this guy and tell him this theory has been "discredited" and is impossible.

Even Parky has admitted I was saying this

@ConsiCanBoogie1903

That is the link I posted and you both ignored

[Eugenefani]

2 minutes ago, ConsiCanBoogie1903 said:

Also there's no clarification on what an "adverse reaction is" and it's all reported voluntarily. I had an adverse reaction both times, felt like shit for a few days after. That's technically an adverse reaction, if I was a total fud, I'd have reported it. 
 

If you're talking about more serious reactions, like Mycoarditis Infraction, those numbers are in the hundreds out tens of millions of doses. 
 

 
 

So, your assertion that an "adverse reaction" which has no definition, and is a voluntarily reported thing, is a good enough reason not to get it, is daft. 
 

 

 

How many serious adverse reactions go unreported? 
 

How many cases of myocarditis or fatalities is normal for a drug within one year of administering?

How accurate was the reporting of Covid deaths, you can’t have it both ways?

 

Its one reason not to get it along with another one being my chances of surviving Covid are >98%.

 

 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, manboobs109 said:

 

Even Parky has admitted I was saying this

@ConsiCanBoogie1903

That is the link I posted and you both ignored

I couldn't tell which one you meant. 
 

I read the one about the coppers and the article about the complex reasons folk won't get the vaccine.