Vaccine Passport Enforcement Delayed

[crazy bob swollenbaws 1,865]

11 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Why would you want to when science, law and common sense all require a seatbelt? 

Ask the policeman who told me "don't bother with the fuckin seatbelt pal" 5 years ago when moving my wife's car on a busy road after a smash. 

 

Common sense is totally subjective . Do you know everyone's personal circumstances? 

I see the risk from the virus as higher than the risk of vaccine complications. Hence I am double jabbed. That is because I suffer from a rare autoimmune condition. For young people I would argue that risk is totally reversed.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

9 minutes ago, DiamondDan said:

My wording was incorrect, I should have said "no firm body of evidence".

Your response is ridiculous, there is evidence to support any position anyone wants to take on any issue.

There is evidence that the Loch Ness monster exists. Masses of evidence is provided in court rooms every day of the week that people who are guilty as sin are in fact not guilty.

One piece of evidence is meaningless. There is no body of evidence or scientific acceptance that the vaccine has any impact on reducing transmission of the most prevalent variant.

In future there may well be, if, or when there is, then covid passports will be far easier to justify. Until then they are an outrageous over reach by the government.

You mocked me in your post about listening to "wee Sandra the hairdresser" and now the level of your retort was "I won". I think that is pretty conclusive evidence that your basis for supporting the introduction of vaccine passports is as weak as piss.

Oh so your wording was incorrect, so not only do I have to counter the absolute horse shite that is spouted, but I have to translate it from 'simpleton to english' before I actually counter the points.

Okay so lets look at the source for my evidence:-

Graham Taylor 13 , Graham Cooke ,2,3,13 , Helen Ward 1,2,3 , Ara Darzi 2,3,14 , Steven Riley 1,7,* 1 School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK 2 Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust, UK 3 National Institute for Health Research Imperial Biomedical Research Centre, UK 4 MRC Centre for Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, UK 5 Health Data Research (HDR) UK London at Imperial College 6 UK Dementia Research Institute at Imperial College 7 MRC Centre for Global infectious Disease Analysis and Jameel Institute, Imperial College London, UK 8 Centre for Infectious Disease Control, National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Bilthoven, The Netherlands 9 CHICAS, Lancaster Medical School, Lancaster University, UK and Health Data Research, UK 10 Quadram Institute, Norwich, UK 11 https://www.cogconsortium.uk 12 Department of Statistics, University of Oxford, UK 13 Department of Infectious Disease, Imperial College London, UK 14 Institute of Global Health Innovation at Imperial College London, UK

Hardly exactly cunts proclaiming the existence of the loch ness monster now is it?

Now can you provide a scientific paper which claims that the vaccines do not reduce the spread of the delta variant?

Like you say, evidence should be easy to provide if what you say is true. Just give me one published scientific paper from a reputable source which claims that the vaccines do not reduce the spread of the delta variant. 

[Bad Robot 21,150]

1 hour ago, Dave Whelan said:

Hearts are still enforcing vaccine only this weekend.

A work colleague who is a season ticket holder emailed asking for a refund because he isn’t doubled jabbed and they just said no as per terms and conditions 

Apparently this came from hearts:

Hearts would like to emphasise that we are obliged to follow Scottish Government legislation and we thank supporters for their understanding and cooperation.

[Bad Robot 21,150]

Cmon to fuck, this will get locked again 

 

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Just now, Bad Robot said:

Cmon to fuck, this will get locked again 

 

Agreed.

@DiamondDan reply to me in the covid thread instead and I will smash you about there instead.

[graeme_4 34,520]

8 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

Ask the policeman who told me "don't bother with the fuckin seatbelt pal" 5 years ago when moving my wife's car on a busy road after a smash. 

 

Common sense is totally subjective . Do you know everyone's personal circumstances? 

I see the risk from the virus as higher than the risk of vaccine complications. Hence I am double jabbed. That is because I suffer from a rare autoimmune condition. For young people I would argue that risk is totally reversed.

Aye, cause all police are the brains of Britain. You still haven’t answered the question, why wouldn’t you wear a seatbelt? Because a policeman told you you didn’t have to? As my old dear said, if he told you to jump off a bridge would you?

And science shows the risk of the vaccine is far lower than the risk of Covid. So you’d be wrong in that argument. 

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

19 minutes ago, DiamondDan said:

That's one study, I'm asking for an authority SG, UKG, WHO, CDC etc stating that a vaccine reduces transmission of delta?

Don't know why you're trying to be a smart arse about it either. I had the same view as you till about 3 weeks ago when I actually tried looking for someone to explicitly state that it did so, and failed.

You obviously have not done much research then, cause I just found a CDC link which literally shows it within 30 seconds of looking:-

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/variant.html

Variants of Concern in the US

Delta - B.1.617.2

First identified: India

Spread: Much faster than other variants

Severe illness and death: May cause more severe cases than the other variants

Vaccine: Infections happen in only a small proportion of people who are fully vaccinated, even with the Delta variant. Vaccine breakthrough infections are expected, but vaccines are effective at preventing most infections. However, preliminary evidence suggests that fully vaccinated people who do become infected with the Delta variant can spread the virus to others. All approved or authorized vaccines are particularly effective against severe illness, hospitalization, and death.

Treatments: Certain monoclonal antibody treatments are less effective against this variant.

===========================================================

To dumb this down further for you, the vaccine reduces your chances of becoming infected. Less people being infected reduces the transmission.

Simpletons seem to latch onto the fact that people who are infected, regardless if they vaccinated or not can spread at similar levels. They do not seem to have the mental capacity to understand that  you are less likely to become infected if you are vaccinated (a breakthrough infection) vs someone who is not vaccinated.

Honest to god, the level of intellect shown by some in here is shocking.

Edit: If you want to respond to this, do it in the covid thread, and stop derailing this one. I will answer you there.

 

[Tomatasauce 1,253]

Fed up reading the same shite on these threads, It’s a never ending argument because the people who refuse to get it are absolute shitebags and come up with every other excuse for not getting it than admitting they are scared of a poxy jag, they will sniff lines of poison but not take the vaccine 🤦🏻‍♂️ 

either grow a pair and get it, or suffer the consequences of the law, it’s that simple! That’s if they don’t get covid first, imagine going out like that, when a vaccine could stop it, fucking pathetic if you ask me

I just wish some of the people who died before the vaccine came out had the chance to swap places with the shitebags of this world 

anyway it’s my last post on this subject no matter how many threads are started 

[crazy bob swollenbaws 1,865]

58 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Aye, cause all police are the brains of Britain. You still haven’t answered the question, why wouldn’t you wear a seatbelt? Because a policeman told you you didn’t have to? As my old dear said, if he told you to jump off a bridge would you?

And science shows the risk of the vaccine is far lower than the risk of Covid. So you’d be wrong in that argument. 

1. Cause the car was smashed at the front, had to get off the road and I suspect it was both time and the fact he was worried it could go on 🔥 . Thus nothing to trap me in the vehicle.   Comprehendi? 

2. Which demographic group u referring to? Old people? Middle age? Youth? Children? 

Myocarditis ? 

What gives you the right to decide on the medical treatment for others?

[MattyBlue 17,115]

I love how angry every cunt gets on both sides of the fence 😅

[The Beast 9,218]

It was a totally fucked up idea poorly planned.

Imagine stewards at turnstiles having to evaluate if someone's covid passport exemptions are valid...

 

 

[crazy bob swollenbaws 1,865]

10 minutes ago, Tomatasauce said:

Fed up reading the same shite on these threads, It’s a never ending argument because the people who refuse to get it are absolute shitebags and come up with every other excuse for not getting it than admitting they are scared of a poxy jag, they will sniff lines of poison but not take the vaccine 🤦🏻‍♂️ 

either grow a pair and get it, or suffer the consequences of the law, it’s that simple! That’s if they don’t get covid first, imagine going out like that, fucking pathetic if you ask me

I just wish some of the people who died before the vaccine came out had the chance to swap places with the shitebags of this world 

anyway it’s my last post on this subject no matter how many threads are started 

So just let everyone get it if they want and carry on with their lives unencumbered by discrimination. Simples.

[Broxi 11,484]

Reiterating that the rules are in force this weekend, and same level of scrutiny will be used as if it was after the grace period. 

[Dan Deacon 55,203]

https://www.rangers.co.uk/Article/supporter-update-29-09-21/3eSwxvlwMD20cDeixDQZoU

[WilliamMunny 3,236]

3 hours ago, graeme_4 said:

The vaccine reduces transmission, severity of illness, and ultimately benefits everyone (either directly or indirectly). How is this still a debate?

There’s also a section of society who are clinically extremely vulnerable, and require others to put them first. 

I do get the resistance to being ‘forced’ into a vaccine, but can’t believe folk genuinely look at the pros and cons of the vaccine and go ‘nah not for me’.

The problem is, the science is always changing. What we thought 1 year ago is totally different now, and the science will keep developing for some time yet. Nobody thought they'd be on their 3rd injection at this stage. Boosters every 6 month a potential too. So you can understand why some people dont fully trust anything they're being told.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

7 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

So just let everyone get it if they want and carry on with their lives unencumbered by discrimination. Simples.

Its not discrimination, so unless the person is black, trans or a woman, they cant really claim to suffer discrimination.

But back on point, confirmed by the club.

VACCINE PASSPORTS ARE REQUIRED THIS WEEKEND.

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

7 minutes ago, DiamondDan said:

WHO and CDC

 

Replied in Covid Thread.

[graeme_4 34,520]

20 minutes ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

1. Cause the car was smashed at the front, had to get off the road and I suspect it was both time and the fact he was worried it could go on 🔥 . Thus nothing to trap me in the vehicle.   Comprehendi? 

2. Which demographic group u referring to? Old people? Middle age? Youth? Children? 

Myocarditis ? 

What gives you the right to decide on the medical treatment for others?

Ok mate. Common sense would say if the car is about to go on fire, don’t drive it, but hey ho there’s not much of that going on with a few who post on here. 

It was in response to you saying you’d argue that the vaccine poses more risk to young people than Covid does. Which is wrong, but I’m not arguing with you about it anymore. 

[Ibroxholm 2,276]

2 hours ago, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

Pish. I can get into my car and drive without a seat belt if I wanted. The fact that there is a penalty in doing so if caught is another matter. Nothing stops you. There is a difference.

The seat belt analogy would better apply to testing rather than vax  status.  The latter proves nothing.  The person that is being discriminated against by the adoption of vaccine passports is more than likely to be perfectly healthy and no risk to anyone.  At the same time, there is no guarantee that those given State permission to enter the ground don’t have the virus and be capable of spreading it.  

It is completely immoral that a person who is not currently contagious be essentially ‘quarantined’ in this way.  To allow the State to discriminate against people without any actual solid evidence that they are a threat to anyone else is a path we shouldn’t be going down (as we know where it can lead to).

[graeme_4 34,520]

Just now, Ibroxholm said:

The seat belt analogy would better apply to testing rather than vax  status.  The latter proves nothing.  The person that is being discriminated against by the adoption of vaccine passports is more than likely to be perfectly healthy and no risk to anyone.  At the same time, there is no guarantee that those given State permission to enter the ground don’t have the virus and be capable of spreading it.  

It is completely immoral that a person who is not currently contagious be essentially ‘quarantined’ in this way.  To allow the State to discriminate against people without any actual solid evidence that they are a threat to anyone else is a path we shouldn’t be going down (as we know where it can lead to).

Is it any different or requiring vaccines to go on holiday to the Maldives, for example?

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

2 minutes ago, Ibroxholm said:

The seat belt analogy would better apply to testing rather than vax  status.  The latter proves nothing.  The person that is being discriminated against by the adoption of vaccine passports is more than likely to be perfectly healthy and no risk to anyone.  At the same time, there is no guarantee that those given State permission to enter the ground don’t have the virus and be capable of spreading it.  

It is completely immoral that a person who is not currently contagious be essentially ‘quarantined’ in this way.  To allow the State to discriminate against people without any actual solid evidence that they are a threat to anyone else is a path we shouldn’t be going down (as we know where it can lead to).

Literally the used definition of quarantine is to segregate people who may or may not be contagious away from others until it can be determined they are not.

Literally you are saying all quarantining is wrong.

[crazy bob swollenbaws 1,865]

6 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Is it any different or requiring vaccines to go on holiday to the Maldives, for example?

Yes it is. You are not a stakeholder in the destination country.  You are going into someone else's country. You are a VISITOR. Just like if you want to go into someone's house you need their permission. You do get that?

This is OUR country and we should be able to go about unencumbered. In terms if Rangers, we are CUSTOMERS and no one should be discriminated against for their personal medical history. get that? 

[mitre_mouldmaster 21,509]

Just now, crazy bob swollenbaws said:

Yes it is. You are not a stakeholder in the destination country.  You are going into someone else's country. You are a VISITOR. Just like if you want to go into someone's house you need their permission. You do get that?

This is OUR country and we should be able to go about unencumbered. In terms if Rangers, we are CUSTOMERS and no one should be discriminated against for their personal medical history. get that? 

Big mad AIDS infected shaggers have to warn people that they are bumming of their medical history.

People who are not infected dont have to. 

One example of differences in the legal system for people based on their medical history.

[Ibroxholm 2,276]

2 minutes ago, graeme_4 said:

Is it any different or requiring vaccines to go on holiday to the Maldives, for example?

I am not a citizen of the Maldives and, if I want to go there, have to accept there conditions of entry (even if I might be against them).  I am a citizen of the UK.  If the UK government want to run a bus through our basic freedoms and rights by bringing in draconian measures to quarantine healthy people for not conforming to government diktat, they should seek at the very least seek a democratic mandate.

[crazy bob swollenbaws 1,865]

12 minutes ago, mitre_mouldmaster said:

Literally the used definition of quarantine is to segregate people who may or may not be contagious away from others until it can be determined they are not.

Literally you are saying all quarantining is wrong.

This is the dictionary definition of quarantine:

noun

a state, period, or place of isolation in which people or animals that have arrived from elsewhere or been exposed to infectious or contagious disease are placed.

"many animals die in quarantine"

 

See where you are wrong?