Coronavirus (COVID-19) Outbreak

[Happy Blue]

20 minutes ago, Stan said:

It's actually 1037mph. 

Well, the correct speed is 0 MPH 

Cutting edge researchers from the University of Malta, Dr Harry Johnson, Prof. Anita Bath, and Dr Oliver Klosov have confirmed that there is evidence to suggest that the world is, in fact, flat. This discovery has come to the forefront from a longitudinal study spanning 25 years from over 50 leading universities around the world — beginning at the University of Malta.  

In 1996 a team of five researchers at the University of Malta were assigned the task of measuring ions from earth’s atmosphere and determining how long they took to explode when set on fire with the help of a new CBD molecule that was recently discovered in the Netherlands. The team set out to help contribute to the plethora of studies looking into the effects of global warming on our climate. University of Malta’s Dr Klosov has been involved in this revolutionary research since its conception.

Dr Klosov suggested the reasons for keeping the findings of this research private until now were due to the controversial nature of the discovery. ‘We didn’t know how people would react. The immense discovery will change science forever. We really can’t believe what we’ve found,’ said the CBD expert.

The flat earth model is one of the oldest theories in written history and states that the world is shaped as a plane or disk. The flat earth model has been present in every civilization since then. From Europe with the ancient Norse and Germanic peoples, to China in the 17th century before Europeans came with their astrology, up until modern times. The prevalence of the International Flat Earth Research Society and its growing number of members can be attributed  to its social media presence 

 

 

[Stan]

3 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

Well, the correct speed is 0 MPH 

Cutting edge researchers from the University of Malta, Dr Harry Johnson, Prof. Anita Bath, and Dr Oliver Klosov have confirmed that there is evidence to suggest that the world is, in fact, flat. This discovery has come to the forefront from a longitudinal study spanning 25 years from over 50 leading universities around the world — beginning at the University of Malta.  

In 1996 a team of five researchers at the University of Malta were assigned the task of measuring ions from earth’s atmosphere and determining how long they took to explode when set on fire with the help of a new CBD molecule that was recently discovered in the Netherlands. The team set out to help contribute to the plethora of studies looking into the effects of global warming on our climate. University of Malta’s Dr Klosov has been involved in this revolutionary research since its conception.

Dr Klosov suggested the reasons for keeping the findings of this research private until now were due to the controversial nature of the discovery. ‘We didn’t know how people would react. The immense discovery will change science forever. We really can’t believe what we’ve found,’ said the CBD expert.

The flat earth model is one of the oldest theories in written history and states that the world is shaped as a plane or disk. The flat earth model has been present in every civilization since then. From Europe with the ancient Norse and Germanic peoples, to China in the 17th century before Europeans came with their astrology, up until modern times. The prevalence of the International Flat Earth Research Society and its growing number of members can be attributed  to its social media presence 

 

 

was that from this site?

 

https://www.um.edu.mt/think/the-earth-is-flat/

 

*looks at publication date*

 

1st APRIL.

 

Oh mate. 

[Happy Blue]

1 minute ago, Stan said:

was that from this site?

 

https://www.um.edu.mt/think/the-earth-is-flat/

 

*looks at publication date*

 

1st APRIL.

 

Oh mate. 

Thought i might of got away with that one, damn google 

[nudge+]

CBD molecule, CBD expert, and setting ions on fire to see how fast they explode didn't give it away?...  

[Happy Blue]

Over 100,000 NHS staff refusing the vaccine, interesting  ..just been on the news they are thinking about sacking them 

[Honey Honey]

The side effects of the anti-vax rabbit hole are probably worse than the vax itself. Delusion, paranoia, dizziness, anger, social pariah, association with Piers Corbyn, getting rattled by a phone mast when walking the dog.

The amount of hours in the gym and the stench of ketosis breath this lot have to go through to counteract the weeks lost to their life from all the anti-vax stressor side effects doesn't seem worth it.

[Waylander]

This link is from the US where they tried to force all ICU staff to have the vaccine, 250 walked out and they had to close the ICU.

https://flagandcross.com/maine-hospital-fired-so-many-unvaxed-employees-they-had-to-close-the-icu/

This is also a risk for our NHS depending on the stance that is taken.

Now look at this comment from a Californian nurse:

“Why do the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that did not protect the protected in the first place?” 

I'm please to see Rick De Santis stand up to Biden and say there should be freedom, let the people decide for themselves on vaccination.

[RandoEFC+]

The NHS employs approximately 1.3m staff so if 100k not being vaccinated is "evidence" of anything then what are we to say about the other 1.2m that have been vaccinated?

Also 84% of the UK population have had at least one dose of the vaccine. That rises to 92% of NHS staff using the numbers above. If your point is that "these health workers haven't taken the vaccine which proves it's dangerous because they would know" then it sort of falls down when you actually do some basic research and discover that an average member of the public is twice as likely to be unvaccinated as an NHS employee.

Aren't there enough Facebook comment threads for you to play in to stop us from having to deal with all the tripe? 

[Waylander]

Talking to my brother at the weekend.

He wasn't keen on the vaccine yet said as his wife is foreign and frequently abroad he did not want to risk not being unable to cross borders.

I looked at the death figures going back 20 years and before 2005 we were losing more people per thousand than we lost last year. There were some years I recall when some people very close to the NHS were saying hundreds of thousands were dying from the flu yet it was not being reported on.

The first vaccine (experimental) carried a synthetic protein and this was why people got reactions like Bell's Pausy. What happens is the vaccine is directed straight into the blood system which flows unlike say a graze or cut where the platelets and white blood cells know where to go. With a vaccine and especially this synthetic one it was a lottery where the platelets would try and engage it.

In the wrong place and you can get a stroke or heart problem. Initially the news reported on this and then they stopped and it changed to a mantra of everyone had to have the vaccine.

I used to have vaccines until I had problems in my mid 20s after this i went to a number of different practitioners and have since helped a number of people with digestive complaints, back pain, infertility, knee problem, chest infections and chest pain. I was thinking of using these skills professionally yet mid way through the courses the govt stopped them meaning I would have to do a four year full time course, I was not happy as I was renting at the time in my late thirties.

When I was talking to practitioners a number of years ago they were petitioning the government about vaccine  damage in children and thought it was widespread. Happy Blue is the first i have personally known to have a child seriously impacted by it. Even better he got some compensation. I believe this does not get wider coverage because of vested interests and the huge amounts of money involved. 

 

 

 

 

[RandoEFC+]

3 minutes ago, Waylander said:

In the wrong place and you can get a stroke or heart problem. Initially the news reported on this and then they stopped and it changed to a mantra of everyone had to have the vaccine.

Is that what happened? Or was it that medical bodies responded to the vanishingly small handful of cases of blood clots by doing a full risk assessment on the AstraZeneca vaccine that caused it and reacted accordingly, for example the UK pulling that vaccine for under 30s and holding a public briefing to explain exactly why?

[Waylander]

Just now, RandoEFC said:

Is that what happened? Or was it that medical bodies responded to the vanishingly small handful of cases of blood clots by doing a full risk assessment on the AstraZeneca vaccine that caused it and reacted accordingly, for example the UK pulling that vaccine for under 30s and holding a public briefing to explain exactly why?

They were lots of change in public statements yet I believe the subsequent vaccines did not contain a synthetic protein and went back to a normal one using animal cells to hold the vaccine which is why most people said the second vaccine was better as they did not react. 

[RandoEFC+]

1 hour ago, Waylander said:

They were lots of change in public statements yet I believe the subsequent vaccines did not contain a synthetic protein and went back to a normal one using animal cells to hold the vaccine which is why most people said the second vaccine was better as they did not react. 

First I've heard of any of that. I'm fairly sure none of the vaccines were redesigned without the relevant spike protein as well. I'll happily stand corrected if you can provide a credible source but I don't think you can. There are plenty of credible sources though that do a rigorous analysis of the pros and cons of getting vaccinated and in every single one of them, the benefits overwhelmingly outweigh the risks. If you're not worried about getting Covid because of the 99% survival rate and "muh mune system" then you shouldn't be worried about the vaccines, the most risky of which has a 99.9999% safety rate of not killing you through a blood clot.

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, Waylander said:

Now look at this comment from a Californian nurse:

“Why do the protected need to be protected from the unprotected by forcing the unprotected to use the protection that did not protect the protected in the first place?” 

That's actually a shocking misinterpretation of the vaccine from a healthcare professional.

The protected are protected from the most serious effects of COVID compared to what happens to unvaccinated people, for the most part.

Yes, it's true that the vaccinated can still get COVID. But when they do it's often incredibly mild compared to what would happen if they were unvaccinated. They can pass it on to other people as well (although apparently they're less likely to pass it off to other people, especially other vaccinated people).

So forcing the "unprotected" to use the protection "that did not protect the protected in the first place" is a huge misrepresentation of the situation. People who've been vaccinated by in large are protected from being hospitalised by the virus, from the long term effects of covid, they've got greater protection than the bog standard wearing a mask and washing their hands. Part of it is getting these "unprotected" to be protected, and part of it is simply to protect society at large. If you've got very low odds of passing the virus onto someone else when you are vaccinated and when someone else is vaccinated - it does a good job of slowing down the spread of the virus.

And the sooner the world can say they've significantly slowed the spread of the virus worldwide, the less risk we have of different variants.

Children younger than a certain age can't get the vaccines in many places still. People who've got vaccine allergies or sensitivities also can't get the vaccine for obvious reasons. I think healthcare professionals should know better in terms of the effect of the vaccine (both good and bad) and should better understand the societal risks - particularly the risk of passing on the vaccine to young children (which their patients might have) and potentially giving kids long-haul COVID and reducing the quality of those kids lives.

So far the biggest risk I've heard of from these vaccines is the risk of blood clotting, which has a significantly lower chance of occurring in someone compared to the chances of catching COVID and the long term effects. For most people who can get the jab, the benefits clearly outweigh the risks.

Considering there're parts of the world that are literally dying to be vaccinated, I can't help but think this concept of "vaccine freedom" is the height of Western privilege. We're all in this fight against COVID together, as a planet, and we've seen what this disease has done to the world. We should all do our part to get everyone's lives back to normal ASAP.

[Stan]

To be honest, I'd find it hard to be treated by someone in the medical industry who hasn't been vaccinated considering it was probably similar modes/methods of science and testing and experiments that would have got them to where they are now (or at least a lot of their education and learnings would have been from such science).

It genuinely does strike me as quite odd as to how many NHS staff won't get vaccinated but are happy to smoke their lives away outside hospital entrances where you have patients with all kinds of potential problems/health issues/conditions walking in and out in close vicinity.

[Honey Honey]

The unjabbed are frightened. They are shit scared. It is as simple as that. That can push them down rabbit holes of misinformation and the suppression of ambiguity and social responsibility that comes with the vaccine decision. It works the other way, I know people who've been jabbed because they're frightened of covid when they likely don't need to be.

Ultimately what matters is social responsibility. When it comes to healthcare workers you'd like to think they're braver, more trusting and more socially responsible. 

Imagine working with cancer patients and being faced with a question, we have a vaccine here that might reduce transmission and help to protect the vulnerable do you want to take it? No. A couple of months later, we have a vaccine here that our data suggests it reduces transmission and protects others, do you want to take it? No. A couple of months later, we have a vaccine here that seems to reduce transmission in the short term then drops off, do you want to take it to protect the patients you have in the next few months? No.

That is mental. 

[RandoEFC+]

Are there any figures on which sector of the NHS these vaccine refusers work in? If it includes admin staff, cleaners and other staff that don't necessarily work with patients face to face, then that makes it a bit less shocking. Unless they've explicitly said its 100,000 nurses and doctors, I wouldn't be surprised if that rate of about 1/13 being unvaccinated was lower still among the actual health professionals.

There's also the factor that NHS workers were disproportionately affected by the virus early days because the PPE in many hospitals wasn't up to scratch, so it's entirely logical that some of them might feel, wrongly but understandably, that they've got the natural immunity and thus don't need to get the vaccine as well, rather than them thinking it's got a 5G microchip in it.

[Happy Blue]

10 hours ago, The Premier Steve's said:

The unjabbed are frightened. They are shit scared. It is as simple as that.

 You have got that backwards mate, it's the vaccinated that are afraid of a virus that has a 99.98% survival rate lol  ...50% of the SAS have not had the vaccine, are they afraid? 

 

 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Happy Blue

[Happy Blue]

 

[Honey Honey]

3 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

 You have got that backwards mate, it's the vaccinated that are afraid of a virus that has a 99.98% survival rate lol  ...50% of the SAS have not had the vaccine, are they afraid? 

I don't know any of them but if they are anything like you and the other unjabbed I know then yes, they are afraid and that's OK. Own it and check it. Pumping alt right shite and arguments that are all other the shop seems like the fear is a little unchecked to me.

Many got jabbed out of fear of the virus, I've already said as much. Particularly over 50s. Typically they're actually OK admitting to the presence of that fear in my experience. For some too it goes unchecked and that makes them seek out more frightening news or become scared to go outside.

Familiar?

I've never come across an unjabbed who isn't afraid of the vaccine. Whether they choose to recognise that in their language and themselves or not. The central tenant of the argument of the unjabbed is that the vaccine could be dangerous to them. A sense of danger and harm is the very definition of fear. 

[Happy Blue]

28 minutes ago, The Premier Steve's said:

I don't know any of them but if they are anything like you and the other unjabbed I know then yes, they are afraid and that's OK. Own it and check it. Pumping alt right shite and arguments that are all other the shop seems like the fear is a little unchecked to me.

Many got jabbed out of fear of the virus, I've already said as much. Particularly over 50s. Typically they're actually OK admitting to the presence of that fear in my experience. For some too it goes unchecked and that makes them seek out more frightening news or become scared to go outside.

Familiar?

I've never come across an unjabbed who isn't afraid of the vaccine. Whether they choose to recognise that in their language and themselves or not. The central tenant of the argument of the unjabbed is that the vaccine could be dangerous to them. A sense of danger and harm is the very definition of fear. 

Alt right?  i don't follow any politics. well, now you know someone who isn't afraid of the vaccine  .. i don't have the jab simply because i don't believe (for me) it's needed with a 99.99% survival rate for my age group and the vaccine doesn't stop the spread otherwise id reconsider  plus i've already got over covid so have natural immunity which the latest research shows is 15 times better than the current jabs  ..this things never going away, it's a new flu virus so life should go on as normal, the vulnerable get the jabs and 99% of us have nothing to worry about, if they make a vaccine that stops the spread i would probably get it 

Edited October 27, 2021 by Happy Blue

[RandoEFC+]

I'm not scared of getting the virus and I wasn't before I was vaccinated. I am scared of passing it on to my Nana or colleagues/students who are vulnerable though so I get the vaccine as it reduces the chance of that happening if I and everyone else gets it.

If I choose not to get jabbed based on my own Facebook comment science instead of actual science and end up contributing more to the spread in my community and increase risk of serious illness or death of the vulnerable sections of that community then I'd be just a bit of a selfish cock, especially when the jab costs me nothing.

Is there some reason behind you thinking differently if you had Covid already? Maybe. But it's hard to take that as your genuine reasoning when in the next breath we're hearing conspiracies about destroying businesses and totalitarianism. Stuff like that is dangerous, unfounded nonsense and even on a platform as tiny as this one needs to be challenged.

[Happy Blue]

3 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

I'm not scared of getting the virus and I wasn't before I was vaccinated. I am scared of passing it on to my Nana or colleagues/students who are vulnerable though so I get the vaccine as it reduces the chance of that happening if I and everyone else gets it.

If I choose not to get jabbed based on my own Facebook comment science instead of actual science and end up contributing more to the spread in my community and increase risk of serious illness or death of the vulnerable sections of that community then I'd be just a bit of a selfish cock, especially when the jab costs me nothing.

Is there some reason behind you thinking differently if you had Covid already? Maybe. But it's hard to take that as your genuine reasoning when in the next breath we're hearing conspiracies about destroying businesses and totalitarianism. Stuff like that is dangerous, unfounded nonsense and even on a platform as tiny as this one needs to be challenged.

The vaccine does not stop the spread matey,  just like the flu shot doesn't stop the spread

[LFCMike]

6 hours ago, Happy Blue said:

The vaccine does not stop the spread matey,  just like the flu shot doesn't stop the spread

It reduces the chance of you catching it or passing it on though. How many times do you need to be told that?

[Happy Blue]

41 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

It reduces the chance of you catching it or passing it on though. How many times do you need to be told that?

Are you sure? 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/you-can-still-spread-develop-covid-19-after-getting-a-vaccine-what-to-know

 

What the vaccine does, doesn’t do

The vaccine works to keep you from getting severely ill.

But if you get infected, it may not prevent you from spreading the virus to others.

That’s something scientists are studying now

[LFCMike]

12 minutes ago, Happy Blue said:

Are you sure? 

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/you-can-still-spread-develop-covid-19-after-getting-a-vaccine-what-to-know

 

What the vaccine does, doesn’t do

The vaccine works to keep you from getting severely ill.

But if you get infected, it may not prevent you from spreading the virus to others.

That’s something scientists are studying now

No one is saying it completely stops you from spreading it.

57 minutes ago, LFCMike said:

It reduces the chance of you catching it or passing it on though. How many times do you need to be told that?

I'll say it again, reduces the chance