With the huge hikes we’re seeing in electricity and gas prices this year, can I suggest folk set fire to their kids to keep the adults in the house warm over the winter months? It’s a simple logical extension of giving children a vaccine that they don’t need for ‘wider societal benefit’.
This may come as a shock but I actually agree with you (not the burning kids bit). I don't think kids should be vaccinated unless there is a clear clinical need i.e. they are at heightened risk from Covid. It is unethical.
Our kids are all adults now. Can I set fire to my neighbours' kids or do I have to make do with putting an extra jumper on?
You do all know its not compulsary and up to the parent and child to decide if they want it dont you From the figures I have seen it probably makes sense to have one shot of the vaccine as the risk to the child is about the same as the risks of not having it - but it reduces the risk of onward transmission to others but each child/parent can decide seems reasonable to me Risk for a second jab makes that no a good idea though as there is more risk from the vaccine than from not having it
If you're over 60 or clinically vulnerable the Government should provide you with one highly flammable minor a month, wearing a shell-suit for easy lighting, from October through to March. This will not be subject to means-testing.
You would lose your fuel allowance though and then what would you do with them if we have a very mild winter?
15,000 votes so a decent control group. All stats can be unpicked at will. Similar to those about lockdowns from people who only liked to go out once a month at best anyway.
It may be a significant number, but there isn't any control over the representation of the group, or security to prevent multiple completions. These sorts of online polls run in this manner are very much for sugar fix populism to create a headline rather than a basis of robust statistical data capture that is aligned with national representation (natrep). It's also pushed to the people who already follow a social media account or their circles of influence, so an inherent bias is baked in from the start. It may well be that given a robust study to a truly representative audience, the figures could be the same. But that wouldn't be by design.
Can't believe the number of genuinely evil people who would increase their child's risk of ending up in hospital by not having a jab. You're sick. https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-per...d-covid-hospital-cases-low-vaccination-states
I think that calling people who are expressing ethical concerns about a vaccine that is not killing children 'sick and evil' massively over the top and unhelpful.
You can't enter more than once from the same Twitter account. Yes you could log in from different accounts, but I'm not sure this is a poll that would warrant that level of abuse or manipulation as there's no plausible output from it other than opinion.
The government have released their winter plan....... https://assets.publishing.service.g...D-19-response-autumn-and-winter-plan-2021.pdf WFH could return, vaccine passports brought in and back to mandatory mask wearing.
Your damned if you do, and damned if you don't. Our 14 year old son doesn't actually want it, I'm inclined to agree with him on the balance of probability.
That is a subjective view though, anyone feeling motivated enough on a particular topic could easily skew a poll in this format, or circulate it in an open loop to like minded people creating significant skew in the results. As I said before, this sort of thing is purely done for writing headlines, often to drive clickbait articles.