Absolutely correct. The comparison of an attempt to make the population safe, not in one country gone rogue but being pursued by every responsible government in the world, being compared to the Nazis and the Holocaust is sick.
Makes me laugh that the same people coming up with these horrible comparisons to Nazi Germany would be absolutely advocating action if say a group of terrorists were in the country and killing dozens, hundreds or even a thousand people on a daily basis at times. You can bet your bottom dollar they wouldn't be saying, "nah its a 99.9% survival rate, let them crack on. I'll take them odds myself, we just need to learn to live with it. Why should we bother putting up protection such as bollards and security when its only killing 0.01%, its pointless." You all know who you are. Listen to yourselves.
I've had a word with myself and decided I still don't want to live in a "papers please" society, probably like the 60,000 carers who've lost their jobs don't either. But thanks for the kinds words chap
You're welcome. As you don't have an avatar might I suggest you find a picture of Piers Corbyn and use that.
This thread seems to have gone off the rails. Anyway, back in the real world, it seems to me we need to be clear what we are talking about. I think it would be wrong to actually force anyone to have a vaccination. But it seems to me not unreasonable that in certain situations involving greater social interaction we might be required to have taken steps to prevent ourselves either transmitting or acquiring what is still a highly infectious and potentially dangerous disease. If that is a condition of admittance to certain activities then I'm not against it. You always have the option not to attend the event/occasion if you don't like the conditions. And beyond that, I think it's a perfectly reasonable expectation that if any of my family were to require medical attention or to have to obtain care, that the provider should have taken steps to prevent them from endangering the person being treated or cared for. So be vaccinated, or choose not to work in that sector. I don't see that as controversial.
Genuine question Casual Tyke, where did you get the information about the Australian army rounding up positive testing people and putting them in quarantine camps? Was it from a reliable site because the people I’ve spoken to in Australia haven’t heard anything about it and would like to know more.
^^^^^^^^^^ this on the whole. Re your opening sentence. I've seen some bo110x on this site. But some of the stuff on this thread tops the lot.
Actually I was highlighting the fact that in the midst of all the conspiracy theories, half baked ideas, 'I know my rights' b*ll*x being touted around , someone was talking common sense. The fact it was a politician is neither here nor there and therefore I was not making any "political" comment. The fact you chose to infer that it was and posted a comment about me rather than comment on the actual subject matter says more about you than it does about me.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00690-3/fulltext Summary: "This study confirms that COVID-19 vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and also accelerates viral clearance in the context of the delta variant. However, this study unfortunately also highlights that the vaccine effect on reducing transmission is minimal in the context of delta variant circulation." It reduces the chance of you catching it, and makes you infectious for less time. It has a minimal effect on you passing it on to others whilst infectious.
On balance then it seems worthwhile to have it. Infectious for less time means you are less likely to infect others and reducing the chance of catching it is a win.
That would be my opinion, but I'm sure people on here will have different views. For different reasons.
Another bit of factual science if you fancy it. https://www.newscientist.com/articl...e-you-to-spread-covid-19-if-youre-vaccinated/