pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,357
|
Post by pirate on Jul 15, 2021 11:31:42 GMT
Listen to the govt to wear masks. Dont listen when they tell you don't. Everyone has their own line in the sand Nobody, absolutely nobody, in a position of responsibilty and authority, has ever said, DONT WEAR A MASK. Ever. You are wrong.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 15, 2021 11:37:15 GMT
Nobody, absolutely nobody, in a position of responsibilty and authority, has ever said, DONT WEAR A MASK. Ever. You are wrong. Come on, that's April 2020 when the government weren't sure about things (even though evidence from SARS outbreaks in Asia pointed otherwise). Since then.....?
|
|
|
Post by randomdude on Jul 15, 2021 11:42:36 GMT
Genuine question re: the shops/shopping centres - has there been talk one way or another about the idea of vaccine passport being used in those settings? I've only heard it mentioned in terms of sports/pubs/events so curious if I've missed something I think the two key factors to this idea of depriving people from 'normal' life come down to 1) how long the vaccine passport is in effect for, and 2) what services/occasions/aspects of life it is limited to I'd completely agree with any push back against a permenant vaccine passport, equally I'd agree if it was being introduced for essential services like supermarkets, pharmacies, etc., but to my knowledge neither of those are the case at the moment? So aside from the 'conspiracy theory' angle I'm struggling to see the justification for push back against this at this point in time - people can obtain vaccine passport and attend 'non essential' things like Rovers games for now, or not get one and not attend At a point where consensus is that the risk has reduced significantly enough to do away with them, if there's an attempt to keep them in place then push back against the decision at that point; if there is a later attempt to extend these into essential services like supermarkets then push back against the decision at that point; but is there really an immediate rationale to oppose this scheme so heavily? I don't get it Well, again, I'm not really the one making the arguments for or against it, I'm simply saying that having concerns about it doesn't make someone unhinged. We don't know the full extent of what those requirements will be. We were told recently that a vaccine passport was not even being considered. To turn your question on it's head I haven't seen that this will be considered a temporary measure- have you? To be clear my response wasn't aimed at you specifically, was more generally throwing questions out there, it was just your response that prompted me No, I have not heard it is definitely a temporary proposal from anywhere official, and I would say I have largely the same stance as you, I don't think everyone with a level of scepticism is unhinged. I just feel like I've seen a greater ferocity in the objection to this story wherever raised compared to the actual information out there and didn't know if I had missed something....
|
|
pirate
Forum Legend
Posts: 19,357
|
Post by pirate on Jul 15, 2021 11:42:42 GMT
Come on, that's April 2020 when the government weren't sure about things (even though evidence from SARS outbreaks in Asia pointed otherwise). Since then.....? Of course things changed, we all know that. The evidence went from weak and advice not to wear them, to being made mandatory in the space of a month or two.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 11:44:09 GMT
Come on, that's April 2020 when the government weren't sure about things (even though evidence from SARS outbreaks in Asia pointed otherwise). Since then.....? I'm conscious that I'm playing devil's advocate on Pirate's behalf a lot in this thread but ... isn't that sort of the point? It's all very well to say "I've got no problem with it, it's only temporary and only for non-essential things" but ... here's a good example- things change. So to say that people who have concern about things changing are conspiracy nuts seems a bit unfair.
|
|
|
Post by bluebiro on Jul 15, 2021 11:45:07 GMT
Nobody, absolutely nobody, in a position of responsibilty and authority, has ever said, DONT WEAR A MASK. Ever. You are wrong. exactly what I said June 24th r sunak told the bbc he will ditch his mask on the 19th july if legally possible. How high in govt do you have to go to make them believe
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jul 15, 2021 11:55:19 GMT
exactly what I said June 24th r sunak told the bbc he will ditch his mask on the 19th july if legally possible. How high in govt do you have to go to make them believe How long before he's pinged?
|
|
|
Post by randomdude on Jul 15, 2021 12:08:47 GMT
Come on, that's April 2020 when the government weren't sure about things (even though evidence from SARS outbreaks in Asia pointed otherwise). Since then.....? I'm conscious that I'm playing devil's advocate on Pirate's behalf a lot in this thread but ... isn't that sort of the point? It's all very well to say "I've got no problem with it, it's only temporary and only for non-essential things" but ... here's a good example- things change. So to say that people who have concern about things changing are conspiracy nuts seems a bit unfair. I don't think I've seen anyone being opposed to 'concern', I think the part that isn't adding up is opposition to the introduction of vaccine passports now on the basis of '.... but what if things change at a later point?' To be strictly opposed to vaccine passports right now I would expect some sort of rationale for why the imminent drawbacks outweigh the benefits?
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jul 15, 2021 12:19:19 GMT
Nobody, absolutely nobody, in a position of responsibilty and authority, has ever said, DONT WEAR A MASK. Ever. 24th of june. R sunak said as soon as legally possible he will not be wearing a mask from july 19th. Good as Sorry But that makes you a sheep. He didnt say do not, just that he would not. Now, the backtracking by our esteemed government on statements like that can be measured in warp speed.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 12:20:30 GMT
I'm conscious that I'm playing devil's advocate on Pirate's behalf a lot in this thread but ... isn't that sort of the point? It's all very well to say "I've got no problem with it, it's only temporary and only for non-essential things" but ... here's a good example- things change. So to say that people who have concern about things changing are conspiracy nuts seems a bit unfair. I don't think I've seen anyone being opposed to 'concern', I think the part that isn't adding up is opposition to the introduction of vaccine passports now on the basis of '.... but what if things change at a later point?' To be strictly opposed to vaccine passports right now I would expect some sort of rationale for why the imminent drawbacks outweigh the benefits? As you and I have already explored the detail is so vague and ill defined that we don't know what venues this will apply to and we don't know if it is a temporary measure or otherwise. On that basis it seems perfectly legitimate to be opposed to it without further information. Nothing to do with what might change later. We don't know how restrictive it us now. So, again to turn things around I would expect to see some rationale from people for blanket acceptance outside of what their mere assumptions are.
|
|
|
Post by Officer Barbrady on Jul 15, 2021 12:21:20 GMT
I think some are confusing 'no evidence to support x' as the same as 'there is evidence against x'
|
|
|
Post by baggins on Jul 15, 2021 12:24:50 GMT
I think some are confusing 'no evidence to support x' as the same as 'there is evidence against x' Don't start with your Mr X stuff again.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 15, 2021 12:29:49 GMT
Come on, that's April 2020 when the government weren't sure about things (even though evidence from SARS outbreaks in Asia pointed otherwise). Since then.....? Of course things changed, we all know that. The evidence went from weak and advice not to wear them, to being made mandatory in the space of a month or two. The government didn't know its arse from its elbow in the early months (and in many respects even today), it is led by public opinion. You can see that from the recent hardening on face mask advice. Oldies' original comment that no-one said don't wear one remains true, what JVT said was that government advice was that there was no evidence to wear one.
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Jul 15, 2021 12:34:18 GMT
Come on, that's April 2020 when the government weren't sure about things (even though evidence from SARS outbreaks in Asia pointed otherwise). Since then.....? I'm conscious that I'm playing devil's advocate on Pirate's behalf a lot in this thread but ... isn't that sort of the point? It's all very well to say "I've got no problem with it, it's only temporary and only for non-essential things" but ... here's a good example- things change. So to say that people who have concern about things changing are conspiracy nuts seems a bit unfair. You are right that things change and decisions based on new information changes with it. That's not what I was getting at though.
|
|
|
Post by albowlly on Jul 15, 2021 12:37:37 GMT
I do not like the idea of second-class citizens. I have had my two jabs because I want life to get back to normal asap. But I oppose vaccine passports. They are necessary for travelling abroad but should not be required within our borders. Everyone over forty will soon have had two vaccinations if they want them. The same should apply to anyone under forty with underlying conditions who wants them. But if I was a fit thirty-year old I wouldn't have the vaccine and the idea of injecting healthy school children is repugnant. We have seen Wimbledon where no masks have been required. I am completely opposed to mask wearing being mandatory at football matches. I would support no limits on attendances at matches from the start of next season.
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Jul 15, 2021 12:39:58 GMT
I don't think I've seen anyone being opposed to 'concern', I think the part that isn't adding up is opposition to the introduction of vaccine passports now on the basis of '.... but what if things change at a later point?' To be strictly opposed to vaccine passports right now I would expect some sort of rationale for why the imminent drawbacks outweigh the benefits? As you and I have already explored the detail is so vague and ill defined that we don't know what venues this will apply to and we don't know if it is a temporary measure or otherwise. On that basis it seems perfectly legitimate to be opposed to it without further information. Nothing to do with what might change later. We don't know how restrictive it us now. So, again to turn things around I would expect to see some rationale from people for blanket acceptance outside of what their mere assumptions are. The rational is that current evidence suggests A) Full vaccination offers personal protection and growing evidence that transmission is lowered. B) Segregating people, either by lockdown or in this case by proof of health, substantially quells the pandemic. So I guess, from the opposing viewpoint, what is the evidence that this is not true? If true do we then accept an abnormal intrusion in order to achieve maximum health gain. They key is how long. Like I said, when the gain is no longer obvious, as obvious as it is now, then the cost of enforcing checks and the affect on revenues will kill this.
|
|
|
Post by randomdude on Jul 15, 2021 12:55:43 GMT
I don't think I've seen anyone being opposed to 'concern', I think the part that isn't adding up is opposition to the introduction of vaccine passports now on the basis of '.... but what if things change at a later point?' To be strictly opposed to vaccine passports right now I would expect some sort of rationale for why the imminent drawbacks outweigh the benefits? As you and I have already explored the detail is so vague and ill defined that we don't know what venues this will apply to and we don't know if it is a temporary measure or otherwise. On that basis it seems perfectly legitimate to be opposed to it without further information. Nothing to do with what might change later. We don't know how restrictive it us now. So, again to turn things around I would expect to see some rationale from people for blanket acceptance outside of what their mere assumptions are. Not sure I entirely agree with the premise that we don't know how restrictive it is to us now - exhaustively maybe not, but in the context of what we are talking about here for example of the idea of showing confirmation of vaccine to go to a Rovers game - I think there are merits to accept the use of vaccine passports for a time that remain valid regardless of concerns/unknowns around wider use of any such passport. As I say, if this becomes a requirement at Rovers beyond when a majority would see it as reasonably proportionate to the risk level, then I could completely understand push back at that point. Same at the point that a similar scheme is proposed for access to 'essential' services. But I don't see that the immediate risk of those happening outweighs the benefit the passport is designed to give until such a point that the above examples are actually on the table?
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Jul 15, 2021 13:02:21 GMT
Come on, that's April 2020 when the government weren't sure about things (even though evidence from SARS outbreaks in Asia pointed otherwise). Since then.....? Of course things changed, we all know that. The evidence went from weak and advice not to wear them, to being made mandatory in the space of a month or two. Probably because we barely had enough for those on the front line elt alone the general public. Please stop spreading this pirate, it is indirectly causing blood on your hands.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 13:16:12 GMT
As you and I have already explored the detail is so vague and ill defined that we don't know what venues this will apply to and we don't know if it is a temporary measure or otherwise. On that basis it seems perfectly legitimate to be opposed to it without further information. Nothing to do with what might change later. We don't know how restrictive it us now. So, again to turn things around I would expect to see some rationale from people for blanket acceptance outside of what their mere assumptions are. The rational is that current evidence suggests A) Full vaccination offers personal protection and growing evidence that transmission is lowered. B) Segregating people, either by lockdown or in this case by proof of health, substantially quells the pandemic. So I guess, from the opposing viewpoint, what is the evidence that this is not true? If true do we then accept an abnormal intrusion in order to achieve maximum health gain. They key is how long. Like I said, when the gain is no longer obvious, as obvious as it is now, then the cost of enforcing checks and the affect on revenues will kill this. Again, you're ignoring what I've said and repeating your point about vaccine efficacy which is not at issue. You don't know how long it's proposed to be in place so your opinion on it is worthless. To return to my original point it's wrong to call people who are sceptical of something you admit you don't even know the proposed limits of anti-vaxxers or conspiracy theorists.
|
|
|
Post by LJG on Jul 15, 2021 13:17:54 GMT
As you and I have already explored the detail is so vague and ill defined that we don't know what venues this will apply to and we don't know if it is a temporary measure or otherwise. On that basis it seems perfectly legitimate to be opposed to it without further information. Nothing to do with what might change later. We don't know how restrictive it us now. So, again to turn things around I would expect to see some rationale from people for blanket acceptance outside of what their mere assumptions are. Not sure I entirely agree with the premise that we don't know how restrictive it is to us now - exhaustively maybe not, but in the context of what we are talking about here for example of the idea of showing confirmation of vaccine to go to a Rovers game - I think there are merits to accept the use of vaccine passports for a time that remain valid regardless of concerns/unknowns around wider use of any such passport. As I say, if this becomes a requirement at Rovers beyond when a majority would see it as reasonably proportionate to the risk level, then I could completely understand push back at that point. Same at the point that a similar scheme is proposed for access to 'essential' services. But I don't see that the immediate risk of those happening outweighs the benefit the passport is designed to give until such a point that the above examples are actually on the table? Again, you're really making my point for me. You don't know the proposed limits or expanse of it so to say that those expressing scepticism on it are anti-vaxxers or conspiracy theorists doesn't seem fair.
|
|