Coronavirus | Page 843 | Vital Football

Coronavirus

No one in the receipt of the vaccine thought there was a small chance they could die from it.

Really? I'd have thought anyone with an ounce of intelligence would be aware there's always a slim chance of death from everything we take, drink, eat or do.

People die from paracetamol. Doesn't stop us all taking them by the bucket load.

People die from all other vaccines on offer too. It's collateral damage unfortunately for the greater good. Why did they (or people in general in your opinion) think this vaccine would be any different and 100% risk free?
 
It is true that there is a risk with all medicines and vaccines, the difference is I can't remember any vaccine or medicine in my lifetime where it was basically forced upon people.

Your job isn't on the line because you refuse to take paracetamol for a headache.
 
From a Bayesian point of view, if the chance of death, for argument sake, is 1 in 500m and this was communicated (which it wasn't) then I'm sure the uptake of the vaccine would be somewhat lower. I'd imagine the vast majority of people taking the vaccine wouldn't be aware of a very, very small chance of dying as a result.

As SJH says there were more 'pressure' over taking this vaccine than any other. Now I'm definitely pro vaccine and have had all jabs myself but I'm not going to cry about someone suing Pfizer (or any pharma company). I'm not even saying I necessarily agree with suing over this but I don't think the legal action qualifies as frivolous and clearly a court of law took such a view.
 
the payment was made from the existing vaccine damage payment scheme (set up in 1979 apparently) rather than a new court case or the like.
the bloke was 48 and had the jab in May21 - dangers/complications, such as they were, were well reported by then (especially amongst the many leading experts on facebook).
It was quite feasible to have remained unvacced despite the undoubted pressure.
Sadly, shit happens sometimes
 
the payment was made from the existing vaccine damage payment scheme (set up in 1979 apparently) rather than a new court case or the like.
the bloke was 48 and had the jab in May21 - dangers/complications, such as they were, were well reported by then (especially amongst the many leading experts on facebook).
It was quite feasible to have remained unvacced despite the undoubted pressure.
Sadly, shit happens sometimes
The same leading experts who were cancelled because they came out against the jab?
Anyone spouting anything negative about the jab got silenced. So not sure this report or information would get to everyone.
 
Only going to get worse I'd imagine with festivals and everything else now, just have to hope it doesn't get as bad as it did initially.
 
Genuinely, who was forced? and I mean forced in a true denotational sense.

Was anyone told they couldn't go to a supermarket and shop, or use the NHS or anything of real importance that doesn't come under 'first world problems'. Aren't you on that basis forced as a kid to have the MMR, or a tetanus and the rest - simply because a vaccine protects you and others?

I wasn't.

And Covid jab complications were widely reported Col (even before there was proof of case complications), mainly because everyone knows medicine carries a risk and most of the leading experts who got 'cancelled' weren't actually experts or qualified in virology - the reputable ones got air time and explained the proper risks as opposed to baseless scaremongering.
 
No chance. Travel is a choice, not a right. Work wasn't off the table, only set circumstances which is perfectly acceptable if you are a direct risk to the very people you are taking care of.

It's effectively no different from Military, or aid workers, and others, being required to have certain vaccinations to protect themselves when working elsewhere. Sorry mate, but you take that line to its inevitable end point and bizarrely you'll end up with someone arguing nobody should face a DBS check as it violates their rights for certain jobs.
 
No chance. Travel is a choice, not a right. Work wasn't off the table, only set circumstances which is perfectly acceptable if you are a direct risk to the very people you are taking care of.

It's effectively no different from Military, or aid workers, and others, being required to have certain vaccinations to protect themselves when working elsewhere. Sorry mate, but you take that line to its inevitable end point and bizarrely you'll end up with someone arguing nobody should face a DBS check as it violates their rights for certain jobs.
Sorry mate , that's a ludicrous comparison a desktop DBS check vs an injection of new to market vaccine is not even close.
 
Sorry mate , that's a ludicrous comparison a desktop DBS check vs an injection of new to market vaccine is not even close.

It's the end point dude if you think vaccines are forced, it's not ludicrous at all. It was fully tested and speed of delivery was in removing 'not related to safety' red tape only.

This is totally known and love or hate big Pharma (I tend to hate the profit they want, not the good they do) the Covid vaccines will be the way forward in terms of speed now, but it in no way pre-supposes the testing regime.

We've moved on a long way from Thalidamide (sp) and that ilk.
 
It's the end point dude if you think vaccines are forced, it's not ludicrous at all. It was fully tested and speed of delivery was in removing 'not related to safety' red tape only.

This is totally known and love or hate big Pharma (I tend to hate the profit they want, not the good they do) the Covid vaccines will be the way forward in terms of speed now, but it in no way pre-supposes the testing regime.

We've moved on a long way from Thalidamide (sp) and that ilk.
Maybe just vaccinate the really sick and old then, I'm not sure it does any good perhaps more harm for the vast majority. We were pressured into a thing not required.
 
Maybe just vaccinate the really sick and old then, I'm not sure it does any good perhaps more harm for the vast majority. We were pressured into a thing not required.

Numbers show it's not doing harm to the vast majority, it's made a massive difference to NHS levels and the vaccs are working and keeping people out of hospital, ICU and certainly deaths - even if we are seeing a spike again now which was fully expected as large gatherings geared up again properly.

So we can clearly rule out not doing any good and more harm - where's the more harm? And certainly looking at the numbers, where is the 'not required'.

There is an irony to your post there though mate. We were forced into this to do the right thing, but you're cherry picking sections of society who should be forced to protect you, whilst not acknowledging your role in helping to protect them.

Yet you're also commenting on Polio which was never eradicated, but was almost removed by vaccines?