| Protesters 13:18 - Dec 4 with 5238 views | controversial_jack |
Apparently, anti vax arseholes protesting on Fabian Way. |  | | |  |
| Protesters on 14:37 - Dec 6 with 939 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Protesters on 14:28 - Dec 6 by Scotia |
I'm not a fan of complulsory vaccination, but I think we're being forced down that road by the anti-vax brigade.
The amount of completely false and dangerous information around means people excercising their right to choose not to be vaccinated are basing that decision on the agenda of others. Just look at some of the rubbish posted on here. The vaccines are safe and effective.
Their decsion not to be vaccinated then impacts everyone else.
I've read a couple of articles that state ICU beds in the NHS treating covid patients are disproportionately occupied by those who haven't recieved a vaccine. Those beds aren't available for other emergencies and routine major treatment. I know that ambulances have been spending hours outside A&E units with unvaccinated covid patients on board. Nowadays a wait of way over an hour for an ambulance in a life or death situation is common place.
My parents (70's) live about 3 miles from Morriston A&E a paramedic friend told me not to bother ringing an ambulance as I could drive them there quicker in an emergency.
The NHS is on it's knees, that's not solely down to covid but there are currently nearly 8000 people in hospital with Covid. That's about 11 full hospitals. a significant number of those are unvaccinated.
The situation may be different in Aus, but that is the reality in the UK.
So, I'm not supportive of anyone who does not wish to get the vaccine. They are taking resources away from the rest of society. They're completely selfish.
Aside from refusing to treat them in hospital, which is completely inhumane, I think day to day consequences of not being vaccinated are the only way to ensure we have a functioning NHS. Even if it is only barely functioning. |
Peoples choices are always affecting us on a daily basis.
Should we stop treating heart disease patients if they are over a certain BMI? They had a choice to live a healthier lifestyle and chose not to. Lock those away from society until they get down to a healthier BMI?
Refuse to treat lung cancer patients if they are smokers? Refuse to treat car crash victims if over the speed limit?m or if they could have used other safer modes of transport.
The list is endless and it’s a very slippery slope.
The truth is people don’t want the vaccine for a load of reasons, not necessarily listening to disinformation. While it’s relatively safe, it’s not completely safe therefore people should have the right to choose. |  |
| |
| Protesters on 15:07 - Dec 6 with 904 views | OverDover |
| Protesters on 14:37 - Dec 6 by Dr_Parnassus |
Peoples choices are always affecting us on a daily basis.
Should we stop treating heart disease patients if they are over a certain BMI? They had a choice to live a healthier lifestyle and chose not to. Lock those away from society until they get down to a healthier BMI?
Refuse to treat lung cancer patients if they are smokers? Refuse to treat car crash victims if over the speed limit?m or if they could have used other safer modes of transport.
The list is endless and it’s a very slippery slope.
The truth is people don’t want the vaccine for a load of reasons, not necessarily listening to disinformation. While it’s relatively safe, it’s not completely safe therefore people should have the right to choose. |
Completely spurious analogies. Neither heart disease or COPDs related to lifestyle are transmissible.
The only way to reduce the impact of transmissible diseases on a population is to reduce the rate of transmission from person to person. The most effective strategy to do so is mass vaccination. This has been proved by the eradication of Small
Pox and the reduced impact of TB in the UK.
I am all for people exercising their right to refuse inoculations. However, in a time of a national health emergency they can’t complain too loudly about restricted access to public spaces. Particularly, if they are offered the chance to prove their disease free status by taking a test. | | | |
| Protesters on 15:23 - Dec 6 with 896 views | Scotia |
| Protesters on 14:37 - Dec 6 by Dr_Parnassus |
Peoples choices are always affecting us on a daily basis.
Should we stop treating heart disease patients if they are over a certain BMI? They had a choice to live a healthier lifestyle and chose not to. Lock those away from society until they get down to a healthier BMI?
Refuse to treat lung cancer patients if they are smokers? Refuse to treat car crash victims if over the speed limit?m or if they could have used other safer modes of transport.
The list is endless and it’s a very slippery slope.
The truth is people don’t want the vaccine for a load of reasons, not necessarily listening to disinformation. While it’s relatively safe, it’s not completely safe therefore people should have the right to choose. |
Peoples choices do affect us on a daily basis, but not in such great numbers and as quickly as covid. The impacts on the NHS from covid patients is seen within a couple of weeks rather than over a period of 50 - 70 years from lifestyle related choices.
You can't catch heart disease from someone else when in a shop.
We have minimised the risk of cancer related smoking on the NHS by banning in in public places and charging a massive amount of tax on tobacco.
Car passengers wear seat belts, we have speed cameras and associated enforcement.
The vaccine is extremely safe considerably safer than catching covid, and people do have the right to choose, but that choice has a consequence for all of us and I don't think the rest of society should be impacted by a minority believing rubbish on facebook. | | | |
| Protesters on 15:24 - Dec 6 with 895 views | Jack123 |
| Protesters on 07:41 - Dec 6 by Scotia |
What on Earth is this supposed to mean? |
Nothing mate, just a drunken rant. I think just down to the frustration of this whole thing. I just wish it would go away. |  |
| |
| Protesters on 23:35 - Dec 6 with 829 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Protesters on 15:07 - Dec 6 by OverDover |
Completely spurious analogies. Neither heart disease or COPDs related to lifestyle are transmissible.
The only way to reduce the impact of transmissible diseases on a population is to reduce the rate of transmission from person to person. The most effective strategy to do so is mass vaccination. This has been proved by the eradication of Small
Pox and the reduced impact of TB in the UK.
I am all for people exercising their right to refuse inoculations. However, in a time of a national health emergency they can’t complain too loudly about restricted access to public spaces. Particularly, if they are offered the chance to prove their disease free status by taking a test. |
The reason he gave was that it is using resources that are needed for other illnesses. There is nothing spurious about those examples at all.
Each one can be prevented by making a personal choice, if that choice is refused and as a result you become unwell, then that is no different to someone refusing a vaccine and becoming unwell.
If your point was because you believe only unvaccinated people transmit Covid, then we can cross that bridge too. It’s not true of course, but a bridge we couldn’t certainly cross together.
However the discussion point here was that peoples choices were leading to hospital resources being taken up, as to a reason they should be made to comply. My point is that this happens in all walks of life, from heart disease to lung cancer all of these things take hospital resources that can be prevented through peoples choices. | |
| |
| Protesters on 23:45 - Dec 6 with 824 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Protesters on 15:23 - Dec 6 by Scotia |
Peoples choices do affect us on a daily basis, but not in such great numbers and as quickly as covid. The impacts on the NHS from covid patients is seen within a couple of weeks rather than over a period of 50 - 70 years from lifestyle related choices.
You can't catch heart disease from someone else when in a shop.
We have minimised the risk of cancer related smoking on the NHS by banning in in public places and charging a massive amount of tax on tobacco.
Car passengers wear seat belts, we have speed cameras and associated enforcement.
The vaccine is extremely safe considerably safer than catching covid, and people do have the right to choose, but that choice has a consequence for all of us and I don't think the rest of society should be impacted by a minority believing rubbish on facebook. |
I would guess far more people are hospitalised or needing ICU hospitalisation through poor choices as opposed to covid.
1 in 4 deaths in the States is from heart disease, not sure what it’s like in the U.K. - that’s 25% of all deaths. That’s without touching upon anything else considered preventable through choice, that’s just one single thing.
You can catch covid from everyone, vaccinated or not. However if you have the vaccination you are less likely to die or be seriously ill.
We have minimised the risk in other areas you are right, health warning on junk food, health warnings on tobacco and higher tax - agree with all that. But it’s still a choice.
If you take away someone’s rights because you aren’t making the choice the Government wants you to make then alarm bells really should be going off.
As I said before, many people don’t want the vaccinations for many reasons, it doesn’t have to be because of a video on Facebook.
I didn’t want it as I have a family history of arrhythmia. Taking the vaccine increases my already high chances of developing that. However due to draconian measures here I was essentially forced into it. If I had died as a result, I don’t think my partner would ever forgive the state for taking away my informed choice. | |
| |
| Protesters on 23:45 - Dec 6 with 825 views | OverDover |
| Protesters on 23:35 - Dec 6 by Dr_Parnassus |
The reason he gave was that it is using resources that are needed for other illnesses. There is nothing spurious about those examples at all.
Each one can be prevented by making a personal choice, if that choice is refused and as a result you become unwell, then that is no different to someone refusing a vaccine and becoming unwell.
If your point was because you believe only unvaccinated people transmit Covid, then we can cross that bridge too. It’s not true of course, but a bridge we couldn’t certainly cross together.
However the discussion point here was that peoples choices were leading to hospital resources being taken up, as to a reason they should be made to comply. My point is that this happens in all walks of life, from heart disease to lung cancer all of these things take hospital resources that can be prevented through peoples choices. |
They are spurious analogies. People making lifestyle choices are only putting themselves at risk.
People refusing vaccinations are putting both themselves and others at risk by perpetuating transmission rates.
I would be extremely interested to see evidence that vaccinated people are as responsible as unvaccinated people for high transmission rates. Transmission rates, R values if you prefer, will be related to the viral load of individuals. Given that all statistical evidence shows that vaccinated individuals are less likely to be hospitalised and have lower mortality rates, this would suggest that vaccinated individuals have lower viral loads. | | | |
| Protesters on 23:57 - Dec 6 with 812 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Protesters on 23:45 - Dec 6 by OverDover |
They are spurious analogies. People making lifestyle choices are only putting themselves at risk.
People refusing vaccinations are putting both themselves and others at risk by perpetuating transmission rates.
I would be extremely interested to see evidence that vaccinated people are as responsible as unvaccinated people for high transmission rates. Transmission rates, R values if you prefer, will be related to the viral load of individuals. Given that all statistical evidence shows that vaccinated individuals are less likely to be hospitalised and have lower mortality rates, this would suggest that vaccinated individuals have lower viral loads. |
They are not spurious analogies. Making a poor lifestyle choice at the expense of the health service is absolutely no different to making a perceived poor vaccination choice at the expense of the health service. Both is a choice, both is a drain if it leads to illness or injury.
So that’s the clear and obvious argument against the “they take resources needlessly” argument. The chances are so will you at some point. So not something that carries the day.
Both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated transmit covid, just a fact. There is reported to be less viral load in the vaccinated, you are right - but there is no evidence to suggest the lessening of that viral load is enough to not spread it at a similar rate as before. All medical and scientific reports I have read thus far ensure they say “may” or “could”.
Vaccinated people are less likely to be hospitalised once they get it though, that appears to be factual. But that is the result of someone’s personal choice, that will remain the same whether they catch covid from a vaccinated person or an unvaccinated person. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Protesters on 00:06 - Dec 7 with 810 views | OverDover |
| Protesters on 23:57 - Dec 6 by Dr_Parnassus |
They are not spurious analogies. Making a poor lifestyle choice at the expense of the health service is absolutely no different to making a perceived poor vaccination choice at the expense of the health service. Both is a choice, both is a drain if it leads to illness or injury.
So that’s the clear and obvious argument against the “they take resources needlessly” argument. The chances are so will you at some point. So not something that carries the day.
Both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated transmit covid, just a fact. There is reported to be less viral load in the vaccinated, you are right - but there is no evidence to suggest the lessening of that viral load is enough to not spread it at a similar rate as before. All medical and scientific reports I have read thus far ensure they say “may” or “could”.
Vaccinated people are less likely to be hospitalised once they get it though, that appears to be factual. But that is the result of someone’s personal choice, that will remain the same whether they catch covid from a vaccinated person or an unvaccinated person. |
Transmissible diseases are more likely to place a huge burden on the NHS, possibly overwhelming the available ICU resources to clinicians. This is not a potential scenario presented by lifestyle illnesses. So the analogy is spurious and irrelevant. Nobody on this thread has suggested that hospital resources should not be made available to unvaccinated people suffering from severe disease.
The following report in the Lancet confirms that vaccinated people are less likely to transmit disease than unvaccinated people.
https://www.thelancet.com/jour | | | |
| Protesters on 00:33 - Dec 7 with 799 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Protesters on 00:06 - Dec 7 by OverDover |
Transmissible diseases are more likely to place a huge burden on the NHS, possibly overwhelming the available ICU resources to clinicians. This is not a potential scenario presented by lifestyle illnesses. So the analogy is spurious and irrelevant. Nobody on this thread has suggested that hospital resources should not be made available to unvaccinated people suffering from severe disease.
The following report in the Lancet confirms that vaccinated people are less likely to transmit disease than unvaccinated people.
https://www.thelancet.com/jour |
The lancet in their conclusion said:-
“Vaccination reduces the risk of delta variant infection and accelerates viral clearance.
Nonetheless, fully vaccinated individuals with breakthrough infections have peak viral load similar to unvaccinated cases and can efficiently transmit infection in household settings.”
What they appear to be saying is that viral load in the vaccinated is reduced in the respiratory area meaning that they transmit it less as they are less symptomatic once infected.
So if people continue to isolate once infected or showing signs of infection, regardless of vaccination status (which I think is a sensible approach), as well as good hygiene and mask wearing in mass social gatherings - then there really shouldn’t be any issue there at all for those to choose not to be a vaccinated and also isolate once symptomatic. [Post edited 7 Dec 2021 0:34]
| |
| |
| Protesters on 00:38 - Dec 7 with 796 views | OverDover |
That is not the conclusion of the Lancet study, they recommend booster vaccinations and the pursuit of widespread vaccination of the population. It is also the conclusion of clinicians in the second article.
Clinicians in the UK are making valid complaints about the excessive levels of unvaccinated individuals who are hospitalised and in ICU. Their complaints are validated by the data complied by the ONS.
Increasing population immunity via booster programmes and vaccination of teenagers will help to increase the currently limited effect of vaccination on transmission, but our analysis suggests that direct protection of individuals at risk of severe outcomes, via vaccination and non-pharmacological interventions, will remain central to containing the burden of disease caused by the delta variant. [Post edited 7 Dec 2021 0:42]
| | | |
| Protesters on 00:40 - Dec 7 with 792 views | Dr_Parnassus |
Yeah so again that actually is spurious.
They are saying they are less contagious because they have it for a shorter amount of time. Doesn’t mean they are really less contagious, it means they unvaccinated will usually require longer to get over it. The viral load at peak infection is the same.
However self isolating regardless of vaccination status once you have become symptomatic nullifies any of that.
The above would only be relevant if people were continuing to roam around the population with symptomatic covid. Something I doubt many people do whether they have been vaccinated or not. Bed and recovery being the order of the day. | |
| |
| Protesters on 00:44 - Dec 7 with 788 views | OverDover |
| Protesters on 00:40 - Dec 7 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yeah so again that actually is spurious.
They are saying they are less contagious because they have it for a shorter amount of time. Doesn’t mean they are really less contagious, it means they unvaccinated will usually require longer to get over it. The viral load at peak infection is the same.
However self isolating regardless of vaccination status once you have become symptomatic nullifies any of that.
The above would only be relevant if people were continuing to roam around the population with symptomatic covid. Something I doubt many people do whether they have been vaccinated or not. Bed and recovery being the order of the day. |
You do realise that symptoms of COVID-19 are similar to many other respiratory diseases and many people present as asymptomatic. | | | |
| Protesters on 00:46 - Dec 7 with 783 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Protesters on 00:38 - Dec 7 by OverDover |
That is not the conclusion of the Lancet study, they recommend booster vaccinations and the pursuit of widespread vaccination of the population. It is also the conclusion of clinicians in the second article.
Clinicians in the UK are making valid complaints about the excessive levels of unvaccinated individuals who are hospitalised and in ICU. Their complaints are validated by the data complied by the ONS.
Increasing population immunity via booster programmes and vaccination of teenagers will help to increase the currently limited effect of vaccination on transmission, but our analysis suggests that direct protection of individuals at risk of severe outcomes, via vaccination and non-pharmacological interventions, will remain central to containing the burden of disease caused by the delta variant. [Post edited 7 Dec 2021 0:42]
|
That’s the recommendation, not the findings.
The findings are factual, the recommendation is opinion.
The findings are that once infected the peak load is the same regardless of vaccination. This “more contagious” argument appears to boil down to the fact that ONCE you have it, those who are vaccinated are less symptomatic and with less viral load in the respiratory system to match. But they can of course still transmit it and will still be extremely likely to transmit it should they be infected.
If people isolate when symptomatic and wear masks, there should be no difference between the transmission rates of the vaccinated or the unvaccinated.
These studies only show the effects on the body. They don’t take into consideration the fact that once people are symptomatic then they are very rarely to be out and about in the public anyway.
Your last point moves away from from this current point and moves back to hospital resources for those who become ill who are not vaccinated. Complaints can be made of course, but they can be made against lung cancer and heart disease too. | |
| |
| Protesters on 00:47 - Dec 7 with 783 views | OverDover |
| Protesters on 00:40 - Dec 7 by Dr_Parnassus |
Yeah so again that actually is spurious.
They are saying they are less contagious because they have it for a shorter amount of time. Doesn’t mean they are really less contagious, it means they unvaccinated will usually require longer to get over it. The viral load at peak infection is the same.
However self isolating regardless of vaccination status once you have become symptomatic nullifies any of that.
The above would only be relevant if people were continuing to roam around the population with symptomatic covid. Something I doubt many people do whether they have been vaccinated or not. Bed and recovery being the order of the day. |
Both authors are immunologists, they are qualified to present conclusions which should not be doubted as spurious.
What are your qualifications on the subjects of immunity and contagious diseases? | | | |
| Protesters on 00:49 - Dec 7 with 779 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Protesters on 00:44 - Dec 7 by OverDover |
You do realise that symptoms of COVID-19 are similar to many other respiratory diseases and many people present as asymptomatic. |
I do, hence why transmission rates between two asymptomatic cases, one vaccinated and one unvaccinated will undoubtedly be similar.
I can certainly see an argument that unvaccinated are more transmissible if symptomatic as they expel bodily fluids from the respiratory system which contains a higher viral load.
Except that disappears once anyone who is symptomatic self isolated until recovered, regardless of vaccination status. | |
| |
| Protesters on 00:54 - Dec 7 with 775 views | OverDover |
| Protesters on 00:46 - Dec 7 by Dr_Parnassus |
That’s the recommendation, not the findings.
The findings are factual, the recommendation is opinion.
The findings are that once infected the peak load is the same regardless of vaccination. This “more contagious” argument appears to boil down to the fact that ONCE you have it, those who are vaccinated are less symptomatic and with less viral load in the respiratory system to match. But they can of course still transmit it and will still be extremely likely to transmit it should they be infected.
If people isolate when symptomatic and wear masks, there should be no difference between the transmission rates of the vaccinated or the unvaccinated.
These studies only show the effects on the body. They don’t take into consideration the fact that once people are symptomatic then they are very rarely to be out and about in the public anyway.
Your last point moves away from from this current point and moves back to hospital resources for those who become ill who are not vaccinated. Complaints can be made of course, but they can be made against lung cancer and heart disease too. |
I’m sorry but you are not commentating on the factual evidence in front of you. The recommendations are based on analysis of data. Data is frequently use as a predictive tool, they are saying that the data predicts that increased vaccination coverage of a population alongside non-pharmacological interventions, social distancing, mask wearing and wide spread testing will reduce the impact of COVID-19 on a population.
In the UK because of inadequate sick payments, people in low paid jobs were going to work with symptoms and avoiding self-isolation procedures during the height of the pandemic. | | | |
| Protesters on 00:55 - Dec 7 with 773 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Protesters on 00:47 - Dec 7 by OverDover |
Both authors are immunologists, they are qualified to present conclusions which should not be doubted as spurious.
What are your qualifications on the subjects of immunity and contagious diseases? |
They are qualified to make recommendations yes. But not qualified to turn opinion into fact.
I’m not qualified in the discipline at all, which is why I don’t make personal recommendations to Governments and just stick to scientific fact to make my conclusions. | |
| |
| Protesters on 00:58 - Dec 7 with 773 views | OverDover |
| Protesters on 00:49 - Dec 7 by Dr_Parnassus |
I do, hence why transmission rates between two asymptomatic cases, one vaccinated and one unvaccinated will undoubtedly be similar.
I can certainly see an argument that unvaccinated are more transmissible if symptomatic as they expel bodily fluids from the respiratory system which contains a higher viral load.
Except that disappears once anyone who is symptomatic self isolated until recovered, regardless of vaccination status. |
Do you have any evidence to suggest that transmission rates are similar between asymptomatic vaccinated individuals and asymptomatic unvaccinated individuals? | | | |
| Protesters on 01:01 - Dec 7 with 762 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Protesters on 00:54 - Dec 7 by OverDover |
I’m sorry but you are not commentating on the factual evidence in front of you. The recommendations are based on analysis of data. Data is frequently use as a predictive tool, they are saying that the data predicts that increased vaccination coverage of a population alongside non-pharmacological interventions, social distancing, mask wearing and wide spread testing will reduce the impact of COVID-19 on a population.
In the UK because of inadequate sick payments, people in low paid jobs were going to work with symptoms and avoiding self-isolation procedures during the height of the pandemic. |
No need to apologise.
The data suggests the transmission rates are the same at peak infection in both the vaccinated and unvaccinated. The data suggests that transmission is only higher in the unvaccinated due to the vaccinated having less viral load in the respiratory system, being less symptomatic meaning when they sneeze or cough less and the unvaccinated take slightly longer for it to clear.
All of that is avoided by continuing the practice of social distancing, good hygiene, mask wearing in heavily populated areas and self isolating when infected.
Nothing I have read here screams out at me that we should be forcing people to take a vaccine which can be harmful to some. The power of choice is still a far more valuable commodity. | |
| |
| Protesters on 01:02 - Dec 7 with 760 views | OverDover |
| Protesters on 00:55 - Dec 7 by Dr_Parnassus |
They are qualified to make recommendations yes. But not qualified to turn opinion into fact.
I’m not qualified in the discipline at all, which is why I don’t make personal recommendations to Governments and just stick to scientific fact to make my conclusions. |
They are not opinions! The recommendations are based on data collected during this epidemic of an infectious diseases and previous infectious agents,
Do you mind me asking if you have ever had any scientific training? | | | |
| Protesters on 01:03 - Dec 7 with 757 views | Treforys_Jack |
| Protesters on 23:45 - Dec 6 by Dr_Parnassus |
I would guess far more people are hospitalised or needing ICU hospitalisation through poor choices as opposed to covid.
1 in 4 deaths in the States is from heart disease, not sure what it’s like in the U.K. - that’s 25% of all deaths. That’s without touching upon anything else considered preventable through choice, that’s just one single thing.
You can catch covid from everyone, vaccinated or not. However if you have the vaccination you are less likely to die or be seriously ill.
We have minimised the risk in other areas you are right, health warning on junk food, health warnings on tobacco and higher tax - agree with all that. But it’s still a choice.
If you take away someone’s rights because you aren’t making the choice the Government wants you to make then alarm bells really should be going off.
As I said before, many people don’t want the vaccinations for many reasons, it doesn’t have to be because of a video on Facebook.
I didn’t want it as I have a family history of arrhythmia. Taking the vaccine increases my already high chances of developing that. However due to draconian measures here I was essentially forced into it. If I had died as a result, I don’t think my partner would ever forgive the state for taking away my informed choice. |
Difficult to disagree with any of that. |  | | |
| Protesters on 01:04 - Dec 7 with 750 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Protesters on 00:58 - Dec 7 by OverDover |
Do you have any evidence to suggest that transmission rates are similar between asymptomatic vaccinated individuals and asymptomatic unvaccinated individuals? |
The evidence for that would be that the studies are only making a case for higher transmission rates when the unvaccinated are symptomatic.
Unless there is a study from a reputable source which shows a significant difference in asymptomatic cases then it would be foolish to conclude otherwise.
Being the same is the standard. Being different required a body of proof, a body of proof which im yet to see.
Happy to review it if you have one though. | |
| |
| Protesters on 01:07 - Dec 7 with 746 views | Dr_Parnassus |
| Protesters on 01:02 - Dec 7 by OverDover |
They are not opinions! The recommendations are based on data collected during this epidemic of an infectious diseases and previous infectious agents,
Do you mind me asking if you have ever had any scientific training? |
They are opinions, recommendations are opinions - professional opinions, but opinions all the same.
I do mind you asking that yes. Considering I’m not making any official recommendations to Governments it isn’t relevant.
I’m sure you were more fun on Annis’ forum.  | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.