| Serious question for all 23:28 - Sep 9 with 1806 views | RonaldStump |
With the senile old sod about to announce all work places in the US with 100+ employees to have mandatory vaccination.
Leaving the right or wrongs about getting vax or not. (myself I have my thoughts about vax but it's all about personal choice for me)
Do you agree with vaccine passports?
Do you agree with no jab no job?
Do you agree with no Jab no food ?
Do you agree with no jab no travel?
Do you agree that fellow jacks who've supported the Swans for years should now have a football banning order just because you don't want the jab?
I know it's 5 questions but please be constructive ...Diolch |  |
| |  |
| Serious question for all on 23:41 - Sep 9 with 1248 views | londonlisa2001 |
I don’t agree with any of those things to be honest. Problem is that unless those who choose not to be vaccinated are restricted, by definition those who are more vulnerable or susceptible to severe illness are restricted. And they don’t have a choice in the matter.
So given the choice of those two pretty crap options, I’d choose for those who refuse a vaccine to be restricted.
By the way - I’m pretty certain no one is saying no vaccine no food… | | | |
| Serious question for all on 23:51 - Sep 9 with 1233 views | majorraglan |
I am all for people freedom of choice. Lisa has raised some very good points in her post and my take is as below.
Vaccine Passports - Yes.
No Jab no job - Tough one, depends on what the job is.
No jab no food - where’s that come from? If you mean no jab then no access to restaurants and pubs etc - Yes.
No jab no travel - I assume this relates to foreign countries - Yes.
Football banning order - if people aren’t prepared to be vaccinated then my view s they shouldn’t expect the same rights/ privileges as those who've been vaccinated.
. | | | |
| Serious question for all on 23:54 - Sep 9 with 1224 views | RonaldStump |
| Serious question for all on 23:41 - Sep 9 by londonlisa2001 |
I don’t agree with any of those things to be honest. Problem is that unless those who choose not to be vaccinated are restricted, by definition those who are more vulnerable or susceptible to severe illness are restricted. And they don’t have a choice in the matter.
So given the choice of those two pretty crap options, I’d choose for those who refuse a vaccine to be restricted.
By the way - I’m pretty certain no one is saying no vaccine no food… |
Thanks for the constructive reply.
When i say no jab no food, i'm talking about not being allowed to go into a supermarket to do your grocery's, Of course there will be other ways to get food.
Personally i think it's a liberty and is a very dangerous path to take and I also think it is being done purposefully for that exact reason. | |
| |
| Serious question for all on 23:56 - Sep 9 with 1214 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Serious question for all on 23:54 - Sep 9 by RonaldStump |
Thanks for the constructive reply.
When i say no jab no food, i'm talking about not being allowed to go into a supermarket to do your grocery's, Of course there will be other ways to get food.
Personally i think it's a liberty and is a very dangerous path to take and I also think it is being done purposefully for that exact reason. |
Who has said you can’t go to a supermarket without a vaccine?
What do you think is being done purposefully? | | | |
| Serious question for all on 00:04 - Sep 10 with 1214 views | RonaldStump |
| Serious question for all on 23:51 - Sep 9 by majorraglan |
I am all for people freedom of choice. Lisa has raised some very good points in her post and my take is as below.
Vaccine Passports - Yes.
No Jab no job - Tough one, depends on what the job is.
No jab no food - where’s that come from? If you mean no jab then no access to restaurants and pubs etc - Yes.
No jab no travel - I assume this relates to foreign countries - Yes.
Football banning order - if people aren’t prepared to be vaccinated then my view s they shouldn’t expect the same rights/ privileges as those who've been vaccinated.
. |
That last comment absolutely disgusts me and it's people like you who are part of the problem. Just when we thought we were getting to grips with any form discrimination along come the vaccine extremists. | |
| |
| Serious question for all on 00:06 - Sep 10 with 1212 views | RonaldStump |
| Serious question for all on 23:56 - Sep 9 by londonlisa2001 |
Who has said you can’t go to a supermarket without a vaccine?
What do you think is being done purposefully? |
Well if you have a look at what is happening in macron's France where the Vax passport has been implemented. You are not allowed to go into any shops/malls etc without a passport | |
| |
| Serious question for all on 00:12 - Sep 10 with 1196 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Serious question for all on 00:06 - Sep 10 by RonaldStump |
Well if you have a look at what is happening in macron's France where the Vax passport has been implemented. You are not allowed to go into any shops/malls etc without a passport |
Yes you are.
You’re not allowed to go into their equivalent of the Westfield Shopping Centre that’s all. You can go into supermarkets etc.
Plus you get the pass in France if you’ve been vaccinated, if you have had a negative test or if you’ve had Covid during the past few months (either 3 or 6 can’t remember). | | | |
| Serious question for all on 00:20 - Sep 10 with 1191 views | RonaldStump |
| Serious question for all on 00:12 - Sep 10 by londonlisa2001 |
Yes you are.
You’re not allowed to go into their equivalent of the Westfield Shopping Centre that’s all. You can go into supermarkets etc.
Plus you get the pass in France if you’ve been vaccinated, if you have had a negative test or if you’ve had Covid during the past few months (either 3 or 6 can’t remember). |
OK I stand corrected
They don't let you into restaurants/pubs etc Which again i believe is abhorrent, though it does seem the French have grown some balls in this regard and are standing up for their rights. Which is great to see. | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Serious question for all on 00:25 - Sep 10 with 1187 views | londonlisa2001 |
| Serious question for all on 00:20 - Sep 10 by RonaldStump |
OK I stand corrected
They don't let you into restaurants/pubs etc Which again i believe is abhorrent, though it does seem the French have grown some balls in this regard and are standing up for their rights. Which is great to see. |
They do if again you’ve been vaccinated, can prove you’re negative or have had Covid recently.
Can’t see what the problem is in that. | | | |
| Serious question for all on 08:34 - Sep 10 with 1082 views | JACKMANANDBOY |
Well in principle I'm against a government limiting your participation in a range of parts of society based on you taking a particular medicine. |  |
| |
| Serious question for all on 08:55 - Sep 10 with 1069 views | jackrmee |
| Serious question for all on 23:41 - Sep 9 by londonlisa2001 |
I don’t agree with any of those things to be honest. Problem is that unless those who choose not to be vaccinated are restricted, by definition those who are more vulnerable or susceptible to severe illness are restricted. And they don’t have a choice in the matter.
So given the choice of those two pretty crap options, I’d choose for those who refuse a vaccine to be restricted.
By the way - I’m pretty certain no one is saying no vaccine no food… |
Restricted for what reason though?
Surely can't be to protect the vaccinated, as they are already protected.
The more vulnerable and susceptible to severe illness are only the non-vaccinated, right? They do have a choice in the matter. |  |
| |
| Serious question for all on 09:00 - Sep 10 with 1067 views | jackrmee |
| Serious question for all on 00:25 - Sep 10 by londonlisa2001 |
They do if again you’ve been vaccinated, can prove you’re negative or have had Covid recently.
Can’t see what the problem is in that. |
Getting a pass with a negative test seems fair to me.
A double jab doesn't guarantee a negative result, so it seems much fairer and sensible to let people into places determined by a negative test, rather than a vaccine.
I'm sure 99% of people would be happy to have a test, rather than a vaccine. I know I would. But no-one is going to make loads of money that way, so it's not going to happen. | |
| |
| Serious question for all on 09:19 - Sep 10 with 1049 views | WalterBoyd |
| Serious question for all on 09:00 - Sep 10 by jackrmee |
Getting a pass with a negative test seems fair to me.
A double jab doesn't guarantee a negative result, so it seems much fairer and sensible to let people into places determined by a negative test, rather than a vaccine.
I'm sure 99% of people would be happy to have a test, rather than a vaccine. I know I would. But no-one is going to make loads of money that way, so it's not going to happen. |
I'd rather the vaccine ( which I have had) rather than having to do tests constantly to allow access into places but more importantly the vaccine means that if I do get covid there is less likelihood of being hospitalised/ ventilator/ death.
Regular tests do not prevent any of the consequences of getting covid for the individual. | | | |
| Serious question for all on 09:31 - Sep 10 with 1040 views | builthjack |
Pin them down and jab em |  |
| Swansea Indepenent Poster Of The Year 2021. Dr P / Mart66 / Roathie / Parlay / E20/ Duffle was 2nd, but he is deluded and thinks in his little twisted brain that he won. Poor sod. We let him win this year, as he has cried for a whole year. His 14 usernames, bless his cotton socks.
|
| |
| Serious question for all on 13:18 - Sep 10 with 996 views | RonaldStump |
| Serious question for all on 09:19 - Sep 10 by WalterBoyd |
I'd rather the vaccine ( which I have had) rather than having to do tests constantly to allow access into places but more importantly the vaccine means that if I do get covid there is less likelihood of being hospitalised/ ventilator/ death.
Regular tests do not prevent any of the consequences of getting covid for the individual. |
The majority of people will suffer no consequences of getting covid vax the vulnerable and those who want it and be done with it. Nothing else will work without blood being spilt | |
| |
| Serious question for all on 13:19 - Sep 10 with 993 views | RonaldStump |
| Serious question for all on 09:31 - Sep 10 by builthjack |
Pin them down and jab em |
Silly idea, will result in many many unfortunate deaths | |
| |
| Serious question for all on 14:29 - Sep 10 with 965 views | max936 |
| Serious question for all on 23:51 - Sep 9 by majorraglan |
I am all for people freedom of choice. Lisa has raised some very good points in her post and my take is as below.
Vaccine Passports - Yes.
No Jab no job - Tough one, depends on what the job is.
No jab no food - where’s that come from? If you mean no jab then no access to restaurants and pubs etc - Yes.
No jab no travel - I assume this relates to foreign countries - Yes.
Football banning order - if people aren’t prepared to be vaccinated then my view s they shouldn’t expect the same rights/ privileges as those who've been vaccinated.
. |
This 100% |  |
| |
| Serious question for all on 14:59 - Sep 10 with 952 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Serious question for all on 23:51 - Sep 9 by majorraglan |
I am all for people freedom of choice. Lisa has raised some very good points in her post and my take is as below.
Vaccine Passports - Yes.
No Jab no job - Tough one, depends on what the job is.
No jab no food - where’s that come from? If you mean no jab then no access to restaurants and pubs etc - Yes.
No jab no travel - I assume this relates to foreign countries - Yes.
Football banning order - if people aren’t prepared to be vaccinated then my view s they shouldn’t expect the same rights/ privileges as those who've been vaccinated.
. |
Why?
Where is the logic in your decisions?
According to the Israeli data the Pfizer vaccine immunity wears off almost completely after six months.
According to the US CDC data the viral load carried by an infected vaccinated person is as high if not higher than an unvaccinated person.
From that data it is obvious that an infected vaccinated person Is just as dangerous to anybody else as an unvaccinated person.
But worse still is that the vaccinated person is less likely to know that they are infected until later in their infection.
What therefore is the point of limiting what an unvaccinated person can do when vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the virus?
People who were vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine should also be under the same restrictions shouldn't they? | | | |
| Serious question for all on 20:19 - Sep 10 with 889 views | Catullus |
| Serious question for all on 14:59 - Sep 10 by A_Fans_Dad |
Why?
Where is the logic in your decisions?
According to the Israeli data the Pfizer vaccine immunity wears off almost completely after six months.
According to the US CDC data the viral load carried by an infected vaccinated person is as high if not higher than an unvaccinated person.
From that data it is obvious that an infected vaccinated person Is just as dangerous to anybody else as an unvaccinated person.
But worse still is that the vaccinated person is less likely to know that they are infected until later in their infection.
What therefore is the point of limiting what an unvaccinated person can do when vaccinated people are just as likely to spread the virus?
People who were vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine should also be under the same restrictions shouldn't they? |
Maybe the point would be that, seeing as the majority of adults are vaccinated, the unvaccinated would be at great risk of infection and serious illness. In which case they would be restricted for the good of their health.
In there is also the reason why we'll be having boosters, because immunity wears off (8 months for AZ isn't it?) and covid is here for good.
If the majority get jabbed then, in a democracy, it's the minority who will lose priviliges if they don't get jabbed. It's people spreading dangerous misinformation and lies that's convinced many people not to get jabbed.
Stumpy again alludes to this being a government plan and the jab is some kind of master plan for control/depopulation/the great restart, that's what he meant, it's just more wummery.
During lockdown when I was told to shield, I didn't go without food, we ordered online and had it delivered. Until I was vaccinated I wouldn't have gone into a restaurant anyway. | |
| |
| Serious question for all on 21:02 - Sep 10 with 871 views | A_Fans_Dad |
| Serious question for all on 20:19 - Sep 10 by Catullus |
Maybe the point would be that, seeing as the majority of adults are vaccinated, the unvaccinated would be at great risk of infection and serious illness. In which case they would be restricted for the good of their health.
In there is also the reason why we'll be having boosters, because immunity wears off (8 months for AZ isn't it?) and covid is here for good.
If the majority get jabbed then, in a democracy, it's the minority who will lose priviliges if they don't get jabbed. It's people spreading dangerous misinformation and lies that's convinced many people not to get jabbed.
Stumpy again alludes to this being a government plan and the jab is some kind of master plan for control/depopulation/the great restart, that's what he meant, it's just more wummery.
During lockdown when I was told to shield, I didn't go without food, we ordered online and had it delivered. Until I was vaccinated I wouldn't have gone into a restaurant anyway. |
" In which case they would be restricted for the good of their health."
Even if true and they did, it will not stop the spread of the Virus and the hospitalisation and deaths of the vaccinated.
Only another round of Vaccines can delay that and then another round of vaccines.
What a wonderful situation for the Vaccines manufacturers, continuous profits for as long as the virus stays around, 7.7 Billion times 2 vaccines every year.
If only they had some medicines that worked to treat those that get ill, so much cheaper, so much less hassle.
Oh wait a minute they do, but never mind because you don't believe in them. | | | |
| Serious question for all on 21:16 - Sep 10 with 856 views | max936 |
| Serious question for all on 00:04 - Sep 10 by RonaldStump |
That last comment absolutely disgusts me and it's people like you who are part of the problem. Just when we thought we were getting to grips with any form discrimination along come the vaccine extremists. |
People who have had the vaccine you mean, over 48 million people in UK have had at least one dose of the vaccine, so all of us who have been jabbed are part of the problem and you are not then, 48million vaccine extremists, you orite are you? | |
| |
| Serious question for all on 22:20 - Sep 10 with 842 views | Catullus |
| Serious question for all on 21:02 - Sep 10 by A_Fans_Dad |
" In which case they would be restricted for the good of their health."
Even if true and they did, it will not stop the spread of the Virus and the hospitalisation and deaths of the vaccinated.
Only another round of Vaccines can delay that and then another round of vaccines.
What a wonderful situation for the Vaccines manufacturers, continuous profits for as long as the virus stays around, 7.7 Billion times 2 vaccines every year.
If only they had some medicines that worked to treat those that get ill, so much cheaper, so much less hassle.
Oh wait a minute they do, but never mind because you don't believe in them. |
Those medicines you keep promoting, why are they not being used? Because they don't really work do they.
Big pharma will always make vast profits, they will always find a way. That won't change because governments always look after their rich friends, those friends in turn look after the politicians when they finish in politics. That is the scandal, not the vaccines per se.
Do you think the flu vaccines are a rip off too?
PS, fewer vaccinated people are dying but those who previously didn't suffer so much from covid are being affected more and more, but you don't believe that. You believe what you believe, history will tell us who was right but then, you won't believe that either! | |
| |
| Serious question for all on 22:25 - Sep 10 with 840 views | max936 |
| Serious question for all on 22:20 - Sep 10 by Catullus |
Those medicines you keep promoting, why are they not being used? Because they don't really work do they.
Big pharma will always make vast profits, they will always find a way. That won't change because governments always look after their rich friends, those friends in turn look after the politicians when they finish in politics. That is the scandal, not the vaccines per se.
Do you think the flu vaccines are a rip off too?
PS, fewer vaccinated people are dying but those who previously didn't suffer so much from covid are being affected more and more, but you don't believe that. You believe what you believe, history will tell us who was right but then, you won't believe that either! |
That's gone and torn it Cat, 10 pager on way  | |
| |
| Serious question for all on 22:33 - Sep 10 with 836 views | Tummer_from_Texas |
Massive, unprecedented election fraud has given us the actual dictatorship the ignorant morons fantasized about when Trump was POTUS. This current, evil regime is shitting on the constitution with no shame, and without accountability. Just watch this 15 second clip, because Benny's transcript doesn't even do it justice.
[Post edited 10 Sep 2021 22:34]
|  |
| |
| Serious question for all on 22:43 - Sep 10 with 821 views | Scotia |
| Serious question for all on 22:33 - Sep 10 by Tummer_from_Texas |
Massive, unprecedented election fraud has given us the actual dictatorship the ignorant morons fantasized about when Trump was POTUS. This current, evil regime is shitting on the constitution with no shame, and without accountability. Just watch this 15 second clip, because Benny's transcript doesn't even do it justice.
[Post edited 10 Sep 2021 22:34]
|
It hasn't given us anything. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
