Footballers and the Jab

[Phube]

18 minutes ago, The Horse's Mouth said:

Would making football a non contact sport and wrapping them in bubble wrap be a better solution?

 

Wow... it amazing how relaxed people are about 137,000 (or 4.2 King Power's) deaths, or a near collapse of our entire Hospital system that it compared to fouling in football! 

 

 

[The Horse's Mouth]

15 minutes ago, Phube said:

 

Wow... it amazing how relaxed people are about 137,000 (or 4.2 King Power's) deaths, or a near collapse of our entire Hospital system that it compared to fouling in football! 

 

 

I know it's almost like we had the highest mortality rate going last year 

[st albans fox]

11 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

He's had it twice so now should have a decent level of immunity.

 

Jabs aren't magic; they just expose you to the virus and provoke an immune response; you know; like getting the virus does?

 

Not sure why the condemnation here? 

7 hours ago, filbertway said:

If you've already had covid, especially twice, then getting Vaccinated seems pointless. The vaccine is a relatively risk free way of developing antibodies, so if you already have them, then it seems pointless.

 

The vaccines have been important as we're essentially letting the virus rip through the country now and the NHS would have most likely collapsed if we attempted this on an unvaccinated population. 

his level of immunity will depend on how large his exposure to covid was ….immunity does wane with time and studies have shown that immunity following natural infection and then vaccination is extremely strong. 
 

6 hours ago, The People's Hero said:

He's had Covid twice.

 

The vaccine gives you antibodies that he presumably already has.

 

The vaccine also doesn't mean you're any less likely to 'pass it on'.

 

There's a lot of myth about the vaccine as if its magic; and not just a way of training your body to react to the virus by giving you a dose that stimulates the production of antibodies which then becomes a learned response. Its not a magic jab that prevents you ever being ill or passing it on? Its surely no better than having actually had Covid? 

Apparently it does. You’re infectious for approx half the time if double jabbed. I do accept that an athlete who has had covid twice might think a vaccination isn’t necessary.  I would have thought that clubs would perhaps get the players in that position tested for antibody levels to either reassure them or illustrate that they should reconsider 

 

2 hours ago, everton carr said:

Surprised you can say that that with so many of the world's top Doctors speaking out inc Mike Yeaden ex VP at Pfzer Robert Malone  prof Cahill and Nobel prize Winner Luc Montagner.

We covered the supporting evidence behind that motley crew the other day …….i

and if you are Everton Carr, what junior school did you go to ??  

[Spudulike]

13 hours ago, Otis said:

I don't understand scaremongering comments like this.

 

The old and vulnerable should have taken the vaccine if they are concerned about catching it.

Scaremongering!?! With respect, that is such a flippant and juvenile comment. It is exactly why over 90% of that demographic have been double-jabbed. However, as we all know no vaccine has ever been 100% effective and the chances of all of us (not just the old and vulnerable) getting covid again is hugely increased whilst we have non-vacinated amongst us. People are still dying from this. 

[Soup]

@st albans fox it looks like you've got two threads to marshal now, you might need back up soon. 

[Otis]

1 hour ago, Spudulike said:

Scaremongering!?! With respect, that is such a flippant and juvenile comment. It is exactly why over 90% of that demographic have been double-jabbed. However, as we all know no vaccine has ever been 100% effective and the chances of all of us (not just the old and vulnerable) getting covid again is hugely increased whilst we have non-vacinated amongst us. People are still dying from this. 

No. You are said he doesn't care about the old and vulnerable because he's chosen not to take the vaccine. Would you like to back this statement up?

If 90% are double jabbed, why is Covid still being spread? 

The vaccine protects the person who has taken it. 

[Spudulike]

4 minutes ago, Otis said:

No. You are said he doesn't care about the old and vulnerable because he's chosen not to take the vaccine. Would you like to back this statement up?

If 90% are double jabbed, why is Covid still being spread? 

The vaccine protects the person who has taken it. 

I suggest that you re-read my post. I said 'perhaps' he doesn't care. It's not clear from the article why he's chosen not to be vaccinated and offers no explanation. One can only speculate the reasons but it is known that a vaccinated individual is much less likely to spread the virus than one that is not. 

 

You'll find plenty of information in this thread and others to answer your questions. 

[Nugent]

18 hours ago, Phube said:

Sadly it is just your demographic (assuming under 50, not-vaccinated) that are now filling up the ITU beds in my hospital all with the same surprise that it should only affect the elderly not them because they're young and fit. Yes the chances are still low, but seriously why risk it at all. I mean it'd make sense if we had infections under control (non mask wearing is another bug bear of mine!) but the UK is stubbornly still at 35,000 cases PER DAY! With it so prevalent I don't see why anyone would risk it? 

Latest ONS figures for the week ending 26th September show the rate of hospital admission for covid for my age range was 5 per 100,000. Add to the fact I don't smoke, exercise 5x a week, eat a clean diet and have had COVID very recently, that risk is not great enough for me to take a vaccine when there is little known about potential medium to long term side effects. Hopefully that answers your question about why anyone would 'risk' not having it!

 

[Phube]

33 minutes ago, Nugent said:

Latest ONS figures for the week ending 26th September show the rate of hospital admission for covid for my age range was 5 per 100,000. Add to the fact I don't smoke, exercise 5x a week, eat a clean diet and have had COVID very recently, that risk is not great enough for me to take a vaccine when there is little known about potential medium to long term side effects. Hopefully that answers your question about why anyone would 'risk' not having it!

 

There is no medium to long term risk… it’s not how it works!

 

Any risk is immediate (within 4 weeks).

[st albans fox]

6 minutes ago, Phube said:

There is no medium to long term risk… it’s not how it works!

 

Any risk is immediate (within 4 weeks).

But you cant prove that until 15 years have passed!

 

you'll never win an argument where you have to prove something that hasn't happened!

[Spudulike]

50 minutes ago, Nugent said:

Latest ONS figures for the week ending 26th September show the rate of hospital admission for covid for my age range was 5 per 100,000. Add to the fact I don't smoke, exercise 5x a week, eat a clean diet and have had COVID very recently, that risk is not great enough for me to take a vaccine when there is little known about potential medium to long term side effects. Hopefully that answers your question about why anyone would 'risk' not having it!

 

Your age or lifestyle does not prevent you from contracting or spreading the virus. Having covid recently proves nothing unless you have taken a test to show levels of anti-bodies. You may not have produced any and therefore still a higher risk to others that have had the vaccine. 

 

You quote figures to demonstrate that I'm alright Jack. Do you have concern for others? 

 

At risk of being over dramatic to illistrate a point, if I am unfortunate enough to sit next to you at the King Power Stadium then you're more likely to kill me than a vaccinated person. Thanks. 

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, Nugent said:

Latest ONS figures for the week ending 26th September show the rate of hospital admission for covid for my age range was 5 per 100,000. Add to the fact I don't smoke, exercise 5x a week, eat a clean diet and have had COVID very recently, that risk is not great enough for me to take a vaccine when there is little known about potential medium to long term side effects. Hopefully that answers your question about why anyone would 'risk' not having it!

 

That’s fine, that’s your decision. The vaccine will have reduced your likelihood of severe illness even more but clearly you weren’t an unlucky one. 
 

as for medium and long term side effects, vaccines leave your body within days. If there are any effects it’ll be within the first two to three days. We know long term side effects for vaccines simply don’t exist, covid on the other hand…

[Nugent]

37 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

Your age or lifestyle does not prevent you from contracting or spreading the virus. Having covid recently proves nothing unless you have taken a test to show levels of anti-bodies. You may not have produced any and therefore still a higher risk to others that have had the vaccine. 

 

You quote figures to demonstrate that I'm alright Jack. Do you have concern for others? 

 

At risk of being over dramatic to illistrate a point, if I am unfortunate enough to sit next to you at the King Power Stadium then you're more likely to kill me than a vaccinated person. Thanks. 

It's called personal responsibility, my health is my concern, and I'll do what's in the best interest of my body. You can do what you want for yours. All my family and friends are jabbed and support and respect my decision to not. If you're that worried about not being around someone who's not vaccinated then perhaps it's best to lock yourself inside for the rest of time  Get a grip pal.

[Spudulike]

7 minutes ago, Nugent said:

It's called personal responsibility, my health is my concern, and I'll do what's in the best interest of my body. You can do what you want for yours. All my family and friends are jabbed and support and respect my decision to not. If you're that worried about not being around someone who's not vaccinated then perhaps it's best to lock yourself inside for the rest of time  Get a grip pal.

Perhaps your family and friends might not respect your decision so much if you catch catch covid again and pass it on to them. Perhaps it doesn't matter to you, I don't know, but it appears that you think it's all about you. 

[Phube]

18 minutes ago, Nugent said:

It's called personal responsibility, my health is my concern, and I'll do what's in the best interest of my body. You can do what you want for yours. All my family and friends are jabbed and support and respect my decision to not. If you're that worried about not being around someone who's not vaccinated then perhaps it's best to lock yourself inside for the rest of time  Get a grip pal.

But you can’t claim personal responsibility when your actions have consequences to other people. Like smoking, drink driving etc. 

[Spudulike]

5 minutes ago, pmcla26 said:

Well the "other people" can rest easy knowing they've done everything that they can to prevent themselves from falling seriously ill. It's then down to nature and luck. 

 

Unvaccinated people aren't attempting to spread the virus. It's a personal decision at the end of the day and that's that. Like I said before in a different post, are you not allowed to feel apprehensive about something that's only just come into our lives' in the past year? A choice on whether to be vaccinated or not doesn't make you a greater or worse person. 

I don't think anyone is accusing anti-vaxers of deliberately spreading the virus (only dangerous misinformation) in most cases. However, there are consequences to personal choice. Of course vaccines have only just come into our lives but then so has covid and scientific evidence shows the likelihood of long term consequences of long covid is thousands of times more likely than side effects of a vaccine, for all ages. 

 

My daughter (under 30, fit and healthy) is needle phobic, I mean really phobic, but after seeing her grandad die and her dad seriously ill with covid, knew what was the right thing to do. My family did not need to put any pressure on her and she forced herself to go through the stress (twice) to protect her family. Big respect. 

[Leicester_Loyal]

33 minutes ago, Phube said:

But you can’t claim personal responsibility when your actions have consequences to other people. Like smoking, drink driving etc. 

Every action that we do has a personal responsibility to others. Those 4x4 cars we drive? Going into work or to a football game with a sore throat, runny nose or a cold? Not turning the light off at night? All those disposible masks we've thrown away? The tyres we use yearly on our cars? Reading a paperback book rather than an e-book?

 

If you're going to start saying we need to stop doing things due to personal responsibility, then we may aswell just all top ourselves now.

 

Genuinely don't understand why people think its their business what others do, you concentrate on yourself and let others worry about themselves, and I say this as someone who is double jabbed.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Every action that we do has a personal responsibility to others. Those 4x4 cars we drive? Going into work or to a football game with a sore throat, runny nose or a cold? Not turning the light off at night? All those disposible masks we've thrown away? The tyres we use yearly on our cars? Reading a paperback book rather than an e-book?

 

If you're going to start saying we need to stop doing things due to personal responsibility, then we may aswell just all top ourselves now.

 

Genuinely don't understand why people think its their business what others do, you concentrate on yourself and let others worry about themselves, and I say this as someone who is double jabbed.

We already do this - not drinking and driving being one obvious example.

 

I guess the argument here is therefore whether or not we should stop doing more things that might be of personal benefit or convenience due to the harm they might cause others - and that is a frankly massive discussion that really needs a case-by-case answer.

[Leicester_Loyal]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

We already do this - not drinking and driving being one obvious example.

 

I guess the argument here is therefore whether or not we should stop doing more things that might be of personal benefit or convenience due to the harm they might cause others - and that is a frankly massive discussion that really needs a case-by-case answer.

Yeah, my argument is EVERY action has a personal responsibility, so where does it end? Those pissheads in town on a Saturday night cost the NHS millions, but we don't not treat them or put them as a last resort for sending an ambulance.

 

So yeah I think we're pretty much agreeing here for once

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Yeah, my argument is EVERY action has a personal responsibility, so where does it end? Those pissheads in town on a Saturday night cost the NHS millions, but we don't not treat them or put them as a last resort for sending an ambulance.

 

So yeah I think we're pretty much agreeing here for once

It's certainly very easy to argue slippery slope here and it does have some merit, yeah. A balance must be struck between extending personal freedom where possible while safeguarding other people from the harm such freedom might mete out.

 

However, putting on my long-term big-world lenses again here, while that approach might be OK with the current Covid crisis in terms of preventing it from running amok, the next crisis the Earth throws at us might not be so forgiving of humanity not acting with one mind and intent. And on that day, it might be a choice between much harsher limits on personal freedom or societal collapse. (Of course, provided we know enough about what we're facing and act enough in advance, hopefully it wouldn't come to such a nasty choice.)

[everton carr]

21 hours ago, harpendenfox said:

So many? Are you serious. A handful have spoken against it. Yeadon being the most prominent and dangerous. Hundreds of thousands of medics globally are strongly in favour. 

You do know it's career suicide to go against the narrative?Dr Anne McCloskey got Suspended Dr Sam Bailey lost her tv job in NZ 72k NY medical staff were dismissed for refusing the jab you get the pucture.Peter Ebdon spoke out lost job on the BBC actor Matthew Marsden spoke out lost  tv acting work Leiani Dowding spoke out lost job on Loose Woman and how often are LeTissier and Pat Cash on tv after speaking out.Suggest anyone on Twitter follows Maajid Nawaz  to get a clearer picture of what's going on.

[David Guiza]

8 minutes ago, everton carr said:

You do know it's career suicide to go against the narrative?Dr Anne McCloskey got Suspended Dr Sam Bailey lost her tv job in NZ 72k NY medical staff were dismissed for refusing the jab you get the pucture.Peter Ebdon spoke out lost job on the BBC actor Matthew Marsden spoke out lost  tv acting work Leiani Dowding spoke out lost job on Loose Woman and how often are LeTissier and Pat Cash on tv after speaking out.Suggest anyone on Twitter follows Maajid Nawaz  to get a clearer picture of what's going on.

You could also argue the opposite - plenty have made a career from going against the grain, both on this and beyond.  

 

I don't know a great deal about the intricate details of most of those that you site but I have a decent understanding of what happened with Le Tissier. From memory, he'd lost his main source of work before he opened his mouth/opened the Twitter app as a result of Sky getting rid of some of the old guard. Were he an asset to sports broadcasting who had been sacked after citing peer assessed reports and making reasoned arguments then I think that's a fair and just cause to say he's been hard done by. However, what he's actually done is cite Magna Carta like some sort of drunken town preacher.

 

I will always be an advocate of free speech, but that is not freedom from criticism and it's also not freedom from reproach in all environments. If an employer, on either side of the debate, feels that a particular person's comments do not fit their narrative then they are within their right to take action, within certain remits of course. 

 

As a sidenote, If it turns out that scientists were wrong and the likes of Ebdon, Le Tissier, and Anthea 'the body' Turner were right then I will be taking a long walk into the sea as that is not a world I want to live in . 

[Phube]

2 hours ago, everton carr said:

You do know it's career suicide to go against the narrative?Dr Anne McCloskey got Suspended Dr Sam Bailey lost her tv job in NZ 72k NY medical staff were dismissed for refusing the jab you get the pucture.Peter Ebdon spoke out lost job on the BBC actor Matthew Marsden spoke out lost  tv acting work Leiani Dowding spoke out lost job on Loose Woman and how often are LeTissier and Pat Cash on tv after speaking out.Suggest anyone on Twitter follows Maajid Nawaz  to get a clearer picture of what's going on.

 

[PhillippaT]

On 02/10/2021 at 14:47, Ecdysiast said:

But its not about personal choice though is it? It's about doing what's right for the communal good of the whole population. 

This just means that you must accept the consequences of not being vaccinated if you so choose.  If that means you lose your job, then so be it.

[Father Ted]

On 06/10/2021 at 08:51, Spudulike said:

He's had covid twice and most likely passed that on to others. What a total, thick, selfish twat... 

 

Callum Robinson says he is not vaccinated despite having had Covid-19 twice - https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/58810741

 

I'd drop him and that goes for any City players with this viewpoint. 

You do realise you can catch covid if you’ve had the jab? Now, who’s a thick twat?