Jump to content
  • Sign up for free and receive a month's subscription

    You are viewing this page as a guest. That means you are either a member who has not logged in, or you have not yet registered with us. Signing up for an account only takes a minute and it means you will no longer see this annoying box! It will also allow you to get involved with our friendly(ish!) community and take part in the discussions on our forums. And because we're feeling generous, if you sign up for a free account we will give you a month's free trial access to our subscriber only content with no obligation to commit. Register an account and then send a private message to @dave u and he'll hook you up with a subscription.

Coronavirus


Bjornebye

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

The experts: yeah, what Strontium Dog said two months ago

Aren't some countries and their experts advocating and proceeding with the vaccination of 12 to 15 year olds? 

 

I mean, if you want to pat yourself on the back for thinking in line with the UK experts on Covid, don't let us stop you. Because their record up to this point has been impeccable, hasn't it... 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Strontium Dog™ said:

 

The experts: yeah, what Strontium Dog said two months ago

Definitely not shy of coming forward with your victories, but very shy of coming forward with defeats. 

 

Must be a politician. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, 3 Stacks said:

The question of vaccinating children and teens was always far more arguable either way. Has nothing to do with pro vax or anti vax. 

The JCVI made it clear that they were only looking at clinically, so not taking into account how 12-15 might cause more deaths by spreading it more widely, and the further pressure on the NHS to deal with that, etc.  So Stronts isn't even being proven right, the JCVI are just one group inputting into this decision, and on a clinical balance they see harm v benefits not being clear enough to make that call. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Colonel Bumcunt said:

The JCVI made it clear that they were only looking at clinically, so not taking into account how 12-15 might cause more deaths by spreading it more widely, and the further pressure on the NHS to deal with that, etc.  So Stronts isn't even being proven right, the JCVI are just one group inputting into this decision, and on a clinical balance they see harm v benefits not being clear enough to make that call. 

After the jcvi say clinically we shouldn't vax kids, it doesn't matter what the government wants or things. The majority of parents wouldn't choose to vax their kids after the jcvi advice. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

Any child who’s had scarlet fever, measles, mumps, rubella, smallpox, PPV and tetanus should absolutely be able to refuse the vaccine. 

Harsh on Anthony Joshua, that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Champ said:

My mind just explodes with questions about how many venoms they had access to, what else did they investigate besides from venoms but then maybe they already have masses of data about the composition of masses of different compounds…

 

Does everyone else’s mind work like this?

Yeah, pretty much.

32C83BD7-3C89-4461-9DB6-B4049E034640.gif

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...