Lockdown effects now killing/harming more people than Covid

[Eyersey468]

I agree @MikeWM. My concern is too many people have a vested interest in the vaccines being 100% safe. For the drug companies there is the financial and future funding/poduction which could be damaged, for those who staked their reputations on delivering a safe and effective vaccine they stand to lose their standing and probably the most damaging is those of the general population who both believe in the vaccine , believe without it they will die and those who took it as they believed it was the way to achieve "freedom" (The vaccine passport). Many do not like admitting they may have been fooled. There is more to be gained (in the opinion of many) to ensure the vaccines are deemed safe and effective, rather than admitting there are issues.

The standard rules for withdrawing drugs due to side effects seem to have been ignored which is a dangerous precedent.

The whole covid narrative has been built on silencing any opposition, I sadly think the vaccine is no different.

I agree with this

 

[Razorblades]

I agree @MikeWM. My concern is too many people have a vested interest in the vaccines being 100% safe. For the drug companies there is the financial and future funding/poduction which could be damaged, for those who staked their reputations on delivering a safe and effective vaccine they stand to lose their standing and probably the most damaging is those of the general population who both believe in the vaccine , believe without it they will die and those who took it as they believed it was the way to achieve "freedom" (The vaccine passport). Many do not like admitting they may have been fooled. There is more to be gained (in the opinion of many) to ensure the vaccines are deemed safe and effective, rather than admitting there are issues.

The standard rules for withdrawing drugs due to side effects seem to have been ignored which is a dangerous precedent.

The whole covid narrative has been built on silencing any opposition, I sadly think the vaccine is no different.

In a nutshell, that's it.

 

[kez19]

I agree @MikeWM. My concern is too many people have a vested interest in the vaccines being 100% safe. For the drug companies there is the financial and future funding/poduction which could be damaged, for those who staked their reputations on delivering a safe and effective vaccine they stand to lose their standing and probably the most damaging is those of the general population who both believe in the vaccine , believe without it they will die and those who took it as they believed it was the way to achieve "freedom" (The vaccine passport). Many do not like admitting they may have been fooled. There is more to be gained (in the opinion of many) to ensure the vaccines are deemed safe and effective, rather than admitting there are issues.

The standard rules for withdrawing drugs due to side effects seem to have been ignored which is a dangerous precedent.

The whole covid narrative has been built on silencing any opposition, I sadly think the vaccine is no different.

In terms of the covid narrative and nothing from opposition (in the media), I agree with this too but then I blame the media on this part for creating the division of being anti something to be branded right wing this needs nipped in the bud, comes across as the media are judge and jury.

 

[Hans]

In terms of the covid narrative and nothing from opposition (in the media), I agree with this too but then I blame the media on this part for creating the division of being anti something to be branded right wing this needs nipped in the bud, comes across as the media are judge and jury.

The use of right wing is the standard "acceptable"criticism of any kind of opposition to the perceived correct narrative on many issues, not just covid.

The media are only partially to blame, they were being paid by the government to offset their advertising losses (the government became their advertisers and paid for the pleasure) so they were unlikely to take the money and not publish the narrative as required, however I 100% agree they were the main antagonists early 2020 by driving the narrative as to covid being a deadly virus. From March 2020 onwards we were in echo chamber territory, the media and social media fed off the population who in turn fed of the media. Add into that mix the government TV broadcasts and it was a perfect storm of fear and hysteria. The icing on the cake, so to speak, was the acceptable censorship of any opposition to the narrative.

It has now become acceptable for many people to decide what is the correct way of thinking and what opinions people must have - the covid narrative just accelerated the process.

 

[greyman42]

Add into that mix the government TV broadcasts and it was a perfect storm of fear and hysteria. The icing on the cake, so to speak, was the acceptable censorship of any opposition to the narrative.

Very true and i hope that such censorship is never seen as acceptable again. People who accepted this censorship should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Eyersey468]

Very true and i hope that such censorship is never seen as acceptable again. People who accepted this censorship should be ashamed of themselves.

I agree

 

[Hans]

Very true and i hope that such censorship is never seen as acceptable again. People who accepted this censorship should be ashamed of themselves.

I think censorship is almost acceptable to many people now, the offended and being offended brigade, the misinformation brigade and the lack of critical thinking brigade means censorship continues on a daily basis. There is the online harms bill to consider too.

Opposition to many issues may not be acceptable to those who do not agree with it but without critical thinking what is there left?

 

[Fragezeichnen]

I agree @MikeWM. My concern is too many people have a vested interest in the vaccines being 100% safe. For the drug companies there is the financial and future funding/production which could be damaged, for those who staked their reputations on delivering a safe and effective vaccine they stand to lose their standing and probably the most damaging is those of the general population who believe in the vaccine , believe without it they will die and those who took it as they believed it was the way to achieve "freedom" (The vaccine passport). Many do not like admitting they may have been fooled. There is more to be gained (in the opinion of many) to ensure the vaccines are deemed safe and effective, rather than admitting there are issues.

The standard rules for withdrawing drugs due to side effects seem to have been ignored which is a dangerous precedent.

The whole covid narrative has been built on silencing any opposition, I sadly think the vaccine is no different.

All drug companies always have a vested interest in their drugs being seen as safe and stand to lose financially if they have to be taken off the market. Nothing unusual there.

No drug in history has ever had as much scrutiny surrounding it's introduction as the Covid vaccines. No drug in history has, for whatever reason, more sceptics desperate to find the secret dark side that justifies refusing to take it. If there was a scandal of hidden mass vaccine related deaths to be revealed, it would have been, but there is none.

I don't understand what you mean about ignoring rules. If anything, any issues have been handled far more swiftly and cautiously than any other drug. In Germany, because of a miniuscule chance of blood clots all people under 60 were permanently banned from taking the A-Z vaccine.

 

[MikeWM]

No drug in history has ever had as much scrutiny surrounding it's introduction as the Covid vaccines.

No drug has had as much *coverage*, that is true. But wide-eyed adulation and fawning coverage of how wonderful things are, and how everyone thinks how great it is, and how those that refuse to blindly agree with this narrative are wrong and dangerous, is not remotely the same thing as scrutiny, and actually there has been precious little of the latter.

No drug in history has, for whatever reason, more sceptics desperate to find the secret dark side that justifies refusing to take it.

I suspect you'll find a direct correlation between that fact and the fact that no drug in history have people been more pressured to take, by a very large margin. People have lost their jobs, their place in society, their ability to travel, over this.

If there was a scandal of hidden mass vaccine related deaths to be revealed, it would have been, but there is none.

Assume fo a moment that this is indeed happening (note I'm not claiming that it is, as quite simply we don't know). Who exactly do you think is going to reveal it?

- The Pharma companies, who will lose billions?
- The Government, who did pretty much everything they could think of to coerce us to take it?
- The print media, who took vast amounts of money from the government to keep them afloat for the last 2.5 years, and printed endless articles less than 12 months ago claiming they were 'safe and effective' and lining up endless columnists demonising those of us that took a more wary view and saying we should be excluded from society for making that choice?
- The TV media, who can't go against Ofcom rules that ban them from discussing anything against the official government line or risk losing their broadcasting licence? The one show on TV that does try to widen the debate on such issues and actually ask questions - Mark Steyn on GB News - is under continual Ofcom investigation for doing so, and I suspect won't be allowed to continue for much longer.
- Social media, when you'll be instantly and permanent banned for raising any issues contrary to the official narrative?

So it wouldn't happen, because as @Hans says, they all have strong vested interests in not doing so. There are places where these things are discussed and probing questions considered - there are a lot of good Substack authors for example - but you have to seek them out.

 

[Hans]

All drug companies always have a vested interest in their drugs being seen as safe and stand to lose financially if they have to be taken off the market. Nothing unusual there.

No drug in history has ever had as much scrutiny surrounding it's introduction as the Covid vaccines. No drug in history has, for whatever reason, more sceptics desperate to find the secret dark side that justifies refusing to take it. If there was a scandal of hidden mass vaccine related deaths to be revealed, it would have been, but there is none.

I don't understand what you mean about ignoring rules. If anything, any issues have been handled far more swiftly and cautiously than any other drug. In Germany, because of a miniuscule chance of blood clots all people under 60 were permanently banned from taking the A-Z vaccine.

The vaccine is still currently undergoing trials, it is only being allowed for emergency use. Full trials do not finish until June 2023, iirc. The vaccine was not tested on under 18's or on pregnant women. The drug companies have no liability for any issues caused. I find this quite disconcerting. How many people have taken these vaccines have been advised of the possible side effects, or really understand informed consent? Care home and NHS staff were most certainly not allowed informed consent.

The efficacy of the vaccines versus the possible side effects is, to me, a debate which has not happened other than by a minority.I would not wish ill on anyone who has taken these vaccines, and I certainly do not wish to restrict people taking them if they wish to, however there must be open, honest and frank debates as to the side effects, the safety, the efficacy and the increase in excess death rates.

If there was a similar scenario with people being told the full honest facts they had a less than 1% chance of a virus killing them but we want you to take a not fully tested or approved drug, multiple times. It will not infer immunity but only slightly reduce symptoms, I wonder how many would choose to do so?

 

[yorkie]

The vaccine is still currently undergoing trials, it is only being allowed for emergency use. Full trials do not finish until June 2023, iirc. The vaccine was not tested on under 18's or on pregnant women. The drug companies have no liability for any issues caused. I find this quite disconcerting. How many people have taken these vaccines have been advised of the possible side effects, or really understand informed consent? Care home and NHS staff were most certainly not allowed informed consent.

The efficacy of the vaccines versus the possible side effects is, to me, a debate which has not happened other than by a minority.I would not wish ill on anyone who has taken these vaccines, and I certainly do not wish to restrict people taking them if they wish to, however there must be open, honest and frank debates as to the side effects, the safety, the efficacy and the increase in excess death rates.

If there was a similar scenario with people being told the full honest facts they had a less than 1% chance of a virus killing them but we want you to take a not fully tested or approved drug, multiple times. It will not infer immunity but only slightly reduce symptoms, I wonder how many would choose to do so?

Are you suggesting that we would have seen fewer deaths and hospitalisation if vaccines had not been administered?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2022 ==

- The Government, who did pretty much everything they could think of to coerce us to take it?

In reality, most people willingly took it though.

- The print media, who took vast amounts of money from the government to keep them afloat for the last 2.5 years....

Do you have any further information about this? How much money did they take?

- Social media, when you'll be instantly and permanent banned for raising any issues contrary to the official narrative?

There are no unbanned accounts on social media which have questioned the official narrative?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Sep 2022 ==

The standard rules for withdrawing drugs due to side effects seem to have been ignored which is a dangerous precedent.

Do you have further information on which rules were broken, when, and how?

The whole covid narrative has been built on silencing any opposition, I sadly think the vaccine is no different.

I completely agree with this part, but I don't understand how vaccines are seen to be the enemy here.

 

[Eyersey468]

@yorkie the way i interpreted it was that it seems like anybody that has concerns about the vaccines is labelled an anti vaxxer. While I think the vaccines have done a good job at protecting the vulnerable I do think there needs to be a proper discussion about any problems the vaccine may be causing, for example reports of women's menstrual cycles being affected, its the way the authorities are so quick to write off concerns without properly investigating that is the concerning thing to some people, myself included.

 

[yorkie]

@yorkie the way i interpreted it was that it seems like anybody that has concerns about the vaccines is labelled an anti vaxxer. While I think the vaccines have done a good job at protecting the vulnerable I do think there needs to be a proper discussion about any problems the vaccine may be causing, for example reports of women's menstrual cycles being affected, its the way the authorities are so quick to write off concerns without properly investigating that is the concerning thing to some people, myself included.

The way I see it is that there are people who are incredibly desperate to discredit vaccines and use all sorts of spurious arguments to further their agenda.

However on the other side of the coin there is a really dodgy movement of people (some of whom are in high up places) trying to promote all sorts of extreme measures (such as attempting to mandate vaccines or make life very difficult for those who choose not to be vaccinated; I won't go into the other topics!) which of course really winds people up, and understandably so.

The vast majority of people are somewhere between these extremes; I believe most people understand that vaccines were important for minimising the effects of Sars-CoV-2, but we also appreciate the importance of natural immunity and also accept that constant boosting is not sensible or viable, and also that the benefits of vaccinating younger people is far reduced compared to the benefits of vaccinating older people. Of course vaccines are not without risk but everyone is going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2 so the question was whether or not to expose yourself to the spike protein in the form of a vaccination before encountering the live virus or simply to do battle with the live virus without prior adaptive immunity to it.

Both extremes are dangerous and deluded, in my opinion.

 

[MikeWM]

The vaccine is still currently undergoing trials, it is only being allowed for emergency use. Full trials do not finish until June 2023, iirc.

I believe it is worse than that even - both the Pfizer and Moderna phase III trials were unblinded last year and those in the placebo group offered the vaccine (for the supposed reason that it would have been 'immoral' not to have done so when there was a pandemic going on). So I don't think the phase III trials will ever report, at least not in the way intended.

--

In reality, most people willingly took it though.

I think that depends on your definition of 'willing'. A lot of people I know took it because they wanted/needed it to travel rather than any perceived medical need. Indeed, even now those of us who chose not to be vaccinated can't travel to the USA or Canada, for example.

Do you have any further information about this? How much money did they take?

It has been discussed on here a few times over the last couple of years. Government became the biggest advertiser by far in the print media after March 2020, and given they rely on advertising, they therefore were reliant on the government for survival. See for example:

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-papers-darent-bite-the-whitehall-hand-that-feeds-them/

Until 2020 the Government was not a major advertiser in newspapers. According to Newsworks, the marketing body for national newspapers, between February 1, 2019 and 31 January 31, 2020 the Government was 30th on the list of UK’s spenders on newspaper advertising, shelling out £6.23million over that one-year period (approximately 13 per cent of HM Government’s advertising budget), a figure dwarfed by Amazon and Sky, which spent five times as much.

All that changed during the pandemic, when the Government became the nation’s largest advertiser across all media. Between March 23 and June 30, 2020, Public Health England’s advertising spend increased by 5,000 per cent (year-on-year), reaching £44million in that three-month period.

Though less than a quarter of the Government’s total outlay for Covid-19 information and communication, the spending has proved significant enough for the newspaper industry to hail this continued Covid advice blitz as vital for its revival in 2021.

There is also this campaign, for example
https://www.societyofeditors.org/so...h-newspaper-industry-on-covid-19-ad-campaign/

The government and the newspaper industry have formed a three-month advertising partnership to help keep the public safe and the nation united throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.

The “All in, all together” campaign idea was developed by the newspaper industry and supported by the Society of Editors as a way of delivering government communications in an intimate, human and compassionate tone that readers can relate to.

but despite being for '3 months' it still appears to have been in effect as late as March 2022, as can be seen here by the most recent articles:

https://www.newsworks.org.uk/all-in-all-together/page/14/

and note some of the stories there, 'Covid jab converts' from February 2022 being my 'favourite' in that it nicely illustrates my point about coercion.

There are no unbanned accounts on social media which have questioned the official narrative?

There are some, of course, because more and more people have started to do so and they fill in the gaps where people have been banned. But anyone doing so knows they are walking a difficult tightrope where they may be banned at the drop of a hat, and for those who rely on having their social media accounts, that is obviously difficult.

And there is the occasional journalist such as Alex Berenson, who Twitter banned for 'covid misinformation' due to pressure from the White House, sued, won, and was re-instated - but most don't have his resources.

 

[Eyersey468]

The way I see it is that there are people who are incredibly desperate to discredit vaccines and use all sorts of spurious arguments to further their agenda.

However on the other side of the coin there is a really dodgy movement of people (some of whom are in high up places) trying to promote all sorts of extreme measures (such as attempting to mandate vaccines or make life very difficult for those who choose not to be vaccinated; I won't go into the other topics!) which of course really winds people up, and understandably so.

The vast majority of people are somewhere between these extremes; I believe most people understand that vaccines were important for minimising the effects of Sars-CoV-2, but we also appreciate the importance of natural immunity and also accept that constant boosting is not sensible or viable, and also that the benefits of vaccinating younger people is far reduced compared to the benefits of vaccinating older people. Of course vaccines are not without risk but everyone is going to be exposed to Sars-CoV-2 so the question was whether or not to expose yourself to the spike protein in the form of a vaccination before encountering the live virus or simply to do battle with the live virus without prior adaptive immunity to it.

Both extremes are dangerous and deluded, in my opinion.

I agree with you, there is a lot of rubbish said about the vaccines by people who are either desperate to discredit them or desperate to mandate them.

 

[MikeWM]

I agree with you, there is a lot of rubbish said about the vaccines by people who are either desperate to discredit them or desperate to mandate them.

Indeed there is, there are always extremists on both sides - but the existence of such extremists shouldn't stop us from asking reasonable questions in an attempt to avoid the risk of some people lumping us in with them.

To me the key difference is that those desperate to discredit the covid vaccines are basically powerless over me. They can't get me fired from my job, exclude me from normal parts of society, ban me from travelling, censor me or ban me from social media, etc. etc. unless I comply with their beliefs and instructions. Whereas the people on the other extreme can do all those things if I refuse to do what they tell me to do, and indeed have done exactly that around the world over the past couple of years.

 

[DustyBin]

Indeed there is, there are always extremists on both sides - but the existence of such extremists shouldn't stop us from asking reasonable questions in an attempt to avoid the risk of some people lumping us in with them.

To me the key difference is that those desperate to discredit the covid vaccines are basically powerless over me. They can't get me fired from my job, exclude me from normal parts of society, ban me from travelling, censor me or ban me from social media, etc. etc. unless I comply with their beliefs and instructions. Whereas the people on the other extreme can do all those things if I refuse to do what they tell me to do, and indeed have done exactly that around the world over the past couple of years.

That's a very good point.

There is a lot to discuss in regard to the vaccines but it seems to be "off limits" for some people (that's not aimed at anybody in this conversation incidentally). For example:

• Why were we told the vaccines offered protection against infection? Did they lie or did they simply not know? Either way it raises questions. (The same applies to the claim that it prevented transmission).
• Why was the existence of natural (or infection acquired) immunity basically denied?
• How many young healthy people were saved from death or debilitating illness by the vaccines, versus those suffering long term side effects?
• What is the rationale behind vaccinating children?
• Why are vaccines being administered under emergency approval, when there's no emergency?
• When will the full, unredacted trial data be released?

The above isn't intended to be an exhaustive list of questions that one could quite reasonably ask, these are just a few examples. (And if any of these questions have been answered honestly and in full, and I've simply missed it, then fair enough).

 

[Eyersey468]

Indeed there is, there are always extremists on both sides - but the existence of such extremists shouldn't stop us from asking reasonable questions in an attempt to avoid the risk of some people lumping us in with them.

To me the key difference is that those desperate to discredit the covid vaccines are basically powerless over me. They can't get me fired from my job, exclude me from normal parts of society, ban me from travelling, censor me or ban me from social media, etc. etc. unless I comply with their beliefs and instructions. Whereas the people on the other extreme can do all those things if I refuse to do what they tell me to do, and indeed have done exactly that around the world over the past couple of years.

I agree it shouldn't stop people asking reasonable questions.

 

[MikeWM]

Ah, Devi is on the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ery-of-thousands-of-excess-deaths-this-summer

What’s behind the mystery of thousands of excess deaths this summer?​

Over the past couple of months, deaths in England and Wales have been higher than would be expected for a typical summer. In July and August, there were several weeks with deaths 10% to 13% above the five-year average, meaning that in England about 900 extra people a week were dying compared with the past few years.
...

To summarise her answer to this question, there are three reasons:

- The NHS needs more investment (of course)
- Climate change (!)
- Lots of people still dying from Covid (!) ('especially those who are unvaccinated' - I note there is no evidence provided for this claim)

But of course very much not lockdown

The excess mortality puzzle has been weaponised by some to argue that this is a delayed consequence of lockdown.

And of course, if only we'd locked down earlier and/or harder, this wouldn't have been so much of a problem.

Given the UK government’s delay in responding to Covid-19 and implementing measures to suppress it in the first and second waves, the NHS struggled to provide high-quality care to all those who arrived in hospital. Countries that managed to avoid large numbers of Covid-19 patients in the pre-vaccine era through smart suppression based on testing and isolation, such as New Zealand and South Korea, managed to keep their health services running for a wider range of conditions.

Yes, I should have better things to do than read such nonsense. But it still matters, because when 'influential' people are still arguing that the effects of lockdown are irrelevant and we should have done them earlier or harder, it is clear they will be arguing the same things the next time something possibly nasty-looking comes along.

 

[Eyersey468]

Yes, I should have better things to do than read such nonsense. But it still matters, because when 'influential' people are still arguing that the effects of lockdown are irrelevant and we should have done them earlier or harder, it is clear they will be arguing the same things the next time something possibly nasty-looking comes along.

Exactly, it has always been my concern that the precedent has been set and every time something threatening comes along there will be calls for lockdowns and to hell with the consequences of them. And I bet the likes of her are insulated from the consequences of lockdowns as well, I wonder if she would be so keen if she was told OK we will lockdown but you will lose a large amount of your income to help pay for it.

 

[DustyBin]

Ah, Devi is on the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ery-of-thousands-of-excess-deaths-this-summer


To summarise her answer to this question, there are three reasons:

- The NHS needs more investment (of course)
- Climate change (!)
- Lots of people still dying from Covid (!) ('especially those who are unvaccinated' - I note there is no evidence provided for this claim)

But of course very much not lockdown



And of course, if only we'd locked down earlier and/or harder, this wouldn't have been so much of a problem.




Yes, I should have better things to do than read such nonsense. But it still matters, because when 'influential' people are still arguing that the effects of lockdown are irrelevant and we should have done them earlier or harder, it is clear they will be arguing the same things the next time something possibly nasty-looking comes along.

Unbelievable (well it isn't really, she's a complete nutter).

 

[Cdd89]

And of course, if only we'd locked down earlier and/or harder, this wouldn't have been so much of a problem.

Without wanting to make this political…, this is my primary concern/‘risk’ with Labour being in power (a party I’d otherwise consider voting for!).

I feel they have thoroughly accepted the above line, and if something bad comes along while they’re in charge, “lock down hard and early” will be the response.

 

[MikeWM]

Without wanting to make this political…, this is my primary concern/‘risk’ with Labour being in power (a party I’d otherwise consider voting for!).

I feel they have thoroughly accepted the above line, and if something bad comes along while they’re in charge, “lock down hard and early” will be the response.

Yes, I feel very similar.

 

[takno]

Without wanting to make this political…, this is my primary concern/‘risk’ with Labour being in power (a party I’d otherwise consider voting for!).

I feel they have thoroughly accepted the above line, and if something bad comes along while they’re in charge, “lock down hard and early” will be the response.

I don't think there's a lot of difference between the parties tbh, but I absolutely understand the concern. Hopefully they'll get their heads around the economic damage that's been caused to their supporters sooner or later

 

[kez19]

Ah, Devi is on the case.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...ery-of-thousands-of-excess-deaths-this-summer


To summarise her answer to this question, there are three reasons:

- The NHS needs more investment (of course)
- Climate change (!)
- Lots of people still dying from Covid (!) ('especially those who are unvaccinated' - I note there is no evidence provided for this claim)

But of course very much not lockdown



And of course, if only we'd locked down earlier and/or harder, this wouldn't have been so much of a problem.




Yes, I should have better things to do than read such nonsense. But it still matters, because when 'influential' people are still arguing that the effects of lockdown are irrelevant and we should have done them earlier or harder, it is clear they will be arguing the same things the next time something possibly nasty-looking comes along.

I’m confused but once again she deflects all UKs fault, Devi answer the question and answer in terms of Scotland? (not you), but it clear she won’t say anything against the Scottish Government and the First Minister Nicola Sturgeon (I would have said Sturgeon really), shouldn’t she be pulled up on her bias claim? (I’ll bet if she has posted this on Twitter she’ll be hauled over it again)

I see she praised New Zealand, wait wasn’t that another one of those countries that media give approval too to then later bite them on the ass? (then the media go silent on it on cases?), oh dear me!

 

[greyman42]

The fact that it is Sridhar and The Guardian points to the pro lockdown attitude of the left.

 

[kez19]

The fact that it is Sridhar and The Guardian points to the pro lockdown attitude of the left.

At least on her Twitter once again most people are actually questioning her but it’s good though I’ll expect the BBC Sky etc be frothing over this.

I’m surprised she has came out her box, I’m sure she has a ton of books to sell! (am I being sarcastic or not? lol)

Just to add I’m surprised even on her Twitter that people are blinkered, are happy for her to say all this against the UK Government but yet she advised Scotland and Sturgeon? So it’s ok to criticise one but not the other? Come on now it’s obvious she is being political with it, will she write up a piece to say how Scotland done? Of course not, or if she does it’ll be with rose tinted!

 

[takno]

The fact that it is Sridhar and The Guardian points to the pro lockdown attitude of the left.

"The left" isn't a club which agrees all of its positions in the way you imply. The Guardian holds an increasingly odd line which appears to be mostly directed at their American readers, and can't really be described in UK left-right terms at all, and I've never seen any evidence that Sridhar is left wing at all

 

[yorksrob]

The vaccine is still currently undergoing trials, it is only being allowed for emergency use. Full trials do not finish until June 2023, iirc. The vaccine was not tested on under 18's or on pregnant women. The drug companies have no liability for any issues caused. I find this quite disconcerting. How many people have taken these vaccines have been advised of the possible side effects, or really understand informed consent? Care home and NHS staff were most certainly not allowed informed consent.

The efficacy of the vaccines versus the possible side effects is, to me, a debate which has not happened other than by a minority.I would not wish ill on anyone who has taken these vaccines, and I certainly do not wish to restrict people taking them if they wish to, however there must be open, honest and frank debates as to the side effects, the safety, the efficacy and the increase in excess death rates.

If there was a similar scenario with people being told the full honest facts they had a less than 1% chance of a virus killing them but we want you to take a not fully tested or approved drug, multiple times. It will not infer immunity but only slightly reduce symptoms, I wonder how many would choose to do so?

When I took the vaccine, I was given a leaflet with a list of potential side effects, as well as instructions on what to do in the event of them persisting. It's a risk with all medicine, and I think the authorities were fairly open about it.

 

[bramling]

When I took the vaccine, I was given a leaflet with a list of potential side effects, as well as instructions on what to do in the event of them persisting. It's a risk with all medicine, and I think the authorities were fairly open about it.

I’d say the issue is more the extent to which younger people were pressurised to take it, relative to the level of risk to them from Covid if they didn’t.