First thought, the way the outbreak in India was presented had the "look and feel" that it was going to be used to push vaccination. They were going for the (perceived) guilt angle. I would say that it is playing out that way now.
Yet we also have articles like this, squarely looking to pin any blame for 21/6 being delayed on those 'selfish idiots' who don't want a vaccine.
SARAH VINE: When it comes to the coronavirus vaccine, it's funny how many otherwise intelligent people I know have become borderline deranged about it.
www.dailymail.co.uk
I am not the selfish one. I am young and have very little risk of serious illness from covid. I have been forced to sacrifice the last year of my life to protect the vulnerable who are now essentially fully protected via vaccination. It is those who want to control everyone else's lives who are selfish.
Anyway....Matt Hancock press conference at 5pm...
Ah, Mrs Michael Gove helping to prepare the ground for her husband's 'vaccine passport' idea.
Someone has obviously realised they haven't whipped up enough fear and hatred of the unvaccinated yet to justify introducing 'passports', so we're seeing this exciting period of co-ordinated government and media propaganda, which they hope will lead to a general demand from those vaccinated for a system that discriminates against having to mix with the unvaccinated - and, as if by magic, they have something almost ready that will do exactly that! What a coincidence
I’ve got to say, I’m finding it difficult to dismiss your theory!
It is indeed a credible theory - and she cites Andrew Lloyd-Webber, who is talking outside of his area of expertise (putting on shows, which to be fair he is good at). In fact the article almost reads like a rant. That in itself shows that deep down, she knows she is short of good reasons.
She also downplays those who have concerns; I would agree that some of them are exaggerated but many of them do have a point. There is also the principle that people, at least in the UK, generally do not take medication to benefit others. That is the main issue, it is like a line in the sand - physically easy to cross but causes so many problems.
She also downplays the risk of the vaccine - for starters no pharmacological treatment is 100% safe, there have been some reports of side effects...
I don't think it inserts a chip or changes my DNA.
However, I am aware that this type of vaccine (mRNA) has never been licensed for human use before.
The vaccines have no long term test data, because there hasn't been a 'long term' - this part of the testing process simply cannot be accelerated, which is why all the vaccines are still within the stage 3 trial phase, and have only been given temporary authorisation for emergency use (is it still an 'emergency'?)
As a fit and healthy bloke in my 40s, tell me why am I being stupid or irresponsible for declining this jab, compared to taking my chances against a rapidly dwindling virus which I have a 99.999+% chance of surviving?
You are not selfish - and decline is the correct word. The word refuse is loaded with emotional baggage that decline does not have. Also, it is not too hard to modify something with RNA such that it splices into DNA; all you need is
reverse transcriptase (it's a class of enzymes) which the current RNA vaccines don't have (ironically, wild-type coronaviruses do).
Because you are getting the vaccine to protect others, innit.
Not my view of course but the standard stock reply that is seen on social media for your type of question.
Perhaps that is the issue - they think that the public somehow cannot be trusted, but they can. Their patronising approach only serves to antagonise some people.
Eh
Quite. Look at the sticker they give you to wear when you get the jab (mine went straight in the bin) and the Facebook frames you are encouraged to put on your profile.
I am also very tempted to block any friend who posts their vaccination card on social media. Though I realised if I do, I won't have many left
Ah, the virtue signalling crowd. Sometimes I just want to vomit... or laugh... or both.
The thing to remember as well is that the vulnerable were offered it first and it makes sense (in my opinion) for them to take it. The majority took it willingly as on balance it benefitted them. I’m not clear though as to how I will benefit from taking it when offered; that’s not to say I’ll refuse but to be honest I’d rather not take it unless there is a clear benefit to somebody (be it me or the more vulnerable). I get the impression that the ‘zero covid’ dream (or nightmare) lives on, and that’s where this is leading.
"Protecting others" sounds good, but I think it is a line that the public should not be asked to cross when it comes to pharmacological treatment. Face coverings were sailing close to the wind, the current mandatory testing (for the UK government) is probably a breach of the enabling act used (IMO the Government was too lazy to find another one) due to the intrusive nature of the sampling. However, putting something
into people's bodies for the benefit of others is a completely different matter and in the case of the general public, it is a line that should not be crossed.
