The Light Was Yellow Sir
Well-Known Member
Take on this doing the rounds today?
Sumpton reminds me of that drunk guy from ‘off of’ the Fast Show:
He’s not wrong though.
Take on this doing the rounds today?
Sumpton reminds me of that drunk guy from ‘off of’ the Fast Show:
Just realised who she is (she did that 100 vaginas documentary).He’s not wrong though.
I don't see anyone on here being "anti vax", what i see are people with wanting to be convinced of its safety before having it. Big difference imo,Many of the anti vax crew will soon change their mind when they realise it will be a requirement for many things like travelling abroad or getting back to a city game.
I don't see anyone on here being "anti vax", what i see are people with wanting to be convinced of its safety before having it. Big difference imo,
I don't see anyone on here being "anti vax", what i see are people with wanting to be convinced of its safety before having it. Big difference imo,
Saw one or two on Facebook saying this. The very definition of idiocy.I don't see anyone on here being "anti vax", what i see are people with wanting to be convinced of its safety before having it. Big difference imo,
hardly re-assuring that we don't know how effective it is because people aren't catching it. So we have no idea how useful it actually is...This has been the main hold up for the vaccine in the past few weeks, not enough people have been getting infected from the trial groups.
Pfizer are the first to unseal their blinds because they had set one of the lowest limits for # of infections in the trial group.
Infections were so low that at one point the scientific community were debating Challenge trials, where everyone in the trial is exposed to the virus deliberately, and the ethics of it.
hardly re-assuring that we don't know how effective it is because people aren't catching it. So we have no idea how useful it actually is...
Im sure people have their own ways of convincing themselves that something is safe.Other than scientists saying it's tested and safe and giving it a license, how else can anyone be convinced it's safe.
Well the biggest reason why people in the triall wouldn't be getting COVID is if 50% of the trial is completely immunised from the vaccine...
This has been the main hold up for the vaccine in the past few weeks, not enough people have been getting infected from the trial groups.
Pfizer are the first to unseal their blinds because they had set one of the lowest limits for # of infections in the trial group.
Infections were so low that at one point the scientific community were debating Challenge trials, where everyone in the trial is exposed to the virus deliberately, and the ethics of it.
Terminology. For me an antivaxer would be someone who flatly refuses a vaccine, irrespective of its proven safetyAnti vax people being those who believe without evidence that vaccines are harmful; people on here are saying they won't take it because they don't believe it will be safe.
What exactly is the difference?
Why is it idiocy, serious question.Saw one or two on Facebook saying this. The very definition of idiocy.
prove it then, at the moment it's supposition.
It isn't blindly accepting is it. It's trusting those qualified that license it over those with no qualifications whatsoever.so anyone who doesn't blindly accept it's safe and effective without evidence of it being so is anti-vax? Lol. It's called being real.
No, it's not. It's evidence backed research. Over 90% immunity from the vaccine.
Just because no one has sat you down and explained the research doesn't mean it's supposition.
hardly re-assuring that we don't know how effective it is because people aren't catching it. So we have no idea how useful it actually is...