If you didn't get the jab, would you consider having it now?

[AreYouVeryAnti]

You'd better be quick if you're healthy and under 50...

"The Telegraph understands the Government is also preparing to wind down the open offer of the first two doses over the coming months. The move will mean unvaccinated healthy under-50s will soon not be able to get a Covid jab unless one is recommended by a medical professional."

I agree that it was disgusting the way the elderly and vunlnerable were treated, mainly by the Government releasing Covid positive patients into care homes. I didn't really hear anybody saying that their lives were expendable though? It more seemed to be an argument used to silence anyone daring to raise the fact that lockdowns might have negative consequences for other vulnerable groups. It also doesn't make it acceptable to bully other people for medical choices they have made. After all, two wrongs don't make a right.

Were you on the MN Covid board throughout 2020-2022 particularly?

@nojudgementhere
i've also never heard anyone express the view that elderly lives were expendable. that's just unthinkable. that narrative was pushed hard - i.e. kill your granny - but i saw no evidence of that sentiment in real life. i did however see and hear people almost gleeful if an unvaccinated person contracted covid.

It was a psychological operation. Now to unprogramme yourself from the belief these tyrant globalist had the populations health and safety at heart.

It was the "oh but they were old anyway..." thing. Saw it many many times on SM generally.

people not allowed to visit their elderly family members in care homes was one of the most tragic things i've ever witnessed - people on the sidewalks waving through the glass. just dire and cruel and something i'll never forget or forgive.

And people saying good bye to dying loved ones via face time in hospitals. This happened to a very close friend. Covid wrought such sadness.

Ah, you're one of those. I see.

And by the way, going by your definition of coercion, basically all laws fit.

And by the way, going by your definition of coercion, basically all laws fit.

Yep, any boundary with consequence as 'coercion'.

@Mummyford

And by the way, going by your definition of coercion, basically all laws fit.

how's that?

It was a psychological operation. Now to unprogramme yourself from the belief these tyrant globalist had the populations health and safety at heart.

Here's the thing. If you don't take the vaccine you tend to get lumped in with people who say stuff like this. On SM at least.

@peppathe3rd

This is my last response to you. You seem to want information, but nothing actually gets through. It's clear you're going to stick with your preconceived narrative, which I find puzzling. If a couple well-respected, properly conducted studies came out tomorrow showing the vaccine to be either useless or harmful, I'd say, Glad no one I know had a bad reaction, guess we all had a lucky escape. And I wouldn't take any more. I wouldn't cling to a belief that the vaccine was good in the face of evidence that it wasn't, and search out a small segment of people arguing against the evidence.

Rachel Maddow is actually a very excellent journalist. It's worth looking her up. She went to Stanford and has a doctorate from Oxford. She's very smart and does cracking deep investigative research.

As to the statements you've quoted, I'm not sure what is so hard for people to understand that this was not called novel coronavirus for no reason. The novel part meant new, as in no-one had previous experience with it. Understanding it was an evolving process. You only have to look at how much more successful they are today at saving people who are critically ill with it than they were during the first wave. Or google it. New articles, studies and understandings are still being published every day. None of which are finding the vaccines to be dangerous, by the way.

As I've said in a previous post, I do think there's been surprise and disappointment that vaccine protection doesn't last longer or offer more protection against breakthrough infection, but these statements were based on the best available information at the time. Equally, there was surprise and disappointment that infection conferred immunity waned very quickly. Neither of these things are due to conspiracy. Both are due the the novel nature of the virus.

@Mummyford
i think you are getting people mixed up. i know about rachel maddow because i was the one who posted it. her journalistic accolades are many, and when i am in the us, she is one of the many journalists i watch. that is how i know what she said. why are you trying to school me on this?

Ok, this one is the last, but since it was a direct question...

The government says you can't smoke in public buildings, have to have vehicle insurance, can't physically harm someone else, can't have sex with someone without their consent, can't kill someone else, have to have your child in some kind of education, etc. etc. etc. Laws exist to force you to comply with societally mandated rules, ideally designed to protect us on both an individual and a societal level. By the other poster's definition, that's coercion.

@sunglassesonthetable was the one who wrote she didn't watch MSNBC.

i know about rachel maddow because i was the one who posted it.

Apologies. You posted it without context and gave none to @sunglassesonthetable when they asked, so I had no reason to know if anyone involved in that conversation knew anything about her.

That's the only thing in my post that resonated at all?

@Mummyford
no, not at all, that was just the first part... i do believe you when you say you would change your mind if studies were to come out proving the vaccine was harmful. i'm sure we both really hope that never happens. i just wondered what you meant about laws equalling coercion. i couldn't remember what the other person's stance was, so i was interested in your take. i didn't mean to offend you

i do believe you when you say you would change your mind if studies were to come out proving the vaccine was harmful.

As would most sensible people.

@Mummyford

And by the way, going by your definition of coercion, basically all laws fit.

i scrolled for this poster's definition but couldn't find it which is why i asked you. it was not to annoy you or argue. i find this topic interesting - dismantling the concept of coercion in order to hopefully build up a stronger personal concept of what it means to us as individuals.

@Mummyford
one last thing, people wrote that we were never told that the illness stops with the vaccinated. i was showing that we were given this message by highly respected people. i'm not sure when i gave you the idea that i didn't understand the concept of novel - of course i know errors will have been made in the face of a novel virus.

It's only relevant if you saw that particular program obviously. There are always people saying stuff.

@AreYouVeryAnti
hi! looks like the thread you began was interesting to many people. i think it will end at 1000 posts. would you be interested in a follow up thread? i don't know how this works. have a good day!

Just set up a thread if you're keen @peppathe3rd

You really can run it then.

Let's frighten the pants of them shall we!?it was never deadly and they played the public like fools whilst partying and laughing. Lets stick to what happened during lockdown and covid shall we? Not bring up things that are common sense and we all know right from wrong. I'm not easily manipulated and never fell for their proganda and abuse tactics.

Let's block funding for disabled children shall we if you don't go along with what I say? If that's not coercive I don't know what is?