Weston Super Saint

I've had 2 jabs a booster and a flu jab this year - that was my choice. My wife has had 2 jabs and a booster (which she only had this week as she couldn't afford to risk any side effects before Xmas and miss any time away from work). My daughter (17) initially said she didn't want the jab as she felt even if she caught the virus, statistically she was unlikely to suffer more than a heavy cold. She then changed her mind (her choice) in October and tried to book a jab but there wasn't any availability. She didn't want to have it during term time and risk missing any school - she missed the best part of a year during her GCSEs and didn't want to risk her A levels. She had her first jab last week. My view is that it is everyone's choice whether they have the vaccine or not and they should assess that based on not only their age group or medical conditions risk, but also against their own perceived risk. I don't agree with restrictions being forced on anyone as there really are no activities where an individual cannot protect themselves if they wish to do so. No one is forced to go to a busy shopping centre (there are plenty of times when it won't be busy if you need to go at all) and even if / when you do have to go somewhere there are plenty of ways to protect yourself against infection. The onus of protection should be on the individual, not on the masses to protect the stupid. It still astonishes me the amount of people who use the gym who dilligently wipe down the seats of the equipment with a clearly watered down general purpose cleaner (that still gets in your through and makes you cough), yet don't wear any sort of face covering! They are seemingly happy to accept the risk of using the gym with no protection against what is an 'airborne' virus, but somehow think they'll be safe by wiping down a vinyl seat - where let's be honest, the chances of catching the virus from that are negligible unless you crawl around the floor licking the seats as soon as someone else stands up!

He could quite easily claim that as part of his profession and being that he is so closely monitored by WADA, that a vaccine that hasn't been rigorously tested should not be taken by professional sportspeople as they don't know what effects it may have and therefore should be avoided in order to maintain the integrity of the sport. I believe the questions regarding the veracity of his medical exemption have come from the federal Gov't, AFTER the state Gov't ratified it - hence my point about this being an internal political wrangle. Novax followed the rules that he was presented with, he hasn't tried to circumvent them. The fact that what he was told is now trying to be changed can't be blamed on him, no matter what his opinions about vaccines are.

Sigh. Hasn't Sir Keir Starmer just tested positive for the second time, despite having all his vaccinations? Must blow your mind to know that a fully vaccinated person can catch and potentially spread the virus whilst also acting as a petri dish for mutations and prolinging the pandemic. Ironically, if Sir Keir was a tennis player and not a politician, he would have been allowed into Australia at the beginning of the week before testing positive due to his vaccine status....

But he did follow the rules of the country. The rules stated he needed to have a medical exemption to enter the country to play in the tournament. He applied for one amd was granted one (ratified by Victoria state). The debate now is whether he filled the forms in correctly (I doubt for one minute he even did that himself!) which apparently means they are looking at all the other tennis players they've already let in to the country who have been granted a very similar medical exemption. It's not about rich people being given seperate rules to follow, it's got more to do with the federal Gov't unhappy with how the local state Gov't handled the situation - which is a political argument!

Sounds like an MLG Xmas excuse

I assume you'll be working on the 3rd of June then when the rest of us have an extra bank holiday to celebrate 70 glorious years of her maj....

Shurlock aka Gavin Davies.

Slippery slope? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-59884038

Definitely not guilty, m'lud - it says so in the 'document' Although I suspect it has more to do with the 500,000 not so random bits of paper rather than this one random one as to why she cannot bring charges....

I heard on the radio this morning that whilst hospital admissions have gone up for covid patients, it was stated that the vast majority were admitted to hospital for another reason and either had covid when they were admitted as well, or caught it in the hospital. He also stated that there were 'very few' covid patients on ventilators, especially compared to this time last year. He did state though, that whilst those infected with covid weren't particularly sick as a result of that infection, they were still draining more resources than they normally would due to the covid protocols in place in hospitals. Maybe that's an area that needs to be addressed to free up more staff?

The full document is here It specifically states : Which would suggest it is viable in both state and federal and seems pretty much all encompassing!

Pretty sure everyone has figured out that he did. He just can't be sued for it....

Good news for Andrew, maybe they'll let him back into the family now.... https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59861831

Booster campaign, possibly in terms of hospitalisations / deaths. Minimal restrictions, what are you on about? There were around 158k positive infections recorded yesterday, compared to around 50k positive infections per day when the 'minimal restrictions' were put in place (to stop / slow the rate of infection). That's a threefold increase in infections. How can you claim that as a 'win'?

Sound like the kind of shit backstreet garage that you'd avoid at all costs!

Sadly, I suspect some of the 'ironic' posts have escaped you.

Perhaps you need to think a little more critically about 'linked' statements. The quote was : The phrase 'could be' is linked to 'unless', implying that if the Gov't did not act immediately by putting more restrictions in place (I believe the same 'experts' were calling for another lockdown), then 'could' will become 'would'. For the record, WFH is not compulsory.

Why? He asked for a link, I gave him one. Other than that I have made no other observations, apart from a dig at Ainclever who told us we should 'trust the experts' and that if another lockdown was needed based on what they were saying then it should be accepted, no questions asked. As it turns out, my 'critical thinking' and criticism of the media who reported these sensationalist headlines was actually correct. You might also discover that the 'experts' have modelled best, middle and worst case scenarios, but they are also 'guided' by the politicians in terms of the output needed. I guess no one mentions the 'best case' scenarios as they don't sell papers / entice people to click on the headlines.

Sunny Uplands

Link Weren't we told to 'trust experts'?

Can someone rename this thread as it has become the "BorrierSaint posts other people's opinions from his Twitter feed" thread recently.

Do they even have a forum now? I thought theirs imploded as the guy running it became so paranoid that any new poster was a 'scummer' that he b-anned pretty much everyone.

Any team calling themselves 'the toffees' can't be taken seriously.

Man Utd - purely because of their sense of self entitlement. Liverpool - they're scousers, surely no other reason is needed.

Must be something else then.... Like it's a load of made up bullshit.