| + Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
This article is from May 2020
Oh yes it is , that said , it still isn’t that effective is it ?
They obviously thought that the research was worth a punt.....Originally Posted by TWGL1
Desperation stuff, you should have just acknowledged your mistake.
How is is desperate , it came up on a current conversation within my Twitter feed and even thought it’s old, the article is on point as of today.
Are you going against official guidelines which states the vax doesn’t offer sufficient protection or prevents transmission and even if it does it wains after a few months ?
I'm not sure about desperate but the post is completely pointless?
It said that the vaccine doesn't stop people getting Covid (it doesn't, it makes it significantly less likely you die), it states that you can still pass on the virus (it does, but reduces this somewhat), and it wains after a few months (yes, but boosters as per flu and others).
It basically says the same things everyone knows (people who are not conspiracy theorists agree with all of this).
I just don't understand
I thought it was a recent article, that said as 98% of people will have mild or moderate symptoms ( regardless of vaccine status) why is Qatar insisting strict entry requirements for the World Cup , that seems pointless to me ?
Do you have a link to official guidelines that say vaccines don't offer protection?
No, I'm saying your desperation to find stuff which you can use to back up your views on the vaccine caused you to use an irrelevant link. I can recall the Oxford vaccine having a few setbacks during its development (one of which caused it to cease production for a while if I remember rightly) and it is true to say that it seems to be the one that doesn't get used much these days. However, people were very grateful to it at the time and, although it may have had unfortunate side effects for some, it clearly has also saved plenty of lives - that's a view I'll stick to until I see a reputable study which proves that it didn't do so.
I remember seeing that when the article was first published, and it transpired that people who received the Pfizer shot also had Covid afterwards. Am I correct in saying a knighthood was rewarded for the original R&D?
Isn’t it?
not only is it from 2020, from a quick scan of this and the headline is that the gist of the sensationalism is that they still caught covid. Which is the same with all of the vaccines, just you're less likely to die from it. This has been very clear.
I'm really not sure why you posted this
Like, genuinely puzzled.
Not having a go, just bizzare that's all.
It's his pet subject
I don't really keep too much track of what certain posters agenda is, but presuming you're right, you'd use an article that argues the opposite of the governments and scientists. You know, the normal dubious source websites that conspiracy theorists normally post.
This one basically says exactly what the scientists and governments have claimed about the vaccine.
I really don't get it that's all.
It’s not my pet subject , however , it justifies why a significant amount of the UK population (about 20m) have perhaps had second thoughts on their next booster. It also suggests certain people ( usually anonymous) who think it’s great to call people in this category anti - vax , are twats.
Moreso if it’s well know.
I would like to know the long covid death stats for all statuses, do you think they will publish them?It’s not my pet subject , however , it justifies why a significant amount of the UK population (about 20m) have perhaps had second thoughts on their next booster. It also suggests certain people ( usually anonymous) feel the need to call people in this category anti - vax , rather thick.
Moreso if it’s well know.
People are using a 2 year old article as reasoning to not take the booster?It’s not my pet subject , however , it justifies why a significant amount of the UK population (about 20m) have perhaps had second thoughts on their next booster. It also suggests certain people ( usually anonymous) who think it’s great to call people in this category anti - vax , are twats.
Moreso if it’s well know.
"those people who anonymously call people anti vaxxers are twats" says TWGL1, anonymously.It’s not my pet subject , however , it justifies why a significant amount of the UK population (about 20m) have perhaps had second thoughts on their next booster. It also suggests certain people ( usually anonymous) who think it’s great to call people in this category anti - vax , are twats.
Moreso if it’s well know.
Not your finest hour this thread
I could have said something else , and chose a better phrase
Not only that, he clearly doesn’t want to reveal what his posting name was when Covid first hit this country.
I've checked his IP and traced it back to a member called ilovewuhan69
We seem to have picked up a few of late, like ninja, some 800 posts since he became a bluebird in July….
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
