Paying for a vaccine

bfcpete said:
There won't be a charge because the Government recognises it is far cheaper to do that than have the economic and social disruption continue longer than necessary. The issue will be the dickheads that decide they don't want one or can't be bothered to do so, especially if there is a charge. It should be made compulsory, with a certificatte card issued so you can show you have had it and which you need to show for entry to certain premises or events
Click to expand...
The even bigger idiots will be saying it causes autism or something similar.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I assume that this is another one of BFC's 'factual' posts, so let's examine it;




Assumption not fact, holier than thou, not only am I fitter and thinner but I am a better citizen than others who psot on here.




More assumptions, firstly you cannot possibly know what effect the virus would have on you if you became infected. And in this scenario you cannot possibly know who you would infect and what knock on problems you would cause other individuals, the health service and society at large.




More assumptions here about other posters, you don't know the waist measurements of anyone else posting on this thread. But to address the point, being fat only impacts on an individuals health and you cannot catch being fat so it is a meaningless comparison.

I don't think that there is a single fact in that post.
Click to expand...
I don’t recall saying this post was factual?

You’re correct that people are likely adopting a ‘holier than though’ attitude when confronted with my position on vaccination. I see no harm in highlighting that.

I didn’t suggest I did ‘know’ the effect the virus would have on me, though I can determine the probability of the effect, based on the impact on others with a similar profile. Probability is all I need in order to evaluate risk. In terms of the vaccine, the producers and health officials have stated they are unlikely to provide full immunity.

As for the posters on here, I’ve seen a wide enough selection of the AVFTT community to appreciate the scale of the burgeoning waistline epidemic in play.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
It seems to me that selfishness / self-interest is driving both sides of the debate.

There are all sorts of ethical issues that habe been brushed over during this situation.

Is it ethical for my right of sovereignty over my body is called into question, that I am called selfish in order that the selfish rights of others is imposed as morally superior?

is it ethical to deny children and the young access to natural immunity through isolation, when the risks to them are minuscule?

Is it ethical for the Baby Boomer generation, who have had life handed to them on a platter by the previous generation, benefitted most from economic growth, polluted the entire planet, to impose a lifetime of poverty on the younger generation just so they can eek out a few more years of luxury?
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure the planet was quite heavily polluted before 1945. You can't blame a single generation for that one.
 
Wizaard said:
I'm pretty sure the planet was quite heavily polluted before 1945. You can't blame a single generation for that one.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry to say that I can.... I’m not sure there has ever been a generation that has taken so much and given so little in return.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’m sorry to say that I can.... I’m not sure there has ever been a generation that has taken so much and given so little in return.
Click to expand...
The same generation introduced the Clean Air Act and cleaned up the rivers and sea. Blackpool beach was a sewer when I was a kid. Don't disagree with much of the other stuff but the pollution was way worse in the earlier part of the century.
 
Wizaard said:
The same generation introduced the Clean Air Act and cleaned up the rivers and sea. Blackpool beach was a sewer when I was a kid. Don't disagree with much of the other stuff but the pollution was way worse in the earlier part of the century.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say they haven’t done some positive things for their own benefit.

I suspect they will likely be one of the longest lived generations too at which point life expectancy will likely peak and go backwards.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Because I have reservations about the potential long term impacts of a fast tracked vaccine and when I balance that against the overall risk the virus poses to me at this stage, I don’t feel it is something I want to participate in.
Click to expand...
But it's not just you whose health you're risking?
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
But it's not just you whose health you're risking?
Click to expand...

I’ve already explained my position on that really.

If, as seems to be the case, a vaccine does not provide full immunity, but rather relief from the worst symptoms, then actually it is just my health I’m risking.

Of course even if it did provide full immunity, then (assuming the vaccine works properly) my choice would have no negative consequences for those who choose to get vaccinated.

I’m happy to maintain my health, keep my distance from others, wear a mask in the supermarket, not travel on public transport or aircraft, avoid high risk areas etc. If all that is necessary, but as things stand I won’t have a vaccine.

That might change over time, I’m not wedded to my current choice, but it is ‘my choice’ and I think people should respect that instead of making moral judgements that their own lifestyle choices cannot live up to.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I’ve already explained my position on that really.

If, as seems to be the case, a vaccine does not provide full immunity, but rather relief from the worst symptoms, then actually it is just my health I’m risking.

Of course even if it did provide full immunity, then (assuming the vaccine works properly) my choice would have no negative consequences for those who choose to get vaccinated.

I’m happy to maintain my health, keep my distance from others, wear a mask in the supermarket, not travel on public transport or aircraft, avoid high risk areas etc. If all that is necessary, but as things stand I won’t have a vaccine.

That might change over time, I’m not wedded to my current choice, but it is ‘my choice’ and I think people should respect that instead of making moral judgements that their own lifestyle choices cannot live up to.
Click to expand...
Your position only stands up if everyone else decides to get vaccinated, you're depending on no one else making the same decision as you?

Of course you realise there will be others who decide not to, who decide they'll take the risk, where does it stop?

It's like someone deciding to carry on paying the Oystons money as their ticket wouldn't make much difference instead of contributing to the greater good they would rather rationalise their own selfish needs.

Just get ** vaccinated.
 
Last edited:
Lytham_fy8 said:
Your position only stands up if everyone else decides to get vaccinated, you're depending on no one else making the same decision as you?

Of course you realise there will be others who decide not to, who decide they'll take the risk, where does it stop?

It's like someone deciding to carry on paying the Oystons money as their ticket wouldn't make much difference instead of contributing to the greater good they would rather rationalise their own selfish needs.

Just get ** vaccinated.
Click to expand...

Yep, agree with all of that fy8, and a good simple analogy. It couldn`t be clearer really, we all have to act for the greater good.

And a tag line Cummings would be pleased with...
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Your position only stands up if everyone else decides to get vaccinated, you're depending on no one else making the same decision as you?

Of course you realise there will be others who decide not to, who decide they'll take the risk, where does it stop?

It's like someone deciding to carry on paying the Oystons money as their ticket wouldn't make much difference instead of contributing to the greater good they would rather rationalise their own selfish needs.

Just get ** vaccinated.
Click to expand...
It’s actually nothing like the situation with the Oystons.

Firstly, the priority (as with the Flu vaccine) is to prioritise the vaccine for the most vulnerable. So from a “Greater Good” perspective it’s better that I step aside and allow those who need a vaccine to get one before me.

Secondly (based on trials so far) the vaccines appear to only offer relief from the worst symptoms and so a vaccinated person will still contract and transmit the virus. So in essence the vaccines act more like a medicine.

If there’s a vaccine (which it appears is very unlikely) that offers long term full immunity from the virus and I feel happy that it is safe, then I’d consider it. Though there’ll likely be enough willing volunteers and to that extent I’ll hang fire and see if they develop an extra ear first.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
It’s actually nothing like the situation with the Oystons.

Firstly, the priority (as with the Flu vaccine) is to prioritise the vaccine for the most vulnerable. So from a “Greater Good” perspective it’s better that I step aside and allow those who need a vaccine to get one before me.

Secondly (based on trials so far) the vaccines appear to only offer relief from the worst symptoms and so a vaccinated person will still contract and transmit the virus. So in essence the vaccines act more like a medicine.

If there’s a vaccine (which it appears is very unlikely) that offers long term full immunity from the virus and I feel happy that it is safe, then I’d consider it. Though there’ll likely be enough willing volunteers and to that extent I’ll hang fire and see if they develop an extra ear first.
Click to expand...
There's a lot of conjecture in that and nothing about why you wouldn't take it?
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
There's a lot of conjecture in that and nothing about why you wouldn't take it?
Click to expand...

The ‘conjecture’ is based upon the information made available from vaccine trials and the opinions of leading scientists.

I’ve explained why I wouldn’t take it already.

First and foremost it will have been rushed through by ‘necessity’ and therefore has only been tested for short term effects.

Secondly I don’t consider myself to be high risk for catching the virus or mortality if I did.

I also choose not to take the flu vaccine and other pharmaceuticals for similar reasons.

I don’t see why it’s such a big deal.... I mean it’s not like I’m on here telling people not to smoke or to stop eating shit food or that they shouldn’t poison the atmosphere with fumes from their cars or eat trawled fish or stop consuming palm oil etc etc... is it?

We all make personal / selfish choices everyday. I’m not sure anyone on here is in a position to moralise about mine.
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The ‘conjecture’ is based upon the information made available from vaccine trials and the opinions of leading scientists.

I’ve explained why I wouldn’t take it already.

First and foremost it will have been rushed through by ‘necessity’ and therefore has only been tested for short term effects.

Secondly I don’t consider myself to be high risk for catching the virus or mortality if I did.

I also choose not to take the flu vaccine and other pharmaceuticals for similar reasons.

I don’t see why it’s such a big deal.... I mean it’s not like I’m on here telling people not to smoke or to stop eating shit food or that they shouldn’t poison the atmosphere with fumes from their cars or eat trawled fish or stop consuming palm oil etc etc... is it?

We all make personal / selfish choices everyday. I’m not sure anyone on here is in a position to moralise about mine.
Click to expand...
You know why it's different to eating shitty food, it could put others at risk.
 
I would take the vaccination but only once I’m sufficiently convinced that it’s safe so I’ll be near the back of the queue which I will be anyway so fine for me.

I can understand both the opposing points of view on this thread and, whilst I don’t entirely agree with BFCx3’s argument, I would support his stance.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
You know why it's different to eating shitty food, it could put others at risk.
Click to expand...
I feel like we are going around in circles here.

How does it put other people at risk if the available vaccines only offer symptom reduction?

As for the general argument, you’re choosing to impose your self-determined moral ‘code’ on me. I’ve not questioned the personal choices of anyone on this thread, yet the moment I express my choice, you and others feel you have the right to question it and moralise about it....

Let’s assume for a moment I was vegan and similarly imposing my ethical lifestyle choice on you? Your chosen diet is a source of mass murder, destruction of habitat, climate change etc...Judging you by the ethical standards of the vegan makes you nothing short of a bloodthirsty murderer....

You can make a moral argument that mans continuous interference with natural order is morally wrong and it wouldn’t be an unreasonable stand point...So how do you determine who’s chosen stand point is right or wrong?

Do you simply say that majority viewpoint is right and therefore we hit those who won’t conform with a stick? If not, who decides? You? Matt Hancock or maybe 1950’s BFC who feels that forcing people into homelessness might benefit us by ‘killIng off the surplus population’

As things stand, I’m free to choose and I would choose not to be vaccinated even if I was offered money to do so.

As I must have said at least four times on this thread. If a vaccine is developed that can deliver actual long-term immunity, then I’d need to reflect on that further. My inclination is that I’d rather just participate less in social activity, but I’m not sure.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
I feel like we are going around in circles here.

How does it put other people at risk if the available vaccines only offer symptom reduction?

As for the general argument, you’re choosing to impose your self-determined moral ‘code’ on me. I’ve not questioned the personal choices of anyone on this thread, yet the moment I express my choice, you and others feel you have the right to question it and moralise about it....

Let’s assume for a moment I was vegan and similarly imposing my ethical lifestyle choice on you? Your chosen diet is a source of mass murder, destruction of habitat, climate change etc...Judging you by the ethical standards of the vegan makes you nothing short of a bloodthirsty murderer....

You can make a moral argument that mans continuous interference with natural order is morally wrong and it wouldn’t be an unreasonable stand point...So how do you determine who’s chosen stand point is right or wrong?

Do you simply say that majority viewpoint is right and therefore we hit those who won’t conform with a stick? If not, who decides? You? Matt Hancock or maybe 1950’s BFC who feels that forcing people into homelessness might benefit us by ‘killIng off the surplus population’

As things stand, I’m free to choose and I would choose not to be vaccinated even if I was offered money to do so.

As I must have said at least four times on this thread. If a vaccine is developed that can deliver actual long-term immunity, then I’d need to reflect on that further. My inclination is that I’d rather just participate less in social activity, but I’m not sure.
Click to expand...
Your vindication is based on vagaries of potential futures aligned to suit your needs, a position nullified by a complete vaccine. It will be interesting to note how you adaot your self appointed notion of social responsibility if the aforementioned is produced?

You believe you're acting in isolation.
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
Your vindication is based on vagaries of potential futures aligned to suit your needs, a position nullified by a complete vaccine. It will be interesting to note how you adaot your self appointed notion of social responsibility if the aforementioned is produced?

You believe you're acting in isolation.
Click to expand...
What?
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The vagaries of potential futures aligned to suit my needs or the likely reality of what we can expect from a vaccine as expressed by our UK experts and based on the findings of vaccine studies to date?

www.ft.com

‘Silver bullet’ to beat Covid-19 unlikely, warns UK vaccine chief | Free to read

Kate Bingham of government task force plays down hopes of lifetime immunity despite recent positive trial results
www.ft.com www.ft.com
Click to expand...
That's no rebuttal of the science, it merely states a yearly shot would be required, as with the flu, would you agree this requirement was acceptable?
 
Lytham_fy8 said:
That's no rebuttal of the science, it merely states a yearly shot would be required, as with the flu, would you agree this requirement was acceptable?
Click to expand...

No it says that a yearly shot would be a good result and we may we’ll have to settle for eliminating the worst of the symptoms. Which is what happened with the Oxford virus when tested on primates.

As for the idea of an annual vaccination, I’m not sure. If it offered complete immunity then I’d likely be at the back of the cue. As I’ve said, I’d probably rather make different lifestyle choices to limit my impact on others.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
No it says that a yearly shot would be a good result and we may we’ll have to settle for eliminating the worst of the symptoms. Which is what happened with the Oxford virus when tested on primates.

As for the idea of an annual vaccination, I’m not sure. If it offered complete immunity then I’d likely be at the back of the cue. As I’ve said, I’d probably rather make different lifestyle choices to limit my impact on others.
Click to expand...
Ok, it's your choice, I'm no angry mob.
 
This thread appears slightly more tolerant than discussions currently. Is it just a case of lockdown/vaccine junkies clucking for their upcoming fix or is there more to it than that?
 
B_Side_The_C_Side said:
So bifster.....serious debate

You become infected...but being a six foot, strapping hunk of the male species....you don't become sick.
But....Lets say, you have the infection....you are infectious.....you now have to screen everyone you come in contact with....
Especially (how did you phrase it).... "Mask wearing vaccine suckers, (who) have oversized bellies and struggle to get up and down the stairs at home
Because you can kill them.....by giving them C-19.....where ever you go, you carry this infection that would kill people.
You cant social distance for life......but we may have to now because of your refusal to.

All the other fine specimens of healthy humanity do the same.....but the vaccine means we break down the social distancing etc.....
They now become carriers of this infection.....slowly, you keep the infection alive, passing it backwards and forwards between the master race.
Lets say, 6 months down the line the Covid genome suddenly becomes mutated (which is common in this type of infection)
Only slightly....but suddenly the infection rate increases......lets say it now targets bald people and they are now seriously at risk....or it's women of a certain age....say any over 40

Now you are seeing people you care about become sick and actually die........But none of your master race are taking the vaccine.....they don't give a s##t if you or maybe a friend or (god forbid) your family die......
Click to expand...
If he is adhering to the current rules and becomes Ill he will then only come into contact with his own immediate family, and that can be controlled. I know of quite a few people who have had it and taken minimal precautions and nobody else in their household caught it anyway.
If he is then isolating until he gets better, probably about 4 days, how is he a problem to other people?
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
This isn’t about Polio and I have had the Polio vaccine.

As I said, the COVID vaccine cannot have been thoroughly tested, because the long term impacts of the vaccine will be unknown.

My comments about the death rates are entirely accurate and based upon the latest scientific information. I have no issue with people who consider themselves to be high risk taking a vaccine to ‘protect themselves’. That seems like a sensible choice to me. My concern is for myself and as a generally healthy person under the age of 50, I see no need to take the risk of a partially tested vaccine.

Why are people who choose not to take a partially tested vaccine doing a grave disservice to anyone?
Click to expand...
Without the vaccine we will be in permanent lockdown, with the hospitals unable to do anything other than treat Covid.
Unless you would not bother to send the unfortunate, elderly, overweight covid sufferers to hospital, cut out the middleman and send them straight to the morgue?
 
It’s a prick in your arm that takes a couple of seconds.No different to the flu jab.
You might have a stiff arm and feel a bit under the weather for a day, just like the flu jab and in fact most inoculations.
Hardly a serious scenario and yet some refuse to take it.I‘ve now had my first one and never once considered not to do so.We have much younger neighbours who say they can’t wait for their‘s because as they put it they think it is the right thing to do and will give us all a better chance of returning to what most would consider normality.
 
tangysider said:
Without the vaccine we will be in permanent lockdown, with the hospitals unable to do anything other than treat Covid.
Unless you would not bother to send the unfortunate, elderly, overweight covid sufferers to hospital, cut out the middleman and send them straight to the morgue?
Click to expand...
How about funding hospitals properly so that they have the ability to deal with respiratory illness. In the depths of winter they have struggled with this for years. Relatively speaking not that many people have to go to hospital because of covid, I'm happy to pay more tax to cover for those that do. This is going to be never ending with or without the vaccine if they dont prepare the NHS for regular winter flu and occasional pandemics.
 
gjr69 said:
If he is adhering to the current rules and becomes Ill he will then only come into contact with his own immediate family, and that can be controlled. I know of quite a few people who have had it and taken minimal precautions and nobody else in their household caught it anyway.
If he is then isolating until he gets better, probably about 4 days, how is he a problem to other people?
Click to expand...
This isn't about 'the Bifster'.....he would no doubt quarantine in his tepee and try and keep his ashram Covid free if he got it.
But for every person like Bifster, willing to follow the rules.....there are more not bothered and these are spreading the virus.....as we can see

And you are right......many people who live/work with someone who has tested positive for the virus won't catch it.
But that's not the hard and fast rule.......thousands and thousands who have become positive will pass it on to work colleagues, family and friends.....so your statement is correct...... but it's only a very small minority....as we can see from the spike of positive tests over the last 6 weeks.

If you catch C-19 you need to isolate for 10 days (from the time you get symptoms) and then get a test before you say you're Covid free
The Bifster may not be a problem to other people......but how many people aren't......and that's the point
For every humanitarian like Bifster who puts others first......there are thousands who just wont bother.....and these are the di##heads....
 
The Bifster wasn't getting the vaccine if offered last August. Has that position changed? I thought it had.
 
B_Side_The_C_Side said:
This isn't about 'the Bifster'.....he would no doubt quarantine in his tepee and try and keep his ashram Covid free if he got it.
But for every person like Bifster, willing to follow the rules.....there are more not bothered and these are spreading the virus.....as we can see

And you are right......many people who live/work with someone who has tested positive for the virus won't catch it.
But that's not the hard and fast rule.......thousands and thousands who have become positive will pass it on to work colleagues, family and friends.....so your statement is correct...... but it's only a very small minority....as we can see from the spike of positive tests over the last 6 weeks.

If you catch C-19 you need to isolate for 10 days (from the time you get symptoms) and then get a test before you say you're Covid free
The Bifster may not be a problem to other peoples......but how many people aren't......and that's the point
For every humanitarian like Bifster who puts others first......there are thousands who just wont bother.....and these are the di##heads....
Click to expand...
Are you saying that because of the very small minority of people that behave in a reckless way we should have mandatory vaccination?
 
Wizaard said:
The Bifster wasn't getting the vaccine if offered last August. Has that position changed? I thought it had.
Click to expand...
There’s a real danger in taking every word I say on AVFTT as gospel. I should maybe put a disclaimer under some of my postings (the views expressed by BFCx3 may not actually reflect the opinions of the writer).

For those taking note, I had also said (back in April 2020) that I would likely take a vaccine.

I just like to ensure that we have a balanced discussion... So if I feel like everyone is agreeing too much, I offer a counter argument...

People ought to thank me.... Half these threads would fizzle out after 15 posts otherwise.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
There’s a real danger in taking every word I say on AVFTT as gospel. I should maybe put a disclaimer under some of my postings (the views expressed by BFCx3 may not actually reflect the opinions of the writer).

For those taking note, I had also said (back in April 2020) that I would likely take a vaccine.

I just like to ensure that we have a balanced discussion... So if I feel like everyone is agreeing too much, I offer a counter argument...

People ought to thank me.... Half these threads would fizzle out after 15 posts otherwise.
Click to expand...
Bollocks, it was a nice argument while there was no vaccine, a stand that might never have been tested.
 
Last edited:
I hate needles and put off taking any kind of medicine if I can get away with it but I’ll do what ever it takes so we can get out of this depressing situation we are in.
 
Had some updates today from my local county. All care homes completed, 95% of over 80s, 97% of 75 to 79yrs, and will be well over 90% of 70 to 74yrs by the weekend. Terrific performance and will never get to 100% because there will always be a small % who can't have the vaccine, choose not have it or just can't be reached. Next category to be likely to be started next week 👍
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Selfish?

What, like immunity compromised people who would force others to have a partially tested vaccine against their will for their own benefit?

I don’t have the Flu Vaccine, because I don’t need it..I won’t have the C19 vaccine, because I don’t need that either...

The available vaccines don’t appear to offer sterilising immunity in any case. So it will likely just offer alleviation of worst symptoms.
Click to expand...
BFC_BFC_BFC..........Self_Self_Self.
 
Despite starting the thread I'm not 100% sure I'm going to have it. Is the pfizer vaccine safe? Just because no one has croaked it what about long-term implications? I'd probably have the Oxford AZ but I've heard it's pot luck on the day.
 
Shandypants said:
Despite starting the thread I'm not 100% sure I'm going to have it. Is the pfizer vaccine safe? Just because no one has croaked it what about long-term implications? I'd probably have the Oxford AZ but I've heard it's pot luck on the day.
Click to expand...
Someone has croaked actually... A doctor in the US I think, he had a Brain Haemorrhage as a result of a drop in platelets...
 
Shandypants said:
Despite starting the thread I'm not 100% sure I'm going to have it. Is the pfizer vaccine safe? Just because no one has croaked it what about long-term implications? I'd probably have the Oxford AZ but I've heard it's pot luck on the day.
Click to expand...
Even if you are unsure, you may as well agree to have it. Turn up, get your name crossed out and head for the exit. That way you won't be penalised for being responsible.

Easy-peasy lemon squeezy.
 
bfcpete said:
Had some updates today from my local county. All care homes completed, 95% of over 80s, 97% of 75 to 79yrs, and will be well over 90% of 70 to 74yrs by the weekend. Terrific performance and will never get to 100% because there will always be a small % who can't have the vaccine, choose not have it or just can't be reached. Next category to be likely to be started next week 👍
Click to expand...
A good number have also been vaccinated in Group 5 as well which will be included in the overall figure, as you say a terrific performance, well planned and mobilised to get that amount of people vaccinated. Boris said today all those in Groups 1-9 will be offered jabs by end April 👏👏
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top