snowychap

1 hour ago, Genie said:

Lots of rich people will work, otherwise, how do you get super rich? 

Edit: Covered by OBE, above.

49 minutes ago, jimmygreaves said:

Never understood the push back on wearing masks in the first place. It's no inconvenience at all, it's not especially uncomfortable really. The reasons for wearing a mask make good logical sense.

It would make sense if people weren't slinging them round their neck at the first opportunity, grabbing the front of them with their dirty hands, removing them when they get wet and replacing them with a clean, unused one, &c.

It is an inconvenience if you forgot one - as I did any number of times when it was mandatory.

23 hours ago, StefanAVFC said:

Jovax Novaxovicovax

Wasn't he a charatcer in Asterix and the Illuminati?

1 hour ago, Stevo985 said:

Cool.

Well to clarify, I didn’t mean that they literally aren’t human beings. I was speaking figuratively.
Apologies if you thought I meant that Tories were actually a different species. I can see how you might have been confused. 
Hope that clears things up

No one, least of all me, was under the impression that a few words that you (or anyone else) may have written was going to determine that a certain group of human beings were actually, literally not human beings.

Of course you were speaking figuratively, it was the only way it could be said/written. It was read that way as per my earlier post.

25 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

As much as it might upset the wishywashy

Yawn - and incorrect.

15 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

As opposed to being able to read the room and read the mood?

Only reply in a way which you (individually and/or collectively) find acceptable?

No thanks, I'll reply with my own opinion.

17 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I didn't realise that would be taken literally

It was read as it was written.

10 hours ago, Stevo985 said:

They are sub-human dirt stains on humanity.

No, they aren't. They're all too human, unfortunately.

They are all sorts of things but they're human just like all of the rest of humanity that does absolutely despicable shit.

13 hours ago, chrisp65 said:

Anyone that doesn’t like that phrase, give your **** head a wobble.

Yawn.

32 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

With VAT at 20% being paid on energy bills

I think it's still 5% for households.

Normal rules apply with regard to Prime Ministerial announcements at press conferences.

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

I get a flu jab every year, I have no issue getting a covid booster every 6 months.

It's easy.

That utterly misses the point.

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Smokers are not allowed to smoke in pubs and shops and indoors and stuff. "You can smoke, but you can't smoke in here and put other people's health at risk" isn't much different from "you can be unvaccinated, but you can't come in here and put other people's health at risk"

That's a poor example when used in that way. It implies that being unvaccinated and present in a location necessarily puts others' health at risk (and by such a sufficient amount to justify some potentially very onerous and sever restrictions on their liberties) and ignores the very real and much more likely possibility of someone vaccinated putting other people's health at risk in a particular location if, say, they have the **** virus.

1 hour ago, mjmooney said:

I could understand the 'infringing my human rights' business, if the authorities were compelling people to wear yellow stars, or walk around in handcuffs, or have numbers tattooed on them, or some such.

Or compelling people to supply 'papers' on demand.

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

But it's tricky to navigate, for sure.

It is tricky to navigate. A lot of the mood and discussion doesn't reflect that, however - there's a lot of '**** 'em, a lot of mixing people questioning things with 'anti-vaxxers' or 'refuseniks', a lot of 'pin them down', force people to submit to governments and even just 'experts', &c.

Also, if we look at the care sector example then if it were really about trying not to spread illness that could have really serious consequencs to a vulnerable group of the population then they might want to tackle it in a wider sense rather than focus on mandatory covid vaccinations, e.g. addressing sick pay policies for care workers which might have the consequences of forcing people in to work environments when they are not well - be it with Covid, 'flu, a really shit cold, &c.

There are many more ways of skinning a cat than a/this mandatory approach and the narrowness of the focus of such an approach in the care sector would suggest that the claimed purpose is of less importance than the political significance of appearing to attempt to address a specific covid situation.

30 minutes ago, bickster said:

You need a flu jab if you don't want to be off work with the flu and having to live on statutory sick pay

You don't 'need' a 'flu jab for that - you 'need' not to catch 'flu.

People choose to have a 'flu jab to reduce their risks of catching it and being ill from it (whatever the consequences may be) not because there are legally mandated consequences to their liberties from not receiving it.

You're probably right to compare getting an annual 'flu jab and a voluntary covid booster. Both should be voluntary and encouraged for those in an at risk group (with a caveat about worldwide supply being properly fulfilled before easing in to an annual booster in first world countries as standard), neither should be mandatory or have negative incentives such as legally imposed restrictions to force people to take them.

16 hours ago, Davkaus said:

but ultimately, the vaccine cuts transmission,

It does but not to the extent that people who are not vaccinated ought to be penalised in the way in which Austria and others are doing. It doesn't prevent or vastly prevent transmission. The main benefits to vaccination appear to be for those in receipt of the vaccination through reducing the likelihood of serious illness/death. I appreciate that this has knock-on effects for others via use of medical resources but I don't see that justifying the actions being taken or encouraged.

Quote

and I'm not particularly supportive of an individual's rights to spread disease.

If you can honestly say that you've never been in a position where you may have been infectious with a disease and potentially infected others then I'll listen.

3 hours ago, villa4europe said:

the austrians are trialing a lockdown for anyone who hasnt got the vaccine in 2 regions and germany is talking about doing the same

It's a very worrying development and even more worrying that otherwise moderate people are fully supportive of it.

18 hours ago, tonyh29 said:

i don’t know if QDK is racist but he’s perfectly within his rights to refuse to do it ,  I get the sentiment of the SA cricket board but taking the knee has to be optional surely ?

Very much agree.

I don't think compulsion (in whichever direction) is a good look or the right thing.

Tbh, I'd be the first person taking the knee whilst it's voluntary and probably refusing point blank if made mandatory.

No idea what De Kock's reasoning is, though.