Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I’m not really sure what you mean OB. Your original stance was to let it rip. When vaccines were in development your attitude was to let it rip. Now vaccines are being deployed with waning efficacy your attitude is to give people 2/3 doses then let it rip.
A sociopathic disregard for human life and scientific achievement.
|
If you recall, the original scientific advice was to allow the virus to run through the population, a proposition that was quickly reversed when they saw how quickly it was infecting people.
At that time, the alternative would have been lockdown after lockdown after lockdown for many years, which as even you must be aware by now, serves only to slow the virus down. It does not eliminate it.
Only the immunisation programme has enabled us to use different tactics to fight the virus.
---------- Post added at 07:57 ---------- Previous post was at 07:52 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
You are making a point separate from the one I’m making.
My point was that vaccination on an ongoing basis will be part of managing the situation - OB’s original point that this will not be required on the basis of a dubious scientist he heard on the radio. The reality is that other countries are already recognising the need for boosters for all. Something we will presumably do once we have adequate supplies of mRNA vaccines.
Countries aren’t ordering enough for 3-4x their population so they can generously gift them to other countries. They’re making sure they have first dibs in the next round.
|
No, jfman, I said we MAY not need any more jabs. It depends what happens next.