Retired pro Andrew Talansky under fire for Covid rant (Pogačar + De Gendt join in); Pidcock's Pinarello; CyclingMikey road.cc Podcast; Barriers to disabled cyclists; Trek raises $1.8M for World Bicycle Relief; Wheelbarrow fun + more on the live blog

PRSboy wrote:

Anti Vaxxers can just fcuk off with their opinions unless they take no medicines at all.

First define anti vaxxer.

Merriam Webster defines it as follows: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination. (My emphasis)

I'm opposed to vaccine mandates. I'll just fuck off then, shall I?

I doubt many people would offer up 2 as a definition or use it in that way to refer to anti vaccers.

FrankH wrote:

......First define anti vaxxer.

Merriam Webster defines it as follows: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination. (My emphasis)

I'm opposed to vaccine mandates. I'll just fuck off then, shall I?

That certainly wouldn't tally with many people's definition. Cambridge Dictionary's definition seems more in line with my use of the term at least, and although like you I'm anti-mandate, on this basis I'd echo pRSboy's exhortation that AVs can indeed fack off

Captain Badger wrote:

That certainly wouldn't tally with many people's definition. Cambridge Dictionary's definition seems more in line with my use of the term at least, and although like you I'm anti-mandate, on this basis I'd echo pRSboy's exhortation that AVs can indeed fack off

I would concur, it is only the Americanised version of Anti-Vaxxer that adds the vaccine mandate part as described by the American Publisher Mirriam Webster.  The OED also uses the same broad definition  as the Cambridge dictionary

TriTaxMan wrote:

.....

I would concur, it is only the Americanised version of Anti-Vaxxer that adds the vaccine mandate part as described by the American Publisher Mirriam Webster.  The OED also uses the same broad definition  as the Cambridge dictionary

I wonder if it's from a conscious effort to dilute the stigma attached to being an antivaxxer? I'm not sure whether MW operates a similar model to OED/CD of reporting English as it's used, or more a regulated model based on how someone wants it to be used.

Being anti-mandate is a perfectly reasonable position to take (but then I would say that ), one that may be shared by policymakers (and no that fack-wittted  buffoon currently slobbing around downing street cannot in all seriousness be regarded as a policymaker) when considering the most effective management of national emergencies.

Captain Badger wrote:

FrankH wrote:

......First define anti vaxxer.

Merriam Webster defines it as follows: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination. (My emphasis)

I'm opposed to vaccine mandates. I'll just fuck off then, shall I?

That certainly wouldn't tally with many people's definition. Cambridge Dictionary's definition seems more in line with my use of the term at least, and although like you I'm anti-mandate, on this basis I'd echo pRSboy's exhortation that AVs can indeed fack off

Cambridge Dictopnary's definition would certainly tally with most people's understanding of the term 2 years ago. But assume I'm against the experimental COVID vaccines. Am I an anti-vaxxer? What if I tell you I had the flu vaccine last year and I just had the shingles vaccine? Am I still an anti-vaxxer?

FrankH wrote:

......Cambridge Dictopnary's definition would certainly tally with most people's understanding of the term 2 years ago. But assume I'm against the experimental COVID vaccines. Am I an anti-vaxxer? What if I tell you I had the flu vaccine last year and I just had the shingles vaccine? Am I still an anti-vaxxer?

The "experimental" covid vaccines are about as experimental as the annual flu jab.

I didn't call you, or imply or even think you were, an Antivaxxer, so I don't know why you're asking that question, but I''ll try and play along.

According to the (reasonable, but not immutable) working definition to which we currently refer, you seem (asfar as I can tell from the data that you have provided) to be perfectly comfortable with the principle of "vaccinating people (= giving them injections to prevent disease)", and are not one who (as far as I've read today) "spreads and encourages opinions against vaccines". 

So no.

FrankH wrote:

But assume I'm against the experimental COVID vaccines. Am I an anti-vaxxer? What if I tell you I had the flu vaccine last year and I just had the shingles vaccine? Am I still an anti-vaxxer?

The Covid-19 vaccines are no more 'experimental' than the other flu-type vaccines.

If you refuse to have any Covid-19 jabs without genuine medical reasons that most doctors would acknowledge then yes, you're likely to be considered an anti-vaxxer. I know several refuseniks. Despite having more than a year to unearth some real evidence, none of them has managed to offer a compelling reason to refuse vaccination.

It sounds like you could do with listening to the scientists or reading some of the medical literature instead of getting your Covid-19 vaccine information from David Icke or some shouty fuckwits on Facebook.

If you live and work alone and rarely mix with other people indoors then I'm sure you (and they) will be fine.

Like many others, I am against mandating vaccination for NHS staff, social care workers or any other occupation.

Simon E wrote:

Like many others, I am against mandating vaccination for NHS staff, social care workers or any other occupation.

I think mandated vaccination is applicable for certain occupations where either an individual will come into close contact with lots of people, or where staff absenteeism can cause an emergency situation (e.g. Mrs HawkinsPeter works at NHS Blood & Transplant - delays with processing blood donations are likely to cause unnecessary deaths).

hawkinspeter wrote:

I think mandated vaccination is applicable for certain occupations where either an individual will come into close contact with lots of people, or where staff absenteeism can cause an emergency situation (e.g. Mrs HawkinsPeter works at NHS Blood & Transplant - delays with processing blood donations are likely to cause unnecessary deaths).

I don't doubt that there should be cases where it needs to be applied with good reason.

However, a blanket 'Get jabbed or be fired' policy across the whole of the NHS and social care sector seems a risky move. It's politically motivated and provocative. I know anti-vaxxers who have left their jobs in social care for this reason and I'm uncomfortable with the way this sledgehammer is being swung. And if this government of crooks and c**ts can do this with a vaccine (and with the policing bill), what could they get away with next?

I do agree with you that it shouldn't be used as some kind of political tool though I tend to think that health workers should be vaccinated wherever possible. I'm afraid I don't feel too much sympathy with anti-vaxxers (the ones that try to persuade others from getting vaccinated) leaving their jobs, but yes I think a blanket policy isn't really the right move. (As a side note, Mrs HawkinsPeter's workplace has been very keen on getting all their staff flu jabs in previous years too, so at least they've been consistent. I don't know if it's mandatory though).

I agree with this on lots of ways but no one in the medical/healthcare professions seems to mind having compulsory hepatitis vaccines.

FrankH wrote:

First define anti vaxxer.

Merriam Webster defines it as follows: a person who opposes the use of vaccines or regulations mandating vaccination. (My emphasis)

I'm opposed to vaccine mandates. I'll just fuck off then, shall I?

If you go around persuading people to not get vaccinated due to some made up paranoid reason, then yes please.

However, if you aren't against vaccines themselves, but just the regulations, then that's a perfectly reasonable opinion. I don't think that government mandated vaccines are necessary or desirable, but I have nothing against workplaces insisting on their staff getting vaccinated or following more stringent procedures (c.f. food producers insisting that staff follow minimum food hygiene standards).

(I'm also opposed to vaccine passports as they discriminate against immuno-compromised individuals and also provides an incentive for people to fake medical records)

PRSboy wrote:

Anti Vaxxers can just fcuk off with their opinions unless they take no medicines at all.

I think they should submit to having their childhood vaccines extracted from them by force then see how they like getting tetanus and lockjaw the next time they get a splinter.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

.....

I think they should submit to having their childhood vaccines extracted from them by force ....

Oh gods, I'm imagining some Roald-Dahl-esque method of doing that.

shudder....

Doesn't help matters when Radio 1 (it was on in the car) airs a discussion between an anti-vaxxer ("It's not been tested and therefore isn't safe.") and a Dr ("Yes it is. It's not a new vaccine, it's a development of old, tested science") as if each deserve the same air time. It seems to be increasingly fine to be anti-scientific at the moment; perhaps it's just people being exhausted by the lockdowns etc and entering the 'denial' stage.

So we should trust others in society to form rational, sound opinions independently; reading between the lines I assume you mean by letting them listen to Rogan tell them what to think?

Dogless wrote:

So we should trust others in society to form rational, sound opinions independently; reading between the lines I assume you mean by letting them listen to Rogan tell them what to think?

Yup - it's "we are not telling people what to think - but those guys are propagandists". "Vast array of different guests and voices" is maybe a dig at the BBC - for letting Nigel Farage on Question Time so often?

Garage at Large wrote:

I mean that's the reason why Rogan is so popular - he has a vast array of different guests and voices on who aren't necessarily represented (or indeed can be misrepresented) by mainstream media.

Vast numbers of people are grossly misrepresented daily by the MSM; but they are out-groups, not tubthumping 'successful' individuals that know how to sound good when they're given a platform such as Rogan's podcast.

The fact that Robert Malone is/was a vaccine scientist doesn't validate everything he says. How many scientists are saying the opposite? Rogan's choice to take horse de-wormer as a Covid treatment or cure is an example how poor his own judgement can be. He is not accountable to anyone and I wouldn't set much store by what he says on any topic.

Gimpl wrote:

I think we can all stop worrying about Covid now - we're about to all get blown up by Putin shortly 

The rest of you will. I haven't been paying any attention to the news about him.

Ahh! The Talansky paradox!

NIce try to take this down a quantum physics route, but it seems folks are more interested in molecular biology today.

Boopop wrote:

People who say "I'm at little/no risk from CV19 because I'm young, fit and healthy, so why does anyone else have a problem? I'm not getting vaccinated" don't seem that far removed from people who drive a big SUV and are actively against any provisions for safe walking and cycling infrastructure.......

I wonder whether there's a correlation....

I saw an interview where a person was refusing to have their 15 year old vaccinated as "the only benefit would be to other people, not him".  My thought was "Why is that a problem?"

Seventyone wrote:

I saw an interview where a person was refusing to have their 15 year old vaccinated as "the only benefit would be to other people, not him".  My thought was "Why is that a problem?"

Nuts isn't it. That to me would be gravy for getting it done..