Are you forced to take vaccinations in the Marines?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ninja_Stoker

Admin
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Posts
35,495
Reaction score
17,949
There's a few good points raised about free will with regard compulsory wearing of seat belt & the unexpected repercussions. Interestingly in the US, they just made cars safer, introduced airbags etc. The same could be said about compulsory motorcycle helmets or indeed speed limits.

The kickback from the various lockdown measures imposed has understandably caused huge problems with regard mental health and general wellbeing, education, the treatment of life-threatening conditions, the economy, employment and much more besides.

There comes a point, when the most vulnerable are protected as best possible, that the rational individual starts to question whether we have reached a point where to prolong the draconian measures actually does more harm than good.

This was illustrated with the proposed Sarah Everard vigil whereby those who support it found themselves at odds with the Police viewpoint but equally, not so long ago people were getting pretty frustrated with the BLM protests and declared them "illegal" under the current restrictions. Like many of these temporary regulations it feels like many individuals only comply fully when it aligns with their beliefs.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
It doesn't help that these countries are all in trouble for not ordering the Vaccines early enough. Ruling them as unsafe will help them politically. On the other hand, if they are unsafe then they need to be stopped.

Makes it very difficult for people to make an accurate assessment of risk v reward.
 

Broadsword55

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2020
Posts
76
Reaction score
75
Here are my thoughts, whilst this current pandemic has a low fatality rate in younger people, this isn't always the case with other coronaviruses. SARS and MERS predominantly harmed younger people who had stronger immune systems as did the Spanish flu to give context. It is likely given the new foreign policy that marines will be deployed to the Far East where a coronavirus is more likely and this strain may affect young people severely. For that reason I would get the vaccine to give your immune system increased protection against these viruses. Also whilst covid or any related virus will probably not kill you. Losing your sense of taste and smell whilst a minor side effect will ruin your quality of life, all food will feel like chewing cardboard, you'll probably start stinking and not notice and finally you can be coughing for 8 months or more which will wreck your PT. Take the shot and everything will be fine. China has this attitude as do Vietnam and look at their death rate.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,825
Reaction score
14,892
Makes it very difficult for people to make an accurate assessment of risk v reward.

This statement by AstraZeneca gives an overview. My bold:

A careful review of all available safety data of more than 17 million people vaccinated in the European Union (EU) and UK with COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca has shown no evidence of an increased risk of pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or thrombocytopenia, in any defined age group, gender, batch or in any particular country.

So far across the EU and UK, there have been 15 events of DVT and 22 events of pulmonary embolism reported among those given the vaccine, based on the number of cases the Company has received as of 8 March. This is much lower than would be expected to occur naturally in a general population of this size and is similar across other licensed COVID-19 vaccines. The monthly safety report will be made public on the European Medicines Agency website in the following week, in line with exceptional transparency measures for COVID-19.



I had my own AZ vaccination shot on Monday last week. I'll keep you updated on DVT and embolism. :)
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
China has this attitude as do Vietnam and look at their death rate.
China is a weird one, they won't let you in unless you have had their vaccine. Having a CV-19 vaccine isn't enough, it has to be their's.
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,825
Reaction score
14,892
I heard an interview with Nouriel Robini on BBC World Service Radio. Economists and actuaries are in the business of making judgments based upon projected financial consequences so their opinions are often worth listening to.

Asked about the AZ vaccine he stated that if one million US citizens were vaccinated over one hundred (possibly several hundred, depending upon demographic profile) citizens would die of heart attacks within twenty-four hours of receiving the shot.
Not because of the vaccine but because of statistical probability. I can’t find a link to the audio clip; it was broadcast at silly o'clock.

Robini was dubbed Doctor Doom in early 2020 because of his supposedly pessimistic predictions about the impact of COVID-19 on the USA. Predictions which turned out to be rather accurate.

More about Robini here:

 

Broadsword55

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jul 20, 2020
Posts
76
Reaction score
75
I heard an interview with Nouriel Robini on BBC World Service Radio. Economists and actuaries are in the business of making judgments based upon projected financial consequences so their opinions are often worth listening to.

Asked about the AZ vaccine he stated that if one million US citizens were vaccinated over one hundred (possibly several hundred, depending upon demographic profile) citizens would die of heart attacks within twenty-four hours of receiving the shot.
Not because of the vaccine but because of statistical probability. I can’t find a link to the audio clip; it was broadcast at silly o'clock.

Robini was dubbed Doctor Doom in early 2020 because of his supposedly pessimistic predictions about the impact of COVID-19 on the USA. Predictions which turned out to be rather accurate.

More about Robini here:

It is only a concern when it is way above the normal levels which is not the case. As conveniently pointed out by girls on social media who stated your risk of blood clotting on ‘the pill’ is a lot higher. There was a very good mathematics textbook back in the day called how to lie with statistics which showed how you could take any data like that you mentioned and construe it any way you wanted.
 

Ninja_Stoker

Admin
Joined
Jul 10, 2007
Posts
35,495
Reaction score
17,949
I think we will know the truth about the vaccine within the next 6 months. There is one set of people that don't lie, the health and life insurance underwriters. At some point they will start to look into the data.

If they start charging policy more for a policy due to not having the jab then we'll know it is safe. If they start charging you more for having the jab, then we'll know something is wrong.

If they don't ask, then I don't think the job makes a difference either way.
A good indicator.

If life insurance policies exclude or increase the premium for either catching a virus or the relevant vaccine against it, then we'll know which one is the greater risk.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
A good indicator.

If life insurance policies exclude or increase the premium for either catching a virus or the relevant vaccine against it, then we'll know which one is the greater risk.
First sort of one is in, Bupa will refuse to treat any adverse effects due to what they call "Experimental Treatment".

As far as I know it's not based on any data from the Vaccine's, just their overall view of such procedures. I think if I was with Bupa and had had the jab, I would consider removing myself from Bupa's coverage because it allows them to claim anything may have been down to the vaccine.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
So Bupa won’t cover you if you do a bit at Porton Down, people used to top up there wages by going there for “ experiments “
Apparently not from the statement they just put out. It wasn't something I was aware off either.

I think they'd have a hard time justifying a jab from the 80/90's caused side side effects today serious enough to void a policy. It's a good point you raise though.

I imagine it would be the same in the small print of all health insurance companies.
 

Djcuk

Member
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Posts
12
Reaction score
10
Very interesting and thought provoking thread. Glad to see it being kept civil, and it not be an echo chamber of one opinion. I personally would rather not have the covid 19 vaccine, however im not anti vax as ive had vaccines before. I dont believe in conspiracy theorys either. Atleast not anymore, (used to until one day i drunkenly spouted one out and made myself look a right div!). But like mentioned i am a bit apprehensive about this whole situation. I mean lets have it right, weve been in out of lockdowns twice now when we were only meant to be in one for 2 weeks. businesses gone never to return again, cancer treatments not being able to be seeing, suicides etc. Its a mess the situation were in, not good for anyone... well i say anyone, were stuck, but the billionaire dollar business such as amazon, Microsoft that have hade huge profits due to lockdowns are doing alright.... My grudge is with lockdowns personally but i understand and share opinions against the covid vaccine.

Keep up the dialogue
 

Chelonian

Moderator
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Posts
11,825
Reaction score
14,892
First sort of one is in, Bupa will refuse to treat any adverse effects due to what they call "Experimental Treatment".
Seems at odds with content published by BUPA which appears to endorse the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccinations:

 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
Seems at odds with content published by BUPA which appears to endorse the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccinations:

This is an image of what they wrote to someone who posted it on Twitter. Assuming it is true, my gut feeling is that it is gen and not someone making it up.

bupa.jpg
 

1919

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2019
Posts
104
Reaction score
136
Very interesting and thought provoking thread. Glad to see it being kept civil, and it not be an echo chamber of one opinion. I personally would rather not have the covid 19 vaccine, however im not anti vax as ive had vaccines before. I dont believe in conspiracy theorys either. Atleast not anymore, (used to until one day i drunkenly spouted one out and made myself look a right div!). But like mentioned i am a bit apprehensive about this whole situation. I mean lets have it right, weve been in out of lockdowns twice now when we were only meant to be in one for 2 weeks. businesses gone never to return again, cancer treatments not being able to be seeing, suicides etc. Its a mess the situation were in, not good for anyone... well i say anyone, were stuck, but the billionaire dollar business such as amazon, Microsoft that have hade huge profits due to lockdowns are doing alright.... My grudge is with lockdowns personally but i understand and share opinions against the covid vaccine.

Keep up the dialogue

Very much so. I personally believe the Coronavirus Act to be illegal and this government to be illegitimate due to their abuse of parliamentary procedure. (There was nothing in the Public Health Act 1984 that allowed them to curtail the liberties of the healthy, and they've spent much of this pretending things are the law which aren't). What's terrifying is that chief power checks failed to even engage, never mind stop what's going on: the courts threw Simon Dolan's case out without even hearing it, and HM's Opposition are not opposing.

If the Army's 77 Brigade are doing what I understand them to be doing (i.e. conducting ops on British citizens not following the government line), they need to be careful should things ever return to normal. As do the Police: they're paid by the public to enforce the law - not what a rogue executive is pretending is the law.
 

Johnny_Anonie

Moderator
Joined
Mar 17, 2019
Posts
1,741
Reaction score
2,671
Very much so. I personally believe the Coronavirus Act to be illegal and this government to be illegitimate due to their abuse of parliamentary procedure. (There was nothing in the Public Health Act 1984 that allowed them to curtail the liberties of the healthy, and they've spent much of this pretending things are the law which aren't). What's terrifying is that chief power checks failed to even engage, never mind stop what's going on: the courts threw Simon Dolan's case out without even hearing it, and HM's Opposition are not opposing.

If the Army's 77 Brigade are doing what I understand them to be doing (i.e. conducting ops on British citizens not following the government line), they need to be careful should things ever return to normal. As do the Police: they're paid by the public to enforce the law - not what a rogue executive is pretending is the law.

Fantastic points well made.

However I think it might help develop the discussion by highlighting just how an Act of Statue progresses from a Bill right through to Royal Assent. By the way @1919 this isn't directed at you and is intended to add some meat to the bones for those maybe unfamiliar with the process.
It is my understanding that a bill may be introduced in either chamber of Parliament- So the house of lords or house of commons. The Coronavirus Act 2020 was introduced in the commons. It then passes through five separate stages in each House, starting in the House where it was introduced.

The journey a bill travels in order to become an Act.

  1. First reading: The Bill is published, and a date is set for its second reading.
  2. Second reading: The Bill is introduced to the House, and a debate takes place. After the debate the House votes on whether to permit the Bill to proceed to the committee stage. If the vote passes the House has accepted the general principles of the Bill.
  3. Committee stage: A detailed examination of each clause of the Bill is undertaken by a Public Bill Committee of between 16 and 50 MPs. The Committee will include at least one Minister from the Government Department that is sponsoring the Bill, and MPs from other parties, roughly in proportion to the composition of the House of Commons, who have interest in, or knowledge of, the subject-matter of the Bill. The Committee may propose amendments to the Bill.
  4. Report stage: The whole House has the opportunity to debate, and then accept or reject, amendments proposed at the committee stage. Further amendments may also be made.
  5. Third reading: The House takes a final vote on the Bill.
After a Bill has passed through all its stages in both Houses, it must receive the Royal Assent in order to become an Act of Parliament. It is said that the Royal Assent is a mere formality which is undertaken on behalf of the monarch.

This is what should happen. I will leave it up to individuals to go and research just how quickly the Coronavirus act was pushed through compared to other Bills. Personally I think it didn't receive nearly as much parliamentary scrutiny as it should have done. I also think the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could have been used whilst the Coronavirus Act was progressing through the stages. The whole thing makes me very uncomfortable.
 

GreyWing

Nobody
Joined
Feb 21, 2007
Posts
5,887
Reaction score
4,666
Fantastic points well made.

However I think it might help develop the discussion by highlighting just how an Act of Statue progresses from a Bill right through to Royal Assent. By the way @1919 this isn't directed at you and is intended to add some meat to the bones for those maybe unfamiliar with the process.
It is my understanding that a bill may be introduced in either chamber of Parliament- So the house of lords or house of commons. The Coronavirus Act 2020 was introduced in the commons. It then passes through five separate stages in each House, starting in the House where it was introduced.

The journey a bill travels in order to become an Act.

  1. First reading: The Bill is published, and a date is set for its second reading.
  2. Second reading: The Bill is introduced to the House, and a debate takes place. After the debate the House votes on whether to permit the Bill to proceed to the committee stage. If the vote passes the House has accepted the general principles of the Bill.
  3. Committee stage: A detailed examination of each clause of the Bill is undertaken by a Public Bill Committee of between 16 and 50 MPs. The Committee will include at least one Minister from the Government Department that is sponsoring the Bill, and MPs from other parties, roughly in proportion to the composition of the House of Commons, who have interest in, or knowledge of, the subject-matter of the Bill. The Committee may propose amendments to the Bill.
  4. Report stage: The whole House has the opportunity to debate, and then accept or reject, amendments proposed at the committee stage. Further amendments may also be made.
  5. Third reading: The House takes a final vote on the Bill.
After a Bill has passed through all its stages in both Houses, it must receive the Royal Assent in order to become an Act of Parliament. It is said that the Royal Assent is a mere formality which is undertaken on behalf of the monarch.

This is what should happen. I will leave it up to individuals to go and research just how quickly the Coronavirus act was pushed through compared to other Bills. Personally I think it didn't receive nearly as much parliamentary scrutiny as it should have done. I also think the Civil Contingencies Act 2004 could have been used whilst the Coronavirus Act was progressing through the stages. The whole thing makes me very uncomfortable.
Negative I think mate, pretty sure of this, but granted not 100%. Only primary legislation goes through that process. The Corona Act stuff is secondary legislation and was bolted on to the Public Health Act 1984. The Public Health Act specifically states it can't be used for lock downs and the things that it has been used for. Therefore the Corona Stuff was Ultra Vires and unlawful.

Government was acting unlawfully, but no Court would hear it, so technically wasn't.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top