Fully vaccinated travellers 'will not need to take Covid test upon returning to UK' as Plan B curbs are 'set to be lifted' with passes and WFH guidance being eased on January 26 as cases continue to drop - but masks are to stay
Fully vaccinated travellers will be able to go on half-term holidays in February without the need to take a test on their return, as the Government prepares to drastically reduce Covid restrictions. Transport Secretary Grant Shapps is said to support the move, which will bolster the travel industry and ease financial pressure on families. The change to the testing rules is expected to be announced on January 26, on the day the Prime Minister will likely lift Plan B restrictions. Health Secretary Sajid Javid expects almost all Covid curbs to end in a fortnight because 'the data is moving in the right direction'. More families are booking half-term breaks since the end of PCRs means around a £300 saving for a family of four. Covid passports and work-from-home guidance for England are also expected to be lifted on January 26 - with an announcement likely within days. The legal requirement to wear facemasks in indoor settings such as shops and public transport is likely to remain.
This sort of nonsense is not unique to Britain. It is happening around the world.
Governments make judgment calls in relation to infection control. Like the 1 above.
But the ruling is perverse. It is saying that there is not much worry about someone reentering the country who has an infectious disease. But it is a worry if they are unvaccinated.
I don't understand this logic. Right now, insofar as spreading the virus is concerned, Omicron really doesn't seem to care about the carrier's vaccine status. Or "immunity".
I think you're reading a bit too much into it.
It looks to me like they just want to make things more difficult for those people who are choosing not to be vaccinated.
I don't think the UK will go down the enforced vaccination route (which I wouldn't agree with if they did), but if they implement rules and regs that make things more difficult for unvaccinated people then that's fine by me....and I think this testing rule will be exactly that.
(variants are also more interested in unvaccinated people, so there is an element of public health to the decision too I think, though very much secondary)
People can choose not to be vaccinated as is their right, but they will also have to face any consequences of that decision. Seems fair enough.
He was and is a threat to public health. Not because he is unvaccinated.
Because of his actions while he had an infection. And his lying to Australian immigration about those actions.
Many of the unvaccinated will try and portray him as a martyr. Rather than the Covid spreading liar that he is.
People need to recognise the important distinction,
Yes-his vaccination status was part of the reason he told lies. But-his actions were what caused this. Not his vaccination status.
Exactly that. If he had filled his forms in truthfully, & not gone galivanting about in public after testing positive, there would not be a problem.
Bravo the Australian Government.
I would be most interested to know what Spain has to say in all of this.
I am sure I am not the only person who would really love to know how exactly he managed to enter Spain while knowing he had an infectious disease.
This is a good point, as from early December Spain have only been permitting fully vaccinated arrivals (and this is still the case)
There are likely some exceptions, and money/influence talks, but the average unjabbed man/woman on the street can't get into Spain right now.
Agreed.
But it is more than just that.
Firstly, his infection status was different-the date was closer to the Covid diagnosis, his other infractions more relevant
Secondly, Spain is a Schengen Area Member. So-if Spain allow him in at the right time, he would be automatically allowed into, say, France, and the French Open.
He was and is a threat to public health. Not because he is unvaccinated.
Because of his actions while he had an infection. And his lying to Australian immigration about those actions.
Many of the unvaccinated will try and portray him as a martyr. Rather than the Covid spreading liar that he is.
People need to recognise the important distinction,
Yes-his vaccination status was part of the reason he told lies. But-his actions were what caused this. Not his vaccination status.
Exactly that. If he had filled his forms in truthfully, & not gone galivanting about in public after testing positive, there would not be a problem.
Bravo the Australian Government.
I would be most interested to know what Spain has to say in all of this.
I am sure I am not the only person who would really love to know how exactly he managed to enter Spain while knowing he had an infectious disease.
This is a good point, as from early December Spain have only been permitting fully vaccinated arrivals (and this is still the case)
There are likely some exceptions, and money/influence talks, but the average unjabbed man/woman on the street can't get into Spain right now.
Agreed.
But it is more than just that.
Firstly, his infection status was different-the date was closer to the Covid diagnosis, his other infractions more relevant
Secondly, Spain is a Schengen Area Member. So-if Spain allow him in at the right time, he would be automatically allowed into, say, France, and the French Open.
Think France would like to know more?
Poor old Dr Fauci is bound to figure in the story somewhere along the line.
Pressures from other healthcare prorities invariably lessen as Winter ends and Spring begins. Happens every year. Looks likely that pressures will also lessen if this Covid wave subsides. Will there be another one? It seems that we are only preparing for the "yes" answer.
I think that, at some level, the NHS should be given the power to decide the best way forward. Not just politicians, or Acts of Parliament. Because, for example, what may be the right solution for a Hospital Trust with 98% vaccination is not going to be the same as one with 80%.
It does seem a little odd that decisions concerning vaccinations and the NHS seem to have an all or nothing approach. As an example, if this is so important, then why are there no interim measures in place before April? Surely there could have been guidance beforehand in relation to particular high-risk areas. Like Covid wards, ICUs, oncology wards and the like.
How can it be right that the NHS are entirely left to run themselves until April, and then told what to do 100% of the time on this issue afterwards? How much time and money is being spent preparing for an enforced change?
There needs to be some safeguards in place. Meanwhile, it is entirely possible that people will be sacked for not getting a vaccine even though they could either be safely deployed elsewhere, or that the risk level has dramatically reduced by then.
Because the NHS has rather a lot of people expert in such things.
Try reading these 2 articles in the British Medical Journal. 1 is from the House of Lords Committee. Neither are from people who do not support vaccination.
Fully vaccinated travellers 'will not need to take Covid test upon returning to UK' as Plan B curbs are 'set to be lifted' with passes and WFH guidance being eased on January 26 as cases continue to drop - but masks are to stay
Fully vaccinated travellers will be able to go on half-term holidays in February without the need to take a test on their return, as the Government prepares to drastically reduce Covid restrictions. Transport Secretary Grant Shapps is said to support the move, which will bolster the travel industry and ease financial pressure on families. The change to the testing rules is expected to be announced on January 26, on the day the Prime Minister will likely lift Plan B restrictions. Health Secretary Sajid Javid expects almost all Covid curbs to end in a fortnight because 'the data is moving in the right direction'. More families are booking half-term breaks since the end of PCRs means around a £300 saving for a family of four. Covid passports and work-from-home guidance for England are also expected to be lifted on January 26 - with an announcement likely within days. The legal requirement to wear facemasks in indoor settings such as shops and public transport is likely to remain.
This sort of nonsense is not unique to Britain. It is happening around the world.
Governments make judgment calls in relation to infection control. Like the 1 above.
But the ruling is perverse. It is saying that there is not much worry about someone reentering the country who has an infectious disease. But it is a worry if they are unvaccinated.
I don't understand this logic. Right now, insofar as spreading the virus is concerned, Omicron really doesn't seem to care about the carrier's vaccine status. Or "immunity".
I think you're reading a bit too much into it.
It looks to me like they just want to make things more difficult for those people who are choosing not to be vaccinated.
I don't think the UK will go down the enforced vaccination route (which I wouldn't agree with if they did), but if they implement rules and regs that make things more difficult for unvaccinated people then that's fine by me....and I think this testing rule will be exactly that.
(variants are also more interested in unvaccinated people, so there is an element of public health to the decision too I think, though very much secondary)
People can choose not to be vaccinated as is their right, but they will also have to face any consequences of that decision. Seems fair enough.
What consequences should apply for these:
People who catch HIV or Hepatitis after having unprotected s3x or share dirty needles (their choice).
Fully vaccinated travellers 'will not need to take Covid test upon returning to UK' as Plan B curbs are 'set to be lifted' with passes and WFH guidance being eased on January 26 as cases continue to drop - but masks are to stay
Fully vaccinated travellers will be able to go on half-term holidays in February without the need to take a test on their return, as the Government prepares to drastically reduce Covid restrictions. Transport Secretary Grant Shapps is said to support the move, which will bolster the travel industry and ease financial pressure on families. The change to the testing rules is expected to be announced on January 26, on the day the Prime Minister will likely lift Plan B restrictions. Health Secretary Sajid Javid expects almost all Covid curbs to end in a fortnight because 'the data is moving in the right direction'. More families are booking half-term breaks since the end of PCRs means around a £300 saving for a family of four. Covid passports and work-from-home guidance for England are also expected to be lifted on January 26 - with an announcement likely within days. The legal requirement to wear facemasks in indoor settings such as shops and public transport is likely to remain.
This sort of nonsense is not unique to Britain. It is happening around the world.
Governments make judgment calls in relation to infection control. Like the 1 above.
But the ruling is perverse. It is saying that there is not much worry about someone reentering the country who has an infectious disease. But it is a worry if they are unvaccinated.
I don't understand this logic. Right now, insofar as spreading the virus is concerned, Omicron really doesn't seem to care about the carrier's vaccine status. Or "immunity".
I think you're reading a bit too much into it.
It looks to me like they just want to make things more difficult for those people who are choosing not to be vaccinated.
I don't think the UK will go down the enforced vaccination route (which I wouldn't agree with if they did), but if they implement rules and regs that make things more difficult for unvaccinated people then that's fine by me....and I think this testing rule will be exactly that.
(variants are also more interested in unvaccinated people, so there is an element of public health to the decision too I think, though very much secondary)
People can choose not to be vaccinated as is their right, but they will also have to face any consequences of that decision. Seems fair enough.
What consequences should apply for these:
People who catch HIV or Hepatitis after having unprotected s3x or share dirty needles (their choice).
None obviously.
And I'm sure you don't need me to explain why, Dr Vespa.
Nice bit of whataboutery though. Exactly the type of idiotic retort we've come to expect from anti-vaxxers.
Humiliated Novak Djokovic and his entourage land in Dubai after being deported from Australia as he learns he is banned from the country for THREE years - as the Australian Open kicks off without him
The Serbian tennis star posed for selfies with staff and fans as he moved through the airport after he was kicked out of Australia over his visa row because he was unvaccinated. But as he touched down in the United Arab Emirates, the Australia Open was kicking off without him in Melbourne, with his name taped over on the official draw (top right), and the government was confirming it would ban him from returning for three years. Djokovic left Australia late on Sunday night after 11 days of remarkable legal wrangling saw the tennis champion finally exhaust his options, with the full bench of the Federal Court siding with Minister Hawke.
Fully vaccinated travellers 'will not need to take Covid test upon returning to UK' as Plan B curbs are 'set to be lifted' with passes and WFH guidance being eased on January 26 as cases continue to drop - but masks are to stay
Fully vaccinated travellers will be able to go on half-term holidays in February without the need to take a test on their return, as the Government prepares to drastically reduce Covid restrictions. Transport Secretary Grant Shapps is said to support the move, which will bolster the travel industry and ease financial pressure on families. The change to the testing rules is expected to be announced on January 26, on the day the Prime Minister will likely lift Plan B restrictions. Health Secretary Sajid Javid expects almost all Covid curbs to end in a fortnight because 'the data is moving in the right direction'. More families are booking half-term breaks since the end of PCRs means around a £300 saving for a family of four. Covid passports and work-from-home guidance for England are also expected to be lifted on January 26 - with an announcement likely within days. The legal requirement to wear facemasks in indoor settings such as shops and public transport is likely to remain.
This sort of nonsense is not unique to Britain. It is happening around the world.
Governments make judgment calls in relation to infection control. Like the 1 above.
But the ruling is perverse. It is saying that there is not much worry about someone reentering the country who has an infectious disease. But it is a worry if they are unvaccinated.
I don't understand this logic. Right now, insofar as spreading the virus is concerned, Omicron really doesn't seem to care about the carrier's vaccine status. Or "immunity".
I think you're reading a bit too much into it.
It looks to me like they just want to make things more difficult for those people who are choosing not to be vaccinated.
I don't think the UK will go down the enforced vaccination route (which I wouldn't agree with if they did), but if they implement rules and regs that make things more difficult for unvaccinated people then that's fine by me....and I think this testing rule will be exactly that.
(variants are also more interested in unvaccinated people, so there is an element of public health to the decision too I think, though very much secondary)
People can choose not to be vaccinated as is their right, but they will also have to face any consequences of that decision. Seems fair enough.
What consequences should apply for these:
People who catch HIV or Hepatitis after having unprotected s3x or share dirty needles (their choice).
None obviously.
And I'm sure you don't need me to explain why, Dr Vespa.
Nice bit of whataboutery though. Exactly the type of idiotic retort we've come to expect from anti-vaxxers.
So you're happy to discriminate against people with one infectious disease but not others?
Unlucky chap Hospitalised in Nice, Bordeaux & Montreiul….
Unlucky chap, indeed. Or, rather more accurately, 3 unlucky chaps represented by 1 stock picture. Ignore the face on the picture. Don't ignore what the picture represents.
In case people cannot read French (or look it up on google translate), the words below the pictures say (roughly):-
Top Left "9 out of 10 patients are unvaccinated at Nice Hospital...The Weight of the Unvaccinated"
Top Right "98% of Covid patients at Montreuil are unvaccinated*
Bottom "Xmas in Hospital, under the threat of Omicron. 1.55 million screening tests in last 24 hours. A record since the start of the pandemic."
Read the words. Please. Don't just make light of the picture.
You could ignore the experts. You could prefer evidence by people who won't even say who they are. Or what relevant qualifications they have. Or why the Canadian Government completely ignores them. Or why their other claims also sound faintly ridiculous.
You could ignore the experts. You could prefer evidence by people who won't even say who they are. Or what relevant qualifications they have. Or why the Canadian Government completely ignores them. Or why their other claims also sound faintly ridiculous.
So you are looking for ‘ balanced reporting’ on why the public have been deceived about efficacy? Absolute and relative risk reduction has been pointed out quite recently, in fact it was pointed out maybe even a year ago on the big C thread. On your link, you can skip straight to the bottom bit to sum up more deception. Not only were frontline doctors using ivermectin from the off,it was also used in India, and given out in packs to countries who had not received many or any vaccines. This was by the WHO. As for ‘ profiting’ on prescribing ivermectin, it’s cheap as chips. I would very much doubt that in poorer nations,doctors get a bundle for each prescription written. Haysie thinks the unvaccinated are killers,others appear to go along with that. So why after two years are health workers still working in hospitals unvaccinated? Why were those exempt from mask wearing allowed into shops etc,with no added on advice? The same still applies.
I think you should get protests together outside hospitals, get them unvaccinated staff out,on the ground, and cuff em.
You could ignore the experts. You could prefer evidence by people who won't even say who they are. Or what relevant qualifications they have. Or why the Canadian Government completely ignores them. Or why their other claims also sound faintly ridiculous.
So you are looking for ‘ balanced reporting’ on why the public have been deceived about efficacy? Absolute and relative risk reduction has been pointed out quite recently, in fact it was pointed out maybe even a year ago on the big C thread. On your link, you can skip straight to the bottom bit to sum up more deception. Not only were frontline doctors using ivermectin from the off,it was also used in India, and given out in packs to countries who had not received many or any vaccines. This was by the WHO. As for ‘ profiting’ on prescribing ivermectin, it’s cheap as chips. I would very much doubt that in poorer nations,doctors get a bundle for each prescription written. Haysie thinks the unvaccinated are killers,others appear to go along with that. So why after two years are health workers still working in hospitals unvaccinated? Why were those exempt from mask wearing allowed into shops etc,with no added on advice? The same still applies.
I think you should get protests together outside hospitals, get them unvaccinated staff out,on the ground, and cuff em.
Your link is a cancel link.
It's always the same.
You ignore the main body of an article. Because you are, for whatever reason, unable to answer facts. Like the fact that Christian Eriksen and his Employer know more about his vaccination status at the time of his heart problem (he was unvaccinated at the time) than unknown and unnamed people who are not Christian Eriksen.
Ivermectin? Please. Had Stage 2 trials. Hopeless results. Didn't go to Stage 3. Used by Doctors in direct contravention of policy guidelines at various hospitals. Like some modern day witch doctor.
Unvaccinated are killers? Unlikely in most situations. And certainly less likely now. Definitely the case that the risk to themselves far outweighs risk to others. I'm not in the @Haysie camp there.
The "two years" bit. Vaccines have only been available for anyone at all in the UK since December 2020, but even though for most it is way less than a year for a first dose, I agree with the point you are trying to make.
It is not a "cancel" link. It is a set of facts, debunking the fiction contained in the 1 you like. You know, the 1 that want you to make life choices on. But 1 they are too scared to put their name to.
It has always been the case in civilised society that "experts" in matters such as this make it very clear whether they have any vested interest in their theories. Your anonymous heroes are unwilling to answer that question.
I had a look at "rumble" earlier. Articles on:-
Why AZ is better than Pfizer Why Moderna is better than Pfizer Why nothing is better than Pfizer Why using ventilators is counter-productive
Never even mentioned Christian Eriksen. What do you not understand about ‘ repurposed medicines’ that Billy boy mentioned in his simulations. How many ingredients are in vaccines? You’ve even stated you received more than one medicine😱 Medicines will be given in regard to the condition of a patient, acute or relatively minor, and taking in their general health and medical records. I think you looking for a silver bullet for something.
Fully vaccinated travellers 'will not need to take Covid test upon returning to UK' as Plan B curbs are 'set to be lifted' with passes and WFH guidance being eased on January 26 as cases continue to drop - but masks are to stay
Fully vaccinated travellers will be able to go on half-term holidays in February without the need to take a test on their return, as the Government prepares to drastically reduce Covid restrictions. Transport Secretary Grant Shapps is said to support the move, which will bolster the travel industry and ease financial pressure on families. The change to the testing rules is expected to be announced on January 26, on the day the Prime Minister will likely lift Plan B restrictions. Health Secretary Sajid Javid expects almost all Covid curbs to end in a fortnight because 'the data is moving in the right direction'. More families are booking half-term breaks since the end of PCRs means around a £300 saving for a family of four. Covid passports and work-from-home guidance for England are also expected to be lifted on January 26 - with an announcement likely within days. The legal requirement to wear facemasks in indoor settings such as shops and public transport is likely to remain.
This sort of nonsense is not unique to Britain. It is happening around the world.
Governments make judgment calls in relation to infection control. Like the 1 above.
But the ruling is perverse. It is saying that there is not much worry about someone reentering the country who has an infectious disease. But it is a worry if they are unvaccinated.
I don't understand this logic. Right now, insofar as spreading the virus is concerned, Omicron really doesn't seem to care about the carrier's vaccine status. Or "immunity".
I think you're reading a bit too much into it.
It looks to me like they just want to make things more difficult for those people who are choosing not to be vaccinated.
I don't think the UK will go down the enforced vaccination route (which I wouldn't agree with if they did), but if they implement rules and regs that make things more difficult for unvaccinated people then that's fine by me....and I think this testing rule will be exactly that.
(variants are also more interested in unvaccinated people, so there is an element of public health to the decision too I think, though very much secondary)
People can choose not to be vaccinated as is their right, but they will also have to face any consequences of that decision. Seems fair enough.
What consequences should apply for these:
People who catch HIV or Hepatitis after having unprotected s3x or share dirty needles (their choice).
None obviously.
And I'm sure you don't need me to explain why, Dr Vespa.
Nice bit of whataboutery though. Exactly the type of idiotic retort we've come to expect from anti-vaxxers.
So you're happy to discriminate against people with one infectious disease but not others?
DiSCrIMinAtE.
There is a vaccine for Covid19. Sensible people in this country have taken said vaccine, which is the vast majority of the nation. This not only helps protect themselves but also the wider public, and is backed up by any number of stats and figures you care to look at. People refusing this vaccine, not on medical grounds, are idiots. As has been admirably demonstrated in this and other threads.
There isn't an approved vaccine for HIV. HIV doesn't spread in the same way as Covid19, not even close.
There are vaccines for Hep A and Hep B. As far as I'm aware there isn't a vaccine for Hep C. Hep B vaccines are given to young babies and sensible parents will ensure their children are vaccinated. Only an idiot wouldn't vaccinate their children, right Dr Vespa? The best way to protect yourself against Hep A and B is through vaccination, which strangely enough is the best way to protect yourself from Covid. Hepatitis doesn't spread in the same way as Covid19, not even close.
But why stop at HIV and Hepatitis for your whataboutery? There are plenty more diseases you can throw into the mix in an attempt to mask your anti-vax stance.
If these anti-vax fruitcakes soon start to find their day to day life is a bit more difficult due to declining the vaccine, then I certainly won't lose any sleep over that.
Comments
It looks to me like they just want to make things more difficult for those people who are choosing not to be vaccinated.
I don't think the UK will go down the enforced vaccination route (which I wouldn't agree with if they did), but if they implement rules and regs that make things more difficult for unvaccinated people then that's fine by me....and I think this testing rule will be exactly that.
(variants are also more interested in unvaccinated people, so there is an element of public health to the decision too I think, though very much secondary)
People can choose not to be vaccinated as is their right, but they will also have to face any consequences of that decision. Seems fair enough.
But it is more than just that.
Firstly, his infection status was different-the date was closer to the Covid diagnosis, his other infractions more relevant
Secondly, Spain is a Schengen Area Member. So-if Spain allow him in at the right time, he would be automatically allowed into, say, France, and the French Open.
Think France would like to know more?
Djokovic 'treated like mass murderer' - Serb president
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/world-australia-60001871
He of all people should know how a mass murderer is treated.
Video
https://gettr.com/post/pontwl8081
How much of a risk would the unjabbed be seeing as all staff, that come into contact with patients, have to wear full PPE?
If they take regular tests, why isn't that an option?
What would be the impact on sacking them all and having to recruit and train new staff from scratch, given the huge backlog ?
The current Gov policy:
Pressures from other healthcare prorities invariably lessen as Winter ends and Spring begins. Happens every year. Looks likely that pressures will also lessen if this Covid wave subsides. Will there be another one? It seems that we are only preparing for the "yes" answer.
I think that, at some level, the NHS should be given the power to decide the best way forward. Not just politicians, or Acts of Parliament. Because, for example, what may be the right solution for a Hospital Trust with 98% vaccination is not going to be the same as one with 80%.
It does seem a little odd that decisions concerning vaccinations and the NHS seem to have an all or nothing approach. As an example, if this is so important, then why are there no interim measures in place before April? Surely there could have been guidance beforehand in relation to particular high-risk areas. Like Covid wards, ICUs, oncology wards and the like.
How can it be right that the NHS are entirely left to run themselves until April, and then told what to do 100% of the time on this issue afterwards? How much time and money is being spent preparing for an enforced change?
There needs to be some safeguards in place. Meanwhile, it is entirely possible that people will be sacked for not getting a vaccine even though they could either be safely deployed elsewhere, or that the risk level has dramatically reduced by then.
Because the NHS has rather a lot of people expert in such things.
Try reading these 2 articles in the British Medical Journal. 1 is from the House of Lords Committee. Neither are from people who do not support vaccination.
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2957
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2733
People who catch HIV or Hepatitis after having unprotected s3x or share dirty needles (their choice).
And I'm sure you don't need me to explain why, Dr Vespa.
Nice bit of whataboutery though. Exactly the type of idiotic retort we've come to expect from anti-vaxxers.
The Serbian tennis star posed for selfies with staff and fans as he moved through the airport after he was kicked out of Australia over his visa row because he was unvaccinated. But as he touched down in the United Arab Emirates, the Australia Open was kicking off without him in Melbourne, with his name taped over on the official draw (top right), and the government was confirming it would ban him from returning for three years. Djokovic left Australia late on Sunday night after 11 days of remarkable legal wrangling saw the tennis champion finally exhaust his options, with the full bench of the Federal Court siding with Minister Hawke.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10409405/Serbian-Australian-Open-champion-Novak-Djokovic-lands-Dubai-banned-three-years.html
Hospitalised in Nice, Bordeaux & Montreiul….
In case people cannot read French (or look it up on google translate), the words below the pictures say (roughly):-
Top Left "9 out of 10 patients are unvaccinated at Nice Hospital...The Weight of the Unvaccinated"
Top Right "98% of Covid patients at Montreuil are unvaccinated*
Bottom "Xmas in Hospital, under the threat of Omicron. 1.55 million screening tests in last 24 hours. A record since the start of the pandemic."
Read the words. Please. Don't just make light of the picture.
https://rumble.com/vqx3kb-the-pfizer-inoculations-do-more-harm-than-good.html
You could ignore the experts. You could prefer evidence by people who won't even say who they are. Or what relevant qualifications they have. Or why the Canadian Government completely ignores them. Or why their other claims also sound faintly ridiculous.
https://ph.news.yahoo.com/video-repeats-false-claims-safety-030833727.html
Absolute and relative risk reduction has been pointed out quite recently, in fact it was pointed out maybe even a year ago on the big C thread.
On your link, you can skip straight to the bottom bit to sum up more deception.
Not only were frontline doctors using ivermectin from the off,it was also used in India, and given out in packs to countries who had not received many or any vaccines. This was by the WHO.
As for ‘ profiting’ on prescribing ivermectin, it’s cheap as chips.
I would very much doubt that in poorer nations,doctors get a bundle for each prescription written.
Haysie thinks the unvaccinated are killers,others appear to go along with that.
So why after two years are health workers still working in hospitals unvaccinated?
Why were those exempt from mask wearing allowed into shops etc,with no added on advice?
The same still applies.
I think you should get protests together outside hospitals, get them unvaccinated staff out,on the ground, and cuff em.
Your link is a cancel link.
You ignore the main body of an article. Because you are, for whatever reason, unable to answer facts. Like the fact that Christian Eriksen and his Employer know more about his vaccination status at the time of his heart problem (he was unvaccinated at the time) than unknown and unnamed people who are not Christian Eriksen.
Ivermectin? Please. Had Stage 2 trials. Hopeless results. Didn't go to Stage 3. Used by Doctors in direct contravention of policy guidelines at various hospitals. Like some modern day witch doctor.
Unvaccinated are killers? Unlikely in most situations. And certainly less likely now. Definitely the case that the risk to themselves far outweighs risk to others. I'm not in the @Haysie camp there.
The "two years" bit. Vaccines have only been available for anyone at all in the UK since December 2020, but even though for most it is way less than a year for a first dose, I agree with the point you are trying to make.
It is not a "cancel" link. It is a set of facts, debunking the fiction contained in the 1 you like. You know, the 1 that want you to make life choices on. But 1 they are too scared to put their name to.
It has always been the case in civilised society that "experts" in matters such as this make it very clear whether they have any vested interest in their theories. Your anonymous heroes are unwilling to answer that question.
I had a look at "rumble" earlier. Articles on:-
Why AZ is better than Pfizer
Why Moderna is better than Pfizer
Why nothing is better than Pfizer
Why using ventilators is counter-productive
It's almost like they just don't like Pfizer.
What do you not understand about ‘ repurposed medicines’ that Billy boy mentioned in his simulations. How many ingredients are in vaccines?
You’ve even stated you received more than one medicine😱
Medicines will be given in regard to the condition of a patient, acute or relatively minor, and taking in their general health and medical records.
I think you looking for a silver bullet for something.
You’re stating hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin both fail in stopping replication?
There is a vaccine for Covid19.
Sensible people in this country have taken said vaccine, which is the vast majority of the nation.
This not only helps protect themselves but also the wider public, and is backed up by any number of stats and figures you care to look at.
People refusing this vaccine, not on medical grounds, are idiots.
As has been admirably demonstrated in this and other threads.
There isn't an approved vaccine for HIV.
HIV doesn't spread in the same way as Covid19, not even close.
There are vaccines for Hep A and Hep B. As far as I'm aware there isn't a vaccine for Hep C.
Hep B vaccines are given to young babies and sensible parents will ensure their children are vaccinated. Only an idiot wouldn't vaccinate their children, right Dr Vespa?
The best way to protect yourself against Hep A and B is through vaccination, which strangely enough is the best way to protect yourself from Covid.
Hepatitis doesn't spread in the same way as Covid19, not even close.
But why stop at HIV and Hepatitis for your whataboutery?
There are plenty more diseases you can throw into the mix in an attempt to mask your anti-vax stance.
If these anti-vax fruitcakes soon start to find their day to day life is a bit more difficult due to declining the vaccine, then I certainly won't lose any sleep over that.