-
Posts
-
Save your typing, Drac will argue the hind leg off a donkey
If she doesn’t want the vaccine leave her be and then ignore her, i just find her to be a complete moron and thats my polite version.
I know she does that….and I try I really do lol……but sometimes you just gotta
I was thinking actually…pre covid she would often say she’s in been in bed for days…doesn’t go out much….tbh from the sounds of it she doesn’t need the jab
1 member liked this post.
DOA, my last comment on the issue.
You’re an idiot. You claim to have worked in the charity sector in the 80s on another blog, which has now changed to a few years ago on this blog (like all your tall tales).
Jabs are mandatory in some roles in the charity sector, had you worked there you would already be aware of this.
Me personally, if I had my way Covid denying cockwombles like you would be imprisoned indefinitely until you saw the error of your ways. Stupid people like you put innocent lives at risk and stupid people like you kill innocent people.
I think working for charity sector isn’t the same as working for the UN. You get paid for a start and you never cover the cost of travel. Of course vaccinations are mandatory. You’re no good to anyone if you get sick or die within days of reaching the 3rd world sh1thole they send you too.
In the UK its a different story. Most charity workers are unpaid and have the support of nhs.
I dont want this thread to be a “pick on Drac” thread…..but are you seriously so spineless when it comes to your own health? My god woman….fight for what is your right for a vaccination to suit you….you have the right the same as anyone else
No, I just have absolutely zero faith in the NHS to do anything competantly.
You don’t understand the issues involved, nor the science.
It seems that i’m the only one who does.
You called antibodies a conspiracy theory.
So we have gone from “no protection at all” to 80% protection, in only four posts, you complete IDIOT! Btw it is 85%. Ask someone if they prefer 85% protection to none at all! You STUPID man.
I will ask the same kind of question again, as it seems everyone missed my point (as usual).
Do you think a car that has brakes that work 85% of the time (60% after 6 months) would pass an MOT test?
Is that a standard that you think is acceptable?
It’s better than if the brakes didn’t work at all, isn’t it?
It’s weird how people who claim to care about other people’s health so much keep attacking me over my health problems.
It’s almost as if they don’t actually care, and their motivations are not what they say they are …
So we have gone from “no protection at all” to 80% protection, in only four posts, you complete IDIOT! Btw it is 85%. Ask someone if they prefer 85% protection to none at all! You STUPID man.
I will ask the same kind of question again, as it seems everyone missed my point (as usual).
Do you think a car that has brakes that work 85% of the time (60% after 6 months) would pass an MOT test?
Is that a standard that you think is acceptable?
It’s better than if the brakes didn’t work at all, isn’t it?
This dumbarse thinks 85% protection is the same as zero protection.
This dumbarse thinks 85% protection is the same as zero protection.
No.
Try reading again, I think that 60% protection isn’t good enough.
You certainly can’t pass laws on restricting unvaccinated people based on something this poor (not that you should be allowed to anyway).
Vaccine manufacturers must do better, and be held to the same standards as other industries.
Get involved in this discussion! Log in or register now to have your say!