More nonsense from HMGSun 10:35 am Europe/London, 15 Nov 2020
THE LATEST LUNACY EXPLAINED
We are witnessing a government slip deeper and deeper into a sesspit of treacherous skulduggery of its own making.
It is probably what happens when you combine quite evil with quite dim.<
Now we don’t just have a dodgy, untested and possibly booby-trapped vaccine being recklessly rushed through to “protect everyone” from a virus less dangerous than flu and only a serious threat if you are very old or frail due to some other serious threat.
We also have a new nonsensical craziness to add to the government’s seriously psychotic behaviour.
Namely, the idea is being touted by some treasonous MPs that you won’t be able to work in the workplace unless you are vaccinated.
WHY? I hear you ask.
What possible danger could an unvaccinated person be to a vaccinated person?
Stretch your imagination a bit and consider an unvacinated person who goes to work in an office of, say, fifty people. Of those fifty, let us imagine that half have been good little boys and girls and gotten themselves vaccinated for some reason.
The other 25 have decided not to get vaccinated and take their chances with COVID19 which, let’s face it, is not very dangerous for the vast majority of us.
Now imagine an unvaccinated person turns up at work one day and he is infectious with COVID19.
Whom does he place in danger?
Well, not the vaccinated people IF the vaccine (a big “IF” admittedly) lives up to the hype with which the government has promoted its “let’s inject everybody with this untested experimental concoction” drive.
If the vaccine works, the vaccinated are in no danger from the unvaccinated.
They may well be in danger from any side effects of the vaccine the government has omitted to tell anyone about in its rush to get mass vaccination going. But they are not in any danger from the unvaccinated.
So who is in danger from the unvaccinated?. Why, the other unvaccinated people of course!
These are the people who have exercised their right to decide not to have something injected into their body and take their chances with catching COVID19. I’m guessing that in most cases people would make such a choice out of:
(a) concerns about the side effects from the vaccine and its effect on their immune system or general health.
(b) concerns about the effects of over-vaccination. The as-yet-unknown effects upon health, longevity and so on of taking too many vaccines – such consequences never having been studied
However, it is a matter of personal choice, balancing risks (if they are properly and uccurately known) against benefits (if they are properly and accurately known) or doing the best one can with sketchy, unreliable and not always honest data.
People make such choices all the time. Some examples are:
Whether to not smoke or smoke and risk the dangers to health of smoking.
Whether to not drink alcohol or drink alcohol and risk the danger to health of alcohol.
Ditto taking meds such as antidepressants and the like.
Ditto with whether to eat and drink crap and risk obesity and other health problems or eat healthily.
Ditto whether to exercise enough
Ditto whether to engage in risky sports such as hang gliding, motorbike racing, rock climbing, boxing etc etc
All right, so those who have decided not to get vaccinated ONLY ENDANGER others who have decided to accept the so-called risks of not getting vaccinated.
But how much risk are such people being placed in in any case?
Well, the Chief Medical Officer himself has explained to us very carefully that only the very old and very frail are in any real dangr from this bug and have much to worry about and even the vast majority of these survive it even if they catch it. For the rest, most get mild symptoms and a great many get no symptoms.
So the people really at risk are the very old and very frail. There are not many of these to be found in the workplace. Most of them are in care homes and hospitals or at home. There will still be some, of course, who are vulnerable, such as asthmatics but presumably those really worried will have had the vasccine, trusting their government’s promises that it will protect them.
Once could argue that trusting the government’s word on anything carries its own health risks but that is another story.
Suffice to say here that those who have declined the government’s offer to inject them with a substance that materialised out of a laboratory in a record-breaking undercut of the time it usually takes to develop a safe(ish) vaccine have made their own free choice and accepted whatever risks there may turn out to be.
All right, so in our hypothetical workplace we have 25 unvaccinated people.
Most won’t catch it as (from memory) about one in five are likely to catch it. A person can, incidentally, make it even less likely they will catch it or suffer much beyond mild symptoms if they make sure they look after their own immune system by taking vitamin D, Zinc etc, eating healthily, avoiding junk food, getting exercise, quitting or cutting down smoking, avoiding getting obese and so on (notice how the governments never promotes this, the mantra always being “lock down, isolate, vaccinate” or some such thing).
So what this boils down to is, IF THE VACCINE WORKS the only people “threatened ” by the unvaccinated are other unvaccinated people who have also made their choices and exercised a right enjoyed by smokers, drinkers, sportsmen, athletes, rock climbers and so on.
And the risks to the unvaccinated are very low. Across the general population they are very low statistically in any case but if you factor out the fact that most of the seriously at risk are not in the workplace, they are even lower.
Certainly nowhere near high enough to even remotely justify the assault on free choice due to the so-called “threat” of COVID19.
But why this drive to “vaccinate everybody and his cousin” willy nilly. What is behind it?
Well, for one thing if there are no-unvaccinated people you lose your control group. You lose having anything to compare the vaccinated with.
Imagine a vaccine that for some reason known only to the gods of pharmaceutical profits has a adverse effect on overall health, making everyone poorly, more prone to getting sick, kids more prone to autism, cutting down longevity and so forth.
If you have a sector of the population that is unvaccinated you can then compare their health and longevity with that of the vaccinated and any long-terms adverse effects on human well being caused by the vaccine will show up and we can all happily lynch the criminals who poisoned us on false pretexts.
Now my HYPOTHISES (NOT A PROVEN FACT BUT SOMETHING I THINK IS HAPPENING AND IT REMAINS TO BE SEEN IF I AM RIGHT) is that the vaccine being forced (it they can get away with it) on us by a government of mind-boggling duplicity and irresponsibility is booby trapped (either deliberately or negligently) so that those vaccinated will, when they come into contact with the wild virus, become MORE ILL than the unvaccinated. (See my post on it here https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=425359765260658&id=100033599146575).
If that happens, pains will be taken to ensure the vaccine is not looked upon as a suspect.
However, if a lot of people remain unvaccinated, the problem of vaccinated people getting more ill or dying quicker will show up. Excuses will be found to explain this away in the traditional manner of governments covering their asses.
But if EVERYBODY is vaccinated, no-one will be able to ask awkward questions such as, “why are unvaccinated people not getting as sick and living longer?”
It will be easier, in other words, if it stands out as an anomoly at all, to blame it on a new virus or a new mutation of the old one.