Get flu jab or be jailed - in IRELAND

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

King Mob, I began thinking that some kind of mandatory vaccination could be implemented here in Ireland. Then, as time moved on and my knowledge increased, I began thinking that perhaps mandatory vaccination won't be implemented here in Ireland. I can't see why you have a problem with this. When I don't agree with your views, you seem to resent the fact, and yet equally resent the fact when I do agree with you?

The thing is you weren't "just thinking" it you were declaring it as fact.
When it was shown not to be the case you declared something else as fact.
For example you went from "the WHO is forcing us to declare mandatory vaccinations" to "they have to power to do so" to "maybe they thought about it."
Declaring all as provable fact.
This smacks of moving the goalposts.

So let's clear up your position
Do you now agree that the WHO cannot force any country to start a mandatory vaccination program contrary to what you previously claimed?
Do you now agree that there are no plans or recommendations to start such a program contrary to what you previously claimed?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

My views will no doubt continue to change, I try to keep an open mind, and thing is that believe it or not but i do take on what you say, and for the large part respect your views when you're not ranting about everybody else being crackpots.

As I've explained crackpots are the people making ridiculous claims about the government, the WHO and the vaccines.
I call them crackpots because their claims are nonsensical and are never backed up by anything resembling facts.
Having an open mind shouldn't exclude the abilities to critically examine claims.
Something it seems you do not do for claims made by the anti vax websites.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Agreed, but if that's the case, then why don't they go on a frenzy every year over the seasonal flu?

Mmh because "New swine flu becomes pandemic" sounds more sensational than "Seasonal flu the same as last year."
Not exactly suspicious.
Also as diogenes said "concerns raised about vaccines" sounds better than "bad science reporting stokes unfounded fears."

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Again, if that were true, why not? They seem prepared for the other types of flu, what's so special about this one? Millions of people get get flu every year over the entire planet, thousands die and it's a fact of life, so what's so special about this particular flu over the others that the WHO declares a level 6 pandemic?

Because this is a new strain for which they didn't have a vaccine.
All flus are a level 6 pandemic.
Look up the definition.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Is the mortality rate higher? No, in fact the symptoms seem milder than the seasonal flu, and yet no level 6 pandemic, no media frenzy to get vaccinated until swine flu hits the scene. Why?

Ok first off that 's not quite true.
As tallaght01 has pointed out on many occasions the swine flu has hit hard outside the usual risk groups.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

It's hardly surprising that many people find the entire issue suspicious - it is blown out of proportion, and because of that, I can totally understand why people would entertain the CT that mandatory vaccination could happen too

No just seems that the general public aren't properly informed and that there are people out there deliberately spreading misinformation and confusion.
Misinformation that you apparently have bought into.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

- it goes with the fearmongering tone the media/government are propagating, if nothing else.

So why exactly is what the media/government are supposedly doing scaremonger but what the anti science crowd are doing (saying the vaccine is dangerous, that the government is planing forced vaccinations etc) not scaremongering?

Diogenes

Frankly Ireland Spirit has moved the goalposts so far, that they've gone from soccer to waterpolo.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob, I think I've made my position abundantly clear several times now, and yes I still think mandatory vaccination is a possibility, but again you are refusing to answer my questions and continually contradict yourself.

Having an open mind shouldn't exclude the abilities to critically examine people's claims, and yet calling them crackpots because their claims are nonsensical to you is ok.

Since April, approximately 6,500 people have died of complications from swine flu worldwide, and yet the annual death toll from the seasonal flu is estimated to be between 250,000 and 500,000.

You claim that the media a frenzy over swine flu is because they didn't have a vaccine, and yet they don't they go on media a frenzy every year pushing vaccines for seasonal flu.

You claim All flus are a level 6 pandemic, and yet they don't go on a media frenzy every year over the seasonal flu that kills between 250,000 and 500,000.

You claim that you don't want to take the vaccine yourself because you're neither in the high risk group, nor do you have contact with anybody in the high risk group, and yet you say 'the swine flu has hit hard outside the usual risk groups.'

Hmmm...

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

King Mob, I think I've made my position abundantly clear several times now, and yes I still think mandatory vaccination is a possibility, but again you are refusing to answer my questions and continually contradict yourself.

No you've changed your position many times. It's hard to keep track.
I haven't refused to answer your questions, I answered them.
You haven't answered mine.

Do you now agree that the WHO cannot force any country to start a mandatory vaccination program contrary to what you previously claimed?
Do you now agree that there are no plans or recommendations to start such a program contrary to what you previously claimed?

What's that about contradict yourself?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Having an open mind shouldn't exclude the abilities to critically examine people's claims, and yet calling them crackpots because their claims are nonsensical to you is ok.

So we agree their claims are nonsense?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Since April, approximately 6,500 people have died of complications from swine flu worldwide, and yet the annual death toll from the seasonal flu is estimated to be between 250,000 and 500,000.

One our flu season hasn't quite started yet. Two that's from less than 7 months compared to a full twelve.
And finally is that figure adjusted to age?
Because doctors aren't claiming that it is a more deadly flu, just that it's badly affecting more younger people than usual.
It was also a worry because there wasn't a vaccine for it, and should it become more deadly they would have little defence against it.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

You claim that the media a frenzy over swine flu is because they didn't have a vaccine, and yet they don't they go on media a frenzy every year pushing vaccines for seasonal flu.

No I'm claiming the media are in a frenzy because sensationalism sells.
And can you actually point to a single news story pushing anyone to take the swine flu vaccine?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

You claim All flus are a level 6 pandemic, and yet they don't go on a media frenzy every year over the seasonal flu that kills between 250,000 and 500,000.

Because it happens ever year. Swine flu is new and can be sensationalised.

Pandemic doesn't mean the Hollywood definition, that it's going to wipe out the population.
But that does sound scary doesn't it?

Here this explains quite clearly what a "level 6 pandemic" actually means.
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/avian_influenza/phase/en/index.html

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

You claim that you don't want to take the vaccine yourself because you're neither in the high risk group, nor do you have contact with anybody in the high risk group, and yet you say 'the swine flu has hit hard outside the usual risk groups.'

And?

What's your point?
The governments are only really recommending the vaccine for people in risk groups or with regular contact with people in risk groups or if they are otherwise immunio-compromised

Seriously your argument is getting less and less coherent.

IrelandSpirit

We've already established that the government could start a mandatory vaccination program if the WHO recommends it and they don't object - the laws are in place.

I agree that no evidence has turned up to suggest a mandatory vaccination program here, NOT that there are no plans or recommendations to start such a program in the future. We can't know that with certainty.

You are the one who said having an open mind shouldn't exclude the abilities to critically examine people's claims, and yet still call them crackpots because their claims are nonsensical to you - I do not think this is ok.

Our flu season starts in mid-winter, and those figures are worldwide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic

Swine flu is new and can be sensationalised, but so too can seasonal flu be sensationalised. Saying all flus are level 6 doesn't explain why swine flu is any different and merits all this media/government scaremongering. There's been a huge hype over this flu and the vaccine, and if you can't answer why, that's ok. That's (presumably) why you're on a CT forum, to discus CTs. Nobody is expecting you to know everything.

But you do claim that you don't want to take the vaccine yourself because you're neither in the high risk group, nor do you have contact with anybody in the high risk group, and yet you say the swine flu has hit hard outside the usual risk groups. Well, this I found a contradiction because what you're saying is you consider yourself as part of a group hit hard by the swine flu, and yet you still wouldn't take the vaccine yourself.

But I suppose if you're gonna follow the government's instructions to the T, then fair enough.

Ok, thanks for that, good night.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

We've already established that the government could start a mandatory vaccination program if the WHO recommends it and they don't object - the laws are in place.

So then, no the WHO cannot force a country to adopt mandatory vaccinations contrary to what you were claiming.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I agree that no evidence has turned up to suggest a mandatory vaccination program here,

So then, no there are no plans to adopt mandatory vaccinations contrary to what you were claiming.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

NOT that there are no plans or recommendations to start such a program in the future. We can't know that with certainty.

Well we can't know for certainty that the government aren't planing to send us to the moon.

Is there anything that leads to believe that they are planing this besides baseless speculation.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

You are the one who said having an open mind shouldn't exclude the abilities to critically examine people's claims, and yet still call them crackpots because their claims are nonsensical to you - I do not think this is ok.

And the people I call crackpots either make claims that have no evidence to support them or are in difference to evidence against them.
I come to this conclusion because I critically examine them.
For example I would call people that claim HIV does not cause AIDS crackpots, because that assertion is not supported by evidence and has alot of evidence against it.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Our flu season starts in mid-winter, and those figures are worldwide:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic

So.... now?
And again are you looking at total figures or just the age adjusted ones?

And if the governments want to scaremonger and stuff why exactly don't they claim that number is higher?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Swine flu is new and can be sensationalised, but so too can seasonal flu be sensationalised. Saying all flus are level 6 doesn't explain why swine flu is any different and merits all this media/government scaremongering. There's been a huge hype over this flu and the vaccine, and if you can't answer why, that's ok. That's (presumably) why you're on a CT forum, to discus CTs. Nobody is expecting you to know everything.

They are sensationalising it because it is new.

And can you actually show where any government has used scaremongering?

And why don't you here all this hype and scaremongering about the seasonal vaccine?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

But you do claim that you don't want to take the vaccine yourself because you're neither in the high risk group, nor do you have contact with anybody in the high risk group, and yet you say the swine flu has hit hard outside the usual risk groups. Well, this I found a contradiction because what you're saying is you consider yourself as part of a group hit hard by the swine flu, and yet you still wouldn't take the vaccine yourself.

I don't want the vaccine because I'm afraid of needles and hate going to the doctor.
I don't need the vaccine because I don't have any underlying conditions and I'm not in any risk groups.
The swine flu has hit hard on young people with underlying conditions who would have otherwise fought it off.

But what's this have to do with the point at hand exactly?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

But I suppose if you're gonna follow the government's instructions to the T, then fair enough.

I'm not following anyone's instructions.

To be honest you're just arguing semantics and other silly little details now.
All your claims have collapsed under scrutiny and now it seems you're falling back to silly accusations directed at me.

lintdrummer

As if the Irish prison system could handle a load of people who won't get a vaccine. Come on, lets be realistic, if you don't want a jab you're not gonna be punished, just don't get it.

6th

King Mob wrote: »

So we agree their claims are nonsense?

King Mob, IrelandSpirit has said several times now that they have changed their opinion based on the information they have gotten in this thread. You should be happy with that. If you continue to harrass them I will infract/ban you. Your tone is aggressive and you need to get a handle on it.

Diogenes

Ireland Spirit wrote:

King Mod, you're kinda echoing what I said yesterday (and on previous posts), that there would be huge resistance to any forced vaccination program here. There is no rational for it.

Yes the problem is, you are implying that the resistance to a mass vaccine is the the reason the government isn't implementing such a program. You seem to suggest that the resistance is the reason, such a program won't be implemented.

It's kinda like suggesting that there would be uproar if the government decided to tattoo a barcode on all babies, and therefore suggest that this uproar is the only reason they're not doing this. Rather than ignore the fact that such a campaign isn't even being considered

Simply put Ireland Spirit, there isn't a mandatory vaccine program, not simply because such a campaign would be national resistance to it, as you keep trying to imply.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

A lot of things still just don't add up about this swine flu,

I'd argue that pretty-much everything adds up, to be honest.

but just to take your two points:

1. the media is in a "frenzy" because sensationalism sells.

Agreed, but if that's the case, then why don't they go on a frenzy every year over the seasonal flu?

You're more-or-less asking a rhetorical question there. If you rephrase it to say "Why doesn't a known, recurring, predicatable issue sell as sensationalism", it should become clearer. There's nothing exceptional about the annual flu, no more then there is about any of the other things that kill large amounts of people regularly. They are, effectively, not "news", but rather "sames".

2. the government is in a "frenzy" because they weren't prepared for this strain of the flu like they are for the seasonal flu.

Again, if that were true, why not? They seem prepared for the other types of flu, what's so special about this one? Millions of people get get flu every year over the entire planet, thousands die and it's a fact of life, so what's so special about this particular flu over the others that the WHO declares a level 6 pandemic?

Again, you're answering your own question. A pandemic was declared because it met the criteria to be considered pandemic.

Seasonal flu has different characteristics...not least of which is that it is seasonal - it follows an established pattern. It is, to a certain extent, predictable. It is also, typically, epidemic in nature.

infected"? Or should you take steps to prepare for that?

Is the mortality rate higher? No, in fact the symptoms seem milder than the seasonal flu, and yet no level 6 pandemic, no media frenzy to get vaccinated until swine flu hits the scene. Why?

I have a suspicion that you are (mis)associating "pandemic" with some notion of how lethal something is.

Seasonal flu doesn't get called a pandemic because it isn't pandemic in nature. This difference in nature is also a factor in what allows the timely preparation of seasonal vaccines.

It's hardly surprising that many people find the entire issue suspicious - it is blown out of proportion, and because of that, I can totally understand why people would entertain the CT that mandatory vaccination could happen too - it goes with the fearmongering tone the media/government are propagating, if nothing else.

Don't you find it ironic that on one hand you're arguing that its blown out of proportion, and on hte other hand you've been actively contributing to exactly that, for example by giving serious consideration to (and arguing for) the notion of mandatory vaccination?

Now, I don't believe for a second that your intention is to be sensationalist, or to deliberately be blowing things out of proportion to influence others.

If we accept, however, that this is not your intention, we have to consider that this almost-certainly applies to some/many other sources which can be said to be sensationalist.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

So then, no the WHO cannot force a country to adopt mandatory vaccinations contrary to what you were claiming.


So then, no there are no plans to adopt mandatory vaccinations contrary to what you were claiming.

Well we can't know for certainty that the government aren't planing to send us to the moon.

Is there anything that leads to believe that they are planing this besides baseless speculation.


And the people I call crackpots either make claims that have no evidence to support them or are in difference to evidence against them.
I come to this conclusion because I critically examine them.
For example I would call people that claim HIV does not cause AIDS crackpots, because that assertion is not supported by evidence and has alot of evidence against it.

So.... now?
And again are you looking at total figures or just the age adjusted ones?

And if the governments want to scaremonger and stuff why exactly don't they claim that number is higher?

They are sensationalising it because it is new.

And can you actually show where any government has used scaremongering?

And why don't you here all this hype and scaremongering about the seasonal vaccine?

I don't want the vaccine because I'm afraid of needles and hate going to the doctor.
I don't need the vaccine because I don't have any underlying conditions and I'm not in any risk groups.
The swine flu has hit hard on young people with underlying conditions who would have otherwise fought it off.

But what's this have to do with the point at hand exactly?

I'm not following anyone's instructions.

To be honest you're just arguing semantics and other silly little details now.
All your claims have collapsed under scrutiny and now it seems you're falling back to silly accusations directed at me.

King Mob, there are many examples of governments being criticised for scaremongering, as well you know, here's one:

"Swine flu: Government is scaremongering say leading GPs

Leading GPs have criticised the Government for scaremongering over the swine flu outbreak and said the disease is no worse than seasonal influenza..."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5778295/Swine-flu-Government-is-scaremongering-say-leading-GPs.html

And even though it is widely accepted that swine flu is no worse than seasonal flu, they're still at it:

“The swine flu pandemic could kill millions and cause anarchy in the world's poorest nations unless £900m can be raised from rich countries to pay for vaccines and antiviral medicines, says a UN report leaked to the Observer..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/20/swine-flu-costs-un-report


"Deadly second wave of swine flu 'on its way', scientists warn."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214236/Deadly-second-wave-swine-flu-way.html#ixzz0XOhGXRTn

Mandatory vaccination might be baseless speculation at this stage, but the fact is they do badly want us to have this vaccine for some reason; and for a flu which they themselves admit is comparatively milder than the seasonal flu. (And yes those are total figures as far as I can tell. From wiki, have a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic ) So it still begs the question, what's so different about this flu and this vaccine in particular? Yes swine flu is 'new', and the seasonal flus could be said to be 'new' too - they change each year - and yet we don't get scientist warning seasonal flu will cause deadly waves and millions could be killed and cause anarchy and so on - even though up to 500,000 people die of it each year.

It's all this media hype of 'deadly second (and third) waves' which leads me to believe that there might be plans to adopt mandatory vaccinations in the future. Yes it is a conspiracy theory at this stage - and let's hope it stays that way.

Btw, I wasn't accusing you of anything only pointing out what sounded like a contradiction. I hate needles too .The last time I let anybody stick a needle in me was an acupuncturist, years ago, and out of desperation.

IrelandSpirit

6th wrote: »

King Mob, IrelandSpirit has said several times now that they have changed their opinion based on the information they have gotten in this thread. You should be happy with that. If you continue to harrass them I will infract/ban you. Your tone is aggressive and you need to get a handle on it.

Thanks! On the whole though I really don't mind, I do get a lot of out King Mob's posts regardless... btw, it really is just little 'ol me on my lonesome here now since your PM a few months ago.

IrelandSpirit

emmettogara wrote: »

As if the Irish prison system could handle a load of people who won't get a vaccine. Come on, lets be realistic, if you don't want a jab you're not gonna be punished, just don't get it.

It might not be actual prison time as such, but rather fines under the threat of prison, and part of criteria for keeping employment, travel restrictions, etc...

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

I'd argue that pretty-much everything adds up, to be honest.


You're more-or-less asking a rhetorical question there. If you rephrase it to say "Why doesn't a known, recurring, predicatable issue sell as sensationalism", it should become clearer. There's nothing exceptional about the annual flu, no more then there is about any of the other things that kill large amounts of people regularly. They are, effectively, not "news", but rather "sames".


Again, you're answering your own question. A pandemic was declared because it met the criteria to be considered pandemic.

Seasonal flu has different characteristics...not least of which is that it is seasonal - it follows an established pattern. It is, to a certain extent, predictable. It is also, typically, epidemic in nature.

infected"? Or should you take steps to prepare for that?


I have a suspicion that you are (mis)associating "pandemic" with some notion of how lethal something is.

Seasonal flu doesn't get called a pandemic because it isn't pandemic in nature. This difference in nature is also a factor in what allows the timely preparation of seasonal vaccines.


Don't you find it ironic that on one hand you're arguing that its blown out of proportion, and on hte other hand you've been actively contributing to exactly that, for example by giving serious consideration to (and arguing for) the notion of mandatory vaccination?

Now, I don't believe for a second that your intention is to be sensationalist, or to deliberately be blowing things out of proportion to influence others.

If we accept, however, that this is not your intention, we have to consider that this almost-certainly applies to some/many other sources which can be said to be sensationalist.

Bonkey. I'll try and answer you fully later if I get the time, going to a job interview, but just to quickly say that I don't believe I'm blowing things out of proportion (and thanks for seeing that), but rather the media/gov is - although whether you agree with me on that i don't know.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

King Mob, there are many examples of governments being criticised for scaremongering, as well you know, here's one:

"Swine flu: Government is scaremongering say leading GPs

Leading GPs have criticised the Government for scaremongering over the swine flu outbreak and said the disease is no worse than seasonal influenza..."


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/5778295/Swine-flu-Government-is-scaremongering-say-leading-GPs.html

And even though it is widely accepted that swine flu is no worse than seasonal flu, they're still at it:

The only quote from any government source is

A spokesman for the Department of Health said: "Swine flu is a new disease that has not yet been fully characterised.

"So far the majority of cases have been mild but in a minority - especially those with underlying conditions - it is proving to be severe.

"Flu can and does change suddenly and the NHS must be prepared to respond. Being open with the public means giving them a full and balanced picture of the situation - not simply bland reassurance that all will be well."

Not exactly screaming bloody murder.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

“The swine flu pandemic could kill millions and cause anarchy in the world's poorest nations unless £900m can be raised from rich countries to pay for vaccines and antiviral medicines, says a UN report leaked to the Observer..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/20/swine-flu-costs-un-report

So they need money to prepare for the worst?
Again this is a internal report looking for money, not a public statement.
Looks more like a news paper being sensational more than anything else.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

"Deadly second wave of swine flu 'on its way', scientists warn."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1214236/Deadly-second-wave-swine-flu-way.html#ixzz0XOhGXRTn

here's some choice quotes from the NHS.

Chief medical officer Sir Liam Donaldson however said the two cases were not of significance as there was no evidence these resistant viruses had been transmitted from person to person.

Sir Liam has revised NHS forecasts, saying that between 3,000 and 19,000 will die from the virus - down from the 65,000 worst case scenario outlined in July.

Again newspaper being sensationalist.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Mandatory vaccination might be baseless speculation at this stage, but the fact is they do badly want us to have this vaccine for some reason; and for a flu which they themselves admit is comparatively milder than the seasonal flu. (And yes those are total figures as far as I can tell. From wiki, have a look http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic )

So hang on you're saying they're scaremongering and saying it's comparatively milder than the seasonal flu?

And where are you getting this "badly wanting us to get it"?
And why would they badly want us to have it?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

So it still begs the question, what's so different about this flu and this vaccine in particular? Yes swine flu is 'new', and the seasonal flus could be said to be 'new' too - they change each year - and yet we don't get scientist warning seasonal flu will cause deadly waves and millions could be killed and cause anarchy and so on - even though up to 500,000 people die of it each year.

Because this is a new strain for which they didn't have a vaccine for.
They have a very successful vaccine for the strain the causes the seasonal flu.
The various health organisations need be prepared in case this new flu becomes more deadly, also they still need to protect those at risk from the flu like they always do with the seasonal one.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

It's all this media hype of 'deadly second (and third) waves' which leads me to believe that there might be plans to adopt mandatory vaccinations in the future. Yes it is a conspiracy theory at this stage - and let's hope it stays that way.

How does that follow in the slightest?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

It might not be actual prison time as such, but rather fines under the threat of prison, and part of criteria for keeping employment, travel restrictions, etc...

Where are you getting this from exactly?
What laws even allow this?

drkpower

King Mob wrote: »

Where are you getting this from exactly?
What laws even allow this?

Theoretically the 1947 Health Act, s. 31, allows a Minister to make regulations to allow for mandatory vaccination and prescribes a fine and/or prison for someone who contravenes/obstructs such a Regulation. Of course, no such Regulations have been made re: swine flu and none will be, unless of course the thing becomes a little bit more, eh, medieval, than it is now:D.

BLITZ_Molloy

If they ever state mandate that you have to take the flu shot you can get around it by claiming you're vegan. There are animal products in the vaccine so it'd be a violation of your rights.

Did this story turn out to be bogus? I'm not interested in digging through 10 pages of stuff. I heard it mentioned on an american podcast last week called No Agenda. It has half a million listeners so the story is getting some traction.

King Mob

BLITZ_Molloy wrote: »

Did this story turn out to be bogus? I'm not interested in digging through 10 pages of stuff.

Yes it did.

There are no plans in this or any country to introduce mandatory vaccinations.

The WHO cannot enforce them or take over any country, they can only suggest stuff and adopt regulations.

All the claim was is just anti-vax scaremongering.

IrelandSpirit

bonkey wrote: »

I'd argue that pretty-much everything adds up, to be honest.


You're more-or-less asking a rhetorical question there. If you rephrase it to say "Why doesn't a known, recurring, predicatable issue sell as sensationalism", it should become clearer. There's nothing exceptional about the annual flu, no more then there is about any of the other things that kill large amounts of people regularly. They are, effectively, not "news", but rather "sames".


Again, you're answering your own question. A pandemic was declared because it met the criteria to be considered pandemic.

Seasonal flu has different characteristics...not least of which is that it is seasonal - it follows an established pattern. It is, to a certain extent, predictable. It is also, typically, epidemic in nature.

infected"? Or should you take steps to prepare for that?


I have a suspicion that you are (mis)associating "pandemic" with some notion of how lethal something is.

Seasonal flu doesn't get called a pandemic because it isn't pandemic in nature. This difference in nature is also a factor in what allows the timely preparation of seasonal vaccines.


Don't you find it ironic that on one hand you're arguing that its blown out of proportion, and on hte other hand you've been actively contributing to exactly that, for example by giving serious consideration to (and arguing for) the notion of mandatory vaccination?

Now, I don't believe for a second that your intention is to be sensationalist, or to deliberately be blowing things out of proportion to influence others.

If we accept, however, that this is not your intention, we have to consider that this almost-certainly applies to some/many other sources which can be said to be sensationalist.

No, I'm not confusing 'pandemic' with how lethal something is, and I do know there is nothing sensational about seasonal flu, that's my point too. The sensationalism seem to have suddenly come about over the supposed dangers of this (swine) flu in particular. It's an almost daily story in the mainstream media; continuous reports of someone somewhere dying from swine flu - which is to be expected judging by other types of influenza - I'm just asking why the fuss over this flu in particular. Yes people have died, and the death rate appears be lower than seasonal flu - unless one is to believe the recent claims coming from the Ukraine...

I don't think I've been actively contributing to blowing things out of proportion; giving serious consideration to the notion of mandatory vaccination. I've said several times that I believe it's unlikely that the gov would go there at this stage, though we've established that they can legally. Just thought it odd the MSM echoing what are supposed to be CTs... I think anyway.

6th

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

which is to be expected judging by other types of influenza - I'm just asking why the fuss over this flu in particular.

Thats the media monster for you. Seriously if it can distract from boring problems like economies etc they they'll jump on it. Most things get more attention that they deserve ... look at Jedward etc.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

No, I'm not confusing 'pandemic' with how lethal something is, and I do know there is nothing sensational about seasonal flu, that's my point too. The sensationalism seem to have suddenly come about over the supposed dangers of this (swine) flu in particular. It's an almost daily story in the mainstream media; continuous reports of someone somewhere dying from swine flu - which is to be expected judging by other types of influenza - I'm just asking why the fuss over this flu in particular. Yes people have died, and the death rate appears be lower than seasonal flu - unless one is to believe the recent claims coming from the Ukraine...

I don't think I've been actively contributing to blowing things out of proportion; giving serious consideration to the notion of mandatory vaccination. I've said several times that I believe it's unlikely that the gov would go there at this stage, though we've established that they can legally. Just thought it odd the MSM echoing what are supposed to be CTs... I think anyway.

Of course the media are sensationalising the swine flu.
Their job is sell news, sensationalism makes sales better.

However the media aren't the government or the health authorities.

Neither the governments or the health authorities are scaremongering, they are infact calling for cooler heads.

And as for the the death rate, I came across a point I hadn't previously considered.
While only 8000 or so have died from swine flu compared to the 500,000 people who die from the seasonal one.
If you look at the number of infections: up to half a billion people get infected with the seasonal flu, only 500,000 people have swine flu.

So roughly that's 500,000/500,000,000 or 1% death rate for the seasonal flu, and 8000/500,000 or 1.6% for the swine flu.
The .6 mightn't seem that much but the Spanish flu only had a death rate of 2.5%
The biggest difference is the amount of people infected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic#History

IrelandSpirit

6th wrote: »

Thats the media monster for you. Seriously if it can distract from boring problems like economies etc they they'll jump on it. Most things get more attention that they deserve ... look at Jedward etc.

The MS media is a monster for all too many 6th, it's the only outlet the vast majority rely on for information, and I remember the fear when they broke the swine flu story in Mexico, seriously, people were scared here and everywhere - it's killing people they said, face masks they said, they're gonna quarantine people they said, it's gonna spread worldwide, we need vaccines they said, BUT, oh it's only mild they said, just like the normal flu they said, nothing to worry about BUT its killing people they said, we need vaccines they said and so on, and so on

We can't hold two contradictory ideas at the same time, not for long and yes that kinda fear-based cognitive dissonance goes a long way to distract us from other problems, like our failing economy and rising unemployment and violent crime, prostitution and all the real social tragedies that's causing. and yes, the fact that we're being robbed blind by the central banks is boring, I agree, it's the same old same old - rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Well anyway, to more important things, Jedward! Haha, yeah, I see, at least that pair of cretins finally got voted off x factor. All will is well, I'll sleep better tonight.

Keep one eye on this mandatory vaccination issue, seriously - I think we're out of the woods for now but we don't know which way that will go in the future - perhaps it was just scaremongering to distract us from other issues or (and) a government recce to test public reactions to the idea... We'll see.

6th

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Keep one eye on this mandatory vaccination issue, seriously - I think we're out of the woods for now but we don't know which way that will go in the future - perhaps it was just scaremongering to distract us from other issues or (and) a government recce to test public reactions to the idea... We'll see.

But in the same way was "there gonna force us to get it at gunpoint" not scaremongering?

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

Of course the media are sensationalising the swine flu.
Their job is sell news, sensationalism makes sales better.

However the media aren't the government or the health authorities.

Neither the governments or the health authorities are scaremongering, they are infact calling for cooler heads.

And as for the the death rate, I came across a point I hadn't previously considered.
While only 8000 or so have died from swine flu compared to the 500,000 people who die from the seasonal one.
If you look at the number of infections: up to half a billion people get infected with the seasonal flu, only 500,000 people have swine flu.

So roughly that's 500,000/500,000,000 or 1% death rate for the seasonal flu, and 8000/500,000 or 1.6% for the swine flu.
The .6 mightn't seem that much but the Spanish flu only had a death rate of 2.5%
The biggest difference is the amount of people infected.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic#History

Good point King Mob. If those figures are accurate then swine flu is something to be concerned about, and I take that back too, the media aren't scaremongering after all, then...

Mandatory vaccinations though? Mandatory, that's the word I just can't stomach... if the death rate climbs as high as the Spanish flu, do you think mandatory vaccination is a real possibility? Or will the government respect our own choices, and let us take personal responsibility for them.

IrelandSpirit

6th wrote: »

But in the same way was "there gonna force us to get it at gunpoint" not scaremongering?

Where did i say that? Hold on...

IrelandSpirit

No, I don't think "there gonna force us to get it at gunpoint", i never said that - in fact that's something i tried very early on in this thread to dispel (I've friends in the army here) but the threat of prison, fines, work and travel restrictions are another matter entirely. In fact it could be a great source of extra revenue to shove into the bank's greedy mitts, and that's most likely how they would implement something like that here, imo...

6th

Oh I wasnt saying you said that just conveying that that is the feeling being put out there by some CTers.

but then lets say the threat of prison .. was that not scaremongering?

Diogenes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

No, I don't think "there gonna force us to get it at gunpoint", i never said that - in fact that's something i tried very early on in this thread to dispel (I've friends in the army here) but the threat of prison, fines, work and travel restrictions are another matter entirely. In fact it could be a great source of extra revenue to shove into the bank's greedy mitts, and that's most likely how they would implement something like that here, imo...

And again nothing like your lurid suggestions are even being remotely approached to being suggested.

IrelandSpirit

6th wrote: »

Oh I wasnt saying you said that just conveying that that is the feeling being put out there by some CTers.

but then lets say the threat of prison .. was that not scaremongering?

Well it was scaremongering in regards that article and in regards the timing of that article, though now having looked into (and I hope) finally got a grasp on the government's powers (legally) perhaps it wasn't scaremongering after all.

Where would they put all the resistors, would there be any room for in standard prisons? I don't know, perhaps not, depending on the size of said resistance... then again, they're quite happy to fine and lock up people for trivial stuff like tv licences and so on, so I suspect they'll make room, or at least give the impression that that's the case.

IrelandSpirit

Diogenes wrote: »

And again nothing like your lurid suggestions are even being remotely approached to being suggested.

And I'm glad for that!

Hold on, 'lurid?'

Anyway, we're only considering the possibility, which if King Mob's figures are correct and the death rate from swine flu is climbing close to the Spanish flu, then it's a real possibility imo...

Diogenes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Well it was scaremongering in regards that article and in regards the timing of that article, though now having looked into (and I hope) finally got a grasp on the government's powers (legally) perhaps it wasn't scaremongering after all.

Where would they put all the resistors, would there be any room for in standard prisons? I don't know, perhaps not, depending on the size of said resistance... then again, they're quite happy to fine and lock up people for trivial stuff like tv licences and so on, so I suspect they'll make room, or at least give the impression that that's the case.

The % of people in prison in Ireland for failure to pay a tv licence is under 1%, at least.

You made made numerous ludicrous claims on this thread, and have been shown time and time again to be incredibly false, when you to you stop an admit that you're spreading false information, and your spurious suppositions aren't helping the debate.

IrelandSpirit

Diogenes wrote: »

The % of people in prison in Ireland for failure to pay a tv licence is under 1%, at least.

You made made numerous ludicrous claims on this thread, and have been shown time and time again to be incredibly false, when you to you stop an admit that you're spreading false information, and your spurious suppositions aren't helping the debate.

I sigh at that... doesn't even merit a response

Diogenes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

And I'm glad for that!

Hold on, 'lurid?'

Blattering on about Manditory vaccinations after it's been conclusively proved that nothing of the sort is being proposed.

Anyway, we're only considering the possibility, which if King Mob's figures are correct and the death rate from swine flu is climbing close to the Spanish flu, then it's a real possibility imo...

And when the spainishflu hit in 1918, even American had rationing. Europe was still crippled by WWI and we didn't have widespread basic medicine like paracetamol. I can pick up 16 pills in tescos for cents or pennies, this kind of crucial medicine wasn't available to the tired, malnourished people in 1918. Never even mind vaccines or antivirals.

Don't equate infection rate with severity of the virus.

Diogenes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I sigh at that... doesn't even merit a response

What a measured and well reasoned rebuttal.

6th

Diogenes, at least try to use a civil tone. Please.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Well it was scaremongering in regards that article and in regards the timing of that article, though now having looked into (and I hope) finally got a grasp on the government's powers (legally) perhaps it wasn't scaremongering after all.

I think there's a large distinction to be made, though, between something the government could legally do, and something the government is considering, planning, or actively attempting to do.

meglome

bonkey wrote: »

I think there's a large distinction to be made, though, between something the government could legally do, and something the government is considering, planning, or actively attempting to do.

Agreed. Many (maybe most) governments have certain emergency powers... in case of emergency funnily enough. However how many examples do we have of these powers being actually used in the western world? I think that would be a good point to start convincing people things like forced vaccination could happen. I get the suspicion that the examples of people actually being forced to do anything will be few and far between.

IrelandSpirit

Diogenes wrote: »

What a measured and well reasoned rebuttal.

Diogenes wrote: »

Blattering on about Manditory vaccinations after it's been conclusively proved that nothing of the sort is being proposed.



And when the spainishflu hit in 1918, even American had rationing. Europe was still crippled by WWI and we didn't have widespread basic medicine like paracetamol. I can pick up 16 pills in tescos for cents or pennies, this kind of crucial medicine wasn't available to the tired, malnourished people in 1918. Never even mind vaccines or antivirals.

Don't equate infection rate with severity of the virus.

I wasn't aware that the purpose of this thread is to conclusively prove that mandatory vaccinations are being considered, though we have thus far conclusively proved that they can be legally implemented.

And I think King Mob made a good point, and imo if those figures are accurate then mandatory vaccination is a real possibility. But if you genuinely believe that I'm just here to 'make ludicrous incredibly false claims' and that I'm 'just spreading false information and spurious suppositions which aren't helping the debate' then show me where. Otherwise you are showing yourself up to be guilty of the very things you are accusing me of.

I have readily admitted where I have gone wrong in the past, and have explained (and apologised) if at times I sounded like was changing stance - that's just how things evolve in an open-minded debate with open-minded people - in the light of new information, or better said perhaps in this case, how information is interpreted in a new light, opinions change. This is a good thing.

I'm not here goading you into rebutting inane veiled insults and quite frankly, that's no fun, it doesn't help the debate and I can think of 100 better things to be doing with my time. Which I've just wasted doing precisely that. Well done. Happy now? Cos I am not. I am bored to tears with the school yard attitude of some of the posters on this forum.

There's some good minds here, some good information does come to light and sometimes we achieve a good flow but mostly it seems....

Ah, sunny outside for once, i'm going out

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Good point King Mob. If those figures are accurate then swine flu is something to be concerned about, and I take that back too, the media aren't scaremongering after all, then...

They are accurate.
Check the references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic#History

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Mandatory vaccinations though? Mandatory, that's the word I just can't stomach... if the death rate climbs as high as the Spanish flu, do you think mandatory vaccination is a real possibility? Or will the government respect our own choices, and let us take personal responsibility for them.

Why are you harping on about this?
We've shown that no government is planing to introduce it.
You have not shown anything other than baseless paranoia to support the idea that they might.

Yes legally they could introduce it, but being allowed to do something and being able to do something are two different things.

Remember the strikes yesterday?
You really think the government would be able to get those same people to vaccinate people against their will?
And where would the money come from exactly?

And what would be the point of mandatory vaccinations exactly?
Surely the cost such a program would outweigh any profits you could make from it.

You kept asking why people where making such a big deal about this flu when the regular one kills more people every year.
So since this is the cause, why haven't ever they made seasonal vaccinations mandatory?

Here's the thing, you are scaremongering yourself.
Even though we've shown that mandatory vaccinations are very unlikely, you're still saying that people should still be scared of a shadowy cabal who are determined to introduce mandatory vaccination for seemingly no other reason than ****s and giggles.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

And I think King Mob made a good point, and imo if those figures are accurate then mandatory vaccination is a real possibility.

Leaving aside, for a moment, why you're of that opinion I'd point out that although KM linked to Wikipedia, he seems to have badly misreported the figures that they're giving.

According to the link that I've provided, there are currently approximately 9,000 deaths from an estimated 3,500,000 cases, not from an estimated 500,000. That would put his estimation of the mortality rate way out.

But thats all mostly beside the point, given that we're not really discussing the mortality of a specific disease, but rather the question of mandatory vaccinations.

So lets get back to your opinion...

You seem to think that its a real possibility that with figures approaching double the mortality of normal flu, mandatory vaccination would be a real possibility. May I ask why? Do you think that with such mortality, it might be a good idea?

I ask, because I'm reminded of your initial post on this thread where you seemed to be of the opinion that mandatory vaccination would be madness to even consider on the basis that people like you and those you know would inflict bodily harm on others rather than voluntarily take the shot. Now, you seem to be saying that with a sufficiently high mortality rate for something, you think the government would seriously consider it...and its not clear to me why.

Could it be that you're tacitly suggesting that if there were a communicable disease deadly enough for the government to use its emergency powers, it might be because there was an actual emergency, and it would be the smart/right thing for the government to do?

King Mob

bonkey wrote: »

Leaving aside, for a moment, why you're of that opinion I'd point out that although KM linked to Wikipedia, he seems to have badly misreported the figures that they're giving.

According to the link that I've provided, there are currently approximately 9,000 deaths from an estimated 3,500,000 cases, not from an estimated 500,000. That would put his estimation of the mortality rate way out.

Where's this number coming from exactly?
They give two different numbers.(3.5 million and 25.5 million)

Where as: http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_11_20a/en/index.html
Gives only 500,000 while it's only a week old.

IrelandSpirit

King Mob wrote: »

They are accurate.
Check the references.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic#History




Why are you harping on about this?
We've shown that no government is planing to introduce it.
You have not shown anything other than baseless paranoia to support the idea that they might.

Yes legally they could introduce it, but being allowed to do something and being able to do something are two different things.

Remember the strikes yesterday?
You really think the government would be able to get those same people to vaccinate people against their will?
And where would the money come from exactly?

And what would be the point of mandatory vaccinations exactly?
Surely the cost such a program would outweigh any profits you could make from it.

You kept asking why people where making such a big deal about this flu when the regular one kills more people every year.
So since this is the cause, why haven't ever they made seasonal vaccinations mandatory?

Here's the thing, you are scaremongering yourself.
Even though we've shown that mandatory vaccinations are very unlikely, you're still saying that people should still be scared of a shadowy cabal who are determined to introduce mandatory vaccination for seemingly no other reason than ****s and giggles.

I kept asking why people where making such a big deal about this flu when the regular one kills more people every year, because I obviously don't know why. I've still not received a satisfactory answer, saying the media have decided to sensationalise this particular flu for some unknown reason doesn't cut it for me; swine flu appears to be an exception to the rule, mandatory vaccination is also an exception to the rule, so is it too far-fetched to entertain the notion that something exceptional like that could yet happen?.

No, here's the thing - you've shown that the laws for mandatory vaccinations are in place, you claim that those increasing death rate figures for swine flu are accurate, but you've not shown that mandatory vaccinations are unlikely. In fact by what you say it sounds increasingly more likely. There's more of a rational to it.

What would be the point of mandatory vaccinations exactly? What do you think - money for one. Saying the cost of such a program would outweigh any profits you could make from it, is like saying the cost of enforcing TV licences (or any statutory offence) outweighs any profits you could make from it. It doesn't. King Mob, seriously, it doesn't - it's a simple matter of sending a letter saying go to your GP for the swine flu shot. You don't go, you get a fine. Don't pay the fine, you go to prison - or you can't go to work, or on public transport or whatever - there's many ways this could be worked..

I'm not saying that is gonna happen, I'm saying that's how I envisage it could happen, and to my mind, if I've thought of it then i envisage that the gov have thought of it too; weighed up the pros and cons, and for the time being have decided to lay off the idea. Why, because the death rate doesn't yet support it, and I think the public resistance would outweigh the public support. Though if the death rate is increasing like you say, and the WHO issues strong 'recommendations' that everybody must be vaccinated, then what do you think the government would say?

I've obviously not got the benevolent view of governments as most people, i readily admit that; call me paranoid all ya want, but I don't think it's paranoid to discuss these things - I'm sure there were people who thought window tax was a ridiculous notion too (and that was a ridiculous notion when you put your mind to it) but please stop accusing me of scaremongering. Scaremongering would be claiming something on the lines that they really ARE gonna drag us out of our homes, vaccinate us at gunpoint, which i admit (Bonkey) that I'd bought into to certain extent too, though yes, I would physically defend myself if that were ever the case.

IrelandSpirit

Bonkey, i see what you're saying but no, I'm not tacitly suggesting that if there were a communicable disease deadly enough, the government should use its emergency powers to implement mandatory vaccination. People should and would I believe take personal responsibility for themselves, and choose for themselves how best to take care of their health based on proper advice and guidlines - not have it forced on them under threats of fines and prison.

King Mob

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I kept asking why people where making such a big deal about this flu when the regular one kills more people every year, because I obviously don't know why. I've still not received a satisfactory answer, saying the media have decided to sensationalise this particular flu for some unknown reason doesn't cut it for me;

They decided to sensationalise it because they could.
As has been said "The same thing is going to happen this year" doesn't sell as well as "something new could kill us all."
Why is this so hard to believe?

What other possiblities are there?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

swine flu appears to be an exception to the rule, mandatory vaccination is also an exception to the rule, so is it too far-fetched to entertain the notion that something exceptional like that could yet happen?.

So at one stage you're saying it's far fetched for the media to be sensationalising this but then say it's not far fetched to believe the death rate could sky rocket and justify mandatory vaccinations.

You're kind contradicting yourself here.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

No, here's the thing - you've shown that the laws for mandatory vaccinations are in place, you claim that those increasing death rate figures for swine flu are accurate, but you've not shown that mandatory vaccinations are unlikely. In fact by what you say it sounds increasingly more likely. There's more of a rational to it.

And we've shown you that there are no plans to introduce it despite what you were originally claiming.

We've also show that even though this measures are in place, they have never been used either and despite the half a million people who die every year.

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

What would be the point of mandatory vaccinations exactly? What do you think - money for one. Saying the cost of such a program would outweigh any profits you could make from it, is like saying the cost of enforcing TV licences (or any statutory offence) outweighs any profits you could make from it. It doesn't. King Mob, seriously, it doesn't - it's a simple matter of sending a letter saying go to your GP for the swine flu shot. You don't go, you get a fine. Don't pay the fine, you go to prison - or you can't go to work, or on public transport or whatever - there's many ways this could be worked..

So why don't they do it every year?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I'm not saying that is gonna happen, I'm saying that's how I envisage it could happen, and to my mind, if I've thought of it then i envisage that the gov have thought of it too; weighed up the pros and cons, and for the time being have decided to lay off the idea. Why, because the death rate doesn't yet support it, and I think the public resistance would outweigh the public support. Though if the death rate is increasing like you say, and the WHO issues strong 'recommendations' that everybody must be vaccinated, then what do you think the government would say?

And again there's a huge difference between thinking about something and actually doing it, and a huge difference between a recommendation and an order.

So if the death rate increases and if the WHO recommends it and if the government argees with it and if they have the money that support to do it then we'll have mandatory vaccinations.
That's a lot of ifs.

There's been loads of reason for them to declare mandatory vaccinations in the past and they haven't.
If profit was the only reason to do this why haven't they?

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I've obviously not got the benevolent view of governments as most people, i readily admit that; call me paranoid all ya want, but I don't think it's paranoid to discuss these things - I'm sure there were people who thought window tax was a ridiculous notion too (and that was a ridiculous notion when you put your mind to it) but please stop accusing me of scaremongering.
Scaremongering would be claiming something on the lines that they really ARE gonna drag us out of our homes, vaccinate us at gunpoint, which i admit (Bonkey) that I'd bought into to certain extent too, though yes, I would physically defend myself if that were ever the case.

You're suggesting that the WHO, our government and numerous doctors are conspiring with drug companies to force vaccinations to make money, and because of this shadowy cabal you should wary of the vaccines and vaccination programs.

I fail to see what you're doing as anything other than scaremongering.

Diogenes

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

I wasn't aware that the purpose of this thread is to conclusively prove that mandatory vaccinations are being considered, though we have thus far conclusively proved that they can be legally implemented.

The threa title is "get a flu jab or jailed' its dishonest to claim this thread isn't about fearmongering about vaccines.

Oh and "we" haven't conclusively proved anything. You have conclusively proved to be scarmongering other posters have proved that you haven't the first clue about this. And Finally all has been proved is that the WHO have asked for powers in case of dire emergency. Theres no legal frame work for it.

You clearly haven't been reading how clearly you've been pwn'd on this thread, repeatedly.

drkpower

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

People should and would I believe take personal responsibility for themselves, and choose for themselves how best to take care of their health based on proper advice and guidlines - not have it forced on them under threats of fines and prison.

So, if there was a deadly pandemic that had, lets say, a mortality rate of 99%, you would be happy to rely on the goodwill of the entire populus to choose the vaccine?
That would be entirely foolhardy.

These powers (Health Act 1947) have been used in the past (there is afaik a woman with TB currently detained under these powers). But they would only be used in extremis. And they should be so used in extremis. The goverment have duty to protect the common good, and in extreme cases, such draconian powers may need to be used.

The alternative is to allow the irresponsible attitude of a few to cause the death of others. That is not something I would support. Would you?

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

Where's this number coming from exactly?

I'm not sure I understand the question. You quoted a wikipedia link, and showed that you understood how it references external sources. What's missing?

They give two different numbers.(3.5 million and 25.5 million)

One of which is obviously wrong, given that its not remotely possible to arrive at form the table its presented with.

Where as: http://www.who.int/csr/don/2009_11_20a/en/index.html
Gives only 500,000 while it's only a week old.

It gives 500,000 laboratory confirmed cases, explains why that would be an underestimation of actual cases, and explains that the Americas and Europe aren't supplying updated figures at all any more.

Either whcih way, its not entirely relevant what the exact figure is. I was more interested in seeing if someone would look at the WHO figures and understand why they are an underestimation and look at my wikipedia figure and see why it is also incorrect. The sources are there in both cases...all it requires is a small amount of effort.

bonkey

IrelandSpirit wrote: »

Bonkey, i see what you're saying but no, I'm not tacitly suggesting that if there were a communicable disease deadly enough, the government should use its emergency powers to implement mandatory vaccination. People should and would I believe take personal responsibility for themselves, and choose for themselves how best to take care of their health based on proper advice and guidlines - not have it forced on them under threats of fines and prison.

I agree...people should do that. This would lead me to conclude that a sane government would only use its emergency powers in a situation where there was a threat significant enough and people were not voluntarily acing in their best interests.

Regardless of what anyone personally believes to be true about swine flu, no-one can deny that there is an absolute world of misinformation out ther...because no matter what you believe is true, there is no shortage of people trying to make you believe something else.

In a situation where there is a threat deadly enough and sufficient confusion or reluctance amongst the population to react appropriately, I believe it is not just appropriate for a government to take charge, it is their job and responsibility to do so.

The notion that we don't need laws for our benefit is noble, but ultimately misguided. If we could trust the public to do what is right...to take personal responsibility...not only would we not need laws, but we wouldn't have any societal problems even in the presence of laws.

It is right and proper that a government have plans in place to deal with emergencies. Its part of what they are there for. It is also right and proper that those plans only get used when needed. So far, our government is batting 100% in that regard when it comes to the emergency powers it has with regards health issues....it has never needed to use them, and has never used them.

On that basis, I'm left completely at a loss as to how you're taking the position that you're still trying to suggest that there is reason to believe there is a credible reason the government might do this and at the same time, no credible grounds for them to do so.

Trying to invert the argument to suggest that it is up to someone else to show that its not likely, as you have tried to do, is merely disingenuous. Until you estabish likelihood, there is nothing to refute...and you haven't established any such thing. You've just argued that you think its so.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but given that its basis seems to be nothing but a distrust of government coupled with some speculation and a lack of certainty about information, it would seem difficult to seperate from idle speculation.

bonkey

King Mob wrote: »

You're suggesting that the WHO, our government and numerous doctors are conspiring with drug companies to force vaccinations to make money, and because of this shadowy cabal you should wary of the vaccines and vaccination programs.

Not to mention that this is all in a country with a population of 4,500,000, when already over 60,000,000 vaccine doses have been sold worldwide.

King Mob

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not sure I understand the question. You quoted a wikipedia link, and showed that you understood how it references external sources. What's missing?

Yea I understand that, but I'm unsure where the total is coming from.
Is it simply adding up the figures given?

bonkey wrote: »

One of which is obviously wrong, given that its not remotely possible to arrive at form the table its presented with.

Is the 25,000,000 one?

bonkey wrote: »

It gives 500,000 laboratory confirmed cases, explains why that would be an underestimation of actual cases, and explains that the Americas and Europe aren't supplying updated figures at all any more.

Again I under stand that. But the death number is only confirmed cases as well aren't they?