The wondrous adventures of Sinn Fein (part 2)

James Brown

jh79 wrote: »

When you say hesitancy what do you mean?

An anti vaxxer is someone who refuses to believe or casts unfounded doubt about the scientific evidence. SF td's have done just that.

Blanch and others have called anyone asking questions or unsure anti-vaxxers. This would include members of the public, cross party TD's and James Reilly.

Or was that measles vaccine approved by Jedward?

Bubbaclaus

FrancieBrady wrote: »

People were not aaked if they were pro or anti vaxx.

You are guessing here.

What were they asked?

Would you agree that the poll showed that Sinn Fein voters were the most likely cohort to be vaccine sceptical? Seems like a reasonable conclusion.

I think everyone would agree that Sinn Fein soaked up the anti establishment vote in the last election. It certainly wasn't soaked up by any of the other opposition parties.

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What were they asked?

Would you agree that the poll showed that Sinn Fein voters were the most likely cohort to be vaccine sceptical? Seems like a reasonable conclusion.

I think everyone would agree that Sinn Fein soaked up the anti establishment vote in the last election. It certainly wasn't soaked up by any of the other opposition parties.

The move to suggest people who vote SF are 'other' 'different' is not a very good FG trait. Where were these 'anti-establishment' or 'protest voters' in previous elections? FF/FG are pissed because they aren't the only show in town.
People who previously voted FF/FG etc. voted SF and may vote FF/FG again, so this move to deride and insult people because they didn't vote how they should this time is quite silly.

jh79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What is difference between hesitancy than casting unfounded doubt??


Last april/may everyone told would take 18 to 24 months to get a vaccine through trials,by xmas theres one rolled out ready to go??


Its a unbelievable achievement btw (and in theory is safer than flu jab)but youd want to be particularly blinded by partisanship not to understand peoples queires whether this was rushed or not (it wasnt imo,as this technology will revolitise healthcare)


I hope a zika virus jab,based on same technology will be available v.soon and made free to the poorest countries

That's why i said if there is another poll.

The difference between hesitancy and being anti vaxxers is the timeline of the evidence. Still "only asking questions" after the evidence is available makes you an anti vaxxer.

Fann Linn

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

What were they asked?

Would you agree that the poll showed that Sinn Fein voters were the most likely cohort to be vaccine sceptical? Seems like a reasonable conclusion.

I think everyone would agree that Sinn Fein soaked up the anti establishment vote in the last election. It certainly wasn't soaked up by any of the other opposition parties.

Nothing wrong with being sceptical.
Btw I'll want and take the vaccine just in case I'm accused of being an anti vaxxer.

jh79

Bowie wrote: »

Blanch and others have called anyone asking questions or unsure anti-vaxxers. This would include members of the public, cross party TD's and James Reilly.

Or was that measles vaccine approved by Jedward?

Approved vaccines still will have adverse effects. He was worried because of a previous reaction in the family. Allergies and the like are genetic so not an unreasonable position to take. They still got it in the end when the risk of getting the illness increased.

Bubbaclaus

Bowie wrote: »

The move to suggest people who vote SF are 'other' 'different' is not a very good FG trait. Where were these 'anti-establishment' or 'protest voters' in previous elections? FF/FG are pissed because they aren't the only show in town.
People who previously voted FF/FG etc. voted SF and may vote FF/FG again, so this move to deride and insult people because they didn't vote how they should this time is quite silly.

Nowhere did I claim all the Sinn Fein vote was anti-establishment, simply that the protest vote went to Sinn Fein this time around. Similar to it going to Labour in the 2011 election when they won around 40 seats or so. I don't think anyone can argue that point.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

That's why i said if there is another poll.

The difference between hesitancy and being anti vaxxers is the timeline of the evidence. Still "only asking questions" after the evidence is available makes you an anti vaxxer.

That's ridiculous..I have plenty of family who have vaccinated all their children but would still ask questions if anything arose.
A perpetual state of worry as most parents would be about decisions made fr their children.
Ridiculous to equate that to a hard anti-vaxx stance.

I am a firm believer in vaccines BTW, before you use the equation on me.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That's ridiculous..I have plenty of family who have vaccinated all their children but would still ask questions if anything arose.
A perpetual state of worry as most parents would be about decisions made fr their children.
Ridiculous to equate that to a hard anti-vaxx stance.

I am a firm believer in vaccines BTW, before you use the equation on me.

So which SF member has been unfairly tared with the anti vaxxer brush ? I want to see what you think is a fair question.

Bubbaclaus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

What if its not a protest vote and people simply dont want to vote FFG??


Like.you are,despite what media here presents (only letting ffg leaders on for "debates" etc),allowed to vote for other parties....

i wouldnt call national party,or independants voters protest-vote...its complete arrogance and insultingly dismissive

I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that a protest vote doesn't exist in Ireland. It's why the incumbent government party/parties always shed seats in elections and the most vocal opposition party does well.

Certainly don't see how analysing the irish political system and voting patterns is "arrogance".

Fann Linn

jh79 wrote: »

So which SF member has been unfairly tared with the anti vaxxer brush ? I want to see what you think is a fair question.

I wouldn't know. I don't bother with FB.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

So which SF member has been unfairly tared with the anti vaxxer brush ? I want to see what you think is a fair question.

All of their parliamentary party are taking it.

Bubbaclaus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You cant just dismiss people who dont vote for who you want as a protest vote :pac: .....its breathtaking arrogance to assume anyone who thinks/votes different is just protesting

Where did I suggest any of this? I'd prefer if you actually took my points on their merit and what I actually said, rather than making up some thing you think I said.

There's prominent posters on here that have full on admitted that they never read Sinn Feins manifesto before voting for them last election. That's a protest vote if I ever saw one.

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

All of their parliamentary party are taking it.

Good but very easy thing to say. So which of them has been unfairly labelled as anti vaxxers?

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

Good. So what about the others, have any of them been unfairly labelled as anti vaxxers?

Labeling people who answered a simple question as anti vaxxers is not only unfair it is most likely wholly wrong.

Bubbaclaus

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Where did I suggest any of this? I'd prefer if you actually took my points on their merit and what I actually said, rather than making up some thing you think I said.

Nowhere did I claim all the Sinn Fein vote was anti-establishment, simply that the protest vote went to Sinn Fein this time around.

I think everyone would agree that Sinn Fein soaked up the anti establishment vote in the last electio

Sinn Fein have soaked up the vote of a lot of the fringe anti establishment types that would tend to be anti most things if they are being endorsed by the "establishment"

Seriously??

Its a big bad world out there lad,you'll have to get on board with notion people are allowed vote different to yous without screaming protest vote at em

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Labeling people who answered a simple question as anti vaxxers is not only unfair it is most likely wholly wrong.

I'm not talking about the poll. As i said a second poll would tell more since the vaccine is now approved.

Have any SF TD's been unfairly labelled as anti vaxxers and if so why?

Bubbaclaus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Seriously??

Clearly you are completely misunderstanding my posts, as nowhere in any of those posts you quoted am I suggesting all of Sinn Feins vote is a protest vote, simply that they got the protest vote base this time around.

Whether you are deliberately misunderstanding my posts or not only you can answer.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I'm not talking about the poll. As i said a second poll would tell more since the vaccine is now approved.

Have any SF TD's been unfairly labelled as anti vaxxers and if so why?

I know of SFers who used to be anti vaxxers but who are now committed to taking this vaccine.
Much like other parties had anti vaxxers and vaccine hesitant members.

Are you going to make a point here?

jh79

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know of SFers who used to be anti vaxxers but who are now committed to taking this vaccine.
Much like other parties had anti vaxxers and vaccine hesitant members.

Are you going to make a point here?

I thought you were denying they were anti vaxxer and just "asking questions". Fair enough so.

James Brown

jh79 wrote: »

That's why i said if there is another poll.

The difference between hesitancy and being anti vaxxers is the timeline of the evidence. Still "only asking questions" after the evidence is available makes you an anti vaxxer.

Like James Reilly, former FG health Minister?
Or maybe the EU because they didn't follow the U.S. or U.K.?

jh79 wrote: »

Approved vaccines still will have adverse effects. He was worried because of a previous reaction in the family. Allergies and the like are genetic so not an unreasonable position to take. They still got it in the end when the risk of getting the illness increased.

Your two posts here contradict themselves.
If someone is hesitant or unsure or has concerns they are an anti-vaxxer....unless it's Dr. James Reilly.

Bubbaclaus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Mate,you cant just dismiss any vote as a protest vote...its height of arrogance and a poor insulation from critism??

Repeatedly calling me arrogant could be seen as pretty dismissive for a man accusing me of being dismissive.

Feel free to think there is no such thing as a protest vote in Ireland. 100 years of elections here and voting patterns in that time tells me otherwise, but feel free to have your own opinion. I certainly won't be calling you arrogant for having your own opinion.

FrancieBrady

jh79 wrote: »

I thought you were denying they were anti vaxxer and just "asking questions". Fair enough so.

No, I said there was no way of knowing how many of the number in the poll are anti vaxx or simply vaccine hesitant about a vaccine that had yet to be approved and arrived to market very very quickly.

Didn't stop the sensationalism.

Bonniedog

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I know of SFers who used to be anti vaxxers but who are now committed to taking this vaccine.
Much like other parties had anti vaxxers and vaccine hesitant members.

Are they like the TDs who were totally opposed to abortion - to the point of almost crying at a meeting in one case - but who suddenly went on a "journey2 and decided that it was a great thing after all?

Of course they'll all take the vaccine. They'd more than likely also smother their Granny if the Belfast gang told them to

Kermit.de.frog

A strange party indeed.

https://twitter.com/johnmooreni/status/1341115269188624387

James Brown

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Nowhere did I claim all the Sinn Fein vote was anti-establishment, simply that the protest vote went to Sinn Fein this time around. Similar to it going to Labour in the 2011 election when they won around 40 seats or so. I don't think anyone can argue that point.

Never said you did but we hear 'protest vote' along the lines of 'anti-establishment'. It's dismissive and it suggests the vote is knee jerk...and not related to record breaking societal crises.

McMurphy

jh79 wrote: »

Approved vaccines still will have adverse effects. He was worried because of a previous reaction in the family. Allergies and the like are genetic so not an unreasonable position to take. They still got it in the end when the risk of getting the illness increased.

It's perfectly normal and acceptable for Reilly to be sceptical about a vaccine because his family had a reaction, but anyone else who is worried they, or someone in their own family night have the same reaction is bat sh1t crazy? You can see how it comes across as being hypocritical, right?

And btw, I will have no hesitancy whatsoever taking one, and my wife, and most likely me too, will probably be among the first people on the island to be vaccinated for work purposes, before I'm labelled as anti vax or some other such nonsense.

Bubbaclaus

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Jesus,thats really poor defence :pac:....i apoligise for any offence caused

,just feel dismissing people as protest vote is fairly representive of the arrogamce of the establishment..




people can/do vote whatever way for a variety of reasons,each valid and not to be dismissed out of hand as protest vote imo

Theres a reason why ffg have gone from 80 odd percent to less than 50 in a generation or so......

yous lot dismiss anyone who deosnt fall inline and vote for ye as tick/protest vote...hence the absolute horror of ffg at the sf monster public meetings back in the spring ,when they actually wanted to consult with public vs only appearing about at election time once every 4 or 5 years

I feel you are still misunderstanding entirely. A protest vote is just as valid as any other vote, I never suggested otherwise.

You're not going to sway my opinion that a level of protest vote exists in Ireland and always has. For decades (when FF was the biggest party in the country for 70 straight years or so) the protest vote would go to FG and/or Labour, last time out it happened to be SF.

You seem to think I am bashing SF or something, when nothing in my posts have even suggested such a thing.

jh79

McMurphy wrote: »

It's perfectly normal and acceptable for Reilly to be sceptical about a vaccine because his family had a reaction, but anyone else who is worried they, or someone in their own family night have the same reaction is bat sh1t crazy? You can see how it comes across as being hypocritical, right?

And btw, I will have no hesitancy whatsoever taking one, and my wife, and most likely me too, will probably be among the first people on the island to be vaccinated for work purposes, before I'm labelled as anti vax or some other such nonsense.

Not hypocritical as they are different situations. If you have an allergic reaction to a vaccine then for all further vaccines you have to tell the doctor and you might not be able to get it. As these things can run in families. There was added risk.

Asking questions under normal circumstances is not the same thing.

If you think a SF td has being unfairly tarnished then name them ?

Fann Linn

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

A strange party indeed.

https://twitter.com/johnmooreni/status/1341115269188624387

Party broadcast. Can't see the problem apart from the spelling gaffe.