Been reading up a lot about these jabs, esp as I know they are going to be a condition of a return to normality

Was on a zoom call last evening with a testing company that had some fascinating evidence on protection etc.

I have more reading to do.

I do not want to be coerced into something I don't want, BUT i want normal back as soon as possible.

Basically i'm at the point in my isolation and thinking that I'll take whatever just so this bullshit can end.
That is a desperate mindset, but so is 12 months of being cut off from the world.

All i have is what goes round and round in my head.

There's no one else to help balance it.
So i'm in group 6, and my surgery are doing group 6 right now. And i am at the point i want to do it to get it DONE.

And also to study what happens. Because i have that kind of mind.
I remember Pandemrix.

But we live with risk every day.

I risk my life climbing walls with only a harness around my waist to catch me as i lean back and fall off

And rational risk assessment is at the heart of everything going wrong these last 12 months
I want to be rational in all my decision making. Not a refusenik for the sake of it.

I have a lot of thinking to do.
I'm also aware that it may come down to interfering with my job if i refuse.

This is on my mind a lot.
Visiting my family in the US is also on my mind. It's been 11 years. I *need* to be able to go. And as vaccines are mandated in the US for accessing education, I *know* they will be a precondition of entry to the country.
So @ClareGerada i appreciate your offer the other day and I may hit you up for some info

It's about rational risk assessment. Weighing up the pros and cons, not just of the jab, and not just "what happens if i do" but "what happens if i dont"

It's so much more to consider.
And absolutely nothing to do with "needle phobia" as so many people think is the reason people say no to jabs
Also fascinating to me is that 2 panodyne cartridges have been faintly positive for antibodies

But 2 Roche anti-N assays have been "negative" - 0.05, and 0.08 quantitative

So What is the actual answer? Do i just have t cells that mop it up and antibodies aren't necessary?
I'm the person who lost rubella titre when pregnant and had to have the MMR after her birth

I also have an autoimmune thyroid disease that has only once tested positive for antibodies - otherwise they're almost always under the threshold. Present, but low
So what really is the answer? Am i protected already? I think i am but am i really?

According to the testing company last evening and the expert they had on, if you've already encountered the virus and you're primed, the jab acts as a booster.
If i want to visit family in a care home, want to see my family in the US, want continued employment, is the risk of ADE / pathogenic priming worth the payoff?

It would be a more compelling argument not to be masked if i have had the jab and can prove it.

So yeah.
I can recall objecting for absolute years to the LITUK test. Why did i object? It was insulting. Absolutely pathetic. Created to pander to those who thought immigrants got an easy ride. All it did was punish me, and I had bigger things to do, autistic kids to sort, etc.
So i objected. for 13 years.

And who did it harm? Me. It did not change the situtation, which was that i *had* to pass that exam before i could obtain the citizenship i was entitled to for nearly 15 years.
This is also on my mind. Refusing for refusing's sake when the world is going to change and we are powerless to stop some of the bigger changes, like what the US demands for entry, it will only harm me.
I'm not acquiescing to vaccine passports, they are still wrong and I will still stand up for that because it's absolutely heinous discrimination.
And i'm not encouraging anyone else to do, or not do, whatever suits their personal life.

We all have our circumstances and none of them are the same. No one else walks in my shoes.

There should be no coercion and no punishment to any of this.
But reality is, there has been, and there probably will continue to be. And it would be stupid to not evaluate all of it and the potential of this stuff continuing whether we want it to or not.
The government seem hellbent to do whatever they want - look at the tests being rolled out to kids for schooling. Professionals are screaming about why it's a bad idea but the government are DOING IT ANYWAY

That's been the biggest lesson i've learned through all of this --
if the govt want to do something, they bloody well will. No matter how much evidence tells them not to.

THEY WILL DO IT ANYWAY

look at masks. no evidence of their effectiveness, mandated anyway and repeatedly the thumbscrews are tightened, shops harass us, etc etc.
it's all illegal, unethical, immoral, and discriminatory

AND THEY DO IT ANYWAY

Isnt it realism to consider that they will make being a jabbed a precondition of so much of life, that it's better for my QoL to go on and acquiesce?
So that's where I'm at.
Sorry for the huge self indulgent thread.

More from Tech

You May Also Like

A brief analysis and comparison of the CSS for Twitter's PWA vs Twitter's legacy desktop website. The difference is dramatic and I'll touch on some reasons why.

Legacy site *downloads* ~630 KB CSS per theme and writing direction.

6,769 rules
9,252 selectors
16.7k declarations
3,370 unique declarations
44 media queries
36 unique colors
50 unique background colors
46 unique font sizes
39 unique z-indices

https://t.co/qyl4Bt1i5x


PWA *incrementally generates* ~30 KB CSS that handles all themes and writing directions.

735 rules
740 selectors
757 declarations
730 unique declarations
0 media queries
11 unique colors
32 unique background colors
15 unique font sizes
7 unique z-indices

https://t.co/w7oNG5KUkJ


The legacy site's CSS is what happens when hundreds of people directly write CSS over many years. Specificity wars, redundancy, a house of cards that can't be fixed. The result is extremely inefficient and error-prone styling that punishes users and developers.

The PWA's CSS is generated on-demand by a JS framework that manages styles and outputs "atomic CSS". The framework can enforce strict constraints and perform optimisations, which is why the CSS is so much smaller and safer. Style conflicts and unbounded CSS growth are avoided.