*** OFFICIAL BREXIT SUNLIT UPLANDS and #MEGA THREAD ***

[OngBonga]

Not to derail into the sex thing, but you should definitely be asking any new sexual partners if they've been tested for STD's and how long ago and what were the results.

idk about this. If I'm about to start a relationship with someone, I'm putting my trust in that person. If I'm not willing to do that, then is this the right women for me? I expect anyone who knows they have an STD to be honest about at the first opportunity, ie when it's obvious that the relationship is moving from dating to fucking. If they can't be certain they do not have an STD, I am still trusting them to privately go about checking and let me know if there's a problem. It just seems like a really bad start to the relationship if you're asking about STDs.

If we're talking about a casual thing with someone you barely know and don't have reason to put your trust in, well use a condom. That's responsible because if you're the kind of guy who likes casual sex, then maybe you're unknowingly carrying an STD.

Ong, your arguments about COVID are hysterical.

Ironic. I think it's you two that are hysterical. I still get the distinct impression that you both feel unvaxxed people are infectious.

It's not due diligence to site a single discredited scientist's opinion

He's not the only one. I'm just lazy. This particular guy was the head of Pfizer, not some absolute random. His words carry more weight due to his position, on this your surely agree.

Are you seeking evidence and logic?

Logic, certainly. If I test myself and am negative, how can I possibly be putting other people at risk, any more than a vaccinated person?

If you want actual data, I'll post it

I don't want to waste your time any more than just having a casual discussion.

Your assertion that literally no scientists or experts can be trusted because any one or all of them could be under the thumb or politics or big pharma is hysterical.

Perhaps. I can at least appreciate why you think so. However, when you have zero trust in two out of three, and have some trust in the other, it's not easy to take a confident position.

They literally swore to "do no harm"

Yeah like cops.

My issue with science isn't the integrity of the scientists themselves. It's more the reliability of the data, which I'm in no doubt the scientists interpret in good faith. But who controls the data?

[Poopadoop]

But who controls the data?

I'm pretty sure the scientists themselves control the data. Not because I've watched them do it, but because it's their name going on the work and letting someone you don't know and trust have access to your data is taking a big risk.

There's a lot of incentive to get a vaccine right. There's a lot of disincentive to do shoddy work, make a few bucks, kill a bunch of people, and ruin your career. Most scientists are in it because it's intellectually stimulating, not for the money. We like our jobs and want to keep doing them. If we just cared abouot money, we'd take our brains into another field, not one that pays just a tiny bit more than a lorry driver.

[OngBonga]

I'm pretty sure the scientists themselves control the data.

Yeah like climate data.

We all know I'm more skeptical then you guys. That doesn't mean I think the data is bullshit. It means I don't blindly accept it as fact.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah like climate data.

We all know I'm more skeptical then you guys. That doesn't mean I think the data is bullshit. It means I don't blindly accept it as fact.

There's a lot of variables involved in climate data that makes it difficult to prove anything conclusively. Not the case with vaccine data; you've either had it or you haven't and following that you've either caught covid or not, been hospitalised with covid or not, or died from covid or not. And the evidence shows conclusively that the likelihood of all three bad outcomes goes down dramatically after being vaxxed.