Jump to content

*CRT enforcement of 14-day rule post lockdown and Tier 3 areas*


noone

Featured Posts

6 minutes ago, Jerra said:

If they are living in a house they are not bona fide navigating hence they are not continuous cruisers.    I am well aware of the bona fide and that is why I said if they live in a house they aren't CCing.

It's surely the boat that has the Licence not the poeple who own it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, matty40s said:

 

People are so disenfranchised now due to the Brexit conflict they will never take a vaccine as they just dont trust the government.

Lack of trust not just over Brexit but also the hypocracy we have seen from some members of our government over Covid. The censorship and bias in the  main stream media hasn't helped either. Normally such demonstrations in London wouid have made frontline news. Many of these people are about to lose their buisnesses and homes due to the Covid measures, they aren't just modern day hippies or political extreemists.

 

I don't know how many here watch Parliament TV, but it's been clear for a long time that many MP's are not happy with the way the cabinet have made important decisions without bringing the 'evidence' to the attention of parliament. The various speakers have shown their displeasure about this and on one occasion even accused the government of being in contempt of parliament. 

 

Speaking of media, I've just read the following BBC link. Towards the top there is a link comparing how long it usually takes to develop a vaccine and how long the Covid-19 vaccine has taken. Question, why does it show 2 years for the Covid one when the virus has only been around for a year?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55056016

Edited by Rambling Boater
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Jerra said:

If they are living in a house they are not bona fide navigating hence they are not continuous cruisers.    I am well aware of the bona fide and that is why I said if they live in a house they aren't CCing.

Yet plenty of licence holders do predominantly live in houses, have no home mooring, leave their boat secured during the week, move it on weekends and holidays, and evidently do satisfy CRT that they are engaged in bona fide navigation.

 

The term “continuous cruising” is a CRT invention and to them it is synonymous with not having a home mooring and is nothing to do with where the licence holder lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

It's interesting that you describe yourself as a non-risk taker.  You do understand that catching covid is a risk, yeah?  And these vaccines reduce that risk by 90%.  Covid is KNOWN to kill people.  It's also known to cause long term effects.  Further side effects from covid may manifest after several years.  There is evidence of permanent organ damage.  And you're willing to risk all that, to avoid a possible risk from taking a vaccine which has had the same rigourous trials as any other vaccine, but has been fast-tracked by carrying out those trials in tandem and by diverting almost the entire global resources available onto this one thing???

 

Also masks are clinically proven to work in the case of covid and many other diseases spread in respiratory droplets and aerosols.  It's why medical staff were routinely wearing them for many procedures well before this pandemic.  Posting daft videos from conspiracy websites doesn't give you any credibility at all.  Try some actual peer reviewed research.  To try and explain:  Yes, the holes in masks are bigger than the individual virus, but the virus isn't carried in the air like this.  It's carried in respiratory droplets, which are far bigger than the holes in the mask.  So when you wear a mask and breathe out, those droplets remain stuck in the mask.  By the time the mask has dried out, most of the virus has 'died' and any that hasn't will remain non-airbourne and stuck in the mask, hence why we are encouraged to use disposable masks or you wash them regularly.

 

You call yourself a pro-vaxxer.  You're not.  You're an anti-vaxxer, a freeloader and a conspiracy theorist.  At least admit it. 

 

If everyone took your stance, there would be no solution to this pandemic until it had run its natural course.  That would likely mean tens or hundreds of millions of deaths worldwide.  That's your plan.  Why don't you own it.

wow, because I won't take a vaccine that's been rushed through I am an anti vaxxer,  a freeloader, and a conspiracy theorist all rolled into one.

I suppose I can take some comfort in the fact that whilst I am being targeted at least @LadyGis being given a break, maybe I could have my own thread.

Vaccines are fantastic tools in the fight of deadly diseases and as I said last night I am fully vaccinated , but I will not take a vaccine that has not had time to be fully evaluated to assess potentially dangerous side effects.

  • Greenie 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, LadyG said:

It's surely the boat that has the Licence not the poeple who own it. 

Does the boat decide to "bona fide" cruise on its own?   No so a boat where people live in a house cannot logically be undertaking bona fide navigation.

31 minutes ago, Rickent said:

wow, because I won't take a vaccine that's been rushed through I am an anti vaxxer,  a freeloader, and a conspiracy theorist all rolled into one.

I heard a a producer of vaccines pointing out that the only reason this vaccine has been produced so quickly is money.  Normally months and often years are spent between stages begging various sources for finance.   Non of the stages have been shortened in the production, yes a little overlap of the stages but each stage has been run for the normal length of time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

Speaking of media, I've just read the following BBC link. Towards the top there is a link comparing how long it usually takes to develop a vaccine and how long the Covid-19 vaccine has taken. Question, why does it show 2 years for the Covid one when the virus has only been around for a year?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-55056016

You'd have to ask the BBC that one.

 

The media coverage in general has been pretty shambolic. Channel 4 recently broadcast a program called 'Is Covid racist', how the hell can a virus be racist'? (In the correct sense of the word).

 

There is also a trailer for another one on there during which somebody is heard saying 'it is taking some people up to two years to fully recover' how can they possibly say that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Jerra said:

Does the boat decide to "bona fide" cruise on its own?   No so a boat where people live in a house cannot logically be undertaking bona fide navigation.

I heard a a producer of vaccines pointing out that the only reason this vaccine has been produced so quickly is money.  Normally months and often years are spent between stages begging various sources for finance.   Non of the stages have been shortened in the production, yes a little overlap of the stages but each stage has been run for the normal length of time.

I'm not saying corners have been cut in production of a vaccine but clinical trials usually last many years due to side effects manifesting years down the line, this is where corners have been cut, it is not possible to know the effects a few years down the line, if people are willing to take the risk then fair play but I am not and because of this the cyber bullies on this forum are in full flow. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Rickent said:

wow, because I won't take a vaccine that's been rushed through I am an anti vaxxer,  a freeloader, and a conspiracy theorist all rolled into one.

I suppose I can take some comfort in the fact that whilst I am being targeted at least @LadyGis being given a break, maybe I could have my own thread.

Vaccines are fantastic tools in the fight of deadly diseases and as I said last night I am fully vaccinated , but I will not take a vaccine that has not had time to be fully evaluated to assess potentially dangerous side effects.

I wrote a long and detailled response to this, and then as I sent it, it disappeared into the ether!  Feeling very frustrated now!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Rickent said:

I'm not saying corners have been cut in production of a vaccine but clinical trials usually last many years due to side effects manifesting years down the line, this is where corners have been cut, it is not possible to know the effects a few years down the line, if people are willing to take the risk then fair play but I am not and because of this the cyber bullies on this forum are in full flow. 

Mother nature has taken billions of years developing immunity, I tend to trust nature more than scientists (and definately more than politicians). ;)  Most previous vaccines worked WITH nature by using a 'dumbed' down version of the real virus. Altering and messing about with DNA isn't quite the same. 

 

Then again, without the intervention of science many of us wouldn't have been born in the first place. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Rickent said:

I'm not saying corners have been cut in production of a vaccine but clinical trials usually last many years due to side effects manifesting years down the line, this is where corners have been cut, it is not possible to know the effects a few years down the line, if people are willing to take the risk then fair play but I am not and because of this the cyber bullies on this forum are in full flow. 

At the risk of being called a 'cyber bully' - You consistently seem to miss the point that we do not have the luxury of 'years' in this particular case.

 

10 years (or even 'just a few') of cycling in and out from one lock down to the next just is not something that any reasonable person could accept. The mental health toll on the population would be completely unacceptable for one thing. The impact on the economy would be unthinkable further bringing misery and death through suicides and poverty.

 

But worry not those of us willing to 'take the risk' will do so. If I grow two more heads after I have been lucky enough to get both doses I will let you know.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

 

I'd have some sympathy with your position if covid only caused mild symptoms.  In that case, the tiny risk with a vaccine may be deemed unreasonable.  But covid KILLS PEOPLE!! I can't state this strongly enough.  The chances that a vaccine is more harmful than the virus it attacks, is so vanishingly small that the idea deserves nothing but derision.  It's akin to staying indoors in case the sky falls on your head.

I do wonder sometimes if some people who have lived through the pandemic untouched by the sheer misery it can cause, either by making them or a member of their family seriously ill or killed someone they know don't fully appreciate what this virus can do.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, The Happy Nomad said:

At the risk of being called a 'cyber bully' - You consistently seem to miss the point that we do not have the luxury of 'years' in this particular case.

 

10 years (or even 'just a few') of cycling in and out from one lock down to the next just is not something that any reasonable person could accept. The mental health toll on the population would be completely unacceptable for one thing. The impact on the economy would be unthinkable further bringing misery and death through suicides and poverty.

 

But worry not those of us willing to 'take the risk' will do so. If I grow two more heads after I have been lucky enough to get both doses I will let you know.

There is no "risk" of you being called a cyber bully, you are most definitely one, in fact you are the worst offender on this forum.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

Mother nature has taken billions of years developing immunity, I tend to trust nature more than scientists (and definately more than politicians). ;)  Most previous vaccines worked WITH nature by using a 'dumbed' down version of the real virus. Altering and messing about with DNA isn't quite the same. 

The Pfizer virus doesn't "mess about with DNA" it contains RNA. If you want to understand more, Google "The central dogma of molecular biology", but basically, in a cell the DNA stores information long-term. To use the information, it gets copies into a short piece of RNA, and that gets used by a Ribosome to control the construction of a protein. This RNA is called messenger RNA, or mRNA. The Pfizer vaccine is an mRNA wrapped in coating to help it get into cells, where it drives the Ribosome to make a Covid spike protein that then primes the immune system.

 

MP.

 

ETA. I do worry about the fact the the UK is the very first to approve this vaccine. It smells somewhat of Johnson's world beating boosterism, and it's possible that the bastards have already corrupted the British state far enough that it's function in this respect is compromised. Once the EU and the USA approve, I shall stop worrying.

 

Edited by MoominPapa
  • Greenie 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Rickent said:

There is no "risk" of you being called a cyber bully, you are most definitely one, in fact you are the worst offender on this forum.

 

Bless.

 

Filed in the drawer marked:-

 

'Of no further interest'

 

But as you have levelled the accusation here is what 'cyberbullying' actually is.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberbullying

 

With none of the above fitting the definition.

 

 

 

Edited by The Happy Nomad
  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

This just isn't true.  I can see why it seems true.  But the delay in rolling out vaccines normally is usually in progressing through stage 1 to stage 3 trials.  Once the large scale stage 3 trials are complete, the vaccine can gain approval quite quickly, not years down the line.  So the 'risk' with the vaccines you've already had are much the same as this time. 

 

With covid, the money and expertise which was been provided has meant that each stage of the trials has overlapped with the previous stage, but the time given to each stage has been the same as usual.  Also, manufacturing started well before approval, meaning that roll out could happen instantly once approval was gained.

 

I'd have some sympathy with your position if covid only caused mild symptoms.  In that case, the tiny risk with a vaccine may be deemed unreasonable.  But covid KILLS PEOPLE!! I can't state this strongly enough.  The chances that a vaccine is more harmful than the virus it attacks, is so vanishingly small that the idea deserves nothing but derision.  It's akin to staying indoors in case the sky falls on your head.

 

I partly blame hollywood films like I Am Legend and World War Z for making people distrustful of medicine. 

 

A thought to leave you with:  smallpox killed approximately 300-500 million people in the 20th century alone.  The vaccine arrived in the early 19th Century.  Every single one of those lives would have been saved if there was a widespread vaccine roll out in the 19th Century.  Logistics and money stood in the way of that, but also people didn't want the vaccine because of misinformation propaganda which was circulated at the time.  Eventually the WHO made a concerted effort to eradicate it, and now we all complacently live in a world where nobody has to worry about that awful disease any more.

let me make this quite clear as you are not taking it in.

Vaccines are a fantastic tool in the fight against deadly diseases, I cannot stress this enough but the pfizer vaccine and the moderna vaccine are not like previous traditional vaccines , they are a novel vaccine the likes of which has never been licenced for human use, this is my issue, we are being asked to step into the unknown, I do not see why this is such a big issue with people, if you are happy to take it, fine , that's up to you but please do not label people with genuine reservations about its safety as anti vaxxers or conspiracy theorists.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

The Pfizer virus doesn't "mess about with DNA" it contains RNA. If you want to understand more, Google "The central dogma of molecular biology", but basically, in a cell the DNA stores information long-term. To use the information, it gets copies into a short piece of RNA, and that gets used by a Ribosome to control the construction of a protein. This RNA is called messenger RNA, or mRNA. The Pfizer vaccine is an mRNA wrapped in coating to help it get into cells, where it drives the Ribosome to make a Covid spike protein that then primes the immune system.

 

MP.

 

A very good post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, doratheexplorer said:

This just isn't true.  I can see why it seems true.  But the delay in rolling out vaccines normally is usually in progressing through stage 1 to stage 3 trials.  Once the large scale stage 3 trials are complete, the vaccine can gain approval quite quickly, not years down the line.  So the 'risk' with the vaccines you've already had are much the same as this time. 

 

With covid, the money and expertise which was been provided has meant that each stage of the trials has overlapped with the previous stage, but the time given to each stage has been the same as usual.  Also, manufacturing started well before approval, meaning that roll out could happen instantly once approval was gained.

 

I'd have some sympathy with your position if covid only caused mild symptoms.  In that case, the tiny risk with a vaccine may be deemed unreasonable.  But covid KILLS PEOPLE!! I can't state this strongly enough.  The chances that a vaccine is more harmful than the virus it attacks, is so vanishingly small that the idea deserves nothing but derision.  It's akin to staying indoors in case the sky falls on your head.

 

I partly blame hollywood films like I Am Legend and World War Z for making people distrustful of medicine. 

 

A thought to leave you with:  smallpox killed approximately 300-500 million people in the 20th century alone.  The vaccine arrived in the early 19th Century.  Every single one of those lives would have been saved if there was a widespread vaccine roll out in the 19th Century.  Logistics and money stood in the way of that, but also people didn't want the vaccine because of misinformation propaganda which was circulated at the time.  Eventually the WHO made a concerted effort to eradicate it, and now we all complacently live in a world where nobody has to worry about that awful disease any more.

 

No RNA vaccine (altered DNA) has ever been used on the human population before. You, or anyone else for that matter, do not know the long term risks yet. One year is NOT long term testing. How much do you trust theory over reality? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Rambling Boater said:

 

No RNA vaccine (altered DNA) has ever been used on the human population before. You, or anyone else for that matter, do not know the long term risks yet. One year is NOT long term testing. How much do you trust theory over reality? 

 

RNA is not altered DNA. And your dumbed down natural virus vaccines contain viruses, and viruses contain - RNA (at least the ones that are any use in a COVID vaccine do, because COVID is an RNA virus.(

 

MP.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, MoominPapa said:

The Pfizer virus doesn't "mess about with DNA" it contains RNA. If you want to understand more, Google "The central dogma of molecular biology", but basically, in a cell the DNA stores information long-term. To use the information, it gets copies into a short piece of RNA, and that gets used by a Ribosome to control the construction of a protein. This RNA is called messenger RNA, or mRNA. The Pfizer vaccine is an mRNA wrapped in coating to help it get into cells, where it drives the Ribosome to make a Covid spike protein that then primes the immune system.

 

MP.

 

ETA. I do worry about the fact the the UK is the very first to approve this vaccine. It smells somewhat of Johnson's world beating boosterism, and it's possible that the bastards have already corrupted the British state far enough that it's function in this respect is compromised. Once the EU and the USA approve, I shall stop worrying.

 

https://phys.org/news/2020-01-rna-effect-dna.html

 

Your Google turn . ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MoominPapa said:

RNA is not altered DNA. And your dumbed down natural virus vaccines contain viruses, and viruses contain - RNA (at least the ones that are any use in a COVID vaccine do, because COVID is an RNA virus.(

 

MP.

I think his point is, as is mine is that no mrna vaccine has ever been used or approved for use on humans therefore we are stepping into the unknown, it may be fine, but we just don't know so people are right to be concerned.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rickent said:

I think his point is, as is mine is that no mrna vaccine has ever been used or approved for use on humans therefore we are stepping into the unknown, it may be fine, but we just don't know so people are right to be concerned.

This is exactly the point. I doubt anyone here is qualified enough to say they are 100% sure about any of this, even the top scientists argue about it. However common sense says that we can't possibly know the long term effects of taking an RNA vaccine. We also don't know how these viruses will evolve in the future and whether science can keep up. As I said, nature has been around a lot longer than us. 

 

I'm not adverse to science, but I am adverse to it being used without sufficient safety evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Rambling Boater said:

But all cells are chock full of RNA, so it can't be argued that RNA per se is bad. You could argue that certain RNA sequences are bad, but in that case getting infected with COVID is going to dump vast quantities of RNA containing the exact same sequence as the vaccine RNA into you, so the judgement becomes a balance of risk.

 

I'm not saying that vaccines never cause problems, and I'm not saying  that this one is self-evidently safe, no drug is ever self evidently safe, they have to be tested. I'm just saying that it's not sensible to get spooked by the fact that if contains RNA. So do all live vaccines against RNA viruses, so does your lunch.

 

MP.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.