Like Tree25Likes

Should your jab exception be invalidated if obtained from one of the accused?

Reply
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    22,682

    Should your jab exception be invalidated if obtained from one of the accused?

    https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...validate-20000

    Probably not as no crime committed yet. One a crime has been proven then yes. And the state should go after the oldies who paid a bribe to avoid a vaccine that reduces their chances of dying sometime soon.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    港島
    Posts
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by East_coast:
    https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/...validate-20000

    Probably not as no crime committed yet. One a crime has been proven then yes. And the state should go after the oldies who paid a bribe to avoid a vaccine that reduces their chances of dying sometime soon.
    It doesn't reduce their chances of dying.

    That's simply not true.

    Everyone is exempt from being jabbed with something that can cause myocarditis.
    Rachel_ likes this.

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23,622
    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Man:
    It doesn't reduce their chances of dying.

    That's simply not true.

    Everyone is exempt from being jabbed with something that can cause myocarditis.
    Sadly there is no jab to cure stupidity, but I guess if there was anti-vaxxers wouldn’t take it anyway.
    Crankshaft, natino, mexmon and 5 others like this.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    4,629

    No. It’s fraud if you purport to be vaccinated when you are not. Exemption is between you and your physician. What your physician is alleged to have done is besides the point. I am unclear what the administrative requirements on the physicians were but that is a separate case entirely, but if it’s based on science, vaccination-based requirements for entry are themselves a joke.

    To be clear, this doesn’t mean I don’t think those involved were not foolish and/or greedy plus engaged in suspect behaviour. It just means the vaccine pass scheme and exemptions, if everyone is honest with themselves, was obviously poorly thought out. Not sure why neighbourhood practitioners are any more worthy of lynching than Covid test manufacturers. From their perspective, they may just be fulfilling demand arising from foolish policies…

    Given the judge concerned, there is at least a little hope of separating the legal from moral points here.


  5. #5

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    11,606
    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Man:
    It doesn't reduce their chances of dying.

    That's simply not true.
    Serious question here, and not a piss-take: Do you have a credible source for this? i.e. one that involves a research with a big dataset, that was published in a reputable medical journal?

    I'd expect this sort of claim to pop up in social media (e.g. here, or Facebook, etc) but wonder how it is backed up.
    Crankshaft, Beanieskis and mexmon like this.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    22,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Irish Man:
    It doesn't reduce their chances of dying.

    That's simply not true.
    You are correct we all die at some point but the risk of death from myocarditis from a covid jab is not proven as being significant. Possible a very low number but too low to worth considering a risk while 6,573,274 have died of covid mainly due to not being vaccinated.


    https://www.bbc.com/news/health-60653946
    Beanieskis likes this.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hong Kong, from UK
    Posts
    3,750
    All of the exemptions given by doctors confirmed to have given any fraudulent certificates should be null and void, but anyone who hasn't been proven to have a fake should be given a grace period - 30 days, 60 days, something like that - to get a replacement from a reputable doctor. Arguably, the seized profits from the fraudsters should be used to pay for the replacements...
    Rob2020 and Beanieskis like this.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    猴山
    Posts
    22,682
    Quote Originally Posted by vmlinuz:
    All of the exemptions given by doctors confirmed to have given any fraudulent certificates should be null and void, but anyone who hasn't been proven to have a fake should be given a grace period - 30 days, 60 days, something like that - to get a replacement from a reputable doctor. Arguably, the seized profits from the fraudsters should be used to pay for the replacements...
    That's the point of the judicial review. They have not yet been proven to be fraudulent certificates.

    For all we know all these patients paid a sum of money to a doctor who were very effective at reviewing electronically shared medical records and issuing certificates. The hefty fee may have included the cost to assist in enrolling in the Hospital Authority online record sharing system.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    23,622
    Quote Originally Posted by jgl:
    Serious question here, and not a piss-take: Do you have a credible source for this? i.e. one that involves a research with a big dataset, that was published in a reputable medical journal?

    I'd expect this sort of claim to pop up in social media (e.g. here, or Facebook, etc) but wonder how it is backed up.
    Of course he doesn’t!!!! I want to describe anti-vaxxers as intellectually feeble but I think that’s not really strong enough. Something like bloody stupid dangerous fools is closer to the mark but even then I don’t think it quite hits the mark to describe people who think covid vaccines don’t reduce the chance of serious infection and death.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    11,606
    Quote Originally Posted by TheBrit:
    Of course he doesn’t!!!! I want to describe anti-vaxxers as intellectually feeble but I think that’s not really strong enough. Something like bloody stupid dangerous fools is closer to the mark but even then I don’t think it quite hits the mark to describe people who think covid vaccines don’t reduce the chance of serious infection and death.
    I know enough anti-vaxxers to realise that some of them are... pretty normal human beings. But the ones I know do at least seem to agree that the vaccines do have some effect (just that the overall benefit of the effect is insufficient to overcome other objections).

    But yeah, claiming that vaccines are statistically and probably bad for society overall, that's a step further. That's why I want to know if someone can point to any credible support... I suspect the answer is either no and radio silence (which is what has happened here), or it's Facebook/Parler ravings.
    AsianXpat0 likes this.

Reply
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast