-
surely boths sides of an arguement is good?
Not perse. Some people willingly misquote facts / mislead. Perfectly fine to call out risks, that's how AZ blood clot risk got accepted.
The hard core anti vaxxers though / bill gates dropped covid types, maybe not?I made a choice to take it based on risks the way I understand them, do I trust the Westminster government? Hah lol no, but they just paid for the vaccines, I do trust the scientists.
But there's also an emotional element... rather than waiting for a virus that is unpredictable I take an action myself (well 2 with AZ) and I know then I get 85% protection against getting badly ill with Covid. So to me that's a little bit of control and that's more emotional than rational.
JWestland-
do I trust the Westminster government? Hah lol no, but they just paid for the vaccines,
Wasn't AZ type vaccine research funded by public money for quite a few years before the pandemic? Let not forget that.
EDIT: Guardian article but DECADES of research https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/apr/15/oxfordastrazeneca-covid-vaccine-research-was-97-publicly-funded
lynx
surely boths sides of an arguement is good? We don't get to see that in our media. Most people don't even know that the vaccines are still under trial. The gov would rather pay tiktokers to promote the vaccine than have transparency .