FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Anti vaxers
Anti vaxers
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will find themselves on a back foot I feel with many things. There has already been companies demanding that everyone be vaccinated. They cant make you get it but you wont be getting jobs with those that insist on it. Many holiday companies are also starting to word it in that you will need vaccine to travel with them. " Yes and I genuinely believe that travel and life insurance may be refused or go up if you refuse to be vaccinated. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will find themselves on a back foot I feel with many things. There has already been companies demanding that everyone be vaccinated. They cant make you get it but you wont be getting jobs with those that insist on it. Many holiday companies are also starting to word it in that you will need vaccine to travel with them. Yes and I genuinely believe that travel and life insurance may be refused or go up if you refuse to be vaccinated." or you wont be allowed into certain countries without x | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I ask people, what do they think 90% protection means ?" It's not 100% | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I ask people, what do they think 90% protection means ?" The way it was explained on Newsnight last week was that out of 100 infected only 10 would be ill, the data has been looked into in Israel and whilst with different vaccines there are different levels of efficacy the Pfizer one initially looked promising.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I ask people, what do they think 90% protection means ? The way it was explained on Newsnight last week was that out of 100 infected only 10 would be ill, the data has been looked into in Israel and whilst with different vaccines there are different levels of efficacy the Pfizer one initially looked promising.." They have all had the 2 jabs in isreal though havemt they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looking a few months down the road, should lockdown be continued to protect those who refuse to have the vaccine" No but it will be 9 months minimum not a few months.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I ask people, what do they think 90% protection means ? The way it was explained on Newsnight last week was that out of 100 infected only 10 would be ill, the data has been looked into in Israel and whilst with different vaccines there are different levels of efficacy the Pfizer one initially looked promising.. They have all had the 2 jabs in isreal though havemt they?" Yes.. They agreed to share all data with Pfizer which I think led to them getting enough vaccine to do nearly everyone from about 18 upwards.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought" Wonder if those who refuse condoms will also refuse nhs care with sexually transmitted diseases? Or smokers refusing cancer treatment. NHS care doesn’t discriminate through blame. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I ask people, what do they think 90% protection means ?" It's meaningless. 90% of what exactly? You've either got the infection or you haven't... Its like being 90% pregnant. Unless what they mean is out of a cohort of 100 people who would normally have caught the virus... 90 people will not catch the virus. And 10 will catch the virus.? More words needed... Though I suspect it's deliberately vague for a reason. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No but herd immunity needs to be reached before we will see significant changes and that means the majority being vaccinated." This is why I find the latest request from the WHO for the UK to slow it's vaccine roll out a bit bizarre as it'll delay herd immunity with the potential risk of allowing time for mutation. We need 65% population to kick-start it. There will be many who legitimately cannot have the vaccine too. As far as some saying you'll have to have it for travel or you'll have to have it for working, I'm not fully convinced. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No but herd immunity needs to be reached before we will see significant changes and that means the majority being vaccinated. This is why I find the latest request from the WHO for the UK to slow it's vaccine roll out a bit bizarre as it'll delay herd immunity with the potential risk of allowing time for mutation. We need 65% population to kick-start it. There will be many who legitimately cannot have the vaccine too. As far as some saying you'll have to have it for travel or you'll have to have it for working, I'm not fully convinced." The WHO has a global aim. We all should, because otherwise we'll never return to normal | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No but herd immunity needs to be reached before we will see significant changes and that means the majority being vaccinated. This is why I find the latest request from the WHO for the UK to slow it's vaccine roll out a bit bizarre as it'll delay herd immunity with the potential risk of allowing time for mutation. We need 65% population to kick-start it. There will be many who legitimately cannot have the vaccine too. As far as some saying you'll have to have it for travel or you'll have to have it for working, I'm not fully convinced." I don't know much about the who... Never given them a moments thought until trump criticised and defunded them. But if the latest few stories have any accuracy to them... They don't seem terribly credible and not entirely clear what role they are supposed to be playing in this pandemic. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"You only get 10% sick?" you got it !!.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought" I can answer that. My Covid denying stepfather was admitted on Wed 20th, Covid positive. He's still staying Chez NHS 10 days later, on ICU (no ventilator). He and Mum continue to deny. So yes, they accept the treatment for whatever they've convinced themselves it is (or isn't). It's disgusting. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I ask people, what do they think 90% protection means ? The way it was explained on Newsnight last week was that out of 100 infected only 10 would be ill, the data has been looked into in Israel and whilst with different vaccines there are different levels of efficacy the Pfizer one initially looked promising.." Israel is a very interesting one. That 90% is from one social demographic where there is no social deprivation, there is another lot of data from an area of social deprivation and it was much lower at 64%. So it depends which set of data is being used. Israel is on a fast-tracked vaccine programme, giving a first dose to 48% of its population of 9 million in five weeks. The country’s aim is to vaccinate 80% of the population by the end of May 2021. They are not doing anything in the west bank and Gaza strip and so the Palestinians are trying to source theirs from Russia. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Can I ask people, what do they think 90% protection means ? It's meaningless. 90% of what exactly? You've either got the infection or you haven't... Its like being 90% pregnant. Unless what they mean is out of a cohort of 100 people who would normally have caught the virus... 90 people will not catch the virus. And 10 will catch the virus.? More words needed... Though I suspect it's deliberately vague for a reason. " People can either get infected or not, as you say. But there are more aspects of such trials than a person having it or not, including disease severity or whether there was death. Efficacy is the trial measurement, based on the controlled conditions that were managed throughout, a calculation of the reduction achieved by the vaccine. A vaccine achieving 95% efficacy can be thought of as reducing infections by 95% under the trial conditions. We know from some of the trial results published that there weren't any severe infection symptom s in those who had the vaccine, nor any deaths. We'll get the figures from 2 groups, the control group, which may have had a neutral vaccine alternative and the 2nd group which would have the real vaccine. In real trials, vaccine doses, intervals and other factors may be varied too, where participant numbers may be high enough, so that statistical power is strong enough to produce very high quality results. In short, the 94%, 95% etc efficacy is the disease reduction amount in the controlled trial conditions. With covid-19 we particularly know that severe symptoms and deaths were absent from those who had the vaccine. The full results will detail how many people, if any, become severely ill or died, in the group that didn't have vaccine. Obviously real world treatment results can vary from a trial, as people may forget to take their tablets, reorder prescriptions, won't probably be getting the amount of tests done, etc, outside of a trial. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No but herd immunity needs to be reached before we will see significant changes and that means the majority being vaccinated. This is why I find the latest request from the WHO for the UK to slow it's vaccine roll out a bit bizarre as it'll delay herd immunity with the potential risk of allowing time for mutation. We need 65% population to kick-start it. There will be many who legitimately cannot have the vaccine too. As far as some saying you'll have to have it for travel or you'll have to have it for working, I'm not fully convinced. I don't know much about the who... Never given them a moments thought until trump criticised and defunded them. But if the latest few stories have any accuracy to them... They don't seem terribly credible and not entirely clear what role they are supposed to be playing in this pandemic. " I think they were hoping to be the primary distributor for it but I think their credibility has been put into question even prior to all of this. France is not sourcing any from them which must be worrying as it sent a clear rebuff. What I see is some big guns being shown that their ammunition is as big as they first thought and might have to take second fiddle which isn't going to sit well with them. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The WHO has a global aim. We all should, because otherwise we'll never return to normal" 
WHO aims for at least 20% of the population of all countries of the world vaccinated.
*
On another note, nothing is 100% in medicine. Vaccine is like condoms in penetrative sex. It makes you safer than not having anything at all.
Up to any one to receive it or not but as one said earlier, it will soon be a passport to a lot of things I think.
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought" What the NHS that they pay for through taxes... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No but herd immunity needs to be reached before we will see significant changes and that means the majority being vaccinated. This is why I find the latest request from the WHO for the UK to slow it's vaccine roll out a bit bizarre as it'll delay herd immunity with the potential risk of allowing time for mutation. We need 65% population to kick-start it. There will be many who legitimately cannot have the vaccine too. As far as some saying you'll have to have it for travel or you'll have to have it for working, I'm not fully convinced." I am pretty sure mutations are not a factor of time but rather a factor of the number of infections that occur. If 30 million get infected, the rate of mutations will be largely the same regardless if those infections all occur over 6 weeks or are spread over 6months | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. People have the right to choose not to have it. " From the Council of Europe, the world's leading human rights organisation, the governing body of the European Court of Human Rights: As quoted: "Author(s): Parliamentary Assembly Origin Assembly debate on 27 January 2021 (5th Sitting) (see Doc. 15212, report of the Committee on Social Affairs, Health and Sustainable Development, rapporteur: Ms Jennifer De Temmerman). Text adopted by the Assembly on 27 January 2021 (5th Sitting)." Excerpt: "7.3 with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake: 7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves; 7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought" I’ll refuse the vaccine and I think the two boxes of lemsip over 14 days when I had the virus in October means I’d refuse nhs treatment as well, | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought I’ll refuse the vaccine and I think the two boxes of lemsip over 14 days when I had the virus in October means I’d refuse nhs treatment as well," What a selfish self centered attitude. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought I’ll refuse the vaccine and I think the two boxes of lemsip over 14 days when I had the virus in October means I’d refuse nhs treatment as well, What a selfish self centered attitude. " Guarantee that person would not refuse treatment at the point they can't breathe. My Covid denier stepfather is taking ALL the treatment. But it's not Covid  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought I’ll refuse the vaccine and I think the two boxes of lemsip over 14 days when I had the virus in October means I’d refuse nhs treatment as well, What a selfish self centered attitude. Guarantee that person would not refuse treatment at the point they can't breathe. My Covid denier stepfather is taking ALL the treatment. But it's not Covid "Unbelievable I hope he doesn't have the nerve to deny its covid to the very people risking their lives to save his. So sorry for your Grandad. KJ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought" You mean like all the smokers who get refused All the alcoholics who get refused All the junk food eaters Etc etc etc ?? Ps the NHS is effectively up for sale anyway Comrade Boris and most of the other MPs saw to that, way back in July | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No but herd immunity needs to be reached before we will see significant changes and that means the majority being vaccinated. This is why I find the latest request from the WHO for the UK to slow it's vaccine roll out a bit bizarre as it'll delay herd immunity with the potential risk of allowing time for mutation. We need 65% population to kick-start it. There will be many who legitimately cannot have the vaccine too. As far as some saying you'll have to have it for travel or you'll have to have it for working, I'm not fully convinced. I am pretty sure mutations are not a factor of time but rather a factor of the number of infections that occur. If 30 million get infected, the rate of mutations will be largely the same regardless if those infections all occur over 6 weeks or are spread over 6months" If the vaccine is slowed down then you're not going to reach you minimum for herd immunity to start. So more chance if mutations as the virus isn't being checked. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looking a few months down the road, should lockdown be continued to protect those who refuse to have the vaccine" OP has there been such a suggestion? Lockdown is there to protect the NHS from collapsing and reduce a widefire spread that it couldn't cope with, which it has done, just about considering relaxing it at Christmas was rather silly. When the numbers drop and R rate has got to where it's required then lockdowns/restrictions will be lifted. To try and out antivaxers and those who chose not to because of many reasons which doesn't make them antivaxers is simply incitement and shaming. We need to work together both those who have it and will and those who won't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Vaccine should be mandatory by stealth if necessary! Make life very difficult, certificate compulsory for travel etc. It is not only their lives that they are playing with, it is ours! " Put it in the tap water.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No but they should be refused any medical treatment if they catch it " Medical treatment should be a human right. I'm not in favour of going down that path. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No but they should be refused any medical treatment if they catch it " Could you please explain why and your reasoning? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think people need to understand a very basic thing here. The vaccine protects you against the virus from suffering more than very light to no symptoms. This therefore means you can still contract it. If you can still contract it you can pass it on. Using some arguements in here that those who can spread it should be banned from travel, from working, from clubs etc etc..... So everyone should be banned from these things. Just because you have the vaccine the evidence is there that you can still pass it on to others." I believe that they're looking into whether it'll reduce transmission. But they didn't look at it initially because they wanted to get a vaccine, any vaccine. So they went for an easier goal. We shall see. Regardless, reduction in restriction depends on the severity of the disease burden and how likely it is to come back as a new wave. The more people are vaccinated, the lower the disease burden will be, and therefore the sooner we can get our lives back and rebuild the economy. (This is regardless of if the vaccine reduces seriousness - proven - or infection/transmission) At some stage vaccine refusal may be one reason why we have to stay locked down to stop the NHS from being overwhelmed. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The take-up on vaccines is around 85% I believe. If that continues there will be enough "herd" protected to protect the masses. Cal " Hopefully this happens. There maybe areas where it's not because of certain concerns and past feelings against certain groups in society but there is a concerted educational effort being made by certain community leaders in these areas that it may change there too. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Vaccine should be mandatory by stealth if necessary! Make life very difficult, certificate compulsory for travel etc. It is not only their lives that they are playing with, it is ours! " 1. No 2. NO 3. NO! The vaccine only protects YOU not others (unless research data over next year says otherwise). So even if you are vaccinated and you will hopefully be in the c.90% who only get mild symptoms YOU can still pass it on. We all have an absolute inviable right to decide what we put in our bodies. FWIW I/we will have a vaccine* when offered but as a personal choice based on my/our own risk assessment. *but only the AZ vaccine for one specific reason - they are providing it at cost! That means there are no juicy profits influencing ethical decisions. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No but they should be refused any medical treatment if they catch it " Hmmm last I looked we didn’t live in a totalitarian fascist/communist state? Shall we start refusing ppl who smoke treatment for cancer? We all KNOW smoking causes cancer. Think you will also find denying medical assistance is against the hippocratic oath! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think people need to understand a very basic thing here. The vaccine protects you against the virus from suffering more than very light to no symptoms. This therefore means you can still contract it. If you can still contract it you can pass it on. Using some arguements in here that those who can spread it should be banned from travel, from working, from clubs etc etc..... So everyone should be banned from these things. Just because you have the vaccine the evidence is there that you can still pass it on to others. I believe that they're looking into whether it'll reduce transmission. But they didn't look at it initially because they wanted to get a vaccine, any vaccine. So they went for an easier goal. We shall see. Regardless, reduction in restriction depends on the severity of the disease burden and how likely it is to come back as a new wave. The more people are vaccinated, the lower the disease burden will be, and therefore the sooner we can get our lives back and rebuild the economy. (This is regardless of if the vaccine reduces seriousness - proven - or infection/transmission) At some stage vaccine refusal may be one reason why we have to stay locked down to stop the NHS from being overwhelmed." Two points. Imagine saying at the beginning that even with the vaccine you can still spread it what the take up would be. It would have fed the conspiracists and doubters enough not to come forward and imagine what the take up rate would be. So they wouldn't have said that it would have been counterproductive at best. I'm not sure how it reduces it any less as its present and continues to stay in one's nasal/throat fluids where it it then transmitted to others. The length of time it may stay there may be reduced in someone who has had the vaccine but this is not known. The vaccine doesn't stop the virus being transmitted to oneself or to another, it reduces it's effects upon the one who has the vaccine. 2nd point is the vaccine is being rolled out. If say for argument it's only given too 40% of population, then about 39% will not have any need for hospital treatment for symptoms. That suddenly reduces a huge burden on the NHS. If 50%, 60%, 70% then even less. The primary reason for lick down is to prevent BHS from collapsing and secondly to allow it to get back to dealing with so many of the other health issues that have been put on hold. So in essence any vaccine refusal at the current small % isn't going to prolong lockdowns. What I find interesting is that across the forums it's become acceptable to shame those who choose not to take it yet it was so frowned upon to shame those who clearly ignored the restrictions and were some of the super spreaders through out the summer putting us into the repeated lockdowns. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think people need to understand a very basic thing here. The vaccine protects you against the virus from suffering more than very light to no symptoms. This therefore means you can still contract it. If you can still contract it you can pass it on. Using some arguements in here that those who can spread it should be banned from travel, from working, from clubs etc etc..... So everyone should be banned from these things. Just because you have the vaccine the evidence is there that you can still pass it on to others. I believe that they're looking into whether it'll reduce transmission. But they didn't look at it initially because they wanted to get a vaccine, any vaccine. So they went for an easier goal. We shall see. Regardless, reduction in restriction depends on the severity of the disease burden and how likely it is to come back as a new wave. The more people are vaccinated, the lower the disease burden will be, and therefore the sooner we can get our lives back and rebuild the economy. (This is regardless of if the vaccine reduces seriousness - proven - or infection/transmission) At some stage vaccine refusal may be one reason why we have to stay locked down to stop the NHS from being overwhelmed. Two points. Imagine saying at the beginning that even with the vaccine you can still spread it what the take up would be. It would have fed the conspiracists and doubters enough not to come forward and imagine what the take up rate would be. So they wouldn't have said that it would have been counterproductive at best. I'm not sure how it reduces it any less as its present and continues to stay in one's nasal/throat fluids where it it then transmitted to others. The length of time it may stay there may be reduced in someone who has had the vaccine but this is not known. The vaccine doesn't stop the virus being transmitted to oneself or to another, it reduces it's effects upon the one who has the vaccine. 2nd point is the vaccine is being rolled out. If say for argument it's only given too 40% of population, then about 39% will not have any need for hospital treatment for symptoms. That suddenly reduces a huge burden on the NHS. If 50%, 60%, 70% then even less. The primary reason for lick down is to prevent BHS from collapsing and secondly to allow it to get back to dealing with so many of the other health issues that have been put on hold. So in essence any vaccine refusal at the current small % isn't going to prolong lockdowns. What I find interesting is that across the forums it's become acceptable to shame those who choose not to take it yet it was so frowned upon to shame those who clearly ignored the restrictions and were some of the super spreaders through out the summer putting us into the repeated lockdowns." Lickdown sounds more fun! Can we really blame Covid for BHS 
Made me smile anyway. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think people need to understand a very basic thing here. The vaccine protects you against the virus from suffering more than very light to no symptoms. This therefore means you can still contract it. If you can still contract it you can pass it on. Using some arguements in here that those who can spread it should be banned from travel, from working, from clubs etc etc..... So everyone should be banned from these things. Just because you have the vaccine the evidence is there that you can still pass it on to others. I believe that they're looking into whether it'll reduce transmission. But they didn't look at it initially because they wanted to get a vaccine, any vaccine. So they went for an easier goal. We shall see. Regardless, reduction in restriction depends on the severity of the disease burden and how likely it is to come back as a new wave. The more people are vaccinated, the lower the disease burden will be, and therefore the sooner we can get our lives back and rebuild the economy. (This is regardless of if the vaccine reduces seriousness - proven - or infection/transmission) At some stage vaccine refusal may be one reason why we have to stay locked down to stop the NHS from being overwhelmed. Two points. Imagine saying at the beginning that even with the vaccine you can still spread it what the take up would be. It would have fed the conspiracists and doubters enough not to come forward and imagine what the take up rate would be. So they wouldn't have said that it would have been counterproductive at best. I'm not sure how it reduces it any less as its present and continues to stay in one's nasal/throat fluids where it it then transmitted to others. The length of time it may stay there may be reduced in someone who has had the vaccine but this is not known. The vaccine doesn't stop the virus being transmitted to oneself or to another, it reduces it's effects upon the one who has the vaccine. 2nd point is the vaccine is being rolled out. If say for argument it's only given too 40% of population, then about 39% will not have any need for hospital treatment for symptoms. That suddenly reduces a huge burden on the NHS. If 50%, 60%, 70% then even less. The primary reason for lick down is to prevent BHS from collapsing and secondly to allow it to get back to dealing with so many of the other health issues that have been put on hold. So in essence any vaccine refusal at the current small % isn't going to prolong lockdowns. What I find interesting is that across the forums it's become acceptable to shame those who choose not to take it yet it was so frowned upon to shame those who clearly ignored the restrictions and were some of the super spreaders through out the summer putting us into the repeated lockdowns. Lickdown sounds more fun! Can we really blame Covid for BHS
Made me smile anyway." My mind is playing tricks on me. Comforting to know there are those who do read what's said carefully. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Just reading some of these posts and... 1. None of the approved vaccines stop you catching Covid! 2. What they do is reduce the likelihood of you developing serious symptoms and becoming seriously ill. 3. That reduces pressure on hospitals. 4. Currently no evidence they prevent transmission. 5. Some hope that with a significant reduction in symptoms there may be a reduction in transmitted viral load. Regarding treatment of anti vaxxers and some ppl on here advocating withholding NHS treatment or getting a job or flying... What defines someone as such? What about ppl who cannot have vaccine for medical reasons? Religious reasons? What about ppl with genuine (non conspiracy non crack pot) concerns? Will you deny treatment to smokers for lung cancer? Alcoholics for liver disease? Road traffic victims who were dangerous driving? I think the one thing that Covid has shown about society (actually it probably started with Brexit) is that there is ugly” on both sides of every argument." You raise some interesting points .. Can I ask are you that person? the one who for medical reasons cant wear a mask or have the vaccine? I think if you look through everyone's comment the majority have been quite clear that those who can't as opposed to who won't are absolutely going to be treated differently. However, what is also clear is that lots of people are starting to become a little irked by others refusal to try and help out. Helping out is in my opinion wearing a mask or/and getting the vaccine when the time comes. As you can imagine everyone wants this to end .. the sooner the better. Most people see the way that happening as everyone getting on board and complying. The government have pretty much told everyone that that's the only way the country will open up again. I see anyone who refuses for whatever reason other than they cant medically take a vaccine as an act of sabotage/obstruction to the whole country being opened up again. Of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion and the freedom to decide what they want to do with their lives. I disagree that it is anything like smoking or alcohol because generally that only affects the health of an individual .. covid affects the health and wealth of us all This is why people are getting so pationate/ opinionated and frankly downright angry .. that's not going to get any better and similarly the way society is going to be towards people who have refused vaccines etc in the future will also be something for everyone to think about .. at the least I would imagine foreign travel, socialising in pubs and restaurants and gatherings will be something we all need to prove we are healthy for or we won't be admitted. Whether this is a good or bad decision will remain to be seen. However, I can see the situation being an ' addon ' to the feelings about the Brexit catastrophe escalating and I can see unfortunately the people who chose not to follow the government advice being penalised quite heavily. It is pretty obvious ' cards' or proof of vaccination is going to be needed or a lot of things in the future .. People can still say they don't want to risk being made unwell by a relatively untested vaccine ( allegedly) though I would argue the quality of life we can all expect if people don't take it would mean it wouldn't make that much difference anyway. Imagine another 6 months of being locked down? personally, I couldn't manage it having a huge impact on my health. So it's very much a catch 22 situation I think for all of us really | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree that it is anything like smoking or alcohol because generally that only affects the health of an individual .. covid affects the health and wealth of us all " It could be argued that the strain smoking, drinking and obesity puts on the NHS draws out waiting times and fills up waiting rooms. Putting those with illness not related to any of the above at a higher risk. I won't be having the vaccine. I've had covid, it was relatively minor (luckily). If I can catch it again, which evidence seems to say is rare or we'd be seeing more reinfection, I'll take my chances at beating it again. Until they show some proof the vaccine trumps any immunity I got from having it, I'll happily stay as I am. Despite all the attempted scaremongering from the vaccine gestapo Also, I'm in no means an anti vaxxer. Just particularly fussy about what medications I take unless extremely necessary. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will find themselves on a back foot I feel with many things. There has already been companies demanding that everyone be vaccinated. They cant make you get it but you wont be getting jobs with those that insist on it. Many holiday companies are also starting to word it in that you will need vaccine to travel with them. Yes and I genuinely believe that travel and life insurance may be refused or go up if you refuse to be vaccinated." So us folk who are way down the list wont be able to travel for the forseeable, but vulnerable folk whove had it will | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will find themselves on a back foot I feel with many things. There has already been companies demanding that everyone be vaccinated. They cant make you get it but you wont be getting jobs with those that insist on it. Many holiday companies are also starting to word it in that you will need vaccine to travel with them. Yes and I genuinely believe that travel and life insurance may be refused or go up if you refuse to be vaccinated. So us folk who are way down the list wont be able to travel for the forseeable, but vulnerable folk whove had it will" I see that as entirely acceptable given the fear the vulnerable have had to endure. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway." I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree that it is anything like smoking or alcohol because generally that only affects the health of an individual .. covid affects the health and wealth of us all It could be argued that the strain smoking, drinking and obesity puts on the NHS draws out waiting times and fills up waiting rooms. Putting those with illness not related to any of the above at a higher risk. I won't be having the vaccine. I've had covid, it was relatively minor (luckily). If I can catch it again, which evidence seems to say is rare or we'd be seeing more reinfection, I'll take my chances at beating it again. Until they show some proof the vaccine trumps any immunity I got from having it, I'll happily stay as I am. Despite all the attempted scaremongering from the vaccine gestapo Also, I'm in no means an anti vaxxer. Just particularly fussy about what medications I take unless extremely necessary. " "vaccine gestapo" necessary? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will find themselves on a back foot I feel with many things. There has already been companies demanding that everyone be vaccinated. They cant make you get it but you wont be getting jobs with those that insist on it. Many holiday companies are also starting to word it in that you will need vaccine to travel with them. Yes and I genuinely believe that travel and life insurance may be refused or go up if you refuse to be vaccinated. So us folk who are way down the list wont be able to travel for the forseeable, but vulnerable folk whove had it will I see that as entirely acceptable given the fear the vulnerable have had to endure." Fear is subjective. Should my neighbour who is under 30, perfectly healthy yet wears full ppe to put his bin out be bumped up the list because he's a germaphobe and was living in fear well before this pandemic? This year hasn't been easy for anyone. I have friends who have almost lost everything to protect those same vulnerable people, I think they deserve the chance to claw back everything they have lost. However, comparing personal fear and/or suffering isn't the way to go on deciding who gets their life back quickest and will just cause even more division in an already divided country. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I disagree that it is anything like smoking or alcohol because generally that only affects the health of an individual .. covid affects the health and wealth of us all It could be argued that the strain smoking, drinking and obesity puts on the NHS draws out waiting times and fills up waiting rooms. Putting those with illness not related to any of the above at a higher risk. I won't be having the vaccine. I've had covid, it was relatively minor (luckily). If I can catch it again, which evidence seems to say is rare or we'd be seeing more reinfection, I'll take my chances at beating it again. Until they show some proof the vaccine trumps any immunity I got from having it, I'll happily stay as I am. Despite all the attempted scaremongering from the vaccine gestapo Also, I'm in no means an anti vaxxer. Just particularly fussy about what medications I take unless extremely necessary. " Exactly the argument that formed in my mind, considering the most at risk of dying from or with Covid are the elderly and immune suppressed...lifestyle choices like excessive alcohol consumption, smoking, lack of exercise and the regular intake of unhealthy, high sugar, high fat and processed foods are known to cause disease and underlying conditions, which in turn leads to a higher susceptibility of dying with or from Covid, apart from the fact that it adds to the need for medical assistance without the presence of a Covid infection!!! So these are the people "one" is expected to protect, when they clearly made their own choice not to protect themselves from disease in the first place... Playing devils advocate here, as I do believe everyone has the right to medical care just like I believe everyone has the right to choose what they put in their bodies... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway." nicely put...my sentiments exactly | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "vaccine gestapo" necessary? " Do you see fear mongering, comments advocating withholding medical treatment, travel bans, loss of employment and many more attacks on an individuals right to choose what goes in their body as anything else? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will find themselves on a back foot I feel with many things. There has already been companies demanding that everyone be vaccinated. They cant make you get it but you wont be getting jobs with those that insist on it. Many holiday companies are also starting to word it in that you will need vaccine to travel with them. Yes and I genuinely believe that travel and life insurance may be refused or go up if you refuse to be vaccinated. So us folk who are way down the list wont be able to travel for the forseeable, but vulnerable folk whove had it will I see that as entirely acceptable given the fear the vulnerable have had to endure.Fear is subjective. Should my neighbour who is under 30, perfectly healthy yet wears full ppe to put his bin out be bumped up the list because he's a germaphobe and was living in fear well before this pandemic? This year hasn't been easy for anyone. I have friends who have almost lost everything to protect those same vulnerable people, I think they deserve the chance to claw back everything they have lost. However, comparing personal fear and/or suffering isn't the way to go on deciding who gets their life back quickest and will just cause even more division in an already divided country." *I* see it as reasonable. Your reasoning, which does not accord with my understanding of any of this, neither influences nor controls my belief. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will find themselves on a back foot I feel with many things. There has already been companies demanding that everyone be vaccinated. They cant make you get it but you wont be getting jobs with those that insist on it. Many holiday companies are also starting to word it in that you will need vaccine to travel with them. Yes and I genuinely believe that travel and life insurance may be refused or go up if you refuse to be vaccinated. So us folk who are way down the list wont be able to travel for the forseeable, but vulnerable folk whove had it will I see that as entirely acceptable given the fear the vulnerable have had to endure.Fear is subjective. Should my neighbour who is under 30, perfectly healthy yet wears full ppe to put his bin out be bumped up the list because he's a germaphobe and was living in fear well before this pandemic? This year hasn't been easy for anyone. I have friends who have almost lost everything to protect those same vulnerable people, I think they deserve the chance to claw back everything they have lost. However, comparing personal fear and/or suffering isn't the way to go on deciding who gets their life back quickest and will just cause even more division in an already divided country. *I* see it as reasonable. Your reasoning, which does not accord with my understanding of any of this, neither influences nor controls my belief." Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood the forum as a place of discussion, debate and the exchange of ideas. How silly of me  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway. I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? " I know this question wasn't aimed at me but as I previously posted, the Council of Europe, the world's leading human rights organisation, the governing body of the European Court of Human Rights has put in place: An excerpt as quoted: "7.3 with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake: 7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves; 7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated" This of course covers the 47 member states of the European Council, hence for travel outside of those other legislation may apply... but any company or business within those states will be opening themselves up for legal action if they can be proven to discriminate against these rights... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "vaccine gestapo" necessary? Do you see fear mongering, comments advocating withholding medical treatment, travel bans, loss of employment and many more attacks on an individuals right to choose what goes in their body as anything else?" Sorry are you as an educated adult saying that the only words you can possibly use to describe what you perceive are the two that you chose? Listen your words your post, but I don't believe we have the secret police of nazi Germany in our midst. We have some people on all sides provoking eachother with poorly chosen and sometimes deliberately inflammatory choices of words. Calling people names does not further an argument on either side. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought" Should people who have unprotected sex be refused care ? Should people who consume too much alcohol, drugs or junk food be denied care too ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"They will find themselves on a back foot I feel with many things. There has already been companies demanding that everyone be vaccinated. They cant make you get it but you wont be getting jobs with those that insist on it. Many holiday companies are also starting to word it in that you will need vaccine to travel with them. Yes and I genuinely believe that travel and life insurance may be refused or go up if you refuse to be vaccinated. So us folk who are way down the list wont be able to travel for the forseeable, but vulnerable folk whove had it will I see that as entirely acceptable given the fear the vulnerable have had to endure.Fear is subjective. Should my neighbour who is under 30, perfectly healthy yet wears full ppe to put his bin out be bumped up the list because he's a germaphobe and was living in fear well before this pandemic? This year hasn't been easy for anyone. I have friends who have almost lost everything to protect those same vulnerable people, I think they deserve the chance to claw back everything they have lost. However, comparing personal fear and/or suffering isn't the way to go on deciding who gets their life back quickest and will just cause even more division in an already divided country. *I* see it as reasonable. Your reasoning, which does not accord with my understanding of any of this, neither influences nor controls my belief.Sorry, I seem to have misunderstood the forum as a place of discussion, debate and the exchange of ideas. How silly of me "Goodness, I thought we were discussing. That includes disagreement. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought Should people who have unprotected sex be refused care ? Should people who consume too much alcohol, drugs or junk food be denied care too?" the point is largely irrelevant | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" "vaccine gestapo" necessary? Do you see fear mongering, comments advocating withholding medical treatment, travel bans, loss of employment and many more attacks on an individuals right to choose what goes in their body as anything else? Sorry are you as an educated adult saying that the only words you can possibly use to describe what you perceive are the two that you chose? Listen your words your post, but I don't believe we have the secret police of nazi Germany in our midst. We have some people on all sides provoking eachother with poorly chosen and sometimes deliberately inflammatory choices of words. Calling people names does not further an argument on either side. " Those measures I mentioned are straight from the gestapo playbook. Do I believe this will be the case? No, not in the slightest. However, judging by the comments throughout these virus threads. People wouldn't blink an eye if it was implemented and would welcome removal of peoples freedoms. Fear has that effect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway. I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? I know this question wasn't aimed at me but as I previously posted, the Council of Europe, the world's leading human rights organisation, the governing body of the European Court of Human Rights has put in place: An excerpt as quoted: "7.3 with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake: 7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves; 7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated" This of course covers the 47 member states of the European Council, hence for travel outside of those other legislation may apply... but any company or business within those states will be opening themselves up for legal action if they can be proven to discriminate against these rights..." ... And yet France legally considers non vaccination child abuse, and local (not larger) Spanish authorities are empowered to mandate vaccines in the case of epidemics. It's a good thing lawyers are able to interpret things, or else we'd be in a constant war of copy pasting things we don't understand, and that would be terrible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@Ecstatically_arousing - thanks for quoting that extract." you're very welcome | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway. I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? I know this question wasn't aimed at me but as I previously posted, the Council of Europe, the world's leading human rights organisation, the governing body of the European Court of Human Rights has put in place: An excerpt as quoted: "7.3 with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake: 7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves; 7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated" This of course covers the 47 member states of the European Council, hence for travel outside of those other legislation may apply... but any company or business within those states will be opening themselves up for legal action if they can be proven to discriminate against these rights..." I know very little about human rights organisations but I'm intrigued by this label... " the Council of Europe, the world's leading human rights organisation,"... Who conferred that title upon the council of Europe and who votes upon it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looking a few months down the road, should lockdown be continued to protect those who refuse to have the vaccine" No it shouldn’t. Each individual has the right to refuse a vaccine, but those willing to take the vaccine for the long term good of our country and eventual herd immunity, shouldn’t be penalised for those who refuse it. Being penalised by companies for not having the vaccine is just a consequence of that choice to refuse it. I think there will be a lot of people who initially refused to be vaccinated, will change their minds further down the line when they realise the social media scare mongering was unfounded. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway. I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? I know this question wasn't aimed at me but as I previously posted, the Council of Europe, the world's leading human rights organisation, the governing body of the European Court of Human Rights has put in place: An excerpt as quoted: "7.3 with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake: 7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves; 7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated" This of course covers the 47 member states of the European Council, hence for travel outside of those other legislation may apply... but any company or business within those states will be opening themselves up for legal action if they can be proven to discriminate against these rights..." Hopefully it helps some to stop deliberately starting irrelevant fires. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Goodness, I thought we were discussing. That includes disagreement." | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looking a few months down the road, should lockdown be continued to protect those who refuse to have the vaccine No it shouldn’t. Each individual has the right to refuse a vaccine, but those willing to take the vaccine for the long term good of our country and eventual herd immunity, shouldn’t be penalised for those who refuse it. Being penalised by companies for not having the vaccine is just a consequence of that choice to refuse it. I think there will be a lot of people who initially refused to be vaccinated, will change their minds further down the line when they realise the social media scare mongering was unfounded." But won’t the people that have had the vaccine be protected? Only penalising themselves aren’t they? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looking a few months down the road, should lockdown be continued to protect those who refuse to have the vaccine No it shouldn’t. Each individual has the right to refuse a vaccine, but those willing to take the vaccine for the long term good of our country and eventual herd immunity, shouldn’t be penalised for those who refuse it. Being penalised by companies for not having the vaccine is just a consequence of that choice to refuse it. I think there will be a lot of people who initially refused to be vaccinated, will change their minds further down the line when they realise the social media scare mongering was unfounded." I think once the vaccines impact has been better understood in a year or mores time we might be able to have a better informed debate. Right now the vaccines seem to be a bit like wearing a cricket box and pads (or not) to play cricket... Gives you some protection if you get but doesn't guarantee it won't hurt... Or sometimes get you out. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway. I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? " Where is this evidence that you base your statement to say will lead to penalisation to exercise ones rights? I have not seen any except speculations and headline grabbing suggestions and misinterpretations so far so I genuinely would appreciate any concrete evidence to substantiate this if you can. Thanks | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looking a few months down the road, should lockdown be continued to protect those who refuse to have the vaccine No it shouldn’t. Each individual has the right to refuse a vaccine, but those willing to take the vaccine for the long term good of our country and eventual herd immunity, shouldn’t be penalised for those who refuse it. Being penalised by companies for not having the vaccine is just a consequence of that choice to refuse it. I think there will be a lot of people who initially refused to be vaccinated, will change their minds further down the line when they realise the social media scare mongering was unfounded." How about those who already have some form of immunity due to having covid, should they also be forced into taking a vaccine they don't need? Some tests on early 2000's SARS patients found long lasting immunity 17 years later. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway. I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? Where is this evidence that you base your statement to say will lead to penalisation to exercise ones rights? I have not seen any except speculations and headline grabbing suggestions and misinterpretations so far so I genuinely would appreciate any concrete evidence to substantiate this if you can. Thanks" I think you are mistaken ?I never said it would be lae? I suggested it may well be introduced .. given other countries are absolutely sure they are introducing measures to record who has have the vaccine and asking them to be used as proof etc.. why do you think the UK wont? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway. I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? I know this question wasn't aimed at me but as I previously posted, the Council of Europe, the world's leading human rights organisation, the governing body of the European Court of Human Rights has put in place: An excerpt as quoted: "7.3 with respect to ensuring high vaccine uptake: 7.3.1 ensure that citizens are informed that the vaccination is NOT mandatory and that no one is politically, socially, or otherwise pressured to get themselves vaccinated, if they do not wish to do so themselves; 7.3.2 ensure that no one is discriminated against for not having been vaccinated, due to possible health risks or not wanting to be vaccinated" This of course covers the 47 member states of the European Council, hence for travel outside of those other legislation may apply... but any company or business within those states will be opening themselves up for legal action if they can be proven to discriminate against these rights... ... And yet France legally considers non vaccination child abuse, and local (not larger) Spanish authorities are empowered to mandate vaccines in the case of epidemics. It's a good thing lawyers are able to interpret things, or else we'd be in a constant war of copy pasting things we don't understand, and that would be terrible." The Covid 19 vaccines on the market are not authorised for use on under 16s. Also the approved vaccines on the market are still in active stages of trial and are as such authorised for emergency use (American terms) or have a conditional marketing authorisation (European terms). As such I could imagine that in those terms it would be difficult to mandate the Covid vaccine, especially for children!!! And I do believe that European law supercedes the law of the individual country. I am not sure how that affects the UK with Brexit. I don't live in the UK... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway. I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? Where is this evidence that you base your statement to say will lead to penalisation to exercise ones rights? I have not seen any except speculations and headline grabbing suggestions and misinterpretations so far so I genuinely would appreciate any concrete evidence to substantiate this if you can. Thanks I think you are mistaken ?I never said it would be lae? I suggested it may well be introduced .. given other countries are absolutely sure they are introducing measures to record who has have the vaccine and asking them to be used as proof etc.. why do you think the UK wont? " You said it's likely.... We also record as with any country who has vaccines. It doesn't mean it'll be used against you as you suggest. Also please show what countries have said it'll be used against you. Many seem to be forgetting that the vaccine is to primarily and foremostly to protect oneself and protect the health service from collapsing and that the same globally. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the edification of those who think that people are protected from any bad consequence of vaccine refusal under the European Court of Human Rights, the following post is interesting: (can't link it) Völkerrechtsblog "Do compulsory vaccinations against COVID-19 violate human rights? An assessment of the measure’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights" on the 2nd of December 2020. As one would expect, there is considerable nuance in the jurisprudence they run through. Bodily autonomy is balanced against individual and third party protection. Countries are given wide latitude as things stand to make their own decisions as to whether to mandate vaccines legally. It doesn't specifically say, but generally (I have passing familiarity) government are given less latitude than private bodies or businesses. Fact checking. You're very welcome "Interesting thanks. So how would it stand with regards to violating human rights if the vaccine only protects the recipient and not everyone else? Ie despite being vaccinated you can still transmit to others? As said above, common sense would indicate that ppl having less serious symptoms may reduce transmissible viral load but currently there is no evidence. So why does someone not having the vaccine make them any more dangerous to society? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looking a few months down the road, should lockdown be continued to protect those who refuse to have the vaccine No it shouldn’t. Each individual has the right to refuse a vaccine, but those willing to take the vaccine for the long term good of our country and eventual herd immunity, shouldn’t be penalised for those who refuse it. Being penalised by companies for not having the vaccine is just a consequence of that choice to refuse it. I think there will be a lot of people who initially refused to be vaccinated, will change their minds further down the line when they realise the social media scare mongering was unfounded.How about those who already have some form of immunity due to having covid, should they also be forced into taking a vaccine they don't need? Some tests on early 2000's SARS patients found long lasting immunity 17 years later. " I'm seeing some real negativity in your posts and an almost 'Trump' like approach to refusing and deniaL.. why not explain ( without the science data ) why you won't do what I consider to be now everyone's duty to get the country open again? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looking a few months down the road, should lockdown be continued to protect those who refuse to have the vaccine No it shouldn’t. Each individual has the right to refuse a vaccine, but those willing to take the vaccine for the long term good of our country and eventual herd immunity, shouldn’t be penalised for those who refuse it. Being penalised by companies for not having the vaccine is just a consequence of that choice to refuse it. I think there will be a lot of people who initially refused to be vaccinated, will change their minds further down the line when they realise the social media scare mongering was unfounded. But won’t the people that have had the vaccine be protected? Only penalising themselves aren’t they?" I don’t understand what you mean sorry. Vaccinated people will be protected ofcourse, but I don’t get why they would be penalising themselves? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the edification of those who think that people are protected from any bad consequence of vaccine refusal under the European Court of Human Rights, the following post is interesting: (can't link it) Völkerrechtsblog "Do compulsory vaccinations against COVID-19 violate human rights? An assessment of the measure’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights" on the 2nd of December 2020. As one would expect, there is considerable nuance in the jurisprudence they run through. Bodily autonomy is balanced against individual and third party protection. Countries are given wide latitude as things stand to make their own decisions as to whether to mandate vaccines legally. It doesn't specifically say, but generally (I have passing familiarity) government are given less latitude than private bodies or businesses. Fact checking. You're very welcome
Interesting thanks.
So how would it stand with regards to violating human rights if the vaccine only protects the recipient and not everyone else? Ie despite being vaccinated you can still transmit to others?
As said above, common sense would indicate that ppl having less serious symptoms may reduce transmissible viral load but currently there is no evidence. So why does someone not having the vaccine make them any more dangerous to society?"Not a clue. I didn't read all the cases, and I'm not sure if the jurisprudence covers it. But it would appear that the copy paste of "human rights law says we can't have any negative effects if we refuse a vaccine" is factually incorrect. (If I'm wrong, please direct me to an *official* site where I can see it for myself. Evidence is great!) | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the edification of those who think that people are protected from any bad consequence of vaccine refusal under the European Court of Human Rights, the following post is interesting: (can't link it) Völkerrechtsblog "Do compulsory vaccinations against COVID-19 violate human rights? An assessment of the measure’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights" on the 2nd of December 2020. As one would expect, there is considerable nuance in the jurisprudence they run through. Bodily autonomy is balanced against individual and third party protection. Countries are given wide latitude as things stand to make their own decisions as to whether to mandate vaccines legally. It doesn't specifically say, but generally (I have passing familiarity) government are given less latitude than private bodies or businesses. Fact checking. You're very welcome
Interesting thanks.
So how would it stand with regards to violating human rights if the vaccine only protects the recipient and not everyone else? Ie despite being vaccinated you can still transmit to others?
As said above, common sense would indicate that ppl having less serious symptoms may reduce transmissible viral load but currently there is no evidence. So why does someone not having the vaccine make them any more dangerous to society?
Not a clue. I didn't read all the cases, and I'm not sure if the jurisprudence covers it.
But it would appear that the copy paste of "human rights law says we can't have any negative effects if we refuse a vaccine" is factually incorrect. (If I'm wrong, please direct me to an *official* site where I can see it for myself. Evidence is great!)"Well this may end up creating some very interesting case law! So just like everything else in life, the one group who will continue to do well will be the lawyers! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the edification of those who think that people are protected from any bad consequence of vaccine refusal under the European Court of Human Rights, the following post is interesting: (can't link it) Völkerrechtsblog "Do compulsory vaccinations against COVID-19 violate human rights? An assessment of the measure’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights" on the 2nd of December 2020. As one would expect, there is considerable nuance in the jurisprudence they run through. Bodily autonomy is balanced against individual and third party protection. Countries are given wide latitude as things stand to make their own decisions as to whether to mandate vaccines legally. It doesn't specifically say, but generally (I have passing familiarity) government are given less latitude than private bodies or businesses. Fact checking. You're very welcome
Interesting thanks.
So how would it stand with regards to violating human rights if the vaccine only protects the recipient and not everyone else? Ie despite being vaccinated you can still transmit to others?
As said above, common sense would indicate that ppl having less serious symptoms may reduce transmissible viral load but currently there is no evidence. So why does someone not having the vaccine make them any more dangerous to society?
Not a clue. I didn't read all the cases, and I'm not sure if the jurisprudence covers it.
But it would appear that the copy paste of "human rights law says we can't have any negative effects if we refuse a vaccine" is factually incorrect. (If I'm wrong, please direct me to an *official* site where I can see it for myself. Evidence is great!)"It sure is, it’s even better when you can pick whatever ‘evidence’ suits your argument. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looking a few months down the road, should lockdown be continued to protect those who refuse to have the vaccine No it shouldn’t. Each individual has the right to refuse a vaccine, but those willing to take the vaccine for the long term good of our country and eventual herd immunity, shouldn’t be penalised for those who refuse it. Being penalised by companies for not having the vaccine is just a consequence of that choice to refuse it. I think there will be a lot of people who initially refused to be vaccinated, will change their minds further down the line when they realise the social media scare mongering was unfounded.How about those who already have some form of immunity due to having covid, should they also be forced into taking a vaccine they don't need? Some tests on early 2000's SARS patients found long lasting immunity 17 years later. I'm seeing some real negativity in your posts and an almost 'Trump' like approach to refusing and deniaL.. why not explain ( without the science data ) why you won't do what I consider to be now everyone's duty to get the country open again?" I've had covid. It was minor for me in comparison to a lot of others. I'm fit, healthy and have saw no proof the vaccine will provide any immunity over what I already have from fighting it off. Why should I take a vaccine to make you feel better when my vaccination hasn't been proven to protect you or others? Should I be made to feel bad for not wanting to put something I don't believe will make a difference into my body? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the edification of those who think that people are protected from any bad consequence of vaccine refusal under the European Court of Human Rights, the following post is interesting: (can't link it) Völkerrechtsblog "Do compulsory vaccinations against COVID-19 violate human rights? An assessment of the measure’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights" on the 2nd of December 2020. As one would expect, there is considerable nuance in the jurisprudence they run through. Bodily autonomy is balanced against individual and third party protection. Countries are given wide latitude as things stand to make their own decisions as to whether to mandate vaccines legally. It doesn't specifically say, but generally (I have passing familiarity) government are given less latitude than private bodies or businesses. Fact checking. You're very welcome
Interesting thanks.
So how would it stand with regards to violating human rights if the vaccine only protects the recipient and not everyone else? Ie despite being vaccinated you can still transmit to others?
As said above, common sense would indicate that ppl having less serious symptoms may reduce transmissible viral load but currently there is no evidence. So why does someone not having the vaccine make them any more dangerous to society?
Not a clue. I didn't read all the cases, and I'm not sure if the jurisprudence covers it.
But it would appear that the copy paste of "human rights law says we can't have any negative effects if we refuse a vaccine" is factually incorrect. (If I'm wrong, please direct me to an *official* site where I can see it for myself. Evidence is great!)
It sure is, it’s even better when you can pick whatever ‘evidence’ suits your argument. "... I want to see existence of a law that someone has been copy pasting. Oh no, how biased of me  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the edification of those who think that people are protected from any bad consequence of vaccine refusal under the European Court of Human Rights, the following post is interesting: (can't link it) Völkerrechtsblog "Do compulsory vaccinations against COVID-19 violate human rights? An assessment of the measure’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights" on the 2nd of December 2020. As one would expect, there is considerable nuance in the jurisprudence they run through. Bodily autonomy is balanced against individual and third party protection. Countries are given wide latitude as things stand to make their own decisions as to whether to mandate vaccines legally. It doesn't specifically say, but generally (I have passing familiarity) government are given less latitude than private bodies or businesses. Fact checking. You're very welcome
Interesting thanks.
So how would it stand with regards to violating human rights if the vaccine only protects the recipient and not everyone else? Ie despite being vaccinated you can still transmit to others?
As said above, common sense would indicate that ppl having less serious symptoms may reduce transmissible viral load but currently there is no evidence. So why does someone not having the vaccine make them any more dangerous to society?"Interesting points also .. So, here is a thought! if it violates someones human rights to have the vaccine then I would say there's an 'opposite' to that wouldn't you think? .. In so far as everyone not being vaccinated violates everyone else's human rights not to be exposed to someone who is potentially virulent/ dangerous could close down their business again / etc Now also consider this.. all employers, publicans, and venue organisers have a duty of care to their customers. Which, I suggest they will absolutely have to follow post covid and there will be rules for doing so that everyone has to follow whether they like it/ object to it or just can't be bothered with it .. surely they then have the right to exercise that as part of supporting everyone's health and well being? Bottom line this is going to mean those who can not prove they have been vaccinated will eventually get penalised in some way either through one or all of sanctions, laws or £ .. cant be avoided as far as I can see .. and unfortunately, the human rights argument is kind of moot in comparison to a feeling that everyone just needs to do their duty regardless of the potential problems .. it's all for the greater good isn't it? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Looking a few months down the road, should lockdown be continued to protect those who refuse to have the vaccine No it shouldn’t. Each individual has the right to refuse a vaccine, but those willing to take the vaccine for the long term good of our country and eventual herd immunity, shouldn’t be penalised for those who refuse it. Being penalised by companies for not having the vaccine is just a consequence of that choice to refuse it. I think there will be a lot of people who initially refused to be vaccinated, will change their minds further down the line when they realise the social media scare mongering was unfounded. But won’t the people that have had the vaccine be protected? Only penalising themselves aren’t they? I don’t understand what you mean sorry. Vaccinated people will be protected ofcourse, but I don’t get why they would be penalising themselves?" Yeh no problem. You said “Each individual has the right to refuse a vaccine, but those willing to take the vaccine for the long term good of our country and eventual herd immunity, shouldn’t be penalised for those who refuse it“ My point is, if the rest have been vaccinated then the person that chooses not to get vaccinated will only be putting themselves at risk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the edification of those who think that people are protected from any bad consequence of vaccine refusal under the European Court of Human Rights, the following post is interesting: (can't link it) Völkerrechtsblog "Do compulsory vaccinations against COVID-19 violate human rights? An assessment of the measure’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights" on the 2nd of December 2020. As one would expect, there is considerable nuance in the jurisprudence they run through. Bodily autonomy is balanced against individual and third party protection. Countries are given wide latitude as things stand to make their own decisions as to whether to mandate vaccines legally. It doesn't specifically say, but generally (I have passing familiarity) government are given less latitude than private bodies or businesses. Fact checking. You're very welcome
Interesting thanks.
So how would it stand with regards to violating human rights if the vaccine only protects the recipient and not everyone else? Ie despite being vaccinated you can still transmit to others?
As said above, common sense would indicate that ppl having less serious symptoms may reduce transmissible viral load but currently there is no evidence. So why does someone not having the vaccine make them any more dangerous to society?
Not a clue. I didn't read all the cases, and I'm not sure if the jurisprudence covers it.
But it would appear that the copy paste of "human rights law says we can't have any negative effects if we refuse a vaccine" is factually incorrect. (If I'm wrong, please direct me to an *official* site where I can see it for myself. Evidence is great!)
Well this may end up creating some very interesting case law!
So just like everything else in life, the one group who will continue to do well will be the lawyers!"It was ever thus
But I think the position is, countries are mostly free to do what they like ("wide latitude"). I'm pretty sure individuals and businesses are given more freedom, as a general principle of human rights law, than governments.
If this is true, some vaccine mandate may be compatible with European human rights law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway. I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? Where is this evidence that you base your statement to say will lead to penalisation to exercise ones rights? I have not seen any except speculations and headline grabbing suggestions and misinterpretations so far so I genuinely would appreciate any concrete evidence to substantiate this if you can. Thanks I think you are mistaken ?I never said it would be lae? I suggested it may well be introduced .. given other countries are absolutely sure they are introducing measures to record who has have the vaccine and asking them to be used as proof etc.. why do you think the UK wont? " Ooh there's a question. The UK haven't had a good track record this last year about making the right decision in a timely fashion have they? Especially when it comes to limiting peoples movements... I mean quarantine, isolation, travel, airports, enforcement (apart from a few students and 2 pretty newsworthy blondes)... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For the edification of those who think that people are protected from any bad consequence of vaccine refusal under the European Court of Human Rights, the following post is interesting: (can't link it) Völkerrechtsblog "Do compulsory vaccinations against COVID-19 violate human rights? An assessment of the measure’s compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights" on the 2nd of December 2020. As one would expect, there is considerable nuance in the jurisprudence they run through. Bodily autonomy is balanced against individual and third party protection. Countries are given wide latitude as things stand to make their own decisions as to whether to mandate vaccines legally. It doesn't specifically say, but generally (I have passing familiarity) government are given less latitude than private bodies or businesses. Fact checking. You're very welcome
Interesting thanks.
So how would it stand with regards to violating human rights if the vaccine only protects the recipient and not everyone else? Ie despite being vaccinated you can still transmit to others?
As said above, common sense would indicate that ppl having less serious symptoms may reduce transmissible viral load but currently there is no evidence. So why does someone not having the vaccine make them any more dangerous to society?"The entire document can be found on the official parliamentary assembly (pace) page of the council of Europe (Coe)!!! I am happy to provide a link by PM to anyone who doubts this!!! Not my fault if a simple search doesn't bring this file up... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway. I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? Where is this evidence that you base your statement to say will lead to penalisation to exercise ones rights? I have not seen any except speculations and headline grabbing suggestions and misinterpretations so far so I genuinely would appreciate any concrete evidence to substantiate this if you can. Thanks I think you are mistaken ?I never said it would be lae? I suggested it may well be introduced .. given other countries are absolutely sure they are introducing measures to record who has have the vaccine and asking them to be used as proof etc.. why do you think the UK wont? You said it's likely.... We also record as with any country who has vaccines. It doesn't mean it'll be used against you as you suggest. Also please show what countries have said it'll be used against you. Many seem to be forgetting that the vaccine is to primarily and foremostly to protect oneself and protect the health service from collapsing and that the same globally." Sorry but that's just being pedantic FYI LIkely ' a definition' for you . such as well might happen or be true; probable. "speculation" Keyword there is ' speculation' not fact based or law .. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Interesting points also .. So, here is a thought! if it violates someones human rights to have the vaccine then I would say there's an 'opposite' to that wouldn't you think? .. In so far as everyone not being vaccinated violates everyone else's human rights not to be exposed to someone who is potentially virulent/ dangerous could close down their business again / etc " I am not saying this does or should apply to Covid-19, but British law already allows hospital detention of an infectious person with a "notifiable disease". (Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 sections 37 and 38) As it's a government site, have a link: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/22/part/II/crossheading/infectious-persons/enacted?view=plain | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway. I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? Where is this evidence that you base your statement to say will lead to penalisation to exercise ones rights? I have not seen any except speculations and headline grabbing suggestions and misinterpretations so far so I genuinely would appreciate any concrete evidence to substantiate this if you can. Thanks I think you are mistaken ?I never said it would be lae? I suggested it may well be introduced .. given other countries are absolutely sure they are introducing measures to record who has have the vaccine and asking them to be used as proof etc.. why do you think the UK wont? Ooh there's a question. The UK haven't had a good track record this last year about making the right decision in a timely fashion have they? Especially when it comes to limiting peoples movements... I mean quarantine, isolation, travel, airports, enforcement (apart from a few students and 2 pretty newsworthy blondes)... " Are you a politician? that did not answer the original question .. what makes YOU think the UK won't follow suit with the rest of the world ( likely to be ) . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The entire document can be found on the official parliamentary assembly (pace) page of the council of Europe (Coe)!!! I am happy to provide a link by PM to anyone who doubts this!!! Not my fault if a simple search doesn't bring this file up... "Oops. My mistake. I found it. It's a provisional guidance document from a political debate. Meaning "this is the result of our discussion on what we think you guys should do in order to make this go smoothly." ... Strangely enough, law and case law have legal weight. This does not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The entire document can be found on the official parliamentary assembly (pace) page of the council of Europe (Coe)!!! I am happy to provide a link by PM to anyone who doubts this!!! Not my fault if a simple search doesn't bring this file up...
Oops. My mistake. I found it.
It's a provisional guidance document from a political debate. Meaning "this is the result of our discussion on what we think you guys should do in order to make this go smoothly."
... Strangely enough, law and case law have legal weight. This does not."Source - Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal, and practical considerations. Resolution 2361 (2021) Provisional version, from the parliamentary debate of 27 January 2021 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This whole argument changes when/if there is evidence the vaccines reduce transmission and risk to others on top of protecting you. " If/When that happens I will rethink my stance on the vaccine. I'd be willing to take it if it protects others. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This whole argument changes when/if there is evidence the vaccines reduce transmission and risk to others on top of protecting you. If/When that happens I will rethink my stance on the vaccine. I'd be willing to take it if it protects others." Precisely because then it becomes a question of ethics: 1. Am I willing to put myself at risk = maybe 2. Am I willing to put others at risk = no 3. If those at risk are safer because they have been vaccinated then I am not putting them at any more risk. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The entire document can be found on the official parliamentary assembly (pace) page of the council of Europe (Coe)!!! I am happy to provide a link by PM to anyone who doubts this!!! Not my fault if a simple search doesn't bring this file up...
Oops. My mistake. I found it.
It's a provisional guidance document from a political debate. Meaning "this is the result of our discussion on what we think you guys should do in order to make this go smoothly."
... Strangely enough, law and case law have legal weight. This does not.
Source - Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal, and practical considerations.
Resolution 2361 (2021) Provisional version, from the parliamentary debate of 27 January 2021"Yes, provisional...it shows the ethos of the European council and where it's headed... Of course, this may change... however, I would argue that it would be difficult to mandate vaccines which are still in trial stages and at this point authorised for emergency use only... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The entire document can be found on the official parliamentary assembly (pace) page of the council of Europe (Coe)!!! I am happy to provide a link by PM to anyone who doubts this!!! Not my fault if a simple search doesn't bring this file up...
Oops. My mistake. I found it.
It's a provisional guidance document from a political debate. Meaning "this is the result of our discussion on what we think you guys should do in order to make this go smoothly."
... Strangely enough, law and case law have legal weight. This does not.
Source - Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal, and practical considerations.
Resolution 2361 (2021) Provisional version, from the parliamentary debate of 27 January 2021
Yes, provisional...it shows the ethos of the European council and where it's headed...
Of course, this may change... however, I would argue that it would be difficult to mandate vaccines which are still in trial stages and at this point authorised for emergency use only... "Existing jurisprudence, see above, would suggest mandates are perfectly possible with relatively little interference from the ECHR. I suspect that this is aiming at "vaccination by consent is preferable to vaccination by force". I highly doubt that this is moving towards "no entity can apply negative consequences to vaccine refusal ever". But we shall see, of course. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn’t anyone find it scarily dystopian reading the words “vaccination by consent is preferable”!!!! Of course it should be by consent. It is MY body! " Not particularly. The government have powers of enforcement. We hope they don't have to use them. It's the system we've lived in since the invention of quarantine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn’t anyone find it scarily dystopian reading the words “vaccination by consent is preferable”!!!! Of course it should be by consent. It is MY body! " Totally. By law in the UK they cannot force you to have medical treatment and that includes vaccination. This is covered in the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984. This legislation gives the government powers to prevent, control or mitigate the spread of an infection or contamination, hence what they are doing now. However, it explicitly states that regulations cannot require a person to undertake medical treatment, including vaccination. The Coronavirus Act extended this specific point to cover Scotland and Northern Ireland at the start of the outbreak last year. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The entire document can be found on the official parliamentary assembly (pace) page of the council of Europe (Coe)!!! I am happy to provide a link by PM to anyone who doubts this!!! Not my fault if a simple search doesn't bring this file up...
Oops. My mistake. I found it.
It's a provisional guidance document from a political debate. Meaning "this is the result of our discussion on what we think you guys should do in order to make this go smoothly."
... Strangely enough, law and case law have legal weight. This does not.
Source - Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal, and practical considerations.
Resolution 2361 (2021) Provisional version, from the parliamentary debate of 27 January 2021
Yes, provisional...it shows the ethos of the European council and where it's headed...
Of course, this may change... however, I would argue that it would be difficult to mandate vaccines which are still in trial stages and at this point authorised for emergency use only...
Existing jurisprudence, see above, would suggest mandates are perfectly possible with relatively little interference from the ECHR.
I suspect that this is aiming at "vaccination by consent is preferable to vaccination by force". I highly doubt that this is moving towards "no entity can apply negative consequences to vaccine refusal ever".
But we shall see, of course. "The questions I would ask...those countries mandating vaccines, which vaccines, what types of vaccine, since when, what stage of approval were the vaccines in, how long had they been on the market before being mandated etc...I'm sure you get my gist... just like I get your gist... Ordinarily I have recently come across something I haven't had the chance to research any further which questions if these vaccines that have come to market are in fact vaccines, as a vaccine supposedly has a legal definition. Only time will tell...but the general attitude in the Forum of supporting oppression, supporting using force to get someone vaccinated, amongst other things, scares me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway. I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? Where is this evidence that you base your statement to say will lead to penalisation to exercise ones rights? I have not seen any except speculations and headline grabbing suggestions and misinterpretations so far so I genuinely would appreciate any concrete evidence to substantiate this if you can. Thanks I think you are mistaken ?I never said it would be lae? I suggested it may well be introduced .. given other countries are absolutely sure they are introducing measures to record who has have the vaccine and asking them to be used as proof etc.. why do you think the UK wont? Ooh there's a question. The UK haven't had a good track record this last year about making the right decision in a timely fashion have they? Especially when it comes to limiting peoples movements... I mean quarantine, isolation, travel, airports, enforcement (apart from a few students and 2 pretty newsworthy blondes)... Are you a politician? that did not answer the original question .. what makes YOU think the UK won't follow suit with the rest of the world ( likely to be ) . " Haha no I'm no politician.. I've given my view already. I'd ask the same question to you... What makes YOU think the UK will follow suit? Now as for more specific reasons why... Because we are inherently contrarian (along with the French and Germans) because we have not invented here syndrome, because this government all along have been reluctant to take any action that restricts movement or requires control, because the evidence of how it will be kept and protected, how it will be used and if it will be of any benefit is yet to be provided. Because at the moment we are still continuing to fly people into the country with very little control so the notion that we will stop people from flying without evidence of a vaccine right now is laughable. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The entire document can be found on the official parliamentary assembly (pace) page of the council of Europe (Coe)!!! I am happy to provide a link by PM to anyone who doubts this!!! Not my fault if a simple search doesn't bring this file up...
Oops. My mistake. I found it.
It's a provisional guidance document from a political debate. Meaning "this is the result of our discussion on what we think you guys should do in order to make this go smoothly."
... Strangely enough, law and case law have legal weight. This does not."Ooops busted! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... and hang on. Wasn't this the very source you were saying was excellent before I located the context for it? Hmm." I either made the point badly or you totally missed the point. Regardless of the document or any quote or paraphrase from it - the fact that it even has to be stated that it is preferable to have consent is completely dystopian. Of course it should be by consent! As if it should be any other way!! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary that was a long post so not going to quote. You too raise many interesting and valid points. No I am not a person who does not wear a mask (I do) or has medical grounds to refuse vaccine. For the most part I am playing devils advocate because for every opinion there are valid counter opinions. I am VERY uncomfortable with the echo chamber tribalism that is perpetuated and accentuated by social media. It is damaging critical thinking or informed debate. I am also VERY uncomfortable that anyone believes they have a right to dictate what someone else puts inside their body. I think social norming around what is actually extreme behaviour is a dangerous slippery slope. Certificates/badges to allow a person to do things is only a step away from a yellow star on your clothes. Saying/announcing to the world “I have a medical exemption” is a huge invasion of privacy an open to abuse and discrimination. Also much as it raises howls of derision from many, it remains the case that, understandably, nobody knows the long term side effects of these vaccines. So BECAUSE there MAY be long term health implications caused by the vaccine(s) I maintain it should be up to the individual to make an informed choice based on balance of risk etc. Alongside that, as said above, there remains the point that the vaccines only protect YOU not others from you. Currently no evidence they will reduce transmission...although common sense would indicate that less people getting seriously ill and the majority (c.90%) only having minor symptoms, means reduced viral loads leading to fewer transmissions anyway. I see that .. and you are just repeating statistics again.. so my question is this ..are you prepared and willing for what is likely to be some form of penalisation for you exercising your rights? Where is this evidence that you base your statement to say will lead to penalisation to exercise ones rights? I have not seen any except speculations and headline grabbing suggestions and misinterpretations so far so I genuinely would appreciate any concrete evidence to substantiate this if you can. Thanks I think you are mistaken ?I never said it would be lae? I suggested it may well be introduced .. given other countries are absolutely sure they are introducing measures to record who has have the vaccine and asking them to be used as proof etc.. why do you think the UK wont? Ooh there's a question. The UK haven't had a good track record this last year about making the right decision in a timely fashion have they? Especially when it comes to limiting peoples movements... I mean quarantine, isolation, travel, airports, enforcement (apart from a few students and 2 pretty newsworthy blondes)... Are you a politician? that did not answer the original question .. what makes YOU think the UK won't follow suit with the rest of the world ( likely to be ) . Haha no I'm no politician.. I've given my view already. I'd ask the same question to you... What makes YOU think the UK will follow suit? Now as for more specific reasons why... Because we are inherently contrarian (along with the French and Germans) because we have not invented here syndrome, because this government all along have been reluctant to take any action that restricts movement or requires control, because the evidence of how it will be kept and protected, how it will be used and if it will be of any benefit is yet to be provided. Because at the moment we are still continuing to fly people into the country with very little control so the notion that we will stop people from flying without evidence of a vaccine right now is laughable. " I agree They've let any Tom, dick and Harry into the country for the, past 9 months bringing covid into the, country from all over. It didn't bother anyone then now did it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn’t anyone find it scarily dystopian reading the words “vaccination by consent is preferable”!!!! Of course it should be by consent. It is MY body! " I'm afraid I don't.. Yes it's your body but frankly are we not getting too much of that these days a refusal to comply with anything? I put forward the argument again.. We are heading for a Dystopian future ruled by science.. Whether we like it or not.. Its not a case of ' if' Now.. Just think if the boots on the other foot.. I'm sta ding next you somewhere socially and find out you are for want of a better word not Covid protected.. Its MY BODY then too.. So can't I object to having to be there and that you are moved somewhere else ? Now try that same scenario At the swimming pool, gym, restaurant, same aircraft.. I'm sure you get the idea. As a final point. We're it not for the way we have buggered up the planet.. Poking and prodding and exploring, developing a, mining, drilling etc.. We might not be in this situation..maybe! However we are and its clear the only way out of it is to become lab rats.. For the greater good and as a duty to future generations who are going to have to fix this mess Frankly anyone quoting Orwell or some such future is possibly partially right though we can only hope for a degree of responsibility to be shown by our leaders and so called betters . However, I see we have no choice now but to just get on with it..and those who refuse because they just don't want to are actually becoming the reason why we are all still waiting to get out and live again.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"No. People have the right to choose not to have it. " You are right there . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" This whole argument changes when/if there is evidence the vaccines reduce transmission and risk to others on top of protecting you. If/When that happens I will rethink my stance on the vaccine. I'd be willing to take it if it protects others." The whole concept of herd immunity by vaccination relies on reduction in transmission, and has been found to work perfectly fine for other diseases. Basically the only way to reduce a disease within any population is to get the R factor down below 1. The number of cases then shrinks on each generation of infection, until soon the chance of any individual contracting the disease is low simply because it becomes unlikely that you will come into contact with one of the few infected people. One way of reducing R of course is to wear masks and adopt social distancing etc, as we are currently doing. However that doesn't work long term, as unless you get the number of carriers down to actually zero, the instant that precautions are lessened the number of cases inevitably rises again. Even one single infectious person in the population would be enough to bring the case load back up to current levels after a few months (after all, that's how we got to this situation in the first place). So either we're all keeping to the current precautions for perpetuity, or R has to be permanently brought below 1. And if the vaccination programme doesn't do that, then - to coin a phrase - we're all buggered. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" The entire document can be found on the official parliamentary assembly (pace) page of the council of Europe (Coe)!!! I am happy to provide a link by PM to anyone who doubts this!!! Not my fault if a simple search doesn't bring this file up...
Oops. My mistake. I found it.
It's a provisional guidance document from a political debate. Meaning "this is the result of our discussion on what we think you guys should do in order to make this go smoothly."
... Strangely enough, law and case law have legal weight. This does not.
Source - Covid-19 vaccines: ethical, legal, and practical considerations.
Resolution 2361 (2021) Provisional version, from the parliamentary debate of 27 January 2021
Yes, provisional...it shows the ethos of the European council and where it's headed...
Of course, this may change... however, I would argue that it would be difficult to mandate vaccines which are still in trial stages and at this point authorised for emergency use only...
Existing jurisprudence, see above, would suggest mandates are perfectly possible with relatively little interference from the ECHR.
I suspect that this is aiming at "vaccination by consent is preferable to vaccination by force". I highly doubt that this is moving towards "no entity can apply negative consequences to vaccine refusal ever".
But we shall see, of course.
The questions I would ask...those countries mandating vaccines, which vaccines, what types of vaccine, since when, what stage of approval were the vaccines in, how long had they been on the market before being mandated etc...I'm sure you get my gist... just like I get your gist...
Ordinarily I have recently come across something I haven't had the chance to research any further which questions if these vaccines that have come to market are in fact vaccines, as a vaccine supposedly has a legal definition.
Only time will tell...but the general attitude in the Forum of supporting oppression, supporting using force to get someone vaccinated, amongst other things, scares me"I'm not sure it's support for oppression. I think that it's more to do with choosing the better of two bad choices..given the very limited clarity that the "science" gives us at the moment. It is analogous with the split between those who support proactive behaviour modification measures and those who choose not to modify their behaviours. If we lived in a Totalitarian state those choices would be taken away from us, but having said that those countries who took stronger measures sooner now seem to be faring better. I think it's a good debate, and good that people like yourselves and ourselves challenge and debate. But I'd assume that ultimately we all share the same goal of being able to socialise and work freely again as soon as possible with as few further deaths and health consequences as possible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn’t anyone find it scarily dystopian reading the words “vaccination by consent is preferable”!!!! Of course it should be by consent. It is MY body! I'm afraid I don't.. Yes it's your body but frankly are we not getting too much of that these days a refusal to comply with anything? I put forward the argument again.. We are heading for a Dystopian future ruled by science.. Whether we like it or not.. Its not a case of ' if' Now.. Just think if the boots on the other foot.. I'm sta ding next you somewhere socially and find out you are for want of a better word not Covid protected.. Its MY BODY then too.. So can't I object to having to be there and that you are moved somewhere else ? Now try that same scenario At the swimming pool, gym, restaurant, same aircraft.. I'm sure you get the idea. As a final point. We're it not for the way we have buggered up the planet.. Poking and prodding and exploring, developing a, mining, drilling etc.. We might not be in this situation..maybe! However we are and its clear the only way out of it is to become lab rats.. For the greater good and as a duty to future generations who are going to have to fix this mess Frankly anyone quoting Orwell or some such future is possibly partially right though we can only hope for a degree of responsibility to be shown by our leaders and so called betters . However, I see we have no choice now but to just get on with it..and those who refuse because they just don't want to are actually becoming the reason why we are all still waiting to get out and live again.. " If you have had the vaccine how are they going to pass the virus on? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought" So those who cannot take it due to an alurgey should just be left to die then? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... and hang on. Wasn't this the very source you were saying was excellent before I located the context for it? Hmm. I either made the point badly or you totally missed the point. Regardless of the document or any quote or paraphrase from it - the fact that it even has to be stated that it is preferable to have consent is completely dystopian. Of course it should be by consent! As if it should be any other way!! " Sure, it should be. I would very much prefer that myself. But the reality is that the law allows for other options under the Court of Human Rights. (The UK has said that they will not do this themselves, that is consistent with British jurisprudence as I understand it. However that does not mean that businesses cannot enforce vaccination in employees or patrons. For employees it seems unlikely except perhaps for healthcare, otherwise I don't know). I am trying to explain what I've read here. I am not going "this is what I think will happen". European human rights law: compulsory vaccination is possible given the jurisprudence. This document seems to me to be discussing best practices. In the UK, the government has said that it will not mandate. This does not mean that bodies in the UK are prohibited from mandating. In the UK, as mentioned and linked above, there is also the power to forcibly detain people with certain infectious diseases. This is the latitude of options I've been able to ascertain. To the extent that I'm commenting, it's in an attempt to summarise. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn’t anyone find it scarily dystopian reading the words “vaccination by consent is preferable”!!!! Of course it should be by consent. It is MY body! I'm afraid I don't.. Yes it's your body but frankly are we not getting too much of that these days a refusal to comply with anything? I put forward the argument again.. We are heading for a Dystopian future ruled by science.. Whether we like it or not.. Its not a case of ' if' Now.. Just think if the boots on the other foot.. I'm sta ding next you somewhere socially and find out you are for want of a better word not Covid protected.. Its MY BODY then too.. So can't I object to having to be there and that you are moved somewhere else ? Now try that same scenario At the swimming pool, gym, restaurant, same aircraft.. I'm sure you get the idea. As a final point. We're it not for the way we have buggered up the planet.. Poking and prodding and exploring, developing a, mining, drilling etc.. We might not be in this situation..maybe! However we are and its clear the only way out of it is to become lab rats.. For the greater good and as a duty to future generations who are going to have to fix this mess Frankly anyone quoting Orwell or some such future is possibly partially right though we can only hope for a degree of responsibility to be shown by our leaders and so called betters . However, I see we have no choice now but to just get on with it..and those who refuse because they just don't want to are actually becoming the reason why we are all still waiting to get out and live again.. " So I have noticed a pattern that you only respond to some posts or chosen points so let’s out that elephant in the room again. Re: standing next to you... If you are vaccinated but I am not then YOU are protected and I am not. Me not being protected does not impact on you as you are c.90%+ likely to only experience mild symptoms but you can still infect me ergo my choice of risk effects me but not you. And in case you missed it up above - the whole argument changes if/when there is evidence the vaccines protect others as well as you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought So those who cannot take it due to an alurgey should just be left to die then? " It would be good if people read the threads? pretty much no one says that as an argument ever.. but it seems everywhere in the media the anti-vaxxers are very quick to use it the first chance they get. I very much doubt if anyone would penalise someone who was genuinely unable for medical reasons to take a vaccine .. though just like penicillin it is likely that in the future new no allergenic strains will be made and then they should all be able to take it safely then we would hope | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... and hang on. Wasn't this the very source you were saying was excellent before I located the context for it? Hmm. I either made the point badly or you totally missed the point. Regardless of the document or any quote or paraphrase from it - the fact that it even has to be stated that it is preferable to have consent is completely dystopian. Of course it should be by consent! As if it should be any other way!! " You are absolutely right it is dystopian, but then this entire last year of locking people away with no contact, closing schools, stopping face to face time at unis, cancelling all organised sports and pass times (and so on) is also dystopian. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So I have noticed a pattern that you only respond to some posts or chosen points so let’s out that elephant in the room again. Re: standing next to you... If you are vaccinated but I am not then YOU are protected and I am not. Me not being protected does not impact on you as you are c.90%+ likely to only experience mild symptoms but you can still infect me ergo my choice of risk effects me but not you. And in case you missed it up above - the whole argument changes if/when there is evidence the vaccines protect others as well as you." Herd immunity also means protecting those who can't be vaccinated. We don't yet know if this applies to this vaccine, but it's the general principle of why society looks to high uptake. Measles is over 5x more contagious than Covid. We keep it out by high vaccination. Those who are vaccinated block any infection into those who can't be vaccinated. Again, this is just the principle at work. Which may yet apply to Covid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn’t anyone find it scarily dystopian reading the words “vaccination by consent is preferable”!!!! Of course it should be by consent. It is MY body! I'm afraid I don't.. Yes it's your body but frankly are we not getting too much of that these days a refusal to comply with anything? I put forward the argument again.. We are heading for a Dystopian future ruled by science.. Whether we like it or not.. Its not a case of ' if' Now.. Just think if the boots on the other foot.. I'm sta ding next you somewhere socially and find out you are for want of a better word not Covid protected.. Its MY BODY then too.. So can't I object to having to be there and that you are moved somewhere else ? Now try that same scenario At the swimming pool, gym, restaurant, same aircraft.. I'm sure you get the idea. As a final point. We're it not for the way we have buggered up the planet.. Poking and prodding and exploring, developing a, mining, drilling etc.. We might not be in this situation..maybe! However we are and its clear the only way out of it is to become lab rats.. For the greater good and as a duty to future generations who are going to have to fix this mess Frankly anyone quoting Orwell or some such future is possibly partially right though we can only hope for a degree of responsibility to be shown by our leaders and so called betters . However, I see we have no choice now but to just get on with it..and those who refuse because they just don't want to are actually becoming the reason why we are all still waiting to get out and live again.. So I have noticed a pattern that you only respond to some posts or chosen points so let’s out that elephant in the room again. Re: standing next to you... If you are vaccinated but I am not then YOU are protected and I am not. Me not being protected does not impact on you as you are c.90%+ likely to only experience mild symptoms but you can still infect me ergo my choice of risk effects me but not you. And in case you missed it up above - the whole argument changes if/when there is evidence the vaccines protect others as well as you." Ive been trying to make a similar point, with no response. I think it’s a case of selective reading, maybe that’s how they choose their ‘science’ too | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... and hang on. Wasn't this the very source you were saying was excellent before I located the context for it? Hmm. I either made the point badly or you totally missed the point. Regardless of the document or any quote or paraphrase from it - the fact that it even has to be stated that it is preferable to have consent is completely dystopian. Of course it should be by consent! As if it should be any other way!! You are absolutely right it is dystopian, but then this entire last year of locking people away with no contact, closing schools, stopping face to face time at unis, cancelling all organised sports and pass times (and so on) is also dystopian. " Uncontained spread of a disease with serious consequences is pretty dystopian and unfortunately effective measures are often harsh. I want the heck out of this disaster as soon as possible. While I accept that vaccines will not be mandated at a UK government level, I will make a point of frequenting businesses that discourage the unvaccinated from using their services. Yes, have an opinion. My money, my choice. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So I have noticed a pattern that you only respond to some posts or chosen points so let’s out that elephant in the room again. Re: standing next to you... If you are vaccinated but I am not then YOU are protected and I am not. Me not being protected does not impact on you as you are c.90%+ likely to only experience mild symptoms but you can still infect me ergo my choice of risk effects me but not you. And in case you missed it up above - the whole argument changes if/when there is evidence the vaccines protect others as well as you. Herd immunity also means protecting those who can't be vaccinated. We don't yet know if this applies to this vaccine, but it's the general principle of why society looks to high uptake. Measles is over 5x more contagious than Covid. We keep it out by high vaccination. Those who are vaccinated block any infection into those who can't be vaccinated. Again, this is just the principle at work. Which may yet apply to Covid." . So we can achieve herd immunity without everybody being vaccinated? Think it’s 80% for measles but I could be wrong. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought So those who cannot take it due to an alurgey should just be left to die then? It would be good if people read the threads? pretty much no one says that as an argument ever.. but it seems everywhere in the media the anti-vaxxers are very quick to use it the first chance they get. I very much doubt if anyone would penalise someone who was genuinely unable for medical reasons to take a vaccine .. though just like penicillin it is likely that in the future new no allergenic strains will be made and then they should all be able to take it safely then we would hope " So what about the 15 and unders, the children of our society, they are not to be offered the vaccine as not approved You hear it so much on here they are the “super spreaders”, so do their lives go on hold, no social interaction, can’t go to the cinema, go on holiday, go to a restaurant with their family and alike just because they haven’t been vaccinated. It’s the same for those with a valid reason why they can’t have the vaccine, how would you suggest they live their lives? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"To those who agree forced oppression to have a Vaccination is ok. That will be the start of a very slippery slope. Further oppression could then be doled out in the future. Also this virus has mutated three times since it started so the vaccination you have now will be of little use against the newer strains. But if it gives you comfort then by all means have it." The first ever vaccine mandate occurred in the UK. Did you know that? How far have we fallen down the slippery slope so far? mRNA vaccines, they say a change would take six weeks. *Shrug* | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought So those who cannot take it due to an alurgey should just be left to die then? It would be good if people read the threads? pretty much no one says that as an argument ever.. but it seems everywhere in the media the anti-vaxxers are very quick to use it the first chance they get. I very much doubt if anyone would penalise someone who was genuinely unable for medical reasons to take a vaccine .. though just like penicillin it is likely that in the future new no allergenic strains will be made and then they should all be able to take it safely then we would hope " Yes do read the posts as this has been covered also. If someone has to prove a medical condition prevents them having the vaccine then you open the door to discrimination let alone a requirement to release confidential personal health data. For example, at present there are no studies of the effect of the vaccines on pregnant women and they are recommending they don’t have it. If they go for a job interview, currently there is no legal obligation to reveal you are (early stage not showing) pregnant. However, now the prospective employer would know are would likely not offer the job. That ok? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So I have noticed a pattern that you only respond to some posts or chosen points so let’s out that elephant in the room again. Re: standing next to you... If you are vaccinated but I am not then YOU are protected and I am not. Me not being protected does not impact on you as you are c.90%+ likely to only experience mild symptoms but you can still infect me ergo my choice of risk effects me but not you. And in case you missed it up above - the whole argument changes if/when there is evidence the vaccines protect others as well as you. Herd immunity also means protecting those who can't be vaccinated. We don't yet know if this applies to this vaccine, but it's the general principle of why society looks to high uptake. Measles is over 5x more contagious than Covid. We keep it out by high vaccination. Those who are vaccinated block any infection into those who can't be vaccinated. Again, this is just the principle at work. Which may yet apply to Covid.. So we can achieve herd immunity without everybody being vaccinated? Think it’s 80% for measles but I could be wrong." We can. We don't know what that number is yet, or to what extent it applies to this vaccine. The more people who *refuse* the more herd immunity is in danger. The herd immunity threshold for measles is apparently 92-95%. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Doesn’t anyone find it scarily dystopian reading the words “vaccination by consent is preferable”!!!! Of course it should be by consent. It is MY body! I'm afraid I don't.. Yes it's your body but frankly are we not getting too much of that these days a refusal to comply with anything? I put forward the argument again.. We are heading for a Dystopian future ruled by science.. Whether we like it or not.. Its not a case of ' if' Now.. Just think if the boots on the other foot.. I'm sta ding next you somewhere socially and find out you are for want of a better word not Covid protected.. Its MY BODY then too.. So can't I object to having to be there and that you are moved somewhere else ? Now try that same scenario At the swimming pool, gym, restaurant, same aircraft.. I'm sure you get the idea. As a final point. We're it not for the way we have buggered up the planet.. Poking and prodding and exploring, developing a, mining, drilling etc.. We might not be in this situation..maybe! However we are and its clear the only way out of it is to become lab rats.. For the greater good and as a duty to future generations who are going to have to fix this mess Frankly anyone quoting Orwell or some such future is possibly partially right though we can only hope for a degree of responsibility to be shown by our leaders and so called betters . However, I see we have no choice now but to just get on with it..and those who refuse because they just don't want to are actually becoming the reason why we are all still waiting to get out and live again.. So I have noticed a pattern that you only respond to some posts or chosen points so let’s out that elephant in the room again. Why is that a problem for you? Im not the type to walk away when I disagree with someone and am very much the type to try and persuade someone about something I am quite passionate about .. Re: standing next to you... If you are vaccinated but I am not then YOU are protected and I am not. Me not being protected does not impact on you as you are c.90%+ likely to only experience mild symptoms but you can still infect me ergo my choice of risk effects me but not you. And in case you missed it up above - the whole argument changes if/when there is evidence the vaccines protect others as well as you." I have chosen to respond to your points just because I have comments to make about them .. ' my choice' let's say! The elephant has left the room
Look .. you aren't ever going to see my point.. so I'll just say this .. what are the chances of someone who has not been vaccinated catching/ developing further strains of the virus/ mutations etc?
Pretty high I would suggest if they haven't at least been protected to some extent already.
So it then opens the whole thing up again and we have the worry of going all the way back to square one.
It may interest you to know that I am generally quite open and tolerant in most things.
However, with this .. we need to do whatever it takes to get this thing under control and let people get back to work, turn the wheels of the economy and start living again .. I'm afraid I can't see any logical argument other than individual self-preservation that would stop that from happening. Right now the benefits or potential benefits far outweigh any risk that might happen to the individual . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So I have noticed a pattern that you only respond to some posts or chosen points so let’s out that elephant in the room again. Re: standing next to you... If you are vaccinated but I am not then YOU are protected and I am not. Me not being protected does not impact on you as you are c.90%+ likely to only experience mild symptoms but you can still infect me ergo my choice of risk effects me but not you. And in case you missed it up above - the whole argument changes if/when there is evidence the vaccines protect others as well as you. Herd immunity also means protecting those who can't be vaccinated. We don't yet know if this applies to this vaccine, but it's the general principle of why society looks to high uptake. Measles is over 5x more contagious than Covid. We keep it out by high vaccination. Those who are vaccinated block any infection into those who can't be vaccinated. Again, this is just the principle at work. Which may yet apply to Covid.. So we can achieve herd immunity without everybody being vaccinated? Think it’s 80% for measles but I could be wrong. We can. We don't know what that number is yet, or to what extent it applies to this vaccine. The more people who *refuse* the more herd immunity is in danger. The herd immunity threshold for measles is apparently 92-95%." Well according to most polls in the UK about 85% have said they will definitely have a vaccine - by CHOICE | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So I have noticed a pattern that you only respond to some posts or chosen points so let’s out that elephant in the room again. Re: standing next to you... If you are vaccinated but I am not then YOU are protected and I am not. Me not being protected does not impact on you as you are c.90%+ likely to only experience mild symptoms but you can still infect me ergo my choice of risk effects me but not you. And in case you missed it up above - the whole argument changes if/when there is evidence the vaccines protect others as well as you. Herd immunity also means protecting those who can't be vaccinated. We don't yet know if this applies to this vaccine, but it's the general principle of why society looks to high uptake. Measles is over 5x more contagious than Covid. We keep it out by high vaccination. Those who are vaccinated block any infection into those who can't be vaccinated. Again, this is just the principle at work. Which may yet apply to Covid.. So we can achieve herd immunity without everybody being vaccinated? Think it’s 80% for measles but I could be wrong. We can. We don't know what that number is yet, or to what extent it applies to this vaccine. The more people who *refuse* the more herd immunity is in danger. The herd immunity threshold for measles is apparently 92-95%. Well according to most polls in the UK about 85% have said they will definitely have a vaccine - by CHOICE " Excellent. Back to my very original point: the more people who are vaccinated, the sooner we can begin rebuilding society, because the risk of severe illness overwhelming the health service will be significantly reduced | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Old people and ethnic minorities are ALWAYS at the back of the queue for anything. Yet, a vaccine for a disease no one had heard of a year ago has been developed and tested and deemed safe in less time than they test dog food and rolling it out to the old and minorities first?!! Tuskegee experiment springs to mind! Nah, I'll watch and wait and take my chances until I'm sure it's safe. Aaah, the life of the free: able to make and take personal responsibility. ""eating popcorn" awaiting for the slew of angry covid denier, conspiracy nut and flat earther comments | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Old people and ethnic minorities are ALWAYS at the back of the queue for anything. Yet, a vaccine for a disease no one had heard of a year ago has been developed and tested and deemed safe in less time than they test dog food and rolling it out to the old and minorities first?!! Tuskegee experiment springs to mind! Nah, I'll watch and wait and take my chances until I'm sure it's safe. Aaah, the life of the free: able to make and take personal responsibility.
"eating popcorn" awaiting for the slew of angry covid denier, conspiracy nut and flat earther comments "... And yet that comment was made three hours ago and you seem to be the only one to have responded to it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So I have noticed a pattern that you only respond to some posts or chosen points so let’s out that elephant in the room again. Re: standing next to you... If you are vaccinated but I am not then YOU are protected and I am not. Me not being protected does not impact on you as you are c.90%+ likely to only experience mild symptoms but you can still infect me ergo my choice of risk effects me but not you. And in case you missed it up above - the whole argument changes if/when there is evidence the vaccines protect others as well as you. Herd immunity also means protecting those who can't be vaccinated. We don't yet know if this applies to this vaccine, but it's the general principle of why society looks to high uptake. Measles is over 5x more contagious than Covid. We keep it out by high vaccination. Those who are vaccinated block any infection into those who can't be vaccinated. Again, this is just the principle at work. Which may yet apply to Covid.. So we can achieve herd immunity without everybody being vaccinated? Think it’s 80% for measles but I could be wrong. We can. We don't know what that number is yet, or to what extent it applies to this vaccine. The more people who *refuse* the more herd immunity is in danger. The herd immunity threshold for measles is apparently 92-95%. Well according to most polls in the UK about 85% have said they will definitely have a vaccine - by CHOICE Excellent. Back to my very original point: the more people who are vaccinated, the sooner we can begin rebuilding society, because the risk of severe illness overwhelming the health service will be significantly reduced "And I have never said otherwise. My entire point is that being vaccinated is a personal choice and should remain so. The idea that those choosing not to be vaccinated should be vilified or penalised is ridiculous and frankly sinister. The ONLY thing that changes that point is significant evidence the vaccine prevents transmission. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So I have noticed a pattern that you only respond to some posts or chosen points so let’s out that elephant in the room again. Re: standing next to you... If you are vaccinated but I am not then YOU are protected and I am not. Me not being protected does not impact on you as you are c.90%+ likely to only experience mild symptoms but you can still infect me ergo my choice of risk effects me but not you. And in case you missed it up above - the whole argument changes if/when there is evidence the vaccines protect others as well as you. Herd immunity also means protecting those who can't be vaccinated. We don't yet know if this applies to this vaccine, but it's the general principle of why society looks to high uptake. Measles is over 5x more contagious than Covid. We keep it out by high vaccination. Those who are vaccinated block any infection into those who can't be vaccinated. Again, this is just the principle at work. Which may yet apply to Covid.. So we can achieve herd immunity without everybody being vaccinated? Think it’s 80% for measles but I could be wrong. We can. We don't know what that number is yet, or to what extent it applies to this vaccine. The more people who *refuse* the more herd immunity is in danger. The herd immunity threshold for measles is apparently 92-95%." Ok so the government don’t need to force it on everyone then, 5% of the uk population is around 3.5 million people. That’s based on 95%, it could be lower than that, could be higher. We don’t know how the vaccine will react to these new mutations. If it’s similar to flu and given it seems to be mutating a lot, the government simply wouldn’t be able to keep up, they couldn’t possible vaccinate 66 million people every year. It’s just not feasible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So I have noticed a pattern that you only respond to some posts or chosen points so let’s out that elephant in the room again. Re: standing next to you... If you are vaccinated but I am not then YOU are protected and I am not. Me not being protected does not impact on you as you are c.90%+ likely to only experience mild symptoms but you can still infect me ergo my choice of risk effects me but not you. And in case you missed it up above - the whole argument changes if/when there is evidence the vaccines protect others as well as you. Herd immunity also means protecting those who can't be vaccinated. We don't yet know if this applies to this vaccine, but it's the general principle of why society looks to high uptake. Measles is over 5x more contagious than Covid. We keep it out by high vaccination. Those who are vaccinated block any infection into those who can't be vaccinated. Again, this is just the principle at work. Which may yet apply to Covid.. So we can achieve herd immunity without everybody being vaccinated? Think it’s 80% for measles but I could be wrong. We can. We don't know what that number is yet, or to what extent it applies to this vaccine. The more people who *refuse* the more herd immunity is in danger. The herd immunity threshold for measles is apparently 92-95%. Well according to most polls in the UK about 85% have said they will definitely have a vaccine - by CHOICE Excellent. Back to my very original point: the more people who are vaccinated, the sooner we can begin rebuilding society, because the risk of severe illness overwhelming the health service will be significantly reduced
And I have never said otherwise. My entire point is that being vaccinated is a personal choice and should remain so.
The idea that those choosing not to be vaccinated should be vilified or penalised is ridiculous and frankly sinister.
The ONLY thing that changes that point is significant evidence the vaccine prevents transmission.
"I think vaccination is a communal duty. I think organisations may decide who to admit on their terms apart from immutable characteristics (and I will choose to spend my money in places that prioritise public health). I have my views, you have yours, and we all carry on. Ain't freedom of expression grand | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And I have never said otherwise. My entire point is that being vaccinated is a personal choice and should remain so. The idea that those choosing not to be vaccinated should be vilified or penalised is ridiculous and frankly sinister. The ONLY thing that changes that point is significant evidence the vaccine prevents transmission. " The Swiss have been talking about and are already working on immunity/vaccination passports to enable travel, attend social, sporting events etc. This combined with several travel operators stating that they will only carry vaccinated passengers will make travel etc difficult for those who choose for whatever reason not to vaccinate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So I have noticed a pattern that you only respond to some posts or chosen points so let’s out that elephant in the room again. Re: standing next to you... If you are vaccinated but I am not then YOU are protected and I am not. Me not being protected does not impact on you as you are c.90%+ likely to only experience mild symptoms but you can still infect me ergo my choice of risk effects me but not you. And in case you missed it up above - the whole argument changes if/when there is evidence the vaccines protect others as well as you. Herd immunity also means protecting those who can't be vaccinated. We don't yet know if this applies to this vaccine, but it's the general principle of why society looks to high uptake. Measles is over 5x more contagious than Covid. We keep it out by high vaccination. Those who are vaccinated block any infection into those who can't be vaccinated. Again, this is just the principle at work. Which may yet apply to Covid.. So we can achieve herd immunity without everybody being vaccinated? Think it’s 80% for measles but I could be wrong. We can. We don't know what that number is yet, or to what extent it applies to this vaccine. The more people who *refuse* the more herd immunity is in danger. The herd immunity threshold for measles is apparently 92-95%. Ok so the government don’t need to force it on everyone then, 5% of the uk population is around 3.5 million people. That’s based on 95%, it could be lower than that, could be higher. We don’t know how the vaccine will react to these new mutations. If it’s similar to flu and given it seems to be mutating a lot, the government simply wouldn’t be able to keep up, they couldn’t possible vaccinate 66 million people every year. It’s just not feasible. " They're already testing it against the variants, which we stop from mutating further by limiting spread. We don't know how long immunity will last, there's no concrete evidence to say it'll only be a year. Don't panic. Of the UK population, how many cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons or do not mount a response? I'm happy protecting those people. If enough people think that they'll squeeze into the 5% (or whatever the number is) we start having problems. Are you more special than say, someone with unpreventable cancer whose treatment has destroyed their immune system? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" And I have never said otherwise. My entire point is that being vaccinated is a personal choice and should remain so. The idea that those choosing not to be vaccinated should be vilified or penalised is ridiculous and frankly sinister. The ONLY thing that changes that point is significant evidence the vaccine prevents transmission. The Swiss have been talking about and are already working on immunity/vaccination passports to enable travel, attend social, sporting events etc. This combined with several travel operators stating that they will only carry vaccinated passengers will make travel etc difficult for those who choose for whatever reason not to vaccinate. " Let the free market decide. Hooray for capitalism | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" So I have noticed a pattern that you only respond to some posts or chosen points so let’s out that elephant in the room again. Re: standing next to you... If you are vaccinated but I am not then YOU are protected and I am not. Me not being protected does not impact on you as you are c.90%+ likely to only experience mild symptoms but you can still infect me ergo my choice of risk effects me but not you. And in case you missed it up above - the whole argument changes if/when there is evidence the vaccines protect others as well as you. Herd immunity also means protecting those who can't be vaccinated. We don't yet know if this applies to this vaccine, but it's the general principle of why society looks to high uptake. Measles is over 5x more contagious than Covid. We keep it out by high vaccination. Those who are vaccinated block any infection into those who can't be vaccinated. Again, this is just the principle at work. Which may yet apply to Covid.. So we can achieve herd immunity without everybody being vaccinated? Think it’s 80% for measles but I could be wrong. We can. We don't know what that number is yet, or to what extent it applies to this vaccine. The more people who *refuse* the more herd immunity is in danger. The herd immunity threshold for measles is apparently 92-95%. Ok so the government don’t need to force it on everyone then, 5% of the uk population is around 3.5 million people. That’s based on 95%, it could be lower than that, could be higher. We don’t know how the vaccine will react to these new mutations. If it’s similar to flu and given it seems to be mutating a lot, the government simply wouldn’t be able to keep up, they couldn’t possible vaccinate 66 million people every year. It’s just not feasible. They're already testing it against the variants, which we stop from mutating further by limiting spread. We don't know how long immunity will last, there's no concrete evidence to say it'll only be a year. Don't panic. Of the UK population, how many cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons or do not mount a response? I'm happy protecting those people. If enough people think that they'll squeeze into the 5% (or whatever the number is) we start having problems. Are you more special than say, someone with unpreventable cancer whose treatment has destroyed their immune system?" I dont claim to be more special than anyone. I'm not the one saying people should be forced a vaccine. I believe everyone has a right to choose. I know it’s crazy isn’t it? I’m super selfish like that but I think if you’re vaccinated your protected so you don’t need to worry about anyone else. Just live your own life. Do you feel the same way about the Flu vaccine? anybody that doesn’t have it is a super spreader that kills people? I know you’ll say flu is less deadly... but before last year, the flu killed plenty. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"@willyordinary just want to say... The elephant has definitely not left the room. He is sitting right in the middle shouting “the vaccine protects me not you” Also you said “Look .. you aren't ever going to see my point.. so I'll just say this .. what are the chances of someone who has not been vaccinated catching/ developing further strains of the virus/ mutations etc? Pretty high I would suggest if they haven't at least been protected to some extent already.” No this is not correct. Flu vaccine proves that. New strains and mutations are still caught despite widespread vaccination. You have protection from last years (6mths ish) strains etc not total protection. " No, it isn't correct .. why? because as yet we simply do not know what form all this is going to take. You appear to be following some scientific advice but only selectively So indirect question format .. apart from the whole fear of a ' dystopian / frankly unavoidable ' future and the fact that you might have an adverse reaction to the vaccine if you were ever to take it .. what exactly is there to be worried about? I see all sides of this and feel I am happy and duty-bound to take the risk .. and if everyone didn't think the same we would be making no progress. AS I said you appear to be determined to be against all this. I fear I have unnerved you or upset you and that was never my intention .. so my very final point which will not be responded to again. I would say when all said and done. The pursuit of progress without some form of experimentation is frankly a bit futile .. no risk no gain right! in this case, we are experimenting on each other not animals in a laboratory. So its a bit more serious I guess. Now with that in mind Imagine being the person and population of a village that had no idea about medicine, science etc and likely had no way of finding out anything about it either .. Yet a brave man informed stood his ground and told them that in order to cure one of the people of Smallpox they had to agree to be infected with Cowpox first! .. This is where a lot of people are now right in their thinking? Now imagine if everyone still refused to this day to refuse to take experimental vaccinations where we would be as far as medicine and saving lives goes? Mankind must take this risk for the greater good it is as simple as that . Best of luck
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Point to a single place in this thread where I said the vaccine should be mandatory. I have said that European human rights law gives states wide latitude to mandate. I have said that I would go to businesses where they discourage the unvaccinated from attending " And perhaps you could point to where I accused you of this? Some might say shopping in the shops, that support banning anybody that hasn’t been vaccinated, is a way of agreeing with it. I certainly wouldn’t go in those kind of shops, sounds like discrimination to me and I’m not a big fan of that. Each to their own tho. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Point to a single place in this thread where I said the vaccine should be mandatory. I have said that European human rights law gives states wide latitude to mandate. I have said that I would go to businesses where they discourage the unvaccinated from attending And perhaps you could point to where I accused you of this? Some might say shopping in the shops, that support banning anybody that hasn’t been vaccinated, is a way of agreeing with it. I certainly wouldn’t go in those kind of shops, sounds like discrimination to me and I’m not a big fan of that. Each to their own tho. " Ok. You do you | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Wonder those who refuse the vaccine will also refuse a nhs care if they got this terrible virus??? Just a thought You mean like all the smokers who get refused All the alcoholics who get refused All the junk food eaters Etc etc etc ?? Ps the NHS is effectively up for sale anyway Comrade Boris and most of the other MPs saw to that, way back in July " Comrade Boris? Surely that's exactly what he isn't. Right wing are capatalist not comrades | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If flu vaccine shows that vaccination is not worthwhile or useless because of mutations, why isn't the measles vaccine proof that immunity works incredibly well? Measles is incredibly contagious and we only see spread where there's a pocket of unvaccinated people. Or maybe we accept that different virus types - flu being a different subtype to Covid and measles a third type - work in different ways. Huh. How about that. " The figure suggest measles was already on the decline way before the vaccine. Better nutrition and more access to clean drinking water we’re the main cause of this, nothing to do with a vaccine. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Old people and ethnic minorities are ALWAYS at the back of the queue for anything. Yet, a vaccine for a disease no one had heard of a year ago has been developed and tested and deemed safe in less time than they test dog food and rolling it out to the old and minorities first?!! Tuskegee experiment springs to mind! Nah, I'll watch and wait and take my chances until I'm sure it's safe. Aaah, the life of the free: able to make and take personal responsibility.
"eating popcorn" awaiting for the slew of angry covid denier, conspiracy nut and flat earther comments
... And yet that comment was made three hours ago and you seem to be the only one to have responded to it."I know I guess covid trumps ethnicity (bbc) or (no asians), the mention of it use to bring out the angry keyboard warriors..... hmmm the good old days before covid........ right thats it, can all the selfish gits take the vaccine so that the pro vaccers can get back to normality so that that no longer need to stock pile bog roll | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"... and hang on. Wasn't this the very source you were saying was excellent before I located the context for it? Hmm. I either made the point badly or you totally missed the point. Regardless of the document or any quote or paraphrase from it - the fact that it even has to be stated that it is preferable to have consent is completely dystopian. Of course it should be by consent! As if it should be any other way!! " No, the fact that it has been stated is completely in line with how law and governance works, and it is reassuring that the statement has been made. Without that statement, it becomes merely a matter of opinion and the whim of whomever is in charge on any particular day. At least there is a guideline, that can then be used as a basis for discussion in a court of law if necessary. I do have sympathy for the point of view that in an ideal society these things should just be self evident. However we happen to live in a world where it is not even self-evident that killing people is wrong - we explicitly have to have a written law against murder! And even with that, every day we get arguments put forward in courts (and here!) about why the death of such and such person or group does not count as murder... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I think one problem with the anti vaxer lot is , when the rest of the population has been vaxed. how will the govnt insist or persuade the anti mob? unless its made law I cant see how? that will mean a sizable number of people walking round that can get infected and or spread to others. Which will mean A we will never see the end of face masks and social distancing and B club, theatres, concert halls etc. will never re open." Social distancing from some is a good thing and face masks definitely enhancing to some | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"If flu vaccine shows that vaccination is not worthwhile or useless because of mutations, why isn't the measles vaccine proof that immunity works incredibly well? Measles is incredibly contagious and we only see spread where there's a pocket of unvaccinated people. Or maybe we accept that different virus types - flu being a different subtype to Covid and measles a third type - work in different ways. Huh. How about that. The figure suggest measles was already on the decline way before the vaccine. Better nutrition and more access to clean drinking water we’re the main cause of this, nothing to do with a vaccine. " And yet when people stop vaccinating it pops up again. How odd. Also, did you know that polio only began to cause childhood paralysis after improvement in sanitation, when infections occurred later and we're more dangerous? I thought you weren't against vaccinations, just this one. Why are you arguing about measles? My point was about a false comparison with flu. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
