The big Coronavirus thread
Comments
-
surrey_commuter said:
But in the here and now decisions are being made throughout the Uk to prioritise Non-vaccinated Covid patients.wavefront said:
Extrapolating your pondering a further - it doesn’t seem fair that waiting lists in hospitals are so huge and you can’t get an important operation because of the amount of patients being seen who were smokers, or obese, or just having cosmetic surgery. Or because a cyclist fell off his bike in a sportive. Or a lifetime runner is having knee surgery.surrey_commuter said:
How about being given a lower priority when being allocated hospital beds?DeVlaeminck said:
It does depend what you consider to be privileges. Working in medicine, visiting Sainsbury's, using public transport, visiting a friend's house.Pross said:
This. I'm not supportive of compulsory vaccination (and don't think it's viable anyway - I guess we'll see with Austria). However, if you choose it's not for you then you have to accept you miss out on some of the privileges.kingstongraham said:
There is a middle ground - it's that without getting the vaccine there are things that you can't do because you pose an increased risk to public health. How far that goes is a political choice, depending on the circumstances. I don't think it is proportionate currently to stop people doing everything, but it does make sense to stop them doing jobs where they are breathing over vulnerable people.DeVlaeminck said:There is a middle ground with scepticism - certainly for kids it's questionable whether the vaccine is in their individual interests.
I think some of you are too harsh on vaccine refusers - of which I am not one - it's individual choice as any medical treatment should be. Surely it is quite a step for the state to pretty much insist you are injected with a series of vaccines which are fairly new and which do have some serious side affects in admittedly rare cases.
There was a guy on the radio saying he had had his first jab - developed a headache which had never totally gone so he's decided against having his second or any boosters - he's being told by the doctors it's unrelated to the vaccine but is he really acting unreasonably?
If every piece of public health guidance became law, most pubs would go out of business.
It does not seem terribly fair that somebody would be denied life saving surgery because all beds have been allocated to unvaccinated Covid patients.
How far do you go? Many people are in hospital because of some of their life (or lifestyle) choices.
I’m not arguing, it just throws up lots of points of views.
If somebody explained that to the man on the Clapham omnibus I suspect he would be more annoyed than with migrants landing on Kent beaches.
I think there are also differences between habits that are difficult to change (smoking, eating, (risky) exercise, and something which just needs a couple of jabs with a needle to solve.
I suspect most people with smoking or eating problems would jump at the chance if they could have their habits changed and their lives improved with just two jabs with the efficacy of the covid vaccines at preventing hospitalisation/death.1 -
People working in medicine have been required to be vaccinated for other things for years with no fuss.DeVlaeminck said:
It does depend what you consider to be privileges. Working in medicine, visiting Sainsbury's, using public transport, visiting a friend's house.Pross said:
This. I'm not supportive of compulsory vaccination (and don't think it's viable anyway - I guess we'll see with Austria). However, if you choose it's not for you then you have to accept you miss out on some of the privileges.kingstongraham said:
There is a middle ground - it's that without getting the vaccine there are things that you can't do because you pose an increased risk to public health. How far that goes is a political choice, depending on the circumstances. I don't think it is proportionate currently to stop people doing everything, but it does make sense to stop them doing jobs where they are breathing over vulnerable people.DeVlaeminck said:There is a middle ground with scepticism - certainly for kids it's questionable whether the vaccine is in their individual interests.
I think some of you are too harsh on vaccine refusers - of which I am not one - it's individual choice as any medical treatment should be. Surely it is quite a step for the state to pretty much insist you are injected with a series of vaccines which are fairly new and which do have some serious side affects in admittedly rare cases.
There was a guy on the radio saying he had had his first jab - developed a headache which had never totally gone so he's decided against having his second or any boosters - he's being told by the doctors it's unrelated to the vaccine but is he really acting unreasonably?
If every piece of public health guidance became law, most pubs would go out of business.0 -
It's not really a direct consequence of refusing the vaccine as say having a more serious case of Covid might be.pblakeney said:
Yes it is.DeVlaeminck said:Sure but being banned from a supermarket is not an obvious consequence of refusing a vaccine.
This has been a distinct possibility for nearly a year. Or is this project fear #2?
I'm not sure what you mean by is this project fear #2. I just don't think the state should be forcing people into having a vaccine - it seems a fairly fundamental human right to choose not to be injected with something without having severe limitations on what you can do imposed on you..
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]1 -
I didnt get a say on any other jab. Tetnus, polio, TB twice, MMR so whats the difference with Covid ?0
-
Well yes, and no. It’s opening the door to a rapid U turn, if ( as the brains believe ) this is just going to be more transmissible, not more deadly. However there is the suspicion that this mutation is so severe, it’s going to be able to avoid cellular response. If that is the case, we’re going back to the Stone Age.briantrumpet said:shirley_basso said:I need this
https://mobile.twitter.com/Coronavirusgoo1
That's more like it. Suggests that these new restrictions might be, er, reversible, once more is known.0 -
Your opinion and you are entitled to it. Doesn't mean future restrictions won't happen.DeVlaeminck said:
It's not really a direct consequence of refusing the vaccine as say having a more serious case of Covid might be.pblakeney said:
Yes it is.DeVlaeminck said:Sure but being banned from a supermarket is not an obvious consequence of refusing a vaccine.
This has been a distinct possibility for nearly a year. Or is this project fear #2?
I'm not sure what you mean by is this project fear #2. I just don't think the state should be forcing people into having a vaccine - it seems a fairly fundamental human right to choose not to be injected with something without having severe limitations on what you can do imposed on you..
Project fear was brexiteers saying it would all go swimmingly. Look how that panned out.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Do you mean as a front line NHS worker?mully79 said:I didnt get a say on any other jab. Tetnus, polio, TB twice, MMR so whats the difference with Covid ?
Yes I had to have jabs to work in the NHS too - well I didn't question it - there is a difference between that and not being allowed inside shops.
If you don't mean as an NHS worker you do get a say on those other hand - or your parents do[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Well of course my objecting to them won't prevent targeted restrictions at the non vaccinated.pblakeney said:
Your opinion and you are entitled to it. Doesn't mean future restrictions won't happen.DeVlaeminck said:
It's not really a direct consequence of refusing the vaccine as say having a more serious case of Covid might be.pblakeney said:
Yes it is.DeVlaeminck said:Sure but being banned from a supermarket is not an obvious consequence of refusing a vaccine.
This has been a distinct possibility for nearly a year. Or is this project fear #2?
I'm not sure what you mean by is this project fear #2. I just don't think the state should be forcing people into having a vaccine - it seems a fairly fundamental human right to choose not to be injected with something without having severe limitations on what you can do imposed on you..
Project fear was brexiteers saying it would all go swimmingly. Look how that panned out.
Perhaps we should try harder with persuasion - in some populations vaccination rates are incredibly high - in other groups not so. Maybe try harder to persuade members of those groups who are less likely to be vaccinated - maybe even try to understand why they aren't taking up the vaccine rather than calling them idiots and threatening them ?[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Like tell them they won't be able to go shopping for example. It's my belief that if they aren't convinced by argument by now then they won't be. My belief counts for nowt.DeVlaeminck said:
Well of course my objecting to them won't prevent targeted restrictions at the non vaccinated.pblakeney said:
Your opinion and you are entitled to it. Doesn't mean future restrictions won't happen.DeVlaeminck said:
It's not really a direct consequence of refusing the vaccine as say having a more serious case of Covid might be.pblakeney said:
Yes it is.DeVlaeminck said:Sure but being banned from a supermarket is not an obvious consequence of refusing a vaccine.
This has been a distinct possibility for nearly a year. Or is this project fear #2?
I'm not sure what you mean by is this project fear #2. I just don't think the state should be forcing people into having a vaccine - it seems a fairly fundamental human right to choose not to be injected with something without having severe limitations on what you can do imposed on you..
Project fear was brexiteers saying it would all go swimmingly. Look how that panned out.
Perhaps we should try harder with persuasion - in some populations vaccination rates are incredibly high - in other groups not so. Maybe try harder to persuade members of those groups who are less likely to be vaccinated - maybe even try to understand why they aren't taking up the vaccine rather than calling them idiots and threatening them ?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
We did the morality of who to treat back in mid 2020. There’s a clear code in medicine which is triage based entirely on severity / savesbility and all drs are trained in it.
If it is clear unvaccinated are causing situations to be so severe we have lockdowns etc then I am very ok with restricting the rights of a few (the unvaccinated) to avoid restricting the rights of everyone (lockdown).
We live in a society and our actions affect others. Anti vaxxers ought to find out the consequences of their selfishness.
Afaik there were already some restrictions on working in certain jobs without existing vaccines.
There are plenty of restrictions for all sorts of safety reasons (can’t drive without a licence etc) so it’s not without precedent.3 -
The state is not forcing anyone to be vaccinated. Nor is it imposing severe limitations on those who choose not to be vaccinated. Being barred from a small number of jobs is not a severe limitation. Neither is being excluded from an entertainment event. Not sure where your idea of restricting access to shops has come from. I've not seen this proposed.DeVlaeminck said:
It's not really a direct consequence of refusing the vaccine as say having a more serious case of Covid might be.pblakeney said:
Yes it is.DeVlaeminck said:Sure but being banned from a supermarket is not an obvious consequence of refusing a vaccine.
This has been a distinct possibility for nearly a year. Or is this project fear #2?
I'm not sure what you mean by is this project fear #2. I just don't think the state should be forcing people into having a vaccine - it seems a fairly fundamental human right to choose not to be injected with something without having severe limitations on what you can do imposed on you..1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
It was a hypothetical example alongside a number of others when Pross suggested if you don't get vaccinated you have to accept the loss of privileges and I responded it depends what you mean by privileges.rjsterry said:
The state is not forcing anyone to be vaccinated. Nor is it imposing severe limitations on those who choose not to be vaccinated. Being barred from a small number of jobs is not a severe limitation. Neither is being excluded from an entertainment event. Not sure where your idea of restricting access to shops has come from. I've not seen this proposed.DeVlaeminck said:
It's not really a direct consequence of refusing the vaccine as say having a more serious case of Covid might be.pblakeney said:
Yes it is.DeVlaeminck said:Sure but being banned from a supermarket is not an obvious consequence of refusing a vaccine.
This has been a distinct possibility for nearly a year. Or is this project fear #2?
I'm not sure what you mean by is this project fear #2. I just don't think the state should be forcing people into having a vaccine - it seems a fairly fundamental human right to choose not to be injected with something without having severe limitations on what you can do imposed on you..
The point is whether people are being forced depends how far these restrictions go - and their circumstances. Certainly my care worker mate felt forced to have the vaccine - yes maybe in that case with more justification but being forced doesn't always mean physically restrained and injected.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
That's not really persuading is it let alone understanding. I mean in Birmingham NHS trust only 81% of employees are double jabbed - in Derbyshire it's 95% . If we understand why there are differences like this maybe we can get vaccination rates right up without limiting freedoms or at least not so much.pblakeney said:
Like tell them they won't be able to go shopping for example. It's my belief that if they aren't convinced by argument by now then they won't be. My belief counts for nowt.DeVlaeminck said:
Well of course my objecting to them won't prevent targeted restrictions at the non vaccinated.pblakeney said:
Your opinion and you are entitled to it. Doesn't mean future restrictions won't happen.DeVlaeminck said:
It's not really a direct consequence of refusing the vaccine as say having a more serious case of Covid might be.pblakeney said:
Yes it is.DeVlaeminck said:Sure but being banned from a supermarket is not an obvious consequence of refusing a vaccine.
This has been a distinct possibility for nearly a year. Or is this project fear #2?
I'm not sure what you mean by is this project fear #2. I just don't think the state should be forcing people into having a vaccine - it seems a fairly fundamental human right to choose not to be injected with something without having severe limitations on what you can do imposed on you..
Project fear was brexiteers saying it would all go swimmingly. Look how that panned out.
Perhaps we should try harder with persuasion - in some populations vaccination rates are incredibly high - in other groups not so. Maybe try harder to persuade members of those groups who are less likely to be vaccinated - maybe even try to understand why they aren't taking up the vaccine rather than calling them idiots and threatening them ?[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Depends what else he is doing to his health. He could be smoking, drinking and eating as much processed meat as possible whilst avoiding all exercise by working from his bedroom. He could be a fitness fanatic or anywhere in between.DeVlaeminck said:There is a middle ground with scepticism - certainly for kids it's questionable whether the vaccine is in their individual interests.
I think some of you are too harsh on vaccine refusers - of which I am not one - it's individual choice as any medical treatment should be. Surely it is quite a step for the state to pretty much insist you are injected with a series of vaccines which are fairly new and which do have some serious side affects in admittedly rare cases.
There was a guy on the radio saying he had had his first jab - developed a headache which had never totally gone so he's decided against having his second or any boosters - he's being told by the doctors it's unrelated to the vaccine but is he really acting unreasonably?0 -
Does your care worker mate feel 'forced' to not drink a bottle of spirits before he goes off to drive somewhere? Or would he think that very sensible to protect both himself but more importantly innocent others he could come in contact with?DeVlaeminck said:...my care worker mate felt forced to have the vaccine...
0 -
Care workers have been forced to choose between jab or change job. Not to have the jab.0
-
Fair enough. I think mandating vaccine passports for basic shopping would be silly and unnecessary. That's not to say they might not be sensible for some activities.DeVlaeminck said:
It was a hypothetical example alongside a number of others when Pross suggested if you don't get vaccinated you have to accept the loss of privileges and I responded it depends what you mean by privileges.rjsterry said:
The state is not forcing anyone to be vaccinated. Nor is it imposing severe limitations on those who choose not to be vaccinated. Being barred from a small number of jobs is not a severe limitation. Neither is being excluded from an entertainment event. Not sure where your idea of restricting access to shops has come from. I've not seen this proposed.DeVlaeminck said:
It's not really a direct consequence of refusing the vaccine as say having a more serious case of Covid might be.pblakeney said:
Yes it is.DeVlaeminck said:Sure but being banned from a supermarket is not an obvious consequence of refusing a vaccine.
This has been a distinct possibility for nearly a year. Or is this project fear #2?
I'm not sure what you mean by is this project fear #2. I just don't think the state should be forcing people into having a vaccine - it seems a fairly fundamental human right to choose not to be injected with something without having severe limitations on what you can do imposed on you..
The point is whether people are being forced depends how far these restrictions go - and their circumstances. Certainly my care worker mate felt forced to have the vaccine - yes maybe in that case with more justification but being forced doesn't always mean physically restrained and injected.
With regard to health workers, IIRC, I had to have a Hep B jab and BCG just to do my student holiday job at the local hospital (ward domestic). Other employment was available. Most employment contracts will stipulate a number of things that employees must do. I'm not convinced a vaccination - if justified for that particular role - is that much of a barrier to normal enjoyment of life.
It's worth remembering that every single medicine in use has side effects of one sort or another. Even those with decades of widespread use.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
As above, the arguments have been made. If they are not convinced by now then they won't be. My freedoms may well be limited soon due to anti-vaxxers. Fair?DeVlaeminck said:
That's not really persuading is it let alone understanding. I mean in Birmingham NHS trust only 81% of employees are double jabbed - in Derbyshire it's 95% . If we understand why there are differences like this maybe we can get vaccination rates right up without limiting freedoms or at least not so much.pblakeney said:
Like tell them they won't be able to go shopping for example. It's my belief that if they aren't convinced by argument by now then they won't be. My belief counts for nowt.DeVlaeminck said:
Well of course my objecting to them won't prevent targeted restrictions at the non vaccinated.pblakeney said:
Your opinion and you are entitled to it. Doesn't mean future restrictions won't happen.DeVlaeminck said:
It's not really a direct consequence of refusing the vaccine as say having a more serious case of Covid might be.pblakeney said:
Yes it is.DeVlaeminck said:Sure but being banned from a supermarket is not an obvious consequence of refusing a vaccine.
This has been a distinct possibility for nearly a year. Or is this project fear #2?
I'm not sure what you mean by is this project fear #2. I just don't think the state should be forcing people into having a vaccine - it seems a fairly fundamental human right to choose not to be injected with something without having severe limitations on what you can do imposed on you..
Project fear was brexiteers saying it would all go swimmingly. Look how that panned out.
Perhaps we should try harder with persuasion - in some populations vaccination rates are incredibly high - in other groups not so. Maybe try harder to persuade members of those groups who are less likely to be vaccinated - maybe even try to understand why they aren't taking up the vaccine rather than calling them idiots and threatening them ?
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Once upon a time, hoteliers could turn away blacks and gays, legally, but then they were forced to take them in if they wanted to run their businesses. No-one considered the hoteliers' feelings. Fair?0
-
You are splitting hairs - he's a middle aged guy with very few qualifications and he has rent to pay.kingstongraham said:Care workers have been forced to choose between jab or change job. Not to have the jab.
Personally I would - with some reluctance - concede that it's the right policy but I think it's fair to say he's been forced and I know that's how he feels.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
As above you aren't really talking about persuasion are you - you are talking about coercion. There is an argument for it but call it what it is.pblakeney said:
As above, the arguments have been made. If they are not convinced by now then they won't be. My freedoms may well be limited soon due to anti-vaxxers. Fair?DeVlaeminck said:
That's not really persuading is it let alone understanding. I mean in Birmingham NHS trust only 81% of employees are double jabbed - in Derbyshire it's 95% . If we understand why there are differences like this maybe we can get vaccination rates right up without limiting freedoms or at least not so much.pblakeney said:
Like tell them they won't be able to go shopping for example. It's my belief that if they aren't convinced by argument by now then they won't be. My belief counts for nowt.DeVlaeminck said:
Well of course my objecting to them won't prevent targeted restrictions at the non vaccinated.pblakeney said:
Your opinion and you are entitled to it. Doesn't mean future restrictions won't happen.DeVlaeminck said:
It's not really a direct consequence of refusing the vaccine as say having a more serious case of Covid might be.pblakeney said:
Yes it is.DeVlaeminck said:Sure but being banned from a supermarket is not an obvious consequence of refusing a vaccine.
This has been a distinct possibility for nearly a year. Or is this project fear #2?
I'm not sure what you mean by is this project fear #2. I just don't think the state should be forcing people into having a vaccine - it seems a fairly fundamental human right to choose not to be injected with something without having severe limitations on what you can do imposed on you..
Project fear was brexiteers saying it would all go swimmingly. Look how that panned out.
Perhaps we should try harder with persuasion - in some populations vaccination rates are incredibly high - in other groups not so. Maybe try harder to persuade members of those groups who are less likely to be vaccinated - maybe even try to understand why they aren't taking up the vaccine rather than calling them idiots and threatening them ?[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Like the one about hoteliers I don't really think that's a great analogy. To me there just seems something more fundamental about being coerced into taking a substance which changes your body in some way - it seems so fundamental that it should have to be done willingly. As I say I've been jabbed and intend getting my booster (I also wear a mask in shops unless I've been caught without one - I'm not a Covid denier) but I am unconvinced as yet by the arguments for vaccination by coercion.orraloon said:
Does your care worker mate feel 'forced' to not drink a bottle of spirits before he goes off to drive somewhere? Or would he think that very sensible to protect both himself but more importantly innocent others he could come in contact with?DeVlaeminck said:...my care worker mate felt forced to have the vaccine...
[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
No, that wasn't my point. My point was that all the information that can be made available is available. You concede it is the correct policy, why don't they? If they are anti now, they will remain anti.DeVlaeminck said:
As above you aren't really talking about persuasion are you - you are talking about coercion. There is an argument for it but call it what it is.pblakeney said:
As above, the arguments have been made. If they are not convinced by now then they won't be. My freedoms may well be limited soon due to anti-vaxxers. Fair?DeVlaeminck said:
That's not really persuading is it let alone understanding. I mean in Birmingham NHS trust only 81% of employees are double jabbed - in Derbyshire it's 95% . If we understand why there are differences like this maybe we can get vaccination rates right up without limiting freedoms or at least not so much.pblakeney said:
Like tell them they won't be able to go shopping for example. It's my belief that if they aren't convinced by argument by now then they won't be. My belief counts for nowt.DeVlaeminck said:
Well of course my objecting to them won't prevent targeted restrictions at the non vaccinated.pblakeney said:
Your opinion and you are entitled to it. Doesn't mean future restrictions won't happen.DeVlaeminck said:
It's not really a direct consequence of refusing the vaccine as say having a more serious case of Covid might be.pblakeney said:
Yes it is.DeVlaeminck said:Sure but being banned from a supermarket is not an obvious consequence of refusing a vaccine.
This has been a distinct possibility for nearly a year. Or is this project fear #2?
I'm not sure what you mean by is this project fear #2. I just don't think the state should be forcing people into having a vaccine - it seems a fairly fundamental human right to choose not to be injected with something without having severe limitations on what you can do imposed on you..
Project fear was brexiteers saying it would all go swimmingly. Look how that panned out.
Perhaps we should try harder with persuasion - in some populations vaccination rates are incredibly high - in other groups not so. Maybe try harder to persuade members of those groups who are less likely to be vaccinated - maybe even try to understand why they aren't taking up the vaccine rather than calling them idiots and threatening them ?
The coercion was following on from your question, what will happen next?
My next point was that anti-vaxxers are behaving selfishly. Call it what it is.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Dont think I'm splitting hairs. It is true that he's been forced to decide how important not getting the jab is to him (compared to changing his career to a job where he isn't breathing over vulnerable people).DeVlaeminck said:
You are splitting hairs - he's a middle aged guy with very few qualifications and he has rent to pay.kingstongraham said:Care workers have been forced to choose between jab or change job. Not to have the jab.
Personally I would - with some reluctance - concede that it's the right policy but I think it's fair to say he's been forced and I know that's how he feels.
He's definitely not been forced to get the jab.0 -
I appreciate the choice is a bit more stark for your friend, but I think it is still a choice.DeVlaeminck said:
Like the one about hoteliers I don't really think that's a great analogy. To me there just seems something more fundamental about being coerced into taking a substance which changes your body in some way - it seems so fundamental that it should have to be done willingly. As I say I've been jabbed and intend getting my booster (I also wear a mask in shops unless I've been caught without one - I'm not a Covid denier) but I am unconvinced as yet by the arguments for vaccination by coercion.orraloon said:
Does your care worker mate feel 'forced' to not drink a bottle of spirits before he goes off to drive somewhere? Or would he think that very sensible to protect both himself but more importantly innocent others he could come in contact with?DeVlaeminck said:...my care worker mate felt forced to have the vaccine...
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
0
-
kingstongraham said:
The infections graphs really need to be put alongside deaths and hospital admissions. I think we're past the point where the post half-term spike would have shown up if it was going to. (See my previous reply to TBB regarding the kicking-in of the booster programme, just in time.) If large numbers of infections don't lead to hospitalisations/deaths, and if further mutations aren't more deadly, then actually high daily infections could be good news in the longer term (if not for the individuals).
0
