Compulsory vaccinations

Surely they would never implement forced vaccinations here. It would be wrong. I can't see anyone accepting that. Plus it's not very Tory - can't see Boris and co going for it

 

I find it genuinely concerning that so many are so ready to delegate their own personal well being to the state. Instead of starting from a point of we are all free individuals, so any interruption to that must be by consent and reasonable, it's almost as if we are instruments of the state and so any freedoms are to be given to us at the bequest of the state and with certain conditions. It doesn't take a tin foil hat wearer to see where that could ultimately lead.

It's 11 years since swine flu and afaik there isn't a reliable vaccine for that, but hey. 11 months in and we'll sort this latest respiratory disease - which as Professor Vallance himself said for most people will be a mild disease with few symptoms, and many will not know that they've even had it. It's a disease that is by and large dangerous to a small percentage of the elderly population, mainly with pre existing conditions. Plus the issue that surviving respiratory diseases of this nature lead to long lived T-cell related immunity. The only reason I can see is that the NHS is in such a parlous state that it is not anywhere near capable of coping with a fluctuation in demand due to a rare event such as this. But that's a reason to crash the economy, destroy civil liberties and innocculate the population on a wing and a prayer ?

To precis : stick this rushed, untried, long term side effect unknown vaccine up your arse.

 

It isn't balck and white. What about JWs and their attitude to transfusions and children. Why do you think courts/judges sometimes have to make decisions that go against the wishes of parents? What then, if a virus comes along that is so virulent and contagious that death is 100% guaranteed for anyone that comes into contact even briefly with an infected person. Now suppose a vaccine comes along that is safe. Anyone refusing to take that vaccine effectively becomes a 'lethal weapon' should they contract the virus. Do we:

A) lock them away in isolation until they die (violating their 'human rights')?
B) force them to have the vaccine (again violating their 'human rights')?
C) Allow them to continue spreading the virus leading to the death of millions and potential extermination of the entire population. What about their 'inalienable human rights?

I know that is an extreme example but simply putting individual rights at the top of a Magna Carta is really not that simple. If someone commits a crime depending on the level of crime their human rights are constrained through incarceration. Human rights are not a Carte Blanche to do whatever you like without some constraints for the good of society as a whole. Some people have to be physically restrained for their own good even now mainly people with certain mental health issues.
In many ways we don't have any 'human rights' other than what consensus and morality allow in a civilised society. The World you are born into and die, in reality does not 'owe' you anything. If society collapsed after an apocalypse it would probably become a survival of the fittest scenario.

 

I'd sooner blow my brains out than go to Meadowhall

 

Previously I commented that if you are bombarded for two weeks with fear inducing messages then it knackers your ability to think rationally.

Some of the postings on here suggests thats true.

'Vaccine at all costs'

 

A hurried vaccine brought to you by an incompetent government with a habit of throwing huge amounts of money at their unqualified mates' startup businesses, no less.

 

To be absolutely clear I would never support the forced immunisation of anyone and I do not believe for a second that this government as bad as they are, would introduce a bill to the commons for such a notion.
That said and playing devil’s advocate I would ask the question of the those who would choose to decline the option of a vaccine this; If you were to contract Covid 19 and were seriously ill with it would you then expect to be treated by the NHS bearing in mind that you would be taking up critical resources that could be helping others?

 

Yes, in the same way that I don't begrudge smokers, alcoholics, drug users, free fall parachutists, motorcyclists, or any of the other many users of the NHS who partake in activities/lifestyle choices that I don't and who could be argued to have brought injuries on themselves, but enjoy a free at the point of service medical care paid for through the public purse.

If you want to introduce rationing based on perceived culpability then what or whose standards will you be using ?

 

Apropos of nothing

https://osr.statisticsauthority.gov...ing-transparency-of-data-related-to-covid-19/

 

Im fine with that as long as they refund all my taxes and also withdraw treatment from fat people, people who drink alcohol, people who play sports, people who have sex with other people, people who don’t brush their teeth twice a day, smokers, people who drive cars, people who.....

 

I'm not an expert but I'm not sure that's how it works.

 

Fine with what exactly? Or are you holding up the long established tradition of this board of reading between the lines, adding 2 and 2 and making 6 etc?

 

That's a really odd reply. You put forward a hypothetical scenario in which those who didn't take up the offer of a vaccine wouldn't be offered NHS treatment and asked for thoughts on that. You got a response that addressed exactly that, but then suggested they've somehow twisted the meaning? If you didn't mean that what exactly did you mean?

 

Whilst I would be happy to have the vaccination, I don't believe that we would in the UK make it mandatory. It will mean that the pandemic will rumble on - maybe never completely go away. Those who choose not to have the vaccine will only have themselves to blame if and when they catch COVID.

 

To say lockdown supporters like to portray their support as an altruistic ‘care about other people’ approach they’re not half quick to want to withdraw NHS treatment from folk and blaming people for catching an illness.

 

NO I DID NOT. Read it again

 

You've completely lost me.

 

Yeah.? Really? Ok whilst l feel you are playing a game of cat and mouse never the less I’ll go along with it. I did not suggest that anyone refusing a vaccine would or even should be refused treatment, I did ask would you expect to receive treatment in the event of being seriously ill with Covid 19. Extremely Northern answer was yes with supplementary reasons as to why. Simples

 

OK, then yes, obviously. We've got this thing in the UK called the NHS - the idea of it is universal healthcare for all that's free at the point of care. You might have heard of it - we've just spunked a few hundred billion trying to protect it by stopping folk using it.

 

I know you didn't suggest anything, you put forward a hypothetical situation, like I said. You specifically said you were playing devils advocate. I'm not playing any game I just don't see any difference between "expect to receive treatment" and "receive treatment" it's the same thing just from a different person's perspective.