Compulsory Vaccination?

[El Cid 220]

26 minutes ago, Baron99 said:

Well watching the BBC news tonight, the Austrian Govt's intention to bring in mandatory vaccinations next Feb, appears to have  had, (despite the protests in Vienna), the effect of increasing the number of Austrian citizens going for a jab. 

 

Two weeks ago, they were vaccinating 1,000 people a day  That figure has now risen to 12,000 a day.

Johnsona poor handling of the restrictions and  allowing thousands of people to die caused many in the UK to get vaccinated.

The UK is way ahead of Austria, more deaths per million of population.

 

Edited November 22, 2021 by El Cid

[RJRB 688]

33 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

What a great victory for democracy- bullying, threats and $4000 fines result in more people 'choosing' to get vaccinated. 

 

Or there is the German multiple option approach.

”Vaccinated,recovered or dead”

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59378548

[L00b 441]

11 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

What a great victory for democracy- bullying, threats and $4000 fines result in more people 'choosing' to get vaccinated. 

 

I agree with your sentiment.
 

How about a simple “no free/public Covid-related treatment/healthcare for the non-vacc’d” rule (save for those medically proven to be non-vaccinable, ofc), rather than mandatory vaccination under threat of big fines?
 

That would be a free choice 👍🏻

 

 

Edited November 23, 2021 by L00b

[onewheeldave 22]

1 hour ago, L00b said:

I agree with your sentiment.
 

How about a simple “no free/public Covid-related treatment/healthcare for the non-vacc’d” rule (save for those medically proven to be non-vaccinable, ofc), rather than mandatory vaccination under threat of big fines?
 

That would be a free choice 👍🏻

 

 

No- removing access to healthcare is a coerced choice

[L00b 441]

24 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

No- removing access to healthcare is a coerced choice

Yes: no more coerced than compulsory vaccination, but without any fine, hence a free choice both literally (no fine) and figuratively (get vacc’d or don’t).

 

Access to healthcare is not removed, note. Just access to free/subsidised healthcare. “Put your wallet where your antivax opinion is”, to put it bluntly.

 

Public healthcare resources are finite. They should be prioritised to those members of society who act in society’s best interests. In the context of the pandemic, that is vaccinated persons, who -in aggregate- reduce the strain on healthcare services through reducing the potential for complications from an infection.

Edited November 23, 2021 by L00b

[crazyhorse 37]

I totally understand peoples desire for personal freedom...to refuse to inject their bodies with something they feel will do them harm.
...but either you are part of society or not.

 

Many people including myself, my partner and no doubt my kids felt worried about being injected with a new vaccine.
But we all did it anyway...because we are trying to do our bit for society and to help fight back against this virus.
To deny it a place to hide, to mutate and to come back worse.

 

I know it is hard for people to trust anything these days...
I myself have grown extremely cynical about human nature as I have got older...but I do believe that this pandemic is one of the most personal challenges I will face in my lifetime and as I believe in science and trust the scientists, I made my choice.

..and my partner and I chose the same for the kids.

We are proud to have taken a little personal risk to help other people in society and to do our bit.

 

A major factor is that I know personally what it is capable of...I spent two weeks off work, my BP went sky high and I lay in bed trying to control my breathing and came very close to calling an ambulance.
I went from being able to ride 85 miles on my bike in a day to barely being able to get out of a chair.
It took 8 weeks for me to start to feel better.

 

If a small minority (including my other half's step father and aunt) still want to hide away from their responsibilities to other people as members of society...then nothing I will say will change their minds.

 

They should not however expect to be able to carry on as normal, if they are not prepared to do their bit.

If you don't want to be part of society go and live on your own on some friggin island.

 

I personally have no problem with banning anti-vaxers from public spaces or with them losing their care jobs if they can't take all reasonable steps to help look after others.
I would never allow my parents to be packed off to a nursing home where a large proportion of the staff didn't give a toss about the frail people they were looking after.

 

May sound harsh...but my attitude has really hardened over the year against people who spout conspiracy crap and actively endanger themselves and others.

[crazyhorse 37]

On 21/11/2021 at 19:50, Anna B said:

This is the modus operandi of many governments: set the people against each other to deflect the argument away from  the government.

Divide and conquer.... works every time

In which case the people should ALL band together as one in the name of  protecting personal freedoms and hard won people's rights to autonomy.

 

Right to autonomy? - you mean there is no such thing as society?

 

As slightly to the right, you may be surprised to know that I also believe in society.

But there has to be a balance between autonomy and the right to be an anti-vaxer and the obligation to be an active part of society and help preserve it.

 

As for Governments setting people against each other...I think you put too much stock in the power of Government to control people.

Currently Governments all over the planet fear their people...and long may that continue.

The people are angry and Governments know it.

 

 

[onewheeldave 22]

1 hour ago, L00b said:

Yes: no more coerced than compulsory vaccination, but without any fine, hence a free choice both literally (no fine) and figuratively (get vacc’d or don’t).

 

 

The free choice would be- 'here's a vaccine- you can either have it, or not have it: if you choose the latter, there will be no consequences imposed by the authorities.'

 

If there are consequences imposed by the authorities, whether they are removal of access to healthcare, removal of access to cinemas/resteraunts etc, then it is not a free choice, it is a coerced choice.

 

 

1 hour ago, L00b said:

 

 

Public healthcare resources are finite. They should be prioritised to those members of society who act in society’s best interests. In the context of the pandemic, that is vaccinated persons, who -in aggregate- reduce the strain on healthcare services through reducing the potential for complications from an infection.

Yes they are limited.

If, as you say, 'They should be prioritised to those members of society who act in society’s best interests', then why is only one group of the guilty being targeted?

Given the huge drain on NHS resources due to diseases caused almost entirely by bad lifestyle and dietary choices e.g. type 2 diabetes, obesity and heart disease, why are you focusing on the unvaccinated as opposed to those who don't exercise and/or eat a healthy diet?

[L00b 441]

12 minutes ago, onewheeldave said:

The free choice would be- 'here's a vaccine- you can either have it, or not have it: if you choose the latter, there will be no consequences imposed by the authorities.'

But that particular choice is only free to the antivaxxers, not to the authorities nor to society at large.
 

I.e. it keeps antivaxxers insulated from having to assume any responsibility for their choice to not follow their society’s course of action, as recommended by that society’s (democratically-elected indeed) government of the time.

 

My earlier proposal reflected this bargain in equity, between an individual’s freedom of choice, and the collective responsibility of society at large for the individual: free healthcare is provided, as free vaccination and free healthcare for complications (-notwithstanding vaccination) = society has fulfilled its obligation/discharged its responsibility insofar as Covid is concerned. Reciprocally the vaxxed have done their bit for the collectivity, to help slow mutations and large-scale ICU cases and resourcing.

 

So, are you living in a society, or not? And assuming that you do, do you believe that society must continue to shield everyone from the consequences of their choices, including who would (continue to-) harm it, by action or by omission?

Edited November 23, 2021 by L00b

[L00b 441]

2 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

(…)

Yes they are limited.

If, as you say, 'They should be prioritised to those members of society who act in society’s best interests', then why is only one group of the guilty being targeted?

Because this thread is about Covid-related vaccination measures. 

2 hours ago, onewheeldave said:

(…)

Given the huge drain on NHS resources due to diseases caused almost entirely by bad lifestyle and dietary choices e.g. type 2 diabetes, obesity and heart disease, why are you focusing on the unvaccinated as opposed to those who don't exercise and/or eat a healthy diet?

Allow me to keep the goalposts where they were initially set: your reference to other ailments and the notional restriction of access to free  healthcare for treating those, is a different topic calling for a different thread.
 

Vaccination, of any sort, doesn’t differentiate on diseases and ailments caused by bad lifestyle and dietary choices. Only between those who can safely get vaccinated, and those known/diagnosed to be at risk from it, irrespective of their respective lifestyle/dietary-inherited ailments.

Edited November 23, 2021 by L00b

[top4718 838]

On 21/11/2021 at 10:00, West 77 said:

I support those not being vaccinated  from being barred from working in the care sector and NHS.  I also support those not being vaccinated being subject to more restrictions such as lockdowns and being dismissed from jobs by employers wishing the workforce to be vaccinated.  However, I acknowledge it would be difficult to enforce lockdowns just for the unvaccinated. 

Josef Mengele would have been proud of people like you.

 

A rhetorical question - you have young children, a child in their school has an adverse reaction to a jab and dies, your child then decides they don't want the jab because of what they've seen occur, are you happy for your child to then have restrictions placed on them?

 

You're a disgrace.

4 hours ago, L00b said:

Yes: no more coerced than compulsory vaccination, but without any fine, hence a free choice both literally (no fine) and figuratively (get vacc’d or don’t).

 

Access to healthcare is not removed, note. Just access to free/subsidised healthcare. “Put your wallet where your antivax opinion is”, to put it bluntly.

 

Public healthcare resources are finite. They should be prioritised to those members of society who act in society’s best interests. In the context of the pandemic, that is vaccinated persons, who -in aggregate- reduce the strain on healthcare services through reducing the potential for complications from an infection.

I take it you're 100% fit, not overweight, don't smoke, don't drink, don't do drugs, don't partake in any sports, if not should you be denied healthcare caused by any of those factors?

[nightrider 13]

16 hours ago, RJRB said:

Or there is the German multiple option approach.

”Vaccinated,recovered or dead”

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59378548

Fine as long as the unvaccinated agree to forgo treatment. Otherwise they just fill up the hospitals and block up the entire system for non-covid patients...