Generic Virus Thread

[blandy]

23 minutes ago, snowychap said:

You don't 'need' a 'flu jab for that - you 'need' not to catch 'flu.

People choose to have a 'flu jab to reduce their risks of catching it and being ill from it (whatever the consequences may be) not because there are legally mandated consequences to their liberties from not receiving it.

You're probably right to compare getting an annual 'flu jab and a voluntary covid booster. Both should be voluntary and encouraged for those in an at risk group (with a caveat about worldwide supply being properly fulfilled before easing in to an annual booster in first world countries as standard), neither should be mandatory or have negative incentives such as legally imposed restrictions to force people to take them.

I agree with most of that. The bit where I'm not so sure is the balance between individual choice/rights and societal rights. It's 2 principles kind of conflicting, I think - so yes, support an individual's right to choose not to have a covid vaccination. But equally in order to protect society's wellbeing - not just the health of other people, but also their jobs and livelihoods and working conditions and such like, during a pandemic, where people choose not to get jagged, then there are consequences - either that the pandemic continues for longer and impacts other people negatively, OR that those individuals deciding not to get vaccinated need to have some restrictions placed on them for the time being. How severe those restrictions are, and how enforcable they are is also a factor, I guess.

Like with care home workers - is it right (hypothetically) that a care worker refusenik is able to work and mix with elderly patients who can't be vaccinated because of particular vulnerabilities they have, and thus place those elderly people at increased rick of death? Most people might say, no, that worker needs to either get vaccinated, or be restricted from contact with the elderly. Should that worker be confined to their own house - again, most people would say "no, that's ridiculous". So a pragmatic way needs to be identified between endangering others and oppressing individuals, and that's where I struggle with the concept some people have raised of "just let the unvaccinated do whatever they like, with no negative effect on them, it's their right". There are collective rights which conflict with that  - the right not be endangered by the behaviour of other people.

But it's tricky to navigate, for sure.

[snowychap]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

But it's tricky to navigate, for sure.

It is tricky to navigate. A lot of the mood and discussion doesn't reflect that, however - there's a lot of '**** 'em, a lot of mixing people questioning things with 'anti-vaxxers' or 'refuseniks', a lot of 'pin them down', force people to submit to governments and even just 'experts', &c.

Also, if we look at the care sector example then if it were really about trying not to spread illness that could have really serious consequencs to a vulnerable group of the population then they might want to tackle it in a wider sense rather than focus on mandatory covid vaccinations, e.g. addressing sick pay policies for care workers which might have the consequences of forcing people in to work environments when they are not well - be it with Covid, 'flu, a really shit cold, &c.

There are many more ways of skinning a cat than a/this mandatory approach and the narrowness of the focus of such an approach in the care sector would suggest that the claimed purpose is of less importance than the political significance of appearing to attempt to address a specific covid situation.

Edited November 18, 2021 by snowychap

[mjmooney]

I could understand the 'infringing my human rights' business, if the authorities were compelling people to wear yellow stars, or walk around in handcuffs, or have numbers tattooed on them, or some such. But they would be giving you medical protection from a nasty virus, free of charge, with the proviso that refusing it (without a sensible medical reason) would affect some of the things you can do that affect the rest of society. It's no different from laws on seatbelts and crash helmets (notwithstanding the occasional whinges from the freedumb brigade over those laws). Whatever Thatcher claimed, there is such a thing as society, and with rights come responsibilities. We should be grateful that such laws exist, not stamping our feet like spoiled toddiers. 

[blandy]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

would suggest that the claimed purpose is of less importance than the political significance of appearing to attempt to address a specific covid situation.

It's interesting (to me) that "they" haven't actually implemented many if any restrictions as of yet, compared to what they've talked about doing. That may be because they fear losing a vote on it, but I think as well that there's a lot of "nudge" going on - to try to encourage people to get vaccined, without actually compelling them. I mean there are people (sadly) who believe all the nonsense about Bill Gates microchips and 5G masts and what have you, and maybe those people might be persuaded more by a fear of not being able to go to [the venue] than by professor Van Tam or whoever saying "the microchip thing is utter bollex" (I paraphrase slightly)

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I could understand the 'infringing my human rights' business, if the authorities were compelling people to wear yellow stars, or walk around in handcuffs, or have numbers tattooed on them, or some such. But they would be giving you medical protection from a nasty virus, free of charge, with the proviso that refusing it (without a sensible medical reason) would affect some of the things you can do that affect the rest of society. It's no different from laws on seatbelts and crash helmets (notwithstanding the occasional whinges from the freedumb brigade over those laws). Whatever Thatcher claimed, there is such a thing as society, and with rights come responsibilities. We should be grateful that such laws exist, not stamping our feet like spoiled toddiers. 

If you don't wear a seatbelt, you're not stopped from driving. You don't need to prove you're wearing a seatbelt every time you get in a car. I'm not sure it's a good example Mike.

A better example would be drink driving, but that doesn't fully work either.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, mjmooney said:

I could understand the 'infringing my human rights' business, if the authorities were compelling people to wear yellow stars, or walk around in handcuffs, or have numbers tattooed on them, or some such. But they would be giving you medical protection from a nasty virus, free of charge, with the proviso that refusing it (without a sensible medical reason) would affect some of the things you can do that affect the rest of society. It's no different from laws on seatbelts and crash helmets (notwithstanding the occasional whinges from the freedumb brigade over those laws). Whatever Thatcher claimed, there is such a thing as society, and with rights come responsibilities. We should be grateful that such laws exist, not stamping our feet like spoiled toddiers. 

The flip side to that is it concentrates on getting vaccinated. Someone might say "I haven't got covid, I haven't had the jab, here's my test result, yet I can't go to the pub but someone who has been vaccinated, but hasn't been tested and shown negative can". So, then you might say, "yeah, that's a fair point. OK proof of a negative test is fine". Then someone might reply "the tests are nowhere near 100% accurate, and the LFTs can be very easily scammed" - and suddenly we're debating intricate detail and not broad principles (either of the 2 conflicting ones).

[Chindie]

There's a subtle but sinister implication to the state telling you what is good for your body and forcing that in you.

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

If you don't wear a seatbelt, you're not stopped from driving. You don't need to prove you're wearing a seatbelt every time you get in a car. I'm not sure it's a good example Mike.

A better example would be drink driving, but that doesn't fully work either.

It's fine as an example of a condition being placed on the ability to legally undertake an activity, isn't it? It doesn't stop people doing it illegally, but nor would any vaccine rule prevent people breaking any law around vaccines.

[sidcow]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

I think you're very naive if you think people will do that year after year with no complaint, especially after being told 'fully vaccinated' meant 2 jabs and you're done.

Why?  It's not particularly painful, it's not a massive inconvenience - eventually I am sure if will be available in every Drs surgery and chemist.

it's just one of those things.  if you don't want to go to America or wherever, fine, don't get jabbed and don't go.

I think people are more likely to just get used to it as it becomes part of life than it is currently.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, Chindie said:

There's a subtle but sinister implication to the state telling you what is good for your body and forcing that in you.

There is and compulsory vaccination would be wrong. Restrictions due to personal choice need not be sinister, quite the opposite, perhaps?

[Ingram85]

I don’t think it should be mandatory but if you die from covid because you were so against the vaccine then yes ‘**** you’ as you are a stupid word removed.

[sidcow]

9 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

If you don't wear a seatbelt, you're not stopped from driving.

ermm, I think you will if anyone catches you.

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, Ingram85 said:

I don’t think it should be mandatory but if you die from covid because you were so against the vaccine then yes ‘**** you’ as you are a stupid word removed.

For sure.

And it's everyone's right to be a stupid word removed.

[Ingram85]

8 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

For sure.

And it's everyone's right to be a stupid word removed.

The problem being, these stupid word removed’s don’t care about infecting other people either. So part of me thinks they shouldn’t be allowed to mingle with sensible people who have a right not to be infected by these selfish pricks. 

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, Ingram85 said:

The problem being, these stupid word removed’s don’t care about infecting other people either. So part of me thinks they shouldn’t be allowed to mingle with sensible people who have a right not to be infected by these selfish pricks. 

I'm nearly 30. I've had 2 jabs. If I choose not to have a booster, how am I risking the health of others if they have a booster?

(this doesn't reflect if I will get it or not. If I have to to not be restricted then I will)

Edited November 18, 2021 by StefanAVFC

[mjmooney]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

For sure.

And it's everyone's right to be a stupid word removed.

We're back to the smoking and obesity scenario again. Yes, it's everyone's 'right' to do what they like to their own body, and then be entitled to hospital treatment as a result. But when they are filling up the ICU wards and others cannot get treatment as a result, they should accept some responsibility. Ethical arguments aside, there are practical reasons why we cannot do much about this - drinking, drugging, junk eating, etc. are long-term problems, and take time and effort to change. But a simple vaccination takes a few minutes, costs the individual nothing, and alleviates the hospital situation very quickly. Like I say, far from being suspicious and resentful about it, we should be bloody grateful.

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, mjmooney said:

We're back to the smoking and obesity scenario again. Yes, it's everyone's 'right' to do what they like to their own body, and then be entitled to hospital treatment as a result. But when they are filling up the ICU wards and others cannot get treatment as a result, they should accept some responsibility. Ethical arguments aside, there are practical reasons why we cannot do much about this - drinking, drugging, junk eating, etc. are long-term problems, and take time and effort to change. But a simple vaccination takes a few minutes, costs the individual nothing, and alleviates the hospital situation very quickly. Like I say, far from being suspicious and resentful about it, we should be bloody grateful.

Yet government restrictions aren't put on those who are obese or smokers that stop them from functioning the same as a non-smoker or skinnier person. 

[JoshVilla]

14 minutes ago, blandy said:

The flip side to that is it concentrates on getting vaccinated. Someone might say "I haven't got covid, I haven't had the jab, here's my test result, yet I can't go to the pub but someone who has been vaccinated, but hasn't been tested and shown negative can". So, then you might say, "yeah, that's a fair point. OK proof of a negative test is fine". Then someone might reply "the tests are nowhere near 100% accurate, and the LFTs can be very easily scammed" - and suddenly we're debating intricate detail and not broad principles (either of the 2 conflicting ones).

Very much this. This is where it breaks down. If you get pinged on the app for being in contact with someone with covid, if you're not vaccinated you have to isolate for 10 days and test every day. Even if you get to day 9 and you're still negative, it doesn't matter.  If vaccinated, you do a test on the day you get pinged and if it's negative, you can go and do what you like. For all you know, you could become infectious the next day and not have symptoms, but it doesn't matter, you have more right to go out than someone who's done 9 tests in a row that are all negative. That is absolute madness.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

government restrictions aren't put on those who are obese or smokers

Smokers are not allowed to smoke in pubs and shops and indoors and stuff. "You can smoke, but you can't smoke in here and put other people's health at risk" isn't much different from "you can be unvaccinated, but you can't come in here and put other people's health at risk"

[StefanAVFC]

Just now, blandy said:

Smokers are not allowed to smoke in pubs and shops and indoors and stuff. "You can smoke, but you can't smoke in here and put other people's health at risk" isn't much different from "you can be unvaccinated, but you can't come in here and put other people's health at risk"

It's not even remotely the same.