Jump to content

Coronavirus


faraway saint
 Share

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, Doakes said:

The real question here is whether the government has the right to forcibly stick a needle into someone's arm and inject them? 

Regarding the line in bold. How far are we prepared to go?

What happens if someone declines the injection until they are blue in the face. Should they be kept away from society? Moved into prison camps? 

Right now it's all quite cuddly and the government are trying to tempt people into taking the jab - but that approach only works for so long. Some people will outright refuse the vaccine - regardless of incentive or punishment

Moving towards some black mirror type shit

No one will ever convince me that a government should be given that power, over individual choice. As I have said - I'm not against vaccination in general, but while the MRNA technology is still at experimental stage, people should have the right to say no.

I don't agree with compulsory vaccinations but I do agree with restrictions to protect the progress made and other people. If people do not want the vaccine for reasons other than medical then fine, personal choice but it can't be consequence free (at least for the time being). If the restrictions include event entry, foreign travel or even working in certain industries for a period of time, so be it. 

The ugly truth as well is, some of this will be out of our own hands. If other countries decide to tell people traveling to jog on unless fully vaccinated, there isn't much we can do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


The government should not be able to stick a needle in anyone's arm however the government should be allowed to restrict their activities somewhat i.e. if you travel back from an amber list country you have to isolate for 10 days unless double jabbed etc.

 

If you decide not to get a jab then you make the choice to accept those restrictions, rough with the smooth and all that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Doakes said:

While the vaccine is still at the experimental stage, it's a huge risk to vaccinate an entire population. 

Flipping it round, what happens if we find out 10 years from now that fertility rates have decreased by 90%? 

While the vaccine is relatively untested - and hasn't been around for long - it's important to leave a section of the population (preferably the ones youngest and least at risk) - unvaccinated - unless of course they are in a vulnerable category.

The inventor of the MRNA technology being used, was saying exactly this on his Twitter feed the other day

:lol:

Ok, to flip it round, we don't bother vaccinating and thousands DIE, you do know that's what's been happening?

The continued, unnecessary, pressure on the NHS will continue, people will DIE, you do know that, right?

Aye, let the vaccinated have a free life, the other's, put up or shut up with restrictions as I'd rather not travel on a plane or be stuck inside with someone who's, for no real reason, taken their appointed vaccination.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The real question here is whether the government has the right to forcibly stick a needle into someone's arm and inject them? 
Regarding the line in bold. How far are we prepared to go?
What happens if someone declines the injection until they are blue in the face. Should they be kept away from society? Moved into prison camps? 
Right now it's all quite cuddly and the government are trying to tempt people into taking the jab - but that approach only works for so long. Some people will outright refuse the vaccine - regardless of incentive or punishment
Moving towards some black mirror type shit
No one will ever convince me that a government should be given that power, over individual choice. As I have said - I'm not against vaccination in general, but while the MRNA technology is still at experimental stage, people should have the right to say no.
Should start with pubs and clubs, live music events and anything else that the younger generation are big on. If you have to prove you are vaccinated to get get a pint there will be longer queues at vaccination centres than at the bar.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bazil85 said:

I don't agree with compulsory vaccinations but I do agree with restrictions to protect the progress made and other people. If people do not want the vaccine for reasons other than medical then fine, personal choice but it can't be consequence free (at least for the time being). If the restrictions include event entry, foreign travel or even working in certain industries for a period of time, so be it. 

The ugly truth as well is, some of this will be out of our own hands. If other countries decide to tell people traveling to jog on unless fully vaccinated, there isn't much we can do. 

 

1 hour ago, Swiss_Saint said:

The government should not be able to stick a needle in anyone's arm however the government should be allowed to restrict their activities somewhat i.e. if you travel back from an amber list country you have to isolate for 10 days unless double jabbed etc.

 

If you decide not to get a jab then you make the choice to accept those restrictions, rough with the smooth and all that

The restrictions I can understand, in order to protect the NHS. I do believe that at some point, we need to open up fully. The governments half in, half out policy really hasn't done us any favours. For me, being an island nation, we either had to go full New Zealand - or fully commit to seeking herd immunity. So many mistakes made, been quite embarrassing to watch. 

Really don't agree with creating a heavily restricted underclass of people who refuse to be vaccinated. We are going to hit a point (fairly soon, from what I can tell) where enough people are vaccinated to allow a return to something like normality. People are going to continue to get sick to some extent - a high percentage of positive cases have been double jabbed so that trend would suggest jabs 3, 4, 5. 6... won't completely remove the risk either. 

This MRNA technology is designed to allow booster jabs dependent on new strains, which people will be expected to take whenever it is mandated by the government (or more accurately, by the scientists advising them)

The appetite for booster jabs will likely fall off if people don't see the benefit. The government will be in an awkward position if there's still people kicking around in a few years time who refuse to commit to MRNA vaccines - that's why I reckon it will become compulsory further down the line, which sounds a bit too fascist for my liking. 

 

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Ok, to flip it round, we don't bother vaccinating and thousands DIE, you do know that's what's been happening?

The continued, unnecessary, pressure on the NHS will continue, people will DIE, you do know that, right?

Aye, let the vaccinated have a free life, the other's, put up or shut up with restrictions as I'd rather not travel on a plane or be stuck inside with someone who's, for no real reason, taken their appointed vaccination.

I guess it'll be down to company to decide who's money they want to accept. If you want to travel with other vaccinated travellers, certain companies will likely specialise in providing that service if there's a demand for it. That's how capitalism works, unless you desire an alternative system...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess it'll be down to company to decide who's money they want to accept. If you want to travel with other vaccinated travellers, certain companies will likely specialise in providing that service if there's a demand for it. That's how capitalism works, unless you desire an alternative system...
It wouldn't be an underclass, it would be their choice. They wouldn't be getting forced to do anything, they would just be getting told there are certain things that they can't do. What if someone chooses not to take a driving test? Is it infringing on their rights to forbid them to drive? No, it's a safety issue. Every choice we make in life has consequences, big or small, and choosing not to help protect others that are more vulnerable, at no cost and with very little risk, is no different. Smelly folk in pubs get shunned and, I would imagine, their smelliest is less "dangerous" than the unvaccinated.
---
Or maybe, since the majority would be vaccinated, it would be the unvaccinated who would have to travel on specially arranged flights, and probably at a higher cost.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has he officially left BAWA? 

Not sure. But he certainly has his tail between his legs.

Some of his posts on P&B are mind boggling.

I don’t think his MASSIVE 🧠 and HUGE ego cope well in this heat.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Doakes said:

 

The restrictions I can understand, in order to protect the NHS. I do believe that at some point, we need to open up fully. The governments half in, half out policy really hasn't done us any favours. For me, being an island nation, we either had to go full New Zealand - or fully commit to seeking herd immunity. So many mistakes made, been quite embarrassing to watch. 

Really don't agree with creating a heavily restricted underclass of people who refuse to be vaccinated. We are going to hit a point (fairly soon, from what I can tell) where enough people are vaccinated to allow a return to something like normality. People are going to continue to get sick to some extent - a high percentage of positive cases have been double jabbed so that trend would suggest jabs 3, 4, 5. 6... won't completely remove the risk either. 

This MRNA technology is designed to allow booster jabs dependent on new strains, which people will be expected to take whenever it is mandated by the government (or more accurately, by the scientists advising them)

The appetite for booster jabs will likely fall off if people don't see the benefit. The government will be in an awkward position if there's still people kicking around in a few years time who refuse to commit to MRNA vaccines - that's why I reckon it will become compulsory further down the line, which sounds a bit too fascist for my liking. 

 

I guess it'll be down to company to decide who's money they want to accept. If you want to travel with other vaccinated travellers, certain companies will likely specialise in providing that service if there's a demand for it. That's how capitalism works, unless you desire an alternative system...

What is this "high percentage"?

Even if it is "high" the following should just about convince most people what the benefits are.......

  • COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective at preventing COVID-19 disease, especially severe illness and death.
  • COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of people spreading the virus that causes COVID-19.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Slarti said:

It wouldn't be an underclass, it would be their choice. They wouldn't be getting forced to do anything, they would just be getting told there are certain things that they can't do. What if someone chooses not to take a driving test? Is it infringing on their rights to forbid them to drive? No, it's a safety issue. Every choice we make in life has consequences, big or small, and choosing not to help protect others that are more vulnerable, at no cost and with very little risk, is no different. Smelly folk in pubs get shunned and, I would imagine, their smelliest is less "dangerous" than the unvaccinated.
---
Or maybe, since the majority would be vaccinated, it would be the unvaccinated who would have to travel on specially arranged flights, and probably at a higher cost.

Ok. Lets concede that unvaccinated individuals should be banned from travel and leisure, such as pubs, restaurants, shopping centres and entertainment venues until they are fully vaccinated.

3 years from now. We’re up to booster jab 5, there’s still positive cases and sporadic outbreaks.

Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca etc. all have a financial interest in creating more and more booster jabs. People will become weary of booster jabs and their side effects, the numbers will start to drop off. Some will still be resisting the initial vaccine. 

Do you get a certain amount of time to take the latest booster before you are also restricted from travel and leisure?

At what point do we say enough? The companies making the vaccines certainly won’t want it to end, and neither will their stakeholders who tend to be in positions of power

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok. Lets concede that unvaccinated individuals should be banned from travel and leisure, such as pubs, restaurants, shopping centres and entertainment venues until they are fully vaccinated.
3 years from now. We’re up to booster jab 5, there’s still positive cases and sporadic outbreaks.
Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca etc. all have a financial interest in creating more and more booster jabs. People will become weary of booster jabs and their side effects, the numbers will start to drop off. Some will still be resisting the initial vaccine. 
Do you get a certain amount of time to take the latest booster before you are also restricted from travel and leisure?
At what point do we say enough? The companies making the vaccines certainly won’t want it to end, and neither will their stakeholders who tend to be in positions of power
What I was really doing was saying that I'm almost 100% sure that most of these young people who are refusing the vaccine would be quick enough to queue for it if not getting it prevented them from doing what they like doing. In other words, I don't believe that most aren't getting it because of a personal medical choice, it's because they think they're "invincible" or rebels or some other ridiculous reason. Or maybe, as faraway put it, they're just fuckwits who only care about themselves.

I'm all for personal choice but it comes with personal responsibility and part of that responsibility is to, if possible, reduce risk to everyone else.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Doakes said:

Ok. Lets concede that unvaccinated individuals should be banned from travel and leisure, such as pubs, restaurants, shopping centres and entertainment venues until they are fully vaccinated.

3 years from now. We’re up to booster jab 5, there’s still positive cases and sporadic outbreaks.

Pfizer, Moderna, Astra Zeneca etc. all have a financial interest in creating more and more booster jabs. People will become weary of booster jabs and their side effects, the numbers will start to drop off. Some will still be resisting the initial vaccine. 

Do you get a certain amount of time to take the latest booster before you are also restricted from travel and leisure?

At what point do we say enough? The companies making the vaccines certainly won’t want it to end, and neither will their stakeholders who tend to be in positions of power

Of course , that is before we get to  amount of laws forcing someone to get "vaccinated* violates .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Slarti said:

What I was really doing was saying that I'm almost 100% sure that most of these young people who are refusing the vaccine would be quick enough to queue for it if not getting it prevented them from doing what they like doing. In other words, I don't believe that most aren't getting it because of a personal medical choice, it's because they think they're "invincible" or rebels or some other ridiculous reason. Or maybe, as faraway put it, they're just f**kwits who only care about themselves.

I'm all for personal choice but it comes with personal responsibility and part of that responsibility is to, if possible, reduce risk to everyone else.

I’m glad you brought this up.


Would it be safe to agree that the term for this would usually be “collectivism”? Prioritising the needs of society over the self?

I get that, and I’d agree that there’s a place for it. 

However, would urge you read this book by Klaus Schwab, (Founder of the World Economic Forum)

“Stakeholder Capitalism, a global economy that works for progress, people and the planet”

It’s the theory that companies/governments should be accountable to stakeholders, rather than shareholders. So the emphasis is on “society”, rather than profit. A merging of corporation and state. Those at the top will be able to engineer society based upon their vision for the world. People have been talking about a New World Order for years, being a conspiracy theory, but it’s rapidly becoming our reality. 

Schwab makes the point that people should strive to be “global citizens”. Using vaccination as the example: if you don’t accept the latest regular booster jab, you’re not a global citizen and you’ll lose your rights and privileges. There’s a few books on it, “The Great Reset” and “The Fourth Industrial Revolution”.

IMO, it’s leading us down a path where any resistance to the acceptable global view will be hastily clamped down upon. A bit like a modern form of communism.

Some might like the concept, but it’s certainly not like our old version of normality. 

 

10BDED14-19DF-425B-BFBB-FC187E9A8F6C.jpeg

Edited by Doakes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, saintnextlifetime said:

Of course , that is before we get to  amount of laws forcing someone to get "vaccinated* violates .

It’s not often I agree with you but this time I do. It’s the thin edge of the wedge once you start ordering people to be vaccinated! ( just to be clear I am very much an advocate of vaccinations and have had many through out my life) however when the state takes control of individuals rights around there health you have to ask where it stops? 
enforced contraception? enforced diets for the type 2 diabetes? enforced exercise for the obese? 
 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Doakes said:

While the vaccine is still at the experimental stage, it's a huge risk to vaccinate an entire population. 

Flipping it round, what happens if we find out 10 years from now that fertility rates have decreased by 90%? 

While the vaccine is relatively untested - and hasn't been around for long - it's important to leave a section of the population (preferably the ones youngest and least at risk) - unvaccinated - unless of course they are in a vulnerable category.

The inventor of the MRNA technology being used, was saying exactly this on his Twitter feed the other day

Point taken: so how about we just lock them up for around 10 years; so we can check it out and meanwhile their lack of consideration for other older folk  (who apparently  haven't got long left anyway) is less likely to cause unnecessary fatalities among old farts like me and some others who have COPD and asthma and such like ............ or is their right of self determination over not taking a jab more important than other peoples lives.  Are we really not worth consideration?  

I started this as a slightly sarcastic response without wishing to engender a huge and protracted debate on the rights and wrongs of self determination, however given that it really does impact me personally; the latter question is a genuine one.  I have heard that there may be  a time when whether or not you have had appropriate jabs will determine access to ................. work, large gatherings ie; football matches, weddings, flights, it's a huge can of worms methinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s not often I agree with you but this time I do. It’s the thin edge of the wedge once you start ordering people to be vaccinated! ( just to be clear I am very much an advocate of vaccinations and have had many through out my life) however when the state takes control of individuals rights around there health you have to ask where it stops? 
enforced contraception? enforced diets for the type 2 diabetes? enforced exercise for the obese? 
 
 
Nobody, on here at least, is advocating forced vaccination.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, jaybee said:

Point taken: so how about we just lock them up for around 10 years; so we can check it out and meanwhile their lack of consideration for other older folk  (who apparently  haven't got long left anyway) is less likely to cause unnecessary fatalities among old farts like me and some others who have COPD and asthma and such like ............ or is their right of self determination over not taking a jab more important than other peoples lives.  Are we really not worth consideration?  

I started this as a slightly sarcastic response without wishing to engender a huge and protracted debate on the rights and wrongs of self determination, however given that it really does impact me personally; the latter question is a genuine one.  I have heard that there may be  a time when whether or not you have had appropriate jabs will determine access to ................. work, large gatherings ie; football matches, weddings, flights, it's a huge can of worms methinks.

I don’t have a lack of consideration for older folk. I think that we should protect everyone if that is at all possible. It’s just a statistical fact that the older you are, the more likely you are to accept the vaccine. Been quite widely reported that the uptake has been very low in the youngest age categories. 
 

There is unrest coming if vaccines do become mandatory for someone to be permitted to work, so it’s probably the most important debate that exists at the moment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Slarti said:
8 hours ago, ALBIONSAINT said:
It’s not often I agree with you but this time I do. It’s the thin edge of the wedge once you start ordering people to be vaccinated! ( just to be clear I am very much an advocate of vaccinations and have had many through out my life) however when the state takes control of individuals rights around there health you have to ask where it stops? 
enforced contraception? enforced diets for the type 2 diabetes? enforced exercise for the obese? 
 
 

Nobody, on here at least, is advocating forced vaccination.

Indeed, it's a well used approach.

Try to take things to an unlikely extreme to attempt to prove/disprove a point, Oaky does it on a regular basis.

The most important issue here is people's health.

As for mandatory vaccinations to allow people to work, surgeons, for starters, already fall into this category with the hepatitis B jag, it's not new and, IMO, secondary to the effects of not having it.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, faraway saint said:

Indeed, it's a well used approach.

Try to take things to an unlikely extreme to attempt to prove/disprove a point, Oaky does it on a regular basis.

The most important issue here is people's health.

As for mandatory vaccinations to allow people to work, surgeons, for starters, already fall into this category with the hepatitis B jag, it's not new and, IMO, secondary to the effects of not having it.

 

 

So lets concede that you are right and the vaccine MRNA technology is working as it should be. 3 years from now. Bob is scheduled in for booster jab number 5, his work has a policy of mandatory vaccination. He doesn’t really care about going to the pub and international travel is a thing of the past. He decides he’s had enough, has been feeling a lot of side effects and just doesn’t see the benefit as the previous 4 jabs still haven’t erradicated Covid, he has caught the virus twice despite being up to date with his vaccines, but the science claims that it does reduce the chance of people dying from the latest variant. Should Bob be forced into having the latest booster jab? What happens if he doesn’t? Should he lose his job? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Doakes said:

So lets concede that you are right and the vaccine MRNA technology is working as it should be. 3 years from now. Bob is scheduled in for booster jab number 5, his work has a policy of mandatory vaccination. He doesn’t really care about going to the pub and international travel is a thing of the past. He decides he’s had enough, has been feeling a lot of side effects and just doesn’t see the benefit as the previous 4 jabs still haven’t erradicated Covid, he has caught the virus twice despite being up to date with his vaccines, but the science claims that it does reduce the chance of people dying from the latest variant. Should Bob be forced into having the latest booster jab? What happens if he doesn’t? Should he lose his job? 

Nice story.

Try to take things to an unlikely extreme to attempt to prove/disprove a point, Oaky does it on a regular basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...