Coronavirus - Page 11

**Damien** · 03-12-2021, 08:51

It's a bloody nightmare trying to find one of these 'booster doses' available for the under-40s. The NHS website has said it's coming soon for a week now, a week after they said they were opening it up to more people.

mrmistoffelees · 03-12-2021, 08:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

It's a bloody nightmare trying to find one of these 'booster doses' available for the under-40s. The NHS website has said it's coming soon for a week now, a week after they said they were opening it up to more people.

Same thing happened when they announced for the over 40's

**Damien** · 03-12-2021, 09:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

People that don’t wish to be vaccinated are a danger only unto themselves.

I am not in favour of vaccine mandates. The lack of government enforcement of a lot of these rules is partly what has made Britain quite accepting of the vaccine, of masks and of rules around social distancing.

There is an implicit understanding that the public will behave responsibly and the State will not be coercive. This is a much better method than what is happening in France where the public was resistant to the vaccine until the Government forced it via a vaccine mandate. It's a much more anagtonstic relationship between the people and the state.

But the idea people who are not vaccinated are only a danger to themselves is wrong.

Yes, people who are vaccinated can spread COVID but they are less likely to get COVID and have shorter illnesses if they do. Both of which reduce, not eliminate, the spread of the virus.

Over an entire population, this reduced transmission adds up to fewer cases and therefore fewer hospitalisations. There is a consequence to the larger public in having unvaccinated people around. Not to mention the consequences to the health service in having to deal with hospitalisations that, had the patients been vaccinated, they wouldn't have had to deal with.

jonbxx · 03-12-2021, 09:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

But they’re not just a danger to themselves as has been clearly been explained by the boffins

This whole free society stuff is nonsense

We don’t just let anyone drive a car or fly a plane

You can be refused service by any business provided their reasons don’t breach protected legal characteristics

You can’t just walk into anywhere you want when you want.

Absolutely, we. as humans, enter in to a contract, giving up a degree of freedom in return for a safe society. We obey laws, pay taxes, etc. Libertarian ideals are very nice but they soon get thrown out of the window as soon as support is needed from the state

papa smurf · 03-12-2021, 09:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

It’s worrying that people casually talk about restricting the freedoms of people, in a so called free society.

People that don’t wish to be vaccinated are a danger only unto themselves.

We have seen this so many times before, find someone to hate and then persecute them, blame them for every thing that's wrong in your sad life, lock them away for no reason other than hatred and then exterminate them for the good of the masses.

mrmistoffelees · 03-12-2021, 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

We have seen this so many times before, find someone to hate and then persecute them, blame them for every thing that's wrong in your sad life, lock them away for no reason other than hatred and then exterminate them for the good of the masses.

Where's that being done then? Please show how you've reached this conclusion.

papa smurf · 03-12-2021, 10:01

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Where's that being done then? Please show how you've reached this conclusion.

It's working it's way up the ladder and it never ends well.

mrmistoffelees · 03-12-2021, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by papa smurf

It's working it's way up the ladder and it never ends well.

So as before, where is this happening, and how do you reach that conclusion?

tweetiepooh · 03-12-2021, 10:14

Taken to extremes

Spock reasoning - the state can do what it likes to protect the state even to the extent of "persecuting" individuals the state doesn't like

Kirk reasoning - stuff the state and anyone else, I'm the centre of the universe.

I don't want to be in either situation. We value individuals and so we should so government always has the tightrope between rights of society and rights of individuals. Personally I don't think mask rules are such an infringement on the individual and society wins.

**Maggy** · 03-12-2021, 10:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

I am not in favour of vaccine mandates. The lack of government enforcement of a lot of these rules is partly what has made Britain quite accepting of the vaccine, of masks and of rules around social distancing.

There is an implicit understanding that the public will behave responsibly and the State will not be coercive. This is a much better method than what is happening in France where the public was resistant to the vaccine until the Government forced it via a vaccine mandate. It's a much more anagtonstic relationship between the people and the state.

But the idea people who are not vaccinated are only a danger to themselves is wrong.

Yes, people who are vaccinated can spread COVID but they are less likely to get COVID and have shorter illnesses if they do. Both of which reduce, not eliminate, the spread of the virus.

Over an entire population, this reduced transmission adds up to fewer cases and therefore fewer hospitalisations. There is a consequence to the larger public in having unvaccinated people around. Not to mention the consequences to the health service in having to deal with hospitalisations that, had the patients been vaccinated, they wouldn't have had to deal with.

Carth · 03-12-2021, 10:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrmistoffelees

Where's that being done then? Please show how you've reached this conclusion.

Papa actually says, and I quote "We have seen this so many times before" which rather hints at the past, not the present, although there are examples of it happening presently in some countries.

as for "working its way up the ladder" these things tend to start out small, then gather momentum until . . . well I'm sure you had some sort of history education at school

Pierre · 03-12-2021, 10:53

Quote:

Originally Posted by Damien

There is a consequence to the larger public in having unvaccinated people around. Not to mention the consequences to the health service in having to deal with hospitalisations that, had the patients been vaccinated, they wouldn't have had to deal with.

That argument doesn't wash or you could apply it to drinkers, smokers and the obese.

These people, in a free society, are allowed to drink, smoke & eat themselves into hospital and are definitely a drain on NHS resources, but they are not forced by the state to stop their own personal health choices.

tweetiepooh · 03-12-2021, 11:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

That argument doesn't wash or you could apply it to drinkers, smokers and the obese.

These people, in a free society, are allowed to drink, smoke & eat themselves into hospital and are definitely a drain on NHS resources, but they are not forced by the state to stop their own personal health choices.

But we tax tobacco, alcohol and if some get their way "unhealthy food" so in a way we collect from them in advance. The problem is that do we collect enough not only to cover their costs but also the drain away from other service users.

Maybe you could have discounts for people with valid "passports". Some disadvantage to those without phones but not a denial of service. And definite benefit to those both vaccinated and with said "passport". This would be a local issue so wouldn't need government action and being more carrot that stick likely less problematic to enforce. I think better than trying to bribe nationally to get the vaccine.

Discounts/benefits could be small but could add up. Being small those "without" shouldn't feel so hard done by.

It could be combined with "passport required" if needed. But this may need some mechanism to deal with those unable to be vaccinated.

**Damien** · 03-12-2021, 11:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

That argument doesn't wash or you could apply it to drinkers, smokers and the obese.

These people, in a free society, are allowed to drink, smoke & eat themselves into hospital and are definitely a drain on NHS resources, but they are not forced by the state to stop their own personal health choices.

This is why it isn't a central point to my argument. Although we do ban smoking indoors because it has negative health consequences to people other than yourself.

But for all these points the Government does try to reduce the levels of smoking, drinking and bad diet. There are many policies designed to reduce it. I am not arguing for vaccine mandates and I am making the point none of us are the centre of the universe and our actions do have consequences to others.

Carth · 03-12-2021, 11:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pierre

That argument doesn't wash or you could apply it to drinkers, smokers and the obese.

These people, in a free society, are allowed to drink, smoke & eat themselves into hospital and are definitely a drain on NHS resources, but they are not forced by the state to stop their own personal health choices.

add to that list people who do 'extreme sports', those who go hiking & fell walking in T shirt & trainers, and the DIY (no need for a tradesman, I can do that) people who fall off ladders, electrocute themselves, drop paving slabs on their feet, or even decide a load bearing wall isn't really needed and can be knocked down