Vaccine Passports (domestic).

[Droogs]

It is quite simple. We have a part vaccine (stops it being bad)/vaccine (stops you getting it) for disease X, All are advised to take it as disease X will only be treated by NHS if person presents with symptoms having had part vaccine or it will not be treated at all if a full vaccine is used. That way you are not forced to have one and the fallout is at your own risk.

 

[Rorschach]

It is quite simple. We have a part vaccine (stops it being bad)/vaccine (stops you getting it) for disease X, All are advised to take it as disease X will only be treated by NHS if person presents with symptoms having had part vaccine or it will not be treated at all if a full vaccine is used. That way you are not forced to have one and the fallout is at your own risk.

Ok, should we also not treat woodworkers who chop of their fingers using a bandsaw? You know you were not forced to do woodwork so the fallout is your own risk.
Also fat people, we shouldn't treat them for almost anything, diabetes, heart disease, stroke. They weren't forced to get fat so the fallout is their own risk.

 

[Droogs]

If you decide to not bother with the preventitive steps then you should be willing to suffer the consequences of your actions, Is that not the core tennet of the Qanon brigade both on here and elsewhere? And seeing as they would be the ones who would fall into the catagory of no treatment then I don't see a problem. Let them live or die by their philosophy

Re the fingers @Rorschach yes we should treat them as it will have been an accident not a deliberate choice

Re fat people and problems, if they are obese due to gluttony, greed and laziness rather than due to health or accidental circumstance then treat them and make them pay for it.

If something happens outwith your control and is not the result of your own deliberate actions then yes get the full benefits of society, however if they are due to you being a cockwombling qanon bacofoil hat wearing tub thumper then, no

 

[doctor Bob]

Also fat people, we shouldn't treat them for almost anything, diabetes, heart disease, stroke. They weren't forced to get fat so the fallout is their own risk.

You can't call people fat anymore.

 

[Rorschach]

You can't call people fat anymore.

No you are right, the correct term is morbidly obese.

On a worrying side note, a friend of the family was very excited to tell us a couple of weeks ago that he was getting his *** that week, he is only 28 so we asked why was he getting it so early as his job doesn't fall into a care/medical category. He proudly said "My Doctor got me pushed up the line because I am clinically vulnerable due to my weight".

 

[Droogs]

@Rorschach , no need for a wow as you must surely agree, if in the face of all evidence and advise, you decide to deliberately live a lifestyle that goes against it all then you must be expected to pay for it when it all goes wrong. Just because someone is stupid doesn't mean they should get away with doing stupid things without consequence

 

[Rorschach]

@Rorschach , no need for a wow as you must surely agree, if in the face of all evidence and advise, you decide to deliberately live a lifestyle that goes against it all then you must be expected to pay for it when it all goes wrong. Just because someone is stupid doesn't mean they should get away with doing stupid things without consequence

Maybe that's a debate to be had, but we don't operate that system currently for smoking, drinking, eating, woodworking, extreme sports, dangerous driving, drug taking. All of these things are risky and we all know the risks but still people do them and we still treat them when things go wrong. Why should C19 be any different?

 

[alanpo68]

Ok, should we also not treat woodworkers who chop of their fingers using a bandsaw? You know you were not forced to do woodwork so the fallout is your own risk.
Also fat people, we shouldn't treat them for almost anything, diabetes, heart disease, stroke. They weren't forced to get fat so the fallout is their own risk.

All of those examples are about the risk to the individual. Not having the vaccine is more akin to driving at 120 MPH on the motorway. It is not just your life you are prepared to risk but everyone around you. You might feel confident of your ability to drive at that speed and are prepared to risk your life. However, for the greater good sometimes society has to step in and protect those around you.

 

[alanpo68]

Maybe that's a debate to be had, but we don't operate that system currently for smoking, drinking, eating, woodworking, extreme sports, dangerous driving, drug taking. All of these things are risky and we all know the risks but still people do them and we still treat them when things go wrong. Why should C19 be any different?

We operate similarly in regard to smoking, that is why it is banned in certain surroundings. As for dangerous driving, people have their licence taken away or even their liberty taken away.

 

[Droogs]

Catching it is not a deliberate act, especially if one has had a the current minimizing vaccines. However catching it as a result of refusing the vaccine is the consequence of a deliberate act. So why should we waste resources on a cockwomble?

 

[Lons]

You can't call people fat anymore.

Is it still ok to call someone thin or is that not PC now?

 

[Droogs]

Is it still ok to call someone thin or is that not PC now?

EEEks no, that would imply the person next to them is fat

 

[thetyreman]

I thought people were fat here until I went to the USA

 

[deema]

A lot if interesting perspectives. The CV19 will like flu mutate and will require subsequent booster jabs to maintain a level of resilience. There are number of aspects to consider. Firstly until the world is full vaccinated, the number of mutations will not be curbed, and that is never going to happen due to political, cultural and economic reasons. So we are faced with a world were CV19 will mutate and where further pandemics will occur regardless of immunisation.
The biggest driver on what to do is economic and political. Politically, not having hospital beds for sick people isn’t a great vote winner. Ethically people dying for lack of treatment we find deplorable in the UK, other countries where you have to pay for your medical treatment have taken a different prospective. So, morally we all should feel an obligation to help reduce the pressure in hospitals. Economically, lock downs is costing the country billions, and at some point will not be sustainable. the borrowings will have to be repaid by future generations as well as ours. The level of debt we pass on is down to our actions of today. Again morally we should feel burdening society with debt is a poor choice to make.
To do certain things today you are required to take certain actions, give up certain liberties. From a simply driving licence, to passport it is all mandatory to give away personal details and make choices. Life and medical insurance whether it’s for a mortgage or to travel all require very specific details. To visit certain countries you must have been vaccinated against certain diseases. However, the question is whether CV19 is sufficiently dangerous to require us to give up liberties the for good of society. That’s a decision we all have to come to terms with, and the majority clearly recognise that being vaccinated is the right choice.
As an aside, HIV was originally proposed as a notifiable disease, political pressure in the UK changed this and it could be argued that millions have died / had their lives adversely affected as a consequence of the liberty of this decision. In certain countries it still remains a notifiable illness.
Mist people are nit aware what diseases in the UK are by law notifiable. As I understand it, the government can restrict your movement if you have a notifiable disease and endanger others.

 

[Just4Fun]

The CV19 is no. 19 because it’s the 19th found!

No, it is because it was first seen in 2019.

 

[deema]

I have found the Covid 19 in the UK has been added as a notifiable disease.

 

[Just4Fun]

 

[FatmanG]

Some interesting replies but none dealing with HUMAN RIGHTS and NUREMBERG CODE, the mandate ends there friends whether you believe this virus is the beubonic plague stemming from a bat cave in China or that its a USA NIH (tony fauci) financed gain of function experiment that leaked out of a French built PLA bio weapons lab it doesn't matter. The Nuremberg Code is there to give a human being the choice what goes into their body. You may disagree with that choice but once you take away that choice you no longer have control someone else does and that someone may end up like Hitler or Pol Pot. I'm certain that not all Germans were Nazi's etc you know the rest. History is littered with lunatics and useful idiots.

 

[sploo]

Is it even a vaccine?

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/...More&cid=20210223&mid=DM804586&rid=1090851476
It seems that it doesn't stop you getting, just lessens the effects and you can still be a carrier. I'm sure that if a door handle can carry it then anything/body can.

That is pretty much the definition of a vaccine; it's a product used to train your immune system against a particular virus; such that you'll produce antibodies that can defend against the virus, should you come into contact with it at some future point. It will not (and cannot) give you 100% certainty that you will not catch, or spread, the virus.

However, it means that a (hopefully decent) percentage of those vaccinated with either develop no symptoms, or have greatly lessened symptoms; something which is enough to save many lives (both in the directly infected, and due to the reduction of transmission).

 

[sploo]

Another vaccine morality question:


To quote Monty Python: "It makes you think, doesn't it?"

As the husband of a pediatric doctor (who carries out medical research) I can tell you that medical ethics for trials are exceptionally onerous and strict. Ethics requirements on trials involving minors are even more rigorous.

The question of the ability to give informed consent is treated very seriously; though even for adult subjects you are highly unlikely to get ethical approval for any trial that it considered to have too high a risk of doing harm (you can ask adult patients to undergo treatment that might create discomfort, but it's really hard to get ethical approval even for that).

Point being; the bar set for a vaccine study in kids will be ludicrously high. Not doing said study means you can't then release a treatment to the wider public; so if the belief is that the treatment should be safe for trial (and will ultimately save lives in the wider population) then it's an appropriate course of action.