Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Aibu to be horrified at the thought of mandatory vaccinations

294 replies

TracyLords · 01/12/2021 15:51

I’m not anti vax. I’ve had my jabs and will get booster this week.

There have been countries in the EU insisting on mandatory vaccination: this concerns me: surely it is up to the individual to decide to get vaccinated (or otherwise)

OP posts:
Yournamehere007 · 05/12/2021 08:53

I think state mandated compulsory medical procedures are the thin edge of a wedge. Bodily autonomy is sacred.

GreenWhiteViolet · 05/12/2021 09:02

@ImmyMc

YABU

The right not to be vaccinated is not greater than the right of every individual to have a functioning health service. Unvaccinated people are now indirectly causing the deaths of the clinically vulnerable, for whom the vaccine isn't as effective, and anybody who has had to have life-saving surgery postponed because Covid takes up hospital space and time. All those ambulances not arriving on time are also the partial indirect result of the unvaxxed at this stage. And someone's right to not be vaxxed doesn't trump the rights of nurses and doctors to be able to go to work and not be worked to burnout and exhaustion.

So, no, individual liberties are not more important than the collective good. Who fucking cares if someone doesn't want to be vaccinated? What possible real reason can they actually have anyway that isn't just either wrong or mental? And does anybody even believe that reason is more important than saving people's actual lives? I certainly don't.

Individual liberties are absolutely more important than the collective good when the 'liberty' in question is declining to have something injected into your body. What makes you so great and important that you can decide everyone's reasons are wrong (or 'mental'? Nice bit of ableism thrown in, for someone who supposedly cares so much about the vulnerable) and therefore they should be forced to do what you want them to?

Forcing everyone to donate blood would save people's actual lives. So would mandatory organ donation. Or banning all alcohol and junk food. Or a whole range of other things that we don't do, because individual rights and liberties matter.

bumblingbovine49 · 05/12/2021 09:04

@ImmyMc

YABU

The right not to be vaccinated is not greater than the right of every individual to have a functioning health service. Unvaccinated people are now indirectly causing the deaths of the clinically vulnerable, for whom the vaccine isn't as effective, and anybody who has had to have life-saving surgery postponed because Covid takes up hospital space and time. All those ambulances not arriving on time are also the partial indirect result of the unvaxxed at this stage. And someone's right to not be vaxxed doesn't trump the rights of nurses and doctors to be able to go to work and not be worked to burnout and exhaustion.

So, no, individual liberties are not more important than the collective good. Who fucking cares if someone doesn't want to be vaccinated? What possible real reason can they actually have anyway that isn't just either wrong or mental? And does anybody even believe that reason is more important than saving people's actual lives? I certainly don't.

This
MarieG10 · 05/12/2021 09:06

Look at the hospitals that are still full in ITUs of covid unvaccinated. They are dying but they are also preventing other routine operations for people that can be life and death..cancer for example that could become inoperable.

Plus they spread it to the vulnerable who are vaccinated but have lower immunity. All of this convinces me it is necessary but 7 likely in the U.K. currently.....until it is shown to be successful elsewhere anyway and after the utter shitshow and stupidity of the Covid regulations anything is possible

sst1234 · 05/12/2021 09:20

@ImmyMc

YABU

The right not to be vaccinated is not greater than the right of every individual to have a functioning health service. Unvaccinated people are now indirectly causing the deaths of the clinically vulnerable, for whom the vaccine isn't as effective, and anybody who has had to have life-saving surgery postponed because Covid takes up hospital space and time. All those ambulances not arriving on time are also the partial indirect result of the unvaxxed at this stage. And someone's right to not be vaxxed doesn't trump the rights of nurses and doctors to be able to go to work and not be worked to burnout and exhaustion.

So, no, individual liberties are not more important than the collective good. Who fucking cares if someone doesn't want to be vaccinated? What possible real reason can they actually have anyway that isn't just either wrong or mental? And does anybody even believe that reason is more important than saving people's actual lives? I certainly don't.

Well done for missing the point spectacularly, after 10 pages of people explaining why this sets a frightening precedence. I wish there was a vaccine against swallowing propaganda.
EllaVaNight · 05/12/2021 11:51

I find this interesting as many people say they wouldn't want their loved one cared for by an unvaccinated carer, and are happy for them to either get jabbed or leave. Many carers have been carers their whole lives and are not qualified to do anything else so have essentially been forced into it. It has also worsened the staffing crisis in this sector. But they themselves wouldn't want to be forced to be vaccinated. Interesting.

Bucanarab · 05/12/2021 11:51

I wish there was a vaccine against swallowing propaganda.

That would be awesome! If there was such a thing you can guarantee anyone who had it would be happy to have the covid vaccine too and we wouldn't be having these discussions.

ImmyMc · 05/12/2021 12:29

@sst1234

I have many years of university education at post-degree level on the subject of propaganda, politics, and, more recently, psychological research. I am more than qualified on this subject.

Individual liberties are not more important than the collective functioning of society. I understand you believe that this sets a precedent for future government control, but it is quite normal, and always has been, that in terms of national crisis the government has to infringe on individual liberties for the collective good. This has always been the case, for example, in wartime and so on.

At present, there is a global crisis, not even just a national one. Whatever slippery slope you believe that mandatory vaccinations might bring, the "might lead to the worst-case scenario" argument is not strong enough to justify infringing on the actual human lives of real people living now - those who are immuno-compromised, those who need surgeries currently postponed, and healthcare workers who are burnt-out. This is because, when all is said and done, it is a "could possibly happen" and not a "will happen" whereas the lives of those groups above are definitely being affected right now by this. As I said before, nothing is more important than people's actual human lives.

Mandatory vaccinations have existed around the world for literally centuries (i.e. smallpox in the UK; vaccine mandates for school children in many, many countries; literally mandates for dozens of types of vaccines in the U.S. in the 70s). This is nothing new. Your fear about what could happen regarding government control is just that - it's a "what if". It is NOT a strong enough argument to sacrifice thousands of lives on a "what if".

ImmyMc · 05/12/2021 12:35

@GreenWhiteViolet

The difference between all of those examples that you have given and the Covid-19 example is that none of those things are infectious. Giving blood might help save another's life, but going outside without giving blood does not endanger those around you. That's the difference.

All of these arguments about bodily autonomy fail to address the context of a pandemic - an infectious disease, more easily passed on by people who are unvaccinated and which can kill more vulnerable people in society, is not comparable to those things you listed for that very reason.

NannyOggsWhiskyStash · 05/12/2021 12:55

@Sparklybanana

It's not a medical procedure ffs. It's a vaccination that has been proven to severely reduce liklihood of severe illness and death and has saved more lives than its taken. So many people just don't understand the entire pandemic and the response to it and are lapping up advice from people who really know nothing. One of the key anti vax people is a hairdresser - how could she possibly know more about this vaccination than hundreds of scientists and doctors who have been studying viruses and vaccinations for years. Would you trust a doctor to give you a great colour and haircut after watching a few YouTube videos? Because it's the same. Although hair will recover. Too many people are believing random people on the Internet, most of whom, are MAKING MONEY, from their stance through books and Web traffic to their own potential detriment. It's like flat earth. I wonder how many people actually believe that the earth is flat despite all evidence to the contrary, and how many people are just making money off peddling this crap from gullible people. Nobody should have to have a mandatory vaccine, but if people cannot be trusted to make a sensible decision that will save lives, using actual data and not youtube, then this is the inevitable result. It's a tragic state of affairs that we have come to this.
Well said. And oddly enough the most rabid anti-vaxxer I know is a hairdresser who apparently knows more than virologists
OMG12 · 05/12/2021 13:49

@ImmyMc

YABU

The right not to be vaccinated is not greater than the right of every individual to have a functioning health service. Unvaccinated people are now indirectly causing the deaths of the clinically vulnerable, for whom the vaccine isn't as effective, and anybody who has had to have life-saving surgery postponed because Covid takes up hospital space and time. All those ambulances not arriving on time are also the partial indirect result of the unvaxxed at this stage. And someone's right to not be vaxxed doesn't trump the rights of nurses and doctors to be able to go to work and not be worked to burnout and exhaustion.

So, no, individual liberties are not more important than the collective good. Who fucking cares if someone doesn't want to be vaccinated? What possible real reason can they actually have anyway that isn't just either wrong or mental? And does anybody even believe that reason is more important than saving people's actual lives? I certainly don't.

But can’t you see that individual freedoms are inseparably linked to the greater good? Without individual freedoms society becomes a dictatorship, freedoms over self are the checks and balances in deciding what the greater good is, without these individual freedoms being exercised who is to decide what the greater good is?

This point is far bigger than a single disease. People talk about medical exemptions, but what are these? Going into anaphylactic shock? The multitude of reactions which have been reported on the first and second jab that the medical profession refuse to acknowledge but make the person reluctant to get a booster? Psychological issues meaning people can’t cope with medical intervention, losing autonomy over their bodies, fear of needles? Who is to decide where the cut off lies? Religious belief? Some people believe that medical intervention goes against gods will, who are you to decide they are wrong? People with philosophical beliefs against medical intervention mandated by the state? Should philosophical beliefs be seen are less worthy because they don’t have an attached deity?

What about those people who think it’s ethically wrong for a young person in the west to be taking a booster vaccine 3months after their initial jab whilst vulnerable people in the third world can’t even get a first dose?

All of the diseases mentioned with exception of small pox still exist, there is not 100% vaccination but we have learned to live with it all without stripping away individual freedoms.

What we are doing is creating a sub group acting as scape goats. The nhs was fucked well before covid, every winter we were told flu was about to bring down the nhs, cancer ops cancelled, waiting lists infinite, ambulances taking hours to reach patients. The vast vast majority of unvaccinated people will just get a mild case. What is bringing down the nhs is that it’s a model not fit for purpose. Is it truely the unvaccinated who are stopping a doctor seeing a patient and feeling their breast to find a lump?

thegreenlight · 05/12/2021 14:20

It’s against the law to not wear a seatbelt - surely if people are too stupid to make a sensible decision themselves using all the information provided by science and their action can have a detrimental effect on others then yes, we should make it a legal responsibility. I don’t see any difference.

sst1234 · 05/12/2021 15:29

[quote ImmyMc]@sst1234

I have many years of university education at post-degree level on the subject of propaganda, politics, and, more recently, psychological research. I am more than qualified on this subject.

Individual liberties are not more important than the collective functioning of society. I understand you believe that this sets a precedent for future government control, but it is quite normal, and always has been, that in terms of national crisis the government has to infringe on individual liberties for the collective good. This has always been the case, for example, in wartime and so on.

At present, there is a global crisis, not even just a national one. Whatever slippery slope you believe that mandatory vaccinations might bring, the "might lead to the worst-case scenario" argument is not strong enough to justify infringing on the actual human lives of real people living now - those who are immuno-compromised, those who need surgeries currently postponed, and healthcare workers who are burnt-out. This is because, when all is said and done, it is a "could possibly happen" and not a "will happen" whereas the lives of those groups above are definitely being affected right now by this. As I said before, nothing is more important than people's actual human lives.

Mandatory vaccinations have existed around the world for literally centuries (i.e. smallpox in the UK; vaccine mandates for school children in many, many countries; literally mandates for dozens of types of vaccines in the U.S. in the 70s). This is nothing new. Your fear about what could happen regarding government control is just that - it's a "what if". It is NOT a strong enough argument to sacrifice thousands of lives on a "what if".[/quote]
Thanks for taking the time to write a considered, respectful reply. The issue with your argument, though is that not getting vaccinated is not really infringing on anyone’s rights. Those of us that want to be vaccinated, sure go ahead, as we have done. Those that do not are mostly putting themselves at risk. Hospitalizations are higher among those not vaccinated.
Your argument would make sense only if the unvaccinated were preventing you from being vaccinated.

sst1234 · 05/12/2021 15:31

@thegreenlight

It’s against the law to not wear a seatbelt - surely if people are too stupid to make a sensible decision themselves using all the information provided by science and their action can have a detrimental effect on others then yes, we should make it a legal responsibility. I don’t see any difference.
Come on, if you must use an analogy, use one that at least use one that makes sense. Wearing a seatbelt is not the same as being injected.
ImmyMc · 05/12/2021 15:33

@OMG12

I suspect that you would talk theoretically about this until you or a loved one are being denied cancer treatment because the unvaxxed are taking up hospital space and resources. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you would feel the same if you were in that situation.

This isn't about eradicating disease. It's about getting it to the stage that we are able to "just live with it", as you say (i.e. the endemic stage where hospitals are no longer overwhelmed and there is enough collective immunity to protect the clinically vulnerable). The whole point about any of this is that we cannot "just live with it" until we reach that stage and we can't reach that stage until people are vaccinated. The vaccinations you mention from the past have got us to that stage now with other diseases! Measles still exists, for example, and so does Polio, but outbreaks are very rare.

You are being hyperbolic. Losing the individual freedom to refuse a vaccine does not inevitably lead to dictatorship. And this is the problem with your argument. Maybe it might do, but it is unlikely to be this slippery slope that you imagine it to be. Vaccines have been mandated many times in the past and have not led to dictatorships! Yes, it is possible that losing one individual liberty could result in losing more, but it is, as I have said, a "might". History tells us it hasn't led to that in the past so it probably won't now. The possible threat of a dictatorship in the future (which, again, is imo hyperbolic considering historically vaccine mandates have never led to this before) is not enough to justify overwhelming the health system, allowing the vulnerable to die, and bringing doctors and nurses to their knees with exhaustion.

Of course the problems in the NHS have been propelled by chronic underfunding, but 12-hour waits for ambulances are the result of Covid, and postponed operations largely the result of the unvaxxed in this wave. Chronic underfunding is also not the sole issue - even well funded health systems around the world are unable to cope with the weight of the pandemic. Vaccines vastly reduce hospitalisations. Vaccines will relieve the pressure on the health system and save lives.

As to the objections you raise, rules have existed for certain groups to opt out of mandated vaccines in the past, and they undoubtedly would again.

Human life is precious. I repeat: the freedom to refuse a vaccine is not more important than the freedom to live.

GreenWhiteViolet · 05/12/2021 15:42

[quote ImmyMc]@GreenWhiteViolet

The difference between all of those examples that you have given and the Covid-19 example is that none of those things are infectious. Giving blood might help save another's life, but going outside without giving blood does not endanger those around you. That's the difference.

All of these arguments about bodily autonomy fail to address the context of a pandemic - an infectious disease, more easily passed on by people who are unvaccinated and which can kill more vulnerable people in society, is not comparable to those things you listed for that very reason.[/quote]
The case would be stronger if being vaccinated meant that you would never catch Covid or pass it on. It doesn't. If you're vaccinated, you can still get infected and pass that infection on to vulnerable people - and the protection it does afford you doesn't even seem to last very long!

A more general point re: mandatory vaccines. The smallpox vaccine is the example people like to use for precedent, but at the time that law was enforced (1867 - the 1853 requirement was very easy to avoid) the vaccine was over 70 years old. Plenty of time for data collection to prove its safety, etc. It only applied to new babies, not the adult population, so it was parental rights and not bodily autonomy that was being infringed. And there were still plenty of people who objected on libertarian grounds, so much so that a conscience clause was added in the 1890s.

ImmyMc · 05/12/2021 15:52

@sst1234

No, this is not true. As I said above, the unvaxxed are not just putting themselves at risk, they are putting the clinically vulnerable at risk, they are putting those who need life-saving treatments that need to be postponed at risk, and they are putting burnt-out doctors and nurses at risk.

The clinically vulnerable are only protected in society once collective immunity is reached. This is only likely to happen when enough people in society are vaccinated. Until then, transmission is more frequent among the unvaccinated than among the vaccinated, making it difficult to drive down transmission rates. There are studies on this if you want me to post them. Vaccinated people can still transmit the disease but with Delta it was something like 80 times less likely. With Omicron, I suspect that number will have decreased again, but this is also why the next vaccination wave is probably going to include an Omicron-specific vaccine - it's possibly going to be the first strain that the original vaccines don't work all that well for. Unless the uptake of annual booster shots is high enough, Covid is going to be with us at epidemic levels for many years, which is a huge problem.

The unvaxxed also put others at risk because ICU units are mostly full of the unvaccinated right now. Though some vaccinated people end up in hospital, these are mostly the clinically vulnerable (who, as above, would be far less likely to get ill with Covid if more people were vaccinated in the first place, as collective immunity would protect them). For the rest in the ICU, they are unvaccinated. The larger numbers of unvaccinated people in ICU mean that ICU units are full. This means that spaces cannot be held for those who might need a place in ICU after a surgery, i.e. if you need surgery to remove a brain tumour, you are likely to need an ICU spot for a few days afterwards to be monitored, or in case something goes wrong in the surgery. This means that life-saving cancer treatments need to be postponed because the ICU units are still full of the unvaxxed. Postponing cancer treatments causes deaths, as cancer needs to be treated as soon as possible to stop it from spreading. Sometimes, the delay of even a week or two is the difference between life and death for a person. So in these situations, a person's choice not to be vaccinated impacts on another person's right to life. If vaccination rates were higher, the ICU units wouldn't be overwhelmed and surgeries need not be cancelled.

Finally, doctors and nurses have the right to a break. They are on the brink of burnout and collapse. They have had two years of this, with very little respite, because the number of their patients have tripled or more. ICU doctors and nurses are exhausted. There needs to be an end in sight - they cannot be expected to continue like this just because a large portion of the country refuse to be vaccinated. If they leave (as many are doing), then that impacts all of us, as we all need to have doctors and nurses when we are ill.

So, I think you are wrong: the decision not to be vaccinated does not just affect the person refusing the vaccination. It affects all of us during this pandemic.

ImmyMc · 05/12/2021 15:57

@GreenWhiteViolet

The smallpox vaccination is not the only vaccination to have been mandated. There have been plenty of mandatory vaccinations throughout history, including recent history, all over the world. It is not a new thing at all, and it has not led to the collapse of democracy in the past. On the contrary, it has actually saved millions of lives.

Obviously, it is better if people are allowed the choice. However, if not enough people choose to be vaccinated to stop a pandemic from killing millions, then something needs to be done because saving millions of lives is more important than being allowed to refuse a vaccine.

JaninaDuszejko · 05/12/2021 16:35

The smallpox vaccination is not the only vaccination to have been mandated.

It is the only one to have been mandated in the UK. There is no strong evidence to support a mandate, and we don't need one in this country anyway. 81% of the eligible population are fully vaccinated with no mandate. We are a pro-vaccination country and we don't like things being mandated. It will not achieve anything, targetted education campaigns will have more of an effect.

JaninaDuszejko · 05/12/2021 16:45

People who are vaccinated can catch COVID and therefore create a mutation.

Mutations arise spontaneously in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. And as has been said repeatedly vaccination isn't 100% effective against infection or transmission (although it does reduce both) and so there is only minimal selection pressure applied by vaccination on the virus.

XenoBitch · 05/12/2021 16:49

@JaninaDuszejko

The smallpox vaccination is not the only vaccination to have been mandated.

It is the only one to have been mandated in the UK. There is no strong evidence to support a mandate, and we don't need one in this country anyway. 81% of the eligible population are fully vaccinated with no mandate. We are a pro-vaccination country and we don't like things being mandated. It will not achieve anything, targetted education campaigns will have more of an effect.

It was also only mandated for babies. Totally different to the Covid vaccine mandates going on, where people are losing jobs, access to places, and facing potential fines.
OMG12 · 05/12/2021 18:16

[quote ImmyMc]@OMG12

I suspect that you would talk theoretically about this until you or a loved one are being denied cancer treatment because the unvaxxed are taking up hospital space and resources. But let's give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you would feel the same if you were in that situation.

This isn't about eradicating disease. It's about getting it to the stage that we are able to "just live with it", as you say (i.e. the endemic stage where hospitals are no longer overwhelmed and there is enough collective immunity to protect the clinically vulnerable). The whole point about any of this is that we cannot "just live with it" until we reach that stage and we can't reach that stage until people are vaccinated. The vaccinations you mention from the past have got us to that stage now with other diseases! Measles still exists, for example, and so does Polio, but outbreaks are very rare.

You are being hyperbolic. Losing the individual freedom to refuse a vaccine does not inevitably lead to dictatorship. And this is the problem with your argument. Maybe it might do, but it is unlikely to be this slippery slope that you imagine it to be. Vaccines have been mandated many times in the past and have not led to dictatorships! Yes, it is possible that losing one individual liberty could result in losing more, but it is, as I have said, a "might". History tells us it hasn't led to that in the past so it probably won't now. The possible threat of a dictatorship in the future (which, again, is imo hyperbolic considering historically vaccine mandates have never led to this before) is not enough to justify overwhelming the health system, allowing the vulnerable to die, and bringing doctors and nurses to their knees with exhaustion.

Of course the problems in the NHS have been propelled by chronic underfunding, but 12-hour waits for ambulances are the result of Covid, and postponed operations largely the result of the unvaxxed in this wave. Chronic underfunding is also not the sole issue - even well funded health systems around the world are unable to cope with the weight of the pandemic. Vaccines vastly reduce hospitalisations. Vaccines will relieve the pressure on the health system and save lives.

As to the objections you raise, rules have existed for certain groups to opt out of mandated vaccines in the past, and they undoubtedly would again.

Human life is precious. I repeat: the freedom to refuse a vaccine is not more important than the freedom to live.[/quote]
Thanks for your response. It’s interesting about the initial point you raise being a “theoretical” argument, long before covid I have been in a very non-theoretical situation of being denied help from the NHS for ptsd because there were not enough resources in the NHS, presumably there would have been sufficient resources in the nhs had people not been selfish enough to be obese, smoke, drunk alcohol etc etc. the NHS has been overwhelmed seasonally for years. Every year it’s hit the headlines but people appear to be forgetting this.

Yes tge erosion of individual freedoms might not lead to a dictatorship, just as mandatory vaccination might lead to the NHS not being overwhelmed but the latter is just as uncertain as the former.there’s such a backlog built up within the nhs now that was built up both before vaccination and,yes, before covid that there is probably no chance of the nhs going back to how people want it to be (it it was ever there before) as I mentioned before, treatment being curtailed through lack of resources is not something which as appeared because of unvaccinated people.

Even with mandatory vaccinations not everyone will be vaccinated. What are you going to do to those with those people? Find them? Imprison them? Hold them down and forcibly inject them?

All the problems which existed in the nhs for years have been highlighted by covid. Not to put too finer point on things, those who would potentially have been in hospital beds with flu this year have probably been greatly reduced by the deaths last year.

Although the is undoubtedly some additional pressure on the nhs, it’s become easy to say “because of covid” for so many things and blame a small group of people for the failures of a system already in collapse. People like somewhere to focus their anger.

So whilst we wait for a brain scan for my son, I’m not blaming those exercising person freedom, I’m looking at the long established failures of the system. I realise that establishing the causative effect (rather than correlative effect) of adult people being unvaccinated against a respiratory illness the availability of paediatric scanning services will be a perpetual state of “might”, “what ifs?” Society is always going to be too complicated for over simplified cause and effect. What you can do is look at historical patterns, where you have state sanctioned limitation of personal freedoms, media (and its historical counterpart, the Church) whipping up popularist scapegoating and linked ostracisation it has very rarely worked out well. This significantly leans the might into the probably.

ImmyMc · 05/12/2021 19:00

@OMG12

I said nothing about scans. I said the unvaccinated are creating definite pressures on ICU and ambulance services - that is a fact, and that is what I am talking about. I gave three specific examples - immuno-compromised people, postponement of necessary surgery because of no ICU space, and ICU doctor and nurse burnout. Those are all directly attributable to unvaccinated people - the statistics are there.

As to what you are going to do with people who refuse, well that would depend on the country and the government. In the past, people have been able to opt-out on conscionable grounds etc. so presumably that may also be the case - it would be up to the government. In Austria, I believe they are fining people. In the U.S. I believe they used to imprison people - that's a political decision, and would be up to any government that imposed the rule.

To those who are saying the smallpox mandate was only for children and the only one in the UK, I'm not sure what your point is. My point was that there have been plenty of vaccine mandates throughout history in western, developed countries and democracy didn't collapse (which is what one poster was suggesting would be the ultimate outcome of this). It's not a new thing, and I very much doubt democracy would collapse if it happened.

I actually don't have particularly strong feelings either way about mandatory vaccination, but I'm certainly not "horrified" by it as the OP is. It's neither a new thing nor a particularly shocking thing, in my opinion. I can see plenty of benefits to doing it, particularly if things continue the way they are - there needs to be a route of this, and it might get to the stage where this, along with other more draconian measures, is the only way out of it. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the case, but I guess we will all see.

As I've said before, I think that protecting the lives of the people at risk from Covid is more important than protecting the rights of the people who are anti-vaccines. While someone should have the right to object to something on, for example, conscionable grounds, that right is not more important than the right of the clinically vulnerable to life, to the general population of having a functioning ICU service, or to the ICU doctors and nurses to work a job with reasonable hours and rest.

LexMitior · 05/12/2021 19:22

I don't think we will end up with "mandatory" vaccination, but it does seem likelier that people who have not been vaccinated will be treated differently because of the risk they present; the evidence grows that this is the case, and supports a change in policy for schools, medical treatment, access to shops, bars, etc. That is what it may come down to, because there is actually not a right to access a bar or a shop but that may be up to the owner, and for public services, you could say that owing to the risk, there would be a case for treating people differently.

When it is the case that people cannot get routine health treatment, schools close or social spaces are shut because of COVID and there still being a residual non vaccinated population, then there will be pressure on the Government to act on the perceived problem.

OMG12 · 05/12/2021 19:46

I’m sorry if you have misunderstood my post, which I must admit I thought was fairly clear. To clarify, your points about those you consider to be most impacted by people not being vaccinated. This is covered in the first part of my post, as a recap, all these things were issues pre covid and in certain cases also a combination of issues built up during the first 18 months of the pandemic. ICU beds are always at a premium this time of year, in the pandemic pandemonium we seem to have forgotten that.

I raised the point about scans as a response to how I would respond to your (I must say, unnecessarily emotive) query about how I would respond in you prescribed scenarios. As you seemed concerned about less than definite views on the future consequences of actions I considered it more appropriate to comment on the nearest approximation based on my past or current experience, ie a scan.

Again to make clear, I don’t think it is the issue of a stand alone vaccine mandate that is the issue, I believe the real danger lies in the demonisation, blaming, ostracising and potentially criminalisation of a group of people exercising their personal freedoms, you speak of the fact there will be a release from a mandate where the is a “conscionable objection” herein lies the crux of the problem, the definition of this will be subjective, and who’s subjectivity should we be subject to?

I think we will have to agree on the tipping of the scales regarding individual v societal importance (although I actually believe you can’t have one without the balancing influence of the other) , but that is the beauty of individual freedom having the right to disagree without living in fear of the consequences.

Swipe left for the next trending thread