Forcing vaccination

[Peaceiseveryrhing]

Just read this on the Beeb

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-55718553

Personally, I think it's outrageous that employees may insist on vaccination and airlines preventing travel.

A communistic approach!

I was under the impression airlines were private companies and could refuse travel on reasonable grounds. I know people have been refused for not dressing appropriately or swearing. I assume they can make their own reasons for refusing entry onto a plane.

@Sewsosew

I was under the impression airlines were private companies and could refuse travel on reasonable grounds. I know people have been refused for not dressing appropriately or swearing. I assume they can make their own reasons for refusing entry onto a plane.

Not if it discriminates, directly or indirectly on the grounds of a protected characteristic.

"But I don't wanna because I read something in some tabloid" is a bullshit claim🙄

I think it's a great idea. I don't want to sit next to someone on a plane/theatre who isn't vaccinated and I don't want my children or mum to either.

It’s happening already we are being asked at work why if we choose not to take up the offer of being vaccinated (mh, nhs)

It will impact those who choose not to who are Healthcare bank workers and those studying

It’s down to other countries to not allow in people who are not vaccinated.

It’s our choice to take up vaccinations (apart from a very few) if you choose not to then you will be restricted in some areas of work and travel

A good recent example of indirect discrimination is that of schools having blanket policies on girls’ hairstyles.

These hairstyles are often not achievable for girls with Afro hair, and therefore the policy was found to indirectly discriminate on the grounds of race.

Obviously hairstyles are not in and of themselves a protected characteristic, but does that explain how a seemingly innocent (sensible even) policy can be discriminatory?

@SchrodingersImmigrant

"But I don't wanna because I read something in some tabloid" is a bullshit claim🙄

Where has anyone said that?

So what protected characteristic does ' credulously swallowing a load of anti-vaxxer guff what I read somewhere on the internet' impinge upon?

Indirect discrimination can sometimes be lawful. The Equality Act says it’s not indirect discrimination if the person applying the practice, policy or rule, can show there’s a good enough reason for it

I think trying to prevent the spread of a deadly virus is a good enough reason here.

The issue is, how would you prove that, when a lot of religious views could also be described as such (Not by me, I hasten to add)

How do you sort the wheat from the chaff here, without holding some variant of the Spanish Inquisition?

We really can’t go down the path of putting all religious people on some sort of trial to see how valid their beliefs are, surely you can see that?

@TrufflyPig

Indirect discrimination can sometimes be lawful. The Equality Act says it’s not indirect discrimination if the person applying the practice, policy or rule, can show there’s a good enough reason for it

I think trying to prevent the spread of a deadly virus is a good enough reason here.

Yes, you might think that, but others will disagree with you.

Yes, you might think that, but others will disagree with you

It's not me or you that need to be convinced, it's the civil courts where some people will try luck with a discrimination case. I'd like to hope they'd see protecting pubic health as a much more pressing concern than the anti-vaxxers feelings.

I'd like to hope they'd see protecting pubic health as a much more pressing concern than the anti-vaxxers feelings.

That’s not a decision the courts are empowered to make. They’re not asked moral questions but legal ones. And law emanates from Parliament. This is a democracy.

@TrufflyPig

Indirect discrimination can sometimes be lawful. The Equality Act says it’s not indirect discrimination if the person applying the practice, policy or rule, can show there’s a good enough reason for it

I think trying to prevent the spread of a deadly virus is a good enough reason here.

It doesn't really hold. Influenza is a "deadly virus" in that it kills tens of thousands of people in the UK each year. Vaccination programs exist and are targeted towards at-risk groups. No-one is barred from participating in society for choosing not to get the flu vaccine. You would need a "good enough reason" that would not also apply to flu.

Surely the businesses has a duty under health and safety laws to protect their employees and customers, by enforcing vaccination they are doing exactly this.

This is why the civil court exists, the law isn't always clear cut and conflicting legislation exists.

No-one is barred from participating in society for choosing not to get the flu vaccine.

Covid is not the same as flu. You know that though surely.

Surely the businesses has a duty under health and safety laws to protect their employees and customers, by enforcing vaccination they are doing exactly this.

One: not by coercing people to accept medical treatments (end doesn’t always justify means). Two: they’re not qualified to do that.

I'd like to know what the alternative your proposing is OP? Everyone just takes their chances? How long until you will decide it's safe? I'm not trying to be inflammatory, I'm genuinely asking.

Do you want everything to just reopen, which could allow covid to burn through the population for the next 10 years, killing millions? Or do you want everyone to remain in a state of semi lockdown for the next 10 years? And in 10 years will people still not want the vaccine because they don't know the effects (if any) at 20 years?

Yes, everyone is taking a calculated risk by getting a new vaccine. However the vaccine has been tweaked from other, longer term vaccines and the science we have today shows that it is very low risk compared to the very high risk of getting covid. Can we say it 100% safe - well no. But nothing in life is 100% safe. Is it ideal taking a new vaccine, well no and there is a small part of me that feels uneasy about it. But by allowing everyone else to have the vaccine and my sitting out, that would be allowing everyone else to take the risk and hope I get to enjoy the benefit of that. It's not fair. So I will take my small part of the collective risk because I cannot see a future where we continue to isolate for the next few years, or sacrifice millions to the raging virus.

I think what people like OP want is for everyone else to assume the risk so they can reap the benefits.

Until very recently gay men were banned from giving blood On the basis they could be a risk to the health of others.

People who have been to certain countries within the past 12 months are banned from giving blood on the basis they are a risk to public health. So if you’re gay or of a different race who has recently moved here, then you can be discriminated against on those grounds.

Therefore it’s perfectly reasonable to ban anyone from doing business with your company if they haven’t had the vaccine. The possible exception would be if there were proveable medical reasons why they couldn’t.

Religion isn’t nor should it be an excuse. Plenty of religious schools don’t accept non religious pupils, so it works the same way the other way around.

If you refuse the vaccine on religious grounds then it’s based on an opinion or belief, not a fact.

If you refuse the vaccine on religious grounds then it’s based on an opinion or belief, not a fact.

But it is still protected by law. Your facts don’t trump their beliefs in all circumstances. Look it up.

@Arobase

Also, the pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued against if people report side effects and long term damage.

Where do you get that from?

The vaccine is approved but classed as experimental. You get vaccinated you are enrolling in a mass clinical trial. Normally people get paid a few hundred quid or more to be tested on but here you willing sign up because you are desperate. You cannot use a company for participating in an experimental trial. Do you think the government is going to announce this at daily briefings? ' by the way you have no recourse to damages'?. The information on this is everywhere.

I've seen people say that 'forced' vaccinations are illegal and if it is to do with employment then it could be seen as cohesion but I'm pretty sure dh doesn't get a choice on whether he has them or not? (For the vast majority)

Whether it’s the law or not doesn’t alter the facts.

It’s a fact that if you have a religious belief it is a belief only and not a proven fact.

It is a fact that if you refuse the vaccine on the basis that “god will look after me,” and you contract COVID and pass it to someone who cannot have the vaccine for genuine reasons and they die then you are responsible for their death.

But hey, hallelujah praise the lord!!!!”