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!

Every single person in the history of the world has either died or is going to die. That’s not a reason for introducing seatbelt laws, or speed limits on the roads, or drink driving laws....

That doesn’t follow. I agree that some laws are proportionate, but others aren’t. Removing people’s medical autonomy isn’t.

I truly believe unless there is a genuine confirmed medical reason you can't be jabbed (for all vaccines not just COVID) you should be jabbed.

@AlternativePerspective

Everyone should have a choice and they should not have restrictions put in place if they don’t have it A private business has the right to refuse anyone for any reason other than e.g. protected characteristics.

Plenty of bars/restaurants/other venues have dress codes for instance. If you choose not to adhere to that dress code, then you don’t come in. It’s as simple as that.

This is no different. If you choose not to be vaccinated against COVID, then you don’t come in. So you have a choice. You either get a COVID vaccination, or you don’t go to ticketmaster events or fly abroad.

And if other countries ban non vaccinated people then the airlines here should do the same in order to be held responsible for bringing those people home when they’re refused entry.

There is a massive difference between having to adhere to a dress code to gain access to a club, and undergoing a medical procedure to gain access to a concert. Ticketmaster have to right to ask or know about anything medical I have or have not undergone.

I truly believe unless there is a genuine confirmed medical reason you can't be jabbed (for all vaccines not just COVID) you should be jabbed.

Forcibly? With an experimental vaccine? Are you willing to take personal responsibility for any damage? Prison okay with you?

If I am honest I am not sure whats the point of this if it doesnt stop people contracting it and passing it on.

I would understand if it stopped people harming or putting others at risk, but as it doesnt, surely its the individuals own risk.

FWIW I have had the first jab as soon as it came out as I work in healthcare. I have had a mild but persistent allergic reaction which has finally gone 6 weeks later. I do not feel at risk myself and I am considering not getting any more jabs. Not an anti vaxxer as I had it straight away. I just dont feel I need it and I dont want another reaction.

So its OK to judge others before you have even had it. But I did and it didnt sit well with me and now I am much more sympathetic that there will be people who have reasonable concern for not having another.

The only reason why people can have these discussions is because most of us vaccinate and are vaccinated. If all of us decided not to, people wouldn't benefit from protective umbrella and we would have more dead than anyone can imagine. Makes you wonder if we still would have people doing "but I don't wanna" if vaccinations were offered after.

Every single person in the history of the world has either died or is going to die. It’s very sad. It is not a reason not to recognise the rights of the living

You may have noticed that as a society, we actively try to stop people dying. And we make many many laws to do so. The living have responsibilites and obligations as well as rights, and they must be balanced.
It's isn't all about your rights. If you don't care about your responsibilities, don't expect anyoine to care about your rights.,

I would understand if it stopped people harming or putting others at risk, but as it doesnt

Can people stop repeating this. IT's highly likely it DOES stop you passing it on, or at least severely reduces the chance, we just don't know for sure yet.

Christ people are being melodramatic about this.

There are plenty of places in the world where you should not or cannot travel to without having vaccines. This is no different.

It's not proven to what extent vaccination decreases transmission but as a Professor Van Tam said in the daily press conference that common sense would dictate that there would be a decrease but it's not known to what extent.

Businesses will want (and probably be required by their insurers) to reduce the chances of Covid-19 shutting down their business for a deep clean. That might mean vaccination certificates for crowded events like gigs or restricting numbers.

People who can't be vaccinated (or aren't vaccinated temporarily because of reasons like pregnancy) need protection. I don't know if they could sue for catching Covid-19 especially if there's catastrophic effects to their health but this might be part of the insurer's concern.

I think that it's perfectly acceptable to need a certificate of vaccination or exemption for an event like a gig or airline travel. Needing one for entry to a shopping centre seems draconian as essential businesses are often located there but it's probably easier to have the certificate rule rather than queues to get in as there's often multiple entry points that would need dozens of people to police which would be a nightmare that affected footfall in the shopping centre.

"If I am honest I am not sure whats the point of this if it doesnt stop people contracting it and passing it on. "

The vaccines DO prevent transmission, we just haven't fully studied by how much. People need to stop repeating this utter falsehood.

Hardcoresoftie..

I believe that vaccines designed from abortion are morally compromised because you cant defend the principle of life in one area and destroy it in another.

I presume you are talking about the replicated cell lines taken from a foetus aborted in 1973 - used for the Astra Zeneca /Oxford vaccine. ? Which does not actually use foetal cells. ? The same one that the Pope /Vatican have cleared for catholics to use ?
That in fact NO vaccines use cells from aborted foetuses.. Pfizer and Moderna don't even use replicated cells ... but hey - don't let facts get in your way .

It's this kind of 'let's just put that out there comment' that is designed to upset people. Which is really really unhelpful and dangerous to public health.

Believing in God and believing in Scientific fact are not mutually exclusive. I am a Quaker. I have an unshakable faith in God. It's a faith. A belief. Something that cannot be backed up by fact. I believe because I believe. Simple as that.

However I am able to separate belief from fact. Vaccination against a virus in a pandemic that has already killed 100k really is essential. Whilst those who can't have it for medical reasons need the rest of us to have it , in order to protect them.

Those who refuse to act in the public interest need to suffer the consequences of that decision. There needs to be a sanction for society to show its disapproval of such selfish behaviour. That can take many forms . Be it refusal to allow on planes. For children to attend school, for refusal to allow certain employment.

The sanctions need to be directly related to the refusal (public health) rather than purely punitive or they will be regarded as an attack on your 'beliefs' rather than a threat to public health. Which is what it is.

You may have noticed that as a society, we actively try to stop people dying.

Not at the cost of people’s medical autonomy, we don’t. We don’t force blood donation. We don’t demand organ transplants or bone marrow. We respect bodily autonomy, because the alternative is monstrous.

@AStudyinPink

Sorry you are getting such a hard time over this. I'm with you.

@AStudyinPink

You may have noticed that as a society, we actively try to stop people dying.

Not at the cost of people’s medical autonomy, we don’t. We don’t force blood donation. We don’t demand organ transplants or bone marrow. We respect bodily autonomy, because the alternative is monstrous.

Mandating vaccinations for travel or for certain events is not removing your medical autonomy. If you were being strapped down and forceably injected you would have a point.

But you aren't, and you don't.

Living in and enjoying the benefits of society means accepting certain responsibilities. You are free to opt-out and no enjoy the benefits if you can't accept the responsibilties.

@TrufflyPig

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.

It's not the same because we have decades of living aside influenza and an annual vaccination program which is not mandatory and targeted at at-risk groups. In the period from August to January, about 1/3rd of people died of influenza as compared to covid (according to the ONS). Influenza is not as benign as people think, it's just that most people aren't at risk of dying from it. They are obviously different, but they are definitely comparable. Influenza is probably the best model we have in regards to how we will live alongside covid in the future.

NiceLegsShameAboutTheFace

Thank you!

UrAWizHarry

You are simply wrong. States do have a right to require vaccinations before entry. They don’t have our laws. But our citizens have the right to medical autonomy and privacy, by law. Refusing them service or basic amenities unless they have accepted a medical service isn’t going to pass the test of legality. Wait and see. There is a big difference between what you would like to be the law and the law.

I’m with you too study-

I’m astonished at the people who think essentially mandatory vaccines are ok. This is mind blowing with huge implications

My mum has previously had an adverse reaction to a vaccine and is understandably nervous. She has been advised to get it as it will probably be ok but if she declines we are saying she should he opted out of society?!

MN is an awful place right now

Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

Thank you. It is.

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

But allowing unvaccinated people to use your enclosed venue or transport system could also be said to discriminate on the grounds of protected characteristics, as it may mean that elderly and/or disabled people have either to take significant risks with their lives, or avoid these venues/ activities/ travel. So that they are likely to experience the restrictions instead of the unvaccinated people. Age and disability are protected characteristics.

And few religions prohibit vaccination.

@Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

I’m with you too study-

I’m astonished at the people who think essentially mandatory vaccines are ok. This is mind blowing with huge implications

My mum has previously had an adverse reaction to a vaccine and is understandably nervous. She has been advised to get it as it will probably be ok but if she declines we are saying she should he opted out of society?!

MN is an awful place right now

I agree. It’s completely authoritarian amongst screams of ‘why are YOU more important that MEEEE!!!!’

It’s really scary how people demand complete compliance and if you don’t your scum.

@AStudyinPink

UrAWizHarry

You are simply wrong. States do have a right to require vaccinations before entry. They don’t have our laws. But our citizens have the right to medical autonomy and privacy, by law. Refusing them service or basic amenities unless they have accepted a medical service isn’t going to pass the test of legality. Wait and see. There is a big difference between what you would like to be the law and the law.

I don't really give a shit about the legal position. My argument is purely moral. Travel and mass sporting are hardly 'basic amenities'. They are luxuries, and if fuckwits believe all the shit about bill gates or whatever they can stay the fuck away from places where they might infect people.

@Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

I’m with you too study-

I’m astonished at the people who think essentially mandatory vaccines are ok. This is mind blowing with huge implications

My mum has previously had an adverse reaction to a vaccine and is understandably nervous. She has been advised to get it as it will probably be ok but if she declines we are saying she should he opted out of society?!

MN is an awful place right now

Once again, requiring a vaccine for certain OPTIONAL activities is not making the vaccine mandatory.

MN is an awful place right now

The tone is absolutely horrible, isn't it? No allowence for any doubts, fears, nuanced discussion at all, and the tone of some of the posts is genuinely disturbing.