Poll on compulsory covid vaccination in 2021-2023

[lljkk]

I don't know what real policy will be, I just wondered about gauging the range of views of readers on this board (chance for lurkers to reply). I will summarise replies if more than 20. Which of the below policies is closest to your own preference, about what the covid vaccination policy should be, for UK adults in 2021-2023?

1. Optional for everyone, not required by any employer or for customers of a business to show evidence or "reasonable excuse" not to have had it

2. Not compulsory for all, but health and social care employers can legally require the jab for staff who work with any clinically vulnerable; refusal would be permitted grounds for dismissal if jab not medically contra-indicated

3. Not compulsory for all, but any employers allowed to require the jab for staff (refusal would be permitted grounds for dismissal); businesses allowed to require jab among customers, thus no jab = legally refuse service

4. Compulsory for all adults without medical contra-indications

Of course it isn’t a choice if the alternative is losing your job!

A vaccine is hardly ‘medical intervention’

You talk about it like it’s a life altering operation.

When the ‘greater good’ means no one dies from an illness I’m fine with that.

A vaccine is hardly ‘medical intervention’

Of course it is. It is putting something into someone’s body. You need consent for that.

@AgnesNaismith

A vaccine is hardly ‘medical intervention’

You talk about it like it’s a life altering operation.

When the ‘greater good’ means no one dies from an illness I’m fine with that.

A vaccine is medical intervention based on the following definition:

www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/medical-intervention

That doesn't mean it's a bad thing, but it is a medical intervention.

I think 2 is reasonable- there are already jobs that require vaccines (my friend works in a lab studying viruses in agriculture and has quite a list he has to have) and it’s not led to a slippery slope to naziism. I do think it should be limited to roles where there’s a particular need though, like working with infectious diseases in research or providing care to vulnerable people.

I suppose my reasoning is that these jobs make up a sufficiently small part of the job market that it doesn’t create much economic duress. And as I said, the fact that this is the status quo and seems to work fine.

You not only need consent, you need informed consent - which means having all the information before you agree to it. Again, this is a good thing.

1
Anything else is an outrage. We are not living in a dictatorship - we are free. I say this as someone who would bite your hand off to receive any of the various vaccinations. But to force people? Absolutely not. Losing autonomy over one’s body!!!! How quickly we slip into communism. I mean, there’d be outrage if we banned abortion, unless it was needed on medical grounds. We have control of our bodies - it’s shocking that anyone would consider removing it.

@littlepeas

But what is the right to safety? Where do you draw the line? It is not possible to make life 100% safe.

Enforcing a vaccine (and option 3 is force because the other choice is potentially destitution) is a slippery slope. Letting people in power dictate something like this is dangerous and sets a precedent.

But the currently enforced government policies to supposedly control the virus have caused destitution. Why is that OK?

[quote bumbleymummy]@Viviennemary if the ‘choice’ is to lose your job and therefore your house/any financial security, is it really a choice? It’s not the same as deciding to book a holiday to a different destination instead.[/quote]
Agreed. It's essentially making it compulsory but giving the illusion that you are still receiving it voluntarily.

@ekidmxcl

1 Anything else is an outrage. We are not living in a dictatorship - we are free. I say this as someone who would bite your hand off to receive any of the various vaccinations. But to force people? Absolutely not. Losing autonomy over one’s body!!!! How quickly we slip into communism. I mean, there’d be outrage if we banned abortion, unless it was needed on medical grounds. We have control of our bodies - it’s shocking that anyone would consider removing it.

We are free - really?

Ok, I’ll just pop round to my mum’s for a coffee, head off to the cinema, afterwards a wee bite to eat in a restaurant...except I can’t do any of those things, and this has been enforced on me against my will and without my consent. Not looking very “free” from where I am standing.

So hard isn't it. The more unvaccinated people there are the more chance there is of a mutation and everyone else being more at risk

Workers in hospitality, travel, entertainment etc etc have a right to be protected form irresponsible customers of the businesses they work for and employers in these sectors have a duty of care to the safety of their employees.

No jab, no admissions.

4

@TravellingTilbury

You not only need consent, you need informed consent - which means having all the information before you agree to it. Again, this is a good thing.

Agreed. Anything medical needs to be informed consent.

@KriekAndWaffle none of these things are the same as consenting to a medical vaccination. Something that may have (the chance may be tiny, but it's still a risk) side effects. Vaccines or any other medical procedure needs to be done with informed consent.

Once restrictions are lifted you are free to go to the cinema/restaurant/meet friends etc as often as you want. If you have a reaction to a vaccine it may cause long term issues.

Comparing medical procedures to going to the cinema etc is just ludicrous

@KriekAndWaffle I think you’ve misunderstood my post. I wasn’t suggesting we continue to lockdown instead of enforcing the vaccine. I am of the view that we should unlock as soon as we feasibly can once the vulnerable are vaccinated and then we all just manage our personal risk, like we do with every other risk we face during our lives.

As others have said, we already have 2 and 3 as some professions eg medical doctors require certain vaccines as does travel to some countries, so yes to 2 and 3 to keep us safe and allow our lives to return to normal if 1 is not enough. If 1-3 is not enough due to threat of mutations etc, and it was a choice between a small minority being required by law to have a vaccine or the majority of us being forbidden in law from enjoying a cup of tea with our parents/children in their homes for any longer than is necessary, I'm afraid I would choose the latter. Forced vaccinations would be grim but then so too is potentially being physically removed from your parents/child's house by police for simply being in their house to spend some time with them. A reality unthinkable just a year ago. Both compromise autonomy over our own bodies. Hopefully it won't come to that though!🤞🤞🤞

@CarlottaValdez

I think 2 is reasonable- there are already jobs that require vaccines (my friend works in a lab studying viruses in agriculture and has quite a list he has to have) and it’s not led to a slippery slope to naziism. I do think it should be limited to roles where there’s a particular need though, like working with infectious diseases in research or providing care to vulnerable people.

I suppose my reasoning is that these jobs make up a sufficiently small part of the job market that it doesn’t create much economic duress. And as I said, the fact that this is the status quo and seems to work fine.

I ageee that 2 is reasonable but where do you draw the line with ‘jobs with a particular need’ though? For example, if you work in a school where some CEV children attend ought staff to be vaccinated?

1

The right to bodily autonomy should remain sacrosanct otherwise we are on a slippery slope.

When the ‘greater good’ means no one dies from an illness I’m fine with that

You sure about that? Where'd you draw the line? So forcing vaccines is OK (largely for the benefit of others, you understand, because most young and healthy won't die from it, and despite the fact that some people will react badly to the vaccine). What about forcibly amputating the breasts of people with genes that make them susceptible to breast cancer? No one dies from a mastectomy, and any psychological trauma suffered by being forced through a medical intervention is clearly unimportant. The greater good- stops them dying from breast cancer. What about people carrying genes that may cause illness in their offspring? Shall we test and sterilise? No one dies from being sterilised, and it'll prevent thousands of deaths by preventing conceptions that might result in people with disabilities or illnesses.

Sounds extreme, but the greater good argument has been used in the past to justify eugenics and force medical testing on prisoners, minorities and slaves. The slippery slope is real and should not be willfully ignored because you want to visit a café with your mum.

In an ideal world I would say 1 without hesitation. The problem is the shocking volume of anti-vax information out there and the strength of the anti-vax movement. If everyone had access only to accurate information and could make an informed choice on that basis I think the amount of refusers would be lower than it will be in reality.

I think part of the picture being overlooked is not just the risk of unvaccinated HCPs / those working in social care etc to service users, but also the impact on services when many staff are unvaccinated and therefore risk being infected. If a large proportion of maternity or A&E etc staff contract COVID at the same time, as has been happening in the last couple of months, the service can’t operate.

I don’t think companies should be able to fire anyone for being unvaccinated but they may need to reconsider roles and duties.

I think businesses should be able to refuse custom to unvaccinated people as they need to consider the safety of staff and other customers. I have a feeling most businesses won’t though as it will affect their bottom line but can understand in some businesses it will be more important than others (eg cinemas, theatres, gyms, anywhere enclosed where people are in close contact for a prolonged period).

I have to say 1, like others, it’s all that feels sensible and reasonable. Although I do think that with other vaccines, there is a debate to be had, around whether a child unvaccinated for measles for example, should be allowed into childcare and other settings where kids could be vulnerable. Ie choice, but you don’t get to put other kids at risk.

So I also think there could be some roles where it may be life threatening, like care homes, that covid vaccine could be required.

That feels fair to me, I’d want to hear all sides first, but maybe means I’m more of a 2 now I say that all.

3 if combined a properly administrated exemption system for those who can't have the vaccine, who shouldn't be excluded from recieving services, and shouldn't have their employment threatened (but shouldn't have an employment working with vulnerable people and should be supported to change jobs if currently employed in such a capacity.

If that isn't practical then 2 acceptable.

1

Coming from someone who felt bullied into having the vaccine ‘for the good of others’ if I got CoVid I would get very ill-doesn’t mean I wanted the vaccine. I’m shielded btw

Telling people it’s mandatory would be abhorrent

1