advertisement


Should there be a consequence for vaccine refusers?

Is that a way of saying - I don’t accept the right to govern as it’s not giving me what I want/expect/respect so that bit doesn’t apply to me, I’ll just go my own way and take the personal consequences but have no accountability otherwise?

If that's aimed at me, and not S P-T, I'm not sure what you're getting at.

If I can re-word it: One of the reasons that people are selfish is because they feel unsupported and so no other way of getting what they need to get on in life.

Does that explain it better?
 
I do try to recognise that some objections to the vaccine are ethical in nature, rather than simply dumb, or completely batshit.

indeed they might be and should be recognised. People have a choice. But the population needs to be protected, so restrictions should be placed on anti vaxers as a consequence of their choice.
 
Capitalism is too powerful for those benefitting to let it go though but I do hope I will see UBI in my lifetime.

I have a feeling that when the penny finally drops that there is vastly more labour available than is needed in an automated society ‘capitalism’ will grasp that the only solution is wealth redistribution as the alternative is mass overthrow, riots and structural collapse. The whole concept of ‘growth’ comes crashing down when there is no customer-base, and without anything even remotely approaching full employment that balance will start to tip. UBI should help keep things running and hopefully help otherwise unproductive people find opportunities in artisan micro-businesses etc.

The future I see coming, and have for decades now, is one of huge global giants on one hand, and countless very agile niche/bespoke arts and crafts micro-businesses on the other. It is all the stuff in between these points that will be eroded (aside from core public infrastructure). I’m kind of already living in this picture this as pfm exists symbiotically with Google, Amazon, eBay etc - they pay me well for advertising here, but don’t impede my own tiny niche marketplace at all.

PS The point I’m trying to make is I don’t see UBI as ‘anti-capitalist’ at all. Quite the reverse, I suspect it is becoming essential for capitalism to survive.
 
I agree,
no covid cert, no pub.
No covid cert, no cinema
no covid cert, no restaurant
no covid cert, no public transport
no covid cert, no entry to your workplace

As the vaccine rollout will take time and is given to groups of people in order, what happens to the people who want the vaccine, but have to wait?
More pain for the young?
 
As the vaccine rollout will take time and is given to groups of people in order, what happens to the people who want the vaccine, but have to wait?
More pain for the young?
The young have their whole lives in front of them, it would only be a short time in the scheme of things
 
No entry to workplace, being made redundant from a job you worked/ studied hard to get through no fault of your own?

Unless employers are forced to keep people employed at whatever cost...

My point is that implementing restrictions due to not having the vaccine ID card goes further than those who refuse the vaccine
 
Yet again I read confusion between those that prefer not to be given a vaccine (non-vaxers) and those who are against all vaccines (anti-vaxers) - they are very different in their thoughts.

Mrs CHE won't be taking the vaccine, as a non-vaxer, but I will, after which we will both have the same likelihood as getting infected and may (as it's yet to be determined if any vaccines help with stopping transmission) have the same chance of passing it on. Were we to be both infected then I may be the 1 in 10 that the vaccine doesn't protect and she may be asymptomatic.

Rest assured we will both continue to wear masks, socially distance, and only go out of our house when essential; the problem is those that do none of these things, whether they've been vaccinated or not.

There are some really vile people on here and not only the usual hang 'em and flog 'em brigade.

Shame on you.

Well said.

CHE
 
Yet again I read confusion between those that prefer not to be given a vaccine (non-vaxers) and those who are against all vaccines (anti-vaxers) - they are very different in their thoughts.

enlighten us to the difference?
 
FWIW I know someone on the ‘refuse’ side of the argument. She won’t use any item that has been tested on animals and to the best of her knowledge/ability to research the vaccines come under that category. It means she rejects a lot of medical technology, cosmetics etc. I can respect that as a moral perspective, even more so given she is in an age-range that is not far off the high-risk category.

PS I know Pfizer are in this category, or certainly were back in the ‘90s when I took an IT management contact with them. I knew exactly where the labs were.
 
The young have their whole lives in front of them, it would only be a short time in the scheme of things

Some don't though, do they. Every week there's another "Person hit by a Train" reported in the Local Press.

Last I read about was seventeen years of age.

A short life in the "Grand scheme of things" and no less important.
 
No entry to workplace, being made redundant from a job you worked/ studied hard to get through no fault of your own?

Unless employers are forced to keep people employed at whatever cost...

My point is that implementing restrictions due to not having the vaccine ID card goes further than those who refuse the vaccine

Very good point! A number employers cannot seem to be trusted to follow Employment Law. This might be why Trade Unions exist...
 
So the answer is allowing unprotected people back into the workplace?
Some don't though, do they. Every week there's another "Person hit by a Train" reported in the Local Press.

Last I read about was seventeen years of age.

A short life in the "Grand scheme of things" and no less important.
Well how many will die as a result of allowing un-vaccinated people back into the workplace speeding up the mutation process? There is no ideal solution to this mess other than don't play on the railway lines
 
But it misses the point entirely of obeying the rules, it advocates the horrible culture of do what you like, pick the rules you want to follow and the others are for someone else. Modern society seems to have this running through it in many different ways.

I’m all for rules Paul, but there isn’t one here, the last UK vaccination Act was 1907 (just looked it up), which suggests such a rule is rather draconian(?).

As far as I can tell, the transmission to others is the same whether you have been vaccinated or not, so all it means is that vaccinated people stand a far greater chance of living after contracting COVID than those that do not - they’re simply playing a game of chance with their lives and not, in the main, affecting others while doing so, though I realise this is possibly too simplistic a statement to make, we do not know the ramifications at present.

I’ll have the vaccine and move on, safe(r) in the knowledge if/when I get the disease that I stand a very high chance of survival.

(Only this morning, a friend down the road (he works at a large local school) says he’s not having the vaccine, simply saying he’ll take his chances. Later on in the conversation he said maybe in a couple of years he’d have it once he knew it was safe. I think he’s misguided, but, like a lot of things in life, it’s up to individuals what they do, or do not do with their lives).
 
So the answer is allowing unprotected people back into the workplace?

Well how many will die as a result of allowing un-vaccinated people back into the workplace speeding up the mutation process? There is no ideal solution to this mess other than don't play on the railway lines

What gave you the impression that I suggested allowing unprotected people back into the workplace?

Has it occurred to you that your comment re: Playing on the Railway Lines might come across as insensitive?

Unprotected people are already in the workplace. That's why I've been Campaigning tirelessly since late March to get my colleagues and myself as much protection as possible. I've written about this on here many times. Check it out.

Mental Health is also important, however you don't give me the impression that this matters to you.
 
What gave you the impression that I suggested allowing unprotected people back into the workplace?

Has it occurred to you that your comment re: Playing on the Railway Lines might come across as insensitive?

Unprotected people are already in the workplace. That's why I've been Campaigning tirelessly since late March to get my colleagues and myself as much protection as possible. I've written about this on here many times. Check it out.

Mental Health is also important, however you don't give me the impression that this matters to you.
I probably do come over as insensitive, how was that person hit by a train? Trespassing on the railway, not really a sensible thing to do, an act that probably had a greater affect on the mental health of the poor train driver who hit the person or the poor sods who had to deal with the mess, now those people I do feel sorry for. You did say hit by a train not threw them self under one
 


advertisement


Back
Top