advertisement


Should there be a consequence for vaccine refusers?

RJohan said:
What shall we do with people who drive above the speed limit?
What shall we do with people who smoke?
What shall we do with people who eat fat food?
What shall we do with people who drink to much?
What shall we do with audiophiles/audiofooles who waist a lot of money on black boxes?
Etc. etc. etc.

They are idiots, but we live in a free world with no laws against being just that.
Click to expand...
All true but are you happy to fund it?

as an analogy, two people earn the same money. One is frugal and budgets, saves and pays off their mortgage and is self sufficient for their later years. They use the social and healthcare systems when required, the safety net we all pay for. The other spends, borrows, couldn’t care, runs up debts, perhaps commits crime or tax evasion, pick your vices amidst it all.

The second person receives benefits, is housed at any time, given support through the various systems and will be paid for in later years too in a care home. And I’m not describing a vulnerable person per se, just attitude to life. The first person is entitled to much less and their home will be taken to pay for their care. It really isn’t much of an incentive to do anything except become a f£&* you snowflake and I struggle to get my head around it.

I believe Finland experimented with a system where everyone received a basic income and could live as recklessly or responsibly as they like and those who chose to study and work hard enjoy the additional fruits of their efforts. But it’s not something I have read about.

anyway a bit off plot, to the OPs question yes I think there should be consequences to a refusal.
 
It isn’t a case of “should”, it is a case of “will”. We probably need 70% of the population to be vaccinated to achieve herd immunity. Consider now travelling to a country with a lower vaccination rate, or large amounts of unvaccinated people travelling in.

We already need negative COVID-19 tests to be able to travel, the government is already talking about “immunisation passports”, so not only are you putting yourself and people around you at more risk by not vaccinating, you are losing your freedom.
 
I think people should be allowed to make their own decision, but should not be sheltered from the consequences of that decision. So if insurance companies (life, travel), travel and holiday firms, venues, etc, require evidence of current vaccination, and in some cases, employers too, then (provided they have a valid reason for the requirements) there should be no right of legal challenge to it. In other words, you shouldn’t be able to use any discrimination legislation or similar, to get round it.

If, and hopefully when, the risks of Covid recede to minimal, then this can change, but while the threat remains real, people who refuse to do their bit to mitigate the threat for society should accept that this may have personal consequences.

However, I totally reject the idea of denying them NHS treatment, or charging them for it. It’s tempting, but you just know it’d be weaponised by the Tories. It’s the thin end of a very dangerous wedge.
 
I’m all for anti-vaccers in theory, it will help vaccine supplies reach me earlier as idiots ahead refuse it! As for penalties I don’t see anything is possible without truly oppressive authoritarianism, so the only measure I’d support is if there is a shortage of NHS provision of any kind at that particular time then the people who have refused should be last in that treatment queue. Their stupidity shouldn’t be allowed to move anyone else down the queue for a ventilator etc.

I agree with Steve above, and if I was an employer I would unquestionably sack any anti-vaccers as they would be placing me, other members of the workforce, customers or their families at risk. This is just a logical business decision. You’d not employ a knife-wielding maniac, and this is a similar risk-level.
 
It's quite possible that people who have not been vaccinated will be left behind somewhat as society moves forward because they've not been vaccinated. For an organisation to require employees to be vaccinated to retain/gain employment is likely to meet legal obstacles and challenges before such a position can become legally tenable, if ever.

Fwiw, this is the BBC article on the topic of employees requiring to be vaccinated in order to gain/retain employment that led me to realise I had an ethical objection to being vaccinated.
 
windhoek said:
It's quite possible that people who have not been vaccinated will be left behind somewhat as society moves forward because they've not been vaccinated. For an organisation to require employees to be vaccinated to retain/gain employment is likely to meet legal obstacles and challenges before such a position can become legally tenable, if ever.
Click to expand...
Let’s say you run a business which deals with vulnerable people. A care home, perhaps. Or your staff meet vast quantities of people on a daily basis. Unvaccinated staff pose a risk to those people, which might create a liability on you, the employer. If you’re vulnerable to being sued by somebody who can show they got Covid from your establishment, your best defence is that you took all reasonable steps to minimise the risk, and can’t be held liable for the residual risk. So a requirement for a vaccination certificate for relevant staff could be part of that, in the same way that a requirement for proof of a moving and handling course, or a fork lift driver’s certificate, is necessary for warehouse staff, say. It’s just basic business practice.
 
Last edited:
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
Let’s say you run a business, which deals with vulnerable people. Or vast quantities of people on a daily basis. Unvaccinated staff pose a risk to those people, which might create a liability on you, the employer. If you’re vulnerable to being sued by somebody who can show the got Covid from your establishment, your best defence is that you took all reasonable steps to minimise the risk, and can’t be held liable for the residual risk. So a requirement for a vaccination certificate for relevant staff could be part of that, in the same way that a requirement for proof of a moving and handling course, or a fork lift driver’s certificate, is necessary for warehouse staff, say. It’s just basic business practice.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't presume to know; that's an issue for people who know about employment law and H&S at work.
 
Cav said:
There are some really vile people on here and not only the usual hang 'em and flog 'em brigade.

Why stop with covid? Lets round up all those who refuse any vaccine; all the morbidly obese who, through their gluttony, put unreasonable demands on the NHS; all addicts - drug users, smokers, alcohol abusers (i.e. everyone who drinks more than the NHS guidelines); those who selfishly engage in extreme sports. Refuse them all treatment, let them die; or kill them because they are worthless.

Then you can look for others that do not meet the high standards you clearly adhere too.

Shame on you.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking similar thoughts, actually. What is even more concerning is use of expressions such as "For the good of society".

What kind of society do these guys believe in?

And as I've mentioned many times, I've campaigned tirelessly for Covid-19 Secure where I work and also believe that high risk occupations such as mine...


...must be offered vaccination. If people choose to accept- and the majority of my mates will, that's cool. If not, that's their choice.
 
We all have a choice, the way I see it is we can either have lockdowns, vaccines or accelerated virus mutations causing continued sickness and death
 
Safety, it seem to me, is only ever achieved by restricting freedom. If so, then what attitude should be taken to the right balance between the two?

I support preserving as much as individual and societal freedom as possible within the boundary of reasonable risk (and reasonable cost). And to me "reasonable" is definitely not approaching zero. YMMV.

I disagree with most forms of anti-vaccination argument - on the basis that the individual risk from vaccination seems to be minimal for a lot of benefit. However I still would not restrict that freedom unnecessarily, unless the risk to others (and cost) becomes unreasonable. I'm not sure where that point lies either societally or in particular situations. But I would expect there to be some consequences in particular situations first before considering wider restrictions.
 
And yet you are not allowed into most countries if you are travelling from a country which has a Yellow Fever outbreak and you fo not have a valid Yellow Fever certificate. Could be a way forward.
 
Sue Pertwee-Tyr said:
However, I totally reject the idea of denying them NHS treatment, or charging them for it. It’s tempting, but you just know it’d be weaponised by the Tories. It’s the thin end of a very dangerous wedge.
Click to expand...
That's a really fgair point Steve and I'm sure you're right. The answer of course is to fix that source issue rather than compromise because a group will corrupt it. But, beyond us to solve in reality.
 
The truly guilty are those who promote wacko ideas about Bill Gates, Big Pharma, Uncle Tom Cobley and all having a cunning plan to control us all through vaccination.
 
windhoek said:
As for me, I'll be giving the vaccines a miss altogether on ethical grounds as they're not vegan-friendly. There may well be consequences for me in that I might catch covid, if I haven't already done so, and die forthwith; I might even get off with long-term ill-health in the form of long-covid. But should I be deliberately disadvantaged and/or actively penalised by choosing not to be vaccinated on ethical grounds?
Click to expand...

But should you catch it, and spread it among people vaccinated. But as we all know vaccines don't work in all people, and your infection kills them.

The greater good of protecting the wider population outways the protection of an individual.
 
Paul L said:
All true but are you happy to fund it?

as an analogy, two people earn the same money. One is frugal and budgets, saves and pays off their mortgage and is self sufficient for their later years. They use the social and healthcare systems when required, the safety net we all pay for. The other spends, borrows, couldn’t care, runs up debts, perhaps commits crime or tax evasion, pick your vices amidst it all.

The second person receives benefits, is housed at any time, given support through the various systems and will be paid for in later years too in a care home. And I’m not describing a vulnerable person per se, just attitude to life. The first person is entitled to much less and their home will be taken to pay for their care. It really isn’t much of an incentive to do anything except become a f£&* you snowflake and I struggle to get my head around it.

I believe Finland experimented with a system where everyone received a basic income and could live as recklessly or responsibly as they like and those who chose to study and work hard enjoy the additional fruits of their efforts. But it’s not something I have read about.

anyway a bit off plot, to the OPs question yes I think there should be consequences to a refusal.
Click to expand...
In a word, yes.

Some (limited) “abuse” of the system is the price we pay for civilisation.

anything else is the road to barbarism.
 
If you fly to some countries in Africa, you can’t pass immigration until you show a Yellow Fever vaccination certificate . I think a similar approach should be used for Covid vaccination.
 
andrewd said:
If you fly to some countries in Africa, you can’t pass immigration until you show a Yellow Fever vaccination certificate . I think a similar approach should be used for Covid vaccination.
Click to expand...


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
 
windhoek said:
I became vegan last year during the lockdown and although I started out on the food front, I've now realised that it goes beyond food, as you illustrate. Becoming a vegan is a process it seems just as much it is a decision.
Click to expand...

So at the moment it's a process so you are not
100% vegan.I think then the lesser evil is for you
to accept the vaccine.If not you are potentially
endangering the lives of those(human animals)
who may be required to treat you.
 
There are already personal consequences for those choosing not to have a vaccination; a very much increased risk of dying a terrible death, fighting for the last gasp of breath.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top