Coronavirus

[FindernRam]

1 hour ago, Mucker1884 said:

I did see Saga too were going to insist on proof you have had the vaccine before they will allow you to travel with them.

My jab is Saturday-Do you get some sort of certificate?

[Archied]

1 hour ago, sage said:

I haven't talked about people paying for treatment.

Here is a list of occupations and tell me if a vaccine should be compulsory (when available) to carry on doing that job.

Doctor 

Nurse

Paramedic

Dentist

Police Officer

Teacher 

Social Worker

Bus Driver 

Train Conductor

Care Home Worker 

 

Would you be happy if one of these people were interacting with you or your family having refused a vaccine?

Now it's a difficult subject but so is a 100,000 deaths.

 

Really depends if your saying those people should be being forced to work   Whilst they are not vaccinated 

[JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta]

I accept that people have a right to refuse to be vaccinated. The people that refuse to be vaccinated also have to accept that this decision might mean that businesses have the right to refuse them entry or service as a result.

Just because people have a right to refuse vaccination doesn't mean that choice is totally free from consequence. It is inevitable (at least in my mind) that there will be stories coming out when we start to open up of people complaining about not being allowed to do certain things because they refused to be vaccinated.

[Archied]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

Really sorry to hear about your child, can't imagine what that was like.

I'd also be scared if my family were all out at work over the last month. When my kids were at school until Xmas I was starting to assume we'd all get Covid like many other parents I knew.

I'm struggling to understand your fears of Covid though vs many of your posts on the subject. You seem to resent any restrictions on your freedom and imply the government are acting in a sinister way, when they clearly are trying to prevent the spread of a disease you are rightly scared of?

By reducing the spread of Covid, this will especially help families like yours who have to work from catching it.

Hope you all keep safe and things get back to normal soon.

 

Of course I have a fear of the virus but I also have a fear of a lot of other stuff going on because of policies around it and the issues they create and I have a great fear of any debate about the whole picture being stopped and people who don’t follow the official line being vilified,

it’s wrong and dangerous 

[GboroRam]

It's a tough one. I think any efforts to prevent people from doing normal things (like get hospital treatment, or visit a GP or dentist) if they haven't had the vaccine would have a negative effect. The objections would cause so much negative press and scepticism that it'd do more harm than good. There's already some perceptions that the vaccine is being foisted on everyone for nefarious purposes so that'd just get the conspiracy theorists working overtime.

I think it has to remain optional, but we've got some honest discussions to have to try to win over those people not convinced. For example I think it needs to be said, vaccines are not zero risk. The risk is incredibly small but it is true that there are people who get sick from having this injection. There's far bigger risk in not having it though, so you weigh it up. We need to have that conversation, backed with real science.

Personally I'm looking forward to booking a holiday some time, and flaunting it on Facebook where my stepdaughter will see it. She's very anti-vaccine, but at the same time is very anti-lockdown. I'm looking forward to showing that if you want to return to normal, there's an obvious tool that might just get us there.

[Stive Pesley]

16 hours ago, Mucker1884 said:

As tragic as this outcome is... and there's no getting away from the fact that it is truly tragic... Nobody had to follow, or accept, the Christmas relaxation idea.  We were not told we must go and visit relatives.  Nobody... not even Boris himself... said it would be safe to go and spend 2 hours indoors, with elderly relatives.  

Anyone who thought that covid would lie low for 24 hours is nothing short of being a fool.  Visiting someone on Christmas Day carried the same risks as the week before, and the week after.

What Boris actually did, was warn of us of the dangers, but for 24 hours, allowed us all to make our own decisions... some continue to live by those decisions, some have died from those decisions... and some are left to survive alone, seemingly putting the blame squarely at the government's feet.  Wrongly, in my opinion.

I see your point - it was the individual's choice to assess their own risk - which is really what the anti-lockdown types are suggesting. It's a nice idea, but Christmas really proved that some people are bad at assessing their own risk, and their decisions have much further reaching consequences than just themselves

Whether the government should take the blame? Well I would say Boris was quite happy to take the plaudits for "saving christmas" when he announced the original 5 day amnesty. He set that expectation in people's minds, only to later backtrack and warn of the dangers when it became apparent how monumentally risky that strategy was. I know where history will lay the blame

 

 

[G STAR RAM]

30 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I see your point - it was the individual's choice to assess their own risk - which is really what the anti-lockdown types are suggesting. It's a nice idea, but Christmas really proved that some people are bad at assessing their own risk, and their decisions have much further reaching consequences than just themselves

Whether the government should take the blame? Well I would say Boris was quite happy to take the plaudits for "saving christmas" when he announced the original 5 day amnesty. He set that expectation in people's minds, only to later backtrack and warn of the dangers when it became apparent how monumentally risky that strategy was. I know where history will lay the blame

Keogh?

[Gaspode]

42 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

I see your point - it was the individual's choice to assess their own risk - which is really what the anti-lockdown types are suggesting. It's a nice idea, but Christmas really proved that some people are bad at assessing their own risk, and their decisions have much further reaching consequences than just themselves

Whether the government should take the blame? Well I would say Boris was quite happy to take the plaudits for "saving christmas" when he announced the original 5 day amnesty. He set that expectation in people's minds, only to later backtrack and warn of the dangers when it became apparent how monumentally risky that strategy was. I know where history will lay the blame

 

 

Can you imagine the chaos if they'd announced Chrismas was cancelled? - half the country would have said 'sod that - he can't stop us having Christmas' and they'd have been mixing and partying from Christmas Eve until New Years day - the after effects would have been even more horrific.

As it was, they reduced it down to one day but advised people to avoid meeting up if possible. Some folk decided to still take the risk and unfortunately are paying for the consequences of their decision....it was literally a no-win situation for the government whatever decision was taken....

[Stive Pesley]

8 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

Can you imagine the chaos if they'd announced Chrismas was cancelled? - half the country would have said 'sod that - he can't stop us having Christmas' and they'd have been mixing and partying from Christmas Eve until New Years day - the after effects would have been even more horrific.

As it was, they reduced it down to one day but advised people to avoid meeting up if possible. Some folk decided to still take the risk and unfortunately are paying for the consequences of their decision....it was literally a no-win situation for the government whatever decision was taken....

Well not really - if he'd not announced a relaxation over christmas and people had kicked off, ignored it and caused horrific consequences, then at least no one would be able to blame the government for those selfish individuals who ignored the rules

So would have been a "win" for government in that respect

 

[Mucker1884]

2 hours ago, FindernRam said:

My jab is Saturday-Do you get some sort of certificate?

You've messed up your quotes.  I never posted that, @Sith Happens did.  I just quoted it and replied to it.  

I don't know the answer to your question, either.  ?

[Gaspode]

40 minutes ago, Stive Pesley said:

Well not really - if he'd not announced a relaxation over christmas and people had kicked off, ignored it and caused horrific consequences, then at least no one would be able to blame the government for those selfish individuals who ignored the rules

So would have been a "win" for government in that respect

 

You know full well that I meant it was a no-win in terms of people dying - the political conseqences pale into insignificance in the eyes of most decent people.....

[Sith Happens]

3 hours ago, FindernRam said:

My jab is Saturday-Do you get some sort of certificate?

I think so, I just got my appointment for next friday.

[BIllyD]

3 minutes ago, Gaspode said:

You know full well that I meant it was a no-win in terms of people dying - the political conseqences pale into insignificance in the eyes of most decent people.....

Exactly this, too many people looking at the actions of the government through political lenses. Unprecedented times with so many deaths, there is no winners from this, including people that are impacted from having these lockdowns. 

[Archied]

6 hours ago, BIllyD said:

It's an interesting debate.

This isn't like other reasons stated in chesters post for me, none of them put other people at risk, when being treated. Everyone has a right to refuse the vaccine, but how would they feel if the Doctors had the right to refuse treating them based on the risk they pose.

Also I'd like to know if someone coming into my house has refused to be vaccinated, then I could take a balanced view if for example, it was someone to repair something, I could ask for someone else.

Im not saying on the above that I would go for either of these actions, just that it is thought provoking....

It is very interesting, say for instance that someone couldn’t have the jab for medical reasons , would you be ok with them comming in your house ( so earning they’re living )to repair something ? That’s not being pedantic it’s a genuine question 

[Archied]

6 hours ago, BIllyD said:

That's very noble of you. Having children of young age they won't be jabbed, there is also the effectiveness of the vaccine not being 100% and quite a bit lower for the new variant.

Based on this, whilst I agree that it is their prerogative, I think I wouldn't be as relaxed.

I really think this is crux of the matter that troubles a lot of people , at what point once vaccines are out there do we see COVID as an acceptable Risk of the kind we all face during our lives , 

[Wolfie]

All the talk of vaccine certificates in order to do certain things is a bit irrelevant unless having the vaccine stops you transmitting the virus. Something which isn't anywhere near being established one way or the other.

[Archied]

5 hours ago, JuanFloEvraTheCocu'sNesta said:

I accept that people have a right to refuse to be vaccinated. The people that refuse to be vaccinated also have to accept that this decision might mean that businesses have the right to refuse them entry or service as a result.

Just because people have a right to refuse vaccination doesn't mean that choice is totally free from consequence. It is inevitable (at least in my mind) that there will be stories coming out when we start to open up of people complaining about not being allowed to do certain things because they refused to be vaccinated.

Do you change that for people who can’t have the jab for medical reasons ,,,,, do you really believe that the majority of people ( in the small numbers that refuse ) who may refuse the jab are doing it to be bloody minded ? To be smart alecs ? To be rebels?

most who refuse will have fear based reasons at the root of they’re refusal , now to the majority those fears are baseless but does that give them the right to treat them like pariah s ? To make them the enemy open to abuse and ridicule? 
I found the section on mental health issues on here refreshing with how people give and call for understanding of others , , the Jordan ibe thread again showing and calling for understanding for someone who’ it’s easy to dismiss as he has so much what right has he to feel and think the way he does , how can he be depressed.

To Those of you making people who refuse the vaccine an enemy ,the antivax tribe to be crushed ,,,,shame on you

[Stive Pesley]

1 hour ago, Archied said:

most who refuse will have fear based reasons at the root of they’re refusal , now to the majority those fears are baseless but does that give them the right to treat them like pariah s ? To make them the enemy open to abuse and ridicule? 
I found the section on mental health issues on here refreshing with how people give and call for understanding of others , , the Jordan ibe thread again showing and calling for understanding for someone who’ it’s easy to dismiss as he has so much what right has he to feel and think the way he does , how can he be depressed.

You make a good point - anti-vaxxers have deep rooted paranoia and psychosis and should be treated for their mental illness

 

 

[BIllyD]

2 hours ago, Archied said:

It is very interesting, say for instance that someone couldn’t have the jab for medical reasons , would you be ok with them comming in your house ( so earning they’re living )to repair something ? That’s not being pedantic it’s a genuine question 

Very good question. I will give it more thought but for me I would have to put my family first, so therefore I would seek an alternative that wouldn't impact the individual. Being in the highest risk category would be influencing this to a certain degree.

Being honest though and you are going to pull me up for stereotypes, but I would probably be more relaxed with someone with a health issue than someone who has refused, mainly based upon the latters outlook on not having it in the first place.

[G STAR RAM]

33 minutes ago, BIllyD said:

Very good question. I will give it more thought but for me I would have to put my family first, so therefore I would seek an alternative that wouldn't impact the individual. Being in the highest risk category would be influencing this to a certain degree.

Being honest though and you are going to pull me up for stereotypes, but I would probably be more relaxed with someone with a health issue than someone who has refused, mainly based upon the latters outlook on not having it in the first place.

But if youre in the highest risk category you will already have had the vaccine so why would you even need to think about whether the people around you have had the vaccine or not?