agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,053 
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 21, 2021 18:10:59 GMT
Look even before Covid started we knew that nursing homes and hospitals are where people die.
That doesn't mean nursing homes and hospitals kill people.
I still say "mandate vaccination" and stop pussyfooting about.
What dangerous thinking. So would you strap people to a gurney and forcibly inject them? Because you’d have to do that in thousands of cases. Logically, why would you then stop there and not ban everything else that we’re told is bad for us, like an outright ban on tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks, sugar in foodstuffs, sweets/confectionery, ham, bacon and all processed foods, fast-food outlets? Fish & chip shops? Where do you stop? Once that lot is gone, things like starchy foods stand out as bad for us. Do you then ban bread, potatoes, crisps, chips and rice? Cakes and biscuits? Then comes the next fad, like the old “fat is bad” madness. So we’d have to ban red meat, sausages, butter, cheese, milk, chocolate, etc. After that lot’s gone, even chicken and caramelised roasted vegetables start to look bad. By now you’ve built up a whole industry dedicated to banning stuff, so chicken, eggs and roastable veg would have to go. Where would it stop? Fish and salad to eat, every day. Mandating enforced vaccines would mark the start of the salami tactics and it’s probably best not to even start down that path, unless you enjoy North Korea’s way of life. We wouldn’t be overweight, but life would be as miserable as sin. There are very important reasons why we should prefer the libertarian approach of freedom of choice, backed up by good science and education, hopefully leading to a strong voluntary vaccine take-up. Just as we’ve seen in the UK in fact. I think you're missing the point here. Being an alcoholic (for example) isn't contagious and isn't going to bring the NHS crashing down.
Regarding mandatory vaccination, you don't need to strap anyone down, you just need to make life difficult for them. For example if you're not vaccinated:
- you can't live in a council house
- you don't get any government benefits, including pensions
- no job
- no entry to pubs or restaurants
- no use of public transport
- no access to hospitals if you contract the virus
I'm certain that would get their attention
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
N/A
Posts: 5,636
Likes: 1,742
|
Post by benaj on Dec 21, 2021 18:16:00 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 21, 2021 18:17:20 GMT
What dangerous thinking. So would you strap people to a gurney and forcibly inject them? Because you’d have to do that in thousands of cases. Logically, why would you then stop there and not ban everything else that we’re told is bad for us, like an outright ban on tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks, sugar in foodstuffs, sweets/confectionery, ham, bacon and all processed foods, fast-food outlets? Fish & chip shops? Where do you stop? Once that lot is gone, things like starchy foods stand out as bad for us. Do you then ban bread, potatoes, crisps, chips and rice? Cakes and biscuits? Then comes the next fad, like the old “fat is bad” madness. So we’d have to ban red meat, sausages, butter, cheese, milk, chocolate, etc. After that lot’s gone, even chicken and caramelised roasted vegetables start to look bad. By now you’ve built up a whole industry dedicated to banning stuff, so chicken, eggs and roastable veg would have to go. Where would it stop? Fish and salad to eat, every day. Mandating enforced vaccines would mark the start of the salami tactics and it’s probably best not to even start down that path, unless you enjoy North Korea’s way of life. We wouldn’t be overweight, but life would be as miserable as sin. There are very important reasons why we should prefer the libertarian approach of freedom of choice, backed up by good science and education, hopefully leading to a strong voluntary vaccine take-up. Just as we’ve seen in the UK in fact. I think you're missing the point here. Being an alcoholic (for example) isn't contagious and isn't going to bring the NHS crashing down.
Regarding mandatory vaccination, you don't need to strap anyone down, you just need to make life difficult for them. For example if you're not vaccinated:
- you can't live in a council house
- you don't get any government benefits, including pensions
- no job
- no entry to pubs or restaurants
- no use of public transport
- no access to hospitals if you contract the virus
I'm certain that would get their attention
But that's getting worse... you'd have to be prepared to turf out council-housed families onto the street. Deny people hospital treatment. Allow children to starve or freeze to death by withholding their parents' benefits. agent69 , I know you well enough through this forum to know you aren't being serious/haven't thought this through.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,715
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 21, 2021 19:06:51 GMT
As I've said I don't agree with it all but IF you were going to make it mandatory then you'd do it with fines the non-payment of which would be dealt with in the usual way with the usual safeguards.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 21, 2021 19:40:16 GMT
.... So would you strap people to a gurney and forcibly inject them? .... or activity between consenting adults. Otherwise someone else is determining where the line is when there shouldn't be one. Part of the problem is sadly a great many people believe that "most people" are stupid or at least less intelligent than they are so they need decisions made for them. I am not in favour of "mandatory" in its strictest sense for a number of reasons. I am very troubled by the idea, but I am coming/ have come to the conclusion though that significant disincentives and even constraints need to be seriously considered, and debated. I'm fundamentally a 'liberal', with a little 'l': (which by the way would tend to put me with some of the historical roots of the conservatives I would argue). I am deeply troubled by the thought of putting freedom of association constraints on people as a 'group'. It just has a ring of forcing people to wear the Star of David pinned to their chest. Nonetheless, in a robust democracy there is less risk associated with a path of placing constraints on people because of conscience choices they have made as opposed to 'who they are'. The problem with the bolded above is that the very act of choosing to remain unprotected does directly harm the rest of society. If you are unvaccinated, you are a walking petri dish for the emergence of new variants should you catch C19. You are also a highly infectious petri dish as well. So your very act of choosing to be of that status while having the same ability to freely associate means you have a high chance of directly harming others just by virtue of 'being and doing'. So the condition as stated is not a test/condition that makes any sense in the real world: how would one otherwise define 'directly harm others': deliberately coughing over someone while infected ? Being out and about and mixing freely while unknowingly being in early stage infection but highly infectious ? By being an incubator for new strains by way of an immune system which is less equipped to suppress the virus ? And if not any of those then what does it mean ?
|
|
|
|
Post by bernythedolt on Dec 21, 2021 20:07:34 GMT
|
|
Greenwood2
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,388
Likes: 2,787
|
Post by Greenwood2 on Dec 21, 2021 21:02:01 GMT
I think you're missing the point here. Being an alcoholic (for example) isn't contagious and isn't going to bring the NHS crashing down.
Regarding mandatory vaccination, you don't need to strap anyone down, you just need to make life difficult for them. For example if you're not vaccinated:
- you can't live in a council house
- you don't get any government benefits, including pensions
- no job
- no entry to pubs or restaurants
- no use of public transport
- no access to hospitals if you contract the virus
I'm certain that would get their attention
But that's getting worse... you'd have to be prepared to turf out council-housed families onto the street. Deny people hospital treatment. Allow children to starve or freeze to death by withholding their parents' benefits. agent69 , I know you well enough through this forum to know you aren't being serious/haven't thought this through. This is hopefully a short term problem, currently it may be sensible to restrict the movement of unvaccinated people, hopefully in six months (or so) it will no longer be a problem, the pandemic will no longer be a big threat and everyone can decide to get or not get a vaccine, just like the flu vaccine.
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,715
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 21, 2021 21:13:32 GMT
On compulsory vaccination why don't we acknowledge a moral dilemma (which is in addition to "freedom of choice" made earlier).
There is a risk of serious health complications from the currently approved vaccines. For healthy, young people that risk may be higher than the risk of serious harm to health from the virus. So why don't we make it clear, that in those cases we are asking those people to sacrifice their own health (risk of ill-health) for the sake of the wider population?
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,053
Likes: 4,441
|
Post by agent69 on Dec 21, 2021 22:29:06 GMT
On compulsory vaccination why don't we acknowledge a moral dilemma (which is in addition to "freedom of choice" made earlier). There is a risk of serious health complications from the currently approved vaccines. For healthy, young people that risk may be higher than the risk of serious harm to health from the virus. So why don't we make it clear, that in those cases we are asking those people to sacrifice their own health (risk of ill-health) for the sake of the wider population? And there is also a risk of serious health complications from taking paracetamol, driving a car or crossing the road. However, as with taking the vaccine, the risks are minute so we don't worry about them.
I'm not aware that the risks of taking the vaccine is greater than the risk of contracting covid (for any age group) so I don't think the 'taking one for the team' analogy is appropriate. Do you have a link to data that proves the additional risk?
|
|
michaelc
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S.
Posts: 5,715
Likes: 2,986
|
Post by michaelc on Dec 21, 2021 23:44:48 GMT
On compulsory vaccination why don't we acknowledge a moral dilemma (which is in addition to "freedom of choice" made earlier). There is a risk of serious health complications from the currently approved vaccines. For healthy, young people that risk may be higher than the risk of serious harm to health from the virus. So why don't we make it clear, that in those cases we are asking those people to sacrifice their own health (risk of ill-health) for the sake of the wider population? And there is also a risk of serious health complications from taking paracetamol, driving a car or crossing the road. However, as with taking the vaccine, the risks are minute so we don't worry about them.
I'm not aware that the risks of taking the vaccine is greater than the risk of contracting covid (for any age group) so I don't think the 'taking one for the team' analogy is appropriate. Do you have a link to data that proves the additional risk?
Do your own research and you'll find that for certain cohorts it is exactly that. So why should someone take a drug that has a teeny, tiny chance of seriously harming them when it has an even teenier, tinier chance of helping them? its even worse than that though. Initially those cohorts were told there was essentially negligible risk and only later has that been clarified as rare side affects have shown themselves.
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Dec 22, 2021 1:48:03 GMT
What dangerous thinking. So would you strap people to a gurney and forcibly inject them? Because you’d have to do that in thousands of cases. Logically, why would you then stop there and not ban everything else that we’re told is bad for us, like an outright ban on tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks, sugar in foodstuffs, sweets/confectionery, ham, bacon and all processed foods, fast-food outlets? Fish & chip shops? Where do you stop? Once that lot is gone, things like starchy foods stand out as bad for us. Do you then ban bread, potatoes, crisps, chips and rice? Cakes and biscuits? Then comes the next fad, like the old “fat is bad” madness. So we’d have to ban red meat, sausages, butter, cheese, milk, chocolate, etc. After that lot’s gone, even chicken and caramelised roasted vegetables start to look bad. By now you’ve built up a whole industry dedicated to banning stuff, so chicken, eggs and roastable veg would have to go. Where would it stop? Fish and salad to eat, every day. Mandating enforced vaccines would mark the start of the salami tactics and it’s probably best not to even start down that path, unless you enjoy North Korea’s way of life. We wouldn’t be overweight, but life would be as miserable as sin. There are very important reasons why we should prefer the libertarian approach of freedom of choice, backed up by good science and education, hopefully leading to a strong voluntary vaccine take-up. Just as we’ve seen in the UK in fact. I think you're missing the point here. Being an alcoholic (for example) isn't contagious and isn't going to bring the NHS crashing down.
Regarding mandatory vaccination, you don't need to strap anyone down, you just need to make life difficult for them. For example if you're not vaccinated:
- you can't live in a council house
- you don't get any government benefits, including pensions
- no job
- no entry to pubs or restaurants
- no use of public transport
- no access to hospitals if you contract the virus
I'm certain that would get their attention
another hostile environment.
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,624
Likes: 6,437
|
Post by registerme on Dec 22, 2021 1:56:00 GMT
And there is also a risk of serious health complications from taking paracetamol, driving a car or crossing the road. However, as with taking the vaccine, the risks are minute so we don't worry about them.
I'm not aware that the risks of taking the vaccine is greater than the risk of contracting covid (for any age group) so I don't think the 'taking one for the team' analogy is appropriate. Do you have a link to data that proves the additional risk?
Do your own research and you'll find that for certain cohorts it is exactly that. So why should someone take a drug that has a teeny, tiny chance of seriously harming them when it has an even teenier, tinier chance of helping them? its even worse than that though. Initially those cohorts were told there was essentially negligible risk and only later has that been clarified as rare side affects have shown themselves. Because one can't read a graph? (not sorry bitchy of me but you get my point...)
|
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Dec 22, 2021 2:01:00 GMT
Here's another set of graphs of the day www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-59747689Some data from a week ago www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/news-events/epidemiological-update-omicron-data-15-decemberThere may be a slight correlation between both sets, weakly implying that those countries where numbers are exploding now may have the omicron wave based on relatively large omicron numbers last week; and those where time-courses look peaked may be in a downward delta phase waiting for omicron. Just a hypothesis. If true it'll most likely soon start to get very bad across all Europe. Timescale of days to a couple of weeks. I think I'll stay home for Christmas. Uk looks like the S has already hit the F (67m inhabitants, 87k cases), as does Denmark (5.8m i., 9k cases). |
|
corto
Member of DD Central
one-syllabistic
Posts: 851
Likes: 356
|
Post by corto on Dec 22, 2021 2:37:00 GMT
And there is also a risk of serious health complications from taking paracetamol, driving a car or crossing the road. However, as with taking the vaccine, the risks are minute so we don't worry about them.
I'm not aware that the risks of taking the vaccine is greater than the risk of contracting covid (for any age group) so I don't think the 'taking one for the team' analogy is appropriate. Do you have a link to data that proves the additional risk?
Do your own research and you'll find that for certain cohorts it is exactly that. So why should someone take a drug that has a teeny, tiny chance of seriously harming them when it has an even teenier, tinier chance of helping them? its even worse than that though. Initially those cohorts were told there was essentially negligible risk and only later has that been clarified as rare side affects have shown themselves. Please provide references for this claim. As to "why": we are living in a society and it's part of the contract to protect not only yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Dec 22, 2021 8:17:29 GMT
And there is also a risk of serious health complications from taking paracetamol, driving a car or crossing the road. However, as with taking the vaccine, the risks are minute so we don't worry about them.
I'm not aware that the risks of taking the vaccine is greater than the risk of contracting covid (for any age group) so I don't think the 'taking one for the team' analogy is appropriate. Do you have a link to data that proves the additional risk?
Do your own research and you'll find that for certain cohorts it is exactly that. So why should someone take a drug that has a teeny, tiny chance of seriously harming them when it has an even teenier, tinier chance of helping them? its even worse than that though. Initially those cohorts were told there was essentially negligible risk and only later has that been clarified as rare side affects have shown themselves.
If you are referring to the UK, then back that up with actual historical information and data. The UK has been one of the most cautious when it comes to offering vaccination to the youngest age groups. It has been behind pretty much everywhere in offering it to the 17+, 15-17 age, 12+ cohorts. And even now the UK is not administering to <12 yr old, when other countries are. In fact when it was finally offered to 12-15 cohort, I think the JCVI stayed neutral in its advice, stating that the health gain was there but too small, but recognising that the govt. might want to take into account other impacts (particularly educational loss/disruption impacts due to isolation). [for information the link to their statement is here: www.gov.uk/government/publications/jcvi-statement-september-2021-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years/jcvi-statement-on-covid-19-vaccination-of-children-aged-12-to-15-years-3-september-2021] I think that is a sign that the MHRA and JCVI have very carefully considered the balance of risks and benefits to individuals, and have waited for more data to emerge on side effects on the young, (and this is an assertion rather than one I can immediately point my finger at, but as I recall some side effects such as heart inflammation have turned out to be less serious/common than initially reported). Something that it is impossible to deny - except if one is a conspiracy theorist, or a Russian/Chinese internet disinformation provocateur - is this is the most closely monitored rollout of any pharmacological medical intervention in history, with every country in the world involved, with every medical regulatory authority involved, with the greatest ever real time sharing of information across geographic and scientific boundaries, and with all the power of modern computer technology/big data/data science brought to the fight. It is of course also rather blindingly obvious that if one were to support 'mandation' (in whatever form) that doesn't have to mean all population cohorts.
|
|
