ChatterBank17 mins ago
Good To See Another Outbreak Of Common Sense.......
58 Answers
https:/
It's time we took the plunge and declared all establishments over a certain size will need proof of vaccination.
It's time we took the plunge and declared all establishments over a certain size will need proof of vaccination.
Answers
Requiring people to take a test all the time is simply impractical going forward. , I think it’s been shown that there’s sufficient inhibition of the virus by the vaccine to make the risk worth it.
15:17 Tue 27th Jul 2021
But how out of the ordinary are they? The vast majority do not die from this, it really isnt a killer and anyway a vaccine doenst stop you getting it and doesnt stop you passing it on.
And what is the cut off point? One of my main concerns with this is setting a precedent. What if some future Government decides to force something on us? It is possible.
Also there is the problem if ID's. I really disagree with medical records on an ID or anything that 'groups' people. My main reason for this concern is Hitler and what he did. It is not inconceivable we could get another Dictator/megalomaniac like him.
And what is the cut off point? One of my main concerns with this is setting a precedent. What if some future Government decides to force something on us? It is possible.
Also there is the problem if ID's. I really disagree with medical records on an ID or anything that 'groups' people. My main reason for this concern is Hitler and what he did. It is not inconceivable we could get another Dictator/megalomaniac like him.
//On top of that you would be creating a two tier society, totally and utterly wrong.//
Absolutely agree.
We do do have to "carry papers" in this country to go about our everyday business - least of all papers which provide details of part of our medical record. This idea is open to "mission creep". First of all it's nightclubs and football matches. Then it will extend to theatres and cinemas. Not too long after that we will be told that it is so successful in suppressing the disease (for which there will be no evidence whatsoever) that it will be extended to weddings, funerals, baptisms and Barmitzvahs. Then it's but a short hop to having to produce your medical record to get into Tesco's and the pub.
Analogies with activities such as driving are false. You only need a driving licence to drive a vehicle. You do not need it to undertake a variety of everyday activities. It provides evidence that you are old enough and (in the case of a full licence) that you are competent to drive. You do not have to undergo a medical procedure to obtain one and you do not have to produce it every time you get into your car.
This is simply coercion, however you look at it. If the government wants everybody to have the vaccine they should have the courage to introduce a bill to Parliament making it compulsory. See how that get's on. It will almost certainly fail (if for no other reason it cuts across existing legislation which makes compulsory medical treatment unlawful). And if that's the case so should this attempt at coercion because it is disingenuous to say "Well, you don't have to have the vaccine, but you won't be able to go into Tesco's or the pub if you don't."
BTW, I am not an "anti-vaxxer". I had my two shots as soon as I was eligible and I recommend everybody else does the same - if they want to.
Absolutely agree.
We do do have to "carry papers" in this country to go about our everyday business - least of all papers which provide details of part of our medical record. This idea is open to "mission creep". First of all it's nightclubs and football matches. Then it will extend to theatres and cinemas. Not too long after that we will be told that it is so successful in suppressing the disease (for which there will be no evidence whatsoever) that it will be extended to weddings, funerals, baptisms and Barmitzvahs. Then it's but a short hop to having to produce your medical record to get into Tesco's and the pub.
Analogies with activities such as driving are false. You only need a driving licence to drive a vehicle. You do not need it to undertake a variety of everyday activities. It provides evidence that you are old enough and (in the case of a full licence) that you are competent to drive. You do not have to undergo a medical procedure to obtain one and you do not have to produce it every time you get into your car.
This is simply coercion, however you look at it. If the government wants everybody to have the vaccine they should have the courage to introduce a bill to Parliament making it compulsory. See how that get's on. It will almost certainly fail (if for no other reason it cuts across existing legislation which makes compulsory medical treatment unlawful). And if that's the case so should this attempt at coercion because it is disingenuous to say "Well, you don't have to have the vaccine, but you won't be able to go into Tesco's or the pub if you don't."
BTW, I am not an "anti-vaxxer". I had my two shots as soon as I was eligible and I recommend everybody else does the same - if they want to.
Yes, agreed, Naomi. But there is still the question of individual choice. If enough are vaccinated - and I think that we are approaching 75% of the adult population (i.e. the ones most at risk of serious illness or death) then there is no need to insist in such draconian terms that the rest take the jab.
It's how vaccination programmes have always worked, by controlling viruses but leaving a minority free to choose to take them. I am really very, very concerned by the move towards mandation by withdrawal of normal activities from the unvaccinated.
It's how vaccination programmes have always worked, by controlling viruses but leaving a minority free to choose to take them. I am really very, very concerned by the move towards mandation by withdrawal of normal activities from the unvaccinated.
It's interesting to see the divides in attitude this exposes among people who traditionally would have appeared on the same side on political questions. I'm inclined to agree with those who are against mandatory vaccine passports -- in particular because, as NJ points out, it's odd to mandate having something that isn't actually mandatory under the law and currently cannot be; as well as because having to declare one's medical history to the State on matters of "choice" is in violation of a right to privacy. I don't agree that this would be the start of any slippery slope or mission creep, but it would almost certainly be subject to a successful legal challenge.
As a separate point, since people who are vaccinated can still catch the disease (albeit less seriously, hence the importance of getting a vaccine), and since it's generally recognised that people who are fully vaccinated can still spread Covid (see, eg, latest CDC guidance), then this restriction doesn't even seem to address the problem it's meant to. In that sense, the only demonstration that you don't pose a risk of spread to others is through an up-to-date negative test.
As a separate point, since people who are vaccinated can still catch the disease (albeit less seriously, hence the importance of getting a vaccine), and since it's generally recognised that people who are fully vaccinated can still spread Covid (see, eg, latest CDC guidance), then this restriction doesn't even seem to address the problem it's meant to. In that sense, the only demonstration that you don't pose a risk of spread to others is through an up-to-date negative test.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles58 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles80 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles85 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles88 mins ago
Home & Garden153 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.