Doorman checking for either certification of immunisation or a medical exemption certificate. We’ve been doing it to validate minimum ages for decades, go try and buy fags aged 16 and see what happens.
In my experience, you give them your money and walk off with your fags 🙂
I'm not sure the system would/could work. Doorpeople absolutely everywhere? Unfakeable passes? Working databases? In the near future?
I hate to break this to you, but not being able to go to Wetherspoons because you might have an infectious disease is not a human rights issue. And frankly it’s kind of offensive to equate the two.
But I didn't. Do you really not think excluding people from public transport/buildings would raise all kinds of civil liberties/human rights issues?
we shouldn’t still be having to explain this.
You don't. Why are you?
these things are not equivalent.
I didn't say they were. It was a "where do you draw the line" argument. But forget that. I realise now that is against the rules here.
Bill Gates must be rubbing his hands 😉
That was a joke. People worrying about microchips aren't going to be up for presenting ID everywhere they go, and if there are enough of them to affect herd immunity then there's going to be big problems policing your new normal.
oh look, there they are again (opinions)
What have you presented other than opinions? It's a discussion. I've presented my opinion: excluding people is not practicable.
I also believe it is fundamentally wrong. The way to deal with the issue is to include people, not to exclude them.
It's like excluding kids from school: finding ways to include them is a far better way of dealing with it. Put the effort into getting people on board with getting vaccinated instead.
Mostly not understanding the scale of an epidemic and the actions required to stop it going on for another 3 years
You don't yet know that vaccination will stop the spread.
Why the constant assumptions that I haven't understood just because I have a different view? I really am not stupid. (Teed it up nicely there.)
making ridiculous statements about people not caring about human rights.
You are, in my view, advocating removing people's human rights by excluding them from society.
Sorry, I do realise that the words “dumb” and “****” are rising in my throat, I promise not to say it out loud this time…
It was ironic. A joke. Hence the smiley just to make sure it was taken that way. What more can I do? And I'm actually not going to say out loud what I'm thinking.
I seem to recall someone said something about trolls and feeding once upon a time,welcome back to the dark ages.
If you don't like what I say, and you don't want to engage with it, why don't you just ignore it? What's the point of all the snide digs?
It’s a discussion.
It doesn’t read like one.
Because this thread has now turned into an 'everybody look at me, me me' thread about you asking stupid questions, rather than being something interesting about the topic?
I'm sure you think you're being terribly clever with your 'devil's advocate' positions and 'rhetorical questions' but you're really not. How old are you, out of interest?
OK, I'll try again.
I do not think excluding the unvaccinated is a realistic option due to the logistics for implementing and enforcing it.
There are human rights/civil liberties issues too, which would further delay the rollout.
I think that allaying these people's concerns in a positive and constructive manner would be a better way forward.
Do you really not think excluding people from public transport/buildings would raise all kinds of civil liberties/human rights issues?
No, it's wouldn't. With rights come responsibilities. All sorts of "rights" come with an over arching "greater public good" exclusion on them. It's just that as a society, we/the media tend to ignore that aspect.
There already are processes to exclude people with notifiable diseases from public places.eg:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/notifiable-diseases-and-causative-organisms-how-to-report
and an example of an institution and what they will do.
https://www.umsuea.co.uk/info.aspx?p=18
with there being an obligation to notify PHE where they occur. Is this an infringement of human rights too?
[edit]
I do not think excluding the unvaccinated is a realistic option due to the logistics for implementing and enforcing it.
I think an app that ties into eg: NI number and shows your immunisation status *could* very easily be set up. Now, whether I'd trust the Gov to do it, not **** it up and not outsource it to Dom's mates with potential malicious outcomes is a different matter (I hope you've read enough to know there are MANY on here for whom civil liberties / rights are a significant issue)
I was extremely concerned by the T&T app and the bodge that went on there, but I still have it on my phone because IN SPITE OF concerns I can see the greater good and risk/benefit balance.
How do you propose to do that,these people do not have rational reasons for their beliefs,why would they respond to rational arguments? And yes I feel like I'm feeding him,the attention is what trolls crave.
Im for letting the market decide on this one. Though my sympathies are definitely with the "make everyone have it" types if I were King of the World.
Ie, insurance companies/ H&S make going abroad and many other liberties and jobs impossible or pain in the rear for those not wishing to be vaccinated.
Doing that without penalising those that can't have the vaccine is the concern I have.
Doing that without penalising those that can’t have the vaccine is the concern I have.
Me too, but unfortunately that's the way of the world. My Dad's had cancer, to get medical insurance now either excludes or massively hikes the premium if you want it covered.
I do not think excluding the unvaccinated is a realistic option due to the logistics for implementing and enforcing it.
The logistics are easy if you use bullets to exclude them.
I jest, but this is what they deserve from a moral standpoint.
substantial prosecutions for breaking as well.
Try getting into india from a yellow fever endemic country without a yellow fever vaccination card
All sorts of “rights” come with an over arching “greater public good” exclusion on them. It’s just that as a society, we/the media tend to ignore that aspect
I'll bow to your greater knowledge there, but I can't see it not being controversial. Especially if it's affecting 10-20% of the population.
There already are processes to exclude people with notifiable diseases from public places
These people don't necessarily have the disease. Would that make a difference?
It still feels authoritarian to me.
these people do not have rational reasons for their beliefs,why would they respond to rational arguments?
That's a good point. Some clearly don't. But some definitely do. Their approach is definitely rational. It's very carefully thought through and intensively researched. Flawed but rational.
I think they could be won round by methodically debunking each individual argument or piece of evidence reasonably and fairly (and acknowledging uncertainties and where they might actually have a point) rather than just saying vaccines are safe, end of.
(I joined this thread in good faith to talk about vaccines in general, and not Covid which is a special case. I realise that this is not the best time for that conversation. Well, it is for me, but not for everyone else. I honestly have no desire to be me, me, me but there are 10-20 people on one side and only me on the other, so yes I have been more involved than I envisaged.)
Do you really not think excluding people from public transport/buildings would raise all kinds of civil liberties/human rights issues?
Is this a starter for 10? Have you read any Human rights legislation? (hint; it's pretty woolly when it comes to individual rights over those of society at large) Hell, even as a PM of a run of the mill suburban GP surgery I've got some pretty impressively wide leeway...
There are some arguments that are very hard to overcome rationally. One i have seen recently is:
"Women who are pregnant or trying to get pregnant should not have the vaccine". This turns into "If i have the vaccine i risk becoming sterile. I want a family in the future so I won't have the vaccine"
That (semi rational) argument came from an intelligent anti-vaxx, covid denying Corbyn lover/now Labour hater.
It still feels authoritarian to me.
They do lots of stuff in places like NZ and Singapore now that we might think of as authoritarian - the trade off is that they mostly now get to live their lives as normal while we are in a seemingly unending nightmare/shambles.
You pays your money you takes your choice. I know which I'd prefer.
These people don’t necessarily have the disease. Would that make a difference?
Not really, because the vaccination is designed to prevent them having it. You didn't answer my question though, is excluding people who are carrying a disease an infringement of their rights?
There are no human rights implications in refusing service to potential plague rats. Which article of the hra do you think it breeches?
Can't the Tories now decide what human rights are in the UK as we are no longer under the ECOHR?
is excluding people who are carrying a disease an infringement of their rights?
I would say so if you’re excluding them from everything. How are they supposed to live?
There are no human rights implications in refusing service to potential plague rats. Which article of the hra do you think it breeches?
You’re a potential plague rat right now...
Well I’m not a human rights lawyer. Freedom of conscience? It seems to me that it ends up as coercing people into consenting to medical treatment they don’t want. That’s surely wrong? (And yes I know what they’re doing is wrong too)
You seem to be saying there are no rights issues. OK. Next problem: can you see the government actually going down this route?
Hell, even as a PM of a run of the mill suburban GP surgery I’ve got some pretty impressively wide leeway
Don’t you have the Hippocratic oath?
It's just conditional access like loads of other things.
Tories being hard right libertarians won't do it but individual businesses might
You seem to be saying there are no rights issues. OK. Next problem: can you see the government actually going down this route?
Yeah, definitely - at least with international travel. I can easily imagine the UK government making durty forriners have a vaccination certificate to enter the UK, and that will be reciprocal...
Hell, even as a PM of a run of the mill suburban GP surgery I’ve got some pretty impressively wide leeway
Don’t you have the Hippocratic oath?
FFS - I've been quite supportive of your position so far, but that is either pig ignorant or your trolling fu has got a lot weaker
FFS – I’ve been quite supportive of your position so far, but that is either pig ignorant or your trolling fu has got a lot weaker
Not a clue...
Crispoo - he is the practice manager not a doctor.
I would say so if you’re excluding them from everything. How are they supposed to live?
As they do now, with deliveries of groceries, friends dropping things off, and keep that up until the virus is eradicated or at least at a level that can be managed.
It's a choice.
In my experience, you give them your money and walk off with your fags 🙂
How long is it since you were 16?
I’m not sure the system would/could work.
It'd work for maybe 80-90% of the population.
Hmm. Where have we seen that figure before?
Do you really not think excluding people from public transport/buildings would raise all kinds of civil liberties/human rights issues?
It is a human right to expect a fair trial when accused of a crime. It is a human right not to be put to death for being a different religion or creed. It is not a human right to be able to get on a plane to Benidorm when you might be contagiously ill.
What 'public transport' are you referring to? Most of it is privately owned.
I didn’t say they were. It was a “where do you draw the line” argument.
AKA the "slippery slope" logical fallacy.
That was a joke.
As was my reply. But it's one which weakens your argument.
What have you presented other than opinions?
Facts. Science. All the things you claim to want. I've given the odd personal opinion sure, but I've been arguing against the relevance of 'opinion' for several pages now.
Do pay attention or this discussion is pointless, you're now wasting my time as well as everyone else's.
What have I done wrong now?
I didn’t say you’d done anything ‘wrong’. I said that I was disengaging. And so I am.
Look up the term ‘sealioning’.
Seems that antivaxx and Christian Nationalism go hand in hand, at least un the US.
#noshitsherlock
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/christian-nationalism-s-covid-vaccine-doubt-threatens-america-s-herd-ncna1252515
Look up the term ‘sealioning’.
Ha! That one is new to me.
Lol, i like the term sealioning.
not sure he is up to the levels required to pull that off
me too......but there's a picture of Chrispo in the definition!
(they'll now do the aggrieved 'who, me?' thing)
Seems like a very lazy way of shutting down anyone you disagree with.
You don’t know my motives. Fact.
As it happens I came in good faith, so you got the wrong cartoon animal. But yes I did work very hard to remain polite when almost none of you did.
I’m out. Enjoy!
I’m out. Enjoy
I fervently hope he means it this time.
Hehe
I do not think excluding the unvaccinated is a realistic option due to the logistics for implementing and enforcing it.
Piece of piss, I've already told you how it could work.
There are human rights/civil liberties issues too, which would further delay the rollout.
What issues are they?
I can’t see it not being controversial
So what? Be controversial. We're in the middle of a global pandemic.
These people don’t necessarily have the disease.
Prove it.
It still feels authoritarian to me.
So what? Be authoritarian. We're in the middle of a global pandemic.
We are, like it or not, now an authoritarian state. Which a lot of people voted for recently despite repeated warnings. "Take back control" never referred to you and me, it referred to the Tory party.
I think they could be won round by methodically debunking each individual argument or piece of evidence
Bollocks they could, that's utterly naive at best. They don't care about evidence, they just want to be one-up on everyone else. Debunk one thing and they'll just change the subject, you'd be better served playing whack-a-mole.
there are 10-20 people on one side and only me on the other
And what conclusions might we draw from this?
I would say so if you’re excluding them from everything. How are they supposed to live?
Well, I dunno, they could perhaps take the ****ing vaccine?
The people in ICU due to their (in)actions, how are they supposed to live? Fingers crossed that they actually might.
Well I’m not a human rights lawyer.
So, right, look. You're crying about human rights one minute and then when challenged you're then claiming that you aren't an expert. So if you freely admit you don't know what the **** you're talking about, why don't you start listening to those who do rather than playing the bloody victim card?
Page 2 argument.
You don’t know my motives. Fact.
That at least is easy remedied. Is it a secret?
you’d be better served playing whack-a-mole.
That's what it's like seeing crispo's never ending circle of questions. Answer 1 and another one randomly pops up elsewhere
Which a lot of people voted for recently despite repeated warnings
And just one short year later they are already regretting it, even though the Tory part "got Brexit done" people have maybe realised that the single issue of Brexit maybe wasn't that important after all with the perspective that 2020 has provided.
Are they?
Yes given the polls. large majority thing it a mistake, tories dropping in the polls. another election now would see a minority labour government
Fortunately it seems all the major religious groups have accepted the vaccine, but what would everyones opinon be if a large group of society had rejected the vaccine on religious grounds?
Same. their choice but no access to public buildings or services. It would never be " a large group" anyway
This is a clear example of where an individuals decision not to have the vaccine impinges on the rest of the population. remember the vaccine is not 100% effective
I have no time for those who refuse vaccinations on stupid grounds and thus put me and the rest of the population at risk - especially the % of the population that cannot have the vaccine
NO schools for unvaccinated kids, no GP appointments, no entry to any public building
There are some arguments that are very hard to overcome rationally. One i have seen recently is:
“Women who are pregnant or trying to get pregnant should not have the vaccine”. This turns into “If i have the vaccine i risk becoming sterile. I want a family in the future so I won’t have the vaccine”
That (semi rational) argument came from an intelligent anti-vaxx, covid denying Corbyn lover/now Labour hater.
JCVI guidance on this has been updated.
Women who are pregnant
There is no known risk associated with giving non-live vaccines during pregnancy. These vaccines cannot replicate, so they cannot cause infection in either the woman or the unborn child.
Although the available data do not indicate any safety concern or harm to pregnancy, there is insufficient evidence to recommend routine use of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy.
JCVI advises that, for women who are offered vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech or AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines, vaccination in pregnancy should be considered where the risk of exposure to Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV2) infection is high and cannot be avoided, or where the woman has underlying conditions that put them at very high risk of serious complications of COVID-19. In these circumstances, clinicians should discuss the risks and benefits of vaccination with the woman, who should be told about the absence of safety data for the vaccine in pregnant women.
JCVI does not advise routine pregnancy testing before receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine. Those who are trying to become pregnant do not need to avoid pregnancy after vaccination.
I deliberately bolded 'insufficient evidence' because it is easy for people to jump on that as an example of insufficient testing. The fact is that there has been sufficient testing to show the vaccine as safe for the majority of the population, but certain groups will require further data in sufficient volume.
it may have been covered earlier, but its also important to note that these vaccines, and especially the Pfizer version, have been approved by the regulatory bodies in a growing number of countries.
