Coronavirus vaccine | Page 91 | Vital Football

Coronavirus vaccine

Baghdad_Rob

Vital 1st Team Regular
So are we being "good little citizens" by wearing seat belts or taking a driving test? IMO , if a law is there to protect public safety, the government would be negligent not to put those laws in place.
I think there is a difference between the wearing of seatbelts and saying "we insist you have things injected into your body".

For me with the whole issue that sits ill with me is government insisting what someone puts into their body. For me this is overstepping the boundary as to what the government should be doing.

If someone wants the vaccine then great. If someone doesn't want the vaccine then fine. The later group takes the risks associated with not being vaccinated. I'm not going to get angry about it and imply people who choose not to get vaccinated are some sort of evil beings.
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
I think there is a difference between the wearing of seatbelts and saying "we insist you have things injected into your body".

For me with the whole issue that sits ill with me is government insisting what someone puts into their body. For me this is overstepping the boundary as to what the government should be doing.

If someone wants the vaccine then great. If someone doesn't want the vaccine then fine. The later group takes the risks associated with not being vaccinated. I'm not going to get angry about it and imply people who choose not to get vaccinated are some sort of evil beings.
No one insists anyone injects anything into their body.
If you want to do things that may endanger other people then you must take certain precautions. I can drive but not exceed speed limits. No problem. I am.not sufficiently conceited enough to decide what those speed limits should be compared to those that know more than me.

Those that choose not to be vaxxed are not evil. However, they must face the consequences. To have a functioning society we must havea certain degree of acceptance of rules. If we don't like them we have the power to vote against them in future. Do you want anarchy and each individual decides for themselves what is best?

The are some laws I don't agree with. Tough sh#t. Change the Government and get the laws changed.
 

Archiepoptart

Vital Squad Member
I think there is a difference between the wearing of seatbelts and saying "we insist you have things injected into your body".

For me with the whole issue that sits ill with me is government insisting what someone puts into their body. For me this is overstepping the boundary as to what the government should be doing.

If someone wants the vaccine then great. If someone doesn't want the vaccine then fine. The later group takes the risks associated with not being vaccinated. I'm not going to get angry about it and imply people who choose not to get vaccinated are some sort of evil beings.
Some poor b'stard is going to pay for that freedom with their life. What's yours worth?
 

Baghdad_Rob

Vital 1st Team Regular
No one insists anyone injects anything into their body.
If the government isn't insisting on people getting the injection then why are they, in your words "blackmail people into having the vaccine"?

1626910694038.png

If the government is trying to force people into taking the vaccine by threatening consequences then it seems like they are insisting on people having the vaccine to me. Maybe it is a question of semantics. You don't think they are insisting even though you think the government is trying to blackmail people into having the vaccine.


If you want to do things that may endanger other people then you must take certain precautions. I can drive but not exceed speed limits. No problem. I am.not sufficiently conceited enough to decide what those speed limits should be compared to those that know more than me.
Not sure why you are fixated on driving when I said I don't think it is comparable.

Nevertheless, even with people keeping to the speed limit, it is still possible to kill or maim someone even if someone has taken their driving test and passed. For as long as qualified drivers can still maim and kill pedestrians then maybe we need to ban automobiles.



Those that choose not to be vaxxed are not evil. However, they must face the consequences. To have a functioning society we must havea certain degree of acceptance of rules.
Consequences for people not doing things that some people consider in the best interest of other people sounds very authoritarian to me.

And yes to have a functioning society we must have a certain degree of acceptance of rules. But this is a question of what the rules should be.
 

Attachments

Baghdad_Rob

Vital 1st Team Regular
Some poor b'stard is going to pay for that freedom with their life. What's yours worth?
Sajid Javid has recently been forced to quarentine having caught covid despite having both vaccine shots. If some unvaccinated person gives me covid again then que sera, sera. And if I die then even more so que sera, sera.

And if I do die and people on here find out about it then feel free to gloat and comment with "See, I told him it was a good idea if everyone was vaccinated".
 

Gills 58

Vital Football Hero
If the government isn't insisting on people getting the injection then why are they, in your words "blackmail people into having the vaccine"?

View attachment 50507

If the government is trying to force people into taking the vaccine by threatening consequences then it seems like they are insisting on people having the vaccine to me. Maybe it is a question of semantics. You don't think they are insisting even though you think the government is trying to blackmail people into having the vaccine.




Not sure why you are fixated on driving when I said I don't think it is comparable.

Nevertheless, even with people keeping to the speed limit, it is still possible to kill or maim someone even if someone has taken their driving test and passed. For as long as qualified drivers can still maim and kill pedestrians then maybe we need to ban automobiles.





Consequences for people not doing things that some people consider in the best interest of other people sounds very authoritarian to me.

And yes to have a functioning society we must have a certain degree of acceptance of rules. But this is a question of what the rules should be.
Nice try. They are "blackmailed" into vaxxing if they want to take part in, say, clubbing. People don't have to go clubbing. They are not forced to. Hardly a human right. It is a matter of balancing public safety with individual so called rights.

If I want to drive I must have a driving licence and give personal details. If I don't want to do that then I don't drive. Tough ####. It's a matter of what "freedoms" people want. You don't think driving example is relevant. I do.

I am "blackmailed" into injections if I want to visit certain countries. Fine by me. If I don't like it, I don't go. Why should they risk having me?

I choose to be a "good little citizen" thanks.
 
Last edited:

markinkent

Vital 1st Team Regular
If someone wants the vaccine then great. If someone doesn't want the vaccine then fine. The later group takes the risks associated with not being vaccinated. I'm not going to get angry about it and imply people who choose not to get vaccinated are some sort of evil beings.

An alternative view is that the NHS takes the risks of being overwhelmed, or your employer takes the BCM risk of you causing loads to have to self isolate if they are close contacts of you and you test positive

I don't think it should be mandatory to be vaccinated, its your call. However, those who choose not to may have to accept they won't be able to do all the things that the vaccinated can.
 
Last edited:

ThreeSixes

Vital 1st Team Regular
I don't think it should be mandatory to be vaccinated, its your call. However, those who choose not to may have to accept they won't be able to do all the things that the vaccinated can.
To an extent yes, but we are talking about going to clubs or to watch football matches. Does having a jab stop people catching Covid or passing it on? I don't really get it?

I don't understand why people won't get jabbed though (especially if the same people are going to clubs and taking cocaine and ecstasy)?

I wonder what will happen when people of colour who are not getting vaccinated because of racism are being prevented from doing things in this country that white people can do. We'll see how this plays out
 

jogills

Vital 1st Team Regular
Little or no chance of the government making vaccine passports compusory, it doesn't have the votes. It's an attempt to "persuade" the reluctant young to get vaccinated. What individual comopanies and businesses do is and always has been up to them.
 

LSB2

Vital 1st Team Regular
To an extent yes, but we are talking about going to clubs or to watch football matches. Does having a jab stop people catching Covid or passing it on? I don't really get it?

I don't understand why people won't get jabbed though (especially if the same people are going to clubs and taking cocaine and ecstasy)?

I wonder what will happen when people of colour who are not getting vaccinated because of racism are being prevented from doing things in this country that white people can do. We'll see how this plays out
The idea of the vaccine, and the lockdowns and restrictions etc, are to keep the NHS from getting overwhelmed. The vaccine helps people from getting seriously ill or dying. 75% of people in hospital with covid haven't been vaccinated. I'm only replying to point one, I agree with your other points 🙂
 

shotshy

Vital Football Hero
Little or no chance of the government making vaccine passports compusory, it doesn't have the votes. It's an attempt to "persuade" the reluctant young to get vaccinated. What individual comopanies and businesses do is and always has been up to them.
Started in France today and will be rolled out across the continent.
Anyone wishing to go abroad over the next few years will either get the document or stay home.
We’ll follow suit I reckon.
 

Baghdad_Rob

Vital 1st Team Regular
An alternative view is that the NHS takes the risks of being overwhelmed, or your employer takes the BCM risk of you causing loads to have to self isolate if they are close contacts of you and you test positive

I don't think it should be mandatory to be vaccinated, its your call. However, those who choose not to may have to accept they won't be able to do all the things that the vaccinated can.
As per the links for the last number of years pre-Covid plus one from 2000 (to show it isn't just down to the Tory party wanting to destroy the NHS etc), pretty much every year the NHS is overwhelmed by flu cases.

Would you not agree therefore that from (say) the 1st November, anyone who can't prove that they have taken their annual flu shot should be banned from nightclubs and other places as they may well catch and spread seasonal flu. Since about 20,000 people die from it each year then those who selfishly refuse to take an annual flu shot are indirectly endangering other people.


Links:
2000 http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/6/newsid_2477000/2477943.stm
2016 https://www.theguardian.com/society...als-overwhelmed-patients-could-die-top-doctor
2017 https://www.itv.com/news/2017-10-12...ter-and-suspend-routine-operations-for-months
2018 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/08/nhs-hospitals-emergency-measures-winter-crisis
 
If someone wants the vaccine then great. If someone doesn't want the vaccine then fine. The later group takes the risks associated with not being vaccinated. I'm not going to get angry about it and imply people who choose not to get vaccinated are some sort of evil beings.
No, not evil beings. But I can understand why many level accusations of "selfishness" and "irresponsibility" in that direction.
 

Baghdad_Rob

Vital 1st Team Regular
No, not evil beings. But I can understand why many level accusations of "selfishness" and "irresponsibility" in that direction.
Just to clarify context, the "evil beings" is more of a reference to the wider cesspit that is the internet and general social media. I don't think anyone on here has specifically used the phrase "evil beings". There are plenty of people on social media who think anyone who doesn't get the jab is indirectly guilty of manslaughter of anyone in the future who dies of Covid.
 

Baghdad_Rob

Vital 1st Team Regular
Started in France today and will be rolled out across the continent.
Anyone wishing to go abroad over the next few years will either get the document or stay home.
We’ll follow suit I reckon.
And in France if you go to a restaurent etc and can't prove you have been vaccined then there is a risk of jail and sizable fines.

https://newsrescue.com/france-enter...a-vaccine-passport-and-face-6-months-in-jail/

There is also an article in The Guardian but this is behind a pay wall if you wish to look it up.

1626950025779.png
 

LSB2

Vital 1st Team Regular
As per the links for the last number of years pre-Covid plus one from 2000 (to show it isn't just down to the Tory party wanting to destroy the NHS etc), pretty much every year the NHS is overwhelmed by flu cases.

Would you not agree therefore that from (say) the 1st November, anyone who can't prove that they have taken their annual flu shot should be banned from nightclubs and other places as they may well catch and spread seasonal flu. Since about 20,000 people die from it each year then those who selfishly refuse to take an annual flu shot are indirectly endangering other people.


Links:
2000 http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/january/6/newsid_2477000/2477943.stm
2016 https://www.theguardian.com/society...als-overwhelmed-patients-could-die-top-doctor
2017 https://www.itv.com/news/2017-10-12...ter-and-suspend-routine-operations-for-months
2018 https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/dec/08/nhs-hospitals-emergency-measures-winter-crisis
I don't think many of the people who have flu jabs go to nightclubs anyway, seeing as it's usually the elderly and vulnerable...
 
Just to clarify context, the "evil beings" is more of a reference to the wider cesspit that is the internet and general social media. I don't think anyone on here has specifically used the phrase "evil beings". There are plenty of people on social media who think anyone who doesn't get the jab is indirectly guilty of manslaughter of anyone in the future who dies of Covid.
Ta, the mention of "evil beings" created a springboard opportunity to add even more context. Selfish & irresponsible seem adequate contextualisation - not sure whether arrogant creeps in there, probably does !
 

madrid_gill

Vital Squad Member
or your employer takes the BCM risk of you causing loads to have to self isolate if they are close contacts of you and you test positive
But that can happen even if you're vaccinated. As I understand it, the vaccine doesn't stop you catching it or passing it on, it just vastly reduces the chances of you ending up in hospital from it if you do catch it.

There is also an article in The Guardian but this is behind a pay wall if you wish to look it up.

View attachment 50513
No paywall on the Guardian. They might ask you to sign up, but that's optional, you can still read the articles.
 

markinkent

Vital 1st Team Regular
Would you not agree therefore that from (say) the 1st November, anyone who can't prove that they have taken their annual flu shot should be banned from nightclubs and other places as they may well catch and spread seasonal flu. Since about 20,000 people die from it each year then those who selfishly refuse to take an annual flu shot are indirectly endangerings

Maybe. I'm not a trained medic or virologist but I know someone who is and from the moment covid emerged in China they have been consistent in their view that "covid is far more dangerous than flu".

I guess 130K deaths indicate that it is and we can't really compare it to flu for the most serious cases I.e. those hospitalised by flu or covid.

For those who can deal with it at home it might be comparable to flu but for the NHS it may not be.