A quick poll about taking the vaccine.

[bramling]

Can we just put this nonsense to bed, please? The alternative to vaccinations is permanent lockdowns, and they affect all of us.

Regardless of the rights or wrongs of vaccine choices, permanent lockdown is simply not an option - for the basic reason that it’s unaffordable.

 

[kez19]

Can we just put this nonsense to bed, please? The alternative to vaccinations is permanent lockdowns, and they affect all of us.

Unless of course you have money in medicines etc then money does indeed grow on trees!

I'm surprised that the alternative to vaccinations is lockdowns, oh dear! We didn't lockdown for the flu let alone any other virus out there, we didn't even lockdown for Swine Flu either, life was well.. normal.

You are quite right that lockdown affects all of us but lets also remember that some treatments have been cancelled during this and its not as if by magic we are now hearing that places that deal with mental health or other issues are at least trying to open up, I am sure that there could have been arrangements in place to deal with both non-covid and covid emergencies than what I could describe as a mental/physical health emergency where people have been quite literally been thrown under a bus.

I personally have been affected - I am meant to be getting looked into to see if I am autistic or ADHD, I am already pushed back but with all this I will be pushed even further but still its not an emergency or urgent to you but it can be to someone else again goes back to been thrown under a bus, all lives matter but it shouldn't revolve around being covid only, i'm sorry you have been affected by covid as have I but I think we need a bigger perspective on all of this and I personally lay blame with the governments/scientists and the media in all this.

Campaigners condemn UK for putting Big Pharma profits ahead of coronavirus vaccine at WHO - Global Justice Now

Global Justice Now today criticised Health Secretary Matt Hancock for failing to join world leaders in declaring a potential coronavirus vaccine to be a ‘public good’, and instead acting as […]

www.globaljustice.org.uk

Nick Dearden, director of Global Justice Now said:

“This is a gigantic failure of leadership. While countries from across the world have come together at the World Health Assembly to say coronavirus treatments and vaccines should be treated as a public good, provided patent-free to people on the basis of need, the British government has supported the pharmaceutical industry in its drive to profit from the coronavirus crisis. While they support market-driven schemes to help very poor countries purchase cheaper treatments from Big Pharma, the majority of the world will still not benefit from this approach. Pumping research into vaccines is only one part of the puzzle - unless you ensure that any eventual vaccines are patent-free, billions of people face being priced out.
“We’ve seen from past crises that Big Pharma have put their own profits ahead of human need again and again. It’s time for a radically new way of delivering medicines – it’s a great shame the British government is not prepared to step up to this challenge.”

 

[61653 HTAFC]

Except the crash helmet isn’t a medical procedure with unknown future side affects. Nor are we coerced into riding a motorcycle. Also stats show you’re at risk from a motorcycling fatality than you are from Covid.

You're right about one thing though. Baffling indeed...

I said I was out but you've reeled me back in, more fool me. Anyway the crash helmet thing was an analogy- maybe not a perfect one but my point stands- your position makes "perfect" the enemy of "good".

I'm intrigued as to why people who fear getting the virus are "bedwetters" but people who fear the very limited side-effects are somehow smarter than the epidemiologists despite a complete lack of expertise in the area.

 

[dan5324]

I said I was out but you've reeled me back in, more fool me. Anyway the crash helmet thing was an analogy- maybe not a perfect one but my point stands- your position makes "perfect" the enemy of "good".

I'm intrigued as to why people who fear getting the virus are "bedwetters" but people who fear the very limited side-effects are somehow smarter than the epidemiologists despite a complete lack of expertise in the area.

It’s not necessarily just the side affects ffs it’s agreeing to be coerced into taking a vaccine for a virus that doesn’t badly affect the vast majority. But never mind eh? It’s just a mask. Its just on public transport, It’s just three weeks, we will just vaccinate the vulnerable etc etc.

 

[Richard Scott]

Unless of course you have money in medicines etc then money does indeed grow on trees!

I'm surprised that the alternative to vaccinations is lockdowns, oh dear! We didn't lockdown for the flu let alone any other virus out there, we didn't even lockdown for Swine Flu either, life was well.. normal.

You are quite right that lockdown affects all of us but lets also remember that some treatments have been cancelled during this and its not as if by magic we are now hearing that places that deal with mental health or other issues are at least trying to open up, I am sure that there could have been arrangements in place to deal with both non-covid and covid emergencies than what I could describe as a mental/physical health emergency where people have been quite literally been thrown under a bus.

I personally have been affected - I am meant to be getting looked into to see if I am autistic or ADHD, I am already pushed back but with all this I will be pushed even further but still its not an emergency or urgent to you but it can be to someone else again goes back to been thrown under a bus, all lives matter but it shouldn't revolve around being covid only, i'm sorry you have been affected by covid as have I but I think we need a bigger perspective on all of this and I personally lay blame with the governments/scientists and the media in all this.

Campaigners condemn UK for putting Big Pharma profits ahead of coronavirus vaccine at WHO - Global Justice Now

Global Justice Now today criticised Health Secretary Matt Hancock for failing to join world leaders in declaring a potential coronavirus vaccine to be a ‘public good’, and instead acting as […]

www.globaljustice.org.uk

Have I missed something here, as far as I'm aware the Astra Zeneca vaccine is sold at cost? So them stating something along lines of UK government supporting these giants to boost profits isn't true in that case? The flip side is if they don't make a profit then they don't do any research into new vaccines.

 

[kez19]

Have I missed something here, as far as I'm aware the Astra Zeneca vaccine is sold at cost? So them stating something along lines of UK government supporting these giants to boost profits isn't true in that case? The flip side is if they don't make a profit then they don't do any research into new vaccines.

The way I read it, could be that governments put profits before people.

 

[yorksrob]

Indeed, something along the line of a short, sharp lockdown right? Because it worked in New Zealand....

As I say I am not against the vaccine, quite the opposite in fact. But it is, and should remain voluntary wherever it is offered in the world, and it should be prioritised for those that need it most. Do we all remember al that altruism last year, clapping and banging pots, staying at home to "save lives"? Then the vaccine comes out and there's a mad scramble amongst various public-facing professions (and many not public facing) all demanding priority. Uh huh! Quite honestly what we (as in the UK) should be doing is completing the priority groups, which we are probably just about at, then looking around the world at countries where the most vulnerable have yet to have an offer of a vaccine. Then, and only then make it available to the rest of our population through our GP network and get the money currently being used for rapid vaccinations back into the mainstream NHS where it is desperately needed.

As a fat forty-something with a distinct aversion to lockdown, I disagree. We should continue offering it to those who want it in descending age.

I used to be all for prioritisation etc, but frankly I've lost patience with it all and think we should just crack on with it. We should make the patents available to assist the rest of the world.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I’m a reasonably healthy 31 year old, and I shan’t be taking the vaccine, I’m no anti vaxxer either.

What I don’t like is the coercion into getting the vaccine or else one cannot partake in society? What kind of thinking is that?

It should remain as a choice as to whether you want it or not, by next year enough people will have been vaccinated and with everything opened back up again as normal Covid will be seasonal

Coercion to get the vaccine is an extremely dangerous slope that shouldn’t be considered

 

[Journeyman]

I’m a reasonably healthy 31 year old, and I shan’t be taking the vaccine, I’m no anti vaxxer either.

What I don’t like is the coercion into getting the vaccine or else one cannot partake in society? What kind of thinking is that?

It should remain as a choice as to whether you want it or not, by next year enough people will have been vaccinated and with everything opened back up again as normal Covid will be seasonal

Coercion to get the vaccine is an extremely dangerous slope that shouldn’t be considered

There's no coercion.

 

[Typhoon]

Had my AstraZenecas shot last Saturday morning with no immedate side effects ..
However yesterday afternoon I got aches ans chills and felt immensely hungry, thirsty and tired and couldnt watch TV so I had an early night.
I had a very broken sleep because I kept on waking up as I was sweating.
This morning I feel a bit better.
I still think taking the vaccine was the right thing for me to do.

Thanks to you and others who reported the side effects. Had by AZ jab same time, felt fine. Felt fairly grim yesterday - certainly thirsty and tired. I was starting to worry that I had caught the virus (I was tested for it about 3 weeks ago - negative). At least I know others have felt the same.

Even if I hadn't been booked in, I would have wanted to after seeing a friend of my mother's. She had Covid two months ago, I've never seen her look so awful!

 

[NorthKent1989]

There's no coercion.

There will be if one who hasn’t been vaccinated cannot attend festivals, theatres, cinemas, restaurants and pubs and the establishment says they cannot enter

 

[DB]

There will be if one who hasn’t been vaccinated cannot attend festivals, theatres, cinemas, restaurants and pubs and the establishment says they cannot enter

Quite. As with maskivist laws, you can just see it coming a mile off.

 

[takno]

Thanks to you and others who reported the side effects. Had by AZ jab same time, felt fine. Felt fairly grim yesterday - certainly thirsty and tired. I was starting to worry that I had caught the virus (I was tested for it about 3 weeks ago - negative). At least I know others have felt the same.

Even if I hadn't been booked in, I would have wanted to after seeing a friend of my mother's. She had Covid two months ago, I've never seen her look so awful!

To be fair I've had exactly the same symptoms yesterday and last night. Seem to be a bit better today. I haven't had the jab though, so it may just be something that's doing the rounds. We've got a lot a of people who've barely left the house in months suddenly going out to test centres and the like, so we're likely to have a bunch of nasty stuff spreading about all of a sudden.

 

[Bertie the bus]

You completely contradict yourself there - if people are being excluded from aspects of society for not having it it's not 'voluntary' is it? What you are describing is significant coercion.

It isn't a contradiction at all. I understand why people might not want the vaccine and accept it is their choice. I also understand some people have a real fear of the virus and accept they might want to put measures in place to protect themselves against what they perceive to be a threat. You, by being against absolutely everything and often ridiculing people who behave differently or perceive things differently, are the one who shows no empathy whatsoever for people who don't hold the exact views as yourself.

 

[Journeyman]

There will be if one who hasn’t been vaccinated cannot attend festivals, theatres, cinemas, restaurants and pubs and the establishment says they cannot enter

I don't approve of such measures, but if they're introduced, it's up to you to decide how strong your principles are.

 

[NorthKent1989]

I don't approve of such measures, but if they're introduced, it's up to you to decide how strong your principles are.

Then I, along with others of my demographic, would be coerced into taking the vaccine then won’t I? Which is wrong, freedom of choice shouldn’t be lost

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Mar 2021 ==

Quite. As with maskivist laws, you can just see it coming a mile off.

Personally I don’t think it’ll happen but it will be attempted sadly

 

[DB]

It isn't a contradiction at all. I understand why people might not want the vaccine and accept it is their choice. I also understand some people have a real fear of the virus and accept they might want to put measures in place to protect themselves against what they perceive to be a threat. You, by being against absolutely everything and often ridiculing people who behave differently or perceive things differently, are the one who shows no empathy whatsoever for people who don't hold the exact views as yourself.

I'm not ridiculing anyone and you are avoiding the issue. How can you claim that something is 'voluntary' when there will / may be significant restrictions placed on them if they refuse to do it?

I am in no way 'against' people who want to have the vaccine - if they think it's right for them, then they should absolutely go ahead and have it - but they do not have the right to try to force others into doing likewise.

 

[kez19]

I don't approve of such measures, but if they're introduced, it's up to you to decide how strong your principles are.

So does that then create a 2 tiered society? It seems like it.

 

[Annetts key]

There will be if one who hasn’t been vaccinated cannot attend festivals, theatres, cinemas, restaurants and pubs and the establishment says they cannot enter

Private establishments can already exclude people from coming onto their private property, in the same way that you can prevent people from coming onto your private property (* except certain professions who have certain legal powers).

I don’t believe coercion is the best way. I believe education and explanation is the far better way.

But in a so called free society (we are not totally free by the way, I would prefer it if trains were allowed to run down trespassers, but that’s not allowed), we can ask those who say they won’t have a jab, why not? What’s your reason(s). And should be allowed to respond if we think their reasons are poor.

 

[cactustwirly]

Just out of interest, how do you rationalise that against the fact that if you, and millions of others, do decide to be vaccinated, you'll be helping to protect elderly, vulnerable and disabled people?

Well that only works if the vaccine is shown to reduce transmission

 

[kez19]

There will be if one who hasn’t been vaccinated cannot attend festivals, theatres, cinemas, restaurants and pubs and the establishment says they cannot enter

That’s been my personal fear all along being restricted but none of the governments are being forward with this I wonder why?

 

[DB]

Private establishments can already exclude people from coming onto their private property, in the same way that you can prevent people from coming onto your private property (* except certain professions who have certain legal powers).

I don’t believe coercion is the best way. I believe education and explanation is the far better way.

But in a so called free society (we are not totally free by the way, I would prefer it if trains were allowed to run down trespassers, but that’s not allowed), we can ask those who say they won’t have a jab, why not? What’s your reason(s). And should be allowed to respond if we think their reasons are poor.

There is no precedent for a private establishment (or an individual) being allowed to ask whether someone has had a particular medical treatment and refusing them entry if tey have not.

 

[kez19]

Private establishments can already exclude people from coming onto their private property, in the same way that you can prevent people from coming onto your private property (* except certain professions who have certain legal powers).

I don’t believe coercion is the best way. I believe education and explanation is the far better way.

But in a so called free society (we are not totally free by the way, I would prefer it if trains were allowed to run down trespassers, but that’s not allowed), we can ask those who say they won’t have a jab, why not? What’s your reason(s). And should be allowed to respond if we think their reasons are poor.

In general that’s none of your business why someone doesn’t want it are we getting privy now in what people do now what’s next?

So a reason for not taking it as poor what next cut off their money, job, home, broadband? That’s a slippery slope right there but I guess if you are happy for the Governments to judge you on merits then I do fear the worst from this.

Also who is “we”? Is the “we” some sort of judge on a talent show or we speaking as in government/politicians decide our fate? Let the “hunger games” commence!

 

[Annetts key]

There is no precedent for a private establishment (or an individual) being allowed to ask whether someone has had a particular medical treatment and refusing them entry if tey have not.

If you consider alcohol to be a drug, then yes there is...

 

[takno]

If you consider alcohol to be a drug, then yes there is...

It's a drug, but it's fairly clearly not a medical treatment

 

[Annetts key]

In general that’s none of your business why someone doesn’t want it are we getting privy now in what people do now what’s next?

So a reason for not taking it as poor what next cut off their money, job, home, broadband? That’s a slippery slope right there but I guess if you are happy for the Governments to judge you on merits then I do fear the worst from this.

Also who is “we”? Is the “we” some sort of judge on a talent show or we speaking as in government/politicians decide our fate? Let the “hunger games” commence!

I never said you had to answer the question...

 

[NorthKent1989]

Private establishments can already exclude people from coming onto their private property, in the same way that you can prevent people from coming onto your private property (* except certain professions who have certain legal powers).

I don’t believe coercion is the best way. I believe education and explanation is the far better way.

But in a so called free society (we are not totally free by the way, I would prefer it if trains were allowed to run down trespassers, but that’s not allowed), we can ask those who say they won’t have a jab, why not? What’s your reason(s). And should be allowed to respond if we think their reasons are poor.

But doesn’t this set a dangerous precedent? If we move toward an authoritarian society where we can exclude people based on vaccine status what’s to stop politicians from enforcing more authoritarian rules? some might be okay with such measures but I’m sure they’ll change their tune when it’s their rights that are in danger of being infringed upon, it’ll be a slippery slope we won’t ever be able to return from.

There are lots of reasons why some won’t take the vaccine beyond “anti vax” or “young and/or healthy“ There are religious and disability reasons.

Much like the mask exemption it’s nobody’s business one why one won’t take a vaccine.

 

[35B]

I'm not ridiculing anyone and you are avoiding the issue. How can you claim that something is 'voluntary' when there will / may be significant restrictions placed on them if they refuse to do it?

I am in no way 'against' people who want to have the vaccine - if they think it's right for them, then they should absolutely go ahead and have it - but they do not have the right to try to force others into doing likewise.

"Will" and "may" are different words, with very different meanings. It's very clear - and predictable - that some countries are going to impose vaccine passports as a condition of entry. There has been some discussion about the possibility of using proof of vaccination as a condition of entry to certain events and/or places in this country, but it's far from clear whether this will happen. @Annetts key then makes the very valid point that private establishments have considerable latitude to determine who may - or may not - enter their premises, which may include a condition around vaccination. There are some areas - health and social care in particular - where that may be justified.

However, I was impressed by the piece I saw on the local news a few days ago, where vaccine uptake is being significantly increased by the simple expedient of GPs ringing people who decline and talking to them. That feels the right choice for getting vaccination levels up to the very high levels that are needed for society as a whole, and a far better approach than a cack-handed one of quasi compulsion.

That said, I have minimal sympathy for the "but we're being coerced" argument - you aren't, you are being given hobson's choice; you can take the vaccine you don't particularly want, or you can go without but with significant constraints on what you can do. That's a choice, just as Californian parents have the choice of not vaccinating their kids - but those kids then not being allowed to attend schools. The concept of a social contract is very old, and part of it relies on people doing things that aren't in their personal direct interest for the benefit of society at large.

Being blunt, I see a number of people posting here to say that they'll decline to be vaccinated, who then get very offended at any hint that they might in some way be being selfish. On the arguments I've seen on this thread, my reaction is largely to think "the lady doth protest too much".

 

[kez19]

I never said you had to answer the question...

Yet I’m entitled to an opinion

 

[35B]

But doesn’t this set a dangerous precedent? If we move toward an authoritarian society where we can exclude people based on vaccine status what’s to stop politicians from enforcing more authoritarian rules? some might be okay with such measures but I’m sure they’ll change their tune when it’s their rights that are in danger of being infringed upon, it’ll be a slippery slope we won’t ever be able to return from.

There are lots of reasons why some won’t take the vaccine beyond “anti vax” or “young and/or healthy“ There are religious and disability reasons.

Much like the mask exemption it’s nobody’s business one why one won’t take a vaccine.

We exist in a society where we can be excluded from various things for a variety of reasons. I can be barred from a supermarket because of my choice of (entirely legal) attire; I can be restricted from certain activities because of my physique (6'5" on a rollercoaster...?), to name a couple of factors. I cannot drive unless I hold a permit from the government permitting me to drive, which may be revoked if I transgress arbitrary laws governing how I must drive.

That does not prove or disprove that society is "authoritarian", just as the existence of laws restricting what I can say do not mean that society is "authoritarian".

For those who dislike the prospect of being made to do something against their will when it is a strongly driven social norm, the best course may just be to accept that norm rather than fight against it.

I have huge respect for WWI conscientious objectors, even as I think them profoundly mistaken, because of their willingness to suffer for their beliefs. I see no such moral strength in the arguments being advanced against vaccination, just a determination not to be told what to do.