Mandatory vaccination... and so it begins

[Skimpot flyer]

I cannot provide a direct link yet, as a full page in the website has not yet been compiled. But... Breaking news from the BBC says there is one country that is considering mandatory vaccination! Since governments lately have been behaving like sheep, copying each other on face coverings, this is a deeply concerning development

1. Australia says it has secured access to a promising coronavirus vaccine and will offer free doses
2. The country's PM Scott Morrison says the vaccine should be "as mandatory as you can possibly make it"
3. The vaccine, being developed by AstraZeneca and Oxford University, is in advanced clinical trials

 

[adc82140]

It'll be the same as mandatory voting in Australia. Not really mandatory at all, just a small fine to pay to opt out.

 

[Skimpot flyer]

It'll be the same as mandatory voting in Australia. Not really mandatory at all, just a small fine to pay to opt out.

What if, instead of a fine, refuseniks are barred from international travel?

 

[adc82140]

I'd see the UN taking a dim view.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Australia, FWIW, is a health and safety obsessive country (e.g. you basically can't do DIY electrical work, even at the height of the Part P nonsense you could still do most of it here, and now only major works are notifiable). Though I'd normally considered the reason was protectionism rather than safety - not quite the case here!

 

[nlogax]

What if, instead of a fine, refuseniks are barred from international travel?

Great idea.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What if, instead of a fine, refuseniks are barred from international travel?

I would consider that very likely, similar to Yellow Fever in the countries affected we will see a requirement to prove vaccination in order to enter most countries.

 

[Djgr]

Quite happy with this. Now is not the time to pander to prima donnas

 

[Bantamzen]

Suggesting mandatory vaccination for a vaccine not even ready or fully tested is a slippery slope, not to mention a logistical nightmare. I believe Anthony Fauci in the US has already spoken against the idea. Imagine forcing people to take a vaccine that subsequently causes some serious problems, you would have nothing less than civil unrest as a result. And if even the vaccine turns out to be safe, how do you begin to prioritise? Mass vaccination of tens of millions of people would take months I'm sure, so what happens to those at the very bottom of the priority list. Do they become second class citizens, the "unclean" until it is their turn.

I know the idea appeals to some of the more authoritarian types on here, but what might seem to work in the sanitised RUK environment may well not work, even have serious ramifications out there in the real one. Its so utterly obvious what the plan should be if a vaccine gets licensed for general use, those most at risk and those caring for them must be the priority. Because they work & live in the environments that are by far and away the most likely sources of spread. Thereafter once this is complete the vaccine be offered to the rest of the general public in a series of rollouts based on risk.

 

[joncombe]

The BBC are now reporting that the Australian Prime Minster has now back-tracked and said the vaccine won't be compulsory. To quote

“It is not going to be compulsory to have the vaccine, OK? It’s not compulsory. There are no compulsory vaccines in Australia,” he told Sydney radio station 2GB.

"There will be a lot of encouragement and measures to get as high a rate of acceptance as usual,” he added.

See this link.

 

[Reliablebeam]

It might be worth emphasising here, as Bletchleyite has intimated, that Australia is surprisingly authoritarian and in the case of Victoria and NSW, quite 'nanny stateish'. I found it quite surprising when I lived there, from a people whose projected image is one of self-reliant 'fair dinkum', 'she'll be all right Sheila' and all that. These types do exist but largely in the sparsely populated rural areas. I hope I don't insult any Australians here as of course the UK has plenty of its own problems...

 

[yorksrob]

Australia, FWIW, is a health and safety obsessive country

Probably understandable in a country where so much of the wildlife can kill you !

 

[The Ham]

The BBC are now reporting that the Australian Prime Minster has now back-tracked and said the vaccine won't be compulsory. To quote


See this link.

Even in the original it was "as mandatory as you can possibly make it".

My reading of that was that there'd be certain things (such as international travel or being a government employee, maybe exclude children from attending school without it - however that would be fairly extreme) that you couldn't do without it or a note from your doctor as to why you're exempt but outside of that you'd be encouraged as much as possible to get inoculated but there'd be little that could actually be done to force you to have it.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

"as mandatory as you can possibly make it"
is much the same as
"compulsory"

In both cases there would be absolute resuseniks and then the 'hard to reach' groups - be that geographically, morally or religious.

Remember Thalidomide.

Discussion on any compulsion closed.

I'll sit in a room with 99 rich/famous/senior royals and senior politicians. We'll all take a syringe of the same stuff, from the same source. I'll take mine last once the other 99 have been seen, by me, in person, to take the vaccine first.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thalidomide was in the context of an entirely different scientific and legislative framework than exists today. I'm not saying that sort of thing can't happen, but it's much, much less likely.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Thalidomide was in the context of an entirely different scientific and legislative framework than exists today. I'm not saying that sort of thing can't happen, but it's much, much less likely.

Indeed, much less likely - for a fully tested vaccine (or other medicine generally) utilising that framework. Procedures have been changed markedly since the 1950/60's. But we are not talking about the usual testing procedures and timescales for the COVID-19 vaccine. Everyone wants to be the world saviour by producing the first vaccine. Governments are placing advance orders worth £ hundreds of millions. With the best intentions, timescales are being substantially shortened, some corners will be inevitably cut eg peer review.

No way am I one of the anti-vaccers, I had all mine as a child, and some since. But I think it reasonable to be a little wary of anything produced so quickly. I'll wait towards the back of the queue I think.

 

[43066]

Thalidomide was in the context of an entirely different scientific and legislative framework than exists today. I'm not saying that sort of thing can't happen, but it's much, much less likely.

Indeed, much less likely - for a fully tested vaccine (or other medicine generally) utilising that framework. Procedures have been changed markedly since the 1950/60's. But we are not talking about the usual testing procedures and timescales for the COVID-19 vaccine. Everyone wants to be the world saviour by producing the first vaccine. Governments are placing advance orders worth £ hundreds of millions. With the best intentions, timescales are being substantially shortened, some corners will be inevitably cut eg peer review.

No way am I one of the anti-vaccers, I had all mine as a child, and some since. But I think it reasonable to be a little wary of anything produced so quickly. I'll wait towards the back of the queue I think.

Assuming you subscribe to Netflix, “Attacking the Devil” is well worth a watch, if you have a passing interest in the Thalidomide scandal.

 

[Ken H]

I think mandatory vaccination would go against some UN treaties. I think the European convention on Human Rights too.

 

[The Ham]

"as mandatory as you can possibly make it"
is much the same as
"compulsory"

Not at all

Is it compulsory to have a passport?

However if you wish to travel it is mandatory.

The net result is that a significant percentage of the population does own a passport.

As I've suggested previously; chances are entry to a lot of countries would likely require a certificate of vaccination or the person in question would have to spend 14 days in quarantine or have a doctor's letter (although probably that would have limits as to what that would allow) before allowing entry.

Probably the easiest is the certificate of vaccination.

Just on the speed of development, the winter flu vaccines are new each year and are developed during the previous 6 months.

 

[43066]

As I've suggested previously; chances are entry to a lot of countries would likely require a certificate of vaccination or the person in question would have to spend 14 days in quarantine or have a doctor's letter (although probably that would have limits as to what that would allow) before allowing entry.

Probably the easiest is the certificate of vaccination.

Just on the speed of development, the winter flu vaccines are new each year and are developed during the previous 6 months.

I’ve travelled all over the world. I’ve never been asked for evidence of a flu vacccine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’ve travelled all over the world. I’ve never been asked for evidence of a flu vacccine.

Try Yellow Fever.

 

[Ken H]

I’ve travelled all over the world. I’ve never been asked for evidence of a flu vacccine.

only cert I have ever had to have was yellow fever going to Gambia.

edit. sorry Bletchleyite, we must have posted together.

 

[43066]

Try Yellow Fever.

only cert I have ever had to have was yellow fever going to Gambia.

edit. sorry Bletchleyite, we must have posted together.

Looking at yellow fever it seems you generally only need to show evidence of a vaccine if you’ve spent significant time in a country with a high prevalence (is yellow fever vaccine given to babies in the UK? I honestly have no idea).

Apparently it’s considered a particular threat in sub Saharan Africa and South America. I’ve visited multiple countries, on both continents, but was never asked for evidence. Perhaps that’s because my trips originate in the UK.

(Admittedly the closest I’ve been to sub Saharan Africa “proper” is Zambia, but we crossed the border from SA, and it was part of a 3 week trip originating in the UK).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Looking at yellow fever it seems you generally only need to show evidence of a vaccine if you’ve spent significant time in a country with a high prevalence (is yellow fever vaccine given to babies in the UK? I honestly have no idea).

No, it's not.

 

[greyman42]

And if even the vaccine turns out to be safe, how do you begin to prioritise? Mass vaccination of tens of millions of people would take months I'm sure, so what happens to those at the very bottom of the priority list. Do they become second class citizens, the "unclean" until it is their turn.

I don't think anyone of any significance would seriously call the people at the bottom of the list "unclean".

 

[Baxenden Bank]

If I were going to a country with a high prevalence (of any particular nasty) I would want to be vaccinated to protect myself from catching it.

If I were coming from a country with a high prevalence, I would expect the immigration authorities to want me to prove I had been vaccinated, tested negative, or be put into quarantine.

If the globe-trotters get vaccinated, the remainder can go without. Just as they can go without passports. It is mandatory to have one to travel, not to stay where you are. Back to the discussion on compulsory photo ID here!

 

[The Ham]

I’ve travelled all over the world. I’ve never been asked for evidence of a flu vacccine.

That's not surprising as it's an accepted risk and a vaccine is only useful for about 6 months as the Flu mutates quite a lot.

Covid-19 has a load of unknowns and so could cause countries issues of they let a lot of people in who may cause an outbreak in that country.

The other way that travelers may be "encouraged" is if their travel insurance premiums were cheaper with a certificate of vaccination or if there was no cover for Covid-19 without one.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I don't think anyone of any significance would seriously call the people at the bottom of the list "unclean".

If they were given bells, and special suits (leper suits), they could call it out.
ding, unclean, ding, unclean.

A mentality of 'underclass' or 'exclusion' would develop around those who had not yet had the vaccination (or even had the opportunity yet), as per the arguments / excluding about the unmasked today - even where they have a legal exemption.

 

[greyman42]

Its so utterly obvious what the plan should be if a vaccine gets licensed for general use, those most at risk and those caring for them must be the priority. Because they work & live in the environments that are by far and away the most likely sources of spread. Thereafter once this is complete the vaccine be offered to the rest of the general public in a series of rollouts based on risk.

As you say, this is obviously how it will be done. The exception might be if the vaccine is also available privately, then some people may wish to jump the queue by paying for it which would be no bad thing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As you say, this is obviously how it will be done. The exception might be if the vaccine is also available privately, then some people may wish to jump the queue by paying for it which would be no bad thing.

Indeed, anyone paying for it saves the NHS money.