SocketRocket
Ryder Cup Winner
They could always get a jab. As some one mentioned, what if you want to drive and not have a licence or insurance or no TV licence.Over 60’s
What happens when they say “no money” throw me in jail.
Dark days
They could always get a jab. As some one mentioned, what if you want to drive and not have a licence or insurance or no TV licence.Over 60’s
What happens when they say “no money” throw me in jail.
Dark days
Mmm. I want to be able to drive without the need for a driving licence… bit simplistic I know but…
Seriously though, I agree it should be by choice, but that restrictions be in place for those that choose not to have it. No going in a pub or restaurant, nor a cinema or concert. No going into shops nor sitting on a plane. That isn’t just restricting their ‘liberties,’ it’s, more importantly, protecting other people.
They could always get a jab. As some one mentioned, what if you want to drive and not have a licence or insurance or no TV licence.
Its not do different to alcoholics, smokers, druggies etc so the answer is yes.
Some have been saying they will do it bit nobody has come up with how or what sanctions can be applied.
IMO removing freedom of choice is a dangerous route to go down.
Not really. I'm not advocating throwing people in jail willy nilly but like any other law infringement that course of action is way down the road after community service, paying by installments and so on.I think you missed the point.
What's that to do with the point in discussion. It wasnt about the net cost, rather the moral duty of care for Ill people.Cigarettes and alcohol are heavily taxed.
around £10million is made via tobacco duty, and then more with VAT. Whilst estimated costs to the taxpayer is estimated at £3 - 4.5 million.
Thing is, I would agree with these restrictions a lot more if the vaccine meant that there was no transmission however whilst it may reduce it slightly it still seems plenty easy for it to spread from vaccinated to vaccinated, vaccinated to unvaccinated and so on. Given this is the case then surely the only people who are really at risk are the unvaccinated and that is their choice.
Those who are vulnerable will have the vaccine and will be as protected as they can be but they’ll just as likely catch it from well meaning family members as the unvaccinated.
I think if you go down the moral duty of care route I'm sure there have been times when we have ignored the moral duty of care we have in many aspects of everyday life.What's that to do with the point in discussion. It wasnt about the net cost, rather the moral duty of care for Ill people.
Its not do different to alcoholics, smokers, druggies etc so the answer is yes.
Totally disagree.
Alcoholics, smokers and drug users are mostly addicted to the substance and there is no simple way to stop them becoming addicted.
Yes, no-one forces them to smoke, drink or take drugs but I think if they were offered a jab that would cure them, they would take it in a heartbeat, especially if it stopped them being addicted in the first place.
I won't even go into the fact that alcohol, cigarettes and drugs aren't contagious, Covid is.
Why defend this defiance to be a responsible citizen?
Perhaps not in a viral infection way…but in other ways an addiction can be, and often is, ‘contagious’…especially within the addicts family…and most certainly the damage and illness an addict suffers is contagious in that it is very often reflected by physical and mental damage in those close to the addict.I won't even go into the fact that alcohol, cigarettes and drugs aren't contagious, Covid is.
Perhaps not in a viral infection way…but in other ways an addiction can be, and often is, ‘contagious’…especially within the addicts family…and most certainly the damage and illness an addict suffers is contagious in that it is very often reflected by physical and mental damage in those close to the addict.
The best, often only, way to help those damaged by the addict is to help and treat the addict. Abandon the addict and you abandon a whole circle of family and friends.
Alcoholics/drug takers can not infect doctors and nurses who are treating them.
Covid patients can.
And where did I say that drug addicts shouldn't be treated?
Do I have to make it any clearer or are you just looking for an argument.
I simply commented on your statement…’I won't even go into the fact that alcohol, cigarettes and drugs aren't contagious, Covid is’…that was made at the end of the first para in which no care context was given, and made clear the specific context and ways in which addictions can be ‘contagious’ in the broadest sense.Alcoholics/drug takers can not infect doctors and nurses who are treating them.
Covid patients can.
And where did I say that drug addicts shouldn't be treated?
Do I have to make it any clearer or are you just looking for an argument.
We should never get to the point where medical professionals are able to treat/not treat people based on their personal decisions.
I simply commented on your statement…’I won't even go into the fact that alcohol, cigarettes and drugs aren't contagious, Covid is’…that was made at the end of the first para in which no care context was given, and made clear the specific context and ways in which addictions can be ‘contagious’ in the broadest sense.
Do you agree that a Covid patient who had the option to take the vaccine but chose not to do so, is more likely to infect other patients and staff with Covid than an alcoholic is to infect patients and staff with their alcoholism?
Whilst I agree with the general thrust of your argument, I might quibble with your use of the word ‘choice’ as a generalisation in the context of substance addictions, as opposed to anti-vaxxers who in the vast majority of cases do seem to choose to not be vaccinated.They alcoholic, drug addict, obese person (not all I appreciate) have all made a choice, at some point, that has lead them to the point of them being in hospital. You can disagree as much as you like however all should be treated equally.