Vaccine Passports

MolteniArcore said:
I don't see the problem with it. You don't want the vaccine so you don't need the treatment.

I can tell you have lost the argument anyway on this thread, the debate has gone and the name calling has started.
Click to expand...
says the person calling people anti-vaxxers whenever you've posted.

This is not a game Molten.
 
MolteniArcore said:
There is no vaccine that prevents you getting obese or that stops you starting smoking. But you don't die from being fat or from smoking, it's the related conditions that come of being fat etc - the cancers / high blood pressure etc. Covid is different - you can catch it and die specifically from it.

This is a preventative measure offered to everyone to stop you becoming seriously ill. Don't take it? Take your chances, but not at the expense of others who might need that NHS capacity for their operations / diagnosis.

It's funny that these anti-vaxers don't want the NHS's help prior to getting Covid but want the safety net of it if they do get it.

View attachment 23897

And we'll keep your tax thank you very much, that will be compensation for the drain on society anti-vaxxers have been. Maybe we'll apportion it though and spend it on science education as this is the thing most of the anti-vaxxers are missing! ;)
Click to expand...
I’m not anti-vaxx at all I’ve had both jabs. I’m very much pro choice though, I feel it’s the start of a very slippery slope when we allow authoritarian types to make the decision to allow people to die on the streets because they chose not to undergo an optional medical procedure. Where does it end? Should we not treat youngsters for not taking a flu jab too?? After all we’re all offered one. Although it is very charitable of you to allow our taxes to be used to treat the obese and smokers, the two biggest and most preventable drains on the NHS.
 
Randy said:
Spoken words from a man who didn't have to survive for 12 months wondering every day when he woke up if he would have a job at the end of that day. My stance was against the public good? Wow, that's a fairly random accusation. There are many countries that followed different paths through the pandemic. For example last I heard Sweden was an apocalyptic wasteland. Wait, no it isn't.

Would I work where I am now for free? What on earth does that have to with a big pharma company making a profit off of a pandemic? Note you said AZ are doing it at cost, well why aren't the rest?
Click to expand...
Lol, I have that every day, and have done for the last 10 years, running a business, which could disappear in an instant if one big client doesn't pay their bill, it's effectively an inevitablility.

Yes, against the public good, it's not random, it's based on your posts. You've been against most of the policies designed to limit the excess deaths, in favour of opening businesses (at the wrong times), or not having other protective measures, which would have certainly meant much more excess deaths.

You don't live in Sweden, and they're not comparable to the UK. Sweden has done dog turd compared to every country the surrounds it, most of which had more lockdowns than us, hence lockdowns and protective measures work (for the good of public health), this is not debatable.

You're asking "big pharma" to work for free? If your employer had worked for cost (not free) in 2018-2019 cooking for those dying of hunger, then you would have had zero in the bank to ride the pandemic storm.

I'm not saying you should be cooking or working for free, certainly not for 99%, that's my point, but equally, you can't expect that of other companies. They might have spent billions and decades building up tech, to cover for this scenario. Would they get recompensated for that? Of course not, so they make up for it when it is needed. It's not ideal, but that's how the world works, and how your employer works.

Anyway, it's not like "Big Pharma" or whoever are making a killing (compared to come other sectors), the "big pharma" indexes are up 10-20%, when the S&P 500 has gone up 50%, they aren't the big winners in this.
 
Last edited:
magic said:
I’m not anti-vaxx at all I’ve had both jabs. I’m very much pro choice though, I feel it’s the start of a very slippery slope when we allow authoritarian types to make the decision to allow people to die on the streets because they chose not to undergo an optional medical procedure. Where does it end? Should we not treat youngsters for not taking a flu jab too?? After all we’re all offered one. Although it is very charitable of you to allow our taxes to be used to treat the obese and smokers, the two biggest and most preventable drains on the NHS.
Click to expand...

I answered much of that in previous posts and my posts about withholding treatment are tongue in cheek if you hadn't realised although I personally I wouldn't have a problem with it.

Pro choice is great, but if you chose to not get jabbed I don't have a problem with the NHS closing not to treat you if you got Covid.

Diabetes is the biggest drain on the NHS I think - so you are bang on with obesity - but I'm not convinced that it is all the fault of the fat man in the street. The Government won't spend money on making us thin such as great cycling infrastructure. It won't tax fatty foods or address obesity like it has tackled smoking. So it's not so simple as the argument of the Covid jab.

The flu jab isn't offered to younger people. I'm 40 and have never been offered it.

I am happy for people to chose if they get jabbed or not, as it the case with every other vaccine. I just think it is extremely selfish of someone not to have it based on nearly every argument I have heard on this thread and many others on here. If us lot, the vaccinated, hadn't got our jabs the people without jabs would still be locked down now. They are happy with that but won't play their part. Like people who avoided conscription in WW2 they sit back and let others protect the population.
 
Ideally a two tier system of vaccination and testing would eradicate Covid, but the reality is PCR testing on a mass scale daily isn't as cost effective or practical as an injection every 6 months or so, the infrastructure needed to have linked tests to every individual would be enormous and I can't see the logic, if a return to normality is the desired outcome, of having to swab everyday, link that to an electronic device or get a paper print out to prove non-infection, if anything it creates more abnormality and disruption than a vaccine passport.

The vaccination policy may not be the perfect one but in terms of cost, management and efficiency it's the one that's the most sensible choice in the circumstances, and whilst I'm fortunate that I have an expert in disease and virology as a friend to bounce questions off, I do understand others don't have that expertise close at hand, and that vilification will not change minds or attitudes, we all appreciate the emotive nature of Covid but in my opinion mass vaccination is the only feasible and sensible way to proceed given the number of people involved and the infrastructure that we have in place, should it be compulsory, no, but for events that are non-essential like sports, concerts, restaurants etc then those that chose not to be vaccinated most accept that they may be denied access, I know it's not the best analogy but if places can apply dress codes then they can apply vaccination as a requirement of entry.
 
Last edited:
Andy_W said:
Lol, I have that every day, and have done for the last 10 years, running a business, which could disappear in an instant if one big client doesn't pay their bill, it's effectively an inevitablility.

Yes, against the public good, it's not random, it's based on your posts. You've been against most of the policies designed to limit the excess deaths, in favour of opening businesses (at the wrong times), or not having other protective measures, which would have certainly meant much more excess deaths.

You don't live in Sweden, and they're not comparable to the UK. Sweden has done dog turd compared to every country the surrounds it, most of which had more lockdowns than us, hence lockdowns and protective measures work (for the good of public health), this is not debatable.

You're asking "big pharma" to work for free? If your employer had worked for cost (not free) in 2018-2019 cooking for those dying of hunger, then you would have had zero in the bank to ride the pandemic storm.

I'm not saying you should be cooking or working for free, certainly not for 99%, that's my point, but equally, you can't expect that of other companies. They might have spent billions and decades building up tech, to cover for this scenario. Would they get recompensated for that? Of course not, so they make up for it when it is needed. It's not ideal, but that's how the world works, and how your employer works.

Anyway, it's not like "Big Pharma" or whoever are making a killing (compared to come other sectors), the "big pharma" indexes are up 10-20%, when the S&P 500 has gone up 50%, they aren't the big winners in this.
Click to expand...
Is everybody dead in Sweden? Yes or no?
 
tonymcandrewshattrick said:
So you're happy to watch another human being dying in the street. Would you **** on them at the same time?
Click to expand...
Why should the NHS treat them if the NHS are advising people to get vaccinated so that their numbers in beds are kept low so that there is space to treat everyone sensible, who needs it. Over 70's/80's are still at more risk even AFTER vaccination, than under 50's without vaccination. The over 70's/80's and those with health issues still carry the most risk, and would likely get prioritised/ fill up the available beds first.

If everyone under 50 didn't get vaxed, there would be no room for anyone under 50 to be treated, as the hospital would be rammed with cases over 50, and those that have more risk, and they still need to be treating other ailments an operating A&E etc.

Your "man in the street" is his own worst enemy if everyone had the same line of thinking.

The only reason pubs, shops, restaurants and schools are open is because 90% of people over 16 can be sensible, and see the bigger picture. The other 10% are just taking advantage of the 90%'s efforts.
 
Last edited:
tonymcandrewshattrick said:
So you're happy to watch another human being dying in the street. Would you **** on them at the same time?
Click to expand...

Why would they be in the street?

Funny you mention watching people die without medical assistance. Just like what happened in Italy at the start of the pandemic. Good job people are taking vaccines now to prevent such thing occurring again. In fact you should be replying to these posts thanking us vaccinated people, not arguing with us. How very ungrateful. We allow you to take your stance on vaccination.

Your man dying in the street would (like many other anti-vaxxers on deaths door) be telling people to get vaccinated. You might want to listen to him.
 
MolteniArcore said:
Why would they be in the street?
Click to expand...
why, because you and @NYboro have both referenced casting people out from society. The lovely NYboro was supporting withdrawing social security support for people that don't want the vaccine.

What happens to these people? Where do they go? How do they survive?

What's happened to the society that cares for each other, because it should work both ways.
 
tonymcandrewshattrick said:
why, because you and @NYboro have both referenced casting people out from society. The lovely NYboro was supporting withdrawing social security support for people that don't want the vaccine.

What happens to these people? Where do they go? How do they survive?

What's happened to the society that cares for each other, because it should work both ways.
Click to expand...
They take the vaccine to help protect others. I have just seen the email sent out to the 30000 health care employees where I worked. Anyone not vaccinated by the 13th has to go to the office for termination proceedings to start. Two weeks after that they are unemployed with no unemployment benefits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top