Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Virus |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues." Stuff the WHO there is more to it than that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues." The who are proving themselves less and less relevant in this pandemic. I admit I don't know their inner working but I'm struggling to see where they have added any value to addressing this pandemic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is an issue of equity where vaccines are not accessible or affordable. Whether they should be used to contain or mitigate Covid in privileged people like us is another question." If you keep doing the same things the same way... Don't be surprised to get the same outcome. Behaviours in global travel need to change. Or we will be doing this again and again. Letting everyone travel from anywhere to anywhere unchecked, with what we hopefully have learned from this pa demic, is just stupid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is an issue of equity where vaccines are not accessible or affordable. Whether they should be used to contain or mitigate Covid in privileged people like us is another question. If you keep doing the same things the same way... Don't be surprised to get the same outcome. Behaviours in global travel need to change. Or we will be doing this again and again. Letting everyone travel from anywhere to anywhere unchecked, with what we hopefully have learned from this pa demic, is just stupid. " Sure. But it's not the people who can't access vaccines who are jetsetting all over the place. Having vaccine passports for the first world is not the same as a universal requirement. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is an issue of equity where vaccines are not accessible or affordable. Whether they should be used to contain or mitigate Covid in privileged people like us is another question. If you keep doing the same things the same way... Don't be surprised to get the same outcome. Behaviours in global travel need to change. Or we will be doing this again and again. Letting everyone travel from anywhere to anywhere unchecked, with what we hopefully have learned from this pa demic, is just stupid. Sure. But it's not the people who can't access vaccines who are jetsetting all over the place. Having vaccine passports for the first world is not the same as a universal requirement." So if they aren't flying whats the issue? They don't need a passport if they aren't flying. This has the feeling of another one of those saying stuff that isn't a problem 99% of the time. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is an issue of equity where vaccines are not accessible or affordable. Whether they should be used to contain or mitigate Covid in privileged people like us is another question. If you keep doing the same things the same way... Don't be surprised to get the same outcome. Behaviours in global travel need to change. Or we will be doing this again and again. Letting everyone travel from anywhere to anywhere unchecked, with what we hopefully have learned from this pa demic, is just stupid. Sure. But it's not the people who can't access vaccines who are jetsetting all over the place. Having vaccine passports for the first world is not the same as a universal requirement. So if they aren't flying whats the issue? They don't need a passport if they aren't flying. This has the feeling of another one of those saying stuff that isn't a problem 99% of the time. " I suppose they might do in some cases? Don't know. I think it is important - and the remit of the WHO - to remind of us of health inequalities and access issues when we look to protect ourselves. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It is an issue of equity where vaccines are not accessible or affordable. Whether they should be used to contain or mitigate Covid in privileged people like us is another question. If you keep doing the same things the same way... Don't be surprised to get the same outcome. Behaviours in global travel need to change. Or we will be doing this again and again. Letting everyone travel from anywhere to anywhere unchecked, with what we hopefully have learned from this pa demic, is just stupid. " Travel is still very possible. Just antigen test ( 15 mins)on day of travel. If negative then can travel. Download app in destination country to track your movements/ contacts. Antigen test on day 5. Most people will be negative. Those who are positive can be isolated and have a clear path to tracking close contact. The tracking app has to be mandatory. This gets round the issue of your vaccine status- the main issue is setting this up and there is a lot of resistance within the airline industry to it- they are banking on vaccines | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues." Luc, I've raised the various concerns over this in regards to a UK version "covid status certificate", it is a complete breach of human rights to demand it tbh and with the shear level of countries that are now trying to push this through is making it a world wide big brother experiment. gov own/private backed/consumer stuffed. I would suggest to anyone regardless of how silly this sound to go look at the various dystopias like hunger games, v for vendetta (started with a virus), divergent series etc every one of them uses the same tactics for control, they all demand papers, live in fear of the rulers and sacrifice of rights just to live etc...this is also becoming our reality. (especially when you combine this with the police bill and extension of covid laws which allow laws to be passed without consultation and when the fill the media with fear it's easy to hide proposals from the public and go well no one objected, it's an American resources grab tactic) to the point at least one company in the US has (voluntarily) put microchips in employees hands instead of issuing security cards for doors (multipass!!) etc, it's the first in a long line to come. Elon Musk put one in his brain! and placentas have been found to have mirco plastics in them. do you want to have to produce papers everywhere you go? to prove you are a 'FREE' person, like a free/vax'd black person was required to, otherwise they were presumed owned/unvax'd. See how easy those words are to switch when you create a division in society that has already been passed through in many ways in history. you have to ask this: do you want to be excluded from all aspects of society if you don't? do you think it's right to FORCE by means of coercion a medical treatment? the coercion being excluded from day to day life activities if not followed. think of this scenario, a mum (cos they are more likely prim carers) has doubts over vaccine due to POSSIBLE future fertility complications and doesn't have it, her child who is in school, is talking with friends bout vaccine (and yes they are), kid mentions mum refused hers & gets bullied for it, other parents kick up a stink with school, KID misses out on their right to education over other peoples biases regarding personal choice of medical treatments. another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. another person cannot have the vaccine due to medical complications (immune supressed etc), this person is well aware of risks to life as it is a daily concern and would much rather LIVE life than hide away inside with little quality of life, which they know full well would only lead to a depressive state which then affects physical health further and faster, they can't go anywhere with friends, despite their time being more limited and at risk than another's, they are excluded that personal choice of how they live. the prowd private person who knows their rights that they do not have to disclose medical information to anyone, despite actually having the jab is rejected from entering the venue for refusing to prove it. what about paper's getting wet in the rain? phone's getting broken, lost or stolen en route? you also have to consider what doors this opens if it is allowed through who draws the line at what medical treatments can or should be made mandatory? where does the request of papers stop? pubs? clubs? private venues right, what is to stop house landlords giving our housing market is overwhelmingly privately owned from demanding it especially those who own flats? (thanks, thatcher & greed) workplaces, largely private (we've alreaddy heard on here of a member's work place putting in illegal mandatory vaccination policies upon new staff, where will the unvax'd be able to work if they all do this? (not all through own choice either) childminders? local activity centre? Supermarkets are all private too aren't they? how you gonna buy food? what if schools start to demand them? what happens to the kids who don't have a jab for whatever reason? who has the right to control what you put in your body but you? Government and data privacy....don't make me laugh, its one of the biggest leakers of data to private companies. As for trusting the government...you mean the same one that was getting the increasingly privatised NHS to push Do Not Resuscitate DNR's onto mentally impaired and disabled peoples many of whom do not have the mental capacity to sign in the first place. what has to be remembered here is virus transmission is not intentional, we are making people the enemy as we are it's hosts, that is not good. Tribalism, division, guess what comes next... do you really want to start wars over less than 1% of population deaths by thinking it is acceptable to control the masses most of whom are non infectious? how about making the NHS fit for the capacity of population and building dedicated quarantine hospitals for the infectious with live on site staff (bit like an army base) so that the infections are fully contained...would that not be much better than locking up full nations of healthy people? become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues. Luc, I've raised the various concerns over this in regards to a UK version "covid status certificate", it is a complete breach of human rights to demand it tbh and with the shear level of countries that are now trying to push this through is making it a world wide big brother experiment. gov own/private backed/consumer stuffed. I would suggest to anyone regardless of how silly this sound to go look at the various dystopias like hunger games, v for vendetta (started with a virus), divergent series etc every one of them uses the same tactics for control, they all demand papers, live in fear of the rulers and sacrifice of rights just to live etc...this is also becoming our reality. (especially when you combine this with the police bill and extension of covid laws which allow laws to be passed without consultation and when the fill the media with fear it's easy to hide proposals from the public and go well no one objected, it's an American resources grab tactic) to the point at least one company in the US has (voluntarily) put microchips in employees hands instead of issuing security cards for doors (multipass!!) etc, it's the first in a long line to come. Elon Musk put one in his brain! and placentas have been found to have mirco plastics in them. do you want to have to produce papers everywhere you go? to prove you are a 'FREE' person, like a free/vax'd black person was required to, otherwise they were presumed owned/unvax'd. See how easy those words are to switch when you create a division in society that has already been passed through in many ways in history. you have to ask this: do you want to be excluded from all aspects of society if you don't? do you think it's right to FORCE by means of coercion a medical treatment? the coercion being excluded from day to day life activities if not followed. think of this scenario, a mum (cos they are more likely prim carers) has doubts over vaccine due to POSSIBLE future fertility complications and doesn't have it, her child who is in school, is talking with friends bout vaccine (and yes they are), kid mentions mum refused hers & gets bullied for it, other parents kick up a stink with school, KID misses out on their right to education over other peoples biases regarding personal choice of medical treatments. another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. another person cannot have the vaccine due to medical complications (immune supressed etc), this person is well aware of risks to life as it is a daily concern and would much rather LIVE life than hide away inside with little quality of life, which they know full well would only lead to a depressive state which then affects physical health further and faster, they can't go anywhere with friends, despite their time being more limited and at risk than another's, they are excluded that personal choice of how they live. the prowd private person who knows their rights that they do not have to disclose medical information to anyone, despite actually having the jab is rejected from entering the venue for refusing to prove it. what about paper's getting wet in the rain? phone's getting broken, lost or stolen en route? you also have to consider what doors this opens if it is allowed through who draws the line at what medical treatments can or should be made mandatory? where does the request of papers stop? pubs? clubs? private venues right, what is to stop house landlords giving our housing market is overwhelmingly privately owned from demanding it especially those who own flats? (thanks, thatcher & greed) workplaces, largely private (we've alreaddy heard on here of a member's work place putting in illegal mandatory vaccination policies upon new staff, where will the unvax'd be able to work if they all do this? (not all through own choice either) childminders? local activity centre? Supermarkets are all private too aren't they? how you gonna buy food? what if schools start to demand them? what happens to the kids who don't have a jab for whatever reason? who has the right to control what you put in your body but you? Government and data privacy....don't make me laugh, its one of the biggest leakers of data to private companies. As for trusting the government...you mean the same one that was getting the increasingly privatised NHS to push Do Not Resuscitate DNR's onto mentally impaired and disabled peoples many of whom do not have the mental capacity to sign in the first place. what has to be remembered here is virus transmission is not intentional, we are making people the enemy as we are it's hosts, that is not good. Tribalism, division, guess what comes next... do you really want to start wars over less than 1% of population deaths by thinking it is acceptable to control the masses most of whom are non infectious? how about making the NHS fit for the capacity of population and building dedicated quarantine hospitals for the infectious with live on site staff (bit like an army base) so that the infections are fully contained...would that not be much better than locking up full nations of healthy people? become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all." wow brave of you to say this, now it's time to leave for you safety as I can here the pro vaccers approaching with their pitch forks, "come now! quickly under foot before they come" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues. Luc, I've raised the various concerns over this in regards to a UK version "covid status certificate", it is a complete breach of human rights to demand it tbh and with the shear level of countries that are now trying to push this through is making it a world wide big brother experiment. gov own/private backed/consumer stuffed. I would suggest to anyone regardless of how silly this sound to go look at the various dystopias like hunger games, v for vendetta (started with a virus), divergent series etc every one of them uses the same tactics for control, they all demand papers, live in fear of the rulers and sacrifice of rights just to live etc...this is also becoming our reality. (especially when you combine this with the police bill and extension of covid laws which allow laws to be passed without consultation and when the fill the media with fear it's easy to hide proposals from the public and go well no one objected, it's an American resources grab tactic) to the point at least one company in the US has (voluntarily) put microchips in employees hands instead of issuing security cards for doors (multipass!!) etc, it's the first in a long line to come. Elon Musk put one in his brain! and placentas have been found to have mirco plastics in them. do you want to have to produce papers everywhere you go? to prove you are a 'FREE' person, like a free/vax'd black person was required to, otherwise they were presumed owned/unvax'd. See how easy those words are to switch when you create a division in society that has already been passed through in many ways in history. you have to ask this: do you want to be excluded from all aspects of society if you don't? do you think it's right to FORCE by means of coercion a medical treatment? the coercion being excluded from day to day life activities if not followed. think of this scenario, a mum (cos they are more likely prim carers) has doubts over vaccine due to POSSIBLE future fertility complications and doesn't have it, her child who is in school, is talking with friends bout vaccine (and yes they are), kid mentions mum refused hers & gets bullied for it, other parents kick up a stink with school, KID misses out on their right to education over other peoples biases regarding personal choice of medical treatments. another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. another person cannot have the vaccine due to medical complications (immune supressed etc), this person is well aware of risks to life as it is a daily concern and would much rather LIVE life than hide away inside with little quality of life, which they know full well would only lead to a depressive state which then affects physical health further and faster, they can't go anywhere with friends, despite their time being more limited and at risk than another's, they are excluded that personal choice of how they live. the prowd private person who knows their rights that they do not have to disclose medical information to anyone, despite actually having the jab is rejected from entering the venue for refusing to prove it. what about paper's getting wet in the rain? phone's getting broken, lost or stolen en route? you also have to consider what doors this opens if it is allowed through who draws the line at what medical treatments can or should be made mandatory? where does the request of papers stop? pubs? clubs? private venues right, what is to stop house landlords giving our housing market is overwhelmingly privately owned from demanding it especially those who own flats? (thanks, thatcher & greed) workplaces, largely private (we've alreaddy heard on here of a member's work place putting in illegal mandatory vaccination policies upon new staff, where will the unvax'd be able to work if they all do this? (not all through own choice either) childminders? local activity centre? Supermarkets are all private too aren't they? how you gonna buy food? what if schools start to demand them? what happens to the kids who don't have a jab for whatever reason? who has the right to control what you put in your body but you? Government and data privacy....don't make me laugh, its one of the biggest leakers of data to private companies. As for trusting the government...you mean the same one that was getting the increasingly privatised NHS to push Do Not Resuscitate DNR's onto mentally impaired and disabled peoples many of whom do not have the mental capacity to sign in the first place. what has to be remembered here is virus transmission is not intentional, we are making people the enemy as we are it's hosts, that is not good. Tribalism, division, guess what comes next... do you really want to start wars over less than 1% of population deaths by thinking it is acceptable to control the masses most of whom are non infectious? how about making the NHS fit for the capacity of population and building dedicated quarantine hospitals for the infectious with live on site staff (bit like an army base) so that the infections are fully contained...would that not be much better than locking up full nations of healthy people? become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all." WOW! There are many things in life people are excluded from through no fault of their own like holding a driving licence. If you choose not to have a vaccine then there may well be consequences but at the moment nobody is talking about us carrying around papers and being asked to produce everywhere we go the Prime Minister made it very clear there is a possibility that there will be a place for vaccine passports for foreign travel and possibly for going to some events. I don't see a problem with that and it's certainly isn't the start of some sort of totalitarian regime. I agree the new bill that is being put forward is troublesome and has a lot of flaws in it but again or lumping a lot of things in together that actually have nothing to do with the other. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues. Luc, I've raised the various concerns over this in regards to a UK version "covid status certificate", it is a complete breach of human rights to demand it tbh and with the shear level of countries that are now trying to push this through is making it a world wide big brother experiment. gov own/private backed/consumer stuffed. I would suggest to anyone regardless of how silly this sound to go look at the various dystopias like hunger games, v for vendetta (started with a virus), divergent series etc every one of them uses the same tactics for control, they all demand papers, live in fear of the rulers and sacrifice of rights just to live etc...this is also becoming our reality. (especially when you combine this with the police bill and extension of covid laws which allow laws to be passed without consultation and when the fill the media with fear it's easy to hide proposals from the public and go well no one objected, it's an American resources grab tactic) to the point at least one company in the US has (voluntarily) put microchips in employees hands instead of issuing security cards for doors (multipass!!) etc, it's the first in a long line to come. Elon Musk put one in his brain! and placentas have been found to have mirco plastics in them. do you want to have to produce papers everywhere you go? to prove you are a 'FREE' person, like a free/vax'd black person was required to, otherwise they were presumed owned/unvax'd. See how easy those words are to switch when you create a division in society that has already been passed through in many ways in history. you have to ask this: do you want to be excluded from all aspects of society if you don't? do you think it's right to FORCE by means of coercion a medical treatment? the coercion being excluded from day to day life activities if not followed. think of this scenario, a mum (cos they are more likely prim carers) has doubts over vaccine due to POSSIBLE future fertility complications and doesn't have it, her child who is in school, is talking with friends bout vaccine (and yes they are), kid mentions mum refused hers & gets bullied for it, other parents kick up a stink with school, KID misses out on their right to education over other peoples biases regarding personal choice of medical treatments. another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. another person cannot have the vaccine due to medical complications (immune supressed etc), this person is well aware of risks to life as it is a daily concern and would much rather LIVE life than hide away inside with little quality of life, which they know full well would only lead to a depressive state which then affects physical health further and faster, they can't go anywhere with friends, despite their time being more limited and at risk than another's, they are excluded that personal choice of how they live. the prowd private person who knows their rights that they do not have to disclose medical information to anyone, despite actually having the jab is rejected from entering the venue for refusing to prove it. what about paper's getting wet in the rain? phone's getting broken, lost or stolen en route? you also have to consider what doors this opens if it is allowed through who draws the line at what medical treatments can or should be made mandatory? where does the request of papers stop? pubs? clubs? private venues right, what is to stop house landlords giving our housing market is overwhelmingly privately owned from demanding it especially those who own flats? (thanks, thatcher & greed) workplaces, largely private (we've alreaddy heard on here of a member's work place putting in illegal mandatory vaccination policies upon new staff, where will the unvax'd be able to work if they all do this? (not all through own choice either) childminders? local activity centre? Supermarkets are all private too aren't they? how you gonna buy food? what if schools start to demand them? what happens to the kids who don't have a jab for whatever reason? who has the right to control what you put in your body but you? Government and data privacy....don't make me laugh, its one of the biggest leakers of data to private companies. As for trusting the government...you mean the same one that was getting the increasingly privatised NHS to push Do Not Resuscitate DNR's onto mentally impaired and disabled peoples many of whom do not have the mental capacity to sign in the first place. what has to be remembered here is virus transmission is not intentional, we are making people the enemy as we are it's hosts, that is not good. Tribalism, division, guess what comes next... do you really want to start wars over less than 1% of population deaths by thinking it is acceptable to control the masses most of whom are non infectious? how about making the NHS fit for the capacity of population and building dedicated quarantine hospitals for the infectious with live on site staff (bit like an army base) so that the infections are fully contained...would that not be much better than locking up full nations of healthy people? become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all."  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies "couldn't agree more the sheep are enslaving themselves. Totalitarian tiptoe | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies "Do you consider the right to infect other people with a potentially life changing virus one of these freedoms ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies "Absolutely | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
Do you consider the right to infect other people with a potentially life changing virus one of these freedoms ?"How dramatic. If you or the majority of people are vaccinated, why worry about the people who aren't? Not everyone is able to be vaccinated and yet you condone discrimination. There are many countries in the world that have fought against apartheid notably South Africa and the USA and now here in the UK, there's people who are now actively supporting it. Substitute black (remember at the time that was the acceptable word) for people who cannot or will not have the vaccine. I have had my first vaccination. So, by supporting the 'consequences' of non vaccination, there are people who are supporting segregation amongst society. The 21st century apartheid Will the have their own buses to travel on as in non vax and vaxxed and trains etc? Separate eating areas or establishments? Now, because I've had the injection and doing to get my second, I'm certainly not bothered if the person standing next to me in the queue is injected or not because I decided to partake of the experimental vaccine. I'm well aware I can still get the virus but according to the scientific evidence, I'm less likely to suffer the worst of the symptoms. There's also talk of denying them NHS treatment. Yeah that's fine as long as they are exempt from paying their national insurance stamp and the percentage of tax that's allocated to the NHS. So, are you (not you in particular) advocating a dual society and active discrimination? How many years did it take for the equality laws to obtain? In my mind and a lot of senior people, once you give your rights up (and importantly voluntarily) it will be a massive struggle to get them back, if ever. Just saying | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies "Nobody is losing anything. Its just changing the way we do something to make it suitable for the "modern world" that you describe. Things can change.without going overboard with the hyperbole. Nobody fought and died for the freedom to set foot on a plane to go on holiday. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
Do you consider the right to infect other people with a potentially life changing virus one of these freedoms ?
How dramatic.
If you or the majority of people are vaccinated, why worry about the people who aren't? Not everyone is able to be vaccinated and yet you condone discrimination.
There are many countries in the world that have fought against apartheid notably South Africa and the USA and now here in the UK, there's people who are now actively supporting it. Substitute black (remember at the time that was the acceptable word) for people who cannot or will not have the vaccine.
I have had my first vaccination.
So, by supporting the 'consequences' of non vaccination, there are people who are supporting segregation amongst society. The 21st century apartheid
Will the have their own buses to travel on as in non vax and vaxxed and trains etc? Separate eating areas or establishments?
Now, because I've had the injection and doing to get my second, I'm certainly not bothered if the person standing next to me in the queue is injected or not because I decided to partake of the experimental vaccine. I'm well aware I can still get the virus but according to the scientific evidence, I'm less likely to suffer the worst of the symptoms.
There's also talk of denying them NHS treatment. Yeah that's fine as long as they are exempt from paying their national insurance stamp and the percentage of tax that's allocated to the NHS.
So, are you (not you in particular) advocating a dual society and active discrimination? How many years did it take for the equality laws to obtain?
In my mind and a lot of senior people, once you give your rights up (and importantly voluntarily) it will be a massive struggle to get them back, if ever.
Just saying "That's truly laughable. The poster I quoted talks about how for thousands of years people have fought and died to preserve our freedoms and liberties. And you consider my post to be dramatic ? Ok then. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
Nobody is losing anything. Its just changing the way we do something to make it suitable for the "modern world" that you describe. Things can change.without going overboard with the hyperbole. Nobody fought and died for the freedom to set foot on a plane to go on holiday. "Wasn't the point of the world wars to attain freedom? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
Do you consider the right to infect other people with a potentially life changing virus one of these freedoms ?
How dramatic.
If you or the majority of people are vaccinated, why worry about the people who aren't? Not everyone is able to be vaccinated and yet you condone discrimination.
There are many countries in the world that have fought against apartheid notably South Africa and the USA and now here in the UK, there's people who are now actively supporting it. Substitute black (remember at the time that was the acceptable word) for people who cannot or will not have the vaccine.
I have had my first vaccination.
So, by supporting the 'consequences' of non vaccination, there are people who are supporting segregation amongst society. The 21st century apartheid
Will the have their own buses to travel on as in non vax and vaxxed and trains etc? Separate eating areas or establishments?
Now, because I've had the injection and doing to get my second, I'm certainly not bothered if the person standing next to me in the queue is injected or not because I decided to partake of the experimental vaccine. I'm well aware I can still get the virus but according to the scientific evidence, I'm less likely to suffer the worst of the symptoms.
There's also talk of denying them NHS treatment. Yeah that's fine as long as they are exempt from paying their national insurance stamp and the percentage of tax that's allocated to the NHS.
So, are you (not you in particular) advocating a dual society and active discrimination? How many years did it take for the equality laws to obtain?
In my mind and a lot of senior people, once you give your rights up (and importantly voluntarily) it will be a massive struggle to get them back, if ever.
Just saying
That's truly laughable. The poster I quoted talks about how for thousands of years people have fought and died to preserve our freedoms and liberties.
And you consider my post to be dramatic ?
Ok then."It was pointed at all the people who want to make 2 societies. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
Nobody is losing anything. Its just changing the way we do something to make it suitable for the "modern world" that you describe. Things can change.without going overboard with the hyperbole. Nobody fought and died for the freedom to set foot on a plane to go on holiday.
Wasn't the point of the world wars to attain freedom? "Quite possibly. But they weren't fighting over the freedom to take an annual holiday on a plane. As we learn we change. Its just a change in the way we travel by plane. No massive drama. We change and evolve many areas. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
Do you consider the right to infect other people with a potentially life changing virus one of these freedoms ?"It seems this way nowadays Common sense and a practical approach to problems is just that, but people have these notions of it all being about a great conspiracy aimed at control just for it’s known sake. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues. Luc, I've raised the various concerns over this in regards to a UK version "covid status certificate", it is a complete breach of human rights to demand it tbh and with the shear level of countries that are now trying to push this through is making it a world wide big brother experiment. gov own/private backed/consumer stuffed. I would suggest to anyone regardless of how silly this sound to go look at the various dystopias like hunger games, v for vendetta (started with a virus), divergent series etc every one of them uses the same tactics for control, they all demand papers, live in fear of the rulers and sacrifice of rights just to live etc...this is also becoming our reality. (especially when you combine this with the police bill and extension of covid laws which allow laws to be passed without consultation and when the fill the media with fear it's easy to hide proposals from the public and go well no one objected, it's an American resources grab tactic) to the point at least one company in the US has (voluntarily) put microchips in employees hands instead of issuing security cards for doors (multipass!!) etc, it's the first in a long line to come. Elon Musk put one in his brain! and placentas have been found to have mirco plastics in them. do you want to have to produce papers everywhere you go? to prove you are a 'FREE' person, like a free/vax'd black person was required to, otherwise they were presumed owned/unvax'd. See how easy those words are to switch when you create a division in society that has already been passed through in many ways in history. you have to ask this: do you want to be excluded from all aspects of society if you don't? do you think it's right to FORCE by means of coercion a medical treatment? the coercion being excluded from day to day life activities if not followed. think of this scenario, a mum (cos they are more likely prim carers) has doubts over vaccine due to POSSIBLE future fertility complications and doesn't have it, her child who is in school, is talking with friends bout vaccine (and yes they are), kid mentions mum refused hers & gets bullied for it, other parents kick up a stink with school, KID misses out on their right to education over other peoples biases regarding personal choice of medical treatments. another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. another person cannot have the vaccine due to medical complications (immune supressed etc), this person is well aware of risks to life as it is a daily concern and would much rather LIVE life than hide away inside with little quality of life, which they know full well would only lead to a depressive state which then affects physical health further and faster, they can't go anywhere with friends, despite their time being more limited and at risk than another's, they are excluded that personal choice of how they live. the prowd private person who knows their rights that they do not have to disclose medical information to anyone, despite actually having the jab is rejected from entering the venue for refusing to prove it. what about paper's getting wet in the rain? phone's getting broken, lost or stolen en route? you also have to consider what doors this opens if it is allowed through who draws the line at what medical treatments can or should be made mandatory? where does the request of papers stop? pubs? clubs? private venues right, what is to stop house landlords giving our housing market is overwhelmingly privately owned from demanding it especially those who own flats? (thanks, thatcher & greed) workplaces, largely private (we've alreaddy heard on here of a member's work place putting in illegal mandatory vaccination policies upon new staff, where will the unvax'd be able to work if they all do this? (not all through own choice either) childminders? local activity centre? Supermarkets are all private too aren't they? how you gonna buy food? what if schools start to demand them? what happens to the kids who don't have a jab for whatever reason? who has the right to control what you put in your body but you? Government and data privacy....don't make me laugh, its one of the biggest leakers of data to private companies. As for trusting the government...you mean the same one that was getting the increasingly privatised NHS to push Do Not Resuscitate DNR's onto mentally impaired and disabled peoples many of whom do not have the mental capacity to sign in the first place. what has to be remembered here is virus transmission is not intentional, we are making people the enemy as we are it's hosts, that is not good. Tribalism, division, guess what comes next... do you really want to start wars over less than 1% of population deaths by thinking it is acceptable to control the masses most of whom are non infectious? how about making the NHS fit for the capacity of population and building dedicated quarantine hospitals for the infectious with live on site staff (bit like an army base) so that the infections are fully contained...would that not be much better than locking up full nations of healthy people? become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all." You lost me at "hunger games"........ | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We need something like this to convince anti vaccine idiots to get vaccinated" You really think this will convince people?? I thought it was up to the individual wethwr they took it.this is just madatorys vax by the back door.when i eventually get offerd a jab i will take it as for a vax passport gbe can jog on i wont be getting one.all this talk of passpirts is making me start to think these jabs aint gona do what we are being told there going to do.ifu had your jab your sposed to be safe so only the ones who dont take it will be at risk and they have decided to take that risk | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
Do you consider the right to infect other people with a potentially life changing virus one of these freedoms ?
How dramatic.
If you or the majority of people are vaccinated, why worry about the people who aren't? Not everyone is able to be vaccinated and yet you condone discrimination.
There are many countries in the world that have fought against apartheid notably South Africa and the USA and now here in the UK, there's people who are now actively supporting it. Substitute black (remember at the time that was the acceptable word) for people who cannot or will not have the vaccine.
I have had my first vaccination.
So, by supporting the 'consequences' of non vaccination, there are people who are supporting segregation amongst society. The 21st century apartheid
Will the have their own buses to travel on as in non vax and vaxxed and trains etc? Separate eating areas or establishments?
Now, because I've had the injection and doing to get my second, I'm certainly not bothered if the person standing next to me in the queue is injected or not because I decided to partake of the experimental vaccine. I'm well aware I can still get the virus but according to the scientific evidence, I'm less likely to suffer the worst of the symptoms.
There's also talk of denying them NHS treatment. Yeah that's fine as long as they are exempt from paying their national insurance stamp and the percentage of tax that's allocated to the NHS.
So, are you (not you in particular) advocating a dual society and active discrimination? How many years did it take for the equality laws to obtain?
In my mind and a lot of senior people, once you give your rights up (and importantly voluntarily) it will be a massive struggle to get them back, if ever.
Just saying "It's possibly worth considering that you're interpreting the somewhat open idea of a scheme to allow people to move with greater health protection, via tests and vaccine confirmation, as a conflated issue with all manner of other ills. I assume that you'd like a temporary system that could give people more freedom to get out and about, if they want to. You mentioned apartheid, which was a long standing repulsive system. What percentage of the population are you perceiving this system affecting? If it was supported in law by a time limited constraint, would you be more supportive? Are you supportive of tests, such as those used in schools, workplaces, health environments, that differentiate between permitted outcomes for people? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues. Luc, I've raised the various concerns over this in regards to a UK version "covid status certificate", it is a complete breach of human rights to demand it tbh and with the shear level of countries that are now trying to push this through is making it a world wide big brother experiment. gov own/private backed/consumer stuffed. I would suggest to anyone regardless of how silly this sound to go look at the various dystopias like hunger games, v for vendetta (started with a virus), divergent series etc every one of them uses the same tactics for control, they all demand papers, live in fear of the rulers and sacrifice of rights just to live etc...this is also becoming our reality. (especially when you combine this with the police bill and extension of covid laws which allow laws to be passed without consultation and when the fill the media with fear it's easy to hide proposals from the public and go well no one objected, it's an American resources grab tactic) to the point at least one company in the US has (voluntarily) put microchips in employees hands instead of issuing security cards for doors (multipass!!) etc, it's the first in a long line to come. Elon Musk put one in his brain! and placentas have been found to have mirco plastics in them. do you want to have to produce papers everywhere you go? to prove you are a 'FREE' person, like a free/vax'd black person was required to, otherwise they were presumed owned/unvax'd. See how easy those words are to switch when you create a division in society that has already been passed through in many ways in history. you have to ask this: do you want to be excluded from all aspects of society if you don't? do you think it's right to FORCE by means of coercion a medical treatment? the coercion being excluded from day to day life activities if not followed. think of this scenario, a mum (cos they are more likely prim carers) has doubts over vaccine due to POSSIBLE future fertility complications and doesn't have it, her child who is in school, is talking with friends bout vaccine (and yes they are), kid mentions mum refused hers & gets bullied for it, other parents kick up a stink with school, KID misses out on their right to education over other peoples biases regarding personal choice of medical treatments. another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. another person cannot have the vaccine due to medical complications (immune supressed etc), this person is well aware of risks to life as it is a daily concern and would much rather LIVE life than hide away inside with little quality of life, which they know full well would only lead to a depressive state which then affects physical health further and faster, they can't go anywhere with friends, despite their time being more limited and at risk than another's, they are excluded that personal choice of how they live. the prowd private person who knows their rights that they do not have to disclose medical information to anyone, despite actually having the jab is rejected from entering the venue for refusing to prove it. what about paper's getting wet in the rain? phone's getting broken, lost or stolen en route? you also have to consider what doors this opens if it is allowed through who draws the line at what medical treatments can or should be made mandatory? where does the request of papers stop? pubs? clubs? private venues right, what is to stop house landlords giving our housing market is overwhelmingly privately owned from demanding it especially those who own flats? (thanks, thatcher & greed) workplaces, largely private (we've alreaddy heard on here of a member's work place putting in illegal mandatory vaccination policies upon new staff, where will the unvax'd be able to work if they all do this? (not all through own choice either) childminders? local activity centre? Supermarkets are all private too aren't they? how you gonna buy food? what if schools start to demand them? what happens to the kids who don't have a jab for whatever reason? who has the right to control what you put in your body but you? Government and data privacy....don't make me laugh, its one of the biggest leakers of data to private companies. As for trusting the government...you mean the same one that was getting the increasingly privatised NHS to push Do Not Resuscitate DNR's onto mentally impaired and disabled peoples many of whom do not have the mental capacity to sign in the first place. what has to be remembered here is virus transmission is not intentional, we are making people the enemy as we are it's hosts, that is not good. Tribalism, division, guess what comes next... do you really want to start wars over less than 1% of population deaths by thinking it is acceptable to control the masses most of whom are non infectious? how about making the NHS fit for the capacity of population and building dedicated quarantine hospitals for the infectious with live on site staff (bit like an army base) so that the infections are fully contained...would that not be much better than locking up full nations of healthy people? become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all." we have also been vacinated for other things like TB MMR we don't need to show Prof of them and they are killers as well | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"It's like we have learned nothing from the last 18 months. If we let everyone travel everywhere unfettered unchecked regardless of health conditions... We leave ourselves open to a repeat of the last 18 months, which probably has another 12 to 18 months to run. So we can either make changes to manage that risk or we can keep repeating the same thing that led us to the last 18 months. " ... You'd think. And other pandemics are sure to come  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies couldn't agree more the sheep are enslaving themselves.
Totalitarian tiptoe " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
Do you consider the right to infect other people with a potentially life changing virus one of these freedoms ?
How dramatic.
If you or the majority of people are vaccinated, why worry about the people who aren't? Not everyone is able to be vaccinated and yet you condone discrimination.
There are many countries in the world that have fought against apartheid notably South Africa and the USA and now here in the UK, there's people who are now actively supporting it. Substitute black (remember at the time that was the acceptable word) for people who cannot or will not have the vaccine.
I have had my first vaccination.
So, by supporting the 'consequences' of non vaccination, there are people who are supporting segregation amongst society. The 21st century apartheid
Will the have their own buses to travel on as in non vax and vaxxed and trains etc? Separate eating areas or establishments?
Now, because I've had the injection and doing to get my second, I'm certainly not bothered if the person standing next to me in the queue is injected or not because I decided to partake of the experimental vaccine. I'm well aware I can still get the virus but according to the scientific evidence, I'm less likely to suffer the worst of the symptoms.
There's also talk of denying them NHS treatment. Yeah that's fine as long as they are exempt from paying their national insurance stamp and the percentage of tax that's allocated to the NHS.
So, are you (not you in particular) advocating a dual society and active discrimination? How many years did it take for the equality laws to obtain?
In my mind and a lot of senior people, once you give your rights up (and importantly voluntarily) it will be a massive struggle to get them back, if ever.
Just saying
It's possibly worth considering that you're interpreting the somewhat open idea of a scheme to allow people to move with greater health protection, via tests and vaccine confirmation, as a conflated issue with all manner of other ills.
I assume that you'd like a temporary system that could give people more freedom to get out and about, if they want to. You mentioned apartheid, which was a long standing repulsive system. What percentage of the population are you perceiving this system affecting? If it was supported in law by a time limited constraint, would you be more supportive? Are you supportive of tests, such as those used in schools, workplaces, health environments, that differentiate between permitted outcomes for people? "Yes I don't have a problem with tests but can you quote any law anywhere that is forward time limited. I've never heard of experienced any law that has time constraints. Even the laws brought in as emergency laws that were apparently time limited were extended. There are still laws on the statue books that are and could be applied today. There is absolutely no guarantee that any law passed will ever be repealed or timed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is." I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues. Luc, I've raised the various concerns over this in regards to a UK version "covid status certificate", it is a complete breach of human rights to demand it tbh and with the shear level of countries that are now trying to push this through is making it a world wide big brother experiment. gov own/private backed/consumer stuffed. I would suggest to anyone regardless of how silly this sound to go look at the various dystopias like hunger games, v for vendetta (started with a virus), divergent series etc every one of them uses the same tactics for control, they all demand papers, live in fear of the rulers and sacrifice of rights just to live etc...this is also becoming our reality. (especially when you combine this with the police bill and extension of covid laws which allow laws to be passed without consultation and when the fill the media with fear it's easy to hide proposals from the public and go well no one objected, it's an American resources grab tactic) to the point at least one company in the US has (voluntarily) put microchips in employees hands instead of issuing security cards for doors (multipass!!) etc, it's the first in a long line to come. Elon Musk put one in his brain! and placentas have been found to have mirco plastics in them. do you want to have to produce papers everywhere you go? to prove you are a 'FREE' person, like a free/vax'd black person was required to, otherwise they were presumed owned/unvax'd. See how easy those words are to switch when you create a division in society that has already been passed through in many ways in history. you have to ask this: do you want to be excluded from all aspects of society if you don't? do you think it's right to FORCE by means of coercion a medical treatment? the coercion being excluded from day to day life activities if not followed. think of this scenario, a mum (cos they are more likely prim carers) has doubts over vaccine due to POSSIBLE future fertility complications and doesn't have it, her child who is in school, is talking with friends bout vaccine (and yes they are), kid mentions mum refused hers & gets bullied for it, other parents kick up a stink with school, KID misses out on their right to education over other peoples biases regarding personal choice of medical treatments. another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. another person cannot have the vaccine due to medical complications (immune supressed etc), this person is well aware of risks to life as it is a daily concern and would much rather LIVE life than hide away inside with little quality of life, which they know full well would only lead to a depressive state which then affects physical health further and faster, they can't go anywhere with friends, despite their time being more limited and at risk than another's, they are excluded that personal choice of how they live. the prowd private person who knows their rights that they do not have to disclose medical information to anyone, despite actually having the jab is rejected from entering the venue for refusing to prove it. what about paper's getting wet in the rain? phone's getting broken, lost or stolen en route? you also have to consider what doors this opens if it is allowed through who draws the line at what medical treatments can or should be made mandatory? where does the request of papers stop? pubs? clubs? private venues right, what is to stop house landlords giving our housing market is overwhelmingly privately owned from demanding it especially those who own flats? (thanks, thatcher & greed) workplaces, largely private (we've alreaddy heard on here of a member's work place putting in illegal mandatory vaccination policies upon new staff, where will the unvax'd be able to work if they all do this? (not all through own choice either) childminders? local activity centre? Supermarkets are all private too aren't they? how you gonna buy food? what if schools start to demand them? what happens to the kids who don't have a jab for whatever reason? who has the right to control what you put in your body but you? Government and data privacy....don't make me laugh, its one of the biggest leakers of data to private companies. As for trusting the government...you mean the same one that was getting the increasingly privatised NHS to push Do Not Resuscitate DNR's onto mentally impaired and disabled peoples many of whom do not have the mental capacity to sign in the first place. what has to be remembered here is virus transmission is not intentional, we are making people the enemy as we are it's hosts, that is not good. Tribalism, division, guess what comes next... do you really want to start wars over less than 1% of population deaths by thinking it is acceptable to control the masses most of whom are non infectious? how about making the NHS fit for the capacity of population and building dedicated quarantine hospitals for the infectious with live on site staff (bit like an army base) so that the infections are fully contained...would that not be much better than locking up full nations of healthy people? become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all.we have also been vacinated for other things like TB MMR we don't need to show Prof of them and they are killers as well " Correct | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all.we have also been vacinated for other things like TB MMR we don't need to show Prof of them and they are killers as well " Just so you know, we DO ask for proof of TB status and various vaccine status from immigrants, specifically students coming on tier 4 visas and anyone seeking indefinite leave to remain for other reasons. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination " Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all.we have also been vacinated for other things like TB MMR we don't need to show Prof of them and they are killers as well Just so you know, we DO ask for proof of TB status and various vaccine status from immigrants, specifically students coming on tier 4 visas and anyone seeking indefinite leave to remain for other reasons. " I wasn't asked for proof, but I was urged to check my MMR status before I moved to the UK. I also would have been barred from government education if I had not been vaccinated. I come from a banana republic totalitarian nation you see - Australia  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. " And vaccine mandates - not passports, actual mandates - in Western countries have medical exemptions. This is such a non issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all.we have also been vacinated for other things like TB MMR we don't need to show Prof of them and they are killers as well Just so you know, we DO ask for proof of TB status and various vaccine status from immigrants, specifically students coming on tier 4 visas and anyone seeking indefinite leave to remain for other reasons. I wasn't asked for proof, but I was urged to check my MMR status before I moved to the UK. I also would have been barred from government education if I had not been vaccinated. I come from a banana republic totalitarian nation you see - Australia "Our students need to provide various proofs of TB status and certain vaccines. It depends which country you are from. And guess what? They all have certificates that show their vaccine history, signed by their doctor on Ministry of Health (or equivalent) letterhead! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. " you adhd person could just as easily lose their ticket - its a ridiculous example | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all.we have also been vacinated for other things like TB MMR we don't need to show Prof of them and they are killers as well Just so you know, we DO ask for proof of TB status and various vaccine status from immigrants, specifically students coming on tier 4 visas and anyone seeking indefinite leave to remain for other reasons. I wasn't asked for proof, but I was urged to check my MMR status before I moved to the UK. I also would have been barred from government education if I had not been vaccinated. I come from a banana republic totalitarian nation you see - Australia
Our students need to provide various proofs of TB status and certain vaccines. It depends which country you are from. And guess what? They all have certificates that show their vaccine history, signed by their doctor on Ministry of Health (or equivalent) letterhead!"It'll depend on the country I presume, I forget. I had no Home Office health requirements. But imagine that. Requiring proof of health status. And cats still aren't marrying dogs. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination " Ethics & religion are still a choice, medical isn’t. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Ethics & religion are still a choice, medical isn’t." In other jurisdictions, under vaccine mandates, religion is usually included. Ethics or philosophy less commonly. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all.we have also been vacinated for other things like TB MMR we don't need to show Prof of them and they are killers as well Just so you know, we DO ask for proof of TB status and various vaccine status from immigrants, specifically students coming on tier 4 visas and anyone seeking indefinite leave to remain for other reasons. I wasn't asked for proof, but I was urged to check my MMR status before I moved to the UK. I also would have been barred from government education if I had not been vaccinated. I come from a banana republic totalitarian nation you see - Australia
Our students need to provide various proofs of TB status and certain vaccines. It depends which country you are from. And guess what? They all have certificates that show their vaccine history, signed by their doctor on Ministry of Health (or equivalent) letterhead!"I have had to prove id had the hepatitis vaccine for a job offer and I was born in the UK. People think this is a new thing, it isn't. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all.we have also been vacinated for other things like TB MMR we don't need to show Prof of them and they are killers as well Just so you know, we DO ask for proof of TB status and various vaccine status from immigrants, specifically students coming on tier 4 visas and anyone seeking indefinite leave to remain for other reasons. I wasn't asked for proof, but I was urged to check my MMR status before I moved to the UK. I also would have been barred from government education if I had not been vaccinated. I come from a banana republic totalitarian nation you see - Australia
Our students need to provide various proofs of TB status and certain vaccines. It depends which country you are from. And guess what? They all have certificates that show their vaccine history, signed by their doctor on Ministry of Health (or equivalent) letterhead!
I have had to prove id had the hepatitis vaccine for a job offer and I was born in the UK. People think this is a new thing, it isn't. "My cousin was barred from government primary schools because my aunt and uncle went a bit crunchy when he was younger. They got better eventually. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. " However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid " So, we offer a medical exemption. Religious exemption maybe. Philosophical absolutely not. Job done. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid " Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination " I presume there´s a proportion of society that can´t get a driving license because of medical reasons. Is that discrimination in your eyes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination I presume there´s a proportion of society that can´t get a driving license because of medical reasons. Is that discrimination in your eyes?" Snap. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies "or maybe we have an even more modern world now , which brings with it more dangers that we need new measures to control
like for example strains of a virus from much more accessible foreign travel - go figure -
i’m sure our ancestors would be happy to know they were fighting for the ability to freely bring in disease that can cripple a nation , pretty sure they just thought they were fighting against hitler but whatever | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination I presume there´s a proportion of society that can´t get a driving license because of medical reasons. Is that discrimination in your eyes? Snap. "Ah crap, have you already made that point? Sorry  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination I presume there´s a proportion of society that can´t get a driving license because of medical reasons. Is that discrimination in your eyes? Snap.
Ah crap, have you already made that point? Sorry "Not at all. Great minds and all that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
or maybe we have an even more modern world now , which brings with it more dangers that we need new measures to control
like for example strains of a virus from much more accessible foreign travel - go figure -
i’m sure our ancestors would be happy to know they were fighting for the ability to freely bring in disease that can cripple a nation , pretty sure they just thought they were fighting against hitler but whatever "Rights and liberties cannot exist without obligations. Why is this not basic | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
or maybe we have an even more modern world now , which brings with it more dangers that we need new measures to control
like for example strains of a virus from much more accessible foreign travel - go figure -
i’m sure our ancestors would be happy to know they were fighting for the ability to freely bring in disease that can cripple a nation , pretty sure they just thought they were fighting against hitler but whatever
Rights and liberties cannot exist without obligations. Why is this not basic "Woah there missy. I demand my right not to have a jab and to yak over a random stranger in a supermarket. It´s what my grandfather fought for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination I presume there´s a proportion of society that can´t get a driving license because of medical reasons. Is that discrimination in your eyes?" Vocational. It's obvious not in the same league | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that " Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
or maybe we have an even more modern world now , which brings with it more dangers that we need new measures to control
like for example strains of a virus from much more accessible foreign travel - go figure -
i’m sure our ancestors would be happy to know they were fighting for the ability to freely bring in disease that can cripple a nation , pretty sure they just thought they were fighting against hitler but whatever
Rights and liberties cannot exist without obligations. Why is this not basic
Woah there missy. I demand my right not to have a jab and to yak over a random stranger in a supermarket.
It´s what my grandfather fought for."I mean pretty much... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination I presume there´s a proportion of society that can´t get a driving license because of medical reasons. Is that discrimination in your eyes? Vocational. It's obvious not in the same league " So the ability to transport yourself independently is less important than the right to go to gigs? ... I live on planet earth where that makes exactly zero sense. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then?" I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million " No one will hire me as a neurosurgeon. That's discrimination. Discrimination based on qualifications. I dropped all science when I was sixteen. I'm so oppressed. Call a waambulance | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million " I very clearly said other than children. Discrimination is OK in certain situations where it can be totally justified. For example not letting a person with Epilepsy behind the wheel of a car is justifiable. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million I very clearly said other than children. Discrimination is OK in certain situations where it can be totally justified. For example not letting a person with Epilepsy behind the wheel of a car is justifiable. " You don't want to allow people who can't reliably control a vehicle drive? You Hitler you! How very dare you!  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million No one will hire me as a neurosurgeon. That's discrimination. Discrimination based on qualifications. I dropped all science when I was sixteen. I'm so oppressed. Call a waambulance" Now you´re just being silly. They won´t hire you because you´re an Australian. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then?" I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million No one will hire me as a neurosurgeon. That's discrimination. Discrimination based on qualifications. I dropped all science when I was sixteen. I'm so oppressed. Call a waambulance Now you´re just being silly. They won´t hire you because you´re an Australian." That's discrimination too! It's against the Australian constitution to use convict era penal records to cause people distress! My constitutional rights as a red blooded Ame... Australian are being infringed upon! Call the police! Call the army! Call the UN! 
(... It's Australian law somewhere, it really is Dunno if it's the constitution, although the constitution has sillier stuff ) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million " But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ?" No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right " What right is being infringed here? Please cite the law and judicial precedent, please. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right " Neither is being able to go on a plane or go to a gig. There is absolutely no suggestion that people who are not vaccinated cant access essential services. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right " Ah I see (it isn´t vocational by the way, you may need to look that word up). So stopping people driving who may be a risk to other drivers is ok but stopping people travelling who may be a risk to other travellers isn´t ? Got ya. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"My inability to be a neurosurgeon is wholly vocational. I'm so oppressed "You need to start at the bottom. Become a proctologist. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective." Totally agree and if that was the case I would be right there with you protesting and making my voice heard that that is not acceptable however as I have said several times people have taken this out of all context. I have concerns over a vaccine passport however I think in certain situations it could be very useful. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. Totally agree and if that was the case I would be right there with you protesting and making my voice heard that that is not acceptable however as I have said several times people have taken this out of all context. I have concerns over a vaccine passport however I think in certain situations it could be very useful. " It's fascinating that the people, pre vaccination, said the vulnerable could stay at home or risk death, because open it up - are the same who will not abide being told they might not be able to go everywhere they want to | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
or maybe we have an even more modern world now , which brings with it more dangers that we need new measures to control
like for example strains of a virus from much more accessible foreign travel - go figure -
i’m sure our ancestors would be happy to know they were fighting for the ability to freely bring in disease that can cripple a nation , pretty sure they just thought they were fighting against hitler but whatever "Don't let's forget a few key factors as well when stating that a requirement to check someones ability to travel without spreading infections is a loss of a freedom that grandpappy fought and died for. World population now... 7.7 billion. World population then 2.5 million. Global Air passengers in 2018....4.3 billion. Global Air passengers in 1970 (couldn't find anything older than that) 1970.... 310 million. Sometimes things have to adapt to keep it safe. The huge growth in population and global travel means we might need to make some changes to how we move around the planet. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
or maybe we have an even more modern world now , which brings with it more dangers that we need new measures to control
like for example strains of a virus from much more accessible foreign travel - go figure -
i’m sure our ancestors would be happy to know they were fighting for the ability to freely bring in disease that can cripple a nation , pretty sure they just thought they were fighting against hitler but whatever
Don't let's forget a few key factors as well when stating that a requirement to check someones ability to travel without spreading infections is a loss of a freedom that grandpappy fought and died for.
World population now... 7.7 billion. World population then 2.5 million.
Global Air passengers in 2018....4.3 billion.
Global Air passengers in 1970 (couldn't find anything older than that)
1970.... 310 million.
Sometimes things have to adapt to keep it safe. The huge growth in population and global travel means we might need to make some changes to how we move around the planet. "exactly , rights and obligations in 1940 are not the same as what is required in 2021 besides we are arguing a moot point anyway - people just don’t get that being able to do whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it isn’t actually a human right | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" exactly , rights and obligations in 1940 are not the same as what is required in 2021 besides we are arguing a moot point anyway - people just don’t get that being able to do whatever you want to do, whenever you want to do it isn’t actually a human right " I think people need to be told this | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I genuinely believe people have got confused about what the proposal for any vaccination documentation is for. " Whenever these debates come up I'm reminded of the monty python life of Brian seen... Where stan is demanding the right to have babies... "you can't have babies stan, you haven't got a womb, Where's the baby going to gestate?" Stan :"don't you oppress me" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Ethics & religion are still a choice, medical isn’t. In other jurisdictions, under vaccine mandates, religion is usually included. Ethics or philosophy less commonly." Agreed, but most religions have a ‘ get out of jail’ card to cover conflicts of this type, after that it is between you and your god, whomever she may be. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Ethics & religion are still a choice, medical isn’t. In other jurisdictions, under vaccine mandates, religion is usually included. Ethics or philosophy less commonly. Agreed, but most religions have a ‘ get out of jail’ card to cover conflicts of this type, after that it is between you and your god, whomever she may be." Yes. I know the Catholics say that even when vaccines derive from foetal lines - the good outweighs the harm, although non foetal vaccine development should be encouraged. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. you adhd person could just as easily lose their ticket - its a ridiculous example " clearly you do not understand that these are struggles on a day basis, typically several times a day for many. It's not a once in a while thing and should this be applied to other areas of life that are day to day it will cause real issues beyond what they already are, for people who struggle with things like that on the regular, so no it's not ridiculous at all, it was just one example. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. you adhd person could just as easily lose their ticket - its a ridiculous example clearly you do not understand that these are struggles on a day basis, typically several times a day for many. It's not a once in a while thing and should this be applied to other areas of life that are day to day it will cause real issues beyond what they already are, for people who struggle with things like that on the regular, so no it's not ridiculous at all, it was just one example. " I'm not sure anyone is trivialising ADHD. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective." I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world..." And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue." My point being that people are discriminated against in terms of access to optional leisure facilities all the time and few people seem to care. The minute "discrimination" in the form of needing Covid vaccines comes up, everyone is screaming about their "rights". It amuses my tiny brain! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue. My point being that people are discriminated against in terms of access to optional leisure facilities all the time and few people seem to care. The minute "discrimination" in the form of needing Covid vaccines comes up, everyone is screaming about their "rights". It amuses my tiny brain!" It pisses me the fuck off. I need to do better, I'm sorry. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid So, we offer a medical exemption. Religious exemption maybe. Philosophical absolutely not. Job done." so are your all for telling people what to think then? how authoritarian of you. you do realise society grows with those people, yes? is gay sex/relationships still illegal then? rape within marriage? what about women's voting rights? are we not capable of making our own choices and risk assessing what we put in our own bodies? as for making people take it, that is dividing society into vax'd/non vax'd despite the fact that the larger risk lies with those who are unvax'd, the vax'd person protected themselves. if you continue to say people cannot choose what the put in their bodies then you diminishing their capacity to think for themselves and would be forcing them by coercion, good old method often used on women to diminish their credibility to know they are right of wrong or that they have capacity to think....that is they underlying truth of that means of thinking. all these subjects are related because they affect everyone and everyone's basis human rights in more area's than just the covid virus. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
Do you consider the right to infect other people with a potentially life changing virus one of these freedoms ?"What where the mortality rate is.0.6% you mean. There are far worse viruses out there and no world lockdowns have been introduced! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
Do you consider the right to infect other people with a potentially life changing virus one of these freedoms ?
What where the mortality rate is.0.6% you mean. There are far worse viruses out there and no world lockdowns have been introduced! "Other countries have had lockdowns and travel restrictions over serious disease outbreaks. The Ebola outbreaks in Guinea, Sierra Leone etc for a start. It just didn't affect us in our cosy little world in the same way. Ditto for SARS-1 back in 2004, affected countries restricted travel, introduced mandatory quarantines etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
Do you consider the right to infect other people with a potentially life changing virus one of these freedoms ?
What where the mortality rate is.0.6% you mean. There are far worse viruses out there and no world lockdowns have been introduced!
Other countries have had lockdowns and travel restrictions over serious disease outbreaks. The Ebola outbreaks in Guinea, Sierra Leone etc for a start. It just didn't affect us in our cosy little world in the same way. Ditto for SARS-1 back in 2004, affected countries restricted travel, introduced mandatory quarantines etc."They are far more deadly than this virus. This one is only 0.6% mortality rate though! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid So, we offer a medical exemption. Religious exemption maybe. Philosophical absolutely not. Job done. so are your all for telling people what to think then? how authoritarian of you. you do realise society grows with those people, yes? is gay sex/relationships still illegal then? rape within marriage? what about women's voting rights? are we not capable of making our own choices and risk assessing what we put in our own bodies? as for making people take it, that is dividing society into vax'd/non vax'd despite the fact that the larger risk lies with those who are unvax'd, the vax'd person protected themselves. if you continue to say people cannot choose what the put in their bodies then you diminishing their capacity to think for themselves and would be forcing them by coercion, good old method often used on women to diminish their credibility to know they are right of wrong or that they have capacity to think....that is they underlying truth of that means of thinking. all these subjects are related because they affect everyone and everyone's basis human rights in more area's than just the covid virus." If I'm telling anyone what they have to think or put in their bodies, please point it out. I'm saying this is how a vaccine passport would work without discriminating against people who cannot be vaccinated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue. My point being that people are discriminated against in terms of access to optional leisure facilities all the time and few people seem to care. The minute "discrimination" in the form of needing Covid vaccines comes up, everyone is screaming about their "rights". It amuses my tiny brain! It pisses me the fuck off. I need to do better, I'm sorry." This may be a different paradigm or just another example of the same... You k ow those nightclubs that have massive queues and velvet ropes and people queue and pray that the greeter will find them fashionable or attractive or rich or connected enough to get in... And for the others... They get turned away.... I mean it's most clubs most Fridays and Saturdays right.? Wheres that on infringing my rights to go with the incrowd and being discriminated against when they say.. "Actually fella this is a nightclub and you're in your 50s so try the social club down the road" ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue. My point being that people are discriminated against in terms of access to optional leisure facilities all the time and few people seem to care. The minute "discrimination" in the form of needing Covid vaccines comes up, everyone is screaming about their "rights". It amuses my tiny brain! It pisses me the fuck off. I need to do better, I'm sorry. This may be a different paradigm or just another example of the same... You k ow those nightclubs that have massive queues and velvet ropes and people queue and pray that the greeter will find them fashionable or attractive or rich or connected enough to get in... And for the others... They get turned away.... I mean it's most clubs most Fridays and Saturdays right.? Wheres that on infringing my rights to go with the incrowd and being discriminated against when they say.. "Actually fella this is a nightclub and you're in your 50s so try the social club down the road" ... " All.places that serve the public have the right to refuse entry for various reasons. People see the vaccine passport infringing on their rights as they wont be allowed in any pub, any club, any whatever without having had someone inject them with the vaccine. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies "Mostly people fought to get the enemies, goods, land, women etc, very very few wars if any have been fought to gain rights and liberties. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"For thousands of years generations of people fought and died so we can have and enjoy the rights and liberties of modern world however some of us don’t see a problem loosing them just to be able to go to the movies
Do you consider the right to infect other people with a potentially life changing virus one of these freedoms ?
What where the mortality rate is.0.6% you mean. There are far worse viruses out there and no world lockdowns have been introduced!
Other countries have had lockdowns and travel restrictions over serious disease outbreaks. The Ebola outbreaks in Guinea, Sierra Leone etc for a start. It just didn't affect us in our cosy little world in the same way. Ditto for SARS-1 back in 2004, affected countries restricted travel, introduced mandatory quarantines etc.
They are far more deadly than this virus. This one is only 0.6% mortality rate though! "We don't know the true mortality rate for Covid accurately at the moment and won't do until the pandemic is over and we can step back and assess. Deaths would have been far higher if the NHS had been overrun and if mitigation measures hadn't been taken. Vaccination is one of the mitigation mechanisms available to us. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue. My point being that people are discriminated against in terms of access to optional leisure facilities all the time and few people seem to care. The minute "discrimination" in the form of needing Covid vaccines comes up, everyone is screaming about their "rights". It amuses my tiny brain! It pisses me the fuck off. I need to do better, I'm sorry. This may be a different paradigm or just another example of the same... You k ow those nightclubs that have massive queues and velvet ropes and people queue and pray that the greeter will find them fashionable or attractive or rich or connected enough to get in... And for the others... They get turned away.... I mean it's most clubs most Fridays and Saturdays right.? Wheres that on infringing my rights to go with the incrowd and being discriminated against when they say.. "Actually fella this is a nightclub and you're in your 50s so try the social club down the road" ... " Even when I was of the age to get in...”sorry mate, there’s too many blokes in already.” Was one of the better discriminatory rejection speeches I heard in the far off 1980s. I still bear the scars..due to starting our own club nights...can’t not let you in then.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. you adhd person could just as easily lose their ticket - its a ridiculous example clearly you do not understand that these are struggles on a day basis, typically several times a day for many. It's not a once in a while thing and should this be applied to other areas of life that are day to day it will cause real issues beyond what they already are, for people who struggle with things like that on the regular, so no it's not ridiculous at all, it was just one example. I'm not sure anyone is trivialising ADHD." thanks, i wasn’t i was merely stating there is no more complication to keeping hold of a vaccine passport in whatever form it takes as there would be keeping hold of a ticket which can also come in varied forms its not a realistic reason against issuing tickets and its not a realistic reason against issuing vaccine passports | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right What right is being infringed here? Please cite the law and judicial precedent, please." You. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right Neither is being able to go on a plane or go to a gig. There is absolutely no suggestion that people who are not vaccinated cant access essential services. " There are lots Who are trying to say that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right Ah I see (it isn´t vocational by the way, you may need to look that word up). So stopping people driving who may be a risk to other drivers is ok but stopping people travelling who may be a risk to other travellers isn´t ? Got ya." How surprising.. You might want to look that word up | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right Neither is being able to go on a plane or go to a gig. There is absolutely no suggestion that people who are not vaccinated cant access essential services. There are lots Who are trying to say that " Who exactly? The government isn't and not seen anything on here or other platforms that suggest this. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid So, we offer a medical exemption. Religious exemption maybe. Philosophical absolutely not. Job done. so are your all for telling people what to think then? how authoritarian of you. you do realise society grows with those people, yes? is gay sex/relationships still illegal then? rape within marriage? what about women's voting rights? are we not capable of making our own choices and risk assessing what we put in our own bodies? as for making people take it, that is dividing society into vax'd/non vax'd despite the fact that the larger risk lies with those who are unvax'd, the vax'd person protected themselves. if you continue to say people cannot choose what the put in their bodies then you diminishing their capacity to think for themselves and would be forcing them by coercion, good old method often used on women to diminish their credibility to know they are right of wrong or that they have capacity to think....that is they underlying truth of that means of thinking. all these subjects are related because they affect everyone and everyone's basis human rights in more area's than just the covid virus." Sorry, were you including me in that? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue. My point being that people are discriminated against in terms of access to optional leisure facilities all the time and few people seem to care. The minute "discrimination" in the form of needing Covid vaccines comes up, everyone is screaming about their "rights". It amuses my tiny brain! It pisses me the fuck off. I need to do better, I'm sorry. This may be a different paradigm or just another example of the same... You k ow those nightclubs that have massive queues and velvet ropes and people queue and pray that the greeter will find them fashionable or attractive or rich or connected enough to get in... And for the others... They get turned away.... I mean it's most clubs most Fridays and Saturdays right.? Wheres that on infringing my rights to go with the incrowd and being discriminated against when they say.. "Actually fella this is a nightclub and you're in your 50s so try the social club down the road" ... All.places that serve the public have the right to refuse entry for various reasons. People see the vaccine passport infringing on their rights as they wont be allowed in any pub, any club, any whatever without having had someone inject them with the vaccine." Yes they do PROVIDING the refusal isn't on discrimination grounds. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue. My point being that people are discriminated against in terms of access to optional leisure facilities all the time and few people seem to care. The minute "discrimination" in the form of needing Covid vaccines comes up, everyone is screaming about their "rights". It amuses my tiny brain! It pisses me the fuck off. I need to do better, I'm sorry. This may be a different paradigm or just another example of the same... You k ow those nightclubs that have massive queues and velvet ropes and people queue and pray that the greeter will find them fashionable or attractive or rich or connected enough to get in... And for the others... They get turned away.... I mean it's most clubs most Fridays and Saturdays right.? Wheres that on infringing my rights to go with the incrowd and being discriminated against when they say.. "Actually fella this is a nightclub and you're in your 50s so try the social club down the road" ... All.places that serve the public have the right to refuse entry for various reasons. People see the vaccine passport infringing on their rights as they wont be allowed in any pub, any club, any whatever without having had someone inject them with the vaccine. Yes they do PROVIDING the refusal isn't on discrimination grounds. " Its not discrimination though. I think you need to learn what discrimination means. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue. My point being that people are discriminated against in terms of access to optional leisure facilities all the time and few people seem to care. The minute "discrimination" in the form of needing Covid vaccines comes up, everyone is screaming about their "rights". It amuses my tiny brain! It pisses me the fuck off. I need to do better, I'm sorry. This may be a different paradigm or just another example of the same... You k ow those nightclubs that have massive queues and velvet ropes and people queue and pray that the greeter will find them fashionable or attractive or rich or connected enough to get in... And for the others... They get turned away.... I mean it's most clubs most Fridays and Saturdays right.? Wheres that on infringing my rights to go with the incrowd and being discriminated against when they say.. "Actually fella this is a nightclub and you're in your 50s so try the social club down the road" ... All.places that serve the public have the right to refuse entry for various reasons. People see the vaccine passport infringing on their rights as they wont be allowed in any pub, any club, any whatever without having had someone inject them with the vaccine. Yes they do PROVIDING the refusal isn't on discrimination grounds. " You have said on other threads you have been vaccinated so why is this such an issue for you? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid So, we offer a medical exemption. Religious exemption maybe. Philosophical absolutely not. Job done. so are your all for telling people what to think then? how authoritarian of you. you do realise society grows with those people, yes? is gay sex/relationships still illegal then? rape within marriage? what about women's voting rights? are we not capable of making our own choices and risk assessing what we put in our own bodies? as for making people take it, that is dividing society into vax'd/non vax'd despite the fact that the larger risk lies with those who are unvax'd, the vax'd person protected themselves. if you continue to say people cannot choose what the put in their bodies then you diminishing their capacity to think for themselves and would be forcing them by coercion, good old method often used on women to diminish their credibility to know they are right of wrong or that they have capacity to think....that is they underlying truth of that means of thinking. all these subjects are related because they affect everyone and everyone's basis human rights in more area's than just the covid virus. If I'm telling anyone what they have to think or put in their bodies, please point it out. I'm saying this is how a vaccine passport would work without discriminating against people who cannot be vaccinated." Much, much too sensible, I'm afraid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right What right is being infringed here? Please cite the law and judicial precedent, please. You. " ? I can't cite a law or precedent for an unknown right you're asserting. Because I don't know what it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues." Who are the WHO to speak about ethics?! WHO could have stopped the pandemic, but chose not too... Why? WHO's own final report on MER, which gave praise to Saudi Arabia, clearly shows they knew how to manage the Covid outbreak, but did nothing! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues. Who are the WHO to speak about ethics?! WHO could have stopped the pandemic, but chose not too... Why? WHO's own final report on MER, which gave praise to Saudi Arabia, clearly shows they knew how to manage the Covid outbreak, but did nothing!" MERS report 2015 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid So, we offer a medical exemption. Religious exemption maybe. Philosophical absolutely not. Job done. so are your all for telling people what to think then? how authoritarian of you. you do realise society grows with those people, yes? is gay sex/relationships still illegal then? rape within marriage? what about women's voting rights? are we not capable of making our own choices and risk assessing what we put in our own bodies? as for making people take it, that is dividing society into vax'd/non vax'd despite the fact that the larger risk lies with those who are unvax'd, the vax'd person protected themselves. if you continue to say people cannot choose what the put in their bodies then you diminishing their capacity to think for themselves and would be forcing them by coercion, good old method often used on women to diminish their credibility to know they are right of wrong or that they have capacity to think....that is they underlying truth of that means of thinking. all these subjects are related because they affect everyone and everyone's basis human rights in more area's than just the covid virus." . Agree. Wtf is it with these selfish people; it's like they enjoy blaming everyone else, why ignoring the fact it's the selfish that largely fuel the spread of the likes of viruses.
BBC and Government brainwashing doesn't help eh... Just because someone doesn't want a Covid vaccine, that doesn't make them anti all vaccines; such concepts are only to divide us all so we don't turn on 'them'
*note: RNA (single strand vs DNA) is a new technology, never used before in the creation of vaccines.
Fyi everyone; I am not taking a vaccine as there is no viable science that shows covid19 (SARS v2) was naturally occurring. SARS v1 was 99.8% to a Bat cornavirus, gateway to Humans is not any malicious actor or animal, history shows us (look at religions..), the gateway to primates is porcine (pigs!), part of our food chain...
In comparison the closest Covid19 was to Bat Coronavirus (last check) was 87% - Lancet accepted report earlier 2020 clearly stated naturally occuring unlikely... Furthermore, how many species has this coronavirus infected... Mink and how many others? That's not normal! E.g. Cats have a coronavirus, and how many cats do humans come into contact with... And we've been doing that for thousands of years... Still we have not caught cat coronavirus...
If the above science was enough for myself to say , yeah no thanks... I've never had the flu, I've also never had a flu vaccine, I've not had Covid, so why would I take a vaccine...
Final note: Feb 2020 - first reported out of China that reinfection was possible; antibodies don't remain in the system... They are saying possibly vaccines mirror that, booster may be required every 6 months... Have fun with your twice yearly jabs for the rest of your life... But speaking of life, long covid is after recovering, it's our own immune system attacking itself... Doesn't sound natural does it...
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues." This might be ignorant of me The vaccine I don't believe has enough research behind it to warrant a passport, between lockdown and vaccine rollout how can they justify the vaccine has majorly contributed to decrease in cases Here's my ignorance has any scientific reports been made between lockdowns on case and deaths since rollout of vaccine | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. you adhd person could just as easily lose their ticket - its a ridiculous example clearly you do not understand that these are struggles on a day basis, typically several times a day for many. It's not a once in a while thing and should this be applied to other areas of life that are day to day it will cause real issues beyond what they already are, for people who struggle with things like that on the regular, so no it's not ridiculous at all, it was just one example. I'm not sure anyone is trivialising ADHD. thanks, i wasn’t i was merely stating there is no more complication to keeping hold of a vaccine passport in whatever form it takes as there would be keeping hold of a ticket which can also come in varied forms its not a realistic reason against issuing tickets and its not a realistic reason against issuing vaccine passports " The venue has access to the booking system and can the at least look you up via you email, address etc. Wont be able to do that with vaccine passport. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues. This might be ignorant of me The vaccine I don't believe has enough research behind it to warrant a passport, between lockdown and vaccine rollout how can they justify the vaccine has majorly contributed to decrease in cases Here's my ignorance has any scientific reports been made between lockdowns on case and deaths since rollout of vaccine " We know that the number of people 80 plus in the that have tested positive for covid has gone down 40% and the number needing hospital treatment about 60% since mid January when the majority of that age group had been vaccinated so its a very early but good sign. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. you adhd person could just as easily lose their ticket - its a ridiculous example clearly you do not understand that these are struggles on a day basis, typically several times a day for many. It's not a once in a while thing and should this be applied to other areas of life that are day to day it will cause real issues beyond what they already are, for people who struggle with things like that on the regular, so no it's not ridiculous at all, it was just one example. I'm not sure anyone is trivialising ADHD. thanks, i wasn’t i was merely stating there is no more complication to keeping hold of a vaccine passport in whatever form it takes as there would be keeping hold of a ticket which can also come in varied forms its not a realistic reason against issuing tickets and its not a realistic reason against issuing vaccine passports The venue has access to the booking system and can the at least look you up via you email, address etc. Wont be able to do that with vaccine passport. " Huh? How do you know its not going to digital? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. you adhd person could just as easily lose their ticket - its a ridiculous example clearly you do not understand that these are struggles on a day basis, typically several times a day for many. It's not a once in a while thing and should this be applied to other areas of life that are day to day it will cause real issues beyond what they already are, for people who struggle with things like that on the regular, so no it's not ridiculous at all, it was just one example. I'm not sure anyone is trivialising ADHD. thanks, i wasn’t i was merely stating there is no more complication to keeping hold of a vaccine passport in whatever form it takes as there would be keeping hold of a ticket which can also come in varied forms its not a realistic reason against issuing tickets and its not a realistic reason against issuing vaccine passports The venue has access to the booking system and can the at least look you up via you email, address etc. Wont be able to do that with vaccine passport. Huh? How do you know its not going to digital?"
Curious... what the heck this is about...
Seems something crazy... 1. vaccine passports should not be implemented - next will be civil war... 2. Most booking systems of today are digital, especially with email...
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues. This might be ignorant of me The vaccine I don't believe has enough research behind it to warrant a passport, between lockdown and vaccine rollout how can they justify the vaccine has majorly contributed to decrease in cases Here's my ignorance has any scientific reports been made between lockdowns on case and deaths since rollout of vaccine We know that the number of people 80 plus in the that have tested positive for covid has gone down 40% and the number needing hospital treatment about 60% since mid January when the majority of that age group had been vaccinated so its a very early but good sign. " Very positive Lockdown commenced in December, correct . So could be either that has dropped the positive cases I'm.not been negative about it all The factors Don all lead to mai ly the vaccine | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. you adhd person could just as easily lose their ticket - its a ridiculous example clearly you do not understand that these are struggles on a day basis, typically several times a day for many. It's not a once in a while thing and should this be applied to other areas of life that are day to day it will cause real issues beyond what they already are, for people who struggle with things like that on the regular, so no it's not ridiculous at all, it was just one example. I'm not sure anyone is trivialising ADHD. thanks, i wasn’t i was merely stating there is no more complication to keeping hold of a vaccine passport in whatever form it takes as there would be keeping hold of a ticket which can also come in varied forms its not a realistic reason against issuing tickets and its not a realistic reason against issuing vaccine passports The venue has access to the booking system and can the at least look you up via you email, address etc. Wont be able to do that with vaccine passport. Huh? How do you know its not going to digital?
Curious... what the heck this is about...
Seems something crazy... 1. vaccine passports should not be implemented - next will be civil war... 2. Most booking systems of today are digital, especially with email...
"Exactly my point regarding it being digital and I think the fact you think vaccine passports would lead to civil war is just a tad of an over reaction. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. you adhd person could just as easily lose their ticket - its a ridiculous example clearly you do not understand that these are struggles on a day basis, typically several times a day for many. It's not a once in a while thing and should this be applied to other areas of life that are day to day it will cause real issues beyond what they already are, for people who struggle with things like that on the regular, so no it's not ridiculous at all, it was just one example. I'm not sure anyone is trivialising ADHD. thanks, i wasn’t i was merely stating there is no more complication to keeping hold of a vaccine passport in whatever form it takes as there would be keeping hold of a ticket which can also come in varied forms its not a realistic reason against issuing tickets and its not a realistic reason against issuing vaccine passports The venue has access to the booking system and can the at least look you up via you email, address etc. Wont be able to do that with vaccine passport. " this wouldn’t happen because you could just have sold your tickets on, get entry and then the people with the tickets turn up and scan in - events are literally no ticket no entry | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues. Luc, I've raised the various concerns over this in regards to a UK version "covid status certificate", it is a complete breach of human rights to demand it tbh and with the shear level of countries that are now trying to push this through is making it a world wide big brother experiment. gov own/private backed/consumer stuffed. I would suggest to anyone regardless of how silly this sound to go look at the various dystopias like hunger games, v for vendetta (started with a virus), divergent series etc every one of them uses the same tactics for control, they all demand papers, live in fear of the rulers and sacrifice of rights just to live etc...this is also becoming our reality. (especially when you combine this with the police bill and extension of covid laws which allow laws to be passed without consultation and when the fill the media with fear it's easy to hide proposals from the public and go well no one objected, it's an American resources grab tactic) to the point at least one company in the US has (voluntarily) put microchips in employees hands instead of issuing security cards for doors (multipass!!) etc, it's the first in a long line to come. Elon Musk put one in his brain! and placentas have been found to have mirco plastics in them. do you want to have to produce papers everywhere you go? to prove you are a 'FREE' person, like a free/vax'd black person was required to, otherwise they were presumed owned/unvax'd. See how easy those words are to switch when you create a division in society that has already been passed through in many ways in history. you have to ask this: do you want to be excluded from all aspects of society if you don't? do you think it's right to FORCE by means of coercion a medical treatment? the coercion being excluded from day to day life activities if not followed. think of this scenario, a mum (cos they are more likely prim carers) has doubts over vaccine due to POSSIBLE future fertility complications and doesn't have it, her child who is in school, is talking with friends bout vaccine (and yes they are), kid mentions mum refused hers & gets bullied for it, other parents kick up a stink with school, KID misses out on their right to education over other peoples biases regarding personal choice of medical treatments. another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. another person cannot have the vaccine due to medical complications (immune supressed etc), this person is well aware of risks to life as it is a daily concern and would much rather LIVE life than hide away inside with little quality of life, which they know full well would only lead to a depressive state which then affects physical health further and faster, they can't go anywhere with friends, despite their time being more limited and at risk than another's, they are excluded that personal choice of how they live. the prowd private person who knows their rights that they do not have to disclose medical information to anyone, despite actually having the jab is rejected from entering the venue for refusing to prove it. what about paper's getting wet in the rain? phone's getting broken, lost or stolen en route? you also have to consider what doors this opens if it is allowed through who draws the line at what medical treatments can or should be made mandatory? where does the request of papers stop? pubs? clubs? private venues right, what is to stop house landlords giving our housing market is overwhelmingly privately owned from demanding it especially those who own flats? (thanks, thatcher & greed) workplaces, largely private (we've alreaddy heard on here of a member's work place putting in illegal mandatory vaccination policies upon new staff, where will the unvax'd be able to work if they all do this? (not all through own choice either) childminders? local activity centre? Supermarkets are all private too aren't they? how you gonna buy food? what if schools start to demand them? what happens to the kids who don't have a jab for whatever reason? who has the right to control what you put in your body but you? Government and data privacy....don't make me laugh, its one of the biggest leakers of data to private companies. As for trusting the government...you mean the same one that was getting the increasingly privatised NHS to push Do Not Resuscitate DNR's onto mentally impaired and disabled peoples many of whom do not have the mental capacity to sign in the first place. what has to be remembered here is virus transmission is not intentional, we are making people the enemy as we are it's hosts, that is not good. Tribalism, division, guess what comes next... do you really want to start wars over less than 1% of population deaths by thinking it is acceptable to control the masses most of whom are non infectious? how about making the NHS fit for the capacity of population and building dedicated quarantine hospitals for the infectious with live on site staff (bit like an army base) so that the infections are fully contained...would that not be much better than locking up full nations of healthy people? become more sustainable so we don't need to rely on the outer world for basics like food, we are an island after all." That's a long list! A couple of comments. Yes it is getting to a dystopian type future.. Which frankly we are bringing on ourselves.. Development in technology force it. Arguably we will have ' advanced' more in the next 10 years than in the last 100 Tech will be where all the data and information is stored.. 'they' already hold a lot as it is. Yes we have a right to say what goes into our body. However, we also need to accept and understand that may carry a price.. Not fitting into society could potentially result in being excluded from it couldn't it? It's too late now to start getting frightened about tech, data, security and other developments.. The world welcomed its arrival, hi tech, with everything about us done, stored and record in someone else's life, system or database.. And we a just look let it happen.. Can't cry now because we don't like it. The world has created a monster in the form of the Internet and data storage security.. it always assumed the monster would be sleeping so it carried on playing with things and made us more dependent on the tech and less able to look after ourselves, do business and other things without it .. Now it appears to be getting a little restless.. And even a bit out if control .. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue. My point being that people are discriminated against in terms of access to optional leisure facilities all the time and few people seem to care. The minute "discrimination" in the form of needing Covid vaccines comes up, everyone is screaming about their "rights". It amuses my tiny brain! It pisses me the fuck off. I need to do better, I'm sorry. This may be a different paradigm or just another example of the same... You k ow those nightclubs that have massive queues and velvet ropes and people queue and pray that the greeter will find them fashionable or attractive or rich or connected enough to get in... And for the others... They get turned away.... I mean it's most clubs most Fridays and Saturdays right.? Wheres that on infringing my rights to go with the incrowd and being discriminated against when they say.. "Actually fella this is a nightclub and you're in your 50s so try the social club down the road" ... All.places that serve the public have the right to refuse entry for various reasons. People see the vaccine passport infringing on their rights as they wont be allowed in any pub, any club, any whatever without having had someone inject them with the vaccine. Yes they do PROVIDING the refusal isn't on discrimination grounds. Its not discrimination though. I think you need to learn what discrimination means. " Actually I know you need to learn that. In plain English, to "discriminate" means to distinguish, single out, or make a distinction. ... But in the context of civil rights law, unlawful discrimination refers to unfair or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain characteristics, including: Age. Disability. Ethnicity.18 Nov 2019 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue. My point being that people are discriminated against in terms of access to optional leisure facilities all the time and few people seem to care. The minute "discrimination" in the form of needing Covid vaccines comes up, everyone is screaming about their "rights". It amuses my tiny brain! It pisses me the fuck off. I need to do better, I'm sorry. This may be a different paradigm or just another example of the same... You k ow those nightclubs that have massive queues and velvet ropes and people queue and pray that the greeter will find them fashionable or attractive or rich or connected enough to get in... And for the others... They get turned away.... I mean it's most clubs most Fridays and Saturdays right.? Wheres that on infringing my rights to go with the incrowd and being discriminated against when they say.. "Actually fella this is a nightclub and you're in your 50s so try the social club down the road" ... All.places that serve the public have the right to refuse entry for various reasons. People see the vaccine passport infringing on their rights as they wont be allowed in any pub, any club, any whatever without having had someone inject them with the vaccine. Yes they do PROVIDING the refusal isn't on discrimination grounds. You have said on other threads you have been vaccinated so why is this such an issue for you?" I have had the injection and the issue is that I believe everyone has the right to have or have not the experimental vaccine and if people cannot through whatever reason, they should not be discriminated against. If you, me and a lot on here are vaccinated then why would it matter if a few others aren't? All I'm saying is that I disagree with any firm of discrimination whether it's on age, sex, gender, colour or medical grounds. If others have had they're injection, why is it such an issue if several people don't? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right What right is being infringed here? Please cite the law and judicial precedent, please. You. ? I can't cite a law or precedent for an unknown right you're asserting. Because I don't know what it is." But you're the one shouting for me to produce what is impossible. Your attempt to make similararities of discrimination is wholly wrong. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. you adhd person could just as easily lose their ticket - its a ridiculous example clearly you do not understand that these are struggles on a day basis, typically several times a day for many. It's not a once in a while thing and should this be applied to other areas of life that are day to day it will cause real issues beyond what they already are, for people who struggle with things like that on the regular, so no it's not ridiculous at all, it was just one example. I'm not sure anyone is trivialising ADHD. thanks, i wasn’t i was merely stating there is no more complication to keeping hold of a vaccine passport in whatever form it takes as there would be keeping hold of a ticket which can also come in varied forms its not a realistic reason against issuing tickets and its not a realistic reason against issuing vaccine passports The venue has access to the booking system and can the at least look you up via you email, address etc. Wont be able to do that with vaccine passport. Huh? How do you know its not going to digital?" Digital ID cards. There's the way forward. Governments have wanted ID cards for years | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" another. ADHD person, really bad at losing stuff, phone, wallet, keys often! has the certificate giving all clear, paid a bomb in time & money to the to venue for concert but lost/broke phone/papers on the way. NOW that is a person with a recognised disability, that already struggles in life & this being a trait of adhd, they can't help it, it just happens alot! they have now been discriminated against because of their disability. you adhd person could just as easily lose their ticket - its a ridiculous example clearly you do not understand that these are struggles on a day basis, typically several times a day for many. It's not a once in a while thing and should this be applied to other areas of life that are day to day it will cause real issues beyond what they already are, for people who struggle with things like that on the regular, so no it's not ridiculous at all, it was just one example. I'm not sure anyone is trivialising ADHD. thanks, i wasn’t i was merely stating there is no more complication to keeping hold of a vaccine passport in whatever form it takes as there would be keeping hold of a ticket which can also come in varied forms its not a realistic reason against issuing tickets and its not a realistic reason against issuing vaccine passports The venue has access to the booking system and can the at least look you up via you email, address etc. Wont be able to do that with vaccine passport. Huh? How do you know its not going to digital? Digital ID cards. There's the way forward. Governments have wanted ID cards for years" Most other countries use or have used ID cards.. They quickly establish who someone is, provide any information about their nationality, blood group, home address, previous criminal convictions etc etc..especially with the bio technology we have these days.. They could also help I event of accident etc .. People even use them as a passport inside the EU for travel etc. Will help to reduce number of issues establishing if someone is living in uk legally. Lots of uses.. I think they would be something for us all to have now too.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue. My point being that people are discriminated against in terms of access to optional leisure facilities all the time and few people seem to care. The minute "discrimination" in the form of needing Covid vaccines comes up, everyone is screaming about their "rights". It amuses my tiny brain! It pisses me the fuck off. I need to do better, I'm sorry. This may be a different paradigm or just another example of the same... You k ow those nightclubs that have massive queues and velvet ropes and people queue and pray that the greeter will find them fashionable or attractive or rich or connected enough to get in... And for the others... They get turned away.... I mean it's most clubs most Fridays and Saturdays right.? Wheres that on infringing my rights to go with the incrowd and being discriminated against when they say.. "Actually fella this is a nightclub and you're in your 50s so try the social club down the road" ... All.places that serve the public have the right to refuse entry for various reasons. People see the vaccine passport infringing on their rights as they wont be allowed in any pub, any club, any whatever without having had someone inject them with the vaccine. Yes they do PROVIDING the refusal isn't on discrimination grounds. Its not discrimination though. I think you need to learn what discrimination means. Actually I know you need to learn that. In plain English, to "discriminate" means to distinguish, single out, or make a distinction. ... But in the context of civil rights law, unlawful discrimination refers to unfair or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain characteristics, including: Age. Disability. Ethnicity.18 Nov 2019" Exactly so someone who chooses not to have a vaccine would not be discriminated against because they have a choice. You keep saying about the tiny amount of people that can't have one. There will be exemptions for those people because there has been for every law and rule regarding covid. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right What right is being infringed here? Please cite the law and judicial precedent, please. You. ? I can't cite a law or precedent for an unknown right you're asserting. Because I don't know what it is. But you're the one shouting for me to produce what is impossible. Your attempt to make similararities of discrimination is wholly wrong. " I'm asking you to show me what right is being infringed upon. To elaborate on what you yourself are claiming, to provide evidence. If there's no evidence maybe there's no right...? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue. My point being that people are discriminated against in terms of access to optional leisure facilities all the time and few people seem to care. The minute "discrimination" in the form of needing Covid vaccines comes up, everyone is screaming about their "rights". It amuses my tiny brain! It pisses me the fuck off. I need to do better, I'm sorry. This may be a different paradigm or just another example of the same... You k ow those nightclubs that have massive queues and velvet ropes and people queue and pray that the greeter will find them fashionable or attractive or rich or connected enough to get in... And for the others... They get turned away.... I mean it's most clubs most Fridays and Saturdays right.? Wheres that on infringing my rights to go with the incrowd and being discriminated against when they say.. "Actually fella this is a nightclub and you're in your 50s so try the social club down the road" ... All.places that serve the public have the right to refuse entry for various reasons. People see the vaccine passport infringing on their rights as they wont be allowed in any pub, any club, any whatever without having had someone inject them with the vaccine. Yes they do PROVIDING the refusal isn't on discrimination grounds. Its not discrimination though. I think you need to learn what discrimination means. Actually I know you need to learn that. In plain English, to "discriminate" means to distinguish, single out, or make a distinction. ... But in the context of civil rights law, unlawful discrimination refers to unfair or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain characteristics, including: Age. Disability. Ethnicity.18 Nov 2019 Exactly so someone who chooses not to have a vaccine would not be discriminated against because they have a choice. You keep saying about the tiny amount of people that can't have one. There will be exemptions for those people because there has been for every law and rule regarding covid. " You're saying that they don't have a choice in essence. The vaccine is still experimental and I think everyone has a right to or not to do various things without pressure. You have, over, 18, the choice to consume alcohol or smoke etc. You cannot discriminate again people who don't smoke and drink. The vaccine is not mandatory and the only reason that's coming over by that is by bullying. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"If the unvaccinated cannot work (in jobs where their vaccination status is unlikely to threaten the public - not any job of their choice), cannot access housing, medical care, primary and secondary education (including alternative arrangements), cannot access food and clean drinking water, and were not allowed to vote, I'd be up in arms. What's being proposed is gigs and sporting events. Honestly, none of this is rights material. It's wants. We need some bloody perspective. I've been turned away from such events before because there were no wheelchair spaces (despite there being upward of 20,000 tickets and plenty still on sale). I've been unable to get into pubs, clubs, restaurants and other venues and not one of the venues seemed to give a shit. Welcome to my world... And that's bullshit on stilts, because it's a recognised disability and beyond your control. When it's something you can control, it's a different issue. My point being that people are discriminated against in terms of access to optional leisure facilities all the time and few people seem to care. The minute "discrimination" in the form of needing Covid vaccines comes up, everyone is screaming about their "rights". It amuses my tiny brain! It pisses me the fuck off. I need to do better, I'm sorry. This may be a different paradigm or just another example of the same... You k ow those nightclubs that have massive queues and velvet ropes and people queue and pray that the greeter will find them fashionable or attractive or rich or connected enough to get in... And for the others... They get turned away.... I mean it's most clubs most Fridays and Saturdays right.? Wheres that on infringing my rights to go with the incrowd and being discriminated against when they say.. "Actually fella this is a nightclub and you're in your 50s so try the social club down the road" ... All.places that serve the public have the right to refuse entry for various reasons. People see the vaccine passport infringing on their rights as they wont be allowed in any pub, any club, any whatever without having had someone inject them with the vaccine. Yes they do PROVIDING the refusal isn't on discrimination grounds. Its not discrimination though. I think you need to learn what discrimination means. Actually I know you need to learn that. In plain English, to "discriminate" means to distinguish, single out, or make a distinction. ... But in the context of civil rights law, unlawful discrimination refers to unfair or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain characteristics, including: Age. Disability. Ethnicity.18 Nov 2019 Exactly so someone who chooses not to have a vaccine would not be discriminated against because they have a choice. You keep saying about the tiny amount of people that can't have one. There will be exemptions for those people because there has been for every law and rule regarding covid. You're saying that they don't have a choice in essence. The vaccine is still experimental and I think everyone has a right to or not to do various things without pressure. You have, over, 18, the choice to consume alcohol or smoke etc. You cannot discriminate again people who don't smoke and drink. The vaccine is not mandatory and the only reason that's coming over by that is by bullying. " I mean they could just make it mandatory if they were that determined
The UK had the world's first vaccine mandate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right What right is being infringed here? Please cite the law and judicial precedent, please. You. ? I can't cite a law or precedent for an unknown right you're asserting. Because I don't know what it is. But you're the one shouting for me to produce what is impossible. Your attempt to make similararities of discrimination is wholly wrong. I'm asking you to show me what right is being infringed upon. To elaborate on what you yourself are claiming, to provide evidence. If there's no evidence maybe there's no right...?" Everyone has a right not to have an experimental vaccine put into their own bodies. As I've said, I chose to take the vaccination but each person has a right to or not to. The last time experimental drugs were used was on a forced basis was, well I'm sure you know with your wealth of knowledge | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right What right is being infringed here? Please cite the law and judicial precedent, please. You. ? I can't cite a law or precedent for an unknown right you're asserting. Because I don't know what it is. But you're the one shouting for me to produce what is impossible. Your attempt to make similararities of discrimination is wholly wrong. I'm asking you to show me what right is being infringed upon. To elaborate on what you yourself are claiming, to provide evidence. If there's no evidence maybe there's no right...? Everyone has a right not to have an experimental vaccine put into their own bodies. As I've said, I chose to take the vaccination but each person has a right to or not to. The last time experimental drugs were used was on a forced basis was, well I'm sure you know with your wealth of knowledge " After drugs are approved they're no longer experimental. There's no mandate. Hope this helps. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right What right is being infringed here? Please cite the law and judicial precedent, please. You. ? I can't cite a law or precedent for an unknown right you're asserting. Because I don't know what it is. But you're the one shouting for me to produce what is impossible. Your attempt to make similararities of discrimination is wholly wrong. I'm asking you to show me what right is being infringed upon. To elaborate on what you yourself are claiming, to provide evidence. If there's no evidence maybe there's no right...? Everyone has a right not to have an experimental vaccine put into their own bodies. As I've said, I chose to take the vaccination but each person has a right to or not to. The last time experimental drugs were used was on a forced basis was, well I'm sure you know with your wealth of knowledge After drugs are approved they're no longer experimental. There's no mandate. Hope this helps." Quite wrong. They can be approved and still be experimental Hope that helps | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right What right is being infringed here? Please cite the law and judicial precedent, please. You. ? I can't cite a law or precedent for an unknown right you're asserting. Because I don't know what it is. But you're the one shouting for me to produce what is impossible. Your attempt to make similararities of discrimination is wholly wrong. I'm asking you to show me what right is being infringed upon. To elaborate on what you yourself are claiming, to provide evidence. If there's no evidence maybe there's no right...? Everyone has a right not to have an experimental vaccine put into their own bodies. As I've said, I chose to take the vaccination but each person has a right to or not to. The last time experimental drugs were used was on a forced basis was, well I'm sure you know with your wealth of knowledge After drugs are approved they're no longer experimental. There's no mandate. Hope this helps. Quite wrong. They can be approved and still be experimental Hope that helps " Even if you're correct, there's still no mandate. Mandates are permissible under European human rights law. So trialling the possibility of giving businesses the option to choose clientele is akin to the Holocaust, what's an actual vaccine mandate, where the government finds you guilty of a crime if you're not vaccinated? Is children being made to eat their peas also genocide, or do words mean things? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"The World Health Organisation says people should not be required to prove they have been vaccinated against COVID-19 in order to travel overseas, warning that vaccine passports would isolate poorer countries. Dr Mike Ryan, who leads WHO’s public health emergencies program, said it was vital to record that a person had been vaccinated, but said using that information to allow or prohibit a person from taking part in regular life raised complex, ethical issues. The who are proving themselves less and less relevant in this pandemic. I admit I don't know their inner working but I'm struggling to see where they have added any value to addressing this pandemic " I totally agree, they pander to their money lords. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Seems a confusion in discrimination between will not & cannot, which is where the apartheid argument falls apart, being black or unable to have a vaccine is not a choice, not willing to is. I appreciate what you said but there is a section of society that cannot have a jab by medical, ethical or religious reasons and for that, it's discrimination Other than children It is estimated that only around 1% of the adult population have been advised not to take any of the vaccines currently available. So we are talking tidy numbers, can't and won't are not the same thing. However, that's still over 600,000. To me, that's a tidy number. Accordingly, that's around 4 times the amount of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive with Covid Its actually about 457,000 Those people will be protected because they have no choice so I don't understand why you think its discrimination. Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too? Where is the figure of 457,000. According to ons, there's approximately 63 million adults in the UK No, a driving licence is classed as vocational.. Absolutely no analogy in that Wrong im afraid. The population of the uk is estimated to be 63 million that includes children so my figure is about right. So some discrimination is OK then? I have NEVER said discrimination in any form is ok. The entire population is in excess of 67 million But you also didn´t answer this question : "Around 1.5 million adults cant hold driving a licence in the UK through no fault of their own as they have a condition that means they would not be safe to drive a vehicle and could put others at risk. Is that discrimination too?" So do you think that is discrimination or not ? No it's not because they are not allowed to be drivers because you need a test and it's vocational NOT a right What right is being infringed here? Please cite the law and judicial precedent, please. You. ? I can't cite a law or precedent for an unknown right you're asserting. Because I don't know what it is. But you're the one shouting for me to produce what is impossible. Your attempt to make similararities of discrimination is wholly wrong. I'm asking you to show me what right is being infringed upon. To elaborate on what you yourself are claiming, to provide evidence. If there's no evidence maybe there's no right...? Everyone has a right not to have an experimental vaccine put into their own bodies. As I've said, I chose to take the vaccination but each person has a right to or not to. The last time experimental drugs were used was on a forced basis was, well I'm sure you know with your wealth of knowledge After drugs are approved they're no longer experimental. There's no mandate. Hope this helps. Quite wrong. They can be approved and still be experimental Hope that helps Even if you're correct, there's still no mandate. Mandates are permissible under European human rights law. So trialling the possibility of giving businesses the option to choose clientele is akin to the Holocaust, what's an actual vaccine mandate, where the government finds you guilty of a crime if you're not vaccinated? Is children being made to eat their peas also genocide, or do words mean things?" Well we now do not have to comply with European Human rights because we are no longer in the EU or you may have missed that. I didn't say that you couldn't trial it. I said it was experimental albeit approved but you may have missed that. Genocide is the murder of ethnic minorities the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group. "a campaign of genocide" As regards to what you suggested is Pedicide or depending on age, infanticide but you might have missed that as in your peas? What have peas got to do with anything? Just saying | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397 "Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right.. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right.. "Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things"Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things
Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet... "Sure. But, in theory, it's possible under the human rights court we subscribe to. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things
Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet...
Sure. But, in theory, it's possible under the human rights court we subscribe to."Theory yes but practice unlikely since brexit The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights. Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states. Brexit will not prevent cases being taken to the ECHR, but the repeal of the Human Rights Act might render ECHR decisions less effective and the UK will not be bound by changes to EU law. The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) states that UK courts 'must take into account' (not necessarily follow) any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights The Government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, at some point, details of which are still to be revealed. but its aim is that rights should be set out by the UK parliament rather than Europe. European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions may still be relevant to our law but the British Bill of Rights will determine just how relevant they are. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things
Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet...
Sure. But, in theory, it's possible under the human rights court we subscribe to.
Theory yes but practice unlikely since brexit
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.
Brexit will not prevent cases being taken to the ECHR, but the repeal of the Human Rights Act might render ECHR decisions less effective and the UK will not be bound by changes to EU law.
The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) states that UK courts 'must take into account' (not necessarily follow) any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights
The Government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, at some point, details of which are still to be revealed. but its aim is that rights should be set out by the UK parliament rather than Europe.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions may still be relevant to our law but the British Bill of Rights will determine just how relevant they are."Until then the ECHR still applies. The ECHR is also integral to the Good Friday agreement. Which is kind of necessary, cf current events in Northern Ireland. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things
Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet...
Sure. But, in theory, it's possible under the human rights court we subscribe to.
Theory yes but practice unlikely since brexit
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.
Brexit will not prevent cases being taken to the ECHR, but the repeal of the Human Rights Act might render ECHR decisions less effective and the UK will not be bound by changes to EU law.
The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) states that UK courts 'must take into account' (not necessarily follow) any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights
The Government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, at some point, details of which are still to be revealed. but its aim is that rights should be set out by the UK parliament rather than Europe.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions may still be relevant to our law but the British Bill of Rights will determine just how relevant they are.
Until then the ECHR still applies.
The ECHR is also integral to the Good Friday agreement. Which is kind of necessary, cf current events in Northern Ireland."At present yes, but my understanding of this is that it was already Czech law to mandatory vaccinate children, the UK doesn’t have that law | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things
Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet...
Sure. But, in theory, it's possible under the human rights court we subscribe to.
Theory yes but practice unlikely since brexit
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.
Brexit will not prevent cases being taken to the ECHR, but the repeal of the Human Rights Act might render ECHR decisions less effective and the UK will not be bound by changes to EU law.
The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) states that UK courts 'must take into account' (not necessarily follow) any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights
The Government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, at some point, details of which are still to be revealed. but its aim is that rights should be set out by the UK parliament rather than Europe.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions may still be relevant to our law but the British Bill of Rights will determine just how relevant they are.
Until then the ECHR still applies.
The ECHR is also integral to the Good Friday agreement. Which is kind of necessary, cf current events in Northern Ireland.
At present yes, but my understanding of this is that it was already Czech law to mandatory vaccinate children, the UK doesn’t have that law "No. But the ECHR determines rights and their breaches. If the question is, does the human rights law in the UK allow for restrictions to be placed upon the unvaccinated? The answer is quite clearly yes. Because the ECHR has not overthrown this and other vaccine mandates - and indeed has held that vaccine mandates can, in this case, override the right to early education. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things
Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet...
Sure. But, in theory, it's possible under the human rights court we subscribe to.
Theory yes but practice unlikely since brexit
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.
Brexit will not prevent cases being taken to the ECHR, but the repeal of the Human Rights Act might render ECHR decisions less effective and the UK will not be bound by changes to EU law.
The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) states that UK courts 'must take into account' (not necessarily follow) any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights
The Government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, at some point, details of which are still to be revealed. but its aim is that rights should be set out by the UK parliament rather than Europe.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions may still be relevant to our law but the British Bill of Rights will determine just how relevant they are.
Until then the ECHR still applies.
The ECHR is also integral to the Good Friday agreement. Which is kind of necessary, cf current events in Northern Ireland.
At present yes, but my understanding of this is that it was already Czech law to mandatory vaccinate children, the UK doesn’t have that law
No. But the ECHR determines rights and their breaches.
If the question is, does the human rights law in the UK allow for restrictions to be placed upon the unvaccinated? The answer is quite clearly yes. Because the ECHR has not overthrown this and other vaccine mandates - and indeed has held that vaccine mandates can, in this case, override the right to early education."So, you're quite happy to have the vaccine as mandatory? Then what if the government then says certain other vaccines are mandatory that could be harmful to lots of people? Once you agree to mandatory vaccinations of anything, you're paving the way for the government to vaccinate you with anything they see fit. Be careful what you wish for. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things
Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet...
Sure. But, in theory, it's possible under the human rights court we subscribe to.
Theory yes but practice unlikely since brexit
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.
Brexit will not prevent cases being taken to the ECHR, but the repeal of the Human Rights Act might render ECHR decisions less effective and the UK will not be bound by changes to EU law.
The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) states that UK courts 'must take into account' (not necessarily follow) any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights
The Government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, at some point, details of which are still to be revealed. but its aim is that rights should be set out by the UK parliament rather than Europe.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions may still be relevant to our law but the British Bill of Rights will determine just how relevant they are.
Until then the ECHR still applies.
The ECHR is also integral to the Good Friday agreement. Which is kind of necessary, cf current events in Northern Ireland.
At present yes, but my understanding of this is that it was already Czech law to mandatory vaccinate children, the UK doesn’t have that law
No. But the ECHR determines rights and their breaches.
If the question is, does the human rights law in the UK allow for restrictions to be placed upon the unvaccinated? The answer is quite clearly yes. Because the ECHR has not overthrown this and other vaccine mandates - and indeed has held that vaccine mandates can, in this case, override the right to early education.
So, you're quite happy to have the vaccine as mandatory?
Then what if the government then says certain other vaccines are mandatory that could be harmful to lots of people? Once you agree to mandatory vaccinations of anything, you're paving the way for the government to vaccinate you with anything they see fit. Be careful what you wish for. "So you were saying that the government can't make vaccines mandatory. You were wrong, yes? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things
Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet...
Sure. But, in theory, it's possible under the human rights court we subscribe to.
Theory yes but practice unlikely since brexit
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.
Brexit will not prevent cases being taken to the ECHR, but the repeal of the Human Rights Act might render ECHR decisions less effective and the UK will not be bound by changes to EU law.
The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) states that UK courts 'must take into account' (not necessarily follow) any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights
The Government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, at some point, details of which are still to be revealed. but its aim is that rights should be set out by the UK parliament rather than Europe.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions may still be relevant to our law but the British Bill of Rights will determine just how relevant they are.
Until then the ECHR still applies.
The ECHR is also integral to the Good Friday agreement. Which is kind of necessary, cf current events in Northern Ireland.
At present yes, but my understanding of this is that it was already Czech law to mandatory vaccinate children, the UK doesn’t have that law
No. But the ECHR determines rights and their breaches.
If the question is, does the human rights law in the UK allow for restrictions to be placed upon the unvaccinated? The answer is quite clearly yes. Because the ECHR has not overthrown this and other vaccine mandates - and indeed has held that vaccine mandates can, in this case, override the right to early education."In those countries where there is a mandate for involuntary vaccinations, we don’t have that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things
Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet...
Sure. But, in theory, it's possible under the human rights court we subscribe to.
Theory yes but practice unlikely since brexit
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.
Brexit will not prevent cases being taken to the ECHR, but the repeal of the Human Rights Act might render ECHR decisions less effective and the UK will not be bound by changes to EU law.
The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) states that UK courts 'must take into account' (not necessarily follow) any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights
The Government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, at some point, details of which are still to be revealed. but its aim is that rights should be set out by the UK parliament rather than Europe.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions may still be relevant to our law but the British Bill of Rights will determine just how relevant they are.
Until then the ECHR still applies.
The ECHR is also integral to the Good Friday agreement. Which is kind of necessary, cf current events in Northern Ireland.
At present yes, but my understanding of this is that it was already Czech law to mandatory vaccinate children, the UK doesn’t have that law
No. But the ECHR determines rights and their breaches.
If the question is, does the human rights law in the UK allow for restrictions to be placed upon the unvaccinated? The answer is quite clearly yes. Because the ECHR has not overthrown this and other vaccine mandates - and indeed has held that vaccine mandates can, in this case, override the right to early education.
In those countries where there is a mandate for involuntary vaccinations, we don’t have that. "I'm aware. But the argument was that the proposed vaccine passports are against our human rights. Our human rights are guided by the jurisprudence of the ECHR. The ECHR permits vaccine mandates - and so passports for optional activities, being less onerous than mandates, would also be permitted. I'm not saying and have never said that the UK has or would have a mandate. I'm saying that the proposed passports are clearly permissible under ECHR jurisprudence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things
Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet...
Sure. But, in theory, it's possible under the human rights court we subscribe to.
Theory yes but practice unlikely since brexit
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.
Brexit will not prevent cases being taken to the ECHR, but the repeal of the Human Rights Act might render ECHR decisions less effective and the UK will not be bound by changes to EU law.
The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) states that UK courts 'must take into account' (not necessarily follow) any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights
The Government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, at some point, details of which are still to be revealed. but its aim is that rights should be set out by the UK parliament rather than Europe.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions may still be relevant to our law but the British Bill of Rights will determine just how relevant they are.
Until then the ECHR still applies.
The ECHR is also integral to the Good Friday agreement. Which is kind of necessary, cf current events in Northern Ireland.
At present yes, but my understanding of this is that it was already Czech law to mandatory vaccinate children, the UK doesn’t have that law
No. But the ECHR determines rights and their breaches.
If the question is, does the human rights law in the UK allow for restrictions to be placed upon the unvaccinated? The answer is quite clearly yes. Because the ECHR has not overthrown this and other vaccine mandates - and indeed has held that vaccine mandates can, in this case, override the right to early education.
So, you're quite happy to have the vaccine as mandatory?
Then what if the government then says certain other vaccines are mandatory that could be harmful to lots of people? Once you agree to mandatory vaccinations of anything, you're paving the way for the government to vaccinate you with anything they see fit. Be careful what you wish for.
So you were saying that the government can't make vaccines mandatory.
You were wrong, yes?"Was I? Have the current government made vaccines mandatory? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things
Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet...
Sure. But, in theory, it's possible under the human rights court we subscribe to.
Theory yes but practice unlikely since brexit
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.
Brexit will not prevent cases being taken to the ECHR, but the repeal of the Human Rights Act might render ECHR decisions less effective and the UK will not be bound by changes to EU law.
The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) states that UK courts 'must take into account' (not necessarily follow) any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights
The Government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, at some point, details of which are still to be revealed. but its aim is that rights should be set out by the UK parliament rather than Europe.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions may still be relevant to our law but the British Bill of Rights will determine just how relevant they are.
Until then the ECHR still applies.
The ECHR is also integral to the Good Friday agreement. Which is kind of necessary, cf current events in Northern Ireland.
At present yes, but my understanding of this is that it was already Czech law to mandatory vaccinate children, the UK doesn’t have that law
No. But the ECHR determines rights and their breaches.
If the question is, does the human rights law in the UK allow for restrictions to be placed upon the unvaccinated? The answer is quite clearly yes. Because the ECHR has not overthrown this and other vaccine mandates - and indeed has held that vaccine mandates can, in this case, override the right to early education.
In those countries where there is a mandate for involuntary vaccinations, we don’t have that.
I'm aware.
But the argument was that the proposed vaccine passports are against our human rights.
Our human rights are guided by the jurisprudence of the ECHR.
The ECHR permits vaccine mandates - and so passports for optional activities, being less onerous than mandates, would also be permitted.
I'm not saying and have never said that the UK has or would have a mandate. I'm saying that the proposed passports are clearly permissible under ECHR jurisprudence."And is not enforceable now | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things
Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet...
Sure. But, in theory, it's possible under the human rights court we subscribe to.
Theory yes but practice unlikely since brexit
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.
Brexit will not prevent cases being taken to the ECHR, but the repeal of the Human Rights Act might render ECHR decisions less effective and the UK will not be bound by changes to EU law.
The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) states that UK courts 'must take into account' (not necessarily follow) any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights
The Government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, at some point, details of which are still to be revealed. but its aim is that rights should be set out by the UK parliament rather than Europe.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions may still be relevant to our law but the British Bill of Rights will determine just how relevant they are.
Until then the ECHR still applies.
The ECHR is also integral to the Good Friday agreement. Which is kind of necessary, cf current events in Northern Ireland.
At present yes, but my understanding of this is that it was already Czech law to mandatory vaccinate children, the UK doesn’t have that law
No. But the ECHR determines rights and their breaches.
If the question is, does the human rights law in the UK allow for restrictions to be placed upon the unvaccinated? The answer is quite clearly yes. Because the ECHR has not overthrown this and other vaccine mandates - and indeed has held that vaccine mandates can, in this case, override the right to early education.
So, you're quite happy to have the vaccine as mandatory?
Then what if the government then says certain other vaccines are mandatory that could be harmful to lots of people? Once you agree to mandatory vaccinations of anything, you're paving the way for the government to vaccinate you with anything they see fit. Be careful what you wish for.
So you were saying that the government can't make vaccines mandatory.
You were wrong, yes?
Was I? Have the current government made vaccines mandatory? "Cannot is not the same as have not. The human rights law clearly allows for it. And for the passports that you argued were against human rights. I never argued they are going to mandate, or are going to mandate. I am arguing that your point, that "bullying" people into being vaccinated by allowing businesses to exclude them is against human rights - does not hold up under the human rights regime we have. The human rights regime we have allows for considerably more incursion into individual health decisions. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"And look, here's the ECHR upholding vaccine mandates https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-56669397
Who'd have thought, children's health and safety was a human right..
Who'd have thought that our human rights law can indeed allow vaccine refusers to be excluded from things
Well we're a good 6 months away from jabbing all adults twice yet, let along autumn boosters before we get to the under 18s....and we have a summer of vaccine passport noise to get through yet...
Sure. But, in theory, it's possible under the human rights court we subscribe to.
Theory yes but practice unlikely since brexit
The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) hears cases related to the European Convention on Human Rights.
Unlike European Court of Justice decisions, ECHR decisions are not binding though many human rights decisions are considered so important that they become part of EU law, which is binding on EU states.
Brexit will not prevent cases being taken to the ECHR, but the repeal of the Human Rights Act might render ECHR decisions less effective and the UK will not be bound by changes to EU law.
The UK Human Rights Act (HRA) states that UK courts 'must take into account' (not necessarily follow) any judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights
The Government plans to replace the Human Rights Act with a Bill of Rights, at some point, details of which are still to be revealed. but its aim is that rights should be set out by the UK parliament rather than Europe.
European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) decisions may still be relevant to our law but the British Bill of Rights will determine just how relevant they are.
Until then the ECHR still applies.
The ECHR is also integral to the Good Friday agreement. Which is kind of necessary, cf current events in Northern Ireland.
At present yes, but my understanding of this is that it was already Czech law to mandatory vaccinate children, the UK doesn’t have that law
No. But the ECHR determines rights and their breaches.
If the question is, does the human rights law in the UK allow for restrictions to be placed upon the unvaccinated? The answer is quite clearly yes. Because the ECHR has not overthrown this and other vaccine mandates - and indeed has held that vaccine mandates can, in this case, override the right to early education.
So, you're quite happy to have the vaccine as mandatory?
Then what if the government then says certain other vaccines are mandatory that could be harmful to lots of people? Once you agree to mandatory vaccinations of anything, you're paving the way for the government to vaccinate you with anything they see fit. Be careful what you wish for.
So you were saying that the government can't make vaccines mandatory.
You were wrong, yes?
Was I? Have the current government made vaccines mandatory?
Cannot is not the same as have not.
The human rights law clearly allows for it. And for the passports that you argued were against human rights.
I never argued they are going to mandate, or are going to mandate. I am arguing that your point, that "bullying" people into being vaccinated by allowing businesses to exclude them is against human rights - does not hold up under the human rights regime we have. The human rights regime we have allows for considerably more incursion into individual health decisions."So you'd also be happy to take away the rights of women, people of colour, sexual persuasion etc. Let's see what happens in the future as regards 'passports', certificates, ID cards digital or otherwise and yes I'll comply with the law but that will be the same for everyone. So, the ones who cannot or will not comply, what's your solution? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Replacing ECHR with a British Bill Of Rights would be a disaster. Over time government's have already restricted our rights like putting obstacles in way of our right for strike action. They are now trying to restrict people's right to protest against basic human principles. Apart from this ECHR protects humans to live a valued life. I would not trust a UK government, and particular the Tories to uphold those rights. A so called British Bill Of Rights would give them carte blanche to change the rules as they please." I agree. However, I was just saying what the human rights law we live under permits. Not what it should be, what it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Replacing ECHR with a British Bill Of Rights would be a disaster. Over time government's have already restricted our rights like putting obstacles in way of our right for strike action. They are now trying to restrict people's right to protest against basic human principles. Apart from this ECHR protects humans to live a valued life. I would not trust a UK government, and particular the Tories to uphold those rights. A so called British Bill Of Rights would give them carte blanche to change the rules as they please. I agree. However, I was just saying what the human rights law we live under permits. Not what it should be, what it is." Maybe but it's not an ideal world, and a British Bill of Rights would make a mockery of what for many is an already struggling human life. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Replacing ECHR with a British Bill Of Rights would be a disaster. Over time government's have already restricted our rights like putting obstacles in way of our right for strike action. They are now trying to restrict people's right to protest against basic human principles. Apart from this ECHR protects humans to live a valued life. I would not trust a UK government, and particular the Tories to uphold those rights. A so called British Bill Of Rights would give them carte blanche to change the rules as they please. I agree. However, I was just saying what the human rights law we live under permits. Not what it should be, what it is. Maybe but it's not an ideal world, and a British Bill of Rights would make a mockery of what for many is an already struggling human life." Yes. But at this point - the ECHR allows vaccine mandates. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Replacing ECHR with a British Bill Of Rights would be a disaster. Over time government's have already restricted our rights like putting obstacles in way of our right for strike action. They are now trying to restrict people's right to protest against basic human principles. Apart from this ECHR protects humans to live a valued life. I would not trust a UK government, and particular the Tories to uphold those rights. A so called British Bill Of Rights would give them carte blanche to change the rules as they please." Exactly this. I trust more an ECHR that might allow vaccine mandates but has a level of openness and fairness about its judgements, and which will balance individuals rights against the individuals responsibilities to society, than I would any "bill of rights" that could be brought in by our current profoundly self-interested and dishonest government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
