4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Sept 13, 2021 8:20:11 GMT
Some people cannot be vaccinated for health reasons. What about those people? Who lived full and happy lives until the virus came around? Are they idiots? Are they deluded? I think that is one massive misconception; getting the vaccine does not protect others around you. It protects you and only you. You can carry the virus as much as an unvaccinated person. If you're vaccinated, you'll probably make it through fairly unharmed. The unvaccinated person who made the choice not to get it or maybe they couldn't for health reasons; they will end up being worse off. But you making the choice to get a vaccine shouldn't be seen as some great accomplishment or some humanitarian achievement for "the greater good" - its a choice. It's not communism when it is for the greater good to try to reduce the impact of a pandemic. Calling it communism is the lazy self-centered argument that doesn't accept that no-one has unlimited personal freedom. We never have and never will, not even a democracy is predicated on complete freedom, but on rights and responsibilities. One does not happen without the other. It is everyone's personal responsibility to get the vaccine to minimise their risk of becoming seriously ill and taking up hospital resources that could be avoided by getting the vaccine. In that sense the vaccine DOES protect others - me not being hospitalised because I'm vaccinated and therefore more likely not to be seriously ill leaves an ICU bed free for someone who actually, unavoidably, needs it, like a cancer patient. Do you not get it? It is absolutely a benefit to others as well as yourself (plus the potential impact in terms of reducing spread is not yet fully known), and the simple fact is that full vaccine programmes have essential eliminated diseases like smallpox in the past. So we know the approach works, it just requires people to think more broadly about the impact rather than just about themselves. If anyone genuinely can't get the vaccine for a valid medical reason then any vaccine passport scheme could allow them to be granted a doctor-certified exemption and produce a negative test result instead. But people who self-certify like for the stupid mask exemption shouldn't count, not for a public health emergency like this. And it is still freedom of choice - I am not saying we have to have mandatory vaccines. But going back to rights and responsibilities, if you choose not to care for others and get the vaccine, then there is no reason why you shouldn't face restrictions on where you can socialise. Doesn't mean those people can't still live a life, just means they don't have unrestricted freedom to risk getting Covid and wasting NHS resources because they were too self-centered to get a simple jab.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 13, 2021 9:40:23 GMT
Why aren't journalists challenging ministers on substantial, provable lies? The assertion that 'they can just work more hours' is laughable. Lots of people on UC are already in work, and she doesn't seem to realise that with each extra pound earned, UC takes money off, so it would take much more than two hours wages to cover the ÂŁ20! I truly loathe this Government with every fibre of my being:
|
|
|
Post by sph on Sept 13, 2021 11:03:31 GMT
I think the issue is that although yes businesses can set their own conditions of entry, there are people out there who will cry discrimination.
I suppose theatres would have to be willing to refund anyone who arrived at the theatre and was refused entry due to being unvaccinated.
|
|
18,903 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 13, 2021 11:22:21 GMT
At a very full Lowry for ETAJ on Saturday night I saw 2 or 3 people in masks, tops. Saw one sign saying wearing masks was “highly recommended”.
|
|
|
Post by hairspray57 on Sept 13, 2021 11:22:28 GMT
I think the issue is that although yes businesses can set their own conditions of entry, there are people out there who will cry discrimination. I suppose theatres would have to be willing to refund anyone who arrived at the theatre and was refused entry due to being unvaccinated. And that is where some businesses fear problems.
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Sept 13, 2021 12:28:01 GMT
Freedom comes with consequences also. But if someone doesn't want to be vaccinated (or wear a mask), their "freedom" comes with consequences for me. getting the vaccine does not protect others around you. It protects you and only you. You can carry the virus as much as an unvaccinated person. That's not quite accurate. You carry the same peak load of virus as someone unvaccinated, but for a much briefer period of time. Thus reducing the risk of spreading it. "... vaccinated people with Delta might remain infectious for a shorter period, according to researchers in Singapore who tracked viral loads for each day of COVID-19 infection among people who had and hadn’t been vaccinated. Delta viral loads were similar for both groups for the first week of infection, but dropped quickly after day 7 in vaccinated people." www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1I agree that getting the vaccine isn't the end-all/be-all to stop the spread. But combined with masking, distancing and frequent testing, it should certainly reduce the spread.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2021 12:42:22 GMT
Freedom comes with consequences also. But if someone doesn't want to be vaccinated (or wear a mask), their "freedom" comes with consequences for me. getting the vaccine does not protect others around you. It protects you and only you. You can carry the virus as much as an unvaccinated person. That's not quite accurate. You carry the same peak load of virus as someone unvaccinated, but for a much briefer period of time. Thus reducing the risk of spreading it. "... vaccinated people with Delta might remain infectious for a shorter period, according to researchers in Singapore who tracked viral loads for each day of COVID-19 infection among people who had and hadn’t been vaccinated. Delta viral loads were similar for both groups for the first week of infection, but dropped quickly after day 7 in vaccinated people." www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02187-1I agree that getting the vaccine isn't the end-all/be-all to stop the spread. But combined with masking, distancing and frequent testing, it should certainly reduce the spread. Yes, I agree with you Susan. Freedom works both ways. In the UK at least, companies and business can be sued for this and because it isn't supported by the Government anymore, it would be an interesting case. That was my main point. Hmm, personally I do not believe that. I don't think there has been enough studies into it. Just because one study says this and another says that; doesn't make either true. What is correct is that the vaccine protects you and at the moment, only you. There hasn't been enough research into how that affects others with all these variants, yet. Frequent testing is a pointless waste of public money. They aren't accurate enough, full stop. They aren't foolproof. PCR tests are expensive and pointless too. Just because that person was negative at the exact time they took that swab, means absolutely nothing. Distancing and masking is nice, but it shouldn't be forced. I'll say it again, that's a dictatorship which is communism. Freedom should always be number 1. As I have said freedom comes with consequences but that is on both sides. I think this idea that because someone is vaccinated makes them a better person than someone else is disgusting.
|
|
4,603 posts
|
Post by Mark on Sept 13, 2021 12:47:02 GMT
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 13, 2021 14:33:43 GMT
I think the issue is that although yes businesses can set their own conditions of entry, there are people out there who will cry discrimination. I suppose theatres would have to be willing to refund anyone who arrived at the theatre and was refused entry due to being unvaccinated. And that is where some businesses fear problems. Oh it is definitely discrimination but good discrimination, no?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2021 15:05:08 GMT
And that is where some businesses fear problems. Oh it is definitely discrimination but good discrimination, no? "Good discrimination" that's like saying "nice rape" or "justified homophobic attack" Discrimination is discrimination.
|
|
2,206 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on Sept 13, 2021 15:08:51 GMT
Oh it is definitely discrimination but good discrimination, no? "Good discrimination" that's like saying "nice rape" or "justified homophobic attack" Discrimination is discrimination. I'm not so sure. How about positive discrimination.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Sept 13, 2021 15:12:43 GMT
Oh it is definitely discrimination but good discrimination, no? "Good discrimination" that's like saying "nice rape" or "justified homophobic attack"Â Discrimination is discrimination. Maybe we should scrap film classifications because they discriminate against people who are under the age limits, or scrap the legal drinking age, or the law requiring people to wear seatbelts, because that discriminates against people who don't want to wear them...? Maybe we should scrap train fares and theatre ticket prices because they discriminate against people who can't afford them. That's ultimately where your argument goes. Discrimination exists in every facet of life in some form, it is simply a question of whether it is justified in the particular circumstances. Same way as different human rights are balanced against each other. Non-discrimination (Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights) is not an absolute right but a qualified one. Your apparent lack of regard for other people in favour of a seemingly endless pursuit of a right to be selfish without care is astonishing. You are trying to make absolute rights that are very much not that, while ignoring the responsibilities that go hand in hand with those rights.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2021 15:14:43 GMT
"Good discrimination" that's like saying "nice rape" or "justified homophobic attack" Discrimination is discrimination. I'm not so sure. How about positive discrimination. I don't think discrimination can ever be "positive" or "good" - it is either negative or neutral. Maybe "right" and "wrong" is a better way to put it - but being unvaccinated isn't wrong in the eyes of the law and at the moment, I am glad it is that way.
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Sept 13, 2021 15:17:24 GMT
Very little is. That's an impossible standard. Just because that person was negative at the exact time they took that swab, means absolutely nothing. But if it's positive, it means a great deal. I'm looking at testing as a way to control the virus, not as a permission slip. Yes, "freedom" comes with consequences on all sides. But what about "responsibility"? Shouldn't there also be a responsibility to limit the impact of those consequences on others? I think this idea that because someone is vaccinated makes them a better person than someone else is disgusting. Are you rejecting the word "better" or the concept? Would you agree that a person who picks up litter from the street is a more responsible person than the one who dropped it there? Someone helping up a stranger who fell is a more responsible person than one who stepped around them? I think that getting vaccinated (ALL vaccinations for communicable diseases, not just COVID) is a responsible thing to do for the community.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2021 15:21:00 GMT
"Good discrimination" that's like saying "nice rape" or "justified homophobic attack" Discrimination is discrimination. Maybe we should scrap film classifications because they discriminate against people who are under the age limits, or scrap the legal drinking age, or the law requiring people to wear seatbelts, because that discriminates against people who don't want to wear them...? Maybe we should scrap train fares and theatre ticket prices because they discriminate against people who can't afford them. That's ultimately where your argument goes. Discrimination exists in every facet of life in some form, it is simply a question of whether it is justified in the particular circumstances. Same way as different human rights are balanced against each other. Non-discrimination (Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights) is not an absolute right but a qualified one. Your apparent lack of regard for other people in favour of a seemingly endless pursuit of a right to be selfish without care is astonishing. You are trying to make absolute rights that are very much not that, while ignoring the responsibilities that go hand in hand with those rights. *sigh* The examples you have given are all legal requirements. Being vaccinated is not a law.
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Sept 13, 2021 15:24:39 GMT
Discrimination exists in every facet of life in some form, it is simply a question of whether it is justified in the particular circumstances. I agree, and would suggest discriminating against someone for their actions is one thing and may be justified, while discriminating against someone for things beyond their control is seldom (never?) justified. Keeping someone off of an airplane because they refused to be vaccinated is one thing; keeping them off the plane because of their color or religion or sexual orientation is something else. Just like theaters have created 'relaxed' performances to accommodate people who need that concession, they (and airplanes) could create non-vaxxed/non-masked environments to accommodate people who want that.
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Sept 13, 2021 15:28:36 GMT
The examples you have given are all legal requirements. But they weren't always.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2021 15:30:42 GMT
Very little is. That's an impossible standard. Just because that person was negative at the exact time they took that swab, means absolutely nothing. But if it's positive, it means a great deal. I'm looking at testing as a way to control the virus, not as a permission slip. Yes, "freedom" comes with consequences on all sides. But what about "responsibility"? Shouldn't there also be a responsibility to limit the impact of those consequences on others? I think this idea that because someone is vaccinated makes them a better person than someone else is disgusting. Are you rejecting the word "better" or the concept? Would you agree that a person who picks up litter from the street is a more responsible person than the one who dropped it there? Someone helping up a stranger who fell is a more responsible person than one who stepped around them? I think that getting vaccinated (ALL vaccinations for communicable diseases, not just COVID) is a responsible thing to do for the community. 1 - ok, sure. But the tests are a waste of public money, regardless. That's more important. 2 - do you realise how many false positives are given out everyday? Restricting people's lives unnecessarily! 3 - I don't think its the public's responsibility to get us out this pandemic. That is the Government's job and they are doing a stellar job, quite frankly. Up the Tories! Neither is my responsibility to think about 85 year old Doris down the road. 4 - I am rejecting the word "better" as quite clearly stated in my statement. It is not my job to pick up litter on a street. It is not my responsibility to protect others from a virus that they can choose to get vaccinated against. Saying it is "responsible" is again putting a person up on a pedestal. When the law clearly states, its a choice. I chose to get vaccinated to protect my health and that's that.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 13, 2021 15:32:52 GMT
Discrimination exists in every facet of life in some form, it is simply a question of whether it is justified in the particular circumstances. I agree, and would suggest discriminating against someone for their actions is one thing and may be justified, while discriminating against someone for things beyond their control is seldom (never?) justified. Keeping someone off of an airplane because they refused to be vaccinated is one thing; keeping them off the plane because of their color or religion or sexual orientation is something else. Just like theaters have created 'relaxed' performances to accommodate people who need that concession, they (and airplanes) could create non-vaxxed/non-masked environments to accommodate people who want that. Segregation. Lovely.
|
|
4,458 posts
|
Post by poster J on Sept 13, 2021 15:54:41 GMT
Maybe we should scrap film classifications because they discriminate against people who are under the age limits, or scrap the legal drinking age, or the law requiring people to wear seatbelts, because that discriminates against people who don't want to wear them...? Maybe we should scrap train fares and theatre ticket prices because they discriminate against people who can't afford them. That's ultimately where your argument goes. Discrimination exists in every facet of life in some form, it is simply a question of whether it is justified in the particular circumstances. Same way as different human rights are balanced against each other. Non-discrimination (Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights) is not an absolute right but a qualified one. Your apparent lack of regard for other people in favour of a seemingly endless pursuit of a right to be selfish without care is astonishing. You are trying to make absolute rights that are very much not that, while ignoring the responsibilities that go hand in hand with those rights. *sigh* The examples you have given are all legal requirements. Being vaccinated is not a law. Sigh all you like, but the principles are the same. The fact you refuse to engage with the underlying principles says it all And I was talking about vaccine passports, which if they were made legal (as any government with a backbone would do) would be exactly the same. Not vaccines. Mandatory restrictions and mandatory vaccines are two different things, stop conflating the two for your own purposes.
|
|
|
Post by sfsusan on Sept 13, 2021 16:46:44 GMT
I didn't say mandatory, I said people would choose which to attend. It is not my job to pick up litter on a street. It is not my responsibility to protect others... I understand you now. *sigh*
|
|
4,974 posts
|
Post by TallPaul on Sept 13, 2021 17:59:02 GMT
I spend my Sunday mornings picking up litter. I am also completely opposed to vaccine passports. What does that make me? I don't give a toss if the person sitting next to me in a theatre has had two jabs, one or none. It's none of my business.
And for the record, the legal age to drink alcohol in this country is just five, which suggest that it's almost always better to trust people, without compulsion or coercion, to do the right thing.
|
|
894 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Sept 13, 2021 21:44:26 GMT
I'm sure all these people bitching about proof of vaccination for entry have been up in arms for years about dress codes to enter venues.
|
|
2,277 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by theatreian on Sept 13, 2021 22:08:24 GMT
The society we now live in with it's political correctness and people's freedom to do as they please will not solve the covid issue. Personally I agree with vaccine passports and I think everyone does have a responsibility to get vaccinated to protect themselves and others. If they choose not to that is their business, but if they are not bothered about their part in spreading covid then they should not have some of the benefits such as attending mass gatherings indoors.
|
|
351 posts
|
Post by Jonnyboy on Sept 13, 2021 22:27:20 GMT
At a very full Lowry for ETAJ on Saturday night I saw 2 or 3 people in masks, tops. Saw one sign saying wearing masks was “highly recommended”. I was there Sunday matinee and it was the same. Packed and a handful of masks including myself. So virtually everyone had ignored the email sent beforehand and the signs up around the theatre. Do we want theatre fo continue? Or do we want more and more restrictions back? I loved being back at live theatre again. Did a mask spoil it? Did it hell. People have no discipline. People are selfish. And they’ll all be moaning again when restrictions are back in the winter. We were ASKED politely to wear a mask. 99% stuck two fingers up at the request. Kind of done with people now. I feel virtually no one is on my wavelength. As if I’m the odd one out wanting to do the right thing, what is asked of me. I think whatever horrors the human race has to face in the future, sadly it’s largely deserved.
|
|
|
Post by hairspray57 on Sept 14, 2021 12:00:40 GMT
It’s too late to reintroduce Mandatory Masks in things like shops now. Too many would not listen. On the tube it’s still mandatory but I saw a carriage packed liked Sardines at the weekend with only a couple of people wearing Masks. At the theatre you could probably get more compliance as they are people to just about enforce it.
|
|
|
Post by talkingheads on Sept 14, 2021 12:38:12 GMT
Javid has said the mask mandate could return in the winter (begging the question of why it was ever dropped. There is next to no chance of enforcing it with, yet again, mixed messaging):
|
|
2,358 posts
|
Post by zahidf on Sept 14, 2021 15:19:31 GMT
Big cases falls across the entire country again.
UK: 37,489 -> 26,628 (-29.0%) England: 27,545 -> 19,739 (-28.3%) Scotland: 5,692 -> 3,375 (-40.7%) NI: 1,748 -> 1,590 (-9.0%) Wales: 2,504 -> 1,924 (-23.1%)
Just to counter the gloom on here. 6th Day of reductions
|
|
18,903 posts
|
Post by BurlyBeaR on Sept 14, 2021 16:20:24 GMT
At a very full Lowry for ETAJ on Saturday night I saw 2 or 3 people in masks, tops. Saw one sign saying wearing masks was “highly recommended”. We were ASKED politely to wear a mask. 99% stuck two fingers up at the request. Isnt that the problem though? Politely asking demonstrates no sense of urgency or importance at all. I saw that sign tucked away on the stairs, it was a fairly small sign and despite visiting both bars in the venue it was the only one I saw. There were no announcements about mask wearing that I heard. Theatres understandably want patrons to feel relaxed and to get buying those drinks and ice creams and snacks. They don’t want to be putting the mockers on what is quite possibly people’s first night out at the theatre in 18 months by casting fear over everyone. I get it. Whether some of us here don’t agree with it or not isnt the point. It IS the way it is and unless we see another uncontrolled surge in cases then the genie is out of the bottle and staying out.
|
|
|
Post by hairspray57 on Sept 14, 2021 16:26:22 GMT
We were ASKED politely to wear a mask. 99% stuck two fingers up at the request. Isnt that the problem though? Politely asking demonstrates no sense of urgency or importance at all. I saw that sign tucked away on the stairs, it was a fairly small sign and despite visiting both bars in the venue it was the only one I saw. There were no announcements about mask wearing that I heard. Theatres understandably want patrons to feel relaxed and to get buying those drinks and ice creams and snacks. They don’t want to be putting the mockers on what is quite possibly people’s first night out at the theatre in 18 months by casting fear over everyone. I get it. Whether some of us here don’t agree with it or not isnt the point. It IS the way it is and unless we see another uncontrolled surge in cases then the genie is out of the bottle and staying out. It’s the same at Westfield. A polite sign saying Masks are welcomed here. It’s possible announcements will increase if theatres fear further restrictions are coming at any point.
|
|