Every day the vaccine rolls out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanDerHoorn

In your opinion what benefit comes from barring unvaccinated people from football games - given that the vaccine does not prevent transmission?

---

You actually answered this later in this thread. The government are protecting the NHS by insisting folk are vaccinated where there are going to be mass gatherings as, while the virus will still spread, it won't have the same impact on the health service as if unvaccinated folk were there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TerryTheTerror

You actually answered this later in this thread. The government are protecting the NHS by insisting folk are vaccinated where there are going to be mass gatherings as, while the virus will still spread, it won't have the same impact on the health service as if unvaccinated folk were there.

---

The original reason for vaccine passports was that vaccines stopped transmission, hence the ability to show a negative lateral flow test instead.

The reason you have given means moving the goalposts to infringe someone’s civil liberties, their freedom of movement, just incase they happen to get ill and need medical care. That’s a very dangerous precedent to allow any government to embark on.

But even then the logic doesn’t stack up.

An unvaccinated person under 40 has a minuscule chance of needing hospital care resulting from a covid infection. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...th-by-age.html

The same is true for an unvaccinated person who has previously recovered from covid so how does banning these people help to reduce pressure on the NHS?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanDerHoorn

The original reason for vaccine passports was that vaccines stopped transmission, hence the ability to show a negative lateral flow test instead.

The reason you have given means moving the goalposts to infringe someone’s civil liberties, their freedom of movement, just incase they happen to get ill and need medical care. That’s a very dangerous precedent to allow any government to embark on.

But even then the logic doesn’t stack up.

An unvaccinated person under 40 has a minuscule chance of needing hospital care resulting from a covid infection. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...th-by-age.html

The same is true for an unvaccinated person who has previously recovered from covid so how does banning these people help to reduce pressure on the NHS?

---

Not so sure about this, my unvaccinated nephew (40) was recently in intensive care with Covid, thankfully he’s back home again and wishing he had been vaccinated

Every one of these grim stats has a back story

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TerryTheTerror

Interesting, is that from choice?

---

Yep. I’ll get it if I have to travel but otherwise no. There’s no measures in the place I live regarding vaccine passport type stuff and I think there’s been maybe two Covid related deaths in total since it all started at the start of 2020. More people have died from wild boar attacks than Covid where I stay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by japanarab

Yep. I’ll get it if I have to travel but otherwise no. There’s no measures in the place I live regarding vaccine passport type stuff and I think there’s been maybe two Covid related deaths in total since it all started at the start of 2020. More people have died from wild boar attacks than Covid where I stay.

---

That is interesting. Please feel free not too answer as you may think it's very private (which I respect 100%) but why not get vaccinated?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanDerHoorn

The original reason for vaccine passports was that vaccines stopped transmission, hence the ability to show a negative lateral flow test instead.

The reason you have given means moving the goalposts to infringe someone’s civil liberties, their freedom of movement, just incase they happen to get ill and need medical care. That’s a very dangerous precedent to allow any government to embark on.

But even then the logic doesn’t stack up.

An unvaccinated person under 40 has a minuscule chance of needing hospital care resulting from a covid infection. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...th-by-age.html

The same is true for an unvaccinated person who has previously recovered from covid so how does banning these people help to reduce pressure on the NHS?

---

I don't think it matters if goalposts are changed (and even then I'm not entirely sure what you've said about the original reasons are accurate) as long as there are good reasons for it.

Ultimately I'm speculating as to the reasons but I think there is logic in what I've suggested. I'm afraid I can't believe so many countries around the world are restricting the civil liberties of their citizens just for the sake of it. Politically, what would be the point?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanDerHoorn

The original reason for vaccine passports was that vaccines stopped transmission, hence the ability to show a negative lateral flow test instead.

The reason you have given means moving the goalposts to infringe someone’s civil liberties, their freedom of movement, just incase they happen to get ill and need medical care. That’s a very dangerous precedent to allow any government to embark on.

But even then the logic doesn’t stack up.

An unvaccinated person under 40 has a minuscule chance of needing hospital care resulting from a covid infection. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...th-by-age.html

The same is true for an unvaccinated person who has previously recovered from covid so how does banning these people help to reduce pressure on the NHS?

---

That is clearly nonsense


Figures for Scotland

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIfVAPWX...jpg&name=small
https://www.travellingtabby.com/scot...virus-tracker/


I always find the 'freedom' argument curious. We aren't autonomous individuals living on our own islands. If we were then yes do what you want. We live in communities and our actions have impact on others. Not to be vaccinated during a pandemic is a choice and if that means you have some restrictions in community spaces then that is the consequence of your choice.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arab777

That is clearly nonsense


Figures for Scotland

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FIfVAPWX...jpg&name=small
https://www.travellingtabby.com/scot...virus-tracker/


I always find the 'freedom' argument curious. We aren't autonomous individuals living on our own islands. If we were then yes do what you want. We live in communities and our actions have impact on others. Not to be vaccinated during a pandemic is a choice and if that means you have some restrictions in community spaces then that is the consequence of your choice.

---

It’s clearly not nonsense. The figures you are showing there (and have been irresponsibly bandied about through the pandemic) are for people in hospital for any reason who happen to test positive for covid. This just muddies the waters so you can’t see how many of these hospitalisations are caused by covid and are serious.

If you want some more solid data, go to the chart below the one you posted and flick the switch to ‘deaths’ - then observe the absolute lack of deaths below age 40. This gives you an indirect idea of how many of those hospitalisations were life threatening (presumably due to covid).

“ Not to be vaccinated during a pandemic is a choice and if that means you have some restrictions in community spaces then that is the consequence of your choice”

The problem with medical apartheid (apart from that it offers minimal actual benefit) is that once societies go in a direction like this - once a precedent is set - it can quickly start to get out of hand.

Already we are seeing restriction of movement between countries, barring of access from medical treatment, barring access from events.

What next? Vax-only seats on buses and in bars? Vax only toilets? We have seen this before and it is not a good idea whatever you think the justification is.

And if you think this is nonsense observe the growing undertone of people branding non-vaccinated people as an underclass, a burden on society and unwashed undesirables.

Willingly Giving up equality and freedom to reduce hospitalisations is a very bad idea IMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shed-buoy

Not so sure about this, my unvaccinated nephew (40) was recently in intensive care with Covid, thankfully he’s back home again and wishing he had been vaccinated

Every one of these grim stats has a back story

---

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but the individual chance is small. So an individual should not be barred from aspects of society because of the very small chance they might ‘burden the nhs’

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VanDerHoorn

And if you think this is nonsense observe the growing undertone of people branding non-vaccinated people as an underclass, a burden on society and unwashed undesirables.

Willingly Giving up equality and freedom to reduce hospitalisations is a very bad idea IMO

---

I think it's wrong to be talking about an underclass, however, where I live, 74% of covid patients in intensive care are completely unvaccinated. I know there is no context to go with this figure, but it's hard not see that as putting unnecessary strain on the NHS.