Evo1883
Well-Known Member
Yes because putting a mask on , on a train is the same as being forced to inject something into your body to be able to buy groceries .. exactly the same thing
So, if the rules change to insist on a vaccination to go to a pub, then happy days eh, as that'll be the rules and that's what people will do. It'd make it a lot more relaxed for me to go to a pub like that too... rather than having my liberties restricted by loons who decide they know better than public health experts.
Funny how freedom, and liberties, chime with what individuals want and they're happy to stamp over others' freedoms and liberties, if they have a different perspective...
There are enough academic journal articles about how it slows transmission. Back in those happy days when it looked like all restrictions would go, before I'd had a vaccine, it was suck it up from a certain section of society. I'd sincerely hope that isn't going to be the same section now crying because they might have to suck up getting a vaccine to do certain things.Didn't the Euros start Scotland's problem, don't think that was around mask wearing as it was next to non existent , then they're back at school for the last fortnight .
I've no real info on just how effective a mask is, but suspect it's a low% and possibly as much about reassurance.
I agree , educate people , urge people , don't force them
I'm all for the vaccine programme , think everybody should have it.
The idea of forcing people to have it so they can have basic freedoms repulses me , sorry if that makes me weird
Don't particularly disagree. But when do individual freedoms for people (who for the most part are nutters) have to take a back step to the 'greater good'?
Never , we aren't nazis .
We look at other ways to keep people safe , like keeping certain measures in place that the government have been happy to do away with
I think saying 'nazis' is incredibly over the top.
Yup, why are we defending bellends' right to be bellends, when in this instance it's actually destructive bellends?Don't particularly disagree. But when do individual freedoms for people (who for the most part are nutters) have to take a back step to the 'greater good'?
Yup, why are we defending bellends' right to be bellends, when in this instance it's actually destructive bellends?
Nobody's saying they have to get a vaccine, just that not doing so has a consequence to their behaviours... just as their not having a vaccine has a consequence to others' behaviours.
Then what's the argument , you don't think they have to get it , I don't think they have to get it ..we'd both like them to .
Argument over
If they don't then there should be consequences to protect the huge numbers of people who have had the jab, a fair proportion of whom will have had their own concerns but done it for the greater good.
I mean how many people are we talking about here? I don't know the figures but it must be a tiny percentage of people who won't get the jab?
I work with people who haven't been vaccinated , I sit in a cab with them .
I think they are sound lads , I disagree with their opinion on this .. we get on great.
What a weird concept
I'm sure they're great blokes but its not really the point is it, its not about just them, its about the population as a whole.
Well , with kids totalling millions not having jabs and being in millions of households .. I fail to see what your plan is ? Or point tbh
Yes because putting a mask on , on a train is the same as being forced to inject something into your body to be able to buy groceries .. exactly the same thing
Thats quite clear, you are immovable in your defence of the right to choose. And I agree with that 100&, I just don't agree that someone who hasn't had the jab (especially if its a dickhead anti-vaxxer) should at this stage be ok to, say, rock up to a pub or event with hundreds in it. There are consequences to every choice you make in life every day, I don't see how this is any different.
Is that a new cookie warning on Tescos.com is it?
You’re being ridiculous, private organisations can decide who they want working for them or in their buildings, Twas ever thus.
If they don't then there should be consequences to protect the huge numbers of people who have had the jab, a fair proportion of whom will have had their own concerns but done it for the greater good.
I mean how many people are we talking about here? I don't know the figures but it must be a tiny percentage of people who won't get the jab?
Cool .
My kids go to school with hundreds of kids in it , they aren't jabbed .
Close the schools
What's the difference ?
That's quite a non sequitur even by this forums standards!
I uses to think you were quite left leaning , that's definitely not the case
Cool .
My kids go to school with hundreds of kids in it , they aren't jabbed .
Close the schools
What's the difference ?
What have my economic beliefs got to do with basic established rules of society?
you’re saying what? The NHS should change its long established rules on vaccinations for staff? Private businesses should be forced to accept people they see as a health risk even if they think that’s bad for business?
Literally no one is talking about going door to door holding people down and jabbing them so what exactly is your argument?
How , we are freely transmitting a virus around schools and into homes .
What's the difference
People already know what they have ro do to join the NHS .
People already in Jobs shouldn't be forced or lose their jobs etc ..easy
You're not comparing like with like in the slightest, and I think you know it.
1, most children haven't refused the jab and 2. People are making the point about private premises and national governments deciding who they allow into their own premise/country, it will never apply to schools, (and quite rightly so).
People already know what they have ro do to join the NHS .
People already in Jobs shouldn't be forced or lose their jobs etc ..easy
Is it ?
Teachers teaching kids that haven't got a vaccine , upto what 16 years of age .
Then we surely stop sending kids to school , for the greater good
Contracts change all the time. The home working policy at my work has changed multiple times since I started as has the dress code. At each point I had the choice to leave if I found the rules not to my liking. Almost every employment contract is subject to change.
The overarching concept of having to be vaccinated against preventable transmissible diseases if you work near vulnerable people is well established.
You talk about the freedom of the employee but freedom is a two way street, your right to swing your fists ends where my face begins. Employers have the freedom to set requirements and employees have the freedom to leave and work somewhere else.
If that genuinely is your logic on this then I am surprised at you.
Sorry , but this thinking is gross .
Crack on , you won't change people's minds this way .
Crime will rise , poverty will rise , resentment will take over and its a shitstorm we can't handle
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?