I know a lot of members of this site claim to be civil libertarians and will argue against me here.
But I want to put to you all a simple scenario.
You have a vulnerable relative with an underlying medical condition. They can not be vaccinated. Your view is that whether or not to be jabbed is a matter of personal freedom and that anyone who decides not to be should be allowed to go about their lawful business unimpeded. The only trouble is that many of these non-vaxers are tradesmen or carers who may have to enter the home of your vulnerable relative. One who does is a carrier and your loved one is infected by this person. Sadly, they get very ill and then die.
What is your reaction? Are you content that this anti-vaxer preserved their civil liberty even though it cost of your relative? Is that a fair exchange?
I don’t want to hear smokescreen arguments such that the vaccine doesn’t protect everyone or that workers who enter care homes have to pass a flow test.
If someone turns up at your granny’s house she won’t ask them to take a test. What about her freedom FROM being infected by a deadly disease? Anti-vaxers only ever talk about freedoms TO do something. It is just about them with no regard for anyone else. Most have not suffered the loss of loved ones.
No, I don’t advocate people being held down while they are injected. If they won’t participate in the vaccination programme then that’s OK but they will have to accept that their life will be more limited for the sake of the community as a whole. Other countries are making this choice and are being compared with the Nazis. This is a ridiculous argument. The Nazis introduced programmes to kill millions of innocent people, modern governments are doing it to save millions, exactly the opposite reason.
Let’s not get side-tracked by civil liberties. We’ve heard it all before with drink driving, smoking, seat belts et al. All were opposed by the self appointed freedom warriors. What about my simple example of a loved one?
Nominated by: Sir Streeb Greebling
(NOTICE. Play nice please – Day Admin)
Has anyone seen or heard from the flu?
Asking for a friend
5
No, because all the stats on this read ‘Covid-19’!
5
Argue, discuss, debate, throw up examples, do whatever you feel like. But….
The simple fact is that anti-vaxxers are ALL cunts.
8
Genuine, :’vaccines cause autism’ antivaxxers, yes. Most of the Covid people aren’t that sort.
2
i’ve been triple-jabbed and in the clinically vulnerable group but do not agree with mandating vaccines, especially given that Omicron is now less dangerous and has shifted from causing pneumonia to more of a bronchitis-type illness in the main airways.
Off course the peak could see a lot of people in hospital at the same time, but it’s not a good reason to continue to push vaccines on those who aren’t going to take them. The NHS struggles every winter for some reason or other
3
I don’t think this nomination has any logical merit at all. It is simply asking a question reminiscent of the old granny killer argument. Seems to be easily beaten asking the following:
1) Isn’t a vaccine supposed to protect an individual, so what evidence is there that an unvaxxed adversely affects a vaxxed?
2) We are in a largely post-vaccinated UK. Where is the data to support your scenario?
3) Where was such moral rectitude a few years ago when tens of thousands died of flu? Nobody required a certificate or mandatory flu vaccine back then.
10
Excellent points Cuntologist, although if I was to play devil’s advocate then I’d say 3 can itself be beaten by the argument of one’s mind/attitude changing.
0
Most men on this site are just angry. The Covvvvvvaxxx dilemma brought out their existential anger in a funny way. I’m over it in 2022. They will rage, rage rage over anti-XYZ until the grave. LOL! Chil, pops, it’s only life.
0
By “chill” I mean… chill, obviously.
(Including you, sir. – Day Admin)
0