Jump to content

No jab = no job -


Recommended Posts

Many workers in many jobs have to have mandatory vaccinations for various diseases. For some reason people always have to complain about things like this, a case of putting the mouth in gear before the brain has been engaged.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I heard on telly a few days ago a white nurse say she wouldn’t have the injection as she was worried about it affecting her fertility if she ever got married and wanted to start a family. The interviewer said that that nobodies ever said it could affect fertility to which the nurse replied they’ve not said it won’t either, that’s why I’m not having it.

I was worried I might not be able to play the piano after the jab and I was right. Nobody on this planet has the answer to every possible question (apart from me) and to be scared of something that nobody knows exists or have even heard of smacks of paranoia.

Time to stop faffing about and pandering to the whims of the minority, if it helps to save lives and stops the bloody thing from spreading then no jab no job gets my vote.

 

Bill 😊

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was hinted at the other day that pubs might adopt a no jab no pint and Boris didn’t fully rule that out, saying instead that it’d be up to the individual landlords. I can’t really see this happing given that under fifties probably make up the bulk of the customers. On the flip side, most vaccinated folk would likely welcome a place where they could socialise without concerns about mixing with those with a higher probability of being infected.

We already have plenty of pubs that appeal mainly to the younger generation so maybe there is room for this kind of rule in a few places. I know I’d be more likely to visit somewhere knowing it only contained vaccinated people.

 

Bill 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a myth growing that vaccines will sort this out - end of.   Whilst the total elimination of the virus isn't possible, the suppression of it is.   That means nothing should be done to make a rise in the "R" rate above 1.  Whilst the vax may prevent serious illness and death in "at risk" groups, it doesn't prevent spread or the possibility of variants developing.  So the idea of passports is a non-starter imo.  What should happen is the avoidance of high risk situations,  which means crowded enclosed areas, such as the inside of pubs;  pubs with external seating areas, with appropriate spacing, and waiter service on tables should be safe, especially in the Summer;  any more would be a bridge too far imo.    😷

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I agree with much of that, but life has to go on eventually whether we manage to control it or not. I don’t think the country can remain under restrictions as tight as this forever, I want a life, not a life sentence. Vaccination passports like distancing and masks don't guarantee you'll be 100% safe but they help to minimise the risk for those who still feel worried.

I could live without pubs but for me social contact with others is the thing that I’ve missed the most and that’s something all those working from home at the moment will eventually find.

Obviously as a civilized county we’ll do as much as is humanly possible, but we could conceivably end up in a situation where it becomes an annual event like the flu. I’d hate the thought that mask wearing, and social distancing becomes the new normal, but accept it might be needed for some while yet.

 

Bill 😊

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could argue that even with the pre-covid flu,  mask wearing would have been helpful.   As for passports, they perpetuate the myth that the vaccine stops you spreading the infection, you can still get infected, but your strengthened anti-bodies will fight off the virus,  it doesn't wipe it off your clothing etc.    😷

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wearing a mask will catch and reduce the amount of most airborne viruses which is generally now accepted as the primary method by which it spreads. Small amounts of virus from the air will eventually settle on things such as surfaces and clothing but it’s nothing compared to what’s exhaled on the breath, especially without a mask .

Think of a smoker. If you breath in a face full of breath from them, then you’d likely get a good dose of nicotine. Over time that smoke settles on everything but it’d be hard to get anywhere near as much nicotine from your cloths as you would from just breathing in one breath near a smoker’s mouth.

So back in the pub, if everyone had been vaccinated then the virus is far less likely to be present as anyone that gets infected doesn’t develop severe effects or become a super spreader. Plus, there’s not really going to be much virus on things like tables, especially if they’re wiped frequently with some form of antiviral cleaner. At the end of the day, it’s all about understanding the risk and making your own judgment whether it’s worth it.

 

Bill 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, it’s all about understanding the risk and making your own judgment whether it’s worth it.

This 👍

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is   do we want to make ourselves perpetual prisoners of this one of a multitude of corona viruses. The common cold with all its variants is probably the closest template to how this virus will eventually pan out. Mankind has taken thousands of years to manage the common cold & there is still no cure so evolved herd immunity will be the way forward in providing a tolerance of this bug.

 

As i've mentioned before on here , probably the best way to sell wearing of masks is to emphasise the safety aspect for the individual mask wearer. 

We should be good   in the UK at adopting an "I'm alright Jack " attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, asperity said:

At the end of the day, it’s all about understanding the risk and making your own judgment whether it’s worth it.

This 👍

Yes but only if you are the only one bearing the risk. Most people who live with family or act as carers do not have that luxury. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes Asp that’s what I said and that includes understanding that there’s a lot of stupid people out there who don’t understand the facts and more worryingly don’t particularly care.

Without a vaccine passport mechanism in place, I certainly won’t be going to any pub when they open up, leastways not until I’ve seen what happens to the numbers. I’m sure things will get better and for me it’s a case of just being patient.

 

Bill 😊

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

Yes but only if you are the only one bearing the risk. Most people who live with family or act as carers do not have that luxury. 

Surely they have to use their individual circumstances to make a judgement, so the point stands. What doesn't stand is other people making the judgement for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Bill said:

Yes Asp that’s what I said and that includes understanding that there’s a lot of stupid people out there who don’t understand the facts and more worryingly don’t particularly care.

Without a vaccine passport mechanism in place, I certainly won’t be going to any pub when they open up, leastways not until I’ve seen what happens to the numbers.

 

Bill 😊

 

And that is your judgement of the risk. You have determined that the rest of the world is too stupid to take measures to reduce their risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, asperity said:

Surely they have to use their individual circumstances to make a judgement, so the point stands. What doesn't stand is other people making the judgement for you.

That is fine as long as you accept that society has chosen to let government do exactly that and if it does then all should accept it. Such acceptance is not an individual judgement, that is the essence of why we have a government to act to the benefit of the common good. That is where the line of argument about individual choice falters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There’s not that many of us here so by now we all understand each other’s point of view. Twisting words to put them out of context or to mean something completely different is childish. If there’s nothing valid to add then say nothing or post it in the joke section.

 

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of the day, it’s all about understanding the risk and making your own judgment whether it’s worth it.

This is what you said Bill, not me. So how have I "twisted" your words, or put them out of context? I just agreed with your statement but somehow that's me being childish? Okay I'll be childish and put your statement in the joke section.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Confused52 said:

That is fine as long as you accept that society has chosen to let government do exactly that and if it does then all should accept it. Such acceptance is not an individual judgement, that is the essence of why we have a government to act to the benefit of the common good. That is where the line of argument about individual choice falters.

Just because a government has been chosen by the people, this doesn't mean that we, the people, can't disagree with what the government has chosen to do. Especially when the government has granted itself Emergency powers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, asperity said:

Just because a government has been chosen by the people, this doesn't mean that we, the people, can't disagree with what the government has chosen to do. Especially when the government has granted itself Emergency powers.

Emergency powers that were legislated specifically to deal with Health Emergencies back in 1984 when there was no emergency but as part of civil preparedness and well debated at the time. All of the lockdown regulations are made under the Health Protection Act of 1984, the Act made them secondary legislation so they could reflect the need for health protection decided at the relevant time. That is good practice. The Coronavirus Act changes were just to keep services working in the new circumstances. Apart the bit aimed a a Wuhan returnee who threated to no quarantine there was no assault on Civil Liberties. I think the Emergency Powers line of attack is pretty discredited. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Con, people are well within their rights to disagree with any legislation. However well intentioned the use of Emergency powers has been, the way the government seems to be extending their use in the face of the evidence is giving rise to discontent in the country at large (obviously not on this forum) which will only get bigger.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Think your wrong there Asp - perhaps a significant minority object from the absolute cranks to the individual freedom mongers; but the large majority want an end to the virus threat and will not forgive any Gov that through premature relaxations saddle us with yet another lockdown requirement.   😷

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, asperity said:

Con, people are well within their rights to disagree with any legislation. However well intentioned the use of Emergency powers has been, the way the government seems to be extending their use in the face of the evidence is giving rise to discontent in the country at large (obviously not on this forum) which will only get bigger.

Well in my opinion, if I am allowed one, The Government is following a sound course but errs on the side of being too lax too early if anything. I do not simply follow the political line but analyse the data and the science as presented in the literature and I am not swayed by public opinion. I find that what is said by Messrs Vallance, Whitty usually aligns with my own opinion and whilst the Government follows that advice I am content. Always remembering that the Scientific advice does not tell politicians exactly what to do, they must make decisions based on many criteria. The way that Scientific advice is presented in the media is usually distorted so you have to make allowances and discount some of what you hear, checking is when documents are published, of course.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...