If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
We're looking to upgrade the 'hosting CPU' so I've set up a crowdfunding project.
I would love it if you could donate using the link below to access my project page. Any contribution large or small will be hugely appreciated. Thank you.
Kevloaf @ Fat Jockey
2 of 2<>
Fat Jockey Patrons
HELP US - Become a Patron - Fat Jockey is a horse racing community focused on all the big races in the UK and Ireland. We don't charge users but if you have found the site useful then any support towards the running costs is appreciated ... a small donation each month would be a huge contribution. Become a Patron!
But it would have the very opposite effect.
We are already in the midst of the decimation of our civil liberties.
The vaccine is a way out of this.
So in the midst of having our civil liberties decimated (your words), you think the government, having taken those liberties away, should then only hand them back through a mandatory vaccine?
Shall I set up a just giving page Q so the FJF can chip in for a one way ticket to Pyongyang?
So in the midst of having our civil liberties decimated (your words), you think the government, having taken those liberties away, should then only hand them back through a mandatory vaccine?
Shall I set up a just giving page Q so the FJF can chip in for a one way ticket to Pyongyang?
Do you not think our civil liberties have been affected in recent months then ?
Having a jab vs not being able to (fill in the gaps)
You could always tread water for as long as you can, if you like.
I'll wave from the deck.
I'll Probably get bored though, and turn away, and miss you sinking forever.
Like archie said earlier,
Enough people have to put themselves out in order to help the majority.
We know some tossers won't.
And some may have a really good reason not to (not heard one yet)
It's not much to ask. IMO
And It's not a stretch to trust Doctor's either.
Do you not think our civil liberties have been affected in recent months then ?
Having a jab vs not being able to (fill in the gaps)
You could always tread water for as long as you can, if you like.
I'll wave from the deck.
I'll Probably get bored though, and turn away, and miss you sinking forever.
Like archie said earlier,
Enough people have to put themselves out in order to help the majority.
We know some tossers won't.
And some may have a really good reason not to (not heard one yet)
It's not much to ask. IMO
And It's not a stretch to trust Doctor's either.
I agree that some 'tossers' won't. And for the record, once the offer comes down to me as a 23 year old to have one, I'll be at the front of the queue for it. However, to suggest that it should be made mandatory I just can't get behind, and that goes for any vaccination not just this one. The suggestions that then followed (suggesting people should be made to pay for any care they need should they not have a vaccine) are nothing other than Orwellian. I get the argument of protecting general public health, but the line has to be drawn somewhere (as I alluded to with charging smokers for cancer treatment).
Also, nobody who suggested only being allowed to attend sports venues addressed my point on the younger generation being at the back of the queue. Are we simply going to ban them from attending through no fault of their own?
I agree that some 'tossers' won't. And for the record, once the offer comes down to me as a 23 year old to have one, I'll be at the front of the queue for it. However, to suggest that it should be made mandatory I just can't get behind, and that goes for any vaccination not just this one. The suggestions that then followed (suggesting people should be made to pay for any care they need should they not have a vaccine) are nothing other than Orwellian. I get the argument of protecting general public health, but the line has to be drawn somewhere (as I alluded to with charging smokers for cancer treatment).
Also, nobody who suggested only being allowed to attend sports venues addressed my point on the younger generation being at the back of the queue. Are we simply going to ban them from attending through no fault of their own?
I agree with all of what you said.
The comments others made were borne of frustration more than anything.
But also have some merit.
I'd be frustrated if I had a Heart attack due to a genetic defect (no fault of my own), and some Fat twat who'd smoked, drank, and ate as much as he liked was hogging the Defibrilator.
Although I was heartened that during crisis talks during very high Covid hospital admissions, they mentioned they'd prioritise treatment according to morbidity risk.
Which is fair enough, in a crisis.
And would also mean you'd be saved before me by the sounds of it.
I agree that some 'tossers' won't. And for the record, once the offer comes down to me as a 23 year old to have one, I'll be at the front of the queue for it. However, to suggest that it should be made mandatory I just can't get behind, and that goes for any vaccination not just this one. The suggestions that then followed (suggesting people should be made to pay for any care they need should they not have a vaccine) are nothing other than Orwellian. I get the argument of protecting general public health, but the line has to be drawn somewhere (as I alluded to with charging smokers for cancer treatment).
Also, nobody who suggested only being allowed to attend sports venues addressed my point on the younger generation being at the back of the queue. Are we simply going to ban them from attending through no fault of their own?
I wouldn't advocate extending this to access to the NHS. That's a whole different argument. Neither did I suggest making the jab mandatory.
In terms of entry to restricted events, I can see the argument for saying that anyone who hasn't been offered the jab shouldn't be prevented from attending in the interim but I do believe that anyone who has been offered the jab and not taken the option should be considered to disqualifying themselves.
I wouldn't advocate extending this to access to the NHS. That's a whole different argument. Neither did I suggest making the jab mandatory.
In terms of entry to restricted events, I can see the argument for saying that anyone who hasn't been offered the jab shouldn't be prevented from attending in the interim but I do believe that anyone who has been offered the jab and not taken the option should be considered to disqualifying themselves.
They'd never allow this.
But it would work for many of the tossers, especially if it included entry to Bars and restaurants. Or any public place for that matter.
Imagine if this was a contagious Virus that makes you Deaf, Blind, and all your limbs fall off (and Penis) . In every single case.
Sadly, for some Coronavirus patients this has actually happened.
There would be Queue's.
There'll Still be tossers, but a lot less of them.
I wouldn't advocate extending this to access to the NHS. That's a whole different argument. Neither did I suggest making the jab mandatory.
In terms of entry to restricted events, I can see the argument for saying that anyone who hasn't been offered the jab shouldn't be prevented from attending in the interim but I do believe that anyone who has been offered the jab and not taken the option should be considered to disqualifying themselves.
I'm fairly sure that travel restrictions will be a real thing. Proof of vaccination (e.g yellow fever) is already needed when traveling to some countries and it's easy to see that being extended for Covid.
It doesn't make it mandatory, just means holidays in Scarborough in the future (reason enough to get a vaccine).
I wouldn't advocate extending this to access to the NHS. That's a whole different argument. Neither did I suggest making the jab mandatory.
In terms of entry to restricted events, I can see the argument for saying that anyone who hasn't been offered the jab shouldn't be prevented from attending in the interim but I do believe that anyone who has been offered the jab and not taken the option should be considered to disqualifying themselves.
Do you think that should be a blanket disqualification Archie? If somebody didn't want to have a vaccination but could provide a negative test would that suffice?
Do you think that should be a blanket disqualification Archie? If somebody didn't want to have a vaccination but could provide a negative test would that suffice?
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
).
Far from it Q
Comment