Do you agree with mandatory vaccinations?

timmy_mallet

DubInMeath wrote: »

I'd say that if push comes to shove like in Italy going by the reports out of there last month and a doctor is faced with two patients one who lives reasonably healthy and one that doesn't they are going to treat the healthiest one first and foremost, same as they had to with elderly patients.

While getting old isn't anyone's fault, being an idiot is most certainly the person's fault.

World is full of "idiots" eh? And we're all so clever.

blueythebear

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yes, the point is that those extra taxes are on products, they’re not income tax. Everyone pays the same for them no matter what the persons income, same as everyone pays the same for a public healthcare system and everyone has the same opportunity to avail of the public healthcare system, no matter what ails them. People who smoke, drink, etc do not pay more for their healthcare than someone who doesn’t drink or smoke (as it happens I also enjoy copious amounts coffee with my three spoons of sugar ). Look basically I’m incredibly unhealthy. My brother who’s a fitness freak has cost the State a considerable amount in terms of the number of injuries he’s been hospitalised for. My private healthcare insurance covered my hip replacement, his treatment was provided courtesy of the State.

Really the point is that if there is a requirement for everyone to be vaccinated, then there’s likely to be a huge amount of public money pissed down the drain on an ineffective vaccine programme, simply because there’s nothing Government can do apart from try to guilt trip and coerce and beg people to get vaccinated. They won’t put any consequences in place because that doesn’t endear people to trust in an organisation they don’t trust already, whether that be the HSE, Tusla or the Government of the day.

Put simply - you’ll have to come up with a better strategy for convincing anyone of the benefits of vaccination programmes while at the same time convincing them that they should trust someone they don’t.

I agree with you on that. Something needs to be done be it via carrot, stick or both.

But there are far too many people who dont want vaccines because bill gates supposedly went to a paedophiles island to drink the blood of homeless children or something. I just dont know how you get through to those people...

4068ac1elhodqr

Water John wrote: »

.....Go and have a Covid 19 party

Did someone say party, and under this lockdown, cool!

Have some glo-sticks from the 90's and a breakdance mix-tape, and GrandMasterFlash 12" for tunage.
Just imagine the amount of fluid exchange that would occur, in this suggested COVID19 party, guess there would need to be some sort of traffic light system in operation.

After all that, the WHO currently reject the concept of immunity, and it might only be good for 1-2yrs.

Water John

timmy_mallet wrote: »

Would you be willing to pay into a vaccine adverse event fund to support those negatively affected? Simple yes or no will do.

I would expect the state to indemnify any risk as part of its cost.

timmy_mallet

Water John wrote: »

I would expect the state to indemnify any risk as part of its cost.

I'd love own a business where the government pays me billions and then takes all the risk.

One eyed Jack

DubInMeath wrote: »

Smokers, heavy drinkers and obese people already pay more for health insurance as they are seen as higher risk.

In other countries obese people have been refused bus passes and jobs due to their weight.

Not necessarily. I don’t pay anything for my private health insurance policy which covers my family members and is paid for by my employer.

In some countries being overweight is considered a disability and a person can qualify for some form of social welfare payment as they are unfit for or unable to work. In some countries it’s unlawful to discriminate against a person because of their weight.

The whole weight analogy really doesn’t carry much... weight.

blueythebear

timmy_mallet wrote: »

I'd love own a business where the government pays me billions and then takes all the risk.

You dont seem to understand what indemnification involves...

timmy_mallet

blueythebear wrote: »

You dont seem to understand what indemnification involves...

Err?

For two points, guess who said this ...

“This was an unusual situation…in order to have access to this vaccine, we had to pay at the price demanded by the companies and to also accept the liability,”

One eyed Jack

blueythebear wrote: »

I agree with you on that. Something needs to be done be it via carrot, stick or both.

But there are far too many people who dont want vaccines because bill gates supposedly went to a paedophiles island to drink the blood of homeless children or something. I just dont know how you get through to those people...

You can’t really, simply because ideas like that don’t form in isolation, and some outsider isn’t going to be able to get through that barrier. Governments in the West know that their best bet really is to hope to achieve herd immunity in a world where people regard their individual liberties and rights as a higher priority than the collective common good.

(Boris was a bit early out of the starting blocks thinking herd immunity was possible in the UK before there was ever a vaccine)

timmy_mallet

timmy_mallet wrote: »

World is full of "idiots" eh? And we're all so clever.

There have always been plenty of idiots unfortunately, hence the saying, there is one born every minute

One eyed Jack

DubInMeath wrote: »

I'd say that if push comes to shove like in Italy going by the reports out of there last few months and a doctor is faced with two patients one who lives reasonably healthy and one that doesn't they are going to treat the healthiest one first and foremost, same as they had to with elderly patients.

While getting old isn't anyone's fault, being an idiot is most certainly the person's fault.

Also in relation to smoking and covid strangely enough smokers don't seem more a risk for some reason the last I heard prompting a nicotine patch trial.

You’d need to be fairly gullible to believe that actually happens.

Corben Dallas

OP!!!

Bill and Melinda gates foundation is funding vaccine research ( this is true) but you claim they will not be giving vaccine to their own kids? <<< Please provide a link/ quote to back this up ( about his own kids).

It seems you are possibly building sand castles and theories by matching it up ( not vaccinating his<< doubt this is true) with him saying the world population should be reduced (>>more that the World is overpopulated). These are very different things.

I will not be taking this and anybody who disagrees is welcome to lock themselves in their own home.

No it will be the people who refuse to vaccinate who wont be allowed out of the house and mingle with the general population.

In short ... The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You’d need to be fairly gullible to believe that actually happens.

So you believe that the reports out of Italy were false/fake?

One eyed Jack

Corben Dallas wrote: »

No it will be the people who refuse to vaccinate who wont be allowed out of the house and mingle with the general population.

In short ... The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

That’s simply not true in a democratic society, Comrade.

blueythebear

timmy_mallet wrote: »

Err?

For two points, guess who said this ...

“This was an unusual situation…in order to have access to this vaccine, we had to pay at the price demanded by the companies and to also accept the liability,”

Yes. Indemnification is going to be normal practise where a drug company provides a vaccination to a government. Because of the strong bargaining position of the drug company in a pandemic scenario they can insist on same.

It relies on the particular government being satisfied that the cost of indemnifying the drug co would be less thanthe premium the drug co would place on the drug without an indemnity (presuming they woulx even sell without an indemnity).

One eyed Jack

DubInMeath wrote: »

So you believe that the reports out of Italy were false/fake?

The report that claims this, is definitely false -

DubInMeath wrote: »

I'd say that if push comes to shove like in Italy going by the reports out of there last few months and a doctor is faced with two patients one who lives reasonably healthy and one that doesn't they are going to treat the healthiest one first and foremost, same as they had to with elderly patients.

timmy_mallet

blueythebear wrote: »

Yes. Indemnification is going to be normal practise where a drug company provides a vaccination to a government. Because of the strong bargaining position of the drug company in a pandemic scenario they can insist on same.

It relies on the particular government being satisfied that the cost of indemnifying the drug co would be less thanthe premium the drug co would place on the drug without an indemnity (presuming they woulx even sell without an indemnity).

Right... not sure how 1 assume I don't know that and 2 it refutes the point.

Corben Dallas

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That’s simply not true in a democratic society, Comrade.

Its the very definition of a democratic society... if 2% of the population are Facebook Anti-vaccers (<I will do exactly the opposite of what the government advocates for the nations health) and the rest of the population agree that a fully tested vaccine can provide effective immunity, we don't go along with the 2%.

boege

Corben Dallas wrote: »

OP!!!

Bill and Melinda gates foundation is funding vaccine research ( this is true) but you claim they will not be giving vaccine to their own kids? <<< Please provide a link/ quote to back this up ( about his own kids).

It seems you are possibly building sand castles and theories by matching it up ( not vaccinating his<< doubt this is true) with him saying the world population should be reduced (>>more that the World is overpopulated). These are very different things.

I will not be taking this and anybody who disagrees is welcome to lock themselves in their own home.

No it will be the people who refuse to vaccinate who wont be allowed out of the house and mingle with the general population.

In short ... The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

The OP is full of crap and is spreading fake news. Melinda Gates came out and stated that her children had been vaccinated.
https://www.facebook.com/melindagates/posts/all-three-of-my-children-are-fully-vaccinated-vaccines-work-and-when-fewer-peopl/2585399605016954/

The comment about population reduction is also twisted. High death rates among the poor leads to larger families. Lower death rates leads to small families and helps people get out of poverty. This is well established and shown in the development of many nations. The 'Gates thinking' is that a proper vaccine program will reduce child mortality, lower family sizes and and help people get out of poverty.

No vaccine are fully safe but their use must yield an overall significant net benefit. A safe Covid 19 vaccine is going to take a lot of time to be developed and proved safe.

I am tiring of the crap people like the OP are posting and its time we persisted in calling them out.

Water John

Then Timmy why did you ask if I personally would indemnify other peoples risk, if you knew the Govn't or the drug co would be doing that?
It's simple, a person needs the antigens to interact with others.

One eyed Jack

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The report that claims this, is definitely false -

My post is in regards to Italy having to make choices regarding elderly patients, sorry if that part isn't clear.

As for if the same type of situation had occurred here in terms of restricted access to life saving equipment, I can only tell you what friends who are doctors have said to me in relation to who they would prioritise and it's not someone who is a heavy drinker etc because if the situation had materialised here they were/are going to prioritise people who have a better chance of pulling through.

If you don't want to believe it, that's up to you, but in a crisis situation any doctor is going to go with the person with the best chance of survival first and foremost, and I would say doctors in Italy made similar decisions even outside of the elderly.

One eyed Jack

Corben Dallas wrote: »

Its the very definition of a democratic society... if 2% of the population are Facebook Anti-vaccers (<I will do exactly the opposite of what the government advocates for the nations health) and the rest of the population agree that a fully tested vaccine can provide effective immunity, we don't go along with the 2%.

We don’t force the 2% to comply with the will of the 98%, rather whether you like it or not, the Government has a duty to protect the rights of the 2%. That’s why the Government knows it cannot for example force parents to have their children vaccinated with vaccines that currently exist. Government can of course promote vaccination programmes through public health campaigns, but they can’t force people to vaccinate. The Government in Cuba has no such qualms about human rights, and that’s one of the reasons why they have such a high participation rate in vaccination programmes -


Cuba’s National Immunization Program

Fancy moving to Cuba?

Flavour Diaper

Honestly I think all the people who eat factory farmed meat in this country (and there are a lot of you) should have some of their "privileges" restricted and be publicly named and shamed for being greedy and selfish and undisciplined and having a serious deficit of compassion towards the other animals we share this planet with.

Beasty

As the OP seems to want to link to various conspiracy theories maybe they can start a discussion in the relevant forum

I'm not seeing a good reason to keep this one open here