Covid-19 Discussion

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Status
Not open for further replies.
ChipChop said:
Good call, anyone who knows Aberdeen will know it would be impossible to close the bars near the docks in Aberdeen without resorting to extreme force. Maybe send the army in Nicola to get them off the bar stools.
Click to expand...

Did they remain open during lockdown?
 
pmcgsmurf said:
I tried that one.

My question went without reply!

Guess it doesn't fit the script. ;)
Click to expand...
It was actually a joke because it is so rough around there. Maybe it has now changed and been gentrified but when i was there the bars in the docks area were as rough as a badgers a**e and so were the prostitutes.
 
Last edited:
Rumbled in this instance means found out
 
Petition to "Prevent any restrictions on those who refuse a Covid-19 vaccination". Started 3 days ago.

petition.parliament.uk

Petition: Prevent any restrictions on those who refuse a Covid-19 vaccination

I want the Government to prevent any restrictions being placed on those who refuse to have any potential Covid-19 vaccine. This includes restrictions on travel, social events, such as concerts or sports. No restrictions whatsoever.
petition.parliament.uk petition.parliament.uk
 
ChipChop said:
Petition to "Prevent any restrictions on those who refuse a Covid-19 vaccination". Started 3 days ago.

petition.parliament.uk

Petition: Prevent any restrictions on those who refuse a Covid-19 vaccination

I want the Government to prevent any restrictions being placed on those who refuse to have any potential Covid-19 vaccine. This includes restrictions on travel, social events, such as concerts or sports. No restrictions whatsoever.
petition.parliament.uk petition.parliament.uk
Click to expand...
I'm always a bit suspicious of those petitions, I doubt that many have any effect at all and they often seem to be started by someone temporarily angry about something which has impaired their judgement.
 
Hmm..... 'You cannot force someone to have a vaccination, and should not be able to coerce them into it by way of restrictions. We have to the right to assess the risk ourselves as we have done in the past.'

I think this needs clarification. 'coerce' someone 'into it by way of restrictions' is wrong, I agree.

But imposing restrictions on non-vaccinated people, where needed for the protection of others, is actually quite sensible.

So coercing, or applying restrictions as punitive measures, no.

But allowing people to put others in danger? We don't have that now.... there are very many things that you can't do because they pose a danger to others - drive while over-the-limit, drive a car without valid MOT, exceed the speed limit, jump a red light, talk on the phone while driving... the list is long (I only used examples close to home :) ). So why the exemption for COVID-19?

On reflection, the motivation behind the petition isn't Libertarian - i.e. the idea that the state cannot force you to do anything even if puts other people at risk (e.g. the right to bear arms in the US) - I don't think that those behind the petition are actually asking that they are allowed to freely infect others with COVID-19.

I doubt however that those who sign this petition actually gave it much thought... I would personally agree with a petition that says that the government should not impose the vaccine on people, and that they do not apply any punitive measures to those who refuse it, but at the same time the government should be allowed to apply restrictions where these are needed for the sole purpose of protecting the public.

I think that the real motivation behind the petition stems from distrust in the establishment - more specifically, distrust in what we are told about COVID-19, about is being real, or that it poses a serious risk to human health. If you look at it this way, then it makes perfect sense to request that the government does not impose on you any restrictions in the name of a non-existent threat.

In short, a bit like an ID card in the UK - you don't have to have one, and there are no punitive measures to force you to have one. However, if you choose to not have an ID, then you will not be able to open a bank account, drive a car, or travel abroad. It's your choice, but it comes at a personal cost to you, and not a cost to the people around you. If someone started a petition requesting that the COVID-19 vaccination programme works in the same way, then I would agree with that.
 
The rationale for imposing restrictions on the population is to protect them and prevent a perceived danger to society.

Any measures to facilitate this "protection and safety" regimen would have to be done in a proportional manner. Without proportionality the restrictions imposed could have equal or worse consequences than the perceived danger rendering the actions taken as pointless or harmful to society.

I would suggest it would not be complex to work out this proportionality equation and act accordingly.

The aim would always be to place society back at the point it was prior to the perceived danger.
 
Last edited:
although it is possible the state wiIl not force us to have the jab, imposing restrictions on those who have not had a covid jab would be as easy as putting either an excess on their travel insurance or not insuring them at all.
 
Benzowner said:
although it is possible the state wiIl not force us to have the jab, imposing restrictions on those who have not had a covid jab would be as easy as putting either an excess on their travel insurance or not insuring them at all.
Click to expand...
Very true and an insurance company would access the risk of a coronavirus using some, no doubt mysterious and unfathomable, form of proportionality.
 
Last edited:
ChipChop said:
The rationale for imposing restrictions on the population is to protect them and prevent a perceived danger to society.

Any measures to facilitate this "protection and safety" regimen would have to be done in a proportional manner. Without proportionality the restrictions imposed could have equal or worse consequences than the perceived danger rendering the actions taken as pointless or harmful to society.

I would suggest it would not be complex to work out this proportionality equation and act accordingly.

The aim would always be to place society back at the point it was prior to the perceived danger.
Click to expand...

Benzowner said:
although it is possible the state wiIl not force us to have the jab, imposing restrictions on those who have not had a covid jab would be as easy as putting either an excess on their travel insurance or not insuring them at all.
Click to expand...

Agree with both comments, and this is why such restrictions can only be imposed where they constitute reasonable measures required to prevent risk to others.

E.g. we're not telling people that they can't drink - we're simply telling them that if they are drunk, then they can't drive. So it's their choice - drink or drive but not both.

And, if you do end-up getting points on your licence due to being caught driving while over-the-limit, then your motor insurance policy will become dearer, possibly up to a point where you won't be able to afford driving a car at all.

The same should apply to anti-vaxxers - by all mean, don't get the jab, but then don't board planes, and be prepared for a travel insurance hike, or refusal.

BUT - just as no one in his right mind will claim that not allowing them to drive a car while drunk is an infringement of their personal liberties by the state, the same should apply to anti-vaxxers - don't get the jab, but don't complain if society will want to keep a safe distance from you.
 
I wonder what impact refusing a C19 vaccine will have holiday and life insurance premiums...
 
^ Probably refusal to insure.
You'll need a vaccination passport to travel too if the rumour jungle is to be believed.
And that could/will be? extended to leaving your home and any social interaction outside of immediate family.

It's the New World Order don't you know?;)
 
AMGeed said:
...And that could/will be? extended to leaving your home and any social interaction outside of immediate family...
Click to expand...

I don't see this happening... totally unenforceable.

The first lockdown was (generally) observed mostly because the disease was unknown And people were genuinely concerned, and not because we are naturally compliant, or because someone was actually enforcing it.

At any rate, there just aren't enough police officers to enforce it, even if they tried.

Keep in mind that Boris Johnson, Chris Whitty, and Patrick Vallance talked about 'behavioral science' in the first press briefing in March - they know they can't enforce something that the majority of the population objects to.

Wearing face masks on public transport and in shops is a good example - the majority of people are fine with it and so the police will only have to deal with a small number of cases where someone might insist to be served without a mask. Hence why it was possible to pass such a directive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom