Should people who refuse a Covid vaccine be denied treatment or charged for it?

[IT Minion]

It's a fair response to a lot of boll@x spat out without any fundations.

I see, you don't like it so it's *******s. Glad we've got that straight.

 

[ReganAndCarter]

If you ran someone over and they died, and it was your fault, but that person had tested positive for covid within 28 days, they would go down as a covid death. Could you be prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving, as they died of/with/from covid ?

I'm sure their are endless scenarios we could think of to show the risks in relying on 'dying within 28 days of testing positive' stats for true Covid deaths.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

I'm sure their are endless scenarios we could think of to show the risks in relying on 'dying within 28 days of testing positive' stats for true Covid deaths.

You're sure?
So out of these endless scenarios, the two you've thought of so far:
1. Someone is Covid positive, but instead of self-isolating they're out and about spreading the virus. Even thinking they're so invincible they're arguing with a bus.
and
2. Someone dying from cancer within the next 24 hours or so, and the doctor thinks it's a good idea to get them tested for Covid. That'll help.

Anymore bright ideas?

And when you've thought of some more of these endless scenarios, try putting an estimate on the number of cases affected in these scenarios that might apply in reality. Otherwise you're talking purely hypothetically, not pragmatically. Don't forget that all your accident statistics have only 14 days to occur, not the 28 days that you've highlighted, assuming they are following the rules and self-isolating, not like your bus accident victim.

Then think about any of the excess deaths that have occurred that have not been tested, but would have been positive if they had been tested.

Thinking is such an excellent idea before making such hypothetical claims. Hypothetical claims which you make to substantiate your conspiracy theory.

 

[JohnD]

it's not nice to have it pointed out that they might have been misled by the government and their 'statistics'.

Ah, you're turning against the Brexers.

 

[durhamplumber]

You're sure?
So out of these endless scenarios, the two you've thought of so far:
1. Someone is Covid positive, but instead of self-isolating they're out and about spreading the virus. Even thinking they're so invincible they're arguing with a bus.
and
2. Someone dying from cancer within the next 24 hours or so, and the doctor thinks it's a good idea to get them tested for Covid. That'll help.

Anymore bright ideas?

And when you've thought of some more of these endless scenarios, try putting an estimate on the number of cases affected in these scenarios that might apply in reality. Otherwise you're talking purely hypothetically, not pragmatically. Don't forget that all your accident statistics have only 14 days to occur, not the 28 days that you've highlighted, assuming they are following the rules and self-isolating, not like your bus accident victim.

Then think about any of the excess deaths that have occurred that have not been tested, but would have been positive if they had been tested.

Thinking is such an excellent idea before making such hypothetical claims. Hypothetical claims which you make to substantiate your conspiracy theory.

Hey..The Dazzler Returns.

 

[Brigadier]

Someone dying from cancer within the next 24 hours or so, and the doctor thinks it's a good idea to get them tested for Covid. That'll help.

This morning, I spoke to my sister (theatre sister), and she confirmed that in-patients get tested regardless, as it affects their stay, and their outcome.

 

[Deleted member 18243]

If you ran someone over and they died, and it was your fault, but that person had tested positive for covid within 28 days, they would go down as a covid death. Could you be prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving, as they died of/with/from covid ?

Stupidly, you would most likely get off or not be charged with dangerous driving, because most dangerous drivers get off or don't get charged with dangerous driving nowadays.

The way the law now works in Britain is that if too many people commit a criminal offence, the police will stop enforcing the law for that offence. Hence the country smells of cannabis and the roads are plagued by dangerous drivers.

 

[charliegolf]

Stupidly, you would most likely get off or not be charged with dangerous driving, because most dangerous drivers get off or don't get charged with dangerous driving nowadays.

The way the law now works in Britain is that if too many people commit a criminal offence, the police will stop enforcing the law for that offence. Hence the country smells of cannabis and the roads are plagued by dangerous drivers.

And the award for the wildest thread creep of the year goes to...

 

[diy_fun_uk]

If someone chooses not to have a Covid vaccine and then catch it, should they be given the same level of care as people who haven't been offered it yet or haven't been able to get it yet? They have chosen to not take care of themselves, should they be allowed to take up beds that people who have, or at least be billed for their care?

This would, of course, exclude anyone who hasn't been offered the vaccine, can't have it for medical reasons or logistic reasons. Just those who have been offered it and actively refused it.

Normally I am firmly against the 'deserves it' line of logic for who gets healthcare, but refusing a safe vaccine is a clear choice that someone believes they're better off without it. So let them be better off without.

To answer the OPs original question, I say yes. They should be given the same level of care. And no. They shouldn't be billed for said care.

And, playing devils advocate, how do you know the vaccine's safe? By the way, in making that comment please don't assume I'm an anti-vaccine extremist who thinks Bill Gates controls the world

The link is maybe tenuous, but if we're going to start offering tiers of care based on compliance, what about those who smoke, drink or eat to excess? If they fall ill from an illness related to their lifestyle, should they be denied tier one healthcare because they knowingly didn't comply with medical science in terms of their intake? Or if they want access to tier one, they've to pay for it?

My concern with covid is, unless the vaccine is compulsory, those electing not to have it might be made to feel like pariahs. And knowing how irrational some can be about this whole thing, it could turn nasty.

 

[Munroast]

Far far to early to worry about people not taking it. We havn't even started doling it out yet, and considering the mess the gov makes with about every thing, I will be surprised if 10% have been vaccinated by spring and 50% by xmas 21 - like everything else this will just turn into a massive farce like most other things these days.


So place your bets now, what percentage of the UK will have had the jab (any covid vaccine) by 31st March 2021

I'm going with 9.5%

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

This morning, I spoke to my sister (theatre sister), and she confirmed that in-patients get tested regardless, as it affects their stay, and their outcome.

On admission, yes.
Someone receiving palliative care near the end of their life is unlikely to be recently admitted.
Additionally, the majority of end of life cancer sufferers prefer to die at home.

 

[EFLImpudence]

My concern with covid is, unless the vaccine is compulsory, those electing not to have it might be made to feel like parias. And knowing how irrational some can be about this whole thing, it could turn nasty.

WHAT?

Shall they also rename the country The People's Democratic Kingdom of GB and NI?

 

[IT Minion]

My concern with covid is, unless the vaccine is compulsory, those electing not to have it might be made to feel like parias. And knowing how irrational some can be about this whole thing, it could turn nasty.

Parias, a term used for the 'unclean' castes. Sounds appropriate, except these are people who choose it rather than being born to it.

 

[JohnD]

So place your bets now, what percentage of the UK will have had the jab (any covid vaccine) by 31st March 2021

I hear there is a problem with supply, so Doris' ever-changing claims will be changing again.

Will it be NHS workers? Will it be care-home residents? Will it be care assistants? Will it be over-80's?

Pfizer will not be able to deliver 40m doses until sometime in 2021.


https://www.ft.com/content/38fecae5-86d0-49a5-8a33-3bf4a64e57bb

"Several million fewer Britons will receive the world’s first approved vaccine against Covid-19 this year than the UK government had hoped, after manufacturing delays in October reduced by at least half the volume initially due to reach the country.

On Friday, the UK government admitted that the bulk of the 40m BioNTech/Pfizer vaccine doses it had ordered would not be rolled out until sometime in 2021.

In early November, several weeks before Wednesday’s approval of the vaccine by the UK regulator, Downing Street indicated that 10m doses could be available to the public by the end of this year."

But, to be fair, no-one believes a word Johnson says, so this is no surprise.

 

[ellal]

My concern with covid is, unless the vaccine is compulsory, those electing not to have it might be made to feel like parias. And knowing how irrational some can be about this whole thing, it could turn nasty.

It already has turned nasty...

'Anti vaxxer' is now a bandied about term that was once only reserved for 'terrorists' or 'paedophiles'...

Mass hysteria created over a miniscule 'threat', but it makes good press for the media barons and politicians!