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

[Ihavenojob]

General discussions in any walk of life meander. You start talking about one thing and end up talking about something completely different. If the thread gets locked, it doesn't matter, another can be started. If it turns out the same few are getting threads locked, maybe that is something for the mods to look at.

 

[Mottie]

Otherwise it's probably served its purpose, all good things come to an ignominious end, just like our membership of the EU.

AKA Good riddance to bad rubbish!

 

[Brigadier]

Brig said, "If it's worthless, it won't matter." My position is that it does matter, that every thread is dragged into the basement by the same 5 or 6 people. I'm asking Brig if he really does think it doesn't matter.

Edit: About the usual suspects, they: 1 Usually talk ****e, 2 Don't know what matters in debate, 3 Don't care.

I sensed you did.

One for you then.
Do you really think the original thread title was worth the 16-plus pages (riddled with brexit bollogs)? By your lack of complaint to that point, you don't mind all threads being brexitted.....

 

[charliegolf]

I do, it's an often asked question for smokers etc. But navigating the bolleux is wearing. Complaining feeds the trolls. Now you.

 

[Brigadier]

I agree , continual brexit back - and - forth in every thread is ridiculous.
Add to that selective quoting, misrepresentation........
But , Bregzit is the modern - day replacement for "the weather" and , before that, "the millennium bug".

 

[charliegolf]

The mods should make a room where thread starters can lock out k-heads. Might make for long-trousers debate. Anyway, this one's done.

 

[SirGalahad]

 

[SirGalahad]

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.

No. It's a slippery slope.

Decades ago people were more likely to take vaccinations, what's changed is that we have lost trust in institutions - when your PM and cabinet lie brazenly - then why should you believe what they say?

Once you lose trust, then people will find other sources of information and trust - leading to the rise of anti vaxxers - this is then multiplied through the use of social media.

88% of Tory ads on FB were misleading.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-12-06/88-of-conservative-ads-on-facebook-misleading

You reap what you sow.

 

[Scarlet Pimpernel]

Ironic? Weird? Hilarious?
When people complain about threads digressing, and in the process they participate in the very process they are complaining about.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

No. It's a slippery slope.

Decades ago people were more likely to take vaccinations, what's changed is that we have lost trust in institutions - when your PM and cabinet lie brazenly - then why should you believe what they say?

Once you lose trust, then people will find other sources of information and trust - leading to the rise of anti vaxxers - this is then multiplied through the use of social media.

88% of Tory ads on FB were misleading.

https://www.itv.com/news/2019-12-06/88-of-conservative-ads-on-facebook-misleading

You reap what you sow.

You could equally argue some of the societal change is because we're more informed generally than decades ago, in part due to (sensible) content on the internet etc. I think it's healthy to have a degree of skepticism about almost anything government tells us. Or should we blindly follow everything we're told to do without question? I thought government was there to serve the people, not the other way round.

 

[SirGalahad]

You could equally argue some of the societal change is because we're more informed generally than decades ago, in part due to (sensible) content on the internet etc. I think it's healthy to have a degree of skepticism about almost anything government tells us. Or should we blindly follow everything we're told to do without question? I thought government was there to serve the people, not the other way round.

In the past there was some deference to the Government of the day. For a functioning democracy and society you need instiutions you can trust - with the onward march through the weakening and politicisation of the checks and balances we are moving down a slippery slope. Once we lose this trust and the checks and balances are weakened we are open to abuse and manipulation.

Today Priti Patel is moving forward with plans to make certain types of protest against the environment and Government harder to achieve - she is clamping down on protesting.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

In the past there was some deference to the Government of the day. For a functioning democracy and society you need instiutions you can trust - with the onward march through the weakening and politicisation of the checks and balances we are moving down a slippery slope. Once we lose this trust and the checks and balances are weakened we are open to abuse and manipulation.

Today Priti Patel is moving forward with plans to make certain types of protest against the environment and Government harder to achieve - she is clamping down on protesting.

The very mention of that name makes me shiver ...

I think more and more people are wakening up to the fact many of our politicians and the political system aren't fit for purpose. Self-serving, driven by motives not in the best interest of the masses. Yes there will always have been an element of this, my previous point is with more access to media there's more transparency to what's going on.

I would assert that trying to make certain types of protest illegal (depending on the scope of the proposal) is the slippery slope, more so than greater questioning and scrutiny of our institutions. My hope is that many of the 'borrowed' votes they received last time round predominantly from the North won't be lent to them next time round. Having said that, look at the alternatives

 

[durhamplumber]

No. It's a slippery slope.

"""""slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is often viewed as a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.""""
NOT ALLOWED ACCORDING TO REMOANER RULES

 

[SirGalahad]

"""""slippery slope argument (SSA), in logic, critical thinking, political rhetoric, and caselaw, is often viewed as a logical fallacy in which a party asserts that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant (usually negative) effect.""""
NOT ALLOWED ACCORDING TO REMOANER RULES

We already deny healthcare treatments based on criteria. To base them on political criteria - ie denying an anti-vaxxer treatment because they subsequently become infected does not take into account the negative externalities of an infected person spreading the diseased being denied treatment.

 

[durhamplumber]

We already deny healthcare treatments based on criteria. To base them on political criteria - ie denying an anti-vaxxer treatment because they subsequently become infected does not take into account the negative externalities of an infected person spreading the diseased being denied treatment.

Translating your waffle. Not a slippery slope then.Make your mind up.