Vaccination

[thinksaboutit]

In this life, things come, and things go.

The only thing of real permanence in this life are our principles and values. Everything we have we value is a direct result of our principles and values. The moment you compromise these, you're without foundation, adrift at sea, will be taken wherever the tide drifts, and ultimately will lose everything you value. Hold on to your principles and values, and reality, like a fertile field well sowed, will continue to provide that which you value most.

You know the saying - a principle isn't a a principle until it costs you. Well now is one of those times. If you value bodily autonomy, truth, and standing up to evil wherever it presents itself, you will not take this vaccine. And the cost you might bear is some temporary social status.

A small price to pay in the long run, considering what's at stake.

Do what is right, and speak the truth.

Somewhat depends on what your "principles and values" are, doesn't it.

[fon]

posters on here have told me it is my duty, it is this that I fundamentally disagree with.

It can be regarded (as I do) as a mild optional duty, but not an obligation. It's just a decent thing to do, like e.g. giving blood, another mild optional duty, but not an obligation. It's just a decent thing to do.

btw: There are 77 posts with the word "duty" in them. Most occur before vaccination became possible. Of the others, many/most refer to tax and duty or primary duty of care, or duty in the army, or various other uses of the term.

Some are relevant, there are one or two from me saying vaccination is orcan be regarded as a duty, or calling it a "social duty of those who can be safely vaccinated to get jabbed to make up for the many who cannot be for various reasons", words which which I stand by.

All the rest reject the notion of a duty to have a vaccine, 6 of those are from YOU and 11 are from miahoneybee. It's clear you both dislike the idea of a vaccination as a social duty. You are both monomaniacal about it, to the point of truculence.

[Speedstick]

With the greatest respect dearest Fon, it was you who bought up the word duty ,not l. I am just responding to that post, to which l feel entitled. I am more than happy to give blood, or be otherwise socially responsible where any commitment is reversible, the problem is vaccine uptake is not reversible. My niece in Wales has just recently had the vaccine, and says she has never felt so poorly in all her life. Despite this l still respect others decisions to have the vaccine, the point is personal choice, that is the issue!

[miahoneybee]

Well said speedstick ....repeat the message over and over again ..

[thinksaboutit]

Would people who reject the option of preventative vaccines still wish the option of hospital treatment if they subsequently contract serious Covid?

[fon]

Would people who reject the option of preventative vaccines still wish the option of hospital treatment if they subsequently contract serious Covid?

Well said thinksaboutit ....repeat the message over and over again ..

[Splatt]

Would people who reject the option of preventative vaccines still wish the option of hospital treatment if they subsequently contract serious Covid?

Firstly the vaccines aren't preventative.
Secondly the vaccines can produce side effects. Most people get sick for 2-3 days after a dose.
For most people, if they catch covid, they'll be sick for 2-3 days.

You seem to forget that the individual PAYS for the NHS. Therefore, they should be treated. Its a service they literally pay for.

Should people avoid Rugby because they might injure themselves and need hospital? There's a preventative solution there too -don't play.
Maybe we should stop mountain walkers as well - they can end up in hospital and it can be prevented.

Do you also advocate mandatory flu jabs for all as well then?

[MikeAustin]

Pfizer CEO has not taken his own jab yet:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VCkMpY ... sp=sharing

I love the clip at the end!

[Max]

Agree with Splatt - whether a person requires treatment for something that was preventable or not is a red herring.

That said I'm pretty sure I'm in a minority view amongst the public on that - you only need mention smokers or drug users or the obese to immediately provoke a barrage of haughty moralisation about self inflicted injury.

The point is, the course of life is a self inflicted injury and if you start try to draw a line between what is acceptable or not you inevitably end up in a mess. The NHS is (or should be) like car insurance - the fact an accident was caused due to the fact you were a rubbish driver is irrelevant. That said, it is true that with car insurance your premiums are related to the risk you represent, and perhaps there should be at least an element of this in determining NI contributions?

[jmc]

Would people who reject the option of preventative vaccines still wish the option of hospital treatment if they subsequently contract serious Covid?

Well having just done the back of the envelope calculations for the mortality risk from SARs CoV 2 for me personally as of today the *possible* risk of dying in the next year from a SARs CoV 2 viral pneumonia is about half of the *actual* risk of adverse reaction death from getting the vaccine shot. So that's trading a possible risk for an actual risk.

Plus these current vaccines look like they are going to have to be annual shots, like the flu shot. Whereas an actual infection would give me pretty good immunity for 5 to 8 years. Thats how human corona-viruse infections work. I would sign up for a SARs CoV 2 shot before I'd sign up for any of the current vaccines. Given the current actual medical risk profiles of both shots.

So I'd gladly sign off on such a declaration. Especially as actual SARs CoV 2 infections looks remarkably like a Hospital Acquired Pneumonia at the moment. I will be staying well away from Hospitals / Heath Care facilities as much as possible until this new human corona-virus reaches close to the general population infection equilibrium point.