FabSwingers.com > Forums > Virus > Free Choice (part 2)
Free Choice (part 2)
Jump to: Newest in thread
 |
By *ogloom OP Man
over a year ago
levens |
Wow, thanks for the previous thread. I knew it was going to be a tad controversial but it really did steam up glasses on both sides of the discussion and the thread closed before I could respond to more than half the comments...
The original post read :
"Potentially a controversial thought but...
People are saying it's their free choice to have the vaccine or not. Excluding those who are medically advised not to have it.
If someone chooses not to take it when it is their turn, should the NHS refuse to treat the individual for covid should they get Covid?
It would still be the individual's choice.
Life's a Gamble?"
I'd like to clarify that I was only referring to treatment of people for Covid. Should someone have a sore toe but had refused the vaccine for Covid that they couldve taken, I wasn't expecting the NHS to disown them. I think some people misunderstood.
Some brilliant comments and extrapolations to other conditions/causes and people determining that the NHS shouldnt discriminate.
Unfortunately the NHS is forced to discriminate and does do on a daily basis whether it is the bias of the doctor concerned or the Primary care Trust purse strings. Decisions are made with regard to what treatments or drugs are on offer and postcode lotteries abound, as not all area can have the same facilities or access. Personally, as with many, if not all on here, think the NHS and the people within it do a tremendous job but it doesn't mean they can do everything for everybody all of the time.
I understand people have misgivings about the vaccines and there are different vaccines being developed but with the same goal of providing a 'herd' immunity. The only way that will work is if enough people decide to take the vaccine. I dont want to see us as a community develop herd immunity through any other process otherwise I have wasted a year of my life wanking staring at a white emulsion wall (now a cracking shade of magnolia....well.. off white?). The conditions associated with 'long covid' and the deaths, whatever the % of the population, when they have been rendered unnecessary by medical science can be stopped. The suffering the virus causes doesnt confer any benefit to anyone apart from the Government and to the funeral directors. Both who will get their money soon enough.
There is hope and things will improve.
How can we now use the impassioned Free Choice we all have to help the people so economically and mentally damaged by the effects of the lockdowns and restrictions?
(The restrictions which have been far from clear and straight forward or in some cases justified. More layers than a flipping scotch egg...) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There is no genuine argument to suggest the NHS should consider not treating anyone who does not have the vaccine what whatever reason. The only reason would be a selfish one of trying to remove peoples free choice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *hickennchipsWoman
over a year ago
up above the streets and houses |
"There is no genuine argument to suggest the NHS should consider not treating anyone who does not have the vaccine what whatever reason. The only reason would be a selfish one of trying to remove peoples free choice."
Absolutely. I for one would like my NI contributions refunded if this ever happened (which it won’t)  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ogloom OP Man
over a year ago
levens |
"There is no genuine argument to suggest the NHS should consider not treating anyone who does not have the vaccine what whatever reason. The only reason would be a selfish one of trying to remove peoples free choice."
Being the devil. There is indeed several clear arguments that could be posed. The cost and space taken up by those who develop severe symptoms of covid and the additional medical rescources they consume and the significant impact that is caused by everyone around them then isolating are all good arguments for the NHS to be selective in its treatment. I agree it is against the main tenant of the NHS but it would push many sitting on the fence to seek the vaccine. In a way the NHS and public health England backing the vaccine as a real solution.
At the end of the day people could still refuse it.
(Anyone reading this please dont worry this discussion is purely hypothetical and the NHS and government have stated there will be no compulsion to have the vaccine) |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"There is no genuine argument to suggest the NHS should consider not treating anyone who does not have the vaccine what whatever reason. The only reason would be a selfish one of trying to remove peoples free choice.
Being the devil. There is indeed several clear arguments that could be posed. The cost and space taken up by those who develop severe symptoms of covid and the additional medical rescources they consume and the significant impact that is caused by everyone around them then isolating are all good arguments for the NHS to be selective in its treatment. I agree it is against the main tenant of the NHS but it would push many sitting on the fence to seek the vaccine. In a way the NHS and public health England backing the vaccine as a real solution.
At the end of the day people could still refuse it.
(Anyone reading this please dont worry this discussion is purely hypothetical and the NHS and government have stated there will be no compulsion to have the vaccine)"
So in your own words your only reason for this is to force other to take this vaccine.
That's simply a non started and secondly violates a person's choice. All it will achieve is many who are sitting on the fence to jump the other way because you're forcing them and not educating them to make an informed choice.
Personally I think anyone spreading fake comments arguing false information should maybe have their profit suspended. That way those sitting on the fence could make a choice that they are comfortable with and for all to accept their choice without labeling or bullying which is what's been happening for the past few weeks. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ogloom OP Man
over a year ago
levens |
"
So in your own words your only reason for this is to force other to take this vaccine."
No in my own words I have never said anything about force. I think it's clearly a case of free choice but there are consequences for the individual and wider society so in no way is it a case of misinformation to suggest that, if someone is to get serverely ill as a result of covid significant resources are expended. Some doctors and other medical staff are having to work extremely hard and tell families the worst. The hard bit has been done for everyone. It's just two pricks. appreciate one prick is more than enough for most and these vaccines involve two. But is two pricks that bad?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *essie.Woman
over a year ago
Serendipity |
They should still be treated, you can’t single out Covid. Many people don’t have the annual flu jab despite being eligible. Same goes for measles.
And the very nature of those in medicine is that they want to treat everyone. They don’t turn away criminals who’ve committed terrible crimes? And is not having the vaccine a crime? No it’s their choice. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
So in your own words your only reason for this is to force other to take this vaccine.
No in my own words I have never said anything about force. I think it's clearly a case of free choice but there are consequences for the individual and wider society so in no way is it a case of misinformation to suggest that, if someone is to get serverely ill as a result of covid significant resources are expended. Some doctors and other medical staff are having to work extremely hard and tell families the worst. The hard bit has been done for everyone. It's just two pricks. appreciate one prick is more than enough for most and these vaccines involve two. But is two pricks that bad?
"
Sadly you're overlooking a serious issue. Most people who have been hospitalised due to covid have others serious underlying issues....so maybe for YOUR argument you need to ignore covid as the bad ass and look at other things. For some covid has brought to light previously unknown serious health issues too. Maybe worth debating about how you think the NHS should treat and prioritise people with any health issues after all its there to help improve anyone's health issues. I had a very unpopular post up a few months back asking what positives have come about out of the pandemic, probably only had about 7 different posters in all of fab, less daily views than I as an old single guy gets in a day. A few said 'absolutely nothing' which I found as quite sad as there is always something good that comes out of something bad, just depends on our focus. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"
So in your own words your only reason for this is to force other to take this vaccine.
No in my own words I have never said anything about force. I think it's clearly a case of free choice but there are consequences for the individual and wider society so in no way is it a case of misinformation to suggest that, if someone is to get serverely ill as a result of covid significant resources are expended. Some doctors and other medical staff are having to work extremely hard and tell families the worst. The hard bit has been done for everyone. It's just two pricks. appreciate one prick is more than enough for most and these vaccines involve two. But is two pricks that bad?
Sadly you're overlooking a serious issue. Most people who have been hospitalised due to covid have others serious underlying issues....so maybe for YOUR argument you need to ignore covid as the bad ass and look at other things. For some covid has brought to light previously unknown serious health issues too. Maybe worth debating about how you think the NHS should treat and prioritise people with any health issues after all its there to help improve anyone's health issues. I had a very unpopular post up a few months back asking what positives have come about out of the pandemic, probably only had about 7 different posters in all of fab, less daily views than I as an old single guy gets in a day. A few said 'absolutely nothing' which I found as quite sad as there is always something good that comes out of something bad, just depends on our focus."
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Prehaps overweight people should be refused any treatment for diabetes or other metabolic disease?
Smoker's refused any lung treatment.
People who don't look while crossing the road refused medically if they are hit by a car.
Injury yourself while d*unk, suck it up because its your own fault and the NHS will not treat you |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
The NHS refusing to treat people would be a very slippery slope to its privatisation. People would ask, with some justification, that if there is a risk it won’t treat me, why would I want to pay for it. Universal healthcare only works if everyone pays and everyone get treated. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke. |
"The NHS refusing to treat people would be a very slippery slope to its privatisation. People would ask, with some justification, that if there is a risk it won’t treat me, why would I want to pay for it. Universal healthcare only works if everyone pays and everyone get treated. "
In a perverse way they are refusing to treat people now - covid but not cancer - covid but not screening - etc etc . . . |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
So for talks sake, as I've been reading other virus threads. If I take the vaccine, and go to work, I could still catch it and potentially spread it. So would have to isolate anyways? 
I've been tested for covid 5 times now, and all been negative. I've had flu jab as don't want to risk getting flu and covid at same time.
Not sure what my point is really, just popping thoughts/ramblings down. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *atEvolutionCouple
over a year ago
atlantisEVOLUTION Swingers Club. Stoke. |
"So for talks sake, as I've been reading other virus threads. If I take the vaccine, and go to work, I could still catch it and potentially spread it. So would have to isolate anyways?
I've been tested for covid 5 times now, and all been negative. I've had flu jab as don't want to risk getting flu and covid at same time.
Not sure what my point is really, just popping thoughts/ramblings down. "
Yes. If you are vaccinated you can still spread it, merely by touching an infected surface or getting droplets from someone who does have it - it's (probably) unlikely to do anything to you however. We all still spread flu in the same way.
The science/policy is still out on the isolation thing right now. Like everything with this virus it's suck it and see.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Sounds very much like selective medical treatment to me.
Go down this route and anyone who smokes or has smoked, anyone who is deemed clinically obese won’t receive any treatment either. Also people who haven’t had any previous vaccinations including tetanus. Oh and whilst we are on it if you don’t have a flu jab you won’t be treated either or if you don’t pay tax and NI either.
As humans we have the ability to make a choice. As long as this choice is made given all the correct evidence then it’s still a choice.
Whether we agree with someone’s choice, that’s the question.
I watched a programme when the nhs hit 75 and they were talking to an A&E director about why they treat drug addicts and alcoholics and he said “because everyone has the right to equal treatment”.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So for talks sake, as I've been reading other virus threads. If I take the vaccine, and go to work, I could still catch it and potentially spread it. So would have to isolate anyways?
I've been tested for covid 5 times now, and all been negative. I've had flu jab as don't want to risk getting flu and covid at same time.
Not sure what my point is really, just popping thoughts/ramblings down.
Yes. If you are vaccinated you can still spread it, merely by touching an infected surface or getting droplets from someone who does have it - it's (probably) unlikely to do anything to you however. We all still spread flu in the same way.
The science/policy is still out on the isolation thing right now. Like everything with this virus it's suck it and see.
"
That's kind of what I was thinking. Then what would the point of me getting the vaccine? As I still would be working with vulnerable people. Therefor, would my vaccine not be put to better use on someone more vulnerable than myself? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"So for talks sake, as I've been reading other virus threads. If I take the vaccine, and go to work, I could still catch it and potentially spread it. So would have to isolate anyways?
I've been tested for covid 5 times now, and all been negative. I've had flu jab as don't want to risk getting flu and covid at same time.
Not sure what my point is really, just popping thoughts/ramblings down.
Yes. If you are vaccinated you can still spread it, merely by touching an infected surface or getting droplets from someone who does have it - it's (probably) unlikely to do anything to you however. We all still spread flu in the same way.
The science/policy is still out on the isolation thing right now. Like everything with this virus it's suck it and see.
That's kind of what I was thinking. Then what would the point of me getting the vaccine? As I still would be working with vulnerable people. Therefor, would my vaccine not be put to better use on someone more vulnerable than myself? "
Most of us around 50 won't be given the opportunity to have even the first vaccine before end of May beginning of June and if your under 40 then July/ August if the Omni vaccine queue calculator is correct. Then it's 3 weeks or so after that for the second.
So it's not some most need to worry about either way for quite some time. There could still be a lot of changes between now and then. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Let's consider a transmissible disease which might be closer to home for swingers.
Chlamydia- there are definitely people who get it more than once when it's pretty obvious it can be avoided by not having unprotected sex.
By your logic, the NHS should refuse to treat a repeat offender. I'd definitely disagree with that. The NHS is for everyone and once you start segregating it is a slippery slope. Should unemployed people not be treated because they don't pay into the system? Should people with higher contributions receive better treatment? |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
