Heading into autumn - what next?

[yorksrob]

Of course, we were never really told why lockdown was called, so it's difficult to discuss measurables when we don't know what they were/are (albeit allegedly Boris has recently declared an "acceptable deaths" yardstick, which if true was a rather foolish thing to do because it's pretty much inevitable someone will find a measure which meets it, and then it becomes hard to resist lockdown calls).

But it we're reading between the lines and assuming the primary justification for lockdown is NHS capacity being exceeded, then I don't see why unvaccinated people should be the only thing under the spotlight.

I'm absolutely not advocating it as I'm not arguing for a lockdown based on NHS capacity (or any other reason at this point), but I find it hypocritical for people to be moaning about one group of people supposedly breaking the NHS, and therefore supposedly causing us all to go into lockdown, but not about other groups who have taken up NHS capacity not just in 2021, but over many years. One could extend this to say that anyone who hasn't controlled their weight, and is therefore more at risk of a bad Covid outcome, is "an idiot". None of this is a road we should be going down, instead we should be asking the politicians why the NHS has been found to be inadequate, and what they plan to do about it.

But by a similar token, we haven't had lockdowns over many years.

I don't agree with a lockdown full stop, be it for covid or for any other seasonal strain, however it does seem that certain parts of the medical establishment see ICU's full of Covid patients as a justification.

In light of that, I think it's perfectly reasonable for people to refuse to abide by restrictions in that circumstance, particularly if a majority in that circumstance had turned down vaccination without a medical justification. The only way that position would be hypocritical to my mind would be if those people then started calling for restrictions based on alcohol related admissions (as an example).

 

[MikeWM]

You mean unlike the wall, or the ban on Muslims entering the country?

I'm certainly no fan of the 'unitary executive' idea that has rather taken hold since Bush and Cheney massively pushed it, for any President, whether I agree with them or not.

However, the ban on Muslims, appalling as it was, had a fairly sound legal basis in measures passed by Congress in previous Immigration Acts - though the courts still had (justified) issues with it.

As for the 'wall', it resulted in a massive battle between Congress and the President over funding, because in the end the executive orders Trump tried to push through didn't actually achieve much of anything and it needed funding.

I think you may be letting your views of Biden, and of this policy, interfere with your view of what the American constitution actually says and does, and what the case law has settled. The federal government has wide ranging powers, both where people and companies work for it, and over inter-state trade where it's national remit allows it to impose policy across the states. The BBC story on this mentions a similar decision in LA about schools requiring vaccinations - you'll notice that this is legally totally separate from Biden's announcement, as education is provided at a local level and therefore not subject to federal authority.

I'm not questioning the ability of the federal government to pass such a law; I suspect they probably could *through Congress* (though I'd still expect some of the States to challenge it in court). I'm questioning the ability of the *President* to do so when not given such rights by Congress. (I see some speculation that they're pretending that OSHA gives them that right; I think that's a pretty pathetic case).


An interesting aside - if you want to see where mandating medical procedures can get you, see the dreadful US Supreme Court case of Buck Vs Bell of 1927, where someone was forcibly sterilised by the state against their will. In an 8-1 judgement the court said:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.

(bold mine)

 

[nedchester]

Of course, we were never really told why lockdown was called, so it's difficult to discuss measurables when we don't know what they were/are (albeit allegedly Boris has recently declared an "acceptable deaths" yardstick, which if true was a rather foolish thing to do because it's pretty much inevitable someone will find a measure which meets it, and then it becomes hard to resist lockdown calls).

But it we're reading between the lines and assuming the primary justification for lockdown is NHS capacity being exceeded, then I don't see why unvaccinated people should be the only thing under the spotlight.

I'm absolutely not advocating it as I'm not arguing for a lockdown based on NHS capacity (or any other reason at this point), but I find it hypocritical for people to be moaning about one group of people supposedly breaking the NHS, and therefore supposedly causing us all to go into lockdown, but not about other groups who have taken up NHS capacity not just in 2021, but over many years. One could extend this to say that anyone who hasn't controlled their weight, and is therefore more at risk of a bad Covid outcome, is "an idiot". None of this is a road we should be going down, instead we should be asking the politicians why the NHS has been found to be inadequate, and what they plan to do about it.

This government has absolutely relished in scapegoating different segments of the population at various times. Once upon a time it was all the fault of people not cancelling their Italian ski-trips (even though the government never told people to do so), then it was all the fault of people in Manchester (only after Burnham upset Boris), then it was people who don't wear a mask, now it's the unvaccinated. Who next?

Someone not controlling their weight maybe for all sorts of reasons. It is also not a quick process (I know!) to lose weight whereas taking a vaccine a quick an very effective way of avoiding a potentially dangerous condition. I am NOT in favour of compulsory vaccinations nor for that matter vaccine passports but I am massively in favour of people taking the vaccine and if they don't take that opportunity (without good medical reason) then they are an idiot. Sorry if that offends.

The lockdowns were really about saving the NHS from being overwhelmed. Based on the Channel 4 report it does appear that the majority of Covid patients are unvaccinated.

As for NHS capacity I'd agree, investment should have been there years ago but people kept voting in the current shower. Maybe they should make better voting choices in future.

 

[bramling]

Someone not controlling their weight maybe for all sorts of reasons. It is also not a quick process (I know!) to lose weight

The medical establishment has been telling us pretty much since we've all been born that being overweight is a bad thing, and it's been made clear pretty much since the start of Covid that this is also likely to increase the risk of a bad outcome. Didn't none other than Boris himself go on record attributing his own ICU excursion to being overweight?

If we're going down the road of blaming people for taking up NHS capacity, one could quite easily argue that there's been *plenty* of warning on this.

We really need to get away from scapegoating, it's letting the politicians off the hook.

The lockdowns were really about saving the NHS from being overwhelmed.

In which case, questions need to be asked as to why there's insufficient capacity. What would be happening now if we still didn't have a vaccine?

Based on the Channel 4 report it does appear that the majority of Covid patients are unvaccinated.

The percentage of unvaccinated patients isn't really an issue. Likewise it isn't helpful unless we know more detail. Could some of these have been *unable* to take the vaccine, for example? How many of them are young people, or is it just older unvaccinated people who are taking up ICU space?

As for NHS capacity I'd agree, investment should have been there years ago but people kept voting in the current shower. Maybe they should make better voting choices in future.

We can blame politicians as a whole for this, they're all equally useless.

But by a similar token, we haven't had lockdowns over many years.

But we have had high numbers of flu deaths in past years, and perhaps the only reasons lockdowns weren't a political tool then is because no one had thought of it. China obliged us on that, we thought it couldn't happen here, then Italy did it and the politicians here realised they could...

So what hasn't happened in the past isn't a reliable indicator of what may happen in the future.

I don't agree with a lockdown full stop

That's good enough for me.

I think the only justification is as an emergency measure, which was arguably the situation last March when we really didn't know what was going to happen. We weren't in that situation in January, and certainly aren't now.

 

[35B]

I'm certainly no fan of the 'unitary executive' idea that has rather taken hold since Bush and Cheney massively pushed it, for any President, whether I agree with them or not.

However, the ban on Muslims, appalling as it was, had a fairly sound legal basis in measures passed by Congress in previous Immigration Acts - though the courts still had (justified) issues with it.

As for the 'wall', it resulted in a massive battle between Congress and the President over funding, because in the end the executive orders Trump tried to push through didn't actually achieve much of anything and it needed funding.



I'm not questioning the ability of the federal government to pass such a law; I suspect they probably could *through Congress* (though I'd still expect some of the States to challenge it in court). I'm questioning the ability of the *President* to do so when not given such rights by Congress. (I see some speculation that they're pretending that OSHA gives them that right; I think that's a pretty pathetic case).


An interesting aside - if you want to see where mandating medical procedures can get you, see the dreadful US Supreme Court case of Buck Vs Bell of 1927, where someone was forcibly sterilised by the state against their will. In an 8-1 judgement the court said:


(bold mine)

On the question of the role of executive orders, the fact is that the remit is broad, and that by doing things as they have been done, they have exercised powers they have, rather than powers that require legislation - even if the OSHA argument is invalid for companies of more than 100 employees, the orders cover a wide range that are within the Executive branch's control.

As for Buck vs. Bell, I am deeply uncomfortable with the use of that in this context. The case was in the context of a political environment that was supportive of eugenics, to the extent that it was seen as a progressive project, and I think it's doubtful that such a case would have got anywhere near the Supreme Court under modern jurisprudence. I also note that the case hinged on the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution, and not on the merits - or not - of the Virginian state law that was being contested (noting also that Buck's lawyer is widely suspected of not having worked in her interest).

You appear to be arguing that there is a slippery slope of state intervention in medical care that requires that the state has no interest in an individual's medical treatment; I suggest that such a state itself represents a dangerous state of affairs that would preclude any form of public health intervention and therefore that we have to exist on that slippery slope, recognising that there are risks to both overreach and underreach.

 

[greyman42]

As for NHS capacity I'd agree, investment should have been there years ago but people kept voting in the current shower. Maybe they should make better voting choices in future.

Off topic, but there has not been an alternative since Labour decided that Ed was a better choice than Dave.

Yes we need to get back to normal, and we need to hold our collective nerve to allow us to get there. Just about the only thing Boris has actually managed to express well has been the “if not now, then when?” question. It’s just a shame he then goes and screws this up with all the rubbish about respect and the like.

I really don’t get why a significant amount of people seem to be willing on the return of restrictions as soon as October. And there are such people, just as there are still people who want restrictions “because I don’t want to catch Covid”. It’s a lovely aim in theory, but it’s completely impractical at this point. I find it extremely selfish that such people seem to expect the whole world to be put on hold essentially indefinitely to facilitate this.

I think the people who are willing on a return to restrictions are the people who don't like going to work and would rather sit around the house all day in their pyjamas doing nothing, apart from stuffing themselves and drinking coffee.

 

[yorksrob]

Off topic, but there has not been an alternative since Labour decided that Ed was a better choice than Dave.


I think the people who are willing on a return to restrictions are the people who don't like going to work and would rather sit around the house all day in their pyjamas doing nothing, apart from stuffing themselves and drinking coffee.

There wasn't anything fundamentally wrong with Ed. He'd have made a perfectly respectable PM.

 

[MikeWM]

On the question of the role of executive orders, the fact is that the remit is broad, and that by doing things as they have been done, they have exercised powers they have, rather than powers that require legislation - even if the OSHA argument is invalid for companies of more than 100 employees, the orders cover a wide range that are within the Executive branch's control.

We shall see - it looks like the RNC and various Governors will be taking legal action against it.

In any event, do you really believe that the President should be able to force private companies to force their employees to undergo medical procedures? At the very least I'd hope you'd agree that such a thing *ought* to go through Congress.

As for Buck vs. Bell, I am deeply uncomfortable with the use of that in this context. The case was in the context of a political environment that was supportive of eugenics, to the extent that it was seen as a progressive project, and I think it's doubtful that such a case would have got anywhere near the Supreme Court under modern jurisprudence. I also note that the case hinged on the Equal Protection Clause in the Constitution, and not on the merits - or not - of the Virginian state law that was being contested (noting also that Buck's lawyer is widely suspected of not having worked in her interest).

I'm not entirely surprised at your discomfort - who would be at such a resolution? However, the specifics of the case have little bearing on my point, which is that by a majority of 8-1 the Supreme Court of the United States decided that 'The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.'

Indeed I probably agree that it does - the idea is that the good of society overrides the rights of the individual, and once you apply that principle to medical autonomy, there's no obvious end to where that leads. Why not have eugenics, for example - it would probably 'improve' society? Or China-style control over how many children you have? Or forced infanticide of disabled children?

While I don't have an issue with the idea that sometimes the rights of the individual have to be curtailed in many cases for the good of society - as I've said before many times, I was a Corbyn-supporting socialist before all this nonsense started - the line *has* to be drawn on medical autonomy. You never start going down this route, as it is a perfect example of Pandora's Box. We see that with how these matters have occurred before, Buck vs Bell being an obvious but by no means the only example.

You appear to be arguing that there is a slippery slope of state intervention in medical care that requires that the state has no interest in an individual's medical treatment; I suggest that such a state itself represents a dangerous state of affairs that would preclude any form of public health intervention and therefore that we have to exist on that slippery slope, recognising that there are risks to both overreach and underreach.

I would opine that the state requires (limited) powers to deal with reducing the risk from individuals who have an illness that constitutes a severe danger to public health.

However, I don't believe the state should have any 'medical treatment' powers whatever in respect of healthy, competent adults.

 

[NorthKent1989]

Someone not controlling their weight maybe for all sorts of reasons. It is also not a quick process (I know!) to lose weight whereas taking a vaccine a quick an very effective way of avoiding a potentially dangerous condition. I am NOT in favour of compulsory vaccinations nor for that matter vaccine passports but I am massively in favour of people taking the vaccine and if they don't take that opportunity (without good medical reason) then they are an idiot. Sorry if that offends.

The lockdowns were really about saving the NHS from being overwhelmed. Based on the Channel 4 report it does appear that the majority of Covid patients are unvaccinated.

As for NHS capacity I'd agree, investment should have been there years ago but people kept voting in the current shower. Maybe they should make better voting choices in future.

Why is someone an idiot for not wanting a vaccine for an illness they literally won’t ever be effected from if they’re young fit and healthy? What one does with their body is up to them and the fact you keep calling people idiots for making a choice that suits them makes you the idiot actually.

I could call people who rushed out to get a jab that is in experimental phase until 2023, all for a holiday, and not even for their health, are they idiots? Since you’re basing this on health and medical issues

 

[35B]

We shall see - it looks like the RNC and various Governors will be taking legal action against it.

In any event, do you really believe that the President should be able to force private companies to force their employees to undergo medical procedures? At the very least I'd hope you'd agree that such a thing *ought* to go through Congress.



I'm not entirely surprised at your discomfort - who would be at such a resolution? However, the specifics of the case have little bearing on my point, which is that by a majority of 8-1 the Supreme Court of the United States decided that 'The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.'

Indeed I probably agree that it does - the idea is that the good of society overrides the rights of the individual, and once you apply that principle to medical autonomy, there's no obvious end to where that leads. Why not have eugenics, for example - it would probably 'improve' society? Or China-style control over how many children you have? Or forced infanticide of disabled children?

While I don't have an issue with the idea that sometimes the rights of the individual have to be curtailed in many cases for the good of society - as I've said before many times, I was a Corbyn-supporting socialist before all this nonsense started - the line *has* to be drawn on medical autonomy. You never start going down this route, as it is a perfect example of Pandora's Box. We see that with how these matters have occurred before, Buck vs Bell being an obvious but by no means the only example.



I would opine that the state requires (limited) powers to deal with reducing the risk from individuals who have an illness that constitutes a severe danger to public health.

However, I don't believe the state should have any 'medical treatment' powers whatever in respect of healthy, competent adults.

Two separate points. One - the use of regulation as opposed to primary legislation. There was a railtour last week with a suspected outbreak of norovirus, your doctrine as expounded would deny public health authorities the ability to take action to deal with that. Medical autonomy is not a complete absolute, because we do exist within the context of society which does also have an interest. As such, I regard it as legitimate for government to use regulation to achieve public health aims.

Then we come to Buck vs. Bell. I'm uncomfortable with the use of that case, because I regard the implied comparison as repugnant - vaccination is not comparable in it's effect on the individual to sterilisation. The problem in using that case is that you are using an argument posed in the context of a very particular period of time to make a comparison with a very different example of public health. I find it interesting, presuming Wiki to be accurate, to observe that the case has never been overruled on constitutional grounds (remember - the legal battle was to do with the validity of the legislation requiring sterilisation under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, not sterilisation or eugenics per se), and that the 1942 Skinner vs. Oklahoma case hinged on arbitrary classification differences. I also note that the battle against compulsory sterilisation was, thankfully, won in the court of public opinion and the laws that might give rise to it blocked through legislative action*. I therefore do not consider that the line of absolute medical autonomy is the right line to draw, because it ignores the role that my exercise of that autonomy may have on your ability to enjoy your autonomy.

* - Veering very OT, this observer of US politics rather wishes that instead of Roe v Wade, there had been a legislative outcome rather than repeated attempts to get the courts to make the law.

Why is someone an idiot for not wanting a vaccine for an illness they literally won’t ever be effected from if they’re young fit and healthy? What one does with their body is up to them and the fact you keep calling people idiots for making a choice that suits them makes you the idiot actually.

I could call people who rushed out to get a jab that is in experimental phase until 2023, all for a holiday, and not even for their health, are they idiots? Since you’re basing this on health and medical issues

I wish I had your confidence that someone young fit and healthy will not be affected by this disease - there are plenty of graves occupied by people who believed that. I agree with @nedchester that someone making that choice is acting idiotically, because they are giving disproportionate weight to both optimism (that they won't be affected) and risk (that they will get a side effect). That is about basic statistics, no more and no less. As for the myth that these vaccines are experimental rather than proven to be both effective and low risk, words fail me.

 

[greyman42]

I wish I had your confidence that someone young fit and healthy will not be affected by this disease - there are plenty of graves occupied by people who believed that.

A tiny percentage.

 

[35B]

A tiny percentage.

And an even tinier percentage with side effects from the vaccines.

On a risk/reward basis alone (so no wider consideration of social impact), I'm delighted that my 16 year old has received a vaccination, and would have no hesitation in approving my 13 year old if it were offered.

 

[nedchester]

I wish I had your confidence that someone young fit and healthy will not be affected by this disease - there are plenty of graves occupied by people who believed that. I agree with @nedchester that someone making that choice is acting idiotically, because they are giving disproportionate weight to both optimism (that they won't be affected) and risk (that they will get a side effect). That is about basic statistics, no more and no less. As for the myth that these vaccines are experimental rather than proven to be both effective and low risk, words fail me.

Yep. The evidence is therefor all to see that the vaccines are doing their job. The fact that 90% of people in ICU as per the Channel 4 News report surely should be enough. If people cannot see that then they ARE stupid.

My own children (16 & 19) have both had their vaccines and saw the sense in doing so.

But hey if people believe what they read on the internet whilst sitting there in their pants at night more than scientific evidence then there is little hope!

And yes people will resent any sort of reintroduced of restrictions due to these idiots!

 

[NorthKent1989]

Two separate points. One - the use of regulation as opposed to primary legislation. There was a railtour last week with a suspected outbreak of norovirus, your doctrine as expounded would deny public health authorities the ability to take action to deal with that. Medical autonomy is not a complete absolute, because we do exist within the context of society which does also have an interest. As such, I regard it as legitimate for government to use regulation to achieve public health aims.

Then we come to Buck vs. Bell. I'm uncomfortable with the use of that case, because I regard the implied comparison as repugnant - vaccination is not comparable in it's effect on the individual to sterilisation. The problem in using that case is that you are using an argument posed in the context of a very particular period of time to make a comparison with a very different example of public health. I find it interesting, presuming Wiki to be accurate, to observe that the case has never been overruled on constitutional grounds (remember - the legal battle was to do with the validity of the legislation requiring sterilisation under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, not sterilisation or eugenics per se), and that the 1942 Skinner vs. Oklahoma case hinged on arbitrary classification differences. I also note that the battle against compulsory sterilisation was, thankfully, won in the court of public opinion and the laws that might give rise to it blocked through legislative action*. I therefore do not consider that the line of absolute medical autonomy is the right line to draw, because it ignores the role that my exercise of that autonomy may have on your ability to enjoy your autonomy.

* - Veering very OT, this observer of US politics rather wishes that instead of Roe v Wade, there had been a legislative outcome rather than repeated attempts to get the courts to make the law.


I wish I had your confidence that someone young fit and healthy will not be affected by this disease - there are plenty of graves occupied by people who believed that. I agree with @nedchester that someone making that choice is acting idiotically, because they are giving disproportionate weight to both optimism (that they won't be affected) and risk (that they will get a side effect). That is about basic statistics, no more and no less. As for the myth that these vaccines are experimental rather than proven to be both effective and low risk, words fail me.

It’s a small tiny percentage and they are probably unhealthy or have an underlying condition let’s not get hysterical here, Covid isn’t the world ending event we thought it was back in 2020.

Not getting a vaccine for a virus with a 99% survival rate does not make one an idiot, let’s not be silly about this

 

[MikeWM]

Two separate points. One - the use of regulation as opposed to primary legislation. There was a railtour last week with a suspected outbreak of norovirus, your doctrine as expounded would deny public health authorities the ability to take action to deal with that. Medical autonomy is not a complete absolute, because we do exist within the context of society which does also have an interest. As such, I regard it as legitimate for government to use regulation to achieve public health aims.

Without knowing the specifics of the case, why on earth would the public health authorities need to get involved in an outbreak of norovirus? Are they going to be 'taking action' to deal with common colds next, or hayfever?

If it were the plague, or ebola, that's a different matter.

Then we come to Buck vs. Bell.

Indeed. Basically I think that it is a good example of the potenial dangers of progressing down this path, you believe it was a specific thing that happened at a specific time and unlikely to be repeated. I leave it to others can make up their own mind on that one.

I therefore do not consider that the line of absolute medical autonomy is the right line to draw, because it ignores the role that my exercise of that autonomy may have on your ability to enjoy your autonomy.

But there is a key difference between dealing with someone who has a communicable serious disease - where I accept there may be rare occasions when the state has to be involved to prevent them causing harm to others - and forcing medical treatments upon someone healthy, just in case something happens in the future. For a facetious example, its not entirely unlike making every law-abiding citizen wear a tracking bracelet 24 hours a day because one of them may commit a crime at some point, which is hardly the same thing as making a convicted criminal do so during a parole period.

* - Veering very OT, this observer of US politics rather wishes that instead of Roe v Wade, there had been a legislative outcome rather than repeated attempts to get the courts to make the law.

I would certainly agree that this is a preferable approach, but the powers reserved to the states make it rather difficult to have a policy that applies the same everywhere - at least without a constitutional amendment. (The same ought to apply to any 'vaccine mandates', of course).

 

[NorthKent1989]

Yep. The evidence is therefor all to see that the vaccines are doing their job. The fact that 90% of people in ICU as per the Channel 4 News report surely should be enough. If people cannot see that then they ARE stupid.

My own children (16 & 19) have both had their vaccines and saw the sense in doing so.

But hey if people believe what they read on the internet whilst sitting there in their pants at night more than scientific evidence then there is little hope!

And yes people will resent any sort of reintroduced of restrictions due to these idiots!

Wow you really are bothered by this aren’t you? Why don’t you try be more bothered by the fact that our government is slowly taking away our freedoms and liberties?

 

[35B]

Without knowing the specifics of the case, why on earth would the public health authorities need to get involved in an outbreak of norovirus? Are they going to be 'taking action' to deal with common colds next, or hayfever?

If it were the plague, or ebola, that's a different matter.

Indeed. Basically I think that it is a good example of the potenial dangers of progressing down this path, you believe it was a specific thing that happened at a specific time and unlikely to be repeated. I leave it to others can make up their own mind on that one.

But there is a key difference between dealing with someone who has a communicable serious disease - where I accept there may be rare occasions when the state has to be involved to prevent them causing harm to others - and forcing medical treatments upon someone healthy, just in case something happens in the future. For a facetious example, its not entirely unlike making every law-abiding citizen wear a tracking bracelet 24 hours a day because one of them may commit a crime at some point, which is hardly the same thing as making a convicted criminal do so during a parole period.

Public health authorities do get involved in cases of norovirus. And that same public health involvement is IMHO a legitimate justification for imposing vaccination requirements - because the difference between a communicable disease and your hypothetical potential criminal is that there is no suggestion that the transmission of disease is in any way a deliberate act in the way that a crime is.

 

[bramling]

Wow you really are bothered by this aren’t you? Why don’t you try be more bothered by the fact that our government is slowly taking away our freedoms and liberties?

It’s simply a case of looking for a scapegoat to blame. Last autumn it was probably people not wearing masks who were being labelled as idiots.

 

[MikeWM]

Public health authorities do get involved in cases of norovirus.

Doesn't mean that they *should*!

And that same public health involvement is IMHO a legitimate justification for imposing vaccination requirements - because the difference between a communicable disease and your hypothetical potential criminal is that there is no suggestion that the transmission of disease is in any way a deliberate act in the way that a crime is.

(bold mine)
Well, yes, precisely. Therefore I have no moral (and should have no legal) requirement to try to prevent it.

I'd say that is also a rather good argument for ending all this nonsense about trying to make people feel guilty for passing a disease on and/or it apparently being some moral failure if we catch such a disease.

We really have to start accepting that 'stuff happens'. Our modern inability to do that is a major factor of many of the problems we currently face.

 

[DustyBin]

And an even tinier percentage with side effects from the vaccines.

On a risk/reward basis alone (so no wider consideration of social impact), I'm delighted that my 16 year old has received a vaccination, and would have no hesitation in approving my 13 year old if it were offered.

Do consider the actual JCVI advice though (not that I’m telling you how to parent of course).

 

[nedchester]

Wow you really are bothered by this aren’t you? Why don’t you try be more bothered by the fact that our government is slowly taking away our freedoms and liberties?

Oh yes I am very bothered about hence my objection to such things as vaccine passports. But I also don’t tolerate people who ignore the overwhelming evidence that a couple of injections will prevent them from getting severely ill.

 

[43066]

the overwhelming evidence that a couple of injections will prevent them from getting severely ill.

It’s a less straightforward analysis than that for younger/healthy groups who are overwhelmingly unlikely to get severely ill anyway.

 

[farleigh]

Go on then what does it say about me?

The overwhelming evidence is that the vaccines are very effective at stopping severe infection and death. That’s the science.

If you deny that because you read some mumbo jumbo on the Internet then you’re an idiot.

My point is that I would not tolerate another lockdown or restrictions because those who choose not to be vaccinated are clogging up ICU.

How would you act to express your intolerance of a lockdown?

I am fascinated as I hate lockdowns but I do not know what it is you will be doing to defy it.

Oh yes I am very bothered about hence my objection to such things as vaccine passports. But I also don’t tolerate people who ignore the overwhelming evidence that a couple of injections will prevent them from getting severely ill.

There is overwhelming evidence that drinking alcohol can make you severely ill.

Do you not tolerate people who drink alcohol?

 

[yorksrob]

How would you act to express your intolerance of a lockdown?

I am fascinated as I hate lockdowns but I do not know what it is you will be doing to defy it.


There is overwhelming evidence that drinking alcohol can make you severely ill.

Do you not tolerate people who drink alcohol?

I can't speak for @nedchester, but from a personal point of view, I will not, not be meeting friends, I will not, not be traveling outside of my locality, I will not be sticking to any sort of bubble for the above.

That will express my intolerance for lockdown.

 

[farleigh]

I can't speak for @nedchester, but from a personal point of view, I will not, not be meeting friends, I will not, not be traveling outside of my locality, I will not be sticking to any sort of bubble for the above.

That will express my intolerance for lockdown.

Yeah I suppose that is possible @yorksrob but when the last lockdown was imposed (nearly) everybody did comply.

I agree with your sentiments but I would be interested to hear from Nedchester as he said he would not tolerate a lockdown which I do not understand. Unless not tolerating means being sat at home being unhappy about it I don't understand what else he would do

 

[bramling]

It’s a less straightforward analysis than that for younger/healthy groups who are overwhelmingly unlikely to get severely ill anyway.

The whole discussion about vaccine “idiots” is facile without knowing the age disposition of those unvaccinated people in ICU. But no more facile than toilet rolls and flour!

If someone wishes to present some figures which show a NHS-debilitating number of unvaccinated young people are in ICU then I will quite happily reconsider my position.

 

[yorksrob]

Yeah I suppose that is possible @yorksrob but when the last lockdown was imposed (nearly) everybody did comply.

I agree with your sentiments but I would be interested to hear from Nedchester as he said he would not tolerate a lockdown which I do not understand. Unless not tolerating means being sat at home being unhappy about it I don't understand what else he would do

I think people flexed the rules a lot more than in the first one generally.

 

[nedchester]

Yeah I suppose that is possible @yorksrob but when the last lockdown was imposed (nearly) everybody did comply.

I agree with your sentiments but I would be interested to hear from Nedchester as he said he would not tolerate a lockdown which I do not understand. Unless not tolerating means being sat at home being unhappy about it I don't understand what else he would do

Basically I will carry in socialising, not staying in, travelling as I wish etc Obviously if the shops etc are shut then I can’t go in them. I suspect there will be a lot less compliance than previously because many like me have had enough and especially if it’s found that the unvaccinated are driving matters.

That said I actually don’t think there will be another lockdown possibly because of the reasons I mention above.

 

[yorksrob]

Basically I will carry in socialising, not staying in, travelling as I wish etc Obviously if the shops etc are shut then I can’t go in them. I suspect there will be a lot less compliance than previously because many like me have had enough and especially if it’s found that the unvaccinated are driving matters.

That said I actually don’t think there will be another lockdown possibly because of the reasons I mention above.

Indeed. There won't be a massive demonstration. There won't be civil unrest.

People will just ignore it as far as they can. That will kill it before it happens.

 

[NorthOxonian]

The whole discussion about vaccine “idiots” is facile without knowing the age disposition of those unvaccinated people in ICU. But no more facile than toilet rolls and flour!

If someone wishes to present some figures which show a NHS-debilitating number of unvaccinated young people are in ICU then I will quite happily reconsider my position.

We do have that data, at least to an extent (we have it for overnight hospitalisations which isn't exactly the same as ICU but is still somewhat useful).

38% of those admitted to hospital between 9 August and 5 September were aged under 50. Out of those, 71% were unvaccinated, 15% had received one dose, and 16% had received two doses - the ratio in the population as a whole is roughly 30% to 10% to 60%.

I'm ambivalent about those numbers. There are certainly quite a lot of young people in hospital (well into the thousands), and the large majority are unvaccinated. But it's not at the point where it's stretching NHS capacity and it doesn't justify authoritarianism. I think those who choose not to get vaccinated are making an unwise move and the numbers bear that out, but they shouldn't be castigated.