Should the NHS refuse treatment for people that haven’t had the vaccination?

[Bantamzen]

In answer to the original question. Yes, NHS care should be declined to people who refuse the Vaccination. I and Millions of others, have done our part, followed the rules, and took the Vaccination. Ask yourselves, what good has it done us? Why should we suffer even longer with no answer as to a solution for these refusers, other than delay everyone else's lives. Beyond rediculous now. Thoroughly fed up.

Sadly, I believe there are too many people happy to live the foreseeable future, doing nothing. Why would you want stuff back to normal, if the most exciting thing you ever did was effectively nothing.

Sorry, but this is utter rubbish. Have you read the previous comments about where an ideology like this could lead, or did you just wade in?

 

[J-2739]

In answer to the original question. Yes, NHS care should be declined to people who refuse the Vaccination. I and Millions of others, have done our part, followed the rules, and took the Vaccination. Ask yourselves, what good has it done us? Why should we suffer even longer with no answer as to a solution for these refusers, other than delay everyone else's lives. Beyond rediculous now. Thoroughly fed up.

How would you suffer any less if 'refusers' are denied NHS care for their personal choice? Should your anger not be directed towards the government instead, who have introduced these damaging restrictions?

 

[WestRiding]

Sorry, but this is utter rubbish. Have you read the previous comments about where an ideology like this could lead, or did you just wade in?

I just waded in. I also didn't expect anyone to agree. But we can't just keep delaying. Delaying it does not help people not taking the Vaccine, it just screws everything up for the rest of us, and it seems the majority are happy for this to carry on.

 

[Bantamzen]

I just waded in. I also didn't expect anyone to agree. But we can't just keep delaying. Delaying it does not help people not taking the Vaccine, it just screws everything up for the rest of us.

We don't have to delay, we could just accept that the vaccination programme is one of the most successful in the world and get on regardless. We could even drop mass testing and divert those resources back into mainstream NHS services.

But to play devils advocate. Say this happens, what next? Not had your flu jab? Tough, no NHS. Smoke, drink, eat fast food? Tough no NHS. Drive a car, ride a bike? Tough, no NHS. Don't comply with the ruling party's edict? Tough, no NHS.

See where some of us are coming from? I'm sorry if this sounds angry, but this kind of stuff makes me angry. We have a free at the point of service health system, paid for by us all. There should never be anyone excluded for any reason. That's where a social based health system turns into a dictatorial one.

No thank you. There are countries in the world that have such systems, and I invite people desperate to live under them to move there and see what its really like.

 

[LAX54]

In answer to the original question. Yes, NHS care should be declined to people who refuse the Vaccination. I and Millions of others, have done our part, followed the rules, and took the Vaccination. Ask yourselves, what good has it done us? Why should we suffer even longer with no answer as to a solution for these refusers, other than delay everyone else's lives. Beyond rediculous now. Thoroughly fed up.

Sadly, I believe there are too many people happy to live the foreseeable future, doing nothing. Why would you want stuff back to normal, if the most exciting thing you ever did was effectively nothing.

Tricky issue, as I found out when I mooted the thought ! but it seems, if what we read and see is correct, those that are in Hospital in Bolton and the likes, are in the main part non-vaccinated, so restrictions were brought in for everyone.Compassion tells us that of course everyone will be treated when needed, it's what we do in the UK, its why the UK is what it is, go to some other Countries and the situation will be a lot different.
The Majority have now been vaccinated, we should now get back to normal life, if you do not want (as opposed to cannot) be jabbed, then so be it, the risk is known.

Not good news on the BBC from Mr J: Boris Johnson has said "we may need to wait" for the lifting of all Covid restrictions in England, which is currently planned for 21 June.

 

[35B]

We don't have to delay, we could just accept that the vaccination programme is one of the most successful in the world and get on regardless. We could even drop mass testing and divert those resources back into mainstream NHS services.

But to play devils advocate. Say this happens, what next? Not had your flu jab? Tough, no NHS. Smoke, drink, eat fast food? Tough no NHS. Drive a car, ride a bike? Tough, no NHS. Don't comply with the ruling party's edict? Tough, no NHS.

See where some of us are coming from? I'm sorry if this sounds angry, but this kind of stuff makes me angry. We have a free at the point of service health system, paid for by us all. There should never be anyone excluded for any reason. That's where a social based health system turns into a dictatorial one.

No thank you. There are countries in the world that have such systems, and I invite people desperate to live under them to move there and see what its really like.

As a supporter of some restrictions - but not access to health care - for those who refuse vaccinations for transmissible diseases, I think there is a fundamental difference between accepting/rejecting vaccination and the other examples you raise. Ignoring the specific situation of pregnancy, if I smoke, eat junk food, and wash it down with spirits, my habits have no medical impact on others, but are only relevant to healthcare in terms of my ability to benefit from a treatment (e.g. the requirement to lose weight before some operations because of the effect of obesity on recovery) or (more tricky to define) consuming resources "better used" by others without those bad habits. If I choose to decline a vaccine for a transmissible disease where that vaccine will limit transmission, I represent a risk to others; they are entitled to question whether it is reasonable that they must take that risk in return for my right to choose.

If I take the classic liberal position of "I have the perfect right to punch you in the face, up to the point where I touch your face", then my right to decline vaccination may conflict with your right not to be harmed by my choice. And at some point the risk of harm to you may outweigh the value of my freedom of choice, meaning that it's reasonable for society to impose restrictions on my freedom in the interests of society as a whole.

Reasonable people may reasonably differ in their views of how to calibrate that risk, whether particular restrictions are proportionate to the risk, and whether restrictions are effective in changing behaviour. I personally take the view that barring access to healthcare is grossly disproportionate to the risk from Covid non-vaccination, and that it is far better to encourage than seek to punish those who refuse vaccination. But I don't think those who'd take a different line are automatically being "authoritarian" or "dictatorial" in doing so.

“because they’re human beings, same as the majority of the population who chose to take the Covid-19 vaccines”... I have to ask, who are the non-humans getting vaccinated?!

I've seen a headline today about the Russian vaccine being used in animals.

 

[WestRiding]

Not good news on the BBC from Mr J: Boris Johnson has said "we may need to wait" for the lifting of all Covid restrictions in England, which is currently planned for 21 June.

Who didn't see this coming.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Not good news on the BBC from Mr J: Boris Johnson has said "we may need to wait" for the lifting of all Covid restrictions in England, which is currently planned for 21 June.

It is interesting what people take from the same article. The other quote in the same article is "The PM said he saw nothing "currently in the data" to suggest the government would have to delay unlocking" which sounds a lot more optimistic to me!

Hospitalisation rates have fallen massively because:

1. The most likely to fall ill and require hospital treatment have all been offered vaccinations.
2. The ratio of 25-50 year olds needing treatment is way lower than those in the 50+. This is because it is understood that the older you are, the greater the risk. And those more at risk have all been offered vaccinations, as per #1.

You are offering a strawman argument above because the younger you get, the less statistical risk there is from becoming seriously ill. That doesn't mean people between 25-50 won't become ill, but the rate is way below that of say those between 65-90. All of which means the risk to the NHS is reduce greatly. I think its time you brought yourself up to speed.

I don't actually disagree with what you are saying, and you are right, it isn't a large risk to the NHS if there are some 25-50 year olds who end up in hospital with COVID as long as the actual overall numbers remain low (which does seem to be the case).
However, it has been claimed quite a few times on this forum by different posters that "the link between cases and hospitalisations is now broken" thanks to the vaccinations and thus an increase in cases is no problem because it won't case a following increase in hospitalisations. Clearly that line is not quite true if hospitalisations do seem to be rising as a result of rising case numbers in some areas and so the reality is that the link is been hugely weakened, and for some parts of the population broken - but not broken for society as a whole.

 

[Bantamzen]

As a supporter of some restrictions - but not access to health care - for those who refuse vaccinations for transmissible diseases, I think there is a fundamental difference between accepting/rejecting vaccination and the other examples you raise. Ignoring the specific situation of pregnancy, if I smoke, eat junk food, and wash it down with spirits, my habits have no medical impact on others, but are only relevant to healthcare in terms of my ability to benefit from a treatment (e.g. the requirement to lose weight before some operations because of the effect of obesity on recovery) or (more tricky to define) consuming resources "better used" by others without those bad habits. If I choose to decline a vaccine for a transmissible disease where that vaccine will limit transmission, I represent a risk to others; they are entitled to question whether it is reasonable that they must take that risk in return for my right to choose.

If I take the classic liberal position of "I have the perfect right to punch you in the face, up to the point where I touch your face", then my right to decline vaccination may conflict with your right not to be harmed by my choice. And at some point the risk of harm to you may outweigh the value of my freedom of choice, meaning that it's reasonable for society to impose restrictions on my freedom in the interests of society as a whole.

Reasonable people may reasonably differ in their views of how to calibrate that risk, whether particular restrictions are proportionate to the risk, and whether restrictions are effective in changing behaviour. I personally take the view that barring access to healthcare is grossly disproportionate to the risk from Covid non-vaccination, and that it is far better to encourage than seek to punish those who refuse vaccination. But I don't think those who'd take a different line are automatically being "authoritarian" or "dictatorial" in doing so.

Well actually lots of things we do can have an adverse effect on people. Some have primary effects like smoking or driving, others secondary like say getting too drunk and causing an accident by not paying attention when crossing a road. So where do you draw the line?

The answer in a reasoned, considered society is you don't. You deal with the medical needs and ask questions later. The moment you start to ask questions before bringing people into medical care is the moment we lose what we have had since 1948.

I Idon't actually disagree with what you are saying, and you are right, it isn't a large risk to the NHS if there are some 25-50 year olds who end up in hospital with COVID as long as the actual overall numbers remain low (which does seem to be the case).
However, it has been claimed quite a few times on this forum by different posters that "the link between cases and hospitalisations is now broken" thanks to the vaccinations and thus an increase in cases is no problem because it won't case a following increase in hospitalisations. Clearly that line is not quite true if hospitalisations do seem to be rising as a result of rising case numbers in some areas and so the reality is that the link is been hugely weakened, and for some parts of the population broken - but not broken for society as a whole.

Well let's put it simply, if the vaccine isn't breaking the link then we all can kiss goodbye to our lives, because from a political standpoint that is the last line of defence.

Thankfully a very small period of fluctuation does not a disaster mean. Indeed most of the government advisors accepted that a relatively small increase would not be a problem because the vaccinations would counter them longer term. And we are well down that path, your country perhaps more so than the rest of us

 

[Trackman]

I hate to break it to you both, but this is done routinely and daily in the NHS in at least two contexts, the first being cost, and the second being the determination of whether particularly invasive treatment should be continued when the patient would have very low quality of life (particularly relevant in the contexts of babies and the elderly).

I concur. I've had several personal incidents in the last 14 months that have really opened my eyes to what is really going on.

A totally ridiculous idea that should be filed in the nearest bin.

I agree, it's daft.

 

[Ediswan]

How would such a policy work in practice ? Say somebody who has declined to be vaccinated turns up at hospital with covid. What happens next. Are they sent away to infect others in the community - that would not help anybody. Are they isolated, but not treated - hard to see the mecical profession being content with that. Other ?

 

[Darandio]

How would such a policy work in practice ? Say somebody who has declined to be vaccinated turns up at hospital with covid. What happens next. Are they sent away to infect others in the community - that would not help anybody. Are they isolated, but not treated - hard to see the mecical profession being content with that. Other ?

Given some people who are pushing this line of thought have suggested they should not be employed, should receive no benefits, no medical treatment, no education for their children and be banned from every establishment in the country then I assume they would just be shot.

 

[35B]

Well actually lots of things we do can have an adverse effect on people. Some have primary effects like smoking or driving, others secondary like say getting too drunk and causing an accident by not paying attention when crossing a road. So where do you draw the line?

The answer in a reasoned, considered society is you don't. You deal with the medical needs and ask questions later. The moment you start to ask questions before bringing people into medical care is the moment we lose what we have had since 1948.

We agree on the medical needs. It seems that we disagree, fundamentally, on the right of a society - not government, society - to determine limits on the impact one person's choices may have on others. The difference between the examples you give and vaccination is that, unvaccinated, the risk I present is in my being; smoking, drinking, driving are all things I do that I have control over where, when, and how I do them, and therefore whom I affect when I do them.

Personally, I oppose limiting access to medical services for the unvaccinated because I believe it immoral and ineffective. Immoral, because care should be based around need; ineffective, because it's unlikely to actually change the level of vaccination. If we want to compel vaccination - which is a legitimate policy option which has been ruled legal under international human rights law when taken to trial - then we should do so by the front door, and say "thou shalt be vaccinated" and define the "or else".

How would such a policy work in practice ? Say somebody who has declined to be vaccinated turns up at hospital with covid. What happens next. Are they sent away to infect others in the community - that would not help anybody. Are they isolated, but not treated - hard to see the mecical profession being content with that. Other ?

Precisely the sort of minor practical difficulties that are overlooked in pursuit of panic measures.

 

[Jonny]

In answer to the original question. Yes, NHS care should be declined to people who refuse the Vaccination. I and Millions of others, have done our part, followed the rules, and took the Vaccination. Ask yourselves, what good has it done us? Why should we suffer even longer with no answer as to a solution for these refusers, other than delay everyone else's lives. Beyond rediculous now. Thoroughly fed up.

Sadly, I believe there are too many people happy to live the foreseeable future, doing nothing. Why would you want stuff back to normal, if the most exciting thing you ever did was effectively nothing.

I do not see why I should take something with side effects just top get "back to normal". Also the enabling act used for pretty much all of the restrictions prohibits a requirement to be vaccinated. Even its continuation could be illegal. Surely the target should now be the government, otherwise we are being divided and conquered. I am also sick of having to avoid people because it would be a matter of when, not if, I blow my lid while the regs are in place, with someone ^calling me out^ as if they are superior to me, when their only claim to virtue is obedience (which is not a virtue).

Oh no, instead of blaming those responsible (Matt Hancock and his egotistic enablers Chris Whitty and Neil Fergusson) you choose to turn on other, ordinary people. Without Matt Hancock, there would have been no lockdown and almost none of the rules (at least for England). If you want the concept of an NHS then you have to respect the right to decline treatment without comeback otherwise you are setting a dangerous precedent. What next, forced plastic surgery or brain implants? (A bit facetious, sure, but you can see where the trajectory is going).

Edit: I hadn't seen

I just waded in. I also didn't expect anyone to agree. But we can't just keep delaying. Delaying it does not help people not taking the Vaccine, it just screws everything up for the rest of us, and it seems the majority are happy for this to carry on.

We can just reopen anyway, rather than me take some side effects those who have had the chance to take the vaccebo (*) oops I meant vaccine I think it's time that those who want a risk-free environment stay in their baseline situation (i.e. at home) if they do not want to get used to it. Some of us want a level of safety, but not one that is paralysing.

The only people responsible for this are (for England) Matt Hancock and Grant Shapps, whose signatures are on the orders (as well as their counterparts in the rest of the UK). If you have read the enabling act that they used, you will find that the rules prohibit a requirement to receive prophylactic treatment, including vaccination. I will be taking a continuation of the rules, maybe even past the next review point (Edit 2: possibly July, depending on others' pushback as well), as an unlawful requirement by the use of collective punishment.

* OK so I made the word up - vaccine + placebo for those who are worried about catching it.

Edit 3 :

This kind of issue has been covered in the Independent (link below) although it does go a bit further than just restricting NHS access:

This is what we do about anti-vaxxers: No job. No entry. No NHS access | The Independent

I couldn't get the whole article as I'm not signed up with them. From reading the comments it does appear that people aren't a fan of it so maybe there is hope for society.

I had read the article before (my ablocker slips round the paywall). I only just watched the video and to say that I had to calm myself down is almost an understatement, the arrogance of medical professionals who think that they have the right to dictate what to do. Then again, it was branded "Kimmel".

 

[35B]

I do not see why I should take something with side effects just top get "back to normal". Also the enabling act used for pretty much all of the restrictions prohibits a requirement to be vaccinated. Even its continuation could be illegal. Surely the target should now be the government, otherwise we are being divided and conquered. I am also sick of having to avoid people because it would be a matter of when, not if, I blow my lid while the regs are in place, with someone ^calling me out^ as if they are superior to me, when their only claim to virtue is obedience (which is not a virtue).

Oh no, instead of blaming those responsible (Matt Hancock and his egotistic enablers Chris Whitty and Neil Fergusson) you choose to turn on other, ordinary people. Without Matt Hancock, there would have been no lockdown and almost none of the rules (at least for England). If you want the concept of an NHS then you have to respect the right to decline treatment without comeback otherwise you are setting a dangerous precedent. What next, forced plastic surgery or brain implants? (A bit facetious, sure, but you can see where the trajectory is going).

Edit: I hadn't seen


We can just reopen anyway, rather than me take some side effects those who have had the chance to take the vaccebo (*) oops I meant vaccine I think it's time that those who want a risk-free environment stay in their baseline situation (i.e. at home) if they do not want to get used to it. Some of us want a level of safety, but not one that is paralysing.

The only people responsible for this are (for England) Matt Hancock and Grant Shapps, whose signatures are on the orders (as well as their counterparts in the rest of the UK). If you have read the enabling act that they used, you will find that the rules prohibit a requirement to receive prophylactic treatment, including vaccination. I will be taking a continuation of the rules, maybe even past the next review point (Edit 2: possibly July, depending on others' pushback as well), as an unlawful requirement by the use of collective punishment.

* OK so I made the word up - vaccine + placebo for those who are worried about catching it.

Edit 3 :


I had read the article before (my ablocker slips round the paywall). I only just watched the video and to say that I had to calm myself down is almost an understatement, the arrogance of medical professionals who think that they have the right to dictate what to do. Then again, it was branded "Kimmel".

So, cutting a long story short, you want the freedom to do as you will without the risk of some side effects, and do not care about the wider impact of Covid. I posted earlier that reasonable people could disagree, which I stand by; claiming that restrictions (whether or not you agree with them) are not based in a desire for health policy but are some kind of collective punishment is just bizarre.

 

[nedchester]

I do not see why I should take something with side effects just top get "back to normal". Also the enabling act used for pretty much all of the restrictions prohibits a requirement to be vaccinated. Even its continuation could be illegal. Surely the target should now be the government, otherwise we are being divided and conquered. I am also sick of having to avoid people because it would be a matter of when, not if, I blow my lid while the regs are in place, with someone ^calling me out^ as if they are superior to me, when their only claim to virtue is obedience (which is not a virtue).

Oh no, instead of blaming those responsible (Matt Hancock and his egotistic enablers Chris Whitty and Neil Fergusson) you choose to turn on other, ordinary people. Without Matt Hancock, there would have been no lockdown and almost none of the rules (at least for England). If you want the concept of an NHS then you have to respect the right to decline treatment without comeback otherwise you are setting a dangerous precedent. What next, forced plastic surgery or brain implants? (A bit facetious, sure, but you can see where the trajectory is going).

Edit: I hadn't seen


We can just reopen anyway, rather than me take some side effects those who have had the chance to take the vaccebo (*) oops I meant vaccine I think it's time that those who want a risk-free environment stay in their baseline situation (i.e. at home) if they do not want to get used to it. Some of us want a level of safety, but not one that is paralysing.

The only people responsible for this are (for England) Matt Hancock and Grant Shapps, whose signatures are on the orders (as well as their counterparts in the rest of the UK). If you have read the enabling act that they used, you will find that the rules prohibit a requirement to receive prophylactic treatment, including vaccination. I will be taking a continuation of the rules, maybe even past the next review point (Edit 2: possibly July, depending on others' pushback as well), as an unlawful requirement by the use of collective punishment.

* OK so I made the word up - vaccine + placebo for those who are worried about catching it.

Edit 3 :


I had read the article before (my ablocker slips round the paywall). I only just watched the video and to say that I had to calm myself down is almost an understatement, the arrogance of medical professionals who think that they have the right to dictate what to do. Then again, it was branded "Kimmel".

Some top tin-hattery there.

I assume you have never taken any medication ever because if you have I've got news for you......all medications have some side effects.

That said as I have said countless times here. If you choose not to have the vaccine that's your lookout and you should get treatment for any condition should you get ill (including Covid). It's just that the rest of us shouldn't be restricted as a result of people not having the vaccine.

 

[JamesRowden]

Maybe the middle ground is a 'vaccine refusal' tax (or a payment for being vaccinated).

 

[takno]

Maybe the middle ground is a 'vaccine refusal' tax (or a payment for being vaccinated).

If we're playing that game then I want some money back for not having had a single test, and not having bothered T&T in any way throughout their megabillion pound existence

 

[JamesRowden]

If we're playing that game then I want some money back for not having had a single test, and not having bothered T&T in any way throughout their megabillion pound existence

Did you not get a test or isolate when you had symptoms?

I can only see there being a potential justification for possible penalties with regards to not getting tested rather than rewards.

 

[Bantamzen]

If we're playing that game then I want some money back for not having had a single test, and not having bothered T&T in any way throughout their megabillion pound existence

I'll take that and a rebate for not having used the NHS at all for almost 3 decades....

 

[LOL The Irony]

If they refuse the vaccine, for no 'good' reason, then they should waive the rights for Hospital treatment, harsh ? yes, but fair to everyone who have the well being of everyone else in mind

In answer to the original question. Yes, NHS care should be declined to people who refuse the Vaccination. I and Millions of others, have done our part, followed the rules, and took the Vaccination. Ask yourselves, what good has it done us? Why should we suffer even longer with no answer as to a solution for these refusers, other than delay everyone else's lives. Beyond rediculous now. Thoroughly fed up.

Sadly, I believe there are too many people happy to live the foreseeable future, doing nothing. Why would you want stuff back to normal, if the most exciting thing you ever did was effectively nothing.

If this is the case, how about we start refusing foreigners treatment until they can prove their citizenship. I know, next we can start refusing unless they were born here. While we're at it, how about refusing anyone who doesn't pledge allegiance to Queen & Country? Yeah, that sounds good...

How about people like you get refused treatment instead? No, everyone who lives here should have a right to treatment and we shouldn't discriminate, because who will we discriminate against tomorrow?

 

[takno]

Did you not get a test or isolate when you had symptoms?

I can only there being a potential justification for possible penalties with regards to not getting tested rather than rewards.

I didn't get symptoms during any period when tests were available, and I took reasonable precautions to avoid being caught up in all the other T&T bureaucracy.

 

[JamesRowden]

I didn't get symptoms during any period when tests were available, and I took reasonable precautions to avoid being caught up in all the other T&T bureaucracy.

Therefore there was no need to provide you with a financial incentive to do something to help the country as a whole with respect to testing and track and trace.

It might be complicated to provide a financial incentive to use the Track and Trace app since there would probably need to be checks to make sure the recipients of the financial incentive were using the app properly.

 

[WestRiding]

If this is the case, how about we start refusing foreigners treatment until they can prove their citizenship.

Good idea. The least we could do is make sure they actually pay for their treatment. Because guess what, if I fall ill in Indonesia or Georgia for example, they make sure that I have the means to pay, because I don't pay into their system (if they even have one, I dont know, but I'm damn sure they dont do freebies for foreigners). Holiday/Travel insurance is adequate.

If we're playing that game then I want some money back for not having had a single test, and not having bothered T&T in any way throughout their megabillion pound existence

Can I have some money back too, because I didn't go out of my way to do T&T either, or get some free time off work because I had a sniffle.

 

[LAX54]

If this is the case, how about we start refusing foreigners treatment until they can prove their citizenship. I know, next we can start refusing unless they were born here. While we're at it, how about refusing anyone who doesn't pledge allegiance to Queen & Country? Yeah, that sounds good...

How about people like you get refused treatment instead? No, everyone who lives here should have a right to treatment and we shouldn't discriminate, because who will we discriminate against tomorrow?

I thought that is what is supposed to happen anyway ? Was there not a clamp down on Health Tourists ? If we go to another Country, we need have have insurance, and if we don't it can be very expensive !

 

[adc82140]

Good idea. The least we could do is make sure they actually pay for their treatment. Because guess what, if I fall ill in Indonesia or Georgia for example, they make sure that I have the means to pay, because I don't pay into their system (if they even have one, I dont know, but I'm damn sure they dont do freebies for foreigners). Holiday/Travel insurance is adequate.


Can I have some money back too, because I didn't go out of my way to do T&T either, or get some free time off work because I had a sniffle.

You obviously get your facts from the Daily Mail. In real hospital trusts there is a whole department dedicated to extracting money from so called "health tourists" or genuine travellers health insurance. The irony being that the tabloids don't like these departments either because they are "managers" and"pen pushers".

 

[WestRiding]

You obviously get your facts from the Daily Mail.

Yawn. And yes, we know there are specific departments that deal with this, which makes the original poster's comment to which I replied, sort of pointless.

 

[DustyBin]

I just waded in. I also didn't expect anyone to agree. But we can't just keep delaying. Delaying it does not help people not taking the Vaccine, it just screws everything up for the rest of us, and it seems the majority are happy for this to carry on.

I think some of the others have already made the point, but unvaccinated people aren't keeping us in lockdown, the government are. If anybody says "I don't want to be vaccinated and therefore restrictions should remain to keep me safe" then please shoot them down in flames. However, I'm not convinced that such an attitude is particularly prevalent.

 

[LOL The Irony]

Good idea. The least we could do is make sure they actually pay for their treatment. Because guess what, if I fall ill in Indonesia or Georgia for example, they make sure that I have the means to pay, because I don't pay into their system (if they even have one, I dont know, but I'm damn sure they dont do freebies for foreigners). Holiday/Travel insurance is adequate.

You're taking what I said out of context. I was talking about foreigners who are citizens of this country. I doubt most people here would disagree with tourists having to pay up.

I thought that is what is supposed to happen anyway ? Was there not a clamp down on Health Tourists ? If we go to another Country, we need have have insurance, and if we don't it can be very expensive !

Again, wasn't mentioning health tourism.

 

[bramling]

I think some of the others have already made the point, but unvaccinated people aren't keeping us in lockdown, the government are. If anybody says "I don't want to be vaccinated and therefore restrictions should remain to keep me safe" then please shoot them down in flames. However, I'm not convinced that such an attitude is particularly prevalent.

It isn’t. Most younger people who are hesitant on taking the vaccine want to get back to normal life, and indeed in most cases are already back to it as far as they possibly can given the restrictions.

As I posted elsewhere, I do know one (late 40s) who is anti-vax, and that seems quite clearly an attempt to prolong shielding. This is an outlier though, the guy already has quite a history with finding ways to be off work. And if it wasn’t this then it would be something else - “how do I know the vaccine is effective on me?” or “how do I know the vaccine won’t wear off over time?”, that sort of thing.