Have you thought/realised?

In my mind civil liberties have been eroded because we have restricted people based on the assumption that they might be guilty (covid carrier).

I am in agreement with all the civil liberties that we have lost due to the circumstances but to introduce restrictive laws on an individual based on what they MIGHT do (transmit) is a debatable point.

Wearing a mask on public transport does not erode liberty as you can still achieve your goal, same as seat belts and not carrying a large knife, it does not prevent you from 'carrying on'. Preventing you from seeing family on the other hand because of something you might do is a very different matter.

I think it is wise if I repeat that I am in favour of present restrictions due to circumstances.
 
campervanannie said:
Surely those you have used as an example in your post will have adequate insurance that covers medical expenses unfortunately the people who may get discriminated against are the obese and smokers to name a couple and I’m not sure you can get fat insurance but I do believe the Tobacco/cigarette and companies that advertised them maybe should be putting money into the NHS to cover costs.
Click to expand...
'witzend' was proposing discrimination for emergency treatment, no obese person or smoker is denied emergency treatment.
 
I just love to read the posts here on my tablet.
tablets.png
 
I’m sitting here with my iPad Trev. What happened to the solidarity between Ulstermen against the rest of the world. ?

Davy
 
witzend said:
What I proposed is that if 2 people both need the last ventilator in the hospital the one which refused the Vaccine should come 2nd
Click to expand...
How about if the antivaccer is a otherwise fit and healthy person, whilst the one who had vaccination is obese and/or diabetic due to lifestyle choices? Suddenly making descrimatory choices become very complicated.
 
witzend said:
What I proposed is that if 2 people both need the last ventilator in the hospital the one which refused the Vaccine should come 2nd
Click to expand...

A horrible position to be in and a horrible decision to make.

I wouldn't want to live with my conscience either way.

Tossing a coin might seem trite, but that would at least be in the hands of fate, rather than a decision based on dubious discrimination.
 
mariesnowgoose said:
A horrible position to be in and a horrible decision to make.

I wouldn't want to live with my conscience either way.

Tossing a coin might seem trite, but that would at least be in the hands of fate, rather than a decision based on dubious discrimination.
Click to expand...
I think frontline workers have had to make these sort of decisions for a long time and long before a pandemic on things like if there are more than one match who gets the heart transplant, who gets the liver .
 
Farman said:
If they have had the vaccine and it is efficient, then why would they be needing the ventilator in the first place?
Click to expand...
The vaccine is not 100% guarantee that you will not get CV-19, or indeed die from CV-19, the first known death of someone from CV-19 who had the vaccine was in December.
 
colinm said:
The vaccine is not 100% guarantee that you will not get CV-19, or indeed die from CV-19, the first known death of someone from CV-19 who had the vaccine was in December.
Click to expand...
I know that it has no guarantee. That is where choice comes into it. One person chooses to take the risk that the vaccine might work. One person might take the risk that it won't work.
Neither person being worse than the other. Both just making a choice.
 
Farman said:
I know that it has no guarantee. That is where choice comes into it. One person chooses to take the risk that the vaccine might work. One person might take the risk that it won't work.
Neither person being worse than the other. Both just making a choice.
Click to expand...

The trouble is, choosing to not take it, because it might not work, will impact other people and the resources of the NHS if you do catch CV.
 
mariesnowgoose said:
A horrible position to be in and a horrible decision to make. I wouldn't want to live with my conscience either way.
Tossing a coin might seem trite, but that would at least be in the hands of fate, rather than a decision based on dubious discrimination.
Click to expand...
But Doctors Do have to make that decision and have to base it on contributing factors like did he do all he could to avoid being here
 
st3v3 said:
The trouble is, choosing to not take it, because it might not work, will impact other people and the resources of the NHS if you do catch CV.
Click to expand...
So the person that has chosen the vaccine and now needs the ventilator has no impact?
 
Farman said:
So the person that has chosen the vaccine and now needs the ventilator has no impact?
Click to expand...

No impact that they could have chosen to avoid, no. I.e. they made choices to do all they could to not end up in ICU.
 
st3v3 said:
No impact that they could have chosen to avoid, no.
Click to expand...
Not everyone that makes the choice not to have the vaccine will have an impact because most will not end up in hospital. Just as those that have chosen to take the vaccine will not all end up outwith the hospital.
No guarantees. Therefore choices should still be respected while we still have a few left.
However if it was guaranteed the vaccine will fix the problem, then that would make this a totally different discussion..
It would be selfish, uncaring and not very sensible to refuse.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top