Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

I think all of us in the UK agree!


The Silver Shroud
 Share

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

People have already paid for NHS care in advance

Which is based on the assumption you take the treatment that is offered.

I have the same position on alcoholics receiving liver transplants when they've made no effort to change their lifestyle. Or smokers getting lung transplants etc.

Quote

But if you're fully vaccinated why would you worry about those who aren't? You won't be able to catch covid . . . . right? And people who have been vaccinated can still be carriers too

Because not everyone can get the vaccine.

Quote

Drunk drivers? Heavy smokers? How about having the same stiff penalties for them?

We already do. 14 years in prison if you kill someone while driving drunk, 3 months just for being drunk behind the wheel.

So you'd suggest 3 months in prison for anyone turning down the vaccine?

Seems more Draconian than my suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

It's just that so far this week everything he has posted has made me laugh hard.

I for one, have seen the light and now support Ted's proposal.

In fact, I'm going to set an example by starting it tommorow :innocent:

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, ouija ouija said:

You do realise that simply by following the current precautions(masks, isolation, washing hands etc), those who do not have the vaccination will not be passing the virus on to anybody?

None of those measures are 100%.

They are mitigations, not preventions. So they will still be infecting others and killing those who can't have the vaccine and those for whom the vaccine didn't work.

None of the vaccines are 100% effective.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

While we are on the topic of denying people healthcare because of their personal choices, maybe we should deny chain smokers, alcoholics, and drug addicts from receiving organ donations?

Yep, all on board with those too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Setton said:

Yep, all on board with those too.

Do you want to add denying  life saving treatment for those with Obesity and Type 2 diabetes to the list as well? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Setton said:

None of those measures are 100%.

They are mitigations, not preventions. So they will still be infecting others and killing those who can't have the vaccine and those for whom the vaccine didn't work.

None of the vaccines are 100% effective.

That has already been in the news that people who were vaccinated have gotten the virus.   Even if you are vaccinated you still need to practice social distancing, wear a mask and wash your hands often.   Later when you no longer feel the need to social distance and wear a mask you should still be washing your hands often.

Edited by Desertrat56
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Setton said:

None of the vaccines are 100% effective.

In that case the harm a person here or there refusing the vaccine is creating is very negligible.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moved to the jokes and humor section?  Seems like a couple of people here are not joking when agreeing with the OP.  

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Do you want to add denying  life saving treatment for those with Obesity and Type 2 diabetes to the list as well? 

If that's the result of lifestyle choices and they've made no effort to follow the medical advice they've been given, then yes.

Again, not denying, but they'll have to get it privately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

In that case the harm a person here or there refusing the vaccine is creating is very negligible.

I'm sure that'll be great comfort the 'negligible' people they kill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Setton said:

If that's the result of lifestyle choices and they've made no effort to follow the medical advice they've been given, then yes.

Again, not denying, but they'll have to get it privately.

So you want to take other people's money to pay for your healthcare but deny them that same healthcare, because you don't like their life choices :huh:.

That seems fair to you?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Setton said:

I'm sure that'll be great comfort the 'negligible' people they kill.

How many people have died from blood clots caused by one of the vaccines?   I don't remember, just a few hundred I think.  No biggie. 

Also the odds are they won't die if they do get covid.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

So you want to take other people's money to pay for your healthcare but deny them that same healthcare, because you don't like their life choices :huh:.

That seems fair to you?

If we are denying people who refuse vaccines, addicts, smokers, alcoholics, obese people, and those with type 2 diabetes healthcare than I guess we should add criminals too. 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, spartan max2 said:

So you want to take other people's money to pay for your healthcare but deny them that same healthcare, because you don't like their life choices :huh:.

That seems fair to you?

Nope, it's about the medical impact of their choices, not my personal opinion. The amount we pay for healthcare is based on the assumption that we take up that healthcare.

If they choose not to use the service they've paid for, why should I pay for them to have another more expensive one? And why should someone else who, not through their own fault, needs that treatment miss out?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

How many people have died from blood clots caused by the vaccine?   I don't remember, just a few hundred I think.  No biggie.

0.

There have been 37 blood clots among the 17,000,000 people who received the AZ vaccine, most of whom are fully recovered.

That is less than expected in the general population and every regulatory body has concluded those clots were not caused by the vaccine.

Would you like to try again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Setton said:

Nope, it's about the medical impact of their choices, not my personal opinion. The amount we pay for healthcare is based on the assumption that we take up that healthcare.

If they choose not to use the service they've paid for, why should I pay for them to have another more expensive one? And why should someone else who, not through their own fault, needs that treatment miss out?

If a universal healthcare system where everyone has to pay into it. It seems like a slippery slope and unethical to start deciding who is and isn't deserving of the service. 

Sometimes people don't take their heart medicine as often as recommended. Should they be denied service in the event of a heart attack?People don't always agree with their doctors due to side effects of medications and such. 

A young kid trys some party drugs and accidentally takes too much. Are we going to deny him the emergency room services?

If we are going off medical impact than smokers, addicts, alcoholics, fat people, type 2 diabetes, criminals, etc. All make decisions that harm themselves and often others. 

Plus it's impossible to define the line. For example if someone drinks occasionally and then has health problems are they treated the same as an alcoholic. How do you prove one or the other without stigmatizing people away from getting mental health treatment.

If someone is an alcoholic, what if they also have depression and other mental illnesses. Do they get a pass for their choices?

As with addiction, type 2 diabetes is also a mix of choice and genetic risk factors. Are we going to somehow divy out the difference between the two when providing treatment.

Someone goes to jail for murder. Are they deserving of medical care? They aren't even paying taxes anymore. What about someone for assault, robbery, vandalism, buying or selling drugs?

Just seems like a bad way to look at things and a bad road to go down. 

 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Plus it's impossible to define the line.

Accident/mistake = NHS

Deliberate choice = private

Huh. Not that hard after all.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, spartan max2 said:

While we are on the topic of denying people healthcare because of their personal choices, maybe we should deny chain smokers, alcoholics, and drug addicts from receiving organ donations?

all already happens to an extent - it would be very difficult for an active chain smoker to get a lung transplant: from NHS guidance 

'You may also be considered unsuitable if:

you have not complied with previous advice or been reliable – for example, if you have not given up smoking, you have a poor history of taking prescribed medicine, or you have missed hospital appointments'

I wouldn't hold out much hope for an alcoholic who is still drinking getting a liver transplant either. 

Organs are scare - judgement calls are made and lifestyle is part of that. 

Edited by RAyMO
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Desertrat56 said:

What about people who have an illness or condition that would cause them danger if they got the vaccine.  There are people like that.  

There are exceptions to every rule 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ouija ouija said:

And what insight did you gain second time around?

Basic stuff.  That age-old optical illusions still apply. That, including me, a lot of people didn't read the OP closely the first time.

Concerning what you guys are talking about instead, no people shouldn't be forced to be vaccinated but if they don't then maybe they should be forced to stay home.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, Setton said:

Accident/mistake = NHS

Deliberate choice = private

Huh. Not that hard after all.

Ideas on paper are much more complicated when implemented in real life. 

The devil's in the details and all that.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

all already happens to an extent - it would be very difficult for an active chain smoker to get a lung transplant: from NHS guidance 

'You may also be considered unsuitable if:

you have not complied with previous advice or been reliable – for example, if you have not given up smoking, you have a poor history of taking prescribed medicine, or you have missed hospital appointments'

I wouldn't hold out much hope for an alcoholic who is still drinking getting a liver transplant either. 

Organs are scare - judgement calls are made and lifestyle is part of that. 

That's a fair point.

I was just making the point that catagorizing people as deserving and undeserving is a slippery slope with universal healthcare. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

That's a fair point.

I was just making the point that catagorizing people as deserving and undeserving is a slippery slope with universal healthcare. 

I actually agree, my point was made sort of tongue in cheek. I can't really see the NHS stopping a patient on a trolley and asking for a vaccination card. 

But  on the other hand if resources are limited who gets treated may come down to a lifestyle choice. 

But truly if such decisions ever became necessary I'd probably support treating the youngest first - all else being equal. 

Edited by RAyMO
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Basic stuff.  That age-old optical illusions still apply. That, including me, a lot of people didn't read the OP closely the first time.

 

 

OMG! I read the OP twice when I first came to the thread, again when I read your first post and twice again after reading this ^ ^ post . . . . then I saw it!!!! :w00t: Never mind, it's been a good discussion!

  • Like 3
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

But  on the other hand if resources are limited who gets treated may come down to a lifestyle choice. 

If resources are severely limited it does open up alot of shades of grey.

As we have seen with the vaccine rollouts, having to decide who gets it when.

But even during all of Covid no one started denying smokers and such from the hospital. Alot of the pre-existing conditions that increase risk are largely influenced by lifestyle choices.

And with the vaccines we all based it on the  highest risk.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.