Double Vaccination Required To Attend Premier League Matches

Nope. It simply means that those who have been offered the vaccine and chosen not to assist the public health effort (when given a chance to do so - although they can of course change their minds (they haven't yet (missed the boat)) can therefore now expect some sanction. Whereas those who haven't been offered any choice at all should not be sanctioned despite the public health risk.

The best way to overcome the dilemma in that last sentence would be to extend the vaccine programme down to 12 y.os. immediately. Passed as safe by various regulators and already happening in Ireland. Then move on down to the over 5 y.os. There are a number of other vaccines that are administered to infants in their first year of life.

 

There are two possible public health justifcations which might be argued: 1. Reducing virus spread and 2. what you call 'sanctioning' non-vaxxers.

If you are allowing unvaccinated under 18s in, then the virus spread wll be reduced but not as far it would be if they were excluded. So 1 is not as stong an argument as it would otherwise be. However, 2. still applies, but would remain subject to a test of proportionality.

I don't want to rehearse old ground but the argument that people should be 'sanctioned' for bneing unvaccinated is precieely what @Lloyd objects to given that there is supposed to be a choice whether to be vaccinated or not.

 

That's a very valid argument, and maybe they should but, I suspect, they want to ensure everyone affected by the rule at least has the opportunity to have both jabs by the time it's proposed to apply. It may take until well into next year to vaccinate all under-18s and so, faced with the choice between proposing this idea to start in October or in, say, March 2022, they've imposed an arbitrary – but understandable – age cut-off. This is in precisely the same way that all sorts of other laws apply in arbitrary ways. Age of consent, driving age, drinking age etc. All just things that have been chosen by the Government of the time.

Anyway, I completely understand why anyone would look at this invasion into our lives and wonder what precedent it is setting but, again, this is not Ground Zero for this sort of stuff. We've been on this path for a while now so perhaps the point at which to object was earlier on, but I accept that they maybe weren't the sorts of invasions that bothered people as much.

Why not write to your MP? If enough people do that perhaps something will change. This is a populist Government after all. However, with an 80-seat majority, the Government has a mandate to introduce all sorts of things more or less unopposed, so I guess, like a lot of other things, it's a case of suck it up, buttercup. That seems to be how they think.

 

No

Nor should Covidiots who think they can out think scientists

 

Those that refuse the vaccine should be made to go watch LTFC!

When did all this personal choice thing come from? When i were lad you were rounded up at school sent down to matron to be vaxxed with a proper old school syringe.. the scars of which can still be seen 50 years later! No one objected from what i remember.. and we carried that on into adult life.
Of course you should always have the choice but you cant really moan when you find out you cant participate in certain things. These are extraordinary times.

 

Pragmatics ve legal ethics and freedoms eh? Those of us who are in favour of this measure are in favour of pragmatics trumping previous ethics in the face of a 102 year global health threat. And listen to reasoned argument from bona-fide scientists (virologists, epidemiologists, vaccine developers and their regulators) as opposed to the quackery and mumbo-jumbo to be found on the internet promoted by an agenda to confuse the numpties amongst us who would appear to be incapable of rational thought and sorting the wheat from the chaff. They therefore resort to pejorative terms like "cobbled together", apartheid", the "Stasi" and "slippery slope" without saying anything of real worth at all.

You however argue legal ethics on the head of a pin which, admittedly, has more worth than crying 'conspiracy'. But it does strike me that the legal profession has a vested interest in doing this sort of stuff and keeping it going (I note that UEA (on the other side of the argument)) has weighed in with an alternative view precedent. So, has this behaviour got anything to do with keeping it going at x£100 quid an hour in your professional capacity? Does that behaviour die hard in your commendable pro-bono work on these channels?

Maybe I read too much John Grisham.

 

Or UK Column News is very good.

 

I'm not a practising lawyer.

And I'm not really on the other side of the argument. As a pragmatic measure, it makes sense.

However, I don't think we should simply ignore important ethical and political principles like freedom of choice and indivdual autonomy just because we think the collective argument is stronger. They are worth debating and discussing even if we choose to override them in this instance. It's important not to lose sight of those principles not least because we might need them some time in the future.

 

I mentioned this above. I'm not clear whether parents gave consent for that or not. I presume so...

 

The BCG? Surely parental consent must have been required.

 

Well, I presume it must have been, yes. My parents are long gone so no way to check.

 

Same here. But just googled it. Great having the British Library in your sky rocket! A development which 'young people' don't sometimes fully appreciate.

Anyway, it's now offered in the first year of life (or even at birth). Parental consultation and consent is integral to the process.

 

Dear old Dad paid £50 to a tout to get us both in to Wembley in 84. Those were the days...

 

Yes, i am sure that is the case now. Consent is a much clearer cut legal-ethical principle these days.

 

Ha. I must be a bit older. Went to every game in 66 with my dad. Getting to the first five was easy but he was told that he couldn't get tickets for the final quite early on. So at some point (just before the semi-final v Portugal I think) he wrote a 'stinker' to the FA suggesting that it was a disgrace that corporate nonsense and officialdom would trump him and his son as bona-fide England supporters who had attended every match. Hey-ho, with a couple of days to go, two final tickets dropped on the doormat. I was 12 against Uruguay and 13 v Germany.

My dad was never particularly stroppy (a trait I haven't inherited) but could string a few words together when needs must.

 

At the risk of flogging a dead horse here and noting that there are pushing 9000 posts on the main Covid thread (which I'm not gonna wade through being a new arrival) I'll apologise for almost certain duplication in advance.

A comparison between the flu jab and the covid one has been alluded to here. It's a fair question to ask re. 'sanctions' imposed.

The flu jab in this country is offered to over 50s + those below that age who are particularly clinically vulnerable. It's quite hard on Google to ascertain what that particular number might be but the best I can do is to put it at around 25-26 million. One jab only, each Autumn/early winter required. Uptake would seem to be similar to covid.

So a programme requiring somewhat around a quarter of covid jabs then. But administered over a three month period or thereabouts.

Personally, I've always jumped at the chance in September and, along with various other jabs when on my travels, would look like a pin-cushion. B.B. King. Check it out. And I've never, knowingly, had the flu despite Otter's four brushes with it. Never, ever, been laid low like that. However, I've had loads of 'common colds' running at around two per winter if memory serves correct. But absolutely none last winter. Masks and a bit of distance eh?

Anyway, back to the point. Would it be a good thing to ramp up the flu vaccine to the entire population and should 'sanctions' be delivered upon deniers.

On the second point absolutely not. I really wouldn't want to be accused of 'sliding down a slippery slope'. But would it be of public health benefit? Absolutely. Thing is here though that a 26m vaccine programme is 'traditional' and fully funded whereas increasing flu jabs x 2.5 (one dose only remember) isn't (as yet).

Three other things to remember here. Small Pox has been entirely kicked into touch (outside laboratories) and leprosy is getting close. That will be due to 'herd immunity' then so it is achievable. And measles would have been gone here too if it wasn't down to a quackery pseudo-scientist who preached to numpties and continues to give it large to the even bigger community of numpties in the US.

Let's get collective and boot as many of these tiny things right out of the stadium eh?

 

From your contributions so far, that's clearly another of your father's traits that you didn't inherit!

 

Really. Let others be the judge of that eh? You're either being ironic or pathetic. I've really no idea. Beats me! What is very clear to me though is that you certainly don't have that trait and are just a wind-up artiste with nothing of consequence at all to say. You simply indulge in snide remarks which is the mark of limited intellectual capacity.

It's also very clear to me is that you hide around on here as a little keyboard warrior and wouldn't ever begin to have the bottle face to face.

 

Looks like we've got a feisty one here! Shall I throw him back?!

 

Longevity doesn't confer advantage here. You're simply a ****** pal.

 

Well. It's for you to guess.

 

I think you are a long lost friend of the forum, including, but not exclusively, the Politics sub-forum, who has gone under a couple of previous geographically-based monikers.

Either that or his twin brother.

 

Of course! It's that tedious old drunk who appears every now and again, makes an arse of himself and gets chucked out! What did he used to call himself? I can't remember. I'll put him on hold until the social services take him in again

 

Anything substantive? It would appear not. Whatever. I'm fairly obviously more valued than you. GT corner. 30 mins before the Villa. Wadda you say? I'm fairly distinctive.

 

Care to expand?

 

Hang on…

As much as I wouldn’t want to sit next to vaccine conspiracy theorists at the Villa game, I doubt anyone wants to watch you offering out fights either…suggesting we keep people out of the stadium for not taking a vaccine but letting in violent idiots is a bit of a double standard!

You’ve put across some decent debate. Don’t ruin it by going back to your old habits.

 

I have, hopefully, put across some decent debate. Thank you. I welcome others responding to it in kind and by all means put across an alternative viewpoint with which I can argue. However, when some insignificant gob***** rattles my cage with a minimalist, wind-up contribution, then I'm liable to respond in kind. Directly. Maybe I should ignore it. But leopards and spots and all that.

A lot has been said recently around social media and the problems derived from anonymity. I don't do anonymity.

 

I think others should have a crack at working out your identity. Suspect a consensus may rapidly be emerging.

 

Pitiful

 

Come on now…we all know he’s Highgrade’s 214 year old grandad.

 

Really? You see the thing is whatever I say on here I'd say to someone's face. I don't reckon you could say the same because your persona seems to be riddled with niggles and put-downs which you know would earn you a slap in real life. So you need to hide behind the anonymity of social media whereas I don't.

 

In all seriousness, there’s some decent, and on topic, debate going on here. Let’s not derail it folks….

 

Who are you calling folks, pal?

 

You wan’ sum? Cos I’ll give it ya.