Double Vaccination Required To Attend Premier League Matches

I don't really want to incentivise either but I don't see why it is necessarily a worse thing than constraining.

See above for the Aussies https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07...-backs-covid-vaccine-promotion-beer/100280146

(Somewhat tongue in cheek, admittedly).

 

Start of a slippery slope

 

I think it should either be mandatory or should be a fully free choice (a fully informed free choice). Saying it is a free choice but then saying 'actually you can choose what you want but if you make a certain choice we won't let you do certain things' strikes me as at best inconsistent and at worst hypocritical, especially if those conditions weren't clear from the start. Yes "they can still choose to get it if they wish" but in effect they are being pushed into making a certain choice which is against their preferences if they want to do those other things - and I don't think that is a genuine free choice.

 

I understand that argument, but you originally seemed to be saying that the *change* in policy was unfair on those who had already made a choice not to get the vaccine, which didn't make sense.

Anyway, I think that is a reasonable point, just not one I agree with, for reasons I;ve already gone into.

 

I know what would incentivise me to get the jab.
WFC telling me I would not have to use my phone to get in to games and still use my season card that has worked for years.

 

But doesn't it - at the very least - "encourage" them to make a different decision from the one which they have already made, which presumably reflected their preferences and exercise of free choice?

Of course, you can argue that preferences and choices change over time but they are only changing in this case because the government proposes to constrain other things that they wish to do. Is that really still free choice? It's that juxtaposition of the rhetoric of free choice and the potential for constraints on their other life choices which I find troubilng.

It may well be justifiable from a public health perspective (@Lloyd won't like that!) but it's certainly not ethcally (or politically) straightforward, imo.

Anyway, this debate has given me lots of ideas for my first Medical Law class in October. Cheers, guys!

 

Your freedom to choose to swing your fist ends where the other person's jaw begins (oldie but goodie). As all know, the problem is that we can't confine either the virus spreading or incubating solely to ourselves. We also know that even double jabs are not completely effective. That doesn't mean that people should be compelled to get a jab, but it's perfectly reasonable for restrictions to be put in place. The last thing the Football League wants is a situation like happened in Italy at the beginning of the pandemic - where a football match became a superspreader event that ultimately resulted in many, many deaths. Aside from the real human cost, that is terrible for business.

Concerns about slippery slopes, compelling people to do things, enforcement, what's next etc., are classic whataboutism. Whataboutism like this serves to change the subject and stoke fears, avoiding the topic at hand (how to best keep thousands of people packed in tightly who are singing and shouting their heads off to keep from passing viruses to one another). The best whataboutism starts with a simple true fact, and then spins a narrative around it that creates anxiety, resulting in inaction and in some cases division.

It's unfortunate that this virus isn't yet under control. It's hard to know when it will be. This policy is just one of an ongoing series of inconveniences that we're still going to have to live with for a while. People don't have to like any of them. But this one is wise and will reduce future spreading and likely save some number of lives.

 

That's a sensible post but i disagree that it is whataboutism. The autonomy of the individual is at the heart of liberal Western democracy and can't simply be glibly dismissed, as many MPs would currently argue.

 

I would say they should look at the actual statistics and reconsider because they are wrong.

 

But they have now been told and can reconsider. Not being vaccinated isn't an addiction like smoking (which the government will pay you to try and kick) it's a choice. Don't forget there awas a time when the risks of smokign were not know ans well. The argument and consequences to base the choice on has changed, so can the choice.

Regardless the more people that are not vaccinated, the higher the chance of further mutuations, which could produce a more transmissible, more deadly or vaccine resistant strain. It's in everyone's interest to see the maximum number of people vaccinated and if preventing them doing the things they want to do like go to the football will help get the jabs done then good!

 

What politicians say and do is certainly a real issue. That doesn't mean that those things should stand in the way of what the right thing to do might be in a particular case. Government officials overreaching has been the case since we lived in caves and hunted mammoths with spears. However, there have always been limits to the freedom of individuals that are imposed by the group., no matter what the form of government. Even the most liberal hippies living in communes in the 60s had limits and rules. The greater the threat to the group, the more justified the placing of those limits. The battle to fight I think, is getting clear understanding of the gravity of the particular threat, and holding officials accountable for an appropriate response. IMO, this threat is very grave, and this is ruling, imposed not by the Government, but by a business entity.

 

But you can change your original choice based on the new restrictions. It's still in your power.

 

That's not entrely true, is it? This is beng led by the government, even if it is operationalised by other entities. If government wasn't pushing this it wouldn't happen.

To be clear, I am not against limits but I think it is problematic then to simultaneously talk of free choice.

 

But is that a "free" choice? You're changing your preference because your other life choices are now being constrained.

Anyway, we are going aorund in circles. There are good reasons for the policy but I think it is ethically and politically problematic.

 

People have different reasons for refusing the vaccine. Conspiracy theories are a part, but needlephobia is also quite common. The latter can be genuinely distressing, but may be overcome with talking therapies.

However, there is further hope for that group with the news that an inhaled vaccine is being trialled, so far with success.

It would be interesting to know whether those who believe it’s all a big conspiracy would maintain that belief without the vehicle for the chip. But then that’s not rational and so maybe they’ll just believe you can inhale it.

http://www.pharmatimes.com/news/ear...d-19_vaccine_triggers_immune_response_1373749

 

Well not by me. I fully recognise that young people have generally suffered more than most during this pandemic (other than actually dying) and have generally 'played a blinder'. So just bring it on home across the finishing line then.

 

Can I have 6 pints and drive if I DO have my seatbelt on?

 

Only if you're texting at the same time.

 

Last time I checked, there was no constitutional right to infect others so I'm not overly concerned.

Honestly, I struggle to care much about those so selfish that they'll happily put the lives of others at risk in the name of their nonsense pseudoscience. It's fine to risk your own life, but the moment you start putting the lives of others at risk it is a whole different situation.

 

Should we ban young people from pubs and football matches if they haven’t had the flu jab?

 

An absolute joke if this does end up happening, start of a very very slippery slope indeed but not surprising in the slightest

 

They're not generally offered the flu jab.

 

Reminder than Covid isn’t the flu.

You can have Covid longer than having the flu.
The flu isn’t as transmissible as Covid.
You aren’t asymptomatic with the flu. If you get the flu, you won’t be going to the pub to infect others. If you get Covid, you could very well still go to the pub and infect others.

 

This has been said over and over for 18 months. You'll never get through to them. You can't do anything about the stupid.

Thankfully we might have a whole bunch less of them in my area at the ground next season. Can't wait.

 

I was thinking about this, in my life I reckon I've have the flu about 4 times, i.e. I felt like I'd been knocked for 6 for a couple of days. However I wonder whether it is possible to have the flu but it either manifests itself as a mild cold or even next to nothing on the odd occasion. Any resident virologists care to comment?

Your point stands though, Covid and flu are not the same, they are both respiratory viruses and the similarity ends there.

 

Presumably no-one under the age of 18 will be allowed to enter Premier League grounds once the vaccine apartheid has begun

 

Under-18s to be exempt if the plan proposed goes ahead.

 

And hopefully pubs too. Will make a pint much more pleasurable.

 

Ah, so they can't spread Covid then. I see.

 

I think you know that allowances will be made in certain circumstances (age, pregnancy, verified medical exemption etc). It’s not just going to be a blanket ban on people who haven’t been vaccinated.

But as I say, I think you know this and are just wilfully ignoring it no?

 

Ahh - i get it - you don't have a clue so you talk *****

I thought you were provoking to get a response but i can now see you for what you are!

 

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/covid-vaccines-and-a-million-coincidental-reactions/

 

That's odd. Can children not spread the virus? If they can't why are so many being forced to miss education because they're self isolating? It's all a bit odd, don't you think?

 

Interesting from a legal perspective - seems to undercut the public health rationale which makes the proportionality of the measure more questionable.

 

Certainly not as odd as the thousands who march in London every weekend claiming Covid is caused by 5G and that NHS nurses should be hung.

If those with genuine concerns over the vaccine could seperate their argument from the lunatics, then they might find more of their argument cutting through I suspect.