Double Vaccination Required To Attend Premier League Matches

I am not particularly concerned about the vaccine. I've had both jabs. But I can fully understand why others - particularly the young and healthy - might be disinclined to have it. What I am extremely concerned about is the way those that choose not to take it are being demonised and having their freedoms restricted because of their view.
Anyway, do you think Covid-spreading kids should be allowed into grounds?

 

I don't believe we will ever eliminate the risk of Covid in the near future. So the best things we can do are to take preventative action and measures. I believe there is always a risk that Covid gets into areas where strict measures are placed to keep it out. But I still want those preventative measures in place.

So in light of the above, I think if the guidelines state that U18's are not to have the vaccine yet, I would say that anyone who isn't legally an adult should be allowed into the ground unvaccinated and we take a level of trust that their parents/guardians have done their best to keep them safe from infection.

I personally wouldn't go as far as saying that anyone unvaccinated under the age of 18 has to be accompanied by a fully-vaccinated adult - but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if that were a restriction put in place either.

 

WFC's Ts & Cs state that under 14s need to be accompanied by an adult.

 

Looks like it could be extended to uni students:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58009677

Big issue there for the significant numbers of international students in UK universities. Not sure it is workable for that reason alone.

 

Might I suggest they search somewhere like full fact.org or official government sites to get statistics rather than than a counter culture fanzine.

 

As I said the other day, I would disagree with that as education is a right whereas going to a stadium or nightclub isn't.

However for years in Australia children can be denied state school places without having had a measles vaccine.

 

If it's a condition of study then we also have a responsibility to offer them the jab.

 

Well sure. But in 'normal' times, I'd be happy to let a 16-17yr old child of mine go unattended if their level of maturity is up to scratch. I wouldn't be letting them go unattended any younger than 16 irrespective of their maturity level.

 

Well, going to a football match or a festival is part of your 'right to a private life' even if not a right in itself. Education is more clear-cut though.

I think the real problem is practical. There were nearly half a million overseas students in UK universities in 2019. Many will be from countries which won't be as far forward with the vaccine programme as us.

 

i agree in principle, but how? There's supposed to be an 8 week gap between jabs. If an unvaccinated student arrives in September they won't be fully jabbed until November, two months into their studies.

Universities also don't have the resources to do this. It would have to be via the NHS.

Added to which, the government has so far been quite unwilling to accept foreign vaccinations as sufficient.

 

Yep. I'd say both jabs as soon as is practically possible 1st within a week or so of arriving and regular testing between. Even 1 jab offers some protection. They will be subject to the rules regarding entering the country anyway.

 

Wasn't it announced yesterday that from Aug 2nd, they would accept travellers with vaccines recognised by the EMA and US?

I accept that does not eliminate the question of unvaccinated foreign students though. Or those from outside the EU/US.

 

Yes, it was, so that suggests a greater degree of leniency is evolving.

 

Why would a website like that even come into your orbit? Was it the 'Hundred Years Of Hitler' article?

 

Unless you want to watch Burnley vs Norwich. The Stasi wont let you in.

 

I don't disagree but it would look a bit odd if the gap between jabs for this section of the population is much less than that for everyone else.

 

Strictly speaking that’s not Counter Culture. Counter Culture usually rejects the norms and embraces alternative ways of living, non-nuclear families, anti-consumerism etc etc.

This form of conservatism is more of a hypernormalism that raises those norms, religion, nuclear family, capitalist work ethic etc to absolutes and is irrational in response to evidence. Vaccines interfere with the worship of capitalist liberties. Are therefore wrong.

Or in other words, nutcases.

Carry on.

 

I don't disagree with your point but in order to introduce this policy there has to be some sort of criteria. They've chosen to propose a certain age (18) and a certain type of event (attendance over 20,000). You could equally ask: "Does Covid not spread among crowds of 19,999?"

Presumably as they think all over-18s will have had the opportunity to get the vaccine by October they've decided the policy is fair. Otherwise it's just up to what people reckon, which is clearly a worse policy because some people (not you) reckon some absolute nonsense.

I don't disagree with your wider point about the Government proposing to impose a rule like this either. Elements of it are astonishing. If you'd said to me 10 or even six years ago we'd be here I'd never have believed you. But I suppose when you look at the direction of travel, politically speaking, over the past decade it's not all that surprising. As I said before, the maxim 'never waste a good crisis' applies here. (While we're debating this, they're trying to push through some pretty jawdropping legislation regarding GP data which has far broader implications than insisting people be vaccinated to mix in big crowds).

 

Do you mean they should just rely on state-approved outlets for their information?

 

The more I learn about Hitler the harder I find it to like the bloke

 

I'd say that is counter culture today

 

Is that because he was a vegetarian?

 

Why? If children are capable of transmitting the virus as we have been told, surely unvaccinated youngsters should be denied entry?

 

Yes they should. The less stupid kids running around not remotely interested in the game the better.

 

Stick all the non vaccinated in the VR end with no beer in that ridiculously tight concourse and harry the hornet drumming away out of tune for 90 minutes.

 

FTFY

 

Then I would say you are utterly wrong.

A key feature of Counter Culture is its lack of billions of pounds and dollars of funding for its views in the form of think tanks, funded representatives and MPs, Fox News type channels or Twitter bots.

This bizarre notion you have that your views are repressed within the mainstream is not supportable. There are hundreds of dreary paid for hacks like Lawrence Fox or Katie Hopkins pushing this whiffy version of libertarianism every day. It is a false and corporately created contrarian view, not a counter culture.

 

Firstly, of course Covid and the flu aren't the same, and I wasn't saying that they were, but I understand why you feel the need to clarify the difference. It is worth clarifying that people can spread flu before they are symptomatic, hence why it spreads so far every year, so many die and the majority catch it on their commute or at their workplace.

I was instead taking more of a philosophical view, and logic testing the argument: that those who turned down vaccines that could save thousands of lives are selfish and/ or not worth caring about:

Just looking at flu, it has, and will likely cause, a huge number of deaths long term. The jab is offered to tens of millions each year, many of whom turn it down, due to the side effects and the minimal risk to themselves. A number of vaccine-rejecters later catch and spread flu, which later kills thousands, or tens of thousands, of elderly or clinically vulnerable individuals.

If you take the view that it is the responsibility (or obligation) of individuals to make very small contributions to avoid large collective harms (such as saving as many lives as possible), are people selfish or not worth thinking about, or should they be banned from public places, if they don't get the flu vaccine when offered? Should everyone feel obligated to get a yearly flu vaccine? If not, where does one line stop and the other begin?

I think everyone should get a vaccine. But I'm not sure mandation (or at least the restriction of civil liberties to ensure vaccination) for the greater good, stands up as a consistent moral argument, as the line will always be arbitrary. Also, allowing the government to control, or at least really heavily influence, what you do with/ put into your body for the greater good also feels like a slippery moral precedent.

 

I'd say they were wrong. And certainly not considering the greater good in the benefits column. Just me, me, me and my supposed RIGHT to be a prat and get away with it no sanction.

 

But I don't think setting conditions for entry to a football match is restricting anyones civil liberties?

If the government said 'You can no longer vote in a general election/referendum unless you have the vaccine' then I definitely take your point. I just don't think this slope is quite as slippery as being made out.

 

I don't agree. Art 8 ECHR provides that there is a 'right to respect for private life'. Previous cases have established that this includes actvities like making music, attending church etc. I'm pretty certain attending football or festivals would fall within it.

The 'civil liberty' isn't the attendance at football itself, it's the fact that that is part and parcel of an individual's choice as to how they live ther life (which includes their leisure time).

This doesn't mean restrictions can't be set, of course, but they must pursue a justfiable objective and be proportionate to any interference with the right.

You are partially right in the sense that this right is more 'qualified' than others (voting would be one).

 

Fair enough.

But surely the club themselves set T&C's to gain entry to the ground - this would surely just be one more condition?

Not saying I know that and I don't wish to engage in a debate with yourself who clearly knows more about law etc than myself!

 

Interestingly, the ECHR earlier this year held preventing children attending nursery school unless they had compulsory (non-Covid, because the case predates that) vaccinations engaged but did not breach their Art 8 rights:

https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/app/conversion/pdf/?library=ECHR&id=003-6989051-9414707&filename=Grand Chamber judgment Vavricka and Others v. Czech Republic - obligation to vaccinate children against diseases that were well known to medical science.pdf

 

Well, the club isn't subject to the HRA/ECHR. However, if it is imposing condtions at the request of the government, it might be indirectly challenged or - much more likely - any government measure (presumably. legislation) could be; possibly also the Premier League as an organisation.

I added to my post after you quoted it. Yes, of course Ts and Cs are fine. But in so far as they interfere with rights, they would need to be justifiable in relation to a broader societal objective (including public health and protecting the rights of others) and infrnge on the right no more than is necessary to achieve that objective.

However, as UEA's post suggests - it's certainly not clear-cut that a court would side with the individual rather than the public interest in a case like this. In fact, I would be fairly surprised if it did.

 

Didn't Chelsea set the full vax or negative test rules themselves? Trying to get out in front of it I suppose. Not that a negative lateral flow test means anything at all in terms of access to events.