Double Vaccination Required To Attend Premier League Matches

Ok thanks for the info! All I had read about the vaccine had said transmission is not affected

 

The stats suggests a higher percentage of young people get MRNA-side effects, such as fever, headaches and energy loss (especially after the second jab), than the percentage of people who get symptomatic Covid in the younger age groups.

This is exacerbated further in both directions if you have already had Covid, which a greater proportion of young people already have.

And that’s with very different populations, so the percentages aren’t even comparing the same thing. One is looking at all young adults (who would all be taking the jab), when the other is looking at young adults that catch Covid (and who likely haven’t had Covid before).

That’s not to say the risk is worth the reward. Clearly if you do get symptomatic Covid, it is likely to be worse than the vaccine side effects.

And there’s the obvious greater good arguments, as well as more selfish reasons like reducing the chance of a mutant strain impacting again on your own future freedoms.

But it is a prevalent part of the human condition to chose short term benefits over long term gains, and I can understand some taking that choice, just as others gamble, drink, eat processed food and smoke.

 

Posting well informed and sensible points of view on a forum? Good work.

If the effects of long Covid were understood then maybe people would go for the vaccination.

Even if you don't get symptoms you can still get long Covid as I understand it.

 

I'd say, 'fair enough, but the scientific evidence shows that your decision means you are more likely to transmit this disease to other people, which is obviously contrary to their best interests and health prospects. As the scientific evidence shows that such transmission is more likely in large gatherings of people from different households, then it is clearly in the public interest that people, such as yourself, who are more likely to transmit the disease to others should be excluded from such large gatherings.'

 

Or pass a driving test to drive a car....

 

Would you be able to get your seatbelt on?

 

Have you missed the critical part of the proposal? People who 'have been offered both jabs' is in there. Those who have not been offered two jabs or are justifiably exempt will not be barred from entering such events.

 

Except the areas of 'belief' covered in the legislation are not predicated directly to risk the health of other people, I would assume.

 

Well, it wasn't me saying this, it was the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

The belief does have to be worthy of respect in a democratic society, not incompatible with human dignity and not in conflict with fundamental rights of others to be worthy of protection. The last point may well be fatal to such arguments.

 

That's one of the things that makes the proposal so daft. Children - notorious spreaders of the virus - are allowed in despite being unvaccinated. Yet those over 18 - who, for whatever reason, have chosen not to have the jab - are barred.
For clarity I do not doubt the efficacy of the vaccine or the idea that it is desirable for as many people to get jabbed as possible. What I find intolerable is the growing sense that those that choose not to be jabbed should be demonised and discriminated against. That's all.
Anyway, perhaps more young people would be persuaded to get a jab if it were administered by a Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...ge-monkey-costume-children-event-b945272.html

 

They are not being ‘demonized’. They are simply being ‘encouraged’ to take the vaccine for the general good.
The issue of when children may be vaccinated is linked but not identical.
It still does not change the fact that all over-18s being double jabbed will provide a higher level of protection to the population at large.

 

Vaccine passports are not actually necessary in my opinion. Ensuring that everyone who entered the stadium has a recent negative test would make more sense as you then would know that anyone not entering the stadium was a carrier of COVID. Futhermore a vaccinated person is still able to transmit the virus so they is still a possibility of catching COVID at a football match even with vaccination passports. The unvaccinated could even be given their own area of the ground ( the vicarage road stand for example) even if they tested negative if it made the rest of the supporters feel more re-assured.

Besides many people going to football matches will use public transport and could just catch COVID on a train or a bus which currently do not have vaccine passports.

Vaccines or medicines for any other illness are given to the individual for their own health not for the protection of others. Not everyone is able to get vaccinated . Its called a contraindication. Vaccines are contraindicated in some people for medical reasons.

Some do not want to take a vaccine for religious reasons. Any devout Jehovah's witness for example would be barred from public places and possibly their job if vaccine passports were strictly enforced. Some people will feel that they do not need a vaccine as they have acquired immunity after either recovering from COVID or they contacted COVID without showing symptoms. Thus they have innate immunity. No vaccine will give superior immunity
to the immunity acquired from recovering from a virus, historically at least. Some people are concerned that unlike other vaccines no long term clinical trials have be performed to show effective the vaccines are long term. Some are just anti- vaccination in general and would rather risk contacting the virus.

There are already plans to bring in another booster in September. So I assume vaccine passports if introduced will need updating with the latest booster in time.

Forced vaccination is against the Nuremburg code, EU law and is medically unethical. I have never heard of a vaccine being needed to protect others. Medication is a choice, if vaccine passports are introduced then the result will be medical apartheid.



Some may argue this is a pandemic so getting as many vaccinated as possible is important. But again no one knows how long these vaccines will be effective for. Last year's flu vaccine for example is already considered ineffective as a new dominant strain appears every flu season.

There has also never been mass vaccination in any other pandemic so the results of this are still unpredictable.

The Hong Kong flu was a serious pandemic without mandatory vaccination being enforced and it naturally mutated to a weaker form. The Hong Kong flu was from 1968-1970 and an estimated 2-4 million died globally. No lockdowns were introduced. A vaccine was developed but there was no pressure to take it. The Hong Kong Flu is still in circulation today but few get ill after getting it as natural immunity is so high.

If you want to read more about the flu outbreaks of 1957 and 1968 then I recommend reading this article.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(2031201-0/fulltext

 

When a section of society is referred to as 'selfish' by a Government minister and barred from entering public places where others are free to go simply because they don't have the 'all-for-one, and one-for-all' gene, that, in my book, is being demonised.
Instead of banging on at those that have decided of their own free will not to have the jab, it would be a far more useful way of preventing the mutations that people are worrying about if we sent the vaccines we haven't used to poorer countries - where the take-up is considerably less than ours. Ideally Commonwealth countries

 

.
Surely it can be both? Smallpox?

 

So 11 days until Villa, I guess it's looking unlikely we'll need to show them anything on the day or are the clubs waiting on guidance from the Government/PL?

 

The way that those who choose not to take the vaccine don’t bang on about the ‘dangers’ and how ‘we are all being lied to’?

 

Do they all do that?

And, anyway, surely government has an obligation to behave better than such people?

 

No, but there’s also clearly a percentage of ministers in government who don’t back the plan either you could argue.

And of course. As I say, from my rather crude angle, I do think those who genuinely make a choice about not taking the vaccine for health reasons sadly have had their viewpoints largely swallowed by the anti-vax/conspiracy theorist crowd. And their inability to split the two arguments doesn’t help them in regards to a large percentage of the public trying to understand their concerns with much validity.

 

Measures on public health are designed to do just that. Protect the health of the population. Some are very benign, like ensuring public toilets have hand washing facilities. I think that was mandated to help stop the spread of Polio. But anyway we now have a vaccine for that. A mass vaccination campaign started in western countries in the late 1950s. And in 1988 the world decided on a global vaccination campaign to eradicate the disease. Note it took thirty years for the rich countries to eradicate the disease in their communities and then decide to resource a global campaign. As achieved with the eradication of Smallpox.

Other public health measures are more draconian, like stopping people eating certain foods. The CJD infection of cattle stopped people consuming certain cuts of beef.

All in theory are designed to protect the health of an individual. But as the consequence of them requiring health care and possibly financial support after treatment is a cost funded by the whole community. Then of course people have a responsibility to comply to community decisions. Some of those are laws, some rules to use private space, others just social conventions.

I would not expect smokers to be denied NHS care because of their personal choice to smoke. But I do expect smokers to abide by the laws and rules that prevents them smoking in certain public and private environments.

If you decide not to have your children vaccinated against Rubella , they should not be denied treatment if they catch it. But you should not send them to school or take them on public transport if they symptoms of the disease. In these respects you lose your right to a week or so of state schooling or lose a week or so of the private schooling you have paid for and not received. You make choices and live by the consequences.

By the way the private school my daughter attended required all children to have a range of vaccinations including Rubella, before permitting them to be enrolled. In complying I did not feel that my “human right” to buy private education had been compromised.

 

No point sending vaccine to other countries if it’s acceptable to refuse to have the jab.

Sounds like “I expect everyone else in the world to suppress the disease and mutations of the disease through a mechanism I reserve the right not to participate in, but fully expect to benefit from”

How could you sum that attitude up as?

 

You were doing alright until you fell into the trap that is referring to the Nuremburg code. It applies, in as much as any voluntary statement of principles can 'apply' to anything, specifically to medical experiments. There's no experiment going on with Covid vaccines.

 

Not sure I agree with this. Look at the numbers of African countries with populations of less than 10% that have been vaccinated. And a number of them are vocal about the fact they have shortages due to the west being in some sort of vaccine race.

If we have surplus, makes sense to send them. The world won’t open up and the fight against variants kinda relies on such actions.

Anyway, that’s a debate for the wider Covid thread.

 

Haha. Doing alright until the very first sentence.

 

Great post. Setting aside the extremist anti-vaxxers, I have yet to hear a good explanation from those who don’t want to take the vaccine what their issues are. (I have seen the odd vox-pop where young people say they just haven’t got round to it since they don’t see it as a pressing need for themselves.)

 

So are you saying the jab should be compulsory?

I really don't see the connection between an individual choice to be vaccinated or not, and collectvely providing greater stocks of the vaccine to countries where there is not enough to go round.

Do you really think it is better that it goes to waste?

 

Our Mr @Keighley has answered this far more eloquently than I could hope to about five posts down

 

I had the pleasure of spending some time with a crowd of my son's friends at the weekend. The majority - boys and girls - had not been jabbed and had no intention of being so. And not even a cheap taxi ride or a free pizza could persuade them to change their minds. They are all nicely middle class, university educated kids and none of them is swayed by Qanon conspiracy theories, religious mumbo-jumbo or Piers Corbyn's fantasies. They all gave pretty much the same reasons for not wanting the jab: They'd had covid and recovered from it; they didn't consider it a physical threat to themselves and were more concerned about the hitherto unknown long term health effects that the vaccine might present years down the line. They could be accused of lacking team spirit but I think their's is a perfectly reasonable position to take

 

The first responsibility for any national government is to protect their own. So no apologies there thus far. But now that we seem to be reaching the tail end of our own vaccination programme we only need to retain enough to guarantee supply for those over 18s who might yet be 'co-erced' and for 12-18s or even lower if we decide to go down that route and for any boosters that might be required in the autumn/early winter. I'm not sure whether that last is/was part of the original orders. It will be a 'tweaked vaccine' after all.

We must be at least getting close to the point where 'international magnanimity' might kick in given that at some nearby point we'll have an over-supply having bet on a number of horses at the outset (most, if not all, having come in) against the hostage-to-fortune of some falling at the first hurdle.

However, we're not doing so badly internationally thus far having been at the forefront of funding and developing one of the go-to mainstays on offer to the world at cost price.

Now, as we move towards stage two, and if we want to further promote 'global Britain' and gain a whole load of international brownie points best not to insist on intellectual property rights as usual, share our forthcoming surplus as and when appropriate and assist in the development of vaccine production facilities on a global basis which is surely the answer to kicking this thing into touch in the long term.

 

Back in December did the government state a target % of adult vaccinations? Have they revised it? We are heading towards 89% for one and 73% for two, obviously we won't reach 100%.

 

Some good points there but football grounds, pubs, restaurants, cinemas etc are not public places.

 

No, but using those facilities for leisure activities forms part of how an individual chooses to live their life, so if the government collaborates with the operators of them to restrict entry it is likely to amount to an interference with the right to respect for private life, albeit one which may be justified.

It would be harder to argue this if these operators were doing this off their own bats.

 

Funny how your son knows a load of anti-vaxxers and mine (19) has lots of friends who have had the jab or are keen to have it.

 

I'll reply to this although apparently the original poster isn't listening any more (but maybe he is ). That's his business. However, it was a very considered post so here goes for others that might be listening.

I too was discussing this with three mates much younger than me on Sunday night. One, in his late 30s and of 'mixed race' (liquorice allsort) has had one jab and is waiting for his second invitation. He's playing ball with a degree of reluctance.

The other two in their late 20s aren't playing ball. One, from the black ethnic minority (race is relevant to this discussion) seemed to be consumed by distrust and conspiracy theories. The third, of Irish decent, was particularly annoyed around co-ercion and the fact that his mum had lost her job as a care-home worker, where she had worked all her adult life, having resisted the jab. I pointed out that might be considered as 'professional misconduct' (as it might be in the NHS too) and that nearly 40,000 residents have died in care homes since the beginning of this thing and that if you're going back into that environment as a worker, without being vaccinated, then you're taking a loan on the backs of others. And I pointed out that if a resident in your care home died of the thing (either because a double jab doesn't offer 100% protection (or because some residents are unable to have the jab for specific health reasons)), and then a resident dies whilst the employer has allowed the un-vaccinated to work in his/her care home, then the relatives of the deceased might sue. Plus, of course, the wider implications around 'herd immunity'. None of the three thought they'd had the thing before.

At that point things got a bit tasty and 'kick off' was imminent. Young Irish guy protecting his mum's integrity. Luckily (for who?) the other two intervened.

What interests me most here (arguably) is that we now have two testimonials from 'old farts' who have met a number of younger people who would appear to buck the statistic of 66%+ of young people being onside. Why is that? I now see that Moose has met the 66% Get in there mate.

As for me, I'll always choose the objective over winding my neck in, if someone of an alternative persuasion is sitting opposite me, simply for a quiet life. Even if you otherwise like them. No need for anonymity of argument.

 

No of course we should send out as much vaccine as we can. But it will have no impact if people refuse to be be vaccinated. Standing on the side lines saying I should have the choice not to be vaccinated. But promoting the idea that we should facilitate the majority of the world population to be vaccinated, when also advocating that there should be no consequences for refusing to have one, sounds like Do as i say not as i do. Get vaccinated so that my personal freedom to not to have a vaccine, is mitigated by you and everyone else doing something i am not personally prepared to do. Get vaccinated so that is can go to football matches. If you dont get vaccinated we will all end up in a permanent lock down, and I won’t get my freedoms back.

Either vaccination is the route out of the pandemic and the reopening of society or it is not. If it is the way out, then get vaccinated. If you do not wish to be vaccinated why promote it as a solution and route to do the things you want to do? You want others to partake but refuse to do so yourself?

 

Really? OK. So Cassiobury Park would be a 'public space' then but not Vicarage Road? Fair enough, I get it. But surely then the owners of a private space, in this case the mighty Vic, should have more leeway to set their own entry requirements as opposed to Watford Borough Council and Cassio?