Go Back   The 75 and ZT Owners Club Forums > Social Forums > Social Forum
Register FAQ Image Gallery Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read
Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 13th November 2021, 21:29   #31
VVC-Geeza
This is my second home
 
2005 Connoisseur SE 1.8 Turbo,2004 45 1.8 Connoisseur and my beloved 1998 VVC Coupe.

Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Derby.
Posts: 8,749
Thanks: 2,022
Thanked 1,016 Times in 739 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by macafee2 View Post
mmm it is the law, it must be obeyed? Does that apply to unjust laws? I offer you Alan Turing who was prosecuted for homosexuality. No way would that happen now. Was it a just law at the time?

What do the patients gain by carers being double jabbed?
What benefit does bringing this to law give patients?

macafee2
So are you recommending anarchy?

I don't agree with paying the BBC for a TV license but it's the current law and I will continue to pay until if/when the law is changed.The powers that be have decided that it is a condition of employment that care home staff are vaccinated.I disagree with you about the 'real' motive for speed camera's,never the less I'm stuck with them because they are backed by the law.
VVC-Geeza is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13th November 2021, 23:48   #32
guru
Posted a thing or two
 
MG ZT, Rover Sterling, MG ZS EV & BMW X5

Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Norfolk Broads
Posts: 1,491
Thanks: 20
Thanked 196 Times in 117 Posts
Default

I cannot see the issue with care workers and NHS staff being required to have the vaccine as a condition of their employment, if fact it seems like common sense. The fact is the vaccine DOES significantly reduce the chance of catching and therefore passing it on and even if you do get it having the anti-bodies in your system will reduce the viral load and again will reduce the window that you're infectious for.

We have some relevant experience here, unfortunately despite testing negative in a PCR before we travelled our 16 year old daughter tested positive on the first day of our holiday to Portugal. We were in a fairly small villa with 2 bedrooms so us isolating from her was not possible however despite spending a week in close contact the vaccine appears to have worked and we didn't get it. Sadly as she's only just turned 16 she hasn't yet had the opportunity to have the vaccine but will do in a few weeks.

The other concern that I keep seeing is that the vaccine has not been tested however again this is rubbish. Fact is thanks to the massive amount of computing power we have now plus the biggest worldwide effort on a single project probably since the war the vaccine has been tested more comprehensively then a lot of other medications out there.

Finally it's interesting that we keep hearing from the very vocal minority who have not had the vaccine however the fact is a majority have had it but just tend to be much quieter. Personally I don't actually know anyone who hasn't had the jab so why shouldn't carers have it?
__________________
My car history http://m6jkk.com
guru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2021, 08:36   #33
macafee2
This is my second home
 
Rover 75 Saloon & Tourer

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 14,892
Thanks: 1,630
Thanked 3,032 Times in 2,181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VVC-Geeza View Post
So are you recommending anarchy?

I don't agree with paying the BBC for a TV license but it's the current law and I will continue to pay until if/when the law is changed.The powers that be have decided that it is a condition of employment that care home staff are vaccinated.I disagree with you about the 'real' motive for speed camera's,never the less I'm stuck with them because they are backed by the law.

Could you answer the questions please?

I do not suggest or recommend anarchy.

macafee2
macafee2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2021, 08:39   #34
macafee2
This is my second home
 
Rover 75 Saloon & Tourer

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 14,892
Thanks: 1,630
Thanked 3,032 Times in 2,181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guru View Post
I cannot see the issue with care workers and NHS staff being required to have the vaccine as a condition of their employment, if fact it seems like common sense. The fact is the vaccine DOES significantly reduce the chance of catching and therefore passing it on and even if you do get it having the anti-bodies in your system will reduce the viral load and again will reduce the window that you're infectious for.

We have some relevant experience here, unfortunately despite testing negative in a PCR before we travelled our 16 year old daughter tested positive on the first day of our holiday to Portugal. We were in a fairly small villa with 2 bedrooms so us isolating from her was not possible however despite spending a week in close contact the vaccine appears to have worked and we didn't get it. Sadly as she's only just turned 16 she hasn't yet had the opportunity to have the vaccine but will do in a few weeks.

The other concern that I keep seeing is that the vaccine has not been tested however again this is rubbish. Fact is thanks to the massive amount of computing power we have now plus the biggest worldwide effort on a single project probably since the war the vaccine has been tested more comprehensively then a lot of other medications out there.

Finally it's interesting that we keep hearing from the very vocal minority who have not had the vaccine however the fact is a majority have had it but just tend to be much quieter. Personally I don't actually know anyone who hasn't had the jab so why shouldn't carers have it?
You are asking a question that has already been answered.
Carers, no one (that I can think of) should not be made by law to have the injection because they should have the right to choose what goes into their body.

macafee2
macafee2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2021, 09:49   #35
MSS
This is my second home
 
Rover 75CDT, Jaguar XF-S 3.0V6, V'xhall Omega V6 Estate, Twintop 1.8VVT, Astra Estate and Corsa 1.2

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Suffolk
Posts: 7,079
Thanks: 283
Thanked 624 Times in 440 Posts
Default

It feel that some posters are missing the key points that the OP has already made a number of times. These being as follows:

1. Can a law that effectively makes people choose between their livelihoods or having something injected into their bodies be considered reasonable or is it in fact a form of coercion?

2. The above is particularly relevant considering that those impacted have been performing the role in question for many years. The country even clapped for them every Thursday for a number of months. The new requirement is therefore a unilateral change to the conditions of their employment. Is the change reasonable?

3. Can it ever be considered reasonable and morally justifiable to remove a person's choice as to what they have injected into their bodies?


To address a few of the points raised by posters:

1. It is not reasonable to ignore laws. This would lead to anarchy. But, it is perfectly reasonable to challenge new regulations in the courts.

2. As far as I am aware it has not been shown that vaccination reduces transmission to any significant degree. One study showed that there were small short-term benefits but these became negligible around 3 months following vaccination.

3. The argument in post #24 about rights vs responsibilities is fundamentally flawed in this context. In my view post #24 is verging on being offensive to intelligent people.

It is worth pointing out again that the OP and many others who are not comfortable with individuals having their choice on whether to have something that alters the natural functioning of their bodies injected into them are in fact fully vaccinated by choice. By definition, they are not amongst the community who are said in post #24 to 'idiotically believe the rubbish spouted on social media'.
MSS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2021, 10:35   #36
Saga Lout
This is my second home
 
MG ZT and Rover 75,

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Wigan
Posts: 3,276
Thanks: 2,556
Thanked 2,685 Times in 1,037 Posts
Default But

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alikris View Post
People tend to forget that having vaccinations / inoculations are a condition of employment in some professions - and have been for many years. People in various professions sometimes need quite a few vaccinations / innoculations, depending on their jobs or where in the world they are working. It's a fact of life, nothing new. It's got nothing to do with choices or rights. If you want the job, you need to have the jabs unless exempt for medical reasons - in which case you may not be offered the job.

Take, for example, people working down sewers, not only do they need a long list of jabs, they also require certificates of immunisation. No certificates, no job. Yet you don't see people up in arms about that do you? Where are the sewage workers complaining about their 'rights' being taken away???

Children routinely get given jabs. The UK has lost it's measles free status because of idiotic parents refusing to have their children jabbed. Arguably, refusing the jab could be considered child abuse.

The UK has had an immunisation policy for decades.


https://www.gov.uk/government/collec...s-and-vaccines


Sadly, many people idiotically believe the rubbish spouted on social media and thereby putting themselves or their children at risk.

The fact remains that to work in health care, one needs to have Jabs, it's a condition of employment. You never heard people complaining about that pre covid did you!

People have a choice. Get the required jabs or face the consequences. If people wish to loose their jobs over it, that's their choice and they only have themselves to blame.


I'm fed up with people shouting about their 'rights'. Such people tend to forget - or conveniently ignore - that with rights come responsibilities. Responsibility not just to oneself but one's family and wider society. Your rights do not trump everyone else's. Your rights are not more important than other people's.

Just like people complaining about having to wear masks in shops etc. The masks are not worn to protect oneself, but to protect others. One has to ask what sort of person would refuse to protect other people, and should such a person even be allowed to be part of society.

They shout about their right not to wear a mask, but selfishly ignore that others have a right not to have germs blown in their faces.

How many complaining about their 'rights' have ever bothered to read the Human Rights Act? For a start there is no such thing as "Freedom of Choice" I honestly don't know where you got that notion from.

The arguments about Jabs comes under Article 10 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/...dom-expression

However, if you bother to read section 10 you'll see it says:

Now tell me that your human rights are being infringed . . . as I say, with rights come responsibilities. Please remember that next time someone complains that their human rights are being walked all over, or talking about some mythical "freedom of choice".

Ali.


Can you point out which of the above vaccines are given as boosters every few months, and can you also say which of them were added as a condition of employment after the person has been employed in the role for many years. That's a major issue in play, the facts still remain about the covid jabs, they don't really stop anyone falling ill and they most certainly haven't been around long enough to have been fully appraised. If someone takes the jab then it isn't the end of it, how many is enough before there's a stop called to them? I don't know and nor does anyone else know if long term damage will be done to the immune system by giving repeated doses of something that has very temporary effectiveness at best. To be honest, I'm really fed up of those people that are pushing everyone to get the jabs for everyone else's sake, it really is personal choice and others should simply shut up and keep their noses out of anyone's private life and choices. There will be complications for those people forcing others out of their jobs, there are many violations in human rights legislation and domestic law, a mandate is not a law and yet it's being treated as one, the legal system will be hearing many cases for a long time to come over these sackings, they are not lawful. The other major problems are already starting, the care system will be dumping many elderly people into the hospitals due to a lack of staff, this will clog up beds over Winter and then up to 100,000 NHS staff will be forced out of a job for not taking a mandatory jab because of personal choice, that's really going to help the care system and NHS isn't it not. If anyone stood and clapped for the NHS and carers but now advocate them being sacked, they should go and play on the West coast mainline.

Last edited by Saga Lout; 14th November 2021 at 10:42..
Saga Lout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2021, 12:29   #37
Saga Lout
This is my second home
 
MG ZT and Rover 75,

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Wigan
Posts: 3,276
Thanks: 2,556
Thanked 2,685 Times in 1,037 Posts
Default Also.

Quote:
Originally Posted by guru View Post
I cannot see the issue with care workers and NHS staff being required to have the vaccine as a condition of their employment, if fact it seems like common sense. The fact is the vaccine DOES significantly reduce the chance of catching and therefore passing it on and even if you do get it having the anti-bodies in your system will reduce the viral load and again will reduce the window that you're infectious for.

We have some relevant experience here, unfortunately despite testing negative in a PCR before we travelled our 16 year old daughter tested positive on the first day of our holiday to Portugal. We were in a fairly small villa with 2 bedrooms so us isolating from her was not possible however despite spending a week in close contact the vaccine appears to have worked and we didn't get it. Sadly as she's only just turned 16 she hasn't yet had the opportunity to have the vaccine but will do in a few weeks.

The other concern that I keep seeing is that the vaccine has not been tested however again this is rubbish. Fact is thanks to the massive amount of computing power we have now plus the biggest worldwide effort on a single project probably since the war the vaccine has been tested more comprehensively then a lot of other medications out there.

Finally it's interesting that we keep hearing from the very vocal minority who have not had the vaccine however the fact is a majority have had it but just tend to be much quieter. Personally I don't actually know anyone who hasn't had the jab so why shouldn't carers have it?
Having had the virus, your daughter does not need to take the vaccine now. Your daughter will have a robust immunity to the virus now and to have a vaccine would be pointless and quite possibly dangerous due to immune system overload. At best she'd have a vaccine jab that will wane over a few months whilst her natural immunity stays strong, the vaccine will add nothing to her system that would be long lasting or effective. The question about long term health issues with the vaccines are not answered as yet because time hasn't elapsed to find out, do you want your daughter to now take the jab when she simply doesn't need it, her T cell and B cell immunity will offer best protection. I'm not anti vax, I say get it if you haven't had the virus but there's no point after the virus, the horse has bolted.
Saga Lout is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2021, 12:40   #38
HarryM1BYT
This is my second home
 
HarryM1BYT's Avatar
 
75 Contemporary SE Mk II 2004 Man. Sal. CDTi 135ps, FBH on red diesel, WinCE6 DD

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Leeds
Posts: 17,273
Thanks: 2,160
Thanked 2,061 Times in 1,586 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Saga Lout View Post
That is where a lot of the problems come from...

Imagine this, let's call them Mary and Alice, they work in the same care home as nurses.
Mary has woken up with symptoms of Covid, is staying home and has booked a PCR test.

Alice has had two jabs and has Covid but doesn't know she has, she's going to be tending to many elderly people over the coming days.

Do you see a problem here? The jabs stop nothing but severe illness for the jabbed, and that's not 100% certain. Your choice of wanting only vaccinated staff will not lessen or remove any risk.

They suggest it helps to reduce the chances of passing covid on - that is good enough for me. I would want to be cared for by someone who had not been jabbed.
__________________
Harry

How To's and items I offer for free, or just to cover the cost of my expenses...

http://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/foru...40#post1764540

Fix a poor handbrake; DIY ABS diagnostic unit; Loan of the spanner needed to change the CDT belts; free OBD diagnostics +MAF; Correct Bosch MAF cheap; DVB-T install in an ex-hi-line system; DD install with a HK amp; FBH servicing.

I've taken a vow of poverty. To annoy me, send money.
HarryM1BYT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2021, 14:02   #39
HarryM1BYT
This is my second home
 
HarryM1BYT's Avatar
 
75 Contemporary SE Mk II 2004 Man. Sal. CDTi 135ps, FBH on red diesel, WinCE6 DD

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Leeds
Posts: 17,273
Thanks: 2,160
Thanked 2,061 Times in 1,586 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by torque2me View Post
It is puzzling that they were good enough to work through three waves (first one without proper ppe) but not up to standard now.

I don't know what the scientific advice they are getting but a perusal of on-line medical submissions indicate that it is an unknown if a double vaxxd person is capable of transmitting a heavier viral load or a much lesser risk. Also no-one knows the effects of asymptomatics have had throughout the pandemic.

I hope there is a crowd funding for any legal challange.

Next on the list is hospital staff!

Kev

We simply didn't know then, what we know now about how it was spread and it took time to get measures into place.
__________________
Harry

How To's and items I offer for free, or just to cover the cost of my expenses...

http://www.the75andztclub.co.uk/foru...40#post1764540

Fix a poor handbrake; DIY ABS diagnostic unit; Loan of the spanner needed to change the CDT belts; free OBD diagnostics +MAF; Correct Bosch MAF cheap; DVB-T install in an ex-hi-line system; DD install with a HK amp; FBH servicing.

I've taken a vow of poverty. To annoy me, send money.
HarryM1BYT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th November 2021, 17:20   #40
macafee2
This is my second home
 
Rover 75 Saloon & Tourer

Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Lincoln
Posts: 14,892
Thanks: 1,630
Thanked 3,032 Times in 2,181 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MSS View Post
It feel that some posters are missing the key points that the OP has already made a number of times. These being as follows:

1. Can a law that effectively makes people choose between their livelihoods or having something injected into their bodies be considered reasonable or is it in fact a form of coercion?

2. The above is particularly relevant considering that those impacted have been performing the role in question for many years. The country even clapped for them every Thursday for a number of months. The new requirement is therefore a unilateral change to the conditions of their employment. Is the change reasonable?

3. Can it ever be considered reasonable and morally justifiable to remove a person's choice as to what they have injected into their bodies?


To address a few of the points raised by posters:

1. It is not reasonable to ignore laws. This would lead to anarchy. But, it is perfectly reasonable to challenge new regulations in the courts.

2. As far as I am aware it has not been shown that vaccination reduces transmission to any significant degree. One study showed that there were small short-term benefits but these became negligible around 3 months following vaccination.

3. The argument in post #24 about rights vs responsibilities is fundamentally flawed in this context. In my view post #24 is verging on being offensive to intelligent people.

It is worth pointing out again that the OP and many others who are not comfortable with individuals having their choice on whether to have something that alters the natural functioning of their bodies injected into them are in fact fully vaccinated by choice. By definition, they are not amongst the community who are said in post #24 to 'idiotically believe the rubbish spouted on social media'.

first thank you but second, I am happy for them to have the choice. They should have the choice, they should not be forced by law and they should not loose their jobs. I do think they should be jabbed but I cannot at the moment support doing by law and threat of being unemployed. Next we may hear they cannot get and government support for being unemployed as they have made themselves intentionally unemployed, something I do not support.

macafee2
macafee2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:20.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright © 2006-2023, The Rover 75 & MG ZT Owners Club Ltd