Double Vaccination Required To Attend Premier League Matches

What would you say to a fit and healthy 20-something of sound mind who, having thoughtfully considered the risks/benefits of being vaccinated, decides that statistically s/he is more likely to suffer serious ill-health as a result of having the jabs than they would if they caught covid?

 

I am not sure which is the most depressing thread at the moment.
My top 3 are:
This one
Will Hughes
Pre-season 2021/22

Can someone post some good news rather than the round and round depressing ****!

 

I'm on the fence.

I think young people getting the vaccine is the considerate thing to do, for others.

But I can also see that for the majority of young people, the side effects of the jab are worse than actually getting Covid. And given they will be the ones who will really pay for Covid, through growing debt, lack of employment opportunities, education and a loss of major life milestones/ experiences for a virus which barely effects them, whilst older people they're protecting have got richer and, as a whole, had more comfortable lives than ever before, I think they should pretty much be given free reign to do whatever they want.

As others have said, I doubt the government will actually mandate this. It's more likely that this is being used as a stick to encourage greater vaccine uptake, among those least likely to get the vaccine.

 

Surely the U23 thread where we watch talent blossom and then be picked up for peanuts by bigger clubs should be on your list ?

 

I'd also add that young people have constantly been chastised, especially by the tabloids and the elderly, throughout the pandemic. I think if the roles were flipped and this almost entirely affected teenagers and barely affected the elderly, and the side effects of the vaccine were worse for the elderly than getting the disease, there would be far more vaccine/ lockdown non-compliance than there is currently among the young.

 

I know what you mean. I hope this picture of a lovely English meadow in summertime cheers you up

 

Has Hughes refused to be double vaxxed? Perhaps this explains why he is training "away from the group".

 

When are you going to get on board with something that really is discrimination?

Seems to be so many on your side of the fence are those usually most ready to argue the toss against the meaningful forms of discrimination being real.

 

I’d like to know more about the current evidence for that. Clearly it’s been identified that Pfizer is safer than AZ for youngsters, but there are also reports of a few young people getting serious problems from Covid including ICU. Fortunately both are small cohorts.

 

But you knew that if you didn't take a driving test you wouldn't be able to drive. So you made a fully informed choice on how to exercise your free will and to organise your life in accordance with how you wished to live it.

Those who have had, are having, or are about to have the vaccine don't know whether they will be allowed to go to PL matches, festivals etc or not if they have refused/refuse now/refuse in the future. Indeed, for those who had apporintments a couple of months ago, this looked like it wasn't going to be an issue at all. So their choice was/is not fully informed, because the consequences of it were/are not clear.

 

And you can usually be relied upon to talk a glass eye to sleep at the first hint that some minority has been discriminated against, yet with this most glaring example of discrimination you keep schtum. Strange days, Comrade

 

Note the complete absence of bees and butterflies.

 

So you are wanting everything in life to stay exactly as it is now so you can make informed choices on what to do or not do and the reason for your choice never change?

The only certainty in life (excluding death and taxes!) is that things change, so you have to reassess and adapt your choices as time moves on.

 

The issue is that those people did not exercise a full, informerd choice when they made their decision not to be vaccinated.

They may in effect, be constrained from doing something which they would otherwise do on the basis of a decusion made at a point when they did not know that would be the consequence of the decision.

 

If you're going down this road then the calculation you are making must balance the risks from getting covid versus the risks of side effects from the jab. The delta variant's increased transmission and the high caseload mean that you are much more likely to get covid (with its unpredictable long-term impact) than to suffer a side effect from the jab. And there are so many more unknowns with covid than with the jab. Add to that that the more covid cases there are, the more there will be. Side effects aren't contagious.

To put this into perspective, the AZ vaccine, which young people won't be getting, led to on average a death in one in every 346,000 doses administered. Compare this to commonly taken medicines (such as the pill, with six in 10,000 additional serious blood clots occuring), and even that vaccine is comparatively very safe, with Pfizer much safer than that for the young.

In my view a young person would be making a strange decision to deny themselves a vaccine when, on a daily basis they will be taking many much greater risks, from driving to work, to taking the pill, to having a few drinks in the evening.

But, ultimately, that is their decision.

Equally, the club or the Government can decide to limit your ability to attend a football match. That is their decision too. And it is based not just on the risk to one individual but the wider societal risks.

EDIT: THis reads as if I am having a go - I'm not at all - I do understand someone making the calculation above and getting to a different answer than me.

 

Precisely this. Things change.

But it doesn't matter because if they decided not to be vaccinated but now wish to be vaccinated in order to attend certain venues or events, they can be. The vaccine isn't being withheld. It's why the rule may not come into force until October, presumably to give everyone over 18 the opportunity to be vaccinated.

 

No, but I expect the choices that I have alreadty made not to be subject to restrcttions of which I was unaware of the time . If I choose to wear a blue t-shirt today, it's surely not fair to pass a law tomorrow which penalises me for making that choice in some way (perhaps, imposing a fine on me(. When I choose what to wear, I wish to do so in the certain knowledge that what I am doing is permissible under the law. This enables me to organise and plan my life in accordance with my own wishes.

 

The decision to get the vaccine is still very much open to them, so they have lost nothing.

 

OK, but you kept talking about free choice. Is that really free choice? They are in effect being made to do something so that they can do something else they wish to do.

 

I think they have - they have in effect been compelled to do something they didn't wish to do so that they can do something else they do wish to do.

I'd much rather they were incentivised than constrained.

 

Well, we'll just have to see how deeply held those crackpot beliefs are. If it's anything like France, for many they will miraculously disappear like an evanescent dream.

 

Like giving them money? The acceptance of which would reveal the bogusness of their 'conviction'. What do you suggest? How about "if you get the vaccine you can go to the football"?

 

Well, yeah. I would admit that I am arguing this from a rather academic perspectve on ethics rather than what the real world is like.

 

It’s not the same, a false equivalence. Race, disability etc are not choices.

I can see that this is different treatment, I simply think it’s justified. You don’t recognise different treatment at all when it suits you.

And no one has to take the vaccine.

 

That's already done in several areas of public health eg to encourage weight loss, smoking cessation etc.

The difference is that you aren't constraining their other life choices. It's bogus either way.

But - and I said this many posts ago - neither constraint nor incentivisation is as good (ideally) as people just doing the right thing (presuming it is not mandatory, of course).

 

Unless they want to enter a football stadium, lecture theatre etc

 

All social life is like that to a greater or lesser degree. I gave the example in another thread of someone who doesn’t want to wash. That’s their choice, but when they get real stinky they are not going to keep a public facing job. You can call that coercion, complain that it is their body, but that’s the reality.

Most of us don’t even need to be reminded to police ourselves.

 

How?

What incentive do you think would be appropriate to everyone who has not had the vaccination yet?

 

Secondary. You have a right to smoke, but not enter a football stadium, lecture theatre etc when doing so.

 

Maybe, but law and ethics have always prized the autonomous choice over what one does with one's body very highly.

 

It's a free choice, but one with consequences, like almost all free choices.

It's also one that can be looked at both as a constraint or an incentive, depending on your point of view. I suspect, though don't know, that the reason football has been suggested as one of the events for this policy is because they think it will drive up vaccine take-up. They know that some people will be incentivised to have the jab if it means they can go to football.

This is a rather circular argument so I am happy to bow out at this point, mainly because I can see the validity of your point. But fundamentally this in an issue regarding the rights of the majority. If we're going to have a situation where people can say: "Well if the majority is vaccinated I don't need to be," then we have exceptionalism and that's worse for a coherent policy than selecting certain events / venues and deciding upon a rule because with exceptionalism there's a tendency for everyone to think they are exceptional.

 

I am very confused by this point, which you seem to be arguing for the sake of it, given that you originally backed compulsion.

The comparison also makes no sense. You are not being penalised for a past decision, because you still have a choice. Those who didn't get the jab aren't permanently tainted by their decision because they can still choose to get it if they wish.

Complaining about the change in policy is just plain odd.

Complain about the policy itself, that would make more sense but you don't appear to be doing that? (although I still think it's a reasonable policy).

It reminds of a guy I knew who was upset about the idea of "presumed consent" for organ donation. He was originally on the organ donor list voluntarily and was so offended by this entirely reasonable change in policy he opted out. I still can't understand why.

 

Don't give up now, you're playing a blinder!