Double Vaccination Required To Attend Premier League Matches

I agree but in that case why not just make the jab mandatory in the first place?

I think the problem is that this is perceived compulsion by the back door when we have been told it is a matter of choice.

 

I think the distinction is, you are free to be a science denier, in your own home, but if you want to endanger others with your refusal to listen to reason, then you'll find your options curbed.

 

Can we not just have an anti-vax enclosure at the Vic? That way anyone so inclined can still attend the game and we get some extra booing practice in.

 

The fact the government is forcing people to be double jabbed and not allowing freedom of movement if you haven't had the jab doesn't sit well with me.

I've had my 1st jab and the 2nd is coming in a few weeks but it feels like I'm ok Jack when I know there are fans that won't have a vaccination for certain reasons; I know pregnant women who don't want the vaccine until after they have given birth, and I know someone who was allergic to the first vaccine and was advised not to take up the second one (There could be more of these about who under these rules will be denied access to watch these game live under no fault of their own).

 

Of course there is freedom of movement, at the moment you could be denied entry to a nightclub or a football stadium or an aircraft if you are highly intoxicated with alcohol; entering such a venue is a choice not a right. However if someone is denied entry to a hospital or a university that would be different because you do have a right to be treated or educated.

The two cases you list are valid for not having it which would of course be where exemptions apply and once the government make it clear what and how exemptions apply, then those people need not worry. Herd immunity is there to protect those who can't have vaccines rather than to protect those who won't.

 

What bothers me is that we are compelling young people to be vaccinated against an illness which, in the overwhelming majority of cases, is no threat to the young whatsoever to 'protect' the old. Nobody knows for certain what the long-term side-effects of this hastily cobbled-together covid vaccine may be so if I was young and healthy (which I am most certainly not) I certainly wouldn't have it.

 

Suddenly there's a lot of vaccine sceptic "experts" despite almost every adult in the UK having had several vaccines in their lifetime without issue, including the same self-appointed experts.

Take the vaccine and attend the game. Or don't take it and don't come.

You don't have an automatic right to attend a football match, vaccine-hesitancy is not a protected characteristic, the organisers of an event or the owners of a business can let in (or deny entry to) whomever they wish, within reason.

It seems to me protecting us from a highly virulent, rapidly mutating, once in a generation pandemic which has already killed 130k and left long term disability to god knows how many more is a pretty good reason.

 

Agree with Gove that people eligible for a vaccine who don’t take it are selfish. The evidence for the vaccine smashes out of the ground any side effects etc. Granted long term effects are not known of Covid or the Vaccine, but vaccines are not exactly a new thing and issues are grossly exaggerated.

 

But define 'more and more'. Numbers are of course going to increase as cases rack up but it's the relative percentage that matters. Not that there's a clear definition of long Covid yet anyway - so far it's just a jumble of people who are very clearly and profoundly affected by having had the virus mixed in with a lot more marginal cases.

 

Given many contributors' dislike and distrust of the present government it is surprising how many seem willing for them to have power over anyone’s right to medical autonomy. Personal freedom to do anything or go anywhere should not be contingent on one's vaccine status

 

People voted to curb their freedom of movement in June 2016 so I don't really see the big deal. It's just the Government curbing some different types of movement that affects more people.

JOKE! Well, sort of a joke. Perhaps a joke that contains a grain of truth.

 

As long as people can keep their personal viruses inside themselves, you're spot on, they should be able to go anywhere and do anything. Just hold their breath.

 

Are there any other things that you feel people should be punished for having an opinion on? Perhaps you and others who feel the same could write to Boris offering to set up a nationwide group of citizen informants - a sort of covid Stasi. Nothing personal, but I find the view expressed and the fact that people agree with you far more terrifying than covid.

 

Exactly. But it's a bit rarer than "once in a generation". Try four or five!

I want to see 'herd immunity' and kicking this thing into touch as best we can.

There's much debate around what that might require but 80% of the total (rather than just adult) population seems a reasonable ballpark figure. That would require some 110 million jabs in the UK before boosters start. So 25 million to go then (although that might be slightly reduced if the one jab Janssen comes on stream).

Given the remaining young/ethnic minorities selfish/mumbo-jumbo reluctance then that threshold is unlikely to be reached without resorting to jabbing 12-18s. So well done all you who are reluctant/in denial. Get a teenager to do your duty to your fellow man why don't you? Anyway, no matter, there are plenty of jabs administered to infants, including at birth, and I fail to see a particular distinction between personal protection and the common good.

Of course, if the Chinese had a leak from their lab. (either by accident or design) and are well aware of the benefit they've gained economically over the last 18 months, then they could choose to do the same thing again in which case we're all completely f.cked.

 

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. You wouldn't be punished for having an opinion but rather for your actions. Or, in this case, inactions. And if you express an opinion then those that don't share it are perfectly entitled to call it out as a mumbo-jumbo one.

 

This is the sort of pejorative nonsense that those of us of a scientific persuasion are objecting to.

 

If I express the “opinion” that all Muslims are terrorists, then I can be prosecuted for hate speech. It’s not the opinion that is the problem, it is the harm which may be caused to others.

You’re acting as if this is merely a matter of personal choice which has no impact on others. That isn’t true.

(Having said this, I remain uncomfortable about the rather backhand way this is being done).

 

I get it. And you've expressed this opinion before. However, I'd prefer to leave a choice between reluctance and loss rather than compulsion which I wouldn't regard as compulsion by the back door. What would you do with those who remain reluctant to the end under compulsion? Chase them down the road with a large butterfly net, a couple of needles and syringes and some gaffer tape?

 

I’d have made it mandatory in the first place.

It feels hypocritical to say it’s not and then to say, “but actually, if you don’t do it, we’re not going to let you do things you enjoy”.

Besides, there are plenty of other ways of incentivising people. Didn’t the Aussies offer people a beer, or did I dream that?

EDIT: no, I didn’t. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-07...-backs-covid-vaccine-promotion-beer/100280146

 

To personalise an example, it’s a bit like smoking in the stadium really. Your right to smoke conflicts with my right to be smoke free. One has to give.

If you are sitting behind me vaccine free, then your chances of breathing virus particles on me for nearly two hours and the intensity of that viral load are much increased. If you are not compelled to there is no way that I can protect myself from it.

If you won’t have the vaccine then the price of admission for others (until the virus is eradicated) includes exposure.

Is your reluctance your own, have you had the vaccine or is it simply theoretical?

 

Mandatory is a huge thing. You have to come up with a sanction for those that still refuse. There would be plenty of them. I presume you'd go for taking them to court rather than the 'butterfly net' option. Again, that is a huge thing. Get a needle jabbed in your arm or a criminal record instead? Entirely without precedent. However, there is plenty of precedent for you not being allowed to do something without showing your credentials. The driving licence argument.

Offer an Aussie a beer and they'll bend over and take it. I like that a whole lot less than considering loss. Or compulsion. The 'common good' argument here shouldn't require tacky incentivisation but rather an appeal to conscience.

However, if I was a reluctant/denier (which I'm not, having had my second Pfizer jab over four months ago now) then I could probably have been persuaded by a bottle of Talisker.

 

I had a BCG injection at school. Don’t recall there bring any choice in the matter.

But yes, I take your point. Making it mandatory would probably have been a step too far. However, I disagree with you on incentivisation. I don’t see how it’s morally preferable to deny someone something than to give them something. Quite the reverse, I would have thought. And it’s a fairly familiar strategy in public health.

 

I remember the BSG thing too. I had a small reaction to the initial test. I got a red spot on my arm about the size of a ten p piece. There then followed a degree of deliberation amongst the 'adults in the room' around whether I needed the 'big deal' or not which would have involved some sort of 'frightening thing' with multiple needles. Like some sort of gatling gun. Eventually it was decided that I didn't need the big thing because, apparently, I'd been in contact with a kid with TB previously in my infancy.

Throughout the whole process I really couldn't have given a monkey's about the whole thing. I just wanted to be released and go kick a ball about.

I'm afraid I disagree with you fundamentally with regard to incentivisation/loss with regard to 'doing the right thing'. I don't really want to live in a world of numptie Aussies who'd do anything for a beer.

 

I’ve had both jabs but I still think this will end up like “I am legend” and the anti vaccine crowd will really be in trouble the when we are coming at them as crazed zombies.

 

O.t.t.!

 

But at least they would be less likely to infect you.

I’d rather not incentivise either - it would be better if it were just a matter of “doing the right thing” - but the main point is: the vaccine passport isn’t the only way you can address this problem of low take up,

 

That's the thing. It's not punishment. That you see it is, is pathetic.

 

Don't get me started!

 

Why would that bother you if you've had your jabs?
My concerns are purely based on the need to uphold individual freedom. Mrs L and I elbowed our way to the front of the vaccine queue months ago!

 

Because you can still get it and then pass it on. I don’t want it even if it’s more mild and I don’t wish to give it to the frail mother-in-law.

 

You don't think, to quote you, finding 'your options curbed' (i.e, no longer allowed to go where one chooses) is a punishment? Christ, I'd like to know what you'd do to muggers in the new police state you want to live in.

 

But by now you'll pass it on to someone that's either had the jabs (so they're covered) or chosen not too (their choice, their hard luck) - so what's the problem?

 

Let me guess, you once wrote to Raymond Baxter asking for an autograph and took out a subscription to National Geographic for 6 months in the late 70s? Those of us of a scientific persuasion!! Pompous arse!