The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why we must take the vaccine > Comments

Why we must take the vaccine : Comments

By Peter Bowden, published 13/12/2021

John Ruddick in the current issue of The Statesman has published an article: 'I won't take a COVID vaccine. Here's why'. It is a pseudo-philosophical argument.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Peter, you assert that, “We have an overriding moral obligation in any of our actions to help those who need help, and to make sure that we harm no-one”.

But tell me, why do we have this obligation?

You cite various religious leaders and philosophers who make similar assertions to yours, as if that answers the question, but it doesn’t.

People can assert anything they like and perhaps many people can assert the same thing, but that in itself doesn’t give their assertions any authority or make them “right”.

Hitler made many assertions and many Nazis agreed with him. I presume you would think Hitler and the Nazis were “wrong” but what makes him wrong and say, Buddha, “right” in what he asserted?

You seem to have some unstated idea of how the world/universe is supposed to be. If so, where do you get this idea from?

If the world has just happened to unintentionally come into existence for no purpose, then there is no state that the world/universe is meant to be in. Thus, if that were true, then no one would have any obligation to anyone or anything.

You need to provide your foundational beliefs before you worry about people getting vaccinated or not.
Posted by JP, Monday, 13 December 2021 10:04:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I got my two jabs for two reasons. For my well-being & to hopefully help stop the spread of COVID-19.
People who are against the jab simply because a Govt asks them to are either incredibly selfish or incredibly stupid. My suspicion is both !
Then there are those who want to "wait'n see". Typical fence-sitters of no use to anyone not even themselves.
They already go through life bluging of others & now they want others to take risks for them also ! Parasitic Lefties is all I can say !
Posted by individual, Monday, 13 December 2021 11:03:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JP has questioned my article “Why we must take the (Covid 19) vaccine.” He states:

“We have an overriding moral obligation in any of our actions to help those who need help, and to make sure that we harm no-one”.

But tell me, why do we have this obligation?

You cite various religious leaders and philosophers who make similar assertions to yours, as if that answers the question, but it doesn’t. “

It does JP. I will tell you why. First, if thinking and well-respected people over the last 3000 years, including King Solomon, Jesus Christ, Marcus Tullius Cicero, the Dalai Lama, the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain religions with their concept of ahimsa, along with several modern-day philosophers, including John Stuart Mill, have made this statement, then it must have some substance.

But furthermore this moral rule can actually be proven. Every major social advance over history follows this rule:
Social security programs such as unemployment benefits, universal health care even poor houses in the olden days; the ending of restrictions against homosexuality such as approving gay marriage, ending slavery, abolishing foot binding in Japan.

But most of all vaccinations save lives, The National Academy of Sciences tells you so as does the Association for Professionals in Epidemiology, Click on their websites.

You do not have the freedom to reject vaccinations JP. You have a moral obligation to endorse them
Posted by PeterBo, Monday, 13 December 2021 11:38:36 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Quote. "It does JP. I will tell you why. First, if thinking and well-respected people over the last 3000 years, including King Solomon, Jesus Christ, Marcus Tullius Cicero, the Dalai Lama, the Hindu, Buddhist and Jain religions with their concept of ahimsa, along with several modern-day philosophers, including John Stuart Mill, have made this statement, then it must have some substance".

So Peter your argument is based on nothing but an appeal to authority. History tells us that King Solomon eliminated a large number of enemies, & his less favored, does that mean it is OK for me to do the same? Why do you chose to quote a killer?

Vaccines have always protected the vaccinated from catching the disease. Once vaccinated the recipient is safe from catching the disease from any source, including the unvaccinated. If this "stuff" does not do this, why is it being called a vaccine. I see the WHO are trying to change the definition of a vaccine to try to cover what this "stuff" actually does, not quite ethical in my view.

If you are an ethicist, please explain the ethics of making illegal in this country the proven life saving Ivermectin. This ban has caused the death of more than a few who could have been saved by it's use. Does this not make those who recommended its ban, & those who actually banned it, killers. What is the ethical punishment for killers in this day & age? We know the punishment enforced by King Solomon, is it ethical to follow his lead? Appeals to authority can be a two edged sword, probably not ethical.

We know it is hard for aging "experts" to stay relevant. Perhaps they should simply retire quietly before they give all the old a bad name.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 13 December 2021 1:26:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How about the author does what he thinks is best for himself, and the rest of us do what we think is best for ourselves. There is too much preaching, and too many blues being made for us to take notice of people we don’t know from a bar of soap; people who, according to Ramesh Thakur are: “... control fascists masquerading as public health authorities and given seeping powers by Pontius Pilate-like prime ministers and premiers …”.

Thakur’s own recommendations are:

Focus protection efforts on the vulnerable
Terminate test, track and trace campaigns
Ditch masks that mainly symbolise compliance with useless diktats
Allow treatments using prepurposed drugs
Stop treating the unvaccinated as spreaders. The only people allowed to travel with Omicron was spread were all double vaxxed.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 13 December 2021 2:03:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter - I won’t go over the point that Hasbeen has made that you are simply appealing to authority. You need to provide valid reasons to justify your position and you have not done so yet.

Further, you use the phrase, “every major social advance”, which indicates that you believe that there is some right or desirable point that we can or should “advance” toward.

However if the universe has just happened unintentionally into existence for no purpose, then no such point exists. Of course you and everyone else can make up whatever such point you may like but there can be no objective criteria for saying that one possible point is better or more correct than another. In such a universe there is no moral obligation to endorse or reject the covid jab or to do anything else.
Posted by JP, Monday, 13 December 2021 2:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some don't see a "moral" obligation to get vaccinated so, do they then agree that the vaccinated also don't have a moral obligation to treat them when they get ill ?
It certainly would solve a lot of problems !
Posted by individual, Monday, 13 December 2021 4:18:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Taking vaccines for COVID-19 is a good and proper thing to do and only few, I believe, would think otherwise.

But "take the vaccine" as the author worded it, is problematic in the least and it is not so clear-cut whether overall the benefits outweigh the evils. After weighing the pros and cons I have taken it, but I would be so much happier if I could take COVID vaccines without taking "the vaccine".

Because the term "the vaccine" is not that innocent: it does not simply refer generally to any COVID-19 vaccine, but specifically implies the government-supplied vaccine(s): why should I accept my vaccine(s) specifically from their dirty hands rather than be able to buy my own? Why should I have to let that filthy body know that I received it/them, which vaccine(s), how and when?

Even if taking COVID-19 vaccines is a moral obligation, accepting it from such immoral bodies as states/governments, is not, and is a moral stain.

(besides, it is the state which for long months prevented us from obtaining any COVID vaccines and which still to date restricts which vaccines we may have and when)

Speaking of Ahimsa, which I as a Hindu embrace (and which on its own only means the avoidance of harm, not necessarily positive acts of compassion which are dealt with elsewhere), I must protest the author's poor example of King Solomon. While states/kings in general cause more harm (himsa) than individuals and viruses combined, the particular example of that immoral butcher is so outstanding and outrageous, who in a Stalin-like regime of horror enslaved and brought on such bitter sufferings on the people of both Israel and all surrounding countries.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 13 December 2021 4:36:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear JP,

I like your first post. Thanks.

Your questions are of course hypothetical in nature because we do in reality live in God's cosmos rather than in some arbitrary chaos.

---

Dear Individual,

«Some don't see a "moral" obligation to get vaccinated so, do they then agree that the vaccinated also don't have a moral obligation to treat them when they get ill ?»

First, I must assume that the people you refer to are in fact unvaccinated, rather than just those who happen to have differing moral convictions.

Anyway, even while I am vaccinated, I do not hold that it is anybody's moral duty to treat me if I get ill.
Now if somebody chooses, though not morally obliged, to treat me (with my consent), then may God bless them!
Posted by Yuyutsu, Monday, 13 December 2021 4:52:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too many are encouraged think that Covid and health responses are simply a personal choice, without any need to consider community, society any sensible state/govt. response (while ignoring egregious state intervention and/or roting that does not affect them, or ignorant of).

A consistent theme in the Anglosphere and related, e.g. authoritarian regimes, is to downplay Covid and deny science while aggressively (and sometimes in a threatening way) promoting personal 'freedom & liberty'; sounds like the imported US cult of Koch and Buchanan's 'public choice theory'?

Austria's recently acting Chancellor (of the right) voiced the frustration of the majority in asking 'why does the majority of vaccinated lose its 'freedom' due to a noisy and unvaccinated minority?

Interesting how some authoritarian regimes can introduce restrictions, mandates etc. but attract neither 'freedom protests' nor complain e.g. Hungary?

Why does it appear that 'freedom protests' only target sensible centre right through left governments? Surely it's not political?
Posted by Andras Smith, Monday, 13 December 2021 7:08:16 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr Bowden has given no objective or medical reason as to why we should all submit to the Covid vaccine.
What are we protecting ourselves from? The numbers as given to us by the various State Health Departments have been clear. Fewer than 10% of the Australian population are at risk of contracting the virus. Of these, less than 10% either have, or will, require medical assistance.
Over 90% of those who contract the virus will fully recover and come through with a greater resistance to future infection than any if the vaccines can offer.
As the accepted figures show, over 90% of those who succumb to the virus have three things in common, over the age of 60, are obese and suffer from diabetes.
The adverse health reactions among the under 60's from the vaccines are far more dangerous to an otherwise healthy person than the remote possibility of an infection with the SARS-Cov2 virus and it's family of mutants.
Doing something simply because a Government body tells us to do so without seeing the science is never a good idea.
As the deaths in Australia have been very obvious, it is a very limited cohort who have been at risk and generally easily identified. It is not for the crowds to keep away from them, but for them to keep away from the crowds. (Though as the facts revealed, none of that cohort of victims were in a situation where they could have mixed with any crowd.)
If you wish to get vaccinated, do so, but do not try and act in a superior manner against any who do not do so.
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Monday, 13 December 2021 8:37:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Being vaccinated doesn't stop one from catching the virus.

Being vaccinated doesn't stop one from spreading the virus.

Being vaccinated does one thing and one thing only - it reduces the severity of the virus if the vaccinated happens to catch the virus. So the vaccine benefits the recipient and no one else.

Being unvaccinated affects no one other than the individual unvaccinated himself. The unvaccinated is no more likely to catch the virus than the vaccinated. The unvaccinated are no more likely to spread the virus than the vaccinated.

Therefore the entire issue is a personal choice. Clearly there is a risk (albeit massively small) that the vaccine can be dangerous. The individual has the right to decide whether to take that risk.

Governments the world over are desperate to convince their populations that the vaccine is the only way out of the societal upheavals of the pandemic. But the societal upheavals were caused by government. This can never be admitted. Government can't simply admit that the lockdowns etc were a policy error. But they can't continue the lockdowns indefinitely. The vaccine is the way they seek to escape the corner they painted themselves into.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 13 December 2021 9:19:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've been double jabbed and am about to get my booster this coming Friday. Hence, it cannot be said that I'm an anti-vaxxer. I do trust the pharma industry's and governments' scientists claims- ie, that this vaccine greatly reduces the chances of you getting severely ill/dying when infected.

However, that being said, I'm opposed to making the covid vaccines mandatory (or psuedo-mandatory by using bullying/coercive government tactics). I'm opposed because my personal opinion/world view regarding what is to be considered acceptable/moral is strongly based on individual freedom. In my view, adults should be free to do what they please as long as:
1) they take personal responsibility for the consequences of their choice of actions (ie: individuals pay the cost of the result their choices- they don't forcefully offload it to someone else) and
2) that those actions don't majorly impact other people who don't want to be involved/affected (where by "majorly impact", I mean something beyond the minimum of the norms that are required for a functioning modern society)

So how do I apply this stance for forming opinions about the covid vaccine?
Well, regarding people taking personal responsibility for themselves, it is my opinion that the government should give us deal: it is an individual's choice to get vaxxed, but for those that choose not to then the government will NOT provide any government paid for treatment for any direct covid illness or other conditions originating/exacerbated by covid.
And regarding the second requirement about not impacting others: the others are either going to be vaxxed or unvaxxed. In the case of the vaxxed- they in the main should be fine (if not- then the vaccine didn't work so being vaxxed or not for them made no difference) and for the unvaxxed* they made their decision to remain unvaccinated so they have to accept the consequences.

-continued below-
Posted by thinkabit, Monday, 13 December 2021 9:45:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
-form above -

Also, I would like to mention, that for this particular virus while it's reported that the current vaccines in many cases do reduce transmission there is still a not inconsiderable percentage of the vaxxed who will spread the disease when they get infected. And because it is so contagious we will never be able to completely stop the spread with just these vaccines. The reality is that this virus is here to stay- we need to learn to live with it if we are to return to a normal pre-covid life. Even if the whole population were vaxxed it is likely that you will eventually come into contact with someone who is contagious when we return to pre-covid lifestyles.

By the way: the author mentions smoking in the article. Reasoning from my principles, for me adult smokers should be allowed to smoke as much as they want but they shouldn't be able to access "free" government health services for any health conditions/problems stemming from their smoking. Nor should they be allowed to smoke around anyone that isn't a smoker and doesn't want their smoke.

*: there is the complication here that there is a very small percentage of the population that are cannot be safely vaccinated for medical reasons. But this doesn't really change the argument because as I say in the next paragraph it is likely that any given single person will eventually have a date with the virus, whether everyone is vaccinated or not.
Posted by thinkabit, Monday, 13 December 2021 9:46:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The moral argument for vaccination is a spurious one.

It is wrong to suggest that those who choose to vaccinate are acting in a morally or ethically superior way to those who don't. They're getting vaccinated to protect themselves. They're acting in self-interest, not out of any noble consideration of the greater good.

Vaccination is an easy way to achieve a degree of protection. There are other ways that also give a measure of protection, but which require a much more sustained application of time, discipline, knowledge and money. These include mask-wearing and avoiding travel and crowds, but most importantly the ability and know-how to be able to strengthen ones own natural immunity.

Those who opt to protect themselves and others in this way are acting just as responsibly and ethically as those who opt for the pharmaceutical quick-fix. Both contain an element of risk. Both are responsible precautionary measures. We should all have the right to assess our own level of risk and choose our own method of protection.

Choosing not to vaccinate is not acting irresponsibly. The only irresponsible ones are those who deny the existence or seriousness of this virus and who take no measures whatever to protect themselves. They are a small minority.

As someone who understands and values holistic health and who knows how to achieve strong natural immunity, I object to the mindless conflation of two very disparate groups. I am not an irresponsible 'anti-vaxxer'. I'm an intelligent, well-educated, well-read, community-minded person who chooses to manage my own level of risk in my own way.

What have we become in this country? We're headed in the same direction from which emerged the horrors of the Gestapo, the Inquisition and the burning of so-called witches at the stake.

The vast majority of our population has been vaccinated. Those who choose not to vaccinate for whatever reason should be left alone and allowed to get on with their lives. Demonizing and excluding them will do little to minimize disease risk. All it will do is further divide and weaken us as a nation.
Posted by Bronwyn, Monday, 13 December 2021 11:45:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I should clarify my footnote about those who are unvaxxed due to medical reasons since what I wrote doesn't explain my position. These people should be able to access government paid for health services relating to covid infections, since they didn't have much of a choice to be vaccinated or not. However, they shouldn't be the basis of an argument to justify mandatory vaccination of the whole population, since as a said, eventually it is probable that most of them will eventually come into contact with someone with the virus whether the whole population is vaxxed or not (after pre-covid lifestyles return).
Posted by thinkabit, Tuesday, 14 December 2021 5:02:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
people you refer to are in fact unvaccinated, rather than just those who happen to have differing moral convictions.
Yuyutsu,
In the interest of the Nation there is a moral obligation for vaccination. Those with medical conditions are of course exempt.
In my view there is no differing moral conviction that overrides the moral obligation for the health of all !
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 14 December 2021 9:54:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual, as this virus is no longer (and in fact never met the dictionary definition of one) a pandemic, there is no great danger to the health of the general population. At no stage was it widespread through the community and at no stage was it causing large scale deaths outside of very specific locations and cohorts.
Less than 10% of the Australian population have contracted the virus and when testing is done of subsets of the community who should have very high rates thanks to direct contact with those who have tested positive, been where positives have been or have been showing at least two of the possible symptoms, typically less than 2% have tested positive.
In other words it has never spread as widely or as quickly as the CHOs, the Premiers and the Ministers for Health had been claiming. Outside the identified cohort of compromised individuals, the actual adverse health effects have been very minimal.
By getting vaccinated you are protecting no-one as it is very unlikely that you will ever come into contact with anyone carrying the virus and as with any contagious condition, if you believe that you may be carrying the condition, it is your responsibility to then self isolate for a reasonable period of time.
I'm living in an area that in spite of a population of at least half a million, there have been no cases of the virus in the community at all. And yet people have been conditioned to believe that they are "at risk".
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Tuesday, 14 December 2021 10:10:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jay Cee Ess,
The reason why this pandemic hasn't turned out as bad yet as was predicted was due to the travel restrictions. Just wait for the the coming Winter !
Posted by individual, Tuesday, 14 December 2021 10:23:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Thinkabit, I agree with your posts.

---

Dear Bronwyn,

Why must stopping the virus be an EITHER-OR situation?

I am vaccinated AND take a homeopathic remedy against the virus AND wear a [surgical] mask even where it is not mandated AND regularly use a disinfectant spray AND avoid going out anywhere when case numbers climb over a threshold. We need to do all we can to win this war against the virus, not just this or the other.

«Demonizing and excluding them will do little to minimize disease risk. All it will do is further divide and weaken us as a nation.»

Demonizing is surely wrong, but unless they already had the virus (which is the best form of vaccination) we should nicely ask unvaccinated people to stay at home so to allow the herd-immunity of the vaccinated to quench the virus.

The reason we should not demonize anyone, however, is because it is wrong to do so, because it hurts others, not because of the peculiar reason you provided. If your reasoning is correct, that demonizing would "further divide and weaken us as a nation", then that would actually constitute a tempting, positive reason to demonize the unvaccinated, yet I refuse: even while I would like to see this folly of "nation" weakened, the means are at least as important as the goals!

---

Dear Individual,

«In the interest of the Nation there is a moral obligation for vaccination.»

And as I just told Bronwyn, according to that logic, since I oppose that harmful concept of "Nation", I should also be opposing vaccination...
But no, I still support vaccination DESPITE it possibly serving the interests of nationalism: I do oppose both nationalism AND the virus!

«In my view there is no differing moral conviction that overrides the moral obligation for the health of all !»

Well, I can perceive of such situations where moral convictions override the public-health. However, that is only in theory, I can't presently see any conflict of the like.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 14 December 2021 10:35:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Individual, the travel restrictions were only part players in the lack of the spread. Have you not noticed that apart from a handful of exceptions, it never spread beyond about 25 to 30 km from the CBD of each capital city? Oh, yes, a case turns up in Byron Bay or Noosa and infects no-one else. A butcher takes it home to a country town and works for several days and doesn't even infect his own family let alone any customers.
People travelled freely from those cities to country towns hundreds of kilometres away and no Covid followed them.
Natural forces including the country sun conspired to denature the virus before it could spread. People working and recreating outdoors failed to contract the virus when it was presented to them.
Read the text books for University Biology about viruses. Follow up the natural environment. Read the history of the spread in 1919 and compare the differences. The potential was there for it to hit almost every regional centre in country Australia, but it failed.
Science and engineering facts have been ignored in the scare campaigns. Look at who has died in all cases. Not one otherwise healthy person under the age of 50 has died of covid in Australia.
Posted by Jay Cee Ess, Tuesday, 14 December 2021 11:08:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
thinkabit,I have no argument with any of your post. I am not going to be vaccinated with this muck not only as I don't believe it is safe for anyone, but also after 3 heart attacks I would be at extra risk if I used the stuff.

I also don't mind a restriction on free medical treatment of the unvaccinated, but with one proviso. The restriction on the availability of other treatment options must be removed. I have obtained with much difficulty, my chosen treatment for this virus. However I did have one shipment of Ivomectin intercepted & confiscated at the boarder by customs. This action by government comes very close to murder in my opinion.

On the suggestion that unvaccinated are not allowed free medical treatment, I have a couple of questions. Just where do you draw the line. I personally have felt we should withdraw treatment from smokers & illegal drug & alcohol users, because it was their decision to endanger themselves, but then I have second thoughts.

Should we also not treat trail bike & horse event riders, sky divers, motor sport competitors, football players, & a host of other activities which produce a high level of injuries? These people endangered themselves more than those refusing the current vaccination for Covid 19, & do it of their own free will. Should the public pay for their medical requirements?

I have raced cars, ridden show jumpers, & sailed the oceans on my private yacht, although when ocean crossing I never reported my movements so I could not trigger one of those ridiculously expensive searches for a missing yacht. Was I entitled to medical treatment, more than some druggy? I really don't know the answer to that one. Can you differentiate who deserves free medical treatment among these?
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 14 December 2021 12:31:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Hasbeen,

I have no problem with free medical treatments for anyone who asks for it. If they are willing to stoop as low, then let them have it, whatever their lifestyle.

My problem is that Australian law does not allow for any other option for those with sufficient dignity to support themselves, who are unwilling to beg the poor tax-payer for anything, begging from the poorest beggar of all, who is a trillion dollars in debt!

Due to the urgency I did have my vaccines, but I still insist on paying for them. I asked them time and again to find me a way to pay for my vaccines - but they refused: their "free" does not mean free, it means a humiliating and immoral ban on payment. Now I am left with no other choice but to "invent" some new income in my next tax-return, such that will finally allow me to pay for my vaccines, with interest.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 14 December 2021 1:11:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen: Just to clear, I not saying that ALL "free" government medical services should be withdrawn for the unvaxxed. But rather only treatment provided for those conditions arising from a covid infection. eg: If an unvaxxed person has a workplace accident and broke their arm they can still present at a public hospital to have it set right in plaster. I think you do understand this point but I'm repeating to make sure.

Ok, so regarding other types of injuries arising from some adult's deliberate choice to do (or not do something), eg: your example of playing a contact sport. For me, the concept should apply in general to these situations: ie., adults should be responsible for the cost of their treatment in case of injuries. You will find that mechanisms for this are already in place covering injuries in professional sports, because organised sport have insurance for injuries and the like.
As another example, I live in SE Qld and we have mountains in the Scenic Rim and on the Sunshine Coast that people climb. (If I'm not mistaken you also live in SE Qld near/at the scenic rim and thus would be familiar with these mountains). Quite often people get stuck/run into difficulty climbing these mountains and need to be rescued. And this requires a rescue operation which most likely runs into the thousands of dollars (that's my guess at the cost it may even be more if it requires a helicopter or such). In this scenario of someone climbing one of these mountains it is my opinion that either:
1) they're rich enough to pay out right for any rescue (eg: this could be formally arranged by having them deposit a bond to cover the costs with the rescue services before they go climbing), or
2) or they take out insurance to cover it, or
3) they do it under the direction of someone who contracts to be responsible for them (eg: an experienced guide/instructor) and that guide has the wherewithal to cover it (either directly or though insurance)

-- continued below --
Posted by thinkabit, Wednesday, 15 December 2021 9:30:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
-- from above --

4) they do it with others who will voluntarily without coercion perform the rescue (eg: within the purview of a climbing association/club who have suitably trained/qualified people ready to perform any rescue should the need arise),
5) they do it with others who have collectively decided to cover the rescue/treatment either directly or through insurance (eg: a club/association that agrees to cover the cost of any rescue by the emergency rescue services).

But just how far would I go with this concept?
Well, I can't think of many cases where for adults deliberately undertaking a risky behaviour for their own benefit that the general concept of being personally responsible (ie: pay the cost) for your actions shouldn't apply.
However, I believe kids should be free to take reasonable risks and that the community (eg: government) should collectively cover it. Kids should be allowed to take risks since it is part of learning how to identify and manage risk, mastering how to operate under stress and fosters an ability to control emotions and fears. Also in the case of group high risk activity (eg: contract team sports) it's part of learning to be part of a team and respecting others. Basically it's an essential part of growing up. eg: climbing trees, jumping of cliffs into water, playing rugby.
Posted by thinkabit, Wednesday, 15 December 2021 9:35:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To JP: The chief medical adviser to US President Joe Biden, Anthony Fauci, said recently: “When you look at the pace of the infections now, things will get worse as we go into the depth of the winter. And with Omicron breathing down our back, things could get really bad, particularly for the unvaccinated.”

So you want things to get really bad? Why? It is stupid, uncaring thinking.
Posted by PeterBo, Saturday, 18 December 2021 5:17:04 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy