Mandatory vaccination in the UK

The post that was quoted here has been removed

@divegeester said
Before I answer you, will you state unequivocally whether or not you support the mandatory injecting of citizens with [experimental] vaccines against their will. These vaccines are still regarded as experimental.

If you object to the “experimental” you may answer the question excluding it. But I would like an unequivocal YES or NO for our RHP record, please.

Thanks.

@divegeester said
It’s a precedent. Also there is (was) currently a law in place protecting citizens from being forced to have vaccinations. It’s an old statute.

I want to be clear, so I can avoid more of the Suzianne style random fist-swinging scorn, that I’m not anti-vaccination. I’m anti fascism. I see this move as facist in nature.

@eladar said
Having vaccinated persons in close contact with vaccinated elderly increases the latter's risk.

Life is risk.

@no1marauder said

I don't oppose mandatory vaccination of people in certain occupations.

@no1marauder said
Is your argument purely a "slippery slope" one? I generally have little patience for those.

@divegeester said
Even if they have to lose their jobs if they are opposed to taking the vaccine?

@earl-of-trumps said
@no1marauder - quoted:
"' By the early 18th century, Massachusetts added a law permitting local authorities to isolate ill people in separate houses.'"

This is what I mean when I say that there are alternatives to actually injecting someone with an unsafe chemical.

And tell me, this law in your quote above surely was found unconstitutional, was it not? B ...[text shortened]... e talk about isolation
and there sure was talk as to why that was *unconstitutional*. Imagine that.

@no1marauder said
It would hardly be "mandatory" if they didn't.

@kevcvs57 said
Well the alternative in this case I much less draconian, they simply get another job in which they are not in close contact with vulnerable old people.
It’s not a mandatory vaccination it’s a condition of employment vaccination.

Starmer has been looking for a new angle since he was found with his popularity underpants at his ankles in the last local elections.

If he’s got any smarts about him whatsoever he will shortly launch a new attack on Johnson and the government based on three things:

1) mismanagement of border control from Red and amber countries
2) mismanagement of care homes, and of course laced with the venom of calling his own Health Secretary “hopeless” in a text to the evil Dominic Cummins
3) personal freedom when it comes to having chemicals injected into you and not be threatened with your job for not having it.

I should be in the Labour Party!!

@divegeester said
No my argument is a question of the fundamental ethics forcing a person to have a chemical injected into them.

@no1marauder said
Oh, ethics. OK.

I don't consider it very "ethical" to put vulnerable people at additional risk. Someone who does might be considered to lack the ethical compass needed to perform such a job.

@divegeester said
Interesting how little regard you have for people working in the caring profession and how profoundly oblique your context of them “simply getting another job”. They are care workers, what other job would you suggest they get?

Blimey, and you're the socialist here!