Flyingfifer said:
Lots if throwing around of this vaccination and how it "significantly reduces the likelihood of transmission" not seen any evidence to that effect, what are you basing it on?
Someone who has had covid will also have the same protection as someone with a vaccine through natural immunity how will that be tracked?
Also how long will these immoral "passports" be valid? We have evidence that suggests that the vaccines are already losing their efficacy, will your "passport" need to be renewed every 4/6/8 or 12 months?
No ones saying it’s perfect....nobody knows the long term effects of any of this, but, speaking for myself, I believe Covid is a real risk (there are plenty of people who disagree, I’m not saying you are one of those) and because I believe it is a risk, I want every chance available to me to avoid catching it, or if the best on offer is a way to hopefully reduce its effect if I do catch it, then I’m taking that with both hands.
No one knows if the vaccine reduces transmission or gives long term “protection” or will need boosters but I’m going with what’s currently available.
If people chose not to have the vaccine, then that is their choice, but I don’t agree that they should be allowed to continue to risk the transmission by going back to life as usual.
But, the more people that get vaccinated should mean it’s less prevalent and if a vaccinated person does catch it, then hopefully they won’t have the drastic effects that lots of people have had.
If someone declines the vaccine, should they get treatment if they get ill? (Fcuk, I’ve opened a can of worms now).
The only moral dilemma I have is for people who can’t have the vaccine (I don’t know the details on reasons). Technically my above comments about not going back to normal could apply to them also, but I agree that is grossly unfair on them.
Have you had the vaccine or will you have it when offered (if you can)?