Children aged 12-15 to be offered covid jab at schools in England

Watch
Megacent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#41
Report 3 weeks ago
#41
(Original post by QE2)
Finally, even if it was a deliberate exaggeration, if it got a few more people to wear masks, socially distance, wash their hands, etc, it was entirely justified. So really not sure what your point is here.
My point is that even if you feel they are completely justified doing stuff like that, for some greater good, it makes it harder for people to trust them in the future. At the start of the pandemic Whitty discouraged people from wearing masks by suggesting they weren't useful. But the real reason for that advice was that they wanted to protect supplies for the hospital staff. And sure enough once they were certain the NHS had enough, the advice changed and said we should be wearing masks after all.

Now you could argue that he was also justified misleading people there, that the priority was to ensure the NHS had the PPE they needed. It's a valid argument, and in his position I might have done the same. But the fact remains that's now two occasions where the Chief Medical Adviser has willingly misled the public for what he felt was a greater good. So the problem is how do I know that isn't happening again? When I hear Whitty say the vaccine is safe, how can I be sure he's telling the truth this time and not misleading me?
Last edited by Megacent; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#42
Report 3 weeks ago
#42
I hope schools do not force students to get the jab, any school that does it should be sued
2
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#43
Report 3 weeks ago
#43
(Original post by Megacent)
My point is that even if you feel they are completely justified doing stuff like that, for some greater good, it makes it harder for people to trust them in the future. At the start of the pandemic Whitty discouraged people from wearing masks by suggesting they weren't useful. But the real reason for that advice was that they wanted to protect supplies for the hospital staff. And sure enough once they were certain the NHS had enough, the advice changed and said we should be wearing masks after all.

Now you could argue that he was also justified misleading people there, that the priority was to ensure the NHS had the PPE they needed. It's a valid argument, and in his position I might have done the same. But the fact remains that's now two occasions where the Chief Medical Adviser has willingly misled the public for what he felt was a greater good. So the problem is how do I know that isn't happening again? When I hear Whitty say the vaccine is safe, how can I be sure he's telling the truth this time and not misleading me?
So you accept that even if it was deliberately misleading, it was necessary for the greater good.
Really fail to see what you are so upset about.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#44
Report 3 weeks ago
#44
(Original post by The RAR)
I hope schools do not force students to get the jab, any school that does it should be sued
Has anyone suggested that schools are going to force children to have it?

Similarly, I hope my uni doesn't force students to do yoga. Any uni that does should be sued.
0
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#45
Report 3 weeks ago
#45
(Original post by QE2)
Has anyone suggested that schools are going to force children to have it?

Similarly, I hope my uni doesn't force students to do yoga. Any uni that does should be sued.
No but if the tories are stupid enough to implement it there will be uproar and rightly so
1
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#46
Report 3 weeks ago
#46
(Original post by The RAR)
No but if the tories are stupid enough to implement it there will be uproar and rightly so
The vaccinations are being done by external visitors from the local health authority not by school staff. These professionals will not force any student to get vaccinated, it is completely optional so there is no question of anyone getting sued.
0
reply
Megacent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#47
Report 3 weeks ago
#47
(Original post by QE2)
So you accept that even if it was deliberately misleading, it was necessary for the greater good.
Really fail to see what you are so upset about.
It might have been for the greater good, but what gives them the right to make decisions like that on our behalf? If something is for the greater good, why not just be honest with the public. Why the lies and manipulation?

It has created issues with vaccine hesitancy. Whitty has shown that he's willing to mislead the public if he feels it's for the greater good. So how do I know that isn't the case when he promises us the vaccine is safe? Isn't it possible that he'd lie about that if he felt there was some kind of greater good that justified it?

For what it's worth I think the vaccine probably is safe, but I'm not wanting to take my chances with it until there is longer term data available. I don't understand why it's become such a contentious issue. If you've had the jab then you are protected, so why do you care if others have it or not? We never have all this shaming over flu jabs. The entire country has gone utterly mental, it seems like these days people can no longer accept the possibility they might catch a virus. Idiots, idiots everywhere.
Last edited by Megacent; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
Megacent
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#48
Report 3 weeks ago
#48
(Original post by harrysbar)
The vaccinations are being done by external visitors from the local health authority not by school staff. These professionals will not force any student to get vaccinated, it is completely optional so there is no question of anyone getting sued.
Completely optional but you'll be treated like a second class citizen if you don't. The unvaccinated will be denied equal civil rights because of who we are. Apartheid is alive and thriving in 21st century Britain. At least Rosa Parks was allowed on the bus, we won't even be allowed that.
0
reply
harrysbar
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#49
Report 3 weeks ago
#49
(Original post by Megacent)
Completely optional but you'll be treated like a second class citizen if you don't. The unvaccinated will be denied equal civil rights because of who we are. Apartheid is alive and thriving in 21st century Britain. At least Rosa Parks was allowed on the bus, we won't even be allowed that.
Not at all - I work in a school so I know it is completely optional and being chatted about without judgement in lessons - seems like about 3/4 of students are intending to get vaccinated today (when the healthcare professionals are visiting our particular school) but about 1/4 are saying they are opting out, maybe because they don't want to get vaccinated at all or maybe because they or their parents prefer them to get vaccinated elsewhere. No one is challenging those who say they don't want to get vaccinated.

Your comments aout Rosa Park that you keep making are ridicuous and borderline offensive to people who suffered real discrimination from apartheid.
2
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#50
Report 3 weeks ago
#50
(Original post by The RAR)
No but if the tories are stupid enough to implement it there will be uproar and rightly so
Similarly, if the Tories are stupid enough to implement mandatory gold lurex hot pants for all government employees there will be uproar and rightly so.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#51
Report 3 weeks ago
#51
(Original post by harrysbar)
The vaccinations are being done by external visitors from the local health authority not by school staff. These professionals will not force any student to get vaccinated, it is completely optional so there is no question of anyone getting sued.
Still, why not get outraged about something that is not happening? It seems to be meat and drink for the right.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#52
Report 3 weeks ago
#52
(Original post by Megacent)
It might have been for the greater good, but what gives them the right to make decisions like that on our behalf?
Erm, the votes cast in the election? The nature of a representative democracy? :confused:

If something is for the greater good, why not just be honest with the public. Why the lies and manipulation?
You seem to be completely missing the point.
The need for the subterfuge would be because given the option, many people would act out of self interest, thus causing the problem the subterfuge is designed to mitigate. The evidence is overwhelming.

It has created issues with vaccine hesitancy.
Nonsense. There is a portion of the population who will always take such a position. It's why there is vaccine hesitancy all round the world, not just the UK.

Whitty has shown that he's willing to mislead the public if he feels it's for the greater good. So how do I know that isn't the case when he promises us the vaccine is safe? Isn't it possible that he'd lie about that if he felt there was some kind of greater good that justified it?
If the vaccine isn't safe, then promoting it is not for the greater good, so he wouldn't promote it.
QED.

BTW, he wasn't deliberately misleading the country. It was a reasonable prediction under the circumstances, as the evidence shows. Also, it was made long before the vaccine was available, so it can't have been designed to promote the vaccine.
0
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#53
Report 3 weeks ago
#53
(Original post by Megacent)
Completely optional but you'll be treated like a second class citizen if you don't. The unvaccinated will be denied equal civil rights because of who we are. Apartheid is alive and thriving in 21st century Britain. At least Rosa Parks was allowed on the bus, we won't even be allowed that.
You can choose not to get a driving licence. That is your right. However if you make that decision you will not be allowed to drive. Being unable to drive is not a "violation of your rights" it is "a consequence of your own choice".
Hope this helps.
0
reply
2PllsIPp
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#54
Report 3 weeks ago
#54
(Original post by Megacent)
Completely optional but you'll be treated like a second class citizen if you don't. The unvaccinated will be denied equal civil rights because of who we are. Apartheid is alive and thriving in 21st century Britain. At least Rosa Parks was allowed on the bus, we won't even be allowed that.
Here we go, invoking the spirit of Rosa Parks again :rofl3:
0
reply
The RAR
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#55
Report 3 weeks ago
#55
(Original post by QE2)
Similarly, if the Tories are stupid enough to implement mandatory gold lurex hot pants for all government employees there will be uproar and rightly so.
I don't know what you are trying to do here, but is certainly seems like one of your typical strawman tactics
Last edited by The RAR; 3 weeks ago
1
reply
QE2
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#56
Report 3 weeks ago
#56
(Original post by The RAR)
I don't know what you are trying to do here, but is certainly seems like one of your typical strawman tactics
I was simply complaining about something that isn't happening - as you are.
1
reply
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#57
Report 2 weeks ago
#57
(Original post by hotpud)
The vaccine was never really intended to reduce deaths
lol wat?!

Did you really just say this !! Unbelievable
0
reply
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#58
Report 2 weeks ago
#58
(Original post by harrysbar)
The vaccinations are being done by external visitors from the local health authority not by school staff. These professionals will not force any student to get vaccinated, it is completely optional so there is no question of anyone getting sued.
"completely optional"?

ALL medical treatments whether vaccine or not LEGALLY require Informed Consent. I would be hugely surprised if any 12 to 15yr old child has been given the full information about the vaccines, about the numbers of adverse effects, about their realistic chances of getting serious illness, about the ingredients and so on. Where there is no informed consent, there is liability and people can and will be sued and rightly so.
0
reply
username4986690
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#59
Report 2 weeks ago
#59
(Original post by PilgrimOfTruth)
"completely optional"?

ALL medical treatments whether vaccine or not LEGALLY require Informed Consent. I would be hugely surprised if any 12 to 15yr old child has been given the full information about the vaccines, about the numbers of adverse effects, about their realistic chances of getting serious illness, about the ingredients and so on. Where there is no informed consent, there is liability and people can and will be sued and rightly so.
How would the ingredients list help a typical laymen?
0
reply
PilgrimOfTruth
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#60
Report 2 weeks ago
#60
(Original post by DiddyDec)
How would the ingredients list help a typical laymen?
It allows them to search for those ingredients on the internet and find out their levels of harm and risk. Same for any product. Same for any food product on supermarket shelves.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How are you feeling now you've started university?

I'm loving it! (43)
12.8%
I'm enjoying it but I'm still settling in (92)
27.38%
I'm a bit unsure (60)
17.86%
I'm finding things difficult (112)
33.33%
Something else (let us know in the thread!) (29)
8.63%

Watched Threads

View All