Vaccination: mandated and/or incentivised

[Sean Hayden]

...first it was CRT

[Scot Dutchy]

Is this a new religion? It behaves like one.

Liverpool headteachers describe ‘sinister’ tactics of anti-vaxx protesters

Groups have entered secondary schools to serve quasi-legal documents and filmed the encounter to post on social media

Headteachers have described the “sinister” intimidation tactics being used by protesters against the vaccination against Covid of teenagers in schools.

“It started with a few emails from a group calling itself Lawyers for Freedom,” the Guardian was told by the headteacher of one of a number of Liverpool schools that have come under pressure from anti-vaccine activists. “An email is relatively easy to ignore.”

Very sinister...

[Brian Peacock]

Crackpottery.

[Brian Peacock]

Singapore to start charging Covid patients who are ‘unvaccinated by choice’.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -by-choice

[JimC]

Singapore to start charging Covid patients who are ‘unvaccinated by choice’.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -by-choice

Perfectly reasonable.

[Scot Dutchy]

Been saying for ages. It is their choice and why should we jump through hoops for 300,000 idiots.

[JimC]

Singapore to start charging Covid patients who are ‘unvaccinated by choice’.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -by-choice

Perfectly reasonable.

Been saying for ages. It is their choice and why should we jump through hoops for 300,000 idiots.

A stronger version (which I would oppose) has been advocated by some - refusing to treat covid patients who wilfully refused vaccination. I think making hospital treatment for covid (free in most civilised countries) a costly process for the refuseniks is enough...

[NineBerry]

When the number of covid patients rises, the problem is not who pays for treatment but that there is not enough capacities to treat everyone.

[Brian Peacock]

Singapore to start charging Covid patients who are ‘unvaccinated by choice’.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... -by-choice

Perfectly reasonable.

Been saying for ages. It is their choice and why should we jump through hoops for 300,000 idiots.

A stronger version (which I would oppose) has been advocated by some - refusing to treat covid patients who wilfully refused vaccination. I think making hospital treatment for covid (free in most civilised countries) a costly process for the refuseniks is enough...

I don't know. You can call me a recalcitrant socialist if you like, but I think everyone should get the treatment they need when they need it - no exceptions. If we start imposing health costs on people whose lifestyle or choices we don't approve of then where does it end, and more importantly who gets to decide who gets treated and who doesn't? They call it universal healthcare for a reason.

[JimC]

Fair point about the hospital capacity issue, which certainly puts a strain on the health systems of most countries, and that the burden would be less if there were fewer vaccine refuseniks. However, that being true does not undermine the argument for requiring those idiots to pay up...

[Brian Peacock]

The burden would be less if people didn't injure themselves playing sport. Should someone who breaks a leg playing rugby be charged for adding to the burdens of the healthcare system?

[JimC]

Part of the reason for suggesting a payment for treatment for the unvaccinated is to act as additional motivation to get the jab, something that really doesn't fit your rugby analogy. Some other wilful poor health decisions do incur a penalty of sorts - in some places, smokers have to pay more for health insurance...

[Brian Peacock]

Part of the reason for suggesting a payment for treatment for the rugby players is to act as additional motivation to not put themselves in situations where they're likely to get injured.

Basically I'm saying that in the context of a universal healthcare system suggestions to withhold or charge for otherwise available and free treatment are arbitrary - whether applied to unvaccinated Covid patients or brokem legged rugby players.

[JimC]

Further on the reasoning behind the Singapore decision:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-11-13/ ... /100605800

This week, Singapore has announced that, from December, all those who remain unvaccinated by choice will have to foot their own medical bills if they're admitted to hospital or to COVID-19 treatment facilities. The aim is to encourage the vaccine-hesitant to comply.

The government is currently footing the full COVID-19 medical bills for Singapore citizens and permanent residents.

They make it very clear that it is another incentive to become vaccinated. The difference to the injured rugby player analogy is this; the ultimate aim of the Singapore decision is to increase the percentage of the vaccinated, which provides a public health benefit for the whole community. No such benefit would be created by penalising injured rugby players.

[macdoc]

Part of the reason for suggesting a payment for treatment for the rugby players is to act as additional motivation to not put themselves in situations where they're likely to get injured.

Your analogy would only hold up if there was pill to avoid rugby injuries and it was not taken.
Any contact support involves injury.....not wearing protective gear might warrant a co-pay.