Vaccine

[GeoffH]

5 minutes ago, Snowy79 said:

I unfortunately can see some opposition to it in the UK if they try to make it compulsory.  I've been seeing a lot of selfish attitudes there especially in the last few years. I can see some throwing their toys out of the pram and Human Rights lawyers fighting it all the way.

The airlines don’t have burden of proof, they can just do it.  And ‘human rights lawyers’ would have to prove in court their case.  That will take years, by which time the rules probably won’t be needed any more.  And probably the pandemic will be over.

[GeoffH]

1 minute ago, scott h said:

I believe what Old is saying is that an airline can refuse to let a non-vaccinated person board an aircraft. 

In the same way they can (and do) refuse travel to an unmasked person yes.

[Tommy T.]

9 minutes ago, GeoffH said:

The airlines don’t have burden of proof, they can just do it.  And ‘human rights lawyers’ would have to prove in court their case.  That will take years, by which time the rules probably won’t be needed any more.  And probably the pandemic will be over.

Not to mention that a petitioner having the virus may be dead already?

[Snowy79]

4 minutes ago, GeoffH said:

The airlines don’t have burden of proof, they can just do it.  And ‘human rights lawyers’ would have to prove in court their case.  That will take years, by which time the rules probably won’t be needed any more.  And probably the pandemic will be over.

I'm thinking more of direct action.  There's already been a few episodes where environmentalists and Black Lives Matter have blockaded airports and invaded runways in the UK and multiple cases of civil disobedience over basic Covid restrictions. Long gone are the days of voting for who you want to set the rules.  Now certain sections of the community try to get their way by force regardless who suffers.

[Explorer]

37 minutes ago, GeoffH said:

In the same way they can (and do) refuse travel to an unmasked person yes.

This is not the same, masks prevent or reduce the spread of the virus. The current vaccines are not giving “sterilizing immunity”, it means they will prevent a person from getting sick but will not stop this person from spreading the virus to other people. So actually, vaccinated people will not show any symptoms(fever, sneezing, coughing) but still infect other people. 

[Tommy T.]

1 hour ago, Snowy79 said:

I'm thinking more of direct action.  There's already been a few episodes where environmentalists and Black Lives Matter have blockaded airports and invaded runways in the UK and multiple cases of civil disobedience over basic Covid restrictions. Long gone are the days of voting for who you want to set the rules.  Now certain sections of the community try to get their way by force regardless who suffers.

I agree with your thoughts, Snowy. I agree also with your convictions. And you are correct, I believe, that our votes currently and before don't always seem to make a difference regarding the people who make or enforce the "laws" of the land... It is challenging to us now about who really "rules" the world... I wish I had the answer...

Edited November 24, 2020 by Tommy T.

[GeoffH]

16 minutes ago, Explorer said:

This is not the same, masks prevent or reduce the spread of the virus. The current vaccines are not giving “sterilizing immunity”, it means they will prevent a person from getting sick but will not stop this person from spreading the virus to other people. So actually, vaccinated people will not show any symptoms(fever, sneezing, coughing) but still infect other people. 

True but you’re ignoring the fact that the current vaccines reduce the severity of infection, so on a fully vaccinated flight a vaccinated and infected person is going to cause more asymptotic cases and less mild and severe cases amongst other passengers.

 

Which is enough to meet the practicable ‘duty of care’ requirement of most chain of responsibility legislation I strongly suspect (and the QANTAS CEO seems to hold a similar view).

[GeoffH]

1 hour ago, Snowy79 said:

I'm thinking more of direct action.  There's already been a few episodes where environmentalists and Black Lives Matter have blockaded airports and invaded runways in the UK and multiple cases of civil disobedience over basic Covid restrictions.

That is a problem in some countries but far from all, and honestly it’s more a problem in countries where the virus is already out of control.  I expect countries where the virus is well controlled to do it which will lead to travel bubbles between low covid countries (that has already started).

[Explorer]

1 hour ago, GeoffH said:

True but you’re ignoring the fact that the current vaccines reduce the severity of infection, so on a fully vaccinated flight a vaccinated and infected person is going to cause more asymptotic cases and less mild and severe cases amongst other passengers.

This not conclusive, virus in nose, mouth not sterilized and can be transmitted. per https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7505651/

"Challenge studies in vaccinated primates showed reductions in pathology, symptoms, and viral load in the lower respiratory tract, but failed to elicit sterilising immunity in the upper airways. Sterilising immunity in the upper airways has been claimed for one vaccine, but peer-reviewed publication of these data are awaited."

[hk blues]

3 hours ago, Snowy79 said:

I'm thinking more of direct action.  There's already been a few episodes where environmentalists and Black Lives Matter have blockaded airports and invaded runways in the UK and multiple cases of civil disobedience over basic Covid restrictions. Long gone are the days of voting for who you want to set the rules.  Now certain sections of the community try to get their way by force regardless who suffers.

I place a great deal of value in the old adage that people can do whatever they like as long as it doesn't  impact on others.  So, if it can be shown that not taking the vaccine does impact negatively on others then it should be compulsory - it's for the courts to decide ultimately.