Indeed. Much as I’d like to give a paramedic the benefit of the doubt, when he says things like:
“It’s not like the vaccine has eradicated Covid like some vaccines have done in the past so I find the argument for the science a bit weak.”
I have to question his grasp of science 
(One. There is only one single occasion where vaccines have eradicated a disease. That’s why we still vaccinate for all the other ones!)
The 35-year-old says: “I’m relatively young, fit and well. There have been lots of adverse effects linked to the vaccine. If I don’t take the vaccine I’m 100% safe from the side-effects. I’m pretty happy with those odds.”
I find it bizarre that people like this have been frontline throughout all of this and still come out with this sort of rubbish.
Humans are really bad at understanding and assessing risk. 
The problem I have with NHS staff giving advice on covid while being anti-vax is that it will taint all of their advise they would give to me and if they did not inform me they were unvaccinated I would have no way of knowing if their advice was the same as someone without that fringe science mentality.
They could easily underplay the risks of covid and exaggerate the risks of the jab and I would have no idea if that was more based on their person choice to not get vaccinated and fringe science or based on real science.
If they have rejected mainstream science then they either inform me they have before advising me or leave the role of healthcare. If they do not inform me of their bias I cant make an informed choice because of their potential bias.
Hell even if they advocate the vaccine while refusing it themselves based on fringe science I would want to be informed as that doesnt sit well for me either as if they are to do no harm but fear the vaccine then they are breaking their duty anyway.
Again, he may be young fit and healthy but the folk he treats may not be.
Sigh. It’s not difficult.
I find this comment a bit strange.
When you mention about giving the unvaccinated nhs treatment, you support the idea they can’t be discriminated against.
But then in a private premises, you don’t use the word discriminate, but you effectively say you support it.
When the shoe fits, you’re happy to discriminate against the minority. Quite fascinating!
I think it’s perfectly logical.
For the unvaccinated;
“I’ve slipped with a knife. I really need medical attention” = Fine
“I’ve slipped with a knife today and I’d really like to come to your pub to make me feel better” = Not fine
A vaccinated person, covid positive (unknowingly), asymptomatic, slips on a knife, goes to the pub to feel better - fine.
Yup.
The less anti-vaxx idiots in the pub, the better.
Following the science I see.
Discrimination of a minority group, nothing more, nothing less.
I mean I do, private businesses can discriminate, that’s fine. Wearing trainers? Can’t come in tonight for example. They can’t discriminate based on a protected characteristic like gender or sexuality, but being unvaccinated isn’t a protected characteristic.
The NHS, on the other hand, is there to cater for everyone and cannot discriminate in the way private businesses can.
It still isn’t discrimination.
I’m curious who you’d discriminate against, assuming they are eligible to receive said amount of doses…
A - Unvaccinated (0%* compliant)
B - Only received a single dose (33%* compliant)
C - Received 2 doses but no booster (66%* compliant)
D - All of the above
*percentage can change when definition of “fully vaccinated” changes.
Again, you’re now saying in relation to nhs treatment it counts as discrimination, but it’s not discrimination in a private setting.
It’s one or the other…
Private businesses don’t have statutory obligations they have to meet. That’s the difference.
I explicitly said it was discrimination when businesses say they won’t take unvaccinated customers, actually. But I also said I have no problem with businesses discriminating on what customers they accept (so long as it isn’t discrimination based on a protected characteristic).
Whereas the NHS cannot practice any form of discrimination because it is a vital public service not a private business. They have to give healthcare to everyone - that’s their mandate.
The issue I have is that when we have been told to “follow the science” it only seems to be the science that fits the narrative.
Surely, even the most avid advocates of covid restrictions cannot believe that every scientist who had any sceptical views was a nutter, yet very few, if any of them were listened to.
Much of the media has been the same, BBC, Sky, etc broadcasting only one side of the argument.
Maybe if both sides had been given equal airtime, then there wouldn’t be as much animosity towards those who don’t have the same views as you (and I mean from both sides)
Why should they get equal airtime if you have a huge majority within the scientific community that supports the vaccine programmes?
He doesn’t get it, he never will.
I didn’t just mean the vaccine programme.
I did say “covid restrictions”