Kopek Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 There but for the Grace of.......... We have a proviso, those who can pay should pay. It could be your attitude that is selfish? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James Blonde Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 1 hour ago, opusManx said: Apples and oranges. Not to the big healthcare companies it isn't. All they see is the dollar signs the opportunity presents. They don't care if you're old or unvaccinated. They just see a chance to make money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 10 minutes ago, opusManx said: That's my point. If said individual chooses to be selfish, they have no reason to be indignant if others are not so generous as to subsidize their self-endangerment. However, that is all from the individuals perspective, as they have elected to be selfish. From society's perspective, the stance is not selfish as those who take preventative measures are not only benefiting themselves directly but also reducing their burden on their fellow community members. The one who does not participate in this approach is shows no regards for the good of the commons, thus violating the social compact that public services depend on. It is analogous to the reckless driver being found liable for damages. Why should other road-tax payers pay for his/her damages? I realize there is a more generous perspective and I haven't ruled it out. And I admit I'm just being a bit of devil's advocate. I'm not 100% convinced of any approach to be frank. For instance, if you trace selfishness to some sort of mental illness e.g. depression, PTSD, does the person not deserve sympathy and support. Hard rules ignore nuance and as perhaps you (or someone said) it could be a slippery slope. But I do feel the healthcare workers' frustration dealing with unvaxxed patients in the hospitals (maybe not a big issue on IOM but it's bad in bigger communities right now). Nurses just pulling over and bawling in their cars. Sigh...it's a shitshow. Not wanting to fund the healthcare of people who are in situations that you will never be in is selfish. If it's selfishness you're railing against, you're not doing a very good job of it, because you're advocating it in this situation. Is it selfish for someone who's been conned by anti-vaxxers to be scared of the vaccine and not take it? I'm not convinced it is. Almost everyone on both sides has made their decision on what they feel is best. Are some of them wrong? Probably. Even if we did say that unvaccinated people are all doing it out of some sort of aversion to being socially responsible, are they causing more burden on the health service vs a vaccinated person than, say, an active person with a healthy BMI vs someone who overeats and doesn't exercise? There isn't really any room for nuance in the health service in my view - at least not in terms of necessary care. The only reasonable approach is to treat everyone equally, regardless of any transgressions. 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted January 12, 2022 Share Posted January 12, 2022 (edited) Error* *Not really but I didn't want @opusManx to feel all alone Edited January 12, 2022 by piebaps 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarley Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 9 hours ago, offshoremanxman said: In Canada apparently you can’t even be homeless in a homeless centre anymore without being vaxxed. So in effect you’re extra homeless, or so untouchable you can’t even be given a temporary home with all the other homeless, which all makes it all a bit silly really. When it gets to that stage you might as well shoot people. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10395843/Family-claim-evicted-Ronald-McDonald-House-not-vaccinated.html 1. Ronald McDonald House isn't a homeless charity. 2. The people in question are being offered alternative accommodation. 3. Please read the articles you link to. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 9 hours ago, offshoremanxman said: In Canada apparently you can’t even be homeless in a homeless centre anymore without being vaxxed. So in effect you’re extra homeless, or so untouchable you can’t even be given a temporary home with all the other homeless, which all makes it all a bit silly really. When it gets to that stage you might as well shoot people. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10395843/Family-claim-evicted-Ronald-McDonald-House-not-vaccinated.html 18 minutes ago, Zarley said: 1. Ronald McDonald House isn't a homeless charity. 2. The people in question are being offered alternative accommodation. 3. Please read the articles you link to. So, real story, family of 4 year old, who is doubly immunocompromised ( blood cancer and chemo ) and at high risk to Covid, and who receive free accommodation from a children's charity (so the entire family can stay together whilst the child is treated far from home ) refuse to be vaccinated, putting their own child, and all residents ( children, adults ) and staff, at risk. The charity adopts a mandatory vax policy, for its premises, but offers free hotel accommodation elsewhere for those who can’t/won’t comply. 2 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 14 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: I read everything. The newspaper even had homeless in the title. Regardless of what you think creating this dangerous two-tier society where vaccinated people are basically treated like modern day lepers is divisive and dangerous. It doesn’t seem to now. You must know what Ronald McDonald Houses are. There is regular on island fundraising on Island for the one in Liverpool, with Manx families with kids receiving treatment on Merseyside being able to stay. The Fergasuns live in Kelowna, which is a 6 hour drive ( or one hour flight ) away from the hospital in Vancouver. There isn’t a two tier segregated society being created. The family have real choices. Not be with their son, stay at home in Kelowna. ( not a real option ) Get vaccinated and be eligible to stay at RMDH Stay in alternative accommodation paid for by RMDH and not put other residents at risk, Be rabid anti vaxxers and not care about the health of their son and other residents, get angry and bleat to the MSM and self publicise via social media 3 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Wright Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 11 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: It does from the front page link Strange, but when I follow your link I get a different story. But then the Wail isn’t noted for accuracy or truthfulness in its reporting. Or is it a click bait thumbnail to attract frothing at the mouth bufton-tufton types from Tonbridge? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 (edited) 34 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: The newspaper even had homeless in the title. Though it was fairly obvious early on in the article that they weren't actually homeless and the term was being used in the usual melodramatic DM style... 34 minutes ago, offshoremanxman said: ...creating this dangerous two-tier society where vaccinated people are basically treated like modern day lepers is divisive and dangerous. You must mean 'unvaccinated'. A lot of people believe that the unvaccinated are themselves a danger to society and see it as a poor and wholly selfish choice. Who is actually creating division, who is right? The safety of the lad with leukemia, the most important subject in the matter after all, his treatment won't be affected. He is immunocompromised and thus extremely vulnerable, possibly more-so by the meds he'll be taking. It's a no-brainer. There are other parents using that facility and the welfare of their sick children to consider here also. Edited January 13, 2022 by quilp As JW explains more clearly. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zarley Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 From the article: "Ferguson launches into an argument that even that even those people who have been vaccinated can still contract and transmit COVID." It would seem he refuses to accept that while vaccinated people can and do get infected and transmit the virus, the are much less likely to do so. It does my head in. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quilp Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 Opinions over science. The bland leading the blind. Both feet never on the ground at the same time. Ignorance is bliss, cough-cough... Fuckers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladys Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 They seem quite happy to accept "the science" when it comes to their child's treatment, yet are unable to accept it in relation to the vax. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happier diner Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 29 minutes ago, Zarley said: From the article: "Ferguson launches into an argument that even that even those people who have been vaccinated can still contract and transmit COVID." It would seem he refuses to accept that while vaccinated people can and do get infected and transmit the virus, the are much less likely to do so. It does my head in. I thought this point was universally accepted now. It does my head in too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Onchan Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 2 hours ago, John Wright said: Strange, but when I follow your link I get a different story. But then the Wail isn’t noted for accuracy or truthfulness in its reporting. Or is it a click bait thumbnail to attract frothing at the mouth bufton-tufton types from Tonbridge? Tonbridge??? Whatever next? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hissingsid Posted January 13, 2022 Share Posted January 13, 2022 The Daily Mail does not dwell on truth or accuracy in fact in the last twelve months it has sunk lower and lower in the gutter I don’t know if there was a change of ownership or new editor. I read the headlines online and it now is stretching the truth calling itself a newspaper all you get is fiction mostly about people who are unknown to most people. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.