But it is a short lasting vaccine, that is a fact? I'm not saying the vaccinations available do not work for some time, they do. But we already have a booster shot with medical corporations recommending a further dose. We are on 3 shots at this moment in time with certain people pushing for a 4th. We can set the bar in different places but that, to me, points at it being a short lasting vaccination.
I have no thoughts on the man himself. I'm more interested in the withdrawal of freedom of movement. I believe a country should either be open or closed. Not ever individually based on somebodies vaccination record. I'm for self isolation for a specified time whilst the present remains uncertain, but anything more makes me feel quite uncomfortable.
There are a lot of changes where I live in London that have all been pushed through in the name of a clean start after the lockdowns, with there apparently being a need for change. Even going as far as to say that the pandemic is something we brought on ourselves due to "our" unhealthy lifestyle and a lack of sustainability if you can believe such a thing. We have access removed from certain venues unless you can prove vaccinated. Covid streets, people friendly streets, low traffic neighbourhoods were all brought in because of the pandemic with those ideas set to stay permanent after the pandemic. Attempts to push through laws of being charged per mile that you drive in the city. Attempts at starting the process of removing individual car ownership and moving onto a shared car only program.
I've moved on to something else by bringing that up, but with each change you have rights removed. And that is where my interest is.
So my issue is not the man in question. It's the change of fundamental rights a person has and is entitled to. This case obviously attracts attention because of who he is, but I read this news and think about anybody who has been refused entry to any country based on their vaccination record.
I sense we will agree to disagree which is fine. I'm not really too interested in changing people's views on things. If something happens around an individuals rights that I disagree with, I will always criticise the law and the core lobby groups that pushed government to implement it.
In this case I saw the news, I was glad he fought for his rights and upset that he eventually lost that fight. I just believe he was fighting for the correct precedent to be set.
Sorry for replying slowly, you forgot to quote me...
The precedent he was fighting for was "but I'm me
" -- you're picking the wrong thing to support. You're siding with a spoiled brat, not a crusader for a man's right to be stupid.
Nobody knew mutations would come. That's their very nature, you can't vaccinate for things that don't exist. That's why the vaccines are being recommended for boosts, that's why they might end up being obsolete and having to be replaced, it's not
because they're a "short lasting vaccine", it's because the virus mutates. Misrepresenting this reality is standard political double speak.
Countries like the UK would have been out of the woods months upon months ago if they didn't have a huge population of wankers who let social media convince them a mask and vaccine is a political choice. It's not a choice, it's a no brainer correct decision.
be shunned and banned until they get vaccinated. We don't like people who have unprotected sex and spread STDs, we shouldn't like people who have unprotected mouths and spread covid. If they want to be stupid, they can suffer the consequences.
I appreciate that you are okay with disagreeing, and aren't trying to change opinions. I've just been outlining my opinion on some of the misplaced activism in your post. You should put mental energy into protecting the rights of those getting infected with Covid by the unmasked.