- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Basically each new variant will miraculously target the next set of people they want to vaccinate, funny that!
Well here in Canada we've had children and babies in hospital and ending up in the icu. Not all had other conditions. It spread like wildfire in kids here then when we vaccinated 12+ we saw a downtick in that age group getting covid.It’s interesting in the UK they tell us the young aren’t at risk of covid but in the US they want to vaccinate them, why vaccinate them if they aren’t a risk
According to reports, in Canada, youth make up 20% of covid cases but only 2% require hospitalisation.
It seemed to me they only started picking up cases in kids when they introduced testing in sec schools and uni's ,that's when the Kent variant was picked upOtherwise known as, skewing the data
How much of the Delta variant is in Canada ? the Kent will be burning out at this stage .
Since when has sitting in the same room as someone been a risk of passing on an STI? What a downright stupid comparison.
Everyone has the right to protect their own health. If they don’t want to take this persons money for a class because they don’t want to risk their life for the sake of it, they are absolutely entitled to do so. They also potentially don’t won’t want to put others in the class at risk.
There’s no discrimination here. It’s not a protected characteristic.
Don't know about skewing , but if you're going to keep searching you're going to keep finding , if kids were getting hospitalised in large numbers you'd be worried ,but head colds don't 'cut it' !Otherwise known as, skewing the data
But vaccinated people are still passing it on so there's no argument
We have been through this endlessly on this thread, vaccination lowers the risk of transmission. That’s been proven. It can still be passed on but the risk is lower than if a person wasn’t vaccinated.
But what difference does it make anyway? That person still has a right to refuse to provide their service to someone who is unvaccinated if they want to. That’s their freedom. Anti covid vaxxers like to harp on about freedom and making decisions for yourself until someone else exercises their own freedom and makes a decision for themselves. Eye roll.
It doesn't lower the risk of transmission for the Delta those findings are outdated now going by the data .
Well be that as it may me and mine won't be getting vaxxed ....mostly, covid symptoms are temporarily but that tit in the vials is permanent and potentially damaging and no1 will convince me otherwise.
But it creates a two tier society that we don't want ever.
And can I just point out to you that when , and I stress "when" the boosters start rolling out....along with each variant through from A-Z and you don't turn up for your booster , your vaccine passport will not be green and therefore you will be to same as the great unvaxxed - no bonus, no privileges , so be prepared to keep rolling up your sleeve and that right there is how you and all those like you gave up your freedom ...with one painless, it doesn't hurt, it's so quick and easy jab.
Last edited:
That’s over dramatic. It doesn’t create a two tier society. It is simply individuals expressing freedom of choice by not inviting a non vaccinated person in to their space. There will be many people that are happy to provide a service regardless of whether those they are providing a service to are vaccinated or not. It’s individual choice, you can’t have it all ways where you get freedom of choice but other people have their freedom restricted to allow for yours. You are not more important than they are.
People can't see that ! they're using the vaccines as a way of opening society while searching for infections at the same time ,it's achieving nothing .
Of course it does ,why do you think so many are against it , if they discriminated against sex,colour or disability people would be up in arms over it ,but it perfectly acceptable to discredit people if they choose not to have a vaccine that’s been granted an emergency licence with no concrete data on safety or effectiveness
Last edited:
Some people are medically advised not to have the vaccine, the way in which the OP seems to have been asked regarding her vaccine status didn’t take into account such circumstances or any other circumstances where they are protected. It seems the training coordinator made an assumption on their health and beliefs.
It is discriminatory to refuse someone a service based on their vaccine status under certain circumstances and it seems in this instance they don’t even know the persons full background. The equality act covers not only disabilities that can contraindicate vaccination, but also beliefs for example a vegan may have particular beliefs that they do not want vaccinated because of the testing on animals. Ethical veganism has previously been found to amount to a belief, capable of being protected under the Equality Act. Some ethical vegans may therefore refuse vaccination.
If the company doing the training had genuine issues regarding vaccination they should of required a medical questionnaire before accepting anyone onto the programme to deem their suitability. It’s doubtful that someone’s vaccine status implicates their ability to carry out training. If the trainer isn’t prepared to do their job and train people then perhaps they should seek new employment
It is discriminatory to refuse someone a service based on their vaccine status under certain circumstances and it seems in this instance they don’t even know the persons full background. The equality act covers not only disabilities that can contraindicate vaccination, but also beliefs for example a vegan may have particular beliefs that they do not want vaccinated because of the testing on animals. Ethical veganism has previously been found to amount to a belief, capable of being protected under the Equality Act. Some ethical vegans may therefore refuse vaccination.
If the company doing the training had genuine issues regarding vaccination they should of required a medical questionnaire before accepting anyone onto the programme to deem their suitability. It’s doubtful that someone’s vaccine status implicates their ability to carry out training. If the trainer isn’t prepared to do their job and train people then perhaps they should seek new employment
That’s a major overreaction to the words: "The instructor is vaccinated, but wonder are you. What strange times we live in". That doesn’t even indicate they’re going to reject him/her if they are unvaxxed. It’s a simple question. Perhaps the trainer is medically vulnerable?!
If the trainer doesn’t want to take on unvaxxed people that is absolutely their right. If they work for themselves, they can make this decision. If they work for a company, props to the company for putting their employees first
It’s not an overreaction, it’s an intrusion to casually ask someone if they are vaccinated. If the person has ethical or disability grounds it puts them in a vulnerable position. If the trainer has genuine grounds for asking about vaccine status it should have been done more formally in the way of a medical questionnaire to seek out suitability for the course. If the trainer is medically vulnerable they shouldn’t be holding training sessions unless they’re fully prepared to be exposed considering transmission occurs even with vaccines. Vaccines are to protect yourself only, not others - that’s according to the manufacturers. Any other protection is a bonus not a guarantee.That’s a major overreaction to the words: "The instructor is vaccinated, but wonder are you. What strange times we live in". That doesn’t even indicate they’re going to reject him/her if they are unvaxxed. It’s a simple question. Perhaps the trainer is medically vulnerable?!
If the trainer doesn’t want to take on unvaxxed people that is absolutely their right. If they work for themselves, they can make this decision. If they work for a company, props to the company for putting their employees first
“If the trainer is medically vulnerable they should be sacked unless they’re willing to risk their life” is not the brilliant argument that you think it is.
OP could simply just go to a different provider if they have an issue with the rules. Why impose themselves on someone that isn’t comfortable with them being there? Weird behaviour.
[/QUOTE]
If they were clinically vulnerable the responsible thing for their employer to do would be to get them redeployed to a role where they weren’t in physical contact with new people all the time. If they’re clinically vulnerable they are risking their life by training even the double vaxxed. So your arguments null.
It’s intrusive and it’s disgusting to assume someone’s medically fit, or their ethics are aligned a particular way, to have vaccination. If they had genuine reasons they would of had a medical questionnaire like any other industry where vaccines are necessary to do the task at hand, unless of course there is contraindications.
It would be ignorant and intrusive to ask someone who parked in a disabled bay, why they are parking there - what’s their disability, what did they get their blue badge for. It’s just as ignorant to ask someone are they vaccinated. There are appropriate places and resources used to ask questions about health and casually in an email isn’t one of them.
if you’re going to use quotation marks to insinuate I said something you should ensure it is what I said. I never said they should be sacked because they’re medically vulnerable and won’t risk their life, I said “If the trainer is medically vulnerable they shouldn’t be holding training sessions unless they’re fully prepared to be exposed considering transmission occurs even with vaccines.” Nice try at twisting words.
What part of vaccines do you not understand? The instructor is vaccinated, therefore having apparently “protected their own health”. It’s quite literally none of their god damn business wether someone else decides to “protect” their own.
Just because it isn’t a protected characteristic doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be. Besides, freedom to choose what medical care you have, is a fundamental human right. You may be happy to have all the “ant-vaxxers” jabbed up so you can have your holidays and coffee shops, but just wait till the day they turn the tide and start forcing you to have healthcare YOU don’t want. That day will come because one you open the gates and hand them the keys, it is foolish beyond measure to think it won’t be taken further. Give an inch they take a mile as is shown throughout the whole pandemic.
I am absolutely disgusted that we live in a society where people actually believe it’s ok to force people to have healthcare they don’t want. You are all in an ongoing clinical trial with complete freedom of consequences for the people who put you there. At what other point in your life would you be willing to do that for an illness with a survival rate as high as this?
Yes the STI comparison may seem bizarre, but that was my literal point. Where does it end? It doesn’t. And also used to highlight the disgust you feel when someone asks a question they have no bleeping right to the answer to.
It is their business whether they decide to conduct their literal business in the presence of someone they do not feel comfortable doing so. What part of that do you not understand?
I have no interest in going on any holidays or going in to any coffee shops. I have an interesting in not seeing my family members, again, with a ventilator jammed down their throats keeping them alive. Or anyone else’s family members, for that matter. But way to generalise and assume that everyone is desperate to get back into a bleeping coffee shop.
If you want to use your STI comparison then you should compare it to a situation in which someone is going to have sex with another person and they ask if they are up to date on their STI checks - given that that is the comparable situation where someone risks exposure by being with someone who may be infected by someone. And discussing medical history in that context is encouraged. So your point is ridiculous.
- Status