hmmm wrote: » I've heard it all now, the Geneva convention - I ask you. There's nothing in Irish discrimination laws about vaccinations and businesses refusing service to people who are not vaccinated. There may be some argument under the Constitution in respect of access to certain services (e.g. education), but it's a limited subset.
JDD wrote: » Jesus, I feel sorry for anyone who has an autoimmune disease and works in a healthcare environment. It must be very worrying that you might pick up something that you can't fight off. Unless of course she works in a physical rehabilitation hospital or something. It certainly possible that vaccination could become mandatory here. I know we have a right to bodily integrity under the Constitution, but like everything in the Constitution, the right is limited by the words "as far as practicable". So when you're weighing up an individual's right to bodily integrity, with a larger groups constitutional right to health, it's likely that the court will decide in favour of the larger group. I think there have in fact been some previous court decisions that have touched on the topic of vaccinations in the context of contagious diseases, and have stated that mandatory vaccinations could be allowable under the Constitution. That's a last resort though. If 70-80% choose to get vaccinated over the course of next year, they probably will have no need for legislation. So, if I were an anti-vaxxer, I'd be studiously posting on this website extolling the virtues of taking the vaccine. The more other people take it, the less likely the anti-vaxxer will be forced to get it themselves.
Gael23 wrote: » What’s going on with the Oxford vaccine? Doesn’t sound good
Fodla wrote: » I would hope that anyone faced with being forced to take a vaccine would pack their bags immediately and emigrate. If find the idea of being forced to take a vaccine frightening.
Approved User Assesment wrote: » Any country signed up to the Geneva Convention is bound to it, does it not supersede local laws? Within that there is very likely clauses regarding voluntary informed consent regarding informed consent being required for medical treatments. Think it was revised after the Nazi Doctors medical experiments upon their POWs in the 1940's. They were later tried for violating the universal right of informed consent under this and the Nuremberg Code. If there is such a right, any discrimination as a result of an available choice, would surely not sit well as a result of a travel bans, event discrimination and so on.
CruelSummer wrote: » The gloves are off now between the Pharma companies. This article states that the volunteers of both the Pfizer and Moderna jab were not given guidelines as to how to behave after receiving the shots and most likely wore masks + socially distanced as everyone else does...I assumed they were exposed to the virus in some controlled manner.https://www.businessinsider.com/vaccine-trials-pfizer-moderna-didnt-regulate-participants-masks-social-distancing-2020-11
speckle wrote: » Isnt there a challenge trial potentially starting in London?
Fodla wrote: » Mr Ryan from WHO said today that we'd need to socially distance after being vaccinated. Anyone get the feeling all these measures are permanent?
odyssey06 wrote: » That would be a challenge trial and would unethical in this phase of testing. The article says: But experts don't expect these variations to significantly alter the findings, since the volunteers were randomly — and blindly — assigned to one group or the other. No reason to think one group were distancing or taking more or less risks or precautions than the other.
Sky King wrote: » What determines the need for social distancing and other restrictions is the incidence rate perr 100k. This will gradually reduce as the vaccine gets out into the community. When that goes down, the measures go too.
Fodla wrote: » That's what I'm worried about. Will the restrictions ever be lifted? Not a single country in the world has got rid of masks, for example. There's no evidence, therefore, to suggest they'll ever be got rid of. I thought I'd post this in here because the vaccine was said to be the ticket back to normality. Now it seems it isn't. More moving of the goalposts, I fear.
Sky King wrote: » My opinion is that we'll get back to normal eventually. In the meantime we'll have another 2 months or so of the current shytshow, followed by a slow improvement into a sping/ summer where we can do many things we want, but are not fully back to normal.
Fodla wrote: » That's what I'm worried about. Will the restrictions ever be lifted?
Fodla wrote: » Not a single country in the world has got rid of masks, for example. There's no evidence, therefore, to suggest they'll ever be got rid of.
Fodla wrote: » I thought I'd post this in here because the vaccine was said to be the ticket back to normality. Now it seems it isn't. More moving of the goalposts, I fear.
Hmmzis wrote: » Now the press is complaining that the trials have been run properly? What's wrong with those people? Randomized double blind placebo conteolled is the gold standard in trials, neither the recipients or the trial runners know who got what, all are blind to it and are supposed to behave like they normally would.
El Sueño wrote: » Yes It's been 8 months. Hardly enough to come to the conclusion that masks will be here forever. "Now it seems it isn't" The vaccine companies released their results literally the other day. Now all of a sudden this isn't the way back to normality?
charlie14 wrote: » Why do you appear to believe countries would get rid of masks at this stage ? You do realise don`t you that nobody has actually been vaccinated yet and the virus is still running rampant in practically every country.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w0.vanillicon.com/v2/0ec48fe92b0cf92f5cdae52d3485d794.svg)
