Jack2jack said:
Londonlisa2001 said:
Deeply irresponsible in my view.
I’d quite genuinely introduce a vaccine passport.
Immunity for the population is based on enough people getting a vaccine. Why should some poor sod who can’t get a vaccine be put at risk from someone who quite easily could but is scared or ill informed?
It's all about opinions I guess.
Vaccine passports interesting. Removing folks rights to move freely, and stop them doing what they want, we do live in a democracy, do we not.
Why is it not possible for normal healthy folk to build up natural immunity, whilst giving those in need a jab.
Why would the poor sod not be able to get a vaccine?
Firstly, I will note that it isn't always about opinions but if it is the case then get one from the experts and not somebody of the internet...Moving on.
Secondly even local Health Authorities have the legal right impose restrictions on people (Health Protection Act)...
10.1 Orders concerning a person
A Part 2A Order can require a person to:
• undergo medical examination (NOT treatment or vaccination);
• be taken to hospital or other suitable establishment (in some cases an alternative to hospital, such as a care home, might be more appropriate);
•
be detained in hospital or other suitable establishment;
• be kept in isolation or quarantine;
• be disinfected or decontaminated;
• wear protective clothing;
• provide information or answer questions about their health or other circumstances;
• have their health monitored and the results reported;
• attend training or advice sessions on how to reduce the risk of infecting or contaminating others;
•
be subject to restrictions on where they go or who they have contact with;
• abstain from working or trading.
A JP may impose any of the above restrictions or requirements, or more than one if needed. The JP may also impose further restrictions or requirements not listed above, if needed for the same health protection purpose. Any such restriction or requirement should complement the one(s) imposed under the list above, and must not be more restrictive or onerous for the person concerned than those listed (which are indicative of the maximum limits of the respective restrictions or requirements which may be imposed). For example, if a Part 2A Order requires that a person be detained in hospital to avert a risk to others, the order cannot additionally require that the person accept treatment.
It is supposed to be targeted and have a set duartion but the laws exist to restict an individuals action for health protection.