Responses; No, Andrew Neil, Segregation Is Not Okay Even If You Say It

You might not know Andrew Neil but you probably know someone who shares his views, on COVID-19 issues in this case or maybe it is you who shares his views. In any case, he’s an influential British broadcaster and an enigma. Some days he’s a tried-and-true conservative, some days he’s a left-wing troll, some days he’s a straight-faced authoritarian and other days he’s a flat-out elitist clown. On the day he wrote this, he’s a bit of the last three. But with the current situation that we’re in, it’s important that we actually look at this and respond.

Now I’ll be responding to an article from Andrew Neil in the Daily Mail and I’m sure I’m going to have lost some brain cells just for going there and I’m going to have lost more glancing at the gossip ‘articles’ on the right of the screen. In any case, let’s get going.

His ‘Lived Experience’

Last night I took a friend out to dinner near my home in the South of France. At the restaurant door we were politely asked for our vaccine passports, the QR codes on our smartphones were scanned and we were ushered to our table.

Alright, mate. Sorry, that not everyone has a home in Southern France. This is the elite part of what I was talking about before. Well, well, a vaccine passport or a privilege pass(port), as I call it since it has nothing to do with the health safety since the vaccine doesn’t spread; so technically it is correct to call it a vaccine passport but it’s only that in name only.

Now, he stated a factual event; vaccine passports and QR code check-ins. Now that’s what is occurring but that doesn’t mean it’s right.

The check had taken seconds — a very minor inconvenience when a new wave of the coronavirus pandemic is sweeping across the Continent.

Wow. Sometimes, the most intelligent people can actually be quite stupid. Yes, for you it is a “minor inconvenience” to show your privilege pass. It’s also a “minor inconvenience” for a cricket fan to go to a cricket game. It’s also a “minor inconvenience” for a serial killer to kill another victim. Some thing’s difficulty isn’t an indicator of its legality or morality.

So, in fact just because segregation is easy to practically implement, it doesn’t mean it’s right. Oh and I’ll pull him up on the “new wave of the coronavirus pandemic is sweeping across the [European] Continent.” It’s factually wrong because the current situation is not a pandemic and because COVID-19 isn’t “sweeping”; not all countries aren’t experiencing high cases.

There was a sense of safety in knowing that all the other diners had proved themselves to be fully vaccinated, or had very recently tested negative, or had contracted the virus and recovered.

Sense of safety. You like the nanny state, do you? In any case, the categories he listed are not equivalent. Sure, you can catch any disease from any of them but setting that aside, we can deal with the COVID-19 issue. Proof of vaccination isn’t proof of being negative. Testing negative is proof of being negative. Having contracted COVID-19 and having anti-bodies is close to 100% poof of being negative.

So, there should be no sense of safety with just the COVID-19 vaccinated because they can just as well have COVID-19 and spread it. This, therefore, destroys the whole vaccine passport idea. So, muddying the waters by adding in testing negative makes his argument for vaccine passport sounds good but when you realise it’s a completely separate issue then this sentence is a moot point.

If smartphones are a bit recherché for you, you can print out a paper version of your vaccine passport. It works just as well.

Um… okay. Does this really matter or is this just a nod to old people who don’t using smartphones?

One friend who won’t give up his ancient, very unsmart, mobile, has pasted his paper passport onto the back of his phone. That’s probably even more efficient than fiddling with your smartphone to find the QR code.

Once again, nice story, grandpa but who cares? Relevance, again.

It’s been like this in France since early August when vaccine passports became mandatory for cinemas, museums, restaurants, theatres, bars, nightclubs, planes and long-distance trains.

And? What has time got to do with segregation? Nothing.

At first, there was some pushback — and some argy-bargy from those who turned up at a venue but had forgotten their passports. Now it’s just part of the routine of living with the virus.

Really? You think those people actually forgot? I rather think these people choose not to bring a privilege pass whether they had a COVID-19 vaccination or not because they rejected the ‘papers please’ society. Maybe some did forget but who leaves their privilege pass at home? Not many, I should think.

In any case, how is segregation “living with the virus”? Is anything justified to live with the virus? Short of shooting dead all COVID-19 positive, what won’t people like him accept?

Of course, it’s not foolproof. Nothing is. People who have been vaccinated can still contract and pass on the virus.

Game, set and match. It’s over. He’s just admitted the one fact that destroys vaccine passports. I don’t need to go on but I will because he then shifts the argument to using the privilege passports as just that, a form of coercion.’

Also, I want to pull him up on the implication. He said it’s not “foolproof” and that “Nothing is”. Generally that is true but there are two big issues. Firstly, just because most things aren’t 100% doesn’t mean we can’t make generalisations and plan from it. For example, shooting yourself in the head doesn’t 100% mean that you’ll die but it’s close to it. So, it’s not fair to deliver the line because the statement is just redundant if you say it for everything. Now, the second issue is the implication that being vaccinated is close to 100% proof of being negative and it’s only a small percentage who test positive for COVID-19. That’s to copy him, that’s 100% false. Vaccination prevents transmission and infection by 0%. So therefore, his implication is false since the system doesn’t work.

So, yes, you may present an argument for vaccine passports (a bad one though), Andrew Neil but without medical evidence, it’s just segregation with a bow on top. Really, this article is an entire a waste of time.

Lies & Coercion

But vaccination substantially reduces the risk of serious illness and hospitalisation, which is why medical experts are unanimous in their view that the more people who are vaccinated the better the chance we all have of beating this virus.

A nice fact and a nicely twisted editorial on it. Sure, you’re going to “beat” death with the vaccine, according to what he says but you’re not actually “beating this virus” with vaccination. Why? Because remember that vaccination doesn’t stop the spread or infection of COVID-19. So, really this is an individual issue (if you grant him what he says about hospitalisation) and negates the vaccine passport issue because vaccination doesn’t affect anyone else.

In France, vaccine scepticism was initially rampant but the week after President Emmanuel Macron announced the vaccine-passport policy, a record 3.7 million people booked to get their jabs.

Man, I have to use the “Sometimes, the most intelligent people can actually be quite stupid” line again. Is he seriously implying people were sceptical of COVID-19 vaccines and then suddenly they weren’t? Of course not. What changed what that people were bullied and coerced into getting the vaccine because they’d be barred from many parts of everyday life. Oh and as of posting this, the French President is doing it some more of that coercion; see the link. But also, just think about for a moment, why force people to get a vaccine when it doesn’t actually stop the disease? What does it achieve? And you don’t have to be a ‘conspiracy theorist’ to question this.

So, people didn’t stop not wanting the vaccine when the policy was announced but they were too weak to stand up to the pressure of the government. I’m not having a go at those who were pressured and gave in, I’m just making an observation. You were too weak morally to stand up. I get it’s hard but if you really think that your conscience is worth less than a job or a beer at the pub then think again.

As a result of vaccine passports now being mandatory for most things the French regard as making life worth living — such as going to restaurants, bars and cafés — France has now caught up with countries, such as Britain, which were once far ahead of it in the vaccine stakes.

And? So what? Since when has the ends justified the means? I went through in my first post why it’s a bad system of morality. To give an example, would it be moral to kill all homosexuals to prevent the spread of HIV? No, of course not and even Andrew Neil would probably agree with me. Why? Because his morality is subjective because he doesn’t always stick to one moral system.

Oh and it’s another own goal too by saying “France has now caught up with countries, such as Britain, which were once far ahead of it in the vaccine stakes” since it proves that you don’t need coercion to drive up vaccination rates. You know what stops vaccination dead in its tracks? Straight-faced authoritarianism. Sure, you may get high compliance but there’s a ceiling because of principled people. Without coercion, there is no ceiling because people are free to make their own choices.

The percentage of people with two jabs is now virtually the same on both sides of the Channel. France has vaccinated more citizens with one jab than Britain, Germany or Italy — 50 million out of a population of 67 million.

Okay. Relevance, again.

Young French people, previously sceptical of the need to be jabbed, have rushed to get vaccine passports so they can go out at night with their friends.

So, you’re actively supporting peer pressure? Because you shouldn’t. People need to be free to make their own choices. Secondly, how is it a good thing to imply vaccine passports should be necessary for a “night with their friends”?

This is my point, which I made earlier, where is the limit or the principle? We don’t have either. What if it’s ‘shoot an unvaccinated to go to venues’? Is that something worthy of peer pressure in order to join friends out for a night? Of course not.

Now to the issue of the limit or principle. A limit or basic limiting principle (BLP) is the limit to which the logic may be applied; for example, you can feed a goat anything but a human body. Now the reason you need it is because there is subjective morality being used and so the logic may need a limit since it’s not bound by anything. Whereas an objective principle comes from God and thus, it already has a limit built in. To give a like-for-like example from the BLP, murder and hiding murder is wrong; thus, it would be wrong to hide a body by giving it an animal to eat. The point is, without a limit or an actual principle, the logic of these kind of decisions go wild and it is fair game to point out the authoritarianism of the decision.

Which is a very good reason why Britain should follow the French example — and also take note of what other European countries are doing — and penalise the vaccine refuseniks.

If only what he just said was preceded with what I just said. It sort of is here because I broke down what his point means. It shows he’s a straight-faced authoritarian who doesn’t mind punishing people who disagree with him. He’s literally advocating for the punishing of those who haven’t had a COVID-19 vaccine. I’ll give him points for honesty though. Too many people, including my own family, tell me this segregation is a result of my decisions. So, thank you for the honesty, Andrew Neil and openly say you want to punish me. Oh and I’ve talked about this before so read this post if you want to know more about this issue of blaming others for their decisions.

At a press conference on Wednesday, Boris Johnson hinted at tougher rules for the unvaccinated.

Right… Oh and this is the same guy who claimed to not know anything about potentially illegal parties in his rather large house; it’s still his house though. It’s also the same guy who’s had three wives and multiple affairs. So, if he’s going to come at the COVID-19 unvaccinated from a point of morality, he’d better shut up before he starts talking.

Propaganda & It Debunked

There are still 5 million unvaccinated British adults, who through fear, ignorance, irresponsibility or sheer stupidity refuse to be jabbed. In doing so they endanger not just themselves but the rest of us.

There’s a lot to unpack here and this section is really where we get to a really beautiful piece of propaganda. Unfortunately for him, it’s just that. Unfortunately for me, it’s very well written which means that I probably need more than ten words to show how he’s wrong for every word he writes.

Now, he need to really slow down with the labelling. Why have people not had a COVID-19 vaccine? For many it is because of moral reasons. Not only that but also scientific reasons from not having any long term data, as I’ve talked about. In fact here are all the reasons, 10 as of writing this, why not to have a COVID-19 vaccine. To just label the unvaccinated stupid is the height of irony since he is the.

Now, do the COVID-19 unvaccinated endanger others? Yes. Do the COVID-19 vaccinated endanger others? Do sharks endanger people? Yes. So, yes, this is another technical truth to Mr Neil but once again this is propaganda spin. Setting aside the fact of the reasons why people may endanger others, the COVID-19 issue is moot, as I’ve said already. Every single person unvaccinated or vaccinated can catch and transmit COVID-19. So, it’s irrelevant to say the unvaccinated put people at risk since the implication, that it is only them that can transmit, is false. P.S. Being unvaccinated doesn’t necessarily mean that you have COVID-19.

More Lies & With Numbers to Prove Him Wrong

If they contract Covid, it is they who will put the biggest strain on the NHS, denying the rest of us with serious non-Covid ailments the treatment that is our right. We are all paying a heavy price for this hard core of the unvaccinated.

Just for knowledge, this NHS is what the UK call their public health system. Now let me just quickly replace unvaccinated and COVID with homosexual and HIV. Hmm… Or I can replace unvaccinated and COVID with alcoholic and liver cirrhosis. Once again, what I talked about the limiting principle comes into play again. How far can go to punish others for their choices by removing healthcare, as he implies?

I also love the irony of him calling healthcare a “right” yet saying it only relates to “non-Covid ailments” when it comes to people who haven’t done a specific thing. It’s not a right, Mr Neil, if it only selectively applies to what you wish.

In addition, this whole issue of choices is a murky issue. Is it someone’s choice not to kill someone else if someone tells them to do so or they’ll be stabbed themselves? Shall they be blamed for not stabbing someone? Is it someone’s choice to get smallpox if they somehow infected (with a disease that has been eradicated in the wild) because they didn’t have a smallpox vaccine? As you can see there are so many choices and it’s in every case, since they’re all different, it’s not right to blame someone for their choices. Sure, as I’ve talked about in another post, you don’t get to blame someone just because they made a choice.

Moreover, he’s just lying that the unvaccinated are swarming hospitals. To be far he only said “will put the biggest strain on the NHS”, so that’s future tense. But he has nothing to back him up. I have something to back me up that the unvaccinated aren’t putting the biggest strain on the NHS with the latest data from the UK Government as of me writing this last year. Also, it’s the closest data to when he wrote the article.

To simplify things, I’ll be looking at doubled-dosed patients and those with none and for those admitted to hospital. Of the 18-29 year olds, 257 people were unvaccinated and 123 were vaccinated. Of the 30-39 year olds, 474 people were unvaccinated and 244 were vaccinated. Of the 40-49 year olds, 494 people were unvaccinated and 472 were vaccinated. Of the 50-59 year olds, 526 people were unvaccinated and 761 were vaccinated. Of the 60-69 year olds, 422 people where unvaccinated and 877 were vaccinated. Of the 70-79 year olds, 295 people where unvaccinated and 976 were vaccinated. Of the 80+ year olds, 208 people where unvaccinated and 1,073 were vaccinated.

Well, that just proves you so wrong, Mr Neil. Once you get over 50s, the vaccinated are the majority of admissions, not to mention the large numbers of under 50 year olds vaccinated people in hospital. So, don’t lie. It’s key to know that not necessarily all these people are in hospital for COVID-19 but were admitted with it. But these are the statistics we have and in any case it proves that singularly focussing on one disease does not prevent admissions to hospital generally.

A Side Note

Now someone has brought the issue up that the allegedly small percentage of people for whom the vaccine doesn’t prevent hospitalisation is irrelevant to the allegedly high percentage of people who haven’t had the vaccine are hospitalised. Near the height of Delta COVID-19 in NSW, unvaccinated hospitalisation or just hospitalisation as it was known as then, was just 4.77%. And now with Omicron being practically the sniffles, that number would be far lower.

Now I get that some will say that whatever that number is, the vaccinated is far lower. But that is irrelevant if there are more vaccinated people are in hospital anyway. Now the correct response the previous sentence is to say that we must deal theoretically and not what is happening because that doesn’t deal with a principle but a situation that we can’t change. So we have to go to what if we had equal numbers of vaccinated and unvaccinated.

Now would we have more unvaccinated in hospital because of COVID-19? Perhaps. Perhaps the vaccine works in terms of hospitalisations (even though we see doubled-dosed and triple-dosed people die with COVID-19) but perhaps it doesn’t, as emerging evidence proves it actually damages the immune system and natural immunity from COVID-19. In any case, there are so many reasons not to take a vaccine that are absolute which mean that it would be wrong to take it, whatever the consequences (and even if we disregard that and only talk practically, we’ve lived without vaccines for many diseases). Therefore, there should be no imposition on people who choose not to take a vaccine.

Oh Really? Oh, Not Really

As long as they can be numbered in the millions, the nation will remain unnecessarily vulnerable to the latest variant, meaning more lockdowns, more restrictions on our lives, more lost jobs, more failing business, less economic growth — all of which will follow the Government’s introduction of its so-called Plan B of enhanced restrictions this week.

If he meant every Briton by “they”, then his is correct. Literally every group above 18s old have more cases in the vaccinated than unvaccinated and some by large margins and/or numbers soo they are “vulnerable to the latest variant”. For example, the 50-59s have had more than 141,159 cases in the vaccinated and just 8,028 cases in the unvaccinated. So it’s only ‘unnecessary’, Mr Neil as long as you have a living human population.

One the issue of lockdowns and restrictions, the above is relevant too as UK’s Plan B restrictions are allegedly based on case numbers and modelling since hospitalisations have been stable for months. And that Plan B is what Andrew Neil is referring to there.

Also, I know he means the COVID-19 unvaccinated but the points he made apply to all people. I will be hazard to miss a key point which needs to be shouted from the rooftops; governments cause restrictions and lockdowns, not a virus. A virus didn’t make these decisions so it’s not the virus’ fault or the unvaccinated’s fault or the vaccinated’s fault that these occur. The decision lies squarely with the leaders. So, Andrew Neil, stop peddling misinformation. P.S. The “they” only needs to be numbered in the ones because as long as the “they” are ones in power, “they” will make bad decisions.

On the other issue, variants, here’s one point, the latest variant, Omicron, first appeared in only fully vaccinated people only. So, there is a very high likelihood that it originated in the vaccinated. And if it didn’t, they still all caught it (and to such a large degree that all the cases were in the vaccinated) from an unvaccinated person. Which means everyone “will remain unnecessarily vulnerable” so long as a single individual person (or animal that can spread COVID-19 to humans) who is unvaccinated exists; which as his next point shows proves that this situation will occur always, not matter if he coerces many to get the jab.

And the other point, variants aren’t necessarily bad. Variants are the way to end the COVID-19 craziness. Why? Because when the disease has a massive variant that takes over everything and is little more than the sniffles, it ends the “pandemic” and we can get on with normal life without restrictions.

Unvaccinated, That’s Okay… Wait. Hang On.

Of course, there is a small number of people who, for medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated. Those in that category can be identified and helped with regular testing to make sure they’re Covid-free.

Why do only they need to be “helped with regular testing to make sure they’re Covid-free”? What about everyone else? They are no more vulnerable to the disease; they are simply vulnerable to the vaccines. Also, so what if they test positive? It makes no difference to test. The infection is sealed without a big of paper. It’s just like you don’t need pregnancy test to be pregnant. In addition, maybe they want to get COVID-19 when they know they can get treatment so they’re not left vulnerable without natural immunity at a time when treatment may be hard to find..

My point is, testing won’t ‘save’ the unvaccinated or as Mr Neil likes to call them, “people who, for medical reasons, cannot be vaccinated”. It makes no difference whether they have a medical reason or not. On the substantive issue, vaccination, they are exactly the same as any other unvaccinated person. And they’ll no more vulnerable, as he implies.

Oh and Mr Neil, don’t badger these people to test. They can test when they like and take whatever risks they like.

But for the rest it is simply selfish not to be vaccinated. We all have a responsibility to act in ways that don’t just protect our own health but also that of others.

Ah, now we get to it. The goalposts have shifted finally back to the whole “selfish” issue. I made a Facebook post ages ago about if it’s selfish or not to have a COVID-19 vaccine or selfish or not to not get it. And since then we know that the vaccinated transmit and catch COVID-19 the same as everyone else. So, his point is just a lie.

Even if he means the false argument that the unvaccinated are taking up hospital beds and thus limiting the care of others, he’s still wrong. Committing a wrong doesn’t make a right. Why? If taking the vaccine is immoral then you’d be committing a sin to allegedly help someone else. Now how does that play out? I think more what he’s saying is criminal negligence, that someone is compelled to do something or else there is a crime. And to say that is a bit like saying you have to be at a brothel to save a man who has a heart attack. Yes, you should do someone if you’re there but you aren’t making things right by being immoral, which was one of the points in my first blog post.

The evidence from France strongly suggests that if the unvaccinated see they will pay a price in terms of where they can go and what they can do, then they will think again and rush to be jabbed.

Um, they’re not “think[ing] again”. They’re just being coerced as I said before. Also, like I said, ends justifying the means doesn’t actually make something right.

Have the Jab or Else? Is that Mandatory?

I am not, however, in favour of compulsory vaccination and yesterday I was relieved to hear Health Secretary Sajid Javid saying it would be ‘unethical’ to make jabs compulsory after some misinterpreted the Prime Minister’s call for a ‘national conversation on the way forward’ to mean that mandatory jabs were being considered.

Really? Because that’s what you’re saying, COVID-19 vaccines should be mandatory for to access most things in life. Oh except for those unvaccinated with medical reasons because somehow they’re different to the other unvaccinated. Fact; they’re not different.

This false distinction just cripples his argument and shows how it’s all about creating a privilege pass for ‘good’ people; that’s dystopian. But maybe, that’s exactly what he wants because I’m beginning to come to that conclusion after reading all this since he talked about obligations to hospitals and things. Then again, he may just be saying that but actually believing that the practicality of vaccination is what matters not the privilege of seeming like a ‘good’ person to ‘care’ about hospitals by taking a COVID-19 vaccine.

Now some may say mass usage of vaccination passports aren’t mandatory vaccination and that they’re just superficially similar since both seem to want 100% vaccination but they both different since one forces vaccination and one just stops the unvaccinated from participating in certain (usually many) things, so they’re fundamentally different.

I contend that it’s the other way around, they are fundamentally the same and superficially different. Why? They both aim for to control others and make them to something the person doesn’t want to do. As the saying goes, there are many ways to skin a cat. You don’t need to stick a needle into a person’s arm or give them fines, you just have to take away what means so much to them in life and then they cave in. Thus, they both want that control but use a different method to achieve that.

But on that point about taking things away, this is where Christianity comes in. Christ is my worth, my life. As the Bible book Ecclesiastes says, everything else is meaningless. Nothing matters without God. So those lost sheep, the non-Christians, have only worldly things, so generally it makes sense they’d do anything to keep those things; including take an experimental vaccine. But for Christians, my worth is in Christ. I’d be like Job in the Bible book of Job. Take my possessions, take my ability to shop or to watch a cricket match, I’ll never deny Christ, I’ll never give in and take an immoral vaccine. But like I said, without regarding something higher than worldly possessions and activities, people will cave in because why the heck does it matter about a vaccine if they get what they want?

There is something very unBritish about compulsory vaccination. I don’t understand how you’d do it in a free society. Are we really going to round up the unvaxxed, strap them to a chair and stick needles in their arms against their will?

Um… Your rhetoric is saying “compulsory vaccination” whether you say it explicity or not. In any case, I laugh at the irony of saying “I don’t understand how you’d do it in a free society”. Does that line not also apply to segregation, segregation via privilege passes? That isn’t something that a free society does either. He obviously doesn’t understand how authoritarianism starts; little bits of demonising, segregation and then forced decisions. The general public in a “free society” have to be led into it and only after that will they accept blatant authoritarianism. Authoritarianism doesn’t just begat authoritarianism; often in comes from democracies and then often the process is reverses and the cycle continues.

I would not even go as far as Greece, which plans to fine all those over 60 who refuse to be jabbed 100 euros (£85) a month from mid-January until they agree to be vaccinated.

Um… That is mandatory vaccination. Don’t claim it’s some sort of halfway position between privilege passes and forcing a needle. If you don’t do something and then you’re given a punishment, that’s mandatory as the Cambridge dictionary says, “Something that is mandatory must be done, or is demanded by law”. Now, on another note, that’s not to say that segregation using privilege passes are or aren’t mandatory vaccination in disguise. I think that’s debatable but like I said before both are authoritarian, wanting 100% vaccination and morally wrong. And remember intentions matter, whether you carry them out or not as Jesus said.

Older people are more vulnerable than any other age group and those who refuse to be jabbed are foolish. But the over 60s can be pretty bolshie, so what happens when hundreds of thousands refuse to pay the fines?

Good question. Perhaps the one he’s asked so far.

Is the Greek government really going to fill its jails with pensioners? It might make more sense to pay them 100 euros to be jabbed.

Probably they will gaol/jail them. Now, okay, you offer them money to have the vaccine and they still refuse, then what? Exactly, he makes a rhetorical point with no consequence. I don’t know what else to say other than do a bit of thinking, Mr Neil.

Oh and also, it’s ironic that people need more incentive to get an apparently “safe and effective” vaccine that’s life saving. It’s why I deplore false gospels like prosperity gospel, vain worship and denial of Biblical truth because the Gospel is enough. No bribes bring people to Christ. A lie never helps a truth.

Austria, which is already back in full lockdown, is also planning to fine adult refuseniks of any age, starting at €3,600 (£3,075) and rising to €7,200 (£6,150). Perhaps Austrians are more compliant than Greeks, but I reckon this policy will run into the same problems.

Austrians aren’t more compliant now (in the past not so much; i.e. Hitler) which is why there were so many people, in percentage terms apposed to the COVID-19 vaccine (mandate) around the time they brought in the mandate. In any case, the case numbers were falling in Austria after they brought in the mandate, as happens everywhere with COVID-19; rise and fall and repeat. Lockdowns or no lockdowns, the same things happen. I just thought I’d say it whilst we’re on the issue.

Even Germany is considering the nuclear option. The newly installed Chancellor Olaf Scholz is in favour of mandatory vaccination and is expected to offer a free vote on the issue in the Bundestag, Berlin’s parliament.

Well hopefully the parliament makes the right choice and doesn’t repeat similar mistakes to their Nazi and Nazi-compliant ancestors. Otherwise, the consequences will be terrible.

We are far from alone in implementing new restrictions as Christmas approaches, and throughout Europe infections are rising against the backdrop of growing concern about the Omicron variant.

And? Why does it matter if others are doing the same thing. It’s irrelevant. Evil is evil no matter where it occurs and how many people do it.

But we can learn from what other countries are doing even if not all they are implementing would be right for us.

Excuse me, what? Firstly, I thought this was about the science and science is the same everywhere. So why wouldn’t there be the same restrictions everywhere? Secondly, if you think there is something to “learn” from mandatory vaccinations, you belong in Nazi Germany. You don’t sit and learn about evil. You stop it and condemn it. Now you do actually learn why evil is wrong from seeing it occur but that doesn’t mean you don’t stop it. Human life isn’t an experiment to be toyed with. This kind of elitist attitude is slightly xenophobic because apparently it’s okay for the unwashed mainland European people but not the superior Brits.

Under Plan B, vaccine passports will be required for entry to nightclubs and at major gatherings at large venues. It would not be difficult to extend them, French-style, to other public places, including restaurants, pubs and bars, and non-essential shops (even the unvaxxed need food and medicines!).

Yes, it wouldn’t be difficult but that doesn’t make it right, as I’ve said. Also on the issue that “the unvaxxed need food and medicines!”, I have three points. Firstly, you don’t get to tell me what I need and don’t, you condescending elitist. Secondly, if I’m such an unprivileged person or so infected, what difference does it make if I’m at a supermarket or a furniture shop. In that case I should be banned from everywhere. That leads me to the final point, what else do I need? Do I not need clothes or shoes or furniture? What is “essential shops” and “non-essential shops”? These are just arbitrary lines drawn by elitists like Andrew Neil to belittle others.

It would give those of us who’ve done the right thing more protection and for those who’ve not, pause for thought.

Yes, let me pause for thought but not in the way you’re thinking. You’re saying that there is a “right” and thus, a ‘wrong’ thing; to be vaccinated or not; which is just simply wrong. Now it is wrong to take immoral vaccines, such as the COVID-19 vaccines but that isn’t general point about vaccine being an absolute right or wrong.

Since when has doing nothing been a crime, apart from clear cases of criminal negligence? The key thing to take away from this is he’s now saying that crimes aren’t doing a wrong thing but not doing a right thing. That upholds our legal system and Christian morality. Now, like I said, there are cases that not doing something is wrong but generally this is not the case.

What is the case is that authoritarians always making not doing something a crime so that they can keep people in submission. For example, Hitler would have done just okay, according to his standards, if he banned protests but it was much better to achieve his desires by making people dob in Jews to ensured that not only did he prevent bad things from happening but he got what he called good done.

I’m not impressed by those who claim this is an egregious assault on our freedoms. Liberty is not the same as unbridled licence to do what you want, which is the road to anarchy.

Of course you’re not impressed, you’re an uninspired elitist who has no desire to listen to what people have to say, in fact you hold them in contempt. Yes, vaccine passports are an “egregious assault on our freedoms”. Liberty isn’t anarchy and no one is saying that’s what they want. They and I are saying, things should be as they were way back in 2019, in terms of accessing society. There shouldn’t be a ‘papers please’ society with privilege passes. Wanting actual freedom, not privileges labelled as “freedoms” is not a bad thing, it’s simply wanting our rights, which are our God-given rights.

Pfft! Who Cares About Freedom?

You can’t shout ‘Fire!’ in a crowded cinema if there is no fire. Real liberty for all involves a balance between rights and responsibilities.

Wow. What a genius move; sarcasm of course. He talks about lies. Of course, it’s wrong to lie; Biblically, legally, societally, etc. No one is saying we should lie. This equivocation is just trying to peddle hate against people who want to express some personal responsibility. Also existing laws already deal with that issue of lying and freedom of speech.

The point he’s making is that need to be specific laws that deal with preventing something rather than using what we have. Why? Because he wants more control on speech and other freedoms that we inherently have. If it were so wrong to not have a vaccine, as he is implies, this would already have been dealt with by criminal negligence. But it’s not. Why? Because it’s not wrong. That’s why we have freshly implemented privilege passes let the government punish people without having to obviously change the laws to suit themselves.

Now on the issue of liberty, what does he define it as? I don’t know so I can’t respond. What I can say is that it is correct that we have both rights and responsibilities. However, the point of freedom or liberty if that is what he wants to use, is that you can’t force someone to do something. You have rights to things and you have responsibilities to do things. However, you’re not forced to utilise either; that’s the point.

My right to visit certain African countries is balanced by my responsibility to be inoculated for yellow fever before I go. You cannot practice medicine without being vaccinated against hepatitis B.

It’s not your “responsibility to be inoculated for yellow fever” when you go to certain African countries. It’s called personal responsibility, that is, it is in your best interests (and others close to you) to do so. For example, if you had an Ebola vaccine, it’s not violating a responsibility to get it when you come into contact with Ebola patients, it just makes sense because it is an actually deadly disease.

Oh and so what has the vaccine requirement for practicing medicine go to do with the general population? Nothing. In fact, the previous sentence paired with this one proves his point moot. They all have to do with specific circumstances where certain vaccines are needed. Healthy under 50s and especially children don’t need a COVID-19 vaccine, whereas, putting aside moral issues with the current vaccines, the over 50s do need a (good) vaccine because they are more at risk from COVID-19 than the rest of us.

You have a right not to be vaccinated. But I have a right not have you near me in a restaurant or on a plane.

Um… Thanks for stating the obvious that I have rights. Also, you do you have the right not to be near me but not the right to make me not near you. It’s your choice to move, not me. You can’t compel me to go away from you. I have no qualms sitting next to you, so move away if you want but don’t make me do it.

What I think he’s saying but doesn’t want to make it obvious, is he wants the right to make me go away, which he can’t. Of course, I’m not saying this permits stalking or trespassing. I’m just saying that in businesses, venues and public spaces, it’s his prerogative to move if he wants, not me.

And of course, it is absolutely right that everybody working on the front line in the NHS and social care should be vaccinated as a condition of employment, as they will be in this country from next April.

Hmm… I don’t think so since the COVID-19 doesn’t prevent transmission or catching. So no, Mr Neil.

As it stands, the unvaccinated are making more restrictions on our lives inevitable. It is time we imposed some on them.

You’re wearing out the same lines, champ. Just be quiet. I’ve already addressed this earlier. To sum it up for you, it’s the government that makes the decisions, not the unvaccinated.

In a free society the unvaccinated have a right not be jabbed. But they need to realise that right comes with consequences, which will inhibit their freedoms as they constrain ours.

Obviously, he doesn’t understand rights if he thinks that expressing a right constrains freedom because the two are inherently linked. This is especially the case when he claims it limits their own freedom to express a right, which is obviously wrong. They’re obviously not rights if you think that expressing them comes with negative consequences. It’s just illogical to say that rights produce bad outcomes.

One final thought. Singapore has decided that the unvaccinated who end up in hospital with Covid will have to foot their own medical bills.

Yeah. It’s wrong if the government pays for the vaccinated’s bills but not the unvaccinated.

I doubt we’d ever go that far. But you can see the logic — even the morality — of it.

Hahahaha. He really has some cognitive dissonance. He literally implied earlier that they should do that because apparently the unvaccinated take up hospital beds more than the vaccinated, which is a lie. Also, there is not logic or morality to it because we don’t deny medical treatment or payment of medical bills to people even if they do make bad decisions; not that not taking a COVID-19 is one but even if it was, we wouldn’t deny medical treatment or payment of medical bill.

By all means exercise your rights. But beware of the consequences.

Oh and if by consequences you mean that you’ll write another lie-filled article in the Daily Mail, fine, go ahead. It’s wrong to lie but I’ll be able to call you out the expletive laden elitist that you are. Also, the fact that we rights means that we don’t have to “beware… consequences” because we’re allowed to it without prevention or obstruction. So they’re not rights if we have to “beware” using them in any way.