It feel that some posters are missing the key points that the OP has already made a number of times. These being as follows:
1. Can a law that effectively makes people choose between their livelihoods or having something injected into their bodies be considered reasonable or is it in fact a form of coercion?
2. The above is particularly relevant considering that those impacted have been performing the role in question for many years. The country even clapped for them every Thursday for a number of months. The new requirement is therefore a unilateral change to the conditions of their employment. Is the change reasonable?
3. Can it ever be considered reasonable and morally justifiable to remove a person's choice as to what they have injected into their bodies?
To address a few of the points raised by posters:
1. It is not reasonable to ignore laws. This would lead to anarchy. But, it is perfectly reasonable to challenge new regulations in the courts.
2. As far as I am aware it has not been shown that vaccination reduces transmission to any significant degree. One study showed that there were small short-term benefits but these became negligible around 3 months following vaccination.
3. The argument in post #24 about rights vs responsibilities is fundamentally flawed in this context. In my view post #24 is verging on being offensive to intelligent people.
It is worth pointing out again that the OP and many others who are not comfortable with individuals having their choice on whether to have something that alters the natural functioning of their bodies injected into them are in fact fully vaccinated by choice. By definition, they are not amongst the community who are said in post #24 to 'idiotically believe the rubbish spouted on social media'.
|