Jump to content

Personal Responsibility?


Recommended Posts

From the Guardian UK

"The head of the Paris hospitals system has questioned whether people who refuse to be vaccinated against Covid should continue to have their treatment covered by public health insurance.

The remarks have set off a fierce debate in the country.

Under France’s universal healthcare system, all Covid patients who end up in intensive care are fully covered for their treatment, which costs about 3,000 euros per day and typically lasts a week to 10 days.

Paris AP-HP hospitals system chief Martin Hirsch said:

When free and efficient drugs are available, should people be able to renounce it without consequences ... while we struggle to take care of other patients?”

Hirsch said he raised the issue because health costs are exploding and that the irresponsible behaviour of some should not jeopardise the availability of the system for everyone else."

IMO people should take responsibly for their choices.  If you really believe (for example)  your  religion will save you from Covid or anything else, go to church when you are ill not a hospital.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It really is a difficult question. I have had three jabs so obviously I believe in it. I also believe that people should be able to say no! They're in lies the rub! I don't want to mix with people who, in my view, could be risking my health because of their views. It's an insoluable problem. Would anyone condemn members of their own family to the risk of dying because they refused the vaccination and were refused medical care ? It would take a very hard person to do so.

Yesterday was holocaust day when certain sections of the community were remembered  for what the Germans did to them by singling them out because of their beliefs.  Should these people who refuse to be vaccinated  because of their beliefs also be discarded and there are many of them ? I don't think so. Somewhat different I know, those who died in the camps were not threatening the rest of the people but anti-vaxers are. The principle though I feel is the same. Either we treat all people regardless of their beliefs the same or we descend one again into saying let certain people die! I don't know what the solution is but once you start down the road of people making decisions on a mass scale of who lives or dies it is difficult to control.

I wonder if Doctor Hirsch, when he is treating a patient,  is thinking about anything other than trying to save life? I hope not!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't it now becoming clear that 'most' people who end up in hospital WITH covid already have an underlying health problem - and probably not of their own making.  

This blanket 'everyone should have the vax' is extremely worrying.   Remember the recent french case; a well-off businessman had taken out life insurance so that - if anything happened to him - his wife and children would continue to live comfortably.  He had the vax - he was dead within 24 hours because of reaction (and he's not the only one I know of).  The family claimed off the insurance company - the company refused to pay; the family took the case to court.   The judge ruled - and read this carefully - that the man had committed suicide and refused to pay up.  Why suicide ?  - the judge ruled that the man had willingly, having read all about the risks, had taken an EXPERIMENTAL drug !!

We are in the situation where no-one knows, 5 or 10 years down the line, what the long-term effects of this EXPERIMENTAL drug may be.  Yes, I've had both vax - but I do NOT want to take a third one, and then 6 months time being told I MUST have a fourth one - where will it end.

My concerns are based on the fact that we are offered in France only the Pfizer and Moderna - both of which contain a gene mutation; the idea of putting a gene mutation into the bodies of young, healthy, growing children is wrong - all my instincts scream out that is wrong - we should look at herd immunity for young people - not giving them an experimental drug.

We all need to be extremely wary of what we are being told - and by whom.   I remember (on YouTube) seeing the CEO and Finance Director of Pfizer rubbing their hands over the billions to be made out of their vaccine.   And now it turns out that the 1st and 2nd jabs aren't enough - surprise surprise - we'll need a 3rd and maybe a 4th.   Money, money, money........

For a doctor to take the line that this one has - is extremely worrying.  Would he say the same about someone who ends up in hospital with liver problems caused by alcohol abuse; or drug abuse; or the results of an accident driving while drunk............ ?

Those who choose not to have the vax may have their own reasons for not doing so - and I thought people were still free to choose whether they take an EXPERIMENTAL drug or not;   doesn't the Nuremberg Convention have something to say about this ?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, if people don't want to take the vaccination it's up to them.  But then you would think they would be careful not to catch Covid, and would mask up, avoid people where possible, etc, not only to avoid infection for themselves, but also out of consideration for others. Hah!

I am at present visiting friends in central Brittany, and am amazed how many locals they have told me about who are anti-vaxxers.  One was a young man working as a labourer, who doesn't wear a mask even when working inside people's houses. (I suppose his clients have to weigh up how much Covid risk they are prepared to take before employing him). Another is the proprietor of a popular local restaurant; it's closed for the winter at the moment, but it will be ironic if, when it reopens, he has to check clients' vax status without being vaccinated himself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gluestick - thank you for the link;  I knew I had read it in a 'proper' ! newspaper but couldn't remember where and didn't keep a link.

Also there's this about possible longer term damage by vaccines, and the danger to young people....

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-most-detailed-evidence-yet-of-the-devastating-damage-covid-vaccines-can-do/

Sadly there are those who refuse to accept it's an experimental drug, or accept there could be long-term risks.

The more I read the more concerned I am about the third boost, and possible fourth - I do not want, I really do not want the boosters - but being 'forced' to accept it - which is so wrong and unnecessary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the case of the Frenchman who the court say committed suicide. There is as much not said as said! The most important being what was his state of health before being vaccinated? That the insurance company refused to pay out could certainly be because of the clause about experimental drugs, insurance companies are notorious when it comes too 'clauses'. My view though is that this man probably had problems which weren't reported in the article and probably did commit suicide, we will never know; but It is quite a co-incidence that he was insured for millions then dies as a result of being vaccinated! 

There are people around the world who have died or are suffering from the effects of being vaccinated but the consensus very much is that without the vaccination program the death toll would have been incredibly higher. I too believe that people should have a choice to be vaccinated or not but I also believe I have a choice whether or not I mix with those I believe put me at risk. Fortunately governments see it that way too and so there are restrictions for those refusing to be vaccinated. Having a choice works both ways!!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gluestick your link is to what I believe to be a "spoof" newspaper which, as far as I can see, does not exist.  The article refers to;

"The side effects of the corona bites are known and published. The deceased therefore took part in an experiment at his own risk!"

whatever "corona bites are"?

and

"The insurance company justified the refusal to pay out to the family with the fact that the Taking experimental drugs or treatments, including corona injections, are expressly excluded from the insurance contract. "

And also they say

The case is to be published by the family lawyer, Carlo Alberto Brusa, on social media have been. Unfortunately, no sources or court documents are given, which is why the authenticity of the report cannot be verified at the moment. 

So they effectively shoot down their own article.

One should be careful about spreading fake news without credible sources.  Can you give one please?

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lehaut said:

Gluestick your link is to what I believe to be a "spoof" newspaper which, as far as I can see, does not exist.  The article refers to;

"The side effects of the corona bites are known and published. The deceased therefore took part in an experiment at his own risk!"

whatever "corona bites are"?

and

"The insurance company justified the refusal to pay out to the family with the fact that the Taking experimental drugs or treatments, including corona injections, are expressly excluded from the insurance contract. "

And also they say

The case is to be published by the family lawyer, Carlo Alberto Brusa, on social media have been. Unfortunately, no sources or court documents are given, which is why the authenticity of the report cannot be verified at the moment. 

So they effectively shoot down their own article.

One should be careful about spreading fake news without credible sources.  Can you give one please?

 

 

Just a moment, please, Lehaut!

All I did was to pick up the post by Chessie and search for any references.

I can find no negative information on the site mentioned; viz World Today -News. Which is not on any "Fake News" listings.

However, I did find this:

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20210428-paris-prosecutors-seek-involuntary-manslaughter-charges-over-astrazeneca-deaths

Additionally, here are a number of webrefs if anyone cares to see them.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=france+insurer+rejects+claim+as+vaccine+is+experimental&t=ffsb&ia=web

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lehaut - it is not fake news - as you would know before dismissing it.  And the FACT that the vaccine, which we are being more or less being FORCED to take is regarded by insurance companies, and the law - as EXPERIMENTAL - is a wrong approach.

The STATE has more or less mandated that everyone takes an EXPERIMENTAL drug - with no idea at all of the long-term effects on people.  

There is a Nuremberg Convention about this.

YOU may feel very smug about your vax doses; there are many others who have very genuine - and reasonable - concerns about the vax.   To dismiss those concerns, to sneer at them - is wrong - morally wrong. 

You are correct in that we do not know the physical health of the individual whose death the judge described as 'suicide'.  But what does that matter ?   As I recall there were almost NO exceptions, no group of people who could be regarded as 'exempt' from having the vax.  

It has been more or less forced on us; it is an experimental drug - and there are genuine concerns over the long-term effects.

You might believe in the Sky Fairy - many don't - who is to say who is right and wrong - you because of your belief - or me because of mine ?

There are two sides to this vax programme - and both sides should be listened to in a fair and unbiased manner.   Some people are sadly unable to do that.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'You are correct in that we do not know the physical health of the individual whose death the judge described as 'suicide'.  But what does that matter ? '

 

I think the health of the person is of the utmost importance. If he was suffering from a serious illness  for example then having a vaccination could possibly kill him. If he knew that and was heavily insured then a suicide verdict is, I believe, reasonable. The article was scant on facts of the case, nothing really just a 'sensational' piece of journalism, if true at all. Lots of emotive words!

I don't agree we are 'more or less' being forced to be vaccinated and neither has the state 'more or less' mandated everyone takes an experimental drug. The choice is very much each persons own. No one is forcing anyone to do anything and I think it wrong to say, or at least intimate they are. There is so much misinformation surrounding vaccination and it doesn't help when people can be swayed by 'accusations' that the various governments are doing things they are not.

I have had all three vaccinations and would have a fourth, fifth and so on if necessary. I believe in the right to refuse a vaccination; that's anyone's choice. I also strongly believe that those who refuse to be vaccinated respect my choice. The vast majority have been vaccinated and it must follow that any restrictions that may be put in place  apply to those who are not vaccinated. The object of the whole program is to protect people from the effects of this virus. 

As for an experimental drug: All drugs for any disease had to start out this way. History has shown that some were a tragedy but the vast majority have been a tremendous success. Given the billions  vaccinated against Covid the results, so far, have been hugely successful. There are side effects in any drug including Aspirin!!

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gluestick - you shared the link, hence my comment about sharing "Fake News".  I had a look at the other sources you linked to and found this:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/insurance/verify-are-life-insurance-companies-denying-payouts-because-the-covid-vaccine-is-experimental/ar-BB1eEF9a

One user online claims that their insurance company, Manulife, would not pay out their policy if they died from the COVID-19 vaccine because “the vaccine is experimental.” Is this true?

ANSWER:

No.

SOURCES:

  • Manulife- Official Twitter, FAQ page
  • Jan Graeber- Senior Actuary, American Council of Life Insurers
  • American Council of Life Insurers- statement
  • Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association Inc.- statement

PROCESS:

A Facebook user published a warning that's been shared hundreds of times. It claims that insurance company Manulife would not pay out their policy if they died from the COVID-19 vaccine since "the vaccine is experimental."

The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association recently issued a statement debunking the claim.

"Contrary to misinformation being shared online, receiving a COVID-19 vaccine will have no effect on the ability to obtain coverage or benefits from life insurance or supplementary health insurance," the association said. "The CLHIA is aware of misinformation that is being spread through social media claiming that individuals who get the vaccine will not be able to get life insurance or may be denied their disability or life insurance benefits. These claims are incorrect and have no basis in fact whatsoever."

But our Verify researchers didn't stop there.

We called up The American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI), a trade association based in D.C. that represents the life insurance industry in the U.S., to find out whether there’s any truth to these posts.

"It's really an incorrect and unfortunate rumour that's going around," Jan Graeber, a senior actuary at ACLI said. “Insurance companies pay death benefits on policies, when the insured dies, regardless of the cause of death, except in very narrow and limited circumstances.”

I stand by my statement Chessie, it is "fake news" and ask again for a credible source for your story.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From my time in the insurance industry I can say that life policies pay out on death. They will most times pay out on suicide as well provided the initial period is up, often a year or 13 months. people thinking of taking their lives often take out policies for the benefit of their family.

People worried about gene modified drugs dont seem to care as much about other things they put inside themselves, processed foods, man modified seed oils, emulsifiying agents, all known to upset your systems. Feeding their babies on milk powder formulas which set the babies on a path of ill health from the start of their lives.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gluestick, I have to return to the "fake news" allegation I made against your and Chrissie's post.

You are correct in saying that the quotes I made came from the USA (and Canada).  However, you seemed not to have taken onboard the fact that I took the quotes from one of the articles that you provided to substantiate your "fake news".  In fact they did the opposite.

It is how conspiracy theories start and propagate.  The WWW is a gift to these sort of people.  A story starts in one country and is translated and adapted to any other country in a short space of time.  It is then peddled on social media and other forums (like this one).

Perhaps then you will take this article, in French:

https://www.liberation.fr/checknews/une-assurance-a-t-elle-refuse-de-verser-lassurance-vie-dun-versaillais-mort-apres-sa-vaccination-en-qualifiant-son-deces-de-suicide-20220123_JIDDL3YMLBDJ7EK5CMYBWMLVRE/

Whether you or Chrissie accept these "facts" as opposed to your "facts" is of no consequence to me.  It has, however, given me an insight into the mindset of those, like you, who believe such things and allow people like Andrew Wakefield, David Icke, Donald Trump etc to gain such ground.  I have not had the chance to have an exchange like this before.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excuse me - but I would like an apology from you LeHaut.  I do not believe in conspiracy theories and do not dare to include me with Icke or others like him.  That is nasty, childish, an insult and libellous.   Please apologise.

My concerns about the covid jabs are quite logical, quite reasonable - and may in time prove right or wrong. My concerns about the new vaccines are the gene mutating part of it - it is a new 'type' of vaccine not at all similar to those we've all had over the years.

There ARE genuine concerns, from the medical and scientific people, about this new vaccine. Only time will tell; I'm quite happy to be proved wrong - in 20 years time - but we do not know enough.

But don't you damn well put me in the Icke category - and I should like an apology from you asap please.

How dare you rubbish any counter-argument to your viewpoint - how dare you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chressie

My only rebuttal concerned only the "fake news" concerning the story to related to here:

Gluestick Quote

"For those who would like to read more on this damned scandal, see here.

https://www.world-today-news.com/court-in-france-ruled-death-from-covid-vaccine-suicide/"

followed by

"All I did was to pick up the post by Chessie and search for any references."

Your reply quote:

"Gluestick - thank you for the link;  I knew I had read it in a 'proper' ! newspaper but couldn't remember where and didn't keep a link."

You doubled down on your belief that the story was real by saying

"Lehaut - it is not fake news - as you would know before dismissing it." 

The story is clearly "fake" news.  Those that peddle such news fall, in my view, into the continuation and promulgation  of conspiracies camp.

At no time did I attack your personal view on vaccination.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...