476

Matt Hancock hints NHS has a decreased duty of care for anti-vaxxers

Kit Knightly

Yesterday in Parliament, during the discussion on the bill to push back the June 21st “re-opening”, Conservative MP Liam Fox stood up and asked Health Secretary Matt Hancock:

…of those who are being hospitalised, how many are in the younger age group who were not yet eligible for the vaccine, and how many were above that age? In other words, who were able to get the vaccine and chose not to?

Hancock’s reply is very interesting.

The first part is just a ramble on official statistics which are likely completely meaningless (although, his totally ignored admission that one fifth of current “Covid” hospitalisations were fully vaccinated before they entered hospital is potentially intriguing).

The second part is far more revealing – that’s where you spot the sharp end of a potentially very nasty agenda:

I think that there is a material difference between the state’s responsibility to offer the vaccine to all adults…and the duty that we have, when somebody has not been offered the vaccine, is greater than the duty we have when we have offered a vaccine but somebody has chosen not to take it up. And there is a material difference between those two situations.

After an interjection from Andrea Leadsom, Hancock added:

…there is a challenge, should there be an overwhelming demand on the NHS that would impact on others. And of course with a communicable disease, there is an impact on others in terms of spreading the disease so we do have to have an eye to that.

You can watch the full exchange here:

Picking through the intentionally murky language of the bureaucrat, it’s not hard to see exactly what is being suggested here.

They’re talking about the idea the NHS could prioritise care for people who’ve been “vaccinated” over those who refuse the “vaccine”.

The unvaxxed, in this situation, would be blamed for “putting the NHS under strain” or putting “healthcare heroes at risk”. They would be called irresponsible, and receive either delayed care, limited care, no care at all, or be expected to pay some kind of extra fee.

The idea of limiting healthcare for certain people based on lifestyle is not at all new. In the past, smoking, obesity and alcoholism have all been the subject of either research or even local schemes on elective surgery. But, should an unvaxxed ban or limit ever be put in place, it would be the first hard-and-fast, nationwide example. And would set a pretty terrifying precedent that could in the future apply to all kinds of diet, lifestyle or even political choices.

Remember the (totally false) argument that beef is bad for the planet? Or that the NHS should stop serving meat in their hospitals? It’s not hard to see that evolve into vegans getting preferential healthcare, or meat-eaters having to pay premiums, is it?

Of course, all that is a long ways down the road (hopefully). For now, it’s only a vague allusion in one parliament session. But, even if the discussion never blooms into real legislation, it’s certainly yet another example of the state attempting to bully and coerce vaccination.

And the fact nobody in the house of commons seemed even a little shaken up by the idea of a segregated NHS should be a cause for concern moving forward.

Many thanks to Right Said Fred who brought this to our attention on Twitter, and to Richie Allen for the good catch.