Hancock Suggests NHS Has Decreased Duty Of Care For Those Who Chose Not To Have Vaccine

Matt Hancock

Is it possible that the NHS could prioritise care for people who’ve been “vaccinated” over those who chose not to have the jab?

During this weeks Parliament discussion on the bill to push back the June 21st ‘re-opening’ of England, MP Liam Fox asked Health Secretary Matt Hancock: of those 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 but chose not to?

Hancock’s reply was very interesting.

Off Guardian reports: 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.

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

.